KYCLAY-L Archives
Archiver > KYCLAY > 2002-02 > 1012674000
From:
Subject: [KYCLAY] Re: JohnsTon... Roll Call
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 13:20:00 EST
Thanks Doris, But I have been given lots of flack about the language as I
wrote it in the email to the Clay list. So, I had to revise in this manner to
those who questioned my intent. Here is the reply I am sending to all those
who did not understand my original post about SAMUEL JOHNSTON.
Thanks Doris for the good words, and Thanks to Jess Wilson for his wisdom he
posted.
JOHN in CA (born in Leslie County, KY where we take genealogy serious)
<<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote ........
It would have been better writing skills if I had written the sentence to
say: "Samuel JOHNSTON born in 1777 Scotland was taken by his parents and
Uncle to Ireland for political reasons that began in the late 1750s continued
into the 1790s and, from there as young men of adult age came to the new
United States of America, entered into lands of Virginia, then into North
Carolina and finally settled in Kentucky."
Most of the JOHNSON and JOHNSTON families in the modern era of year 2002 know
that a distinct difference exists in these two surnames. Sorry If I confused
any of you.
My books list the difference of the meaning of these two names in ENGLAND and
in SCOTLAND. Of course the Samuel Johnston 1777-1861 lineage is in my books.
There is no justified reason to list this family as a Johnson, regardless of
what is posted on the Internet by others.
This thread: