Archive for October 29, 2007

The Elusive Sarah Gilbert

October 29, 2007 Craig Uncategorized

I’ve blogged quite a lot about Sarah Gilbert Johnson, wife of Ezekiel Johnson, and my great-great-grandmother. She appears in the marriage records of Clay County, Missouri, at the time of her marriage to Grandpa Zeke and in the 1880 census for Kansas City, Missouri. Then she appears of record no more.

I’ve been over and over the available materials. Indeed, a key purpose of my big research trip to Missouri this past summer was to find more on Sarah Gilbert. I found nothing new. I talked to several cousins descended from Zeke and Sarah Johnson, but none knew anything about Sarah.

Here’s what I know about her: she and Zeke Johnson were married in Clay County, Missouri, on September 5, 1867. On the 1880 census, her age is given as 31. If that’s true, she would have been born in about 1849. Her children are listed as Henry, 11; Mary, 10; Richard, 8; Ambrose, 6; Robert, 4; and Mattie, 1. I’ve since discovered that Mary (my great-grandmother) was in fact the oldest and not Henry. “Ambrose” was actually named Amos. I have death certificates for Mary, Richard, Amos, and Robert. Of Henry and Mattie, I know nothing beyond the 1880 census data. [Actually, the problem with Henry is that "Henry Johnson" is such a common name. I have identified some records that are "possibly" the "right" Henry Johnson].

Grandpa Zeke died in 1933. But in 1920, he was living with Richard and listed as widowed. So Sarah must have died before 1920. Noting that there seems to be no death certificate for her in Missouri’s excellent 1910-1956 death certificate database, one might surmise that she died before 1910. This is a situation in which an 1890 census would be a great help. Her last child seems to be Mattie, born in 1879. She would have been just thirty years old. Perhaps then she died between 1880 and 1920.

There is one other strange thing that appears concerning Sarah Gilbert Johnson. There is a death certificate for one Robert Franklin Johnson who died on May 17, 1955. One might presume that this would be Sarah and Zeke’s son, Robert, who according to the 1880 census, was born in about 1876. But the birth date on the death certificate is November 23, 1891. And the mother’s maiden name is given as “Sarah Agnes Lewis.”

The place of death on the Robert Franklin Johnson death certificate is given as “2444 Chestnut Avenue” in Kansas City, Missouri. On May 17, 1955, that house would have been occupied by my great aunt Rosetta Bell Long, and perhaps my grandmother, Annie Florida Corrine Long and her daughter, my aunt Delorise Gines. Rosie and Flo Long were sisters and the granddaughters of Zeke and Sarah. In May, 1955, Grandma Flo would have been 53 years old, and Aunt Rosie would have been 55 years old. And indeed, the informant is stated to be “Rose Long” of 2444 Chestnut Avenue.

But why did Aunt Rosie get Robert’s birth date wrong by 15 years? And who is “Sarah Agnes Lewis”?

Yesterday, Lorine McGinnis Schulze blogged about the potential inaccuracies of primary records. She gives the (actual) example of a 17 year old informant who may have been confused by the questions asked by the official making out a death certificate. But Aunt Rosie was a mature, educated and experienced woman. How could she have made these mistakes?

The week before Robert Franklin Johnson died, my grandfather, William Edward Gines died. Could Aunt Rosie confused some of his information with that of her uncle? The informant on my grandfather’s death certificate was “Harry Gines” [most likely his brother Henry]. Harry got everything right. My grandfather was born on August 10, 1898, and his mother was Sylvia LeJay [which is misspelled "LaJay" on the death certificate]. None of this information is similar to Robert’s.

So what happened here? How did Sarah Gilbert manage to elude me once more?

One comment , , , ,

Can DNA Solve "The Lumbee Problem"?

October 29, 2007 Craig North Carolina

How does a group of people who have American Indian ancestry but no records of treaties, reservations, Native language, or peculiarly “Indian” customs come to be accepted–socially and legally–as Indians?

That question is asked on the jacket of the 2001 printing of The Lumbee Problem–The Making of an American Indian People by anthropologist Karen I. Blu (University of Nebraska Press, 2001; copyright 1980, Karen I. Blu). And that’s just the surface of “the Lumbee problem.”

Suppose Scots-Irish settlers in North Carolina in the early eighteenth century came upon a group of people who in some ways seemed to be indigenous, but spoke seventeenth century English and had English names. History or an episode of the Twilight Zone?

Indeed, this seems to be the history of the Lumbee Indians of North Carolina. But who are they really? Are they Indians? What is their origin?

A prominent theory is that the Lumbees are descendants of Native Americans and survivors of the Lost Colony of North Carolina.

In 1587, a group of colonists under Sir Walter Raleigh’s charter landed in the Outer Banks of what is now North Carolina. This was the second or third group of colonists in the area. One group had returned to England with Sir Francis Drake. The latter group was headed by Governor John White. White returned to England to re-supply the colony; his voyage back to America was delayed by the complications of the English war with Spain and the winter weather. When White did return in 1590, the colonist were gone, but strange “clues” were found. The word “Croatan” was found carved in the wall of a structure that had been built by the colonists. The colonists were never found.

In the early 1700′s, Scots-Irish settlers came upon English-speaking people in the interior of southeastern North Carolina. These people appeared to be of mixed race. It is said that in the early censuses, these people were enumerated as “mulattoes” or “free Negroes.” The people themselves claimed to be Indians. They waged a legal and political struggle in t he nineteenth century for recognition as Indians.

The federal government never has recognized the Lumbee as tribal Indians. In the late 1800′s, the state of North Carolina recognized them as the “Croatan Indians.” This name was not fully satisfactory to the people so designated and in the 1950′s, the name was changed to Lumbee.

The truth of the origins and identity of the Lumbee has been complicated by a number of political and sociological problems. Among these problems would be the fact that there were black people in the area where the Lumbees were found and it may be difficult to tease out which of the “mulattoes” or “free Negroes” were Indian and which were of African descent.

There are several distinct surnames that occur among the Lumbee. These include Oxendine, Chavis, Locklear, Dial, Lowry, and Brayboy, among others. Some of these surnames occur with high frequency among Africian-Americans. Brayboy, for instance, is one of the surnames in my family tree.

My Brayboy ancestors lived in Louisiana and South Carolina. They had been taken to Louisiana in bondage from South Carolina. The question, however, is whether they are related to the Lumbees. Perhaps DNA can solve my Lumbee problem.

I understand that DNA generally cannot pinpoint a specific Native American tribe. But the Lumbee are an especially insular people, thought to number about 40,000, mostly in Robeson County, North Carolina. Under these circumstances, perhaps DNA can tell us about links to the Lumbee.

5 comments , , , , ,