Search for content in message boards

John langston/jesse

Replies: 12

Re: John langston/jesse

Posted: 20 Feb 2013 3:33PM GMT
Classification: Query
I am joining this message board late so please excuse any obe comments but I am interested in several comments that have been made in the past. I am trying to resolve some of the John Langston - Martha Patta Langston - and the resultant bleed over into the McVay and Thomas lines in the Pickens/Oconee Co SC area. i do wish these folks (wives and daughters included) had used a wider variety of names....but it is what it is.

My line goes down thru Hugh McVay III and Martha Patta Langston to their daughter Martha Patsy McVay and her second husband Isaac Thomas and their son Lemuel Thomas.

DAR no longer accepts John Langston b 1710- d 1790 as a patriot. As of 2008 update.  The previously accepted service for John Langston is no longer considered valid.  The DAR believes it is unreasonable to expect a 70+ year old man to serve as a private in the militia.  In addition, the DAR has also found the name John Langston on the Whig Militia Commander’s Enemy List.  John Langston was ordered in March 1783 to present himself to the county authorities and defend himself against charges of being a Tory. Although this does not affect the membership standing of any who have already joined on him, the DAR will need future applicants to provide a photocopy of the conclusive evidence that establishes John Langston’s service during the Revolution.

Does anyone on this list have any information about this that either proves or disproves the DAR's argument?

The following may also be relevant: “Loyalists in the Southern Campaign of the Revolutionary War: Official Roles of Loyalists Recruited from North & South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mis”, Murtie June Clark, Genealogical Publishing Com, 1981
This volume is the first in a three-volume work that contains a vast amount of previously undiscovered data pertaining to the identification of Loyalist soldiers and their dependents. In the preparation of this work the author surveyed the manuscript holdings of various archives, libraries, and private collections, ultimately producing this definitive collection of official rolls which document the service of approximately 15,000 Loyalists. The information available on each person varies according to the nature of the record, of course, but generally (in the case of soldiers), men are listed by rank, with dates of service (enlistment, discharge, etc.), place of service, company and regiment, and remarks pertaining to their status--on active duty, missing, deserted, killed, died, or sick. Volume I, as indicated in the subtitle of the work, pertains mainly to Loyalists recruited in the South for duty in the South (exclusive of Maryland and Virginia Loyalists, who are dealt with in Volume II, as are the Pennsylvania Loyalists who were merged with the Maryland Loyalists toward the end of the war).
Vol 1 contains, pg 13 - in the Muster List of Captain George Dawkins' Company, SC Royalists, Camden, SC, 24 Apr 1781, 61 Days, 25 Apr - 24 Jun 1781, Nr 15 - Private, Langston, John; pg 14 - same Captain 25 Oct 1781 - 24 Dec 1781, line 14, Langstone, John.


If anyone has any proof that this latter ref is incorrect or a different John Langston - I would sure like to see the documentation refuting the DAR rationale.

I think I remember seeing in one of the messages that someone had proof that both John (father) and John (son) served in the War. If there are documents that support this I would also like to see them. I really want to try and disprove DAR's position on this but need real documents to support any argument

Thanks for any help (and I hope I got this all right!!)
SubjectAuthorDate Posted
wartellpt 30 May 2013 2:31AM GMT 
Terry Langston 29 Nov 2001 3:00AM GMT 
wartellpt 20 Feb 2013 10:33PM GMT 
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | Privacy | Terms and Conditions