Separating the Johnsons
Wish The Legal Genealogist well.
I’ve just emerged from the bowels of the FamilySearch Family Tree where I have been fighting with the entry for — allegedly — one man.
He was born in two different southern states, died in two different years in two different Texas counties, served in two different Civil War units, was married to two different women the same year in two different states, lived with each spouse in a different Texas county and had kids with each — all at the same time. And, of course, had only one set of parents.
R-i-i-i-i-g-h-t.
So I have corrected — verily I do believe — the conflation of two Napoleon Bonaparte Johnsons by splitting them back into two.
And I’m indulging in the momentary fantasy that it will last.
One of these Johnsons was born in Georgia,1 the other in Tennessee.2
Both served in the Civil War — one from Kentucky, serving in the 6th Kentucky Cavalry,3 the other enlisted in Texas then served in the 27th Louisiana Infantry.4
One married Sarah Jane Williams in Smith County, Tennessee, in March 1868,5 with whom he had seven sons and two daughters.6 The other married Irene Cornelia Hall in Cherokee County, Texas, in October 1868,7 with whom he had two daughters.8
One lived in Parker County, Texas, where he published a newspaper and served as postmaster in Weatherford, where he died in 1898.9 The other lived in Red River County, Texas, where he was a farmer,10 moving in the last years of his life to the Confederate Soldiers Home in Austin where he died in 1931.11
And, according to the FamilySearch Family Tree, all of these things are true of just one man, the son of Mathew and Mary (Fore) Johnson.
Um… nope.
Only one of these sets of facts applies to my great granduncle, Mathew and Mary’s son and older brother of my great grandmother Martha H. “Mattie” (Johnson) Cottrell.
So the challenge is to disentangle these two men.
We’ll call my guy, the Georgia-born man, N.B., because that’s the way he was usually referenced. We’ll call the guy who isn’t mine, Tennessee-born man, Pole, because he’s listed that way in at least two census records.
Looking at the sources attached to the one current entry — Napoleon Boneparte Johnson, 1842–1931, L126-RQY — 10 of the 15 are for N.B., the other five for Pole. But most of the work was done by one of Pole’s descendants, who initially added him to the tree, so…
The first decision is to leave Pole as the person identified as L126-RQY.
There is no possible duplicate for my N.B., but there is one duplicate identified for Pole — LVV6-7X6. And it attaches him to folks who are undoubtedly the right parents. So those two can be merged after N.B. is thoroughly detached.
The next step is to create an entry for N.B. Okay. Napoleon B. Johnson, GKDQ-X95.
Now to add his information. First the 1850 census, which requires deleting that source from Pole Johnson. Ditto for the 1860 census. And the 1880 census. And the death records of six of his kids.
Then adding the two marriage records, one to each of the Johnsons.
Then adding the two different military service records, one for each of the men.
And adding the additional census records that prove that Pole can’t be the guy who died in Parker County in 1898, and N.B. can’t be the guy who died in Austin in 1931.
Which turns up two sets of duplicates because of the name Pole in two of those census records. Meaning those IDs also have to be merged, for Pole, for Irene, for their daughters. Not to mention merging Pole with the other ID identified right at the outside. Each of which has to be done…
One.
At.
A.
Time.
Sigh…
And then there’s the minor matter of switching parents, spouse and — sigh — the father for N.B.’s nine kids.
One.
At.
A.
Time.
Sigh…
And each individual change needs to be justified, explaining that somebody mixed these two men up early on, and it’s only gotten worse since.
At least now I’m able to add the note above: “The FamilySearch Family Tree had (and FindAGrave has) conflated the identities of two Napoleon B Johnsons. Care should be taken not to reintroduce this confusion between this man and LVV6-7X6 of the same name.”
Anybody want to take bets on how long it takes before the first entry does just that?
Wish me luck…
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Fixing a mess,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 5 April 2023).
