11.07.2015 Views

Mohawk – Wyandot Ancestry of Lt. John Young's ... - Davidkfaux.org

Mohawk – Wyandot Ancestry of Lt. John Young's ... - Davidkfaux.org

Mohawk – Wyandot Ancestry of Lt. John Young's ... - Davidkfaux.org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Sir William <strong>John</strong>son?:There is another persuasive interpretation worthy <strong>of</strong> consideration. We might accept thatCatharine, daughter <strong>of</strong> Nicholas Brant and Margaret Hill, was baptized 3 June 1747 at theSchenectady Reformed Dutch Church. Perhaps Margaret Hill was already pregnant whenshe married Brant (in the <strong>Mohawk</strong> fashion, not in the Church) or may have already givenbirth to Catharine sometime earlier, the paternal side is in question and there is noindependent evidence <strong>of</strong> Catharine’s father (Nicholas may have been a step-father). Thissituation is parallel to what the present author has encountered with a Scottish ancestor,and here the decision was to only focus on the maternal side due to biological realities.There are multiple sources <strong>of</strong> evidence pointing to Margaret Hill as being the birthmother <strong>of</strong> Catharine. The genetics findings (see above) leave open the possibility that thefather <strong>of</strong> Catharine was a white man (not uncommon among <strong>Mohawk</strong>s at this time).Considering the documented behaviour <strong>of</strong> one Sir William <strong>John</strong>son among the <strong>Mohawk</strong>women at this time, he must be considered as a prime candidate. One respected author(Wallace, 1945) estimated the number <strong>of</strong> illegitimate children <strong>of</strong> William <strong>John</strong>son at 100!Others have questioned this figure (Jennings, 2000). However there is no knowngenealogical evidence to <strong>of</strong>fer solid leads as to a paternal candidate. A <strong>John</strong> Youngdescendant who matches an autosomal DNA segment with someone in this <strong>John</strong>sonfamily would “seal the deal”. A reading <strong>of</strong> the references to Aaron Hill Oseraghete in the<strong>John</strong>son Papers shows a strong connection between Aaron and Sir William <strong>John</strong>son,despite the fact that Aaron was <strong>of</strong>ten a thorn in his side. This dynamic is certainlyconsistent with <strong>John</strong>son being a paramour to one <strong>of</strong> Aaron’s daughters as was the casewith the Brant family and one or two <strong>of</strong> Brant Kanagaradunckwa’s daughters (sisters toNicholas Brant).It is perhaps noteworthy that 14 September 1765 (about the time <strong>John</strong> and Catharine werelikely married), there is the following reference in the Accounts <strong>of</strong> <strong>John</strong> Butler charged toSir William <strong>John</strong>son (JP, Vol. 13, p. 511):To 1 gallon <strong>of</strong> Rum & a Cagg to Cattreen the SquaTo 2 shillings Cash to Johannes <strong>of</strong> ConajoharyThis amount <strong>of</strong> alcohol was typical <strong>of</strong> that expended at a wedding, and it is difficult tosee this as anything other than a very unusual gift by Sir William to a <strong>Mohawk</strong> woman.The next entry suggests that Catreen was residing at Canajohary.The fact that three <strong>of</strong> the four children <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lt</strong>. <strong>John</strong> Young and Catharine named one <strong>of</strong>their children William is perhaps a coincidence, but worthy <strong>of</strong> note.Going back to the information showing <strong>John</strong> Young’s two uncles residing on whatappears to be Hill property during the Revolution, the connection between the Young andHill family could relate to someone other than Margaret Hill Kayadontyi – although itwould be difficult to oust the latter from the candidate list.52

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!