is this perhaps near kin of John Porter of the famous George Fox letter to Quaker friends

+7 votes
612 views
I am hoping that some with expertise or access to Quaker sources might be able to better confirm whether this might be near kin of John Porter of the Fox letter. I am unfamiliar with the Society of Friends meetings, if any, that were in the Sampson County, North Carolina (NC) region and whether it would have been mentioned when the family removed to NC.

I am wondering if this John Porter's, Elizabeth Denson, might not be related to the William Denson who is also addressed in George Fox's letter? If so, we might generate leads related to the Denson line, as it seems odd that such a tight knit group of names would end up with John Porter being of unknown origins.

Lastly, other than the category, are other Quaker-related (sticker?) designations warranted to this profile?
WikiTree profile: John Porter
in Genealogy Help by Porter Fann G2G6 Mach 9 (97.1k points)
retagged by Porter Fann

The below entry in the encyclopedia appears to reference John Porter and Betty Denson's marriage, but I am unfamiliar with "ltm" (licensed to marry?) and whether the cryptic numbering system reveals the dates.

. . . PORTER 1743, 10,

POWELL 1739, 3,

1. John ltm Betty Denson

3. Jacob ltm Sarah Bullock . . .

Hinshaw, William Wade. Encyclopedia of American Quaker genealogy. Vol 6. Pagan Creek Monthly Meeting. 1936, p. 46. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Edwards Brothers, Inc.

This John Porter profile is an unlikely match for this John's father, but it does have a comment left by one user who mentions the text The Naked Quaker, which dedicates a chapter that apparently applies to Porter-401; yet, no mention of that John being a Quaker is made...

I remain surprised that the John Porter mentioned in George Fox's 1672 letter doesn't seem to be on WikiTree, unless I have overlooked it.

Dates in this version of Hinshaw:

1746, 8, 16

Year 1746, 8th month (old calendar, October--generally speaking applies 1751 and earlier but depends on location), 16th day of month.

Some people go to extraordinary lengths to convert the dates to the current calendar including accounting for leap years but it's so much more simple (for me, at least) to just notate "o.s." for old style or "o.c" for old calendar.
Thanks for that. Now on to the harder question ;)
I'll try to give it a go on the weekend. It's a great question.

Thanks so much.

Thanks to the Sampson County Historical Society (SCHS), I am looking over John Porter's (abt. 1720 - abt. 1796) will. I wish that we could find strong evidence that he moved from VA to NC (I found some mention of Quakers making that migration in the Encyclopedia, but nothing directly about our John). Sadly, his wife predeceased him, and the SCHS folks do not actually mention any proof of Elizabeth (that's all they mention in a report: Royal-Butler-Porter-Cooper Connections by Wayne Atkinson: Elizabeth) "Betty" Denson being his wife. So we weakly have that match on her forename (absent the references made to her as Betty in the Chuckatuck record) and the timeline, from the SCHS perspective.

I probably won't do anymore updates to John's profile until I get thru with the Atkinson report and some other land records that SCHS has. The land records could determine that a different John Porter is in play if transactions in NC predate, for example, the proven marriage date of Betty and her John. I have hopes that what's present here on WikiTree is going to stand up to whatever tests of confirmation can be devised, but more evidence is always better.

From the greater perspective, Betty's profile goes back several generations, so it is important to see if we can confirm a) her John's ancestry, and b) to a certainty that the John Porter who died in Sampson is the John who was her husband. *** On that note, however, I will mention that some of the children attributed to this pair do show up in the Atkinson report and John's will. *** Some small evidence that produces hope.

I'll look at some of the various Chuckatuck transcriptions. There are at least three (Hinshaw and at least 2 others) and they are not the same...I've never quite understood...perhaps three different parts of one record that were separated over time. Suffolk City would likely be incorrect but that is how Ancestry has everything indexed so that is what people enter on things. Might be able to find the preparatory meeting which would give a good idea of where they actually lived...quite a few prep meetings covering a vast amount of territory. Generally I've been able to trace family from Chuckatuck into Perquimans, Pasquotank, etc. Some of the smaller NC and Albemarle monthly meetings don't seem to be well indexed in search engines (Core Sound would be one example even though it is in Vol 1 of Hinshaw) so I've just had to browse through things sometimes.
Tenth Month would be December.  The Quaker year started in March as 1st month. With March beginning the year, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th would then follow their latin name placement, Sept Oct Nov Dec in the proper order.  

I've noticed ancestry indices give fifth month as the record month of the meeting, but then say its May.  Its not, its July.

