Monday, May 13, 2019

Advice for beginning, intermediate and advanced family history researchers - online family trees

While I spend a considerable amount of time evaluating the material I have filed away on the St. John family in an effort to determine if the Welsh ancestry is the correct line to follow. In looking over my London church records, I have already discovered a couple of interpretation errors that were not caught earlier in the research process that will figure into the evaluation.

In the mean time, I will attempt to keep things rolling with some genealogy research advice. This has probably all been posted before, but will reappear for the benefit of those would chose not to search for it!😁  

1. Family Trees posted on-line and elsewhere: Family trees can be a great source of information, if they are accurately documented. 

Many trees offer no documentation or cite other family trees. Use them with serious caution. Look for sources that back up what this person failed to document.

In what seems to be a new and disturbing trend, or just plain carelessness, some trees will be documented, but the evidence doesn't support the facts. A marriage record, with image, will accompany an event. The problem is that the record is for another couple! Make sure the records match the event and people it is intended for.

Documented trees still need to be approached with caution. Make sure the sources fit the facts they are intended to. Find, or try to find, other supporting documentation for each fact.

Saturday, May 11, 2019

One argument agaist Matthias [1635-1712] and Rachel as Samuel St. John's parents

My primary argument against Matthias and Rachel is one of age. No evidence is involved in this particular argument.

(1) Matthias St. John was born in 1635 and Rachel Bouton in 1667. An age gap of 32 years was a bit uncommon in a first marriage.

(2) Matthias and Rachel were married about 1689, per the St. John site. That would have been four years after Samuel's birth. Even if they married about 1684, Matthias would have been 49 and Rachel 17.

(3) Matthias and Rachel are credited with 3 or 4 children, Samuel, Matthias [alleged], Rachel and Hannah. The youngest born c1701. Ages of the parents - 66 and 34.

(4) Matthias died in 1712, leaving Rachel with at least two minor children. Did she remarry?

Revisiting Norwalk deeds and records is definitely in order. The 32 year gap between Matthias and Rachel really bothers me, especially if it was a first marriage for both. Still, this could be accurate. We shall see.

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Who were the parents of Samuel St. John?

Who were Samuel St. John's parents?

I thought I had this one answered a few years ago, thanks to James Noll Churchyard and the Salt Lake Institute.

Alexander Orline St. John, in The St. John Genealogy, had Samuel [b. 168_] as the son of Matthias St. John III [1662-1748] and Rachel Bouton [1667-1748]. This held, and still does in most trees and sources on the St. John family.

 James Noll Churchyard wrote an article, published on his website, Those Four Early Children of Matthias3 St. John: A Solution and a Challenge [2004] in part contending that Samuel was not the son of Matthias III, but Matthias II. He offered convincing arguments and evidence.

I was in contact with James at the time, sharing info and theories. I decided his article would make a good Problem Solving project. Digging through Fairfield Co., CT deeds, histories and various records, I came to the conclusion that Samuel was the son of Matthias II and Elizabeth [_______]   St. John, not Matthias III and Rachel Bouton. His estimated birth was altered from the 1680-1685 range to 1672-1677.

A third theory now exists, bringing Matthias St. John and Rachel Bouton back into the picture - in a manner of speaking.

The St. John Genealogy Website the third theory. A bit of background is called for here. This will be expanded upon in later posts, but here in a thumbnail sketch.

Thomas St. John of Highlight, Glamorgan, Wales moved his family to London in 1577. His wife was Jane Matthew. Thomas and Jane had nine children. Two, Christopher [1581-1629] and Matthew [1590/1-1671] were central figures to the theory.

Christopher was the father of Matthias I [1601-1669, who married Mary Tinker, Thomas [1613-1696]and Nicholas [1617-1689]. The three brothers went to America, Matthias and Nichols to Massachusetts, Thomas to Virginia. Matthew married Sarah [Hoyt?] and went to Massachusetts as well.

Matthew and Sarah had William [1629-1664], Elizabeth [b. 1631], Sarah [1633-1689], Matthias [1635-1712], Joyce [b. 1639], Walter [1643-bef 1703] and Toby [1646-1646].

Per theory, this Matthias was the husband of Rachel Bouton or Button, not Matthias III [1667-1748].
In addition, Sarah married John Gregory and Elizabeth was the wife of her cousin, Matthias II.

Matthias and Rachel were the parents of Samuel St. John. Samuel was born c1685.

The website cites an ancient genetic mutation in the St. John DNA that separates Matthew's line from Matthias' line. Also cited are several Norwalk deeds tying Matthew to son Matthias.

I need to sift through the copies of deeds that I used in Salt Lake to see if I copied the deeds used on the St. John site. For now, I'm trusting my research and the Churchyard research.


Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Samuel & Rebecca [Olmstead] St. John's Children

 1In the Hull article discussed in the previous post, 11 children were identified as being the offspring of Samuel and Rebecca.

Four daughters were listed in the following order: Joanna [Christopher] Burt, Perigrine [Nathan] Northrop, Jane [Ebenezer] Brooks and Sarah [John] Maynard.

The three youngest sons were listed in the following order: Daniel, Job and Ebenezer.

Two elder brothers: Samuel and Noah.

Two other daughters: Rebecca [Samuel] Lobdell and Abigail.

If we consider the order in which the children are named, we may have the birth order for the four girls named in the deed and the three younger boys; probably the two elder boys as well. That leaves two wild cards: Rebecca and Abigail.

Rebecca was deceased by 1773 and Abigail died in 1720.

Samuel [1672-77 - bef 1752] and Rebecca [1681 - c1756] were married about 1701 or 1702. Rebecca was approaching "risky" childbearing years by 1721. So we have about a 20 year stretch for 11 children to be born.

I believe that Rebecca was probably the eldest girl and Samuel the eldest boy. Ballpark marriage age for girls was about 18-22 and 20-24 for boys., but that can be tossed out with this group!

Rebecca married in 1722. Born say 1702
Joanna married in 1727. Born say 1703-1707
Peregrine married in 1730. Born say 1706-1710
Jane married in 1730. Born say 1706-1710
Abigail deceased in 1720. Born say 1710-1720
Sarah married in ???? Born say 1712-1715

Samuel married in 1727/8. Born say 1702-1704
Noah married in 1737. Born 1713
Daniel married by 1752. Born 1715-1717
Job married about 1749 Born say 1717-1719
Ebenezer married in ???? Born say 1721

Possible birth order: [subject to change]
Rebecca c1702
Samuel c1703
Joanna c1705
Peregrine c1707
Jane c1708
Abigail c1710 [as late as 1720]
Nathan c1713
Sarah c1715
Daniel c1716
Job c1718
Ebenezer c1721

Abigail and Sarah are the new wild cards. Abigail could have been born anytime between 1702 and 1720. Sarah's marriage date needs to be located to get a better read on her year of birth.

Saturday, May 4, 2019

St. John Family: Additions, Corrections, Updates, etc.

My revisiting the St. John family is turning up a variety of issues.

[1] The children of Samuel and Rebecca [Olmstead] St. John

[2] Samuel's parentage - AGAIN!

[3] Origin of the St. John family

The latter was to be my focus, but I'll begin at the top of the list. I came across  an article from the March 2002 issue of the Connecticut Nutmegger [Vol. 34, p. 542-547] by Robert W. Hull, CSG #12200, entitled Updating the family of Samuel St. John and Rebecca [Olmstead] St. John: "Love, respect and goodwill" of generous sisters for brothers.

Hull used 1773 land deeds to prove the identity of Samuel and Rebecca. From my own early research, I had the following children for the couple: Samuel, Rebecca, Joanna, Peregrine, Jane, Abigail, Abigail, Noah, Daniel, Job and Ebenezer.

I, and many others, had included Abigail St. John, wife of John Marvin, as a child of Samuel and Rebecca, without sufficient evidence. The fact that the life spans of both Abigails overlapped should have been a red flag.

Hull's article showed 11 children for the couple as well.

Samuel, Rebecca, Joanna, Peregrine, Jane, Abigail, Noah, Sarah, Daniel, Job and Ebenezer.

I will discuss birth order [probably correct here], spouses, birth, marriage and death dates later.

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Revisiting an old research project: The Origins of the St. John family

Back in 2014, I worked on the origins of the St. John family at the Salt Lake Institute. The debate was between the family being from Antwerp in the Spanish Netherlands [now Belgium] or having roots in Wales.

My conclusions at the time leaned toward Antwerp, but not with absolute certainty. That research project has gathered dust since then.

Loose ends existed on both sides of the argument. The time has finally come to try to tie up those loose ends.

I have plenty to examine:
[1] a copy of the article that promoted the Antwerp origin.
[2] a rebuttal article stating the case for Welsh origins.
[3] my own research on both theories.
[4] numerous articles on the Welsh families.
[5] my SLIG project report and summary findings.

Perhaps I missed something last time around. One item is missing from the Welsh research that is crucial - the will of Thomas St. John's will. Likewise, similar documentation is missing from the other side.

What is known:
[1] Matthias St. John, the immigrant, was the son of Christopher St. John.

What needs to be determined:
[1] Was Christopher born in Antwerp, Wales or possibly London?
[2] Was Christopher's father Mathias of Antwerp or Thomas of Wales?

Let the fun begin!!!!