SOURCES
- See 1850 U.S. census, Pulaski County, Kentucky, Somerset, population schedule, p. 2B (stamped), dwelling/family 27, Napolean B. Johnson, in Mathew Johnson household; digital image, Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 4 Apr 2023) ↩
- See Soldier’s Application for a Pension, State of Texas, No. 42894, Napoleon Bonaparte Johnson, Red River County, filed 11 April 1927; digital images, Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 4 Apr 2023). ↩
- Compiled Military Service Record, Napoleon B. Johnson, 6th Kentucky Cavalry, Civil War; digital images, Fold3.com (https://www.fold3.com : accessed 4 Apr 2023). ↩
- Compiled Military Service Record, Napoleon Bonapart Johnson, 27th Louisiana Infantry, Civil War; digital images, Fold3.com (https://www.fold3.com : accessed 4 Apr 2023). ↩
- Smith County, Tennessee, Marriage Book 1866-1874, Johnson-Williams, 31 March 1868; digital images, Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 4 Apr 2023). ↩
- Eight of the nine children are identified in census records; the ninth, a son Willie who died at the age of 10 months, by way of a cemetery marker in the Weatherford City Cemetery. ↩
- Cherokee County, Texas, Marriage Record C2, No. 261, Johnson-Hall, 30 October 1868; digital images, FamilySearch.org (https://www.familysearch.org/ : accessed 4 Apr 2023). ↩
- 1900 U.S. census, Red River County, Texas, Justice Precinct 7, population schedule, enumeration district (ED) 113, p. 269A (stamped), dwelling 59, family 60, Pole B Johnson household; digital image, FamilySearch.org (https://www.familysearch.org/ : accessed 4 Apr 2023). ↩
- For the occupations, see Martha Barnes, “The Johnson Family,” undated clipping in possession of author, and see 1880 U.S. census, Parker County, Texas, Weatherford, population schedule, enumeration district (ED) 135, p. 355B (stamped), dwelling/family 8, N.B. Johnson, “Postmaster US”; digital image, Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 4 Apr 2023. For the year of death, see the Barnes article and note that N.B.’s wife Sarah was recorded as a widow in 1900. 1900 U.S. census, Parker County, Texas, Weatherford Ward 4, population schedule, enumeration district (ED) 67, p. 91A (stamped), dwelling 476, family 495, Sarah Johnson; digital image, Ancestry.com (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 4 Apr 2023). ↩
- See e.g. 1900 U.S. census, Red River Co., Tex., Justice Pct. 7, pop. sched., ED 113, p. 269A (stamped), dwelling 59, family 60, Pole B Johnson. ↩
- Texas State Department of Health, Death Certificate No. 10301, Napoleon B. Johnson, 22 Feb 1931; digital image, FamilySearch.org (https://www.familysearch.org/ : accessed 4 Apr 2023). ↩
I no longer even try. I keep a clean database and paper materials. The proliferation of ancestor collectors has only grown worse.
All of us who have tried to straighten out mixed identities in the FamilySearch Family Tree feel your pain. Hopefully all your work will pay off and remain intact! Good luck.
Well…. is it still correct? Or has somebody already changed it again???
I know people scoff at Family Tree, but I’ve been a frequent contributor on my branches and have never regretted it. No one has changed anything vital on my lines for several generations. I find it pretty accurate for recent (post-1820) lines. Yes, once you get back before that time, it gets very messy, and I don’t bother trying to fix what I don’t know how to fix. But it has also given me a lot of clues to follow. I plan to stick with it. I believe it will improve over time.
That’s why I have left FamilyTree and gone to WikiTree, where I see that you have profiled your Napoleon Bonaparte Johnson as well.
Dennis, I have seen just as many errors and dubious theories on WikiTree, despite their “honor code.” Any collaborative effort is going to be imperfect.
My Y-DNA, using every Y test available, indicates that there is no genetic match to anyone with my surname but to a whole lot of other males with another surname. I posted that reasoning and a statement that any connection made to an individual as the father of my known ancestor who has my surname was not correct. The family timeline and migration from place to place also doesn’t support it. It didn’t help either.
My own familytree on FamilySearch is so wrong in so many places I don’t even try. I didn’t even know my familytree was on FamilySearch until I searched on my parents and found them linked to a family tree, yikes, by someone who I determined was my eighth cousin.
On the other hand, I am appreciative of those trees in FamilySearch that are well documented; I have found unindexed documentation on these trees that has saved me time and effort.
It appears that this issue is a direct result of how easy FamilySearch has made it to merge people, but how HARD the process is to split people. A merge is basically one click and DONE! A split is a very manual process. Can we approach that team as a community and request that this disparity be corrected? As an example, the implementation of merging could be that a person makes a merge request that can then be voted on before it actually is completed. All individuals who are watching a person have a chance to vote and discuss. There are many other implementation models that could be put in place – the current one favors the reckless.
I’d support anything that would make it harder to mess this up…
Unfortunately an “enthusiastic” researcher will find a way.
At least FamilySearch now has the nifty feature in the collaborate tab that allows to create a note, explain your corrections, and then flag the note. That flag shows up on the persons detail page as a warning that substantial work has been done on the person in the profile. Will it stop people from messing things up through “point, click, and do genealogy” ? Doubtful, but its a start.
I had a bad experience with FamilySearch several years ago that’s kind of poisoned my view of it ever since. They showed my mother as deceased when she was still living. I contacted them, and was told that in order to change it, I would have to provide a great deal of personal information, including allowing someone to visit her to verify that she was alive! Since she was at that time living in an assisted living facility with severe dementia, I declined. I’ve made a few corrections to one part of my family tree there, and haven’t gone back since to see if they held. I’m tempted to delete the parentage of my ancestor David Farr, which showed, the last time I looked, that he was the son of an Ephraim Farr who died 15 years before David was born. And it actually has the relevant dates in the tree!
I’m thinkin your first and middle name should be changed. How bout this “Tenacity Patience Russell”, neato, I ain’t got no cuzins with that name
I have learned that I can generally keep things from being changed if I put lots of Sources and Notes. You can add a Note and flag it as alert so people are notified that there’s something they need to look at. It out the alert at the top of merges now as well. If there are 2 people that were previously combined as 1 person, I put a note on each person with an alert that explains there are 2 people and gives the ID number for each. If I explain everything well and include alert noted when needed, it stays the same most of the time.
