JOHNS(T)ON Clarifications

By Suzanne Johnston

OCT 1998

The truth is that the [JOHNS(T)ON] line isn't proved, and until it is we have to work together and with original sources, not speculation, to get it proved, no matter what the story...

As I've said before, Lorand spent a great deal of time and money researching all the allied Johnson families. He published what he found, and very quickly became "THE" authority on Johnson genealogy. The problem is that "almost every" book published about Johnson's or allied lines, or which has a part about Johnson's in it has relied on Lorand and his information. Consequently, what he thought and published is pervasive in every book anyone picks up, whether it is on Johnson, Massie, Anthony, etc. It also includes Schaff and McConnell. They worked very closely with Lorand. People need to be aware of this, because it "seems" that everyone is telling the same story, therefore it must be true, but in fact, all those sources are just one--Lorand Johnson. So, researchers, when you are using family histories etc. beware. I once commented to Lorand that Judge Massey in his book on the Massey family agreed with him, and his response was, "I gave him all the information on Peter Massie and the Johnson connections." So, just a word to the wise. No one should assume anything to be gospel if it doesn't cite a primary source of info. That's just good genealogy, and certainly applies in this case.

In the case of the Johnson's, there is a lack of information because of the destruction or lack of early records. But, there are sources somewhere that can be found, and we have to find them. Individual families have various documents in their possession that could be considered primary and reliable sources of info, and we have to search out and find them. In addition, there are often defining clues given where we least expect it. So, let's try those sources, rather than the circumstantial route we are now going. You know, you can make a case for just about any circumstantial proof, if you try, but that doesn't mean it is correct, so let's go for the pearl that will prove this line once and for all.

One of the things I understand, is that Johnson's want to belong to the Caskieben family. They know about it, they are attached to it, it is an illustrious and fun family to do research on, with lots of noteworthy people, and people whom it is easy to find information on. Not accepting on the evidence we have that Quaker Merchant James was the son of Thomas of Craig does not mean that we are giving up Caskieben. With Alderman Robert Johnson of the Virginia Company being of the Caskieben family, and with his having so much to do with the settlement of Virginia, it is very logical that many and in fact, even most of the early Johnson's in Virginia are of the Caskieben family.

My opinion is that what we need to do is sort out the Johnson's in Virginia before 1700. We need to systematically and thoroughly go through every source we can find for any Johnson, and see how it fits in, and what it helps us prove. We need to look at John, William, Alexander, Nicholas, Anthony, James, Benjamin's etc. and chart it all out from land records, and any other records or manuscripts we can get our hands on. That is going to be my approach, and I'm going into it with an open mind. We can't find the truth if we go into it looking to "prove" that our speculation is true. Enough of the soap box now, but that's what I think.

Let me answer a few comments or points that were brought up in communications responding to my comments. <snip> First of all, Quaker James is NOT the James Johnston married to Jean Ogilvie. The James who married Jean Ogilvie may be the son of Quaker James, but as we know, that has yet to be proved. James Johnston and Jean Ogilvie were married in the 1690's, and their children were born in the 1690's, much to late to be our family in Virginia who were having children in 1700 in St. Peter's. The connection to James and Jean Ogilvie was published in Lorand's first book, written about 1940, and came from the info when Caskieben was being disentailed, that James Johnston, litster, married to Jean Ogilvie was "providit to nothing" and the line became extinct with him. James and Jean Ogilvie had a number of children, and his line did die out. But the information reported in the disentailment was not correct, consequently, Lorand's information was not correct. He corrected that in his 2nd book.

I would like to make the point, however, that I have questions about early Quaker connections, a point I brought up in my earlier communication. There are a few key points I'd like to emphasize:

Lorand's point was that the Johnson's were all Quakers in Scotland, though there is no direct evidence for that. It is true that all of the Caskieben Johnson's were certainly exposed to Quakerism, and it was in the family there through spouses, marriages etc., but again, there is no direct evidence in the Quaker records in Scotland that any of them were Quakers in Scotland. They are not in those records.

The matter of the Keith letter stating that Cousin Edward Johnson was coming to Virginia. In many of the communications I looked over during the weekend, Lorand quoted that letter only as "Cousin Edward" not Cousin Edward Johnson." So, I think we need to look into that further before we quote it as a source.

William Johnson and Sarah Massie do NOT appear in the Quaker records in New Kent area at all. Nor do Edward and Elizabeth Johnson. All of their records are in the St. Peter's Parish records. John and Lucretia Johnson appear in the St. Peter's Parish Register at the beginning. For a time, they appear in both the St. Peter's Parish Register and the Quaker records, and then they just appear in the Quaker records. The children of William & Sarah, Edward and Elizabeth and John and Lucretia are all Quakers, so there is clearly a connection, but it doesn't appear to me that they came to Virginia as Quakers.