Thursday, April 18, 2019

Historical Perspective

In my humble opinion, one of the failings of our current "politically correct" attitude is the inability for a great number of people to put things in historical perspective. 20th and 21st century values seldom apply to events that took place 50, 75, 100 or 300 years ago.

What people believe to be abhorrent today was accepted in other eras. Many people cannot grasp that fact.

Let's take a look at a few examples:

[1] World War II's Pacific Campaign came to an end, in part, due to the US decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Between 90000 and 166000 Japanese lives were lost. People have ranted in recent years about the evils of the decision to drop the bombs on the two Japanese cities. What were the alternatives? Continue the war until Japan elected to surrender? Launch an allied invasion of Japan? Experts have estimated that Allied forces would have met with extreme civilian resistance in addition to military opposition. The cost in lives among the Allies would have been upward of one million. Weigh the options. 100000 Japanese deaths and an end to the war or upwards of a million US and Allied casualties as a result of invading Japan? How many of those decrying the use of the atomic bomb in 1945 would have never been born because their fathers were killed invading Japan. Look at the bigger picture.

[2] Slavery is and was an abhorrent institution. It became a primary basis for the economy of the southern American colonies and eventual states. Slavery began as indentured servitude in 1619. Native American tribes were enslaved for awhile, but that practice failed. The tribes enslaved other Native Americans and colonists. Some were adopted into the tribe, others were sold back to their people, others remained enslaved. Europeans were sold into servitude in the colonies. Most could work off their indentures in seven or so years. Yet there were rules in place that could extend those indentures indefinitely. The first African servants were brought to Virginia in 1619. Most were prisoners captured by other African tribes, traded to European and American slave traders. Slavery existed in all 13 colonies. Gradually slavery faded in New England and most of the northern colonies by the outbreak of the American Revolution, but continued as an economic foundation in the South.

The institution continued to be hotly debated and spread westward as more states joined the Union. Southern states believed in states' rights and felt that the federal government had no right to interfere in what policies the states followed, including slavery. Some slaveowners believed slavery would die a natural death and should be allowed to do so. Actual slaveowners made up a small percentage of the Southern population. Slavery was outlawed in 1863. Attitudes toward the former slaves took almost a century to change, in some cases it hasn't. Slavery is still a worldwide problem. It now comes under the heading of "human trafficking."

For centuries slavery was an accepted institution. It existed in America from 1619 until 1863. It existed. That cannot be denied, no matter how one feels about it. From 1619 until well into the 1700s, it existed in all colonies. There's a fair chance that an ancestor may have owned a slave in any of the colonies before the Revolution. If southern roots are found on the family tree chances are much stronger. For nearly 250 years slavery existed in America and was accepted by many, right or wrong. You have to live with the choices made by your ancestors.

[3] Treatment of Native Americans has been an issue since the first treaty was broken. The Native Americans were not the peaceful farmer-hunters that some make them out to be. Some tribes definitely were. Others were warlike tribes that preyed on their peaceful neighbors. Weaker tribes formed alliances against those encroaching on their territory. Stronger tribes forced weaker ones to find new homes. Once Europeans arrived, some tribes formed alliances with them. Others instantly opposed the whites' arrival. Some colonists purchased land from local tribes in good faith. Others took it.

Tensions existed early and continued until the last of the tribes were defeated during the late 1800s. For centuries stronger, more technologically advanced cultures have conquered less advanced cultures. Was the westward migration of an Iron Age culture across the American continent at the expense of a Stone Age culture any different. It was more recent and impacted American history more than, say, the Mongols moving across Asia into Europe.

Was the treatment of the "American Indian" fair and just? No. Did it happen? Yes.

[4] Immigration is a real hot topic nowadays. Do we close our Southern borders? Do we let everyone from foreign countries who wants to enter the US? Do we institute immigration reform?

Let's take a look back at a few groups from other countries. The Irish Catholics were refused work and lodging for decades. "No Irish need apply" signs hung in windows across America. They took jobs as servants, miners, railroad workers, soldiers and any low paying job they could get. Similar treatment awaited Italians and immigrants from predominately Catholic southern European nations.
As railroads were being built, Chinese workers were brought in to help build them.  German and Scandinavian immigrants came into the country as the 19th century progressed.

The main thing that these groups had in common was the desire to better themselves. They settled in their own communities and neighborhoods for support. They worked hard, [generally in legal endeavors,] to provide for their families. As time passed, they assimilated into American culture. These people did not expect handouts, just the opportunity to work, provide for their families [or bring them to the States] and become Americans.

Sometimes we forget the efforts of our own ancestors to give us the opportunities we have today.


The above views may not be popular. We have to realize that our opinions today aren't those of two generations ago. You can't apply 21st century values to 19th century events and understand them in context.