Our Need for Further Clarification of the Passengers’ Lists

I have been thinking about our need for alternate lists of “probable” and “possible” Scottish POