OHLOGAN-L ArchivesArchiver > OHLOGAN > 2004-03 > 1079439643
Subject: Re: [OHLOGAN] Samuel Johnston
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:20:43 -0500
References: <002401c40acf$ed093c50$66e9f4d1@Upminster> <000a01c40afb$4e513370$6400a8c0@Ebony>
Thank you Jeanne and Tootsie for your response. I have every single Johnson
and Johnston from 1850 to 1880 in Logan, Union, Champaign Counties, working
on Hardin and Madison. So there are thousands.
I've tried to piece together their family units from these microfilms and
other sources. I have one grandfather Johnson, and a another separate
grandfather Johnston. Who really knows how they spelled their surnames back
in 1850. The only way I can truly track my own lines is to find out where
all the rest fit. (Process of elimination)
The biggest problem is that each enumerator for each census had their own
preference as to whether the T was in the name or not. So I may find the
family in 1850 as Johnson, 1860 same family as Johnston, and on and on.
It's been very difficult to determine the lines. I usually change the
spelling for the line when I find their tombstones.
The 'thread' on this family is a son Robson/Robertson Johnston b 1842. In
1850 (105a) and 1860 (63b) , Samuel Johnston b1818 PA is married to Hannah
b1820. No James P. b1804 in 1850, but 1860 (66b) James P. b1804, (worth
14,000/2,000) married to Eleanor b1811, with (among others) son Robson
In 1870, still in Richland Twp, it appears that Hannah and James P. have
died. 1870 finds Samuel P. now married to Eleanor, with their children
being a combination of both families. But I haven't found a tombstone for
Hannah or James P.
If James P. and Samuel P. had not appeared at the same time in the 1860
census, I would have thought it to be an enumerator's error. But I do not
understand the big difference in Samuel P's birthyear. In 1850 and 1860,
read's b1818; in 1870 and 1880, reads 1804. And 1804 is also James P.'s
The only thing I can think of is that these two men are indeed separate men;
that they were probably brothers, and kept the family wealth by combining
households when James P. dies. But it doesn't explain the inconsistency in
I guess I was hoping for a clarification from a descendant of one of these
men. It's all such a mystery, isn't it??