The Quakers were very adversed to the Pagan named Months.

https://www.swarthmore.edu/friends-historical-library/quaker-calendar

Also, Virginia outlawed Quakers from practicing for a while and they moved to to all points out of the VA area. MD, DE, NC.  I'm not sure when they went into TN. But I know in the 1800s they were making Quaker settlements in Ohio and IN.

Finally getting to the land data on John, which has brought up some interesting tidbits of how he got to NC (which appears from the below to have been the same year he apparently died, via either Albemarle or Chowan). This is the first set of records; one more to follow.

1) I don't know what ss. means?

2) I have to check my understanding, but it seems that the John Porter Jr is the son of John Porter "Sr," and John Porter Sr's wife is not mentioned.

I am having the below transcription checked, from which I removed abbreviations and added some punctuation.

3) from original p. 135:  Albemarle ss. John Porter, 900 acres, 8 Mar 1693.
- Persons John Porter Senior, John Porter (junior), Mary his wife
- John Edmund, Sarah, his Children, and 12 Negros (sic).
- Survey for Mr John Porter Junior, 470 acres, 30 Jan 1695/6
- Survey for Mr John Porter junior, 298 acres, 30 Jan 1695/6

from the reverse of the original p. 135: Albemarle ss. Mr John Porter, 298 acres, Chowan Precinct, 17 Feb 1696.

- For the transportation of John Porter Senior, John Porter junior, Mary his wife, John Edmund, and Sarah, his Children.

Citation: Trimble, Susan M preparer for The Colonial Records of North Carolina Special Series; Whitley, Caroline B compiler, Cain Robert J, ed. North Carolina Headrights: A List of Names, 1663-1744. 2001, p. 179. Raleigh: Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.

On the latter point about John Porter Senior being transported (into Albermarle? or into Chowan? via either? or awarded acreage was in one or the other?), might this be his first move to NC, which would explain why his wife isn't mentioned. Also, it is interesting that John Jr got the headright, but from the will of John Sr, he mentioned having moved to live with Samuel Porter of Sampson County.

You'll find more here. I'm just scanning at present but records have John Porter Jr in Perquimans court records starting 1693.

https://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/

From Black's Law Dictionary

What is SS?

An abbreviation used in that part of a record, pleading, or affidavit, called the “statement of the venue.” Commonly translated or read, “to-wit,” and supposed to be a contraction of “scilicet.” Also in ecclesiastical documents, particularly records of early councils, “ss” is used as an abbreviation for subseripsi. Occasionally, in Law French, it stands for sans, “without,” e. ff., “faire feoffment ss son baron.” Bend- loe, p. ISO.

ooops

4 Answers

+5 votes

There may be some useful research material found at the Quakers in Virginia free space.  Feel free to add more research material as it is located.  Good Luck!

by David Wilson G2G6 Pilot (123k points)
The one volume of the Hinshaw encyclopedia was where I was able to replicate the information on a more senior John Porter.

I will double-check, but I think that is all that was on the space page.
+4 votes

A couple of things remain unresolved from the will and analysis of some records in the Atkinson Sampson County Historical Society report or article.

Residence, in dispute(?):

~"John Porter was living in Duplin County, NC prior to 1758. . . He and Jeremiah Bullard sold 80 acres to John Baker on 12 Jul 1758 in Duplin, and he also sold 50 acres to Piercybell Clay in 1766, Duplin... The 1790 census shows John Porter in Sampson County (which had been created out of Duplin Co.)." ~some paraphrasing and quotations from the Atkinson report.

Problem: John Porter was present in Virginia after 1758: "US, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy, Vol I–VI, 1607-1943: John Porter, Residence: 25 Apr 1767 Nansemond." Trouble is, I have not been able to replicate this citation, and the linkage from Ancestry is no longer available. Nevertheless, even if he were present in 1767, he could have moved to NC and subsequently made a brief return to VA despite having moved. "Residence" could mean different things, and without a source for context, we don't know if this might support the existence of two different John Porter's of about the same age.

Problem(?) with the will:

The following language from a transcription of the will may (or may not) be inconsistent with John being Quaker. I do not know if it would be unusual for him to make the references or have such a will, as a Quaker (or a former Quaker?):

"State of North Carolina, Sampson County. In the name of God Amen, I John Porter of the County aforesaid, being weak and sickly of body but of sound mind and manner do in the first place commit my soul to God who gave it and my body to the Earth to be buried in a Christian like manner at the discretion of my Executors, their to ly while the morning of the presumption and as for what Little Estate it hat bin please God bestow upon me, I do give and bequeath in the manner following to wit--.