Also, if you add information to Discussions or Memories, no one can remove it but yourself. So use those as well if needed.
Still, it definitely takes some patience.
I think this is a very good idea, Jeniann. Having a flag pop-up should give anyone pause when thinking of changing anything, and having your explanation would help the other person see where you got your information from. If you have done a considerable amount of work and they haven’t, they will probably assume you are correct unless they want to double-check all of your work! That is still a lot of work, so it makes it tough, but, for my part, I do keep my own database with ‘my’ version of my ancestry so no one can mess that one up! I usually try to update as much as I can in my own database, until I feel I have done a reasonably exhaustive search before even trying to add anything to FamilySearch, but, as you said, not everyone else does. In Judy’s words: sigh…
This is why I don’t use FamilySearch for recording my genealogy research. I use their website for the wiki which I find very helpful. Good luck and hopefully no one will undo your excellent work.
Thank you for tersely summarizing why I do not use the Family Tree any longer. FS is very good for records, but that tree, as you have mentioned, can be a mess, and it take forever to get things correct. I work with a chap who has been correcting his grandmothers information for several years and it keeps getting changed. Sigh.
I spend a lot of time using these collaborative tree sites. I use the FamilySearch Tree frequently and generally have good experiences and no real edit wars to date. I also use WikiTree. I like it for the community aspect and the ability to write bios in a Wikipedia like fashion. Family Search has a much larger number of people and it is much easier to add sources in Family Search Trees for sources that are in Family Search. In different ways they help me find more cousins.
Neither are my primary personal genealogy database. While they both offer privacy protections for living people, I prefer to keep those people out of there. I keep that in Family Tree Maker and Ancestry.com – syncing them together. I also collect sources about people being in jail or other information that could hurt some living family members. I don’t feel it is my role to tell those stories publicly.
Full disclosure: I infrequently give public talks on WikiTree and have helped out it their RootsTech booth years ago.
Marty Acks
I have decided not to engage with such trees. It’s just too frustrating for me, and I already have my hands full. I do engage with big online trees run by cousins for various surnames. They have helped me and I contribute where I can. Discussions so far have been amicable. Quite often our differing opinions are due to differing access to information and I adjust my records about as often as the other person.
One tree owner just will not accept a particular piece of very confronting evidence. It really doesn’t matter. The general opinion from other trees covering the same family has been to accept the consequences in terms of genealogy.
There is another side to this. Direct confrontation often does not work. Very occasionally I can go at something sideways to explain why my conclusions are correct and am heard. I marvel at the way some explainers seem to do this effortlessly and try to learn from them.
Any tips welcome.
Thank you. I’m a rookie and I have a long, long road ahead of me to untangle the duplicates that a paid (not certified) genealogist hired by my darling, then 95-year-old grandfather, created.
lol. been there. done that. I have 2 men named John Jordan. Both born about 1812. The 2 constantly get confused.
JJ1 born in Virginia, died in West Virginia, married only once in 1832 and had children starting about 1834 (3 children on the 1840 census IN VIRGINIA).
JJ2 was born in New Jersey, moved to then died in Louisiana, married twice; wife 1 about 1838-1840 (no children on the 1840 census IN LOUISIANA), had 3 children on the 1850 census with wife 1.
Clearly different men. But people see the name and the approx. 1812 birth and don’t look any further.
I cleaned them up and got the correct children attached to each man. I created a note for each man and made it an alert note that “hey, be careful, 2 men often confused”.
Then…I created a document showing the two men were different using tables in the document for each census, 1840, 1850, 1860, and 1870, and listed the children where applicable. Then I saved that document as a PDF and attached it as a memory.
Has it completely stopped documents being attached to the wrong man? No.
Does it appear to have helped so far? Yes.
Will it be a constant problem? Yes.
I agree with you, Marty. Having your own primary genealogy database is almost a must. No one can mess that one up except you! And it gives you an opportunity to add things to your own database until you have collected enough information to be confident that your data is correct before even trying to add it to a site like FamilySearch. I also have a separate main database that I use just for ‘me.’
I think the idea of FamilySearch trying to have ONE worldwide database where everyone is only in there once is a great idea (not a ‘group’ of family trees, like other sites), but as you’ve said, it is hard to keep it straight when people new to the field start adding mistakes and probably don’t know how to fix them. I don’t think it is meant to be anyone’s ‘primary’ database, so anyone using it that way will run into problems.
I do appreciate the many free databases on the site, though. Even if some are duplicated on Ancestry, there are films available that have currently unindexed records to review page-by-page too, if you don’t mind putting in the time. Or books that haven’t been indexed, but can be searched on the site (like another Internet Archive). These have yielded results for me sometimes.
It would help to have a course one must take before adding anything to FamilySearch, so you know how to use the main features: that may cut down on errors. Maybe. But, as was mentioned elsewhere, any collaborative effort is bound to have some issues.