Two Robert Johnsons of early Virginia conflated! [closed]

Question

Many Johnson and Johnston descendants (of the Johnson and Johnstons of early Virginia) rely on and perpetuate the claims made in the 1979 work of  Hugh B. Johnston and Eddis Johnson. 

However, subsequent research by Mark Valsame in the 1990s and early 2000s argues against these claims. Read more here:

http://02ec0a3.netsolhost.com/getperson.php?personID=I4021&tree=ncshawfamily

Specific to this Robert Johnson, Valsame points out that the 1979 work conflated two different Robert Johnsons:

"The authors merged together two different Robert Johnsons. One Robert Johnson was living as late as the 1690s and had a wife Katherine. Robert and Katherine had a daughter Mary Johnson, who was the wife of James Johnson. This is proven by a deed. This couple, James and Mary (Johnson) Johnson, are allegedly the earliest verified direct ancestors of Lyndon Johnson. The other Robert Johnson died leaving a will in 1733 (devised in 1732). He is clearly a much later individual. Again, these were two seperate men, but Hugh B. Johnston and Eddis Johnston merged them together as one man who lived from ca. 1643 to 1733, who had two sons named John by different marriages. That is nonsense."

Therefore, we need to separate out the two men into two different profiles and detach/re-attach the children appropriately:

1. Robert Johnson living as late as the 1690s with wife Katherine _____ (Valsame also points out that there is NO proof that she was the daughter of Arthur Allen and Alice Tucker). Their daughter Mary Johnson married James Johnson. They also had a son John Johnson (that the 1979 genealogy called "the elder")
2. Robert Johnson who d in 1733 (will dated 1732). His wife was Ann. They had a son named John Johnson (that the 1979 genealogy called "the younger"). 

Answer 1

Jillaine, you are an authoritative researcher.  Do what needs to be done. 

Comments

Thanks, Nae.

I'll use this g2g thread to map out the two different men and their families first.

Answer 2

There is now a comment on [[Johnson-8927|Lyndon Johnson]] profile regarding DNA which would support the fact that there are 2 Robert Johnsons that have been combined in error.

Do you want me to take a stab at it, or do you have sufficient sources to move forward?

Comments

I need some help from the DNA experts....so, the connection that is claimed through Y-DNA, goes through the female side of the family, where a Johnson married a Johnson....does that make a difference?

---

It appears other sources have shown LBJ's haplogroup is E.  So both of these direct paternal lines are likely in error.  I suggest requesting that the test taker determine where they believe the break is in their direct paternal line ancestry and detach (?)  Otherwise someone could detach at the most distant Open profile which is unsourced and describe the haplotype mismatch.  I believe it should be most distant because that still allows other direct paternal line descendants to Y-DNA test and confirm (or disprove) the direct paternal line ancestry back to their shared direct paternal line ancestor.

---

Robin, thanks for the nudge. I got distracted by work priorities back in July and never came back to this. I can focus on the paper trail but I know nuttin' 'bout DNA.

---

Peter This is true. I posted this comment today:

I'm looking into this from a YDNA perspective. Having co-managed surname Johnson project at FTDNA for many years, I've also worked with Mark Valsame and with Brett Johnson who is Haplogroup E-L241

I see a potential conflict with the YDNA that is posted on this profile that traces to haplogroup RM-269. Contrasted with Johnson participant at FTDNA.com kit 108229 traces to "Johnson John Johnson, Yoeman and Ancient Planter 1590-1638" and he is Haplogroup E-L241

Sherrie (Mitchell-17863) Boone

posted Mar 11, 2024 by You

---

Peter,

Yes, it is true that FT asked us to find Y participants for the 2 Johnson presidents. The 2 who came forward for LBJ requested to remain anonymous so I had them ID'd as LBJ 1 and LBJ 2 in results. It is also true that they were what was then known as haplogoup E-3B1. Now they  are E-L241, specifically "Family A" in that haplogroup's results.

Sherrie (Mitchell-17863) Boone

Answer 3

The link to Mark Valsame's work that was posted back in 2015 to this thread is broken now and the page does not appear to have been archived in the Wayback Machine.  Does anyone know where this research can be found online at this point?

Comments

While looking, found:

http://jliptrap.us/gen/johnson.htm

Which appears to discuss the issue. (Scroll down to Robert Johnson.)

---

This morning I found a website by Mark Valsam (http://www.valsamides-design.com/), but it doesn't include the Robert Johnson article.  It did, however, include an email address, and I have written to him asking about the Robert Johnson analysis.

---

Scott,

After Lee Johnson, Tony Johnson, Mark Valsame and I left as co-managers for the Johnson project at FT the FT people who took over as management did in fact use "Wayback", and posted that info. Since that displayed various lineages for our participants who had traced to current connections, and because this is the same reason we were called down and left, ... FT took it down at our request. It was not a pretty scene...Phone calls with Bennett, threats of law suits...

Sherrie (Mitchell-17863) Boone