[Emphasis added, above. All of his living children are next enumerated. Analysis of sourcing of those who already have profiles might strengthen the case for John Porter's profile as it presently stands. Note also that an index record (North Carolina, Wills and Probate Records, 1665-1998: John Porter, Death: Abt 1796 North Carolina, USA Ancestry Record 9061 #2228010) was all that was present to document John's end of life on his profile. I have removed all annotations from the transcription that Atkinson apparently had made. The mostly pertained to apparent misspellings or clarifications on Elizabeth J Butler, Mary Autry, and graddaughter Sophia Porter.]

  • I give to my son Absalom Porter one shilling.
  • I give to my son William Porter one shilling.
  • I give to my daughter Elizabeth Butler one shilling.
  • I give to my daughter Mary Awtry one shilling.
  • I give to my daughter, Jemima Coore, one shilling.
  • I give to my daughter, Delilah Hair, one shilling.
  • I give to my grandson, John Porter, one shilling.
  • I give to my grandson, Samuel Porter, one feather bed and furniture.
  • I give to my granddaughter, Suffian Porter, one cow and calf.
  • I give to my son, Samuel Porter, five head of cattle and one feather bed and furniture and all my other household furniture, in doors and out, which I brought there when I come to live with him.
  • I give to my daughter Ann Hinson one shilling.
  • And do appoint my friend John Holley and Jacob Lockerman Executors of this my last will and testament in witness of, I have sit my hand this 27 of Jun 1796.
  • Witness: Mark Porter, John Holley, Jacob Lockerman (his mark)
  • John Porter (his mark)

So we can reasonably conclude that John or his will-maker had a notable degree of illiteracy, which is not necessarily indicative of anything significant. I have not seen many (none actually come to mind for comaprison) Quaker wills, so I do not know if any of the form or material (especially related to peri-religious statements within the will, for example) are either indicators or else clearly improbable statements of a Quaker's, as well as taking into consideration whether the relationship to leaving money, etc. might either rule in or rule out such an approach to an end of life statement as being consistent with this John being Quaker.

That being said, the wife to whom he's attached is certainly a Quaker, and unless this John is attached to the wrong Elizabeth, that history is affirmed by the marriage record in Quaker meeting minutes. Both Elizabeth's father and mother (from her parents - Alice Hollowell's sources are weak) have strong Quaker documentation.

Note that one other WikiTree user warranted inclusion of John's and Elizabeth's daughter Jemima (Porter) Coor, for whom we now have some will evidence, and I had previously cobbled together some sources for son Samuel Porter to be added. For both of those profiles, I can add the will data.

Next, I will focus on also adding to John's profile the land sources, despite the fact that we have the one bit of intrigue on a temporary(?) return to VA, and adding the will.

Any analysis on the problems outlined (residence and will consistent or inconsistent with being a Quaker) would be greatly appreciated.

The journey to a more complete and accurate tree happens one profile at a time. In this case, some ancestors of a branch of this line will be amazed if we can completely verify Elizabeth Denson as the correct spouse of the John Porter who died in Sampson county. Past researchers have deemed John Porter (of the above will) to only have an unknown Elizabeth as his wife. (The Atkinson report was curated by the Sampson County Historical Society; heretofore, no 100% certain indication of a Quaker connection, either, had come to my attention: this John Porter and Elizabeth Betty Denson are pivotal.) 

If we establish John Porter's ancestors, too? That would be amazing!

by Porter Fann G2G6 Mach 9 (97.1k points)
The underlined text in the will is common use language for the period. Wills of Quakers vary greatly depending on the geographic area, local custom, and in some cases legal requirement (though I don't believe those were as fixed as we understand them to be in later periods). In this period we still don't have codified spelling. I wouldn't take the will as indicative of being or not being Quaker or active vs inactive in the Society.
+4 votes
Review of Extant Chuckatuck (Nansemond) Meeting Minutes relative to entries for John Porter. Typescript and microfilm, Haverford College Collection (available at Ancestry with subscription but hard to find). Haverford call numbers: 1116/183 and 1116/HW-43.

Summary: John Porter appears very infrequently. There is record of only one other Porter, an Eliz Porter who is witness to a marriage record on which John does not appear. There are no marriage records for any Porter nor are their any birth or death records for a Porter. The sporadic nature of John's name coupled with the generally sporadic nature of the names for which he appears as a witness suggests that he lived rather remotely. He and Eliz (assuming she is a wife or otherwise related) do not appear together -- someone is home tending fields and children. It should be noted the Chuckatuck records are incomplete.

All dates o.s.:

1672 Fox's Letter in which he is named

9 of 4th 1682 marriage witness Wm Sanders and Mary Hall

12 of 1st 1699 - the only appearance of Eliz Porter as marriage witness for Benj Small and Eliz Hollowell.

