Who Counts As A Daughter: Post 9
One Number, Two Versions
Who Counts as a Daughter? Bloodline, Belonging, and the Limits of Reform in the Daughters of the American Revolution · Part 9 · First published 27 October 2026
In Post 2, I reported the June 26 result as 1,474 opposed and 981 in favor, and noted that most coverage showed another figure: 1,481 to 984. That's seven votes on one side and three on the other, and, honestly, it changes nothing about the outcome. So why spend two posts on it?
Because small errors are the best tracers. A big claim gets argued over; a small number just gets copied. Following one shows how information actually moved through this story.
No official count
The Society hasn't published a tally. Both circulating figures came from people on the same side, the campaign to restore women-only membership.
Version one: 1,474 to 981
WORLD printed 1,474 opposed and 981 in favor, attributing the figures to Barbara Wells, identified as a member of the campaign's steering committee and listed as a director of its nonprofit.¹ ²
This figure matches the personal records made in the hall. A group message shared with me, sent around 8:09 p.m., read: total votes 2,455; yes 981; no 1,474.³ In September, a writer who had first printed the other figure corrected herself after a member who was present sent her a photograph of the tally showing 1,474 to 981.⁴ A parliamentary opinion commissioned by the campaign uses the same numbers.⁵
One commenter did the math for us, though. Based on the number of delegates registered, voting strength was 2,824 delegates. Which means 369 didn't vote in the counted votes that afternoon. Even if every one of them had voted yes, the resolution still would have lost.⁶
Version two: 1,481 to 984
The morning after the vote, the Washington Times reported 1,481 to 984, "according to" Laura McDonald, the campaign's founder.⁷ Reporters often rely on a participant's account when an organization releases no number, and after a long day, a relayed figure can easily be off by a few votes. Three days later, the same reporter hedged it to approximately 984 to 1,481.⁸
By then it had already been copied without the hedge. On June 29, a New York Post opinion column printed 1,481 to 984 as plain fact,⁹ and the figure moved on from there.
Sourcing, not ideology
It's easy to assume the wrong figure spread through one side's media and the right one through the other's. That's not what happened.
The 1,481 figure appeared in conservative commentary mourning the outcome and likewise in outlets celebrating it, including HuffPost, Out Front, and PinkNews.¹⁰ The 1,474 figure appeared in WORLD, a Christian news magazine; in Them, an LGBTQ+ outlet; and in campaign-side writing, including Hanna Jones's commentary and the parliamentary opinion.¹ ⁵ ¹¹ ¹²
What separates the two lists isn't politics. It's sourcing. Every outlet that printed 1,481 traces, directly or at one remove, to the same relayed recollection. The 1,474 figure matches the records made in the room.
That's the pattern I'll keep returning to. In a story with very little disinterested reporting, a claim's accuracy depended on how close its source was to the event, not on which side was telling it.
By then, though, the 1,481 figure had already made a much longer trip, into the coverage of a federal bill. That's coming up.
Notes
Harrison Watters, "A Dividing Line for Daughters of the American Revolution," WORLD, July 1, 2026, corrected July 2, 2026, https://wng.org/roundups/a-dividing-line-for-daughters-of-the-american-revolution-1783019427.
Rory McDonald, "Non Profit Governance," The Will of the Assembly (blog), August 11, 2026, https://daughtersadvocatingrestoration.org/non-profit-creation-documents/.
Member of the DAR, interview by the author.
Carmen Eckard, "Part Two: This Fight Did Not Stay Inside DAR," Facebook, September 26, 2026, https://www.facebook.com/carmen.eckard.
C. J. Cavin, parliamentary opinion on the chapter-requested special meeting of the NSDAR, August 14, 2026, https://daughtersadvocatingrestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-8-14-Opinion-on-NSDAR-Chapter-Requested-Special-Meeting.pdf.
Comments on Carmen Eckard, "REGARDING DAR: I've been talking to people and researching this for days . . . ," Facebook, September 26, 2026, https://www.facebook.com/carmen.eckard.
Valerie Richardson, "Daughters of American Revolution Assembly Defeats Proposal to Block Transgender Members," Washington Times, June 27, 2026, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/27/daughters-american-revolution-defeats-proposal-block-transgender/.
Valerie Richardson, "'Hold the Line': DAR Faction Keeps Up Battle against Group's Policy of Accepting Transgender Members," Washington Times, June 30, 2026, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jun/30/daughters-american-revolution-faction-vows-keep-fight-transgender/.
Bethany Mandel, "The Daughters of the American Revolution Are in Revolt — Because Trans Zealots Can't Leave ANYTHING Alone," New York Post, June 29, 2026, https://nypost.com/2026/06/29/opinion/daughters-of-the-american-revolution-revolt-because-trans-zealots-cant-leave-anything-alone/.
Li Zhou, "Daughters of the American Revolution Reject Ban on Trans Women," HuffPost, June 29, 2026, via Yahoo News, https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/daughters-american-revolution-reject-ban-012804038.html; Stephanie Kastler, "The DAR Stands Up for Trans Rights," Out Front, June 30, 2026, https://outfrontmagazine.com/the-dar-stands-up-for-trans-rights/; PinkNews (@pinknews), Instagram post, June 30, 2026.
Mathew Rodriguez, "After Daughters of the American Revolution Choose Trans Inclusion, GOP Rep Says, Wait, Maybe Democracy Is Only for When I Agree," Them, July 15, 2026, https://www.them.us/politics/ben-cline-daughters-american-revolution.
Hanna Jones, "Hold the Line: Tradition vs. Trans-Formation in the DAR," IW Features, August 20, 2026, https://www.iwfeatures.com/commentary/hold-the-line-tradition-vs-trans-formation-in-the-dar/, originally published in Townhall, August 15, 2026.