13 of 2nd 1699 marriage witness Thomas Newman and Mary Ratliff

3 of 2nd 1702 pledges funds toward south branch of Nansemond meeting house

14 of 7th 1704 signatory to a debt issue

13 of 4th 1706 marriage witness

9 of 8th 1707 marriage witness

11 2nd 1708 marriage witness for Wm Pope and Mary Hails
by T Stanton G2G6 Pilot (382k points)
This is fabulous.

If these results were delimited by the more senior John's possibly being married to an Elizabeth, I made the mistake of conflating the two John Porters.

The John Porter who died in Sampson County was married to an Elizabeth Betty Denson, apparently in VA. UNLESS that is a misidentification of him.

The more senior John, named along with a William Denson (who may or may not be related to Betty) has apparently not yet had a record emerge naming his spouse.

On FamilySearch, a child of John and Elizabeth / Betty is attributed with a VA birth, but it's not sourced.

In summary, we only have some slim threads that might link the two generations of John Porter together.

I'll give what you found some more study when I'm not on mobile.

THANKS
PS: Did you see the question about the Benjamin Small that comes up in related questions now?
Let's assume John Porter is 'of age' and perhaps 25 at the time he is named in George Fox's 1672 letter to Chuckatuck (one of several by Fox and his associates to this flock). That means by 1720 he would be 73 years of age. Let's say 68 to be generous. If he is related to John Porter born 1720 then he is the grandfather (perhaps even great grandfather), not the father. I think we're looking for at least two generations from Fox's John Porter to John Porter born 1720...if they are related (which I think is not an unreasonable theory given the locations).

There's a theory about Quaker naming conventions which can be read about here: https://erenow.net/common/fourbritishfolkwaysinamerica1989/85.php  It might provide some clues or ideas but I've not found this to be something followed in my numerous Quaker family lines.

Please don't bring up Benjamin Small or the multiple Elizabeth Hollowell's without sending mental Advil along with! That tied me in such knots I've just had to let it sit for a time after posting some g2g questions. Some of it got sorted out but other of it is still a mess.
I agree that the kinship is probably not father-son upon closer examination, and will update mentions as I am able, soon.

The reason I mentioned Benjamin was this incidental finding of yours:

12 of 1st 1699 - the only appearance of Eliz Porter as marriage witness for Benj Small and Eliz Hollowell.

Noting also that Hollowells were in Betty Denson's line. Have some Advil.
+3 votes

I just reviewed the FindAGrave #63248390 for William Denson (1620-1676), who is shown by extension and by her profile as the great-grandfather of Betty Denson (John Porter's wife).

The fact that this William is mentioned in the same George Fox 1672 letter suggests that the John Porter of the present profile might have been the great-grandson of the John Porter who was named in the 1672 letter.

by Porter Fann G2G6 Mach 9 (97.1k points)
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Denson-40

Do you need any lookups in Chuckatuck MM minutes on the Denson line?
The research appears solid but I'd verify the sources since both F-a-G and WT are basically the same and the sources are Ancestry links. Would be better citing the actual documentation.
I hadn't really examined the narrative or sources, until now. I made a first-pass clean up, and noted in the process that material copied and pasted from elsewhere made up the bulk of the profile. A few Ancestry-based "sources" are now cleaner than they were.

Some of the material that was copied into the profile appears to be from monthly meetings. It's going to take some more patience to de-duplicate and sort out what's actually contributory. I will have to revisit, but am anxious to do so, as I know that sometimes adjacent data on allied families can and does emerge when reviewing sources. Thanks for bring that profile to my attention.

I was surprised that the will had been copied into the profile, for example; whereas, it's not really leveraged in terms of discussing what it proved.

Again: much of what was just daisy-chained in the narrative is now in research notes, a good deal of which needs weeding out (is it reasonable to just "delete*" blocks of material that is copied from elsewhere and summarize instead, where possible? some of what I saw was hard to make out who was writing it, but one or two - or duplicates in a section or so - looked like it was comprised of notes from monthly meetings - which makes for a problem in the approach to summarizing). *knowing that deleting moves it to the changes tab, so perhaps if I identifying what looks like it fit together, and just delete systematically those overblown research notes, if a PM wishes, they can restore them?

My end game with the leftover material would be to reproduce with source citations the monthly meeting material if it is actually able to be replicated.
You might think about a free space page attached to the profile where the will could be and perhaps other reference material that's not integral to the profile but of interest to some.

Related questions

+7 votes
2 answers
195 views asked Sep 6, 2018 in The Tree House by Living Prickett G2G6 Mach 9 (96.9k points)
+5 votes
3 answers
+5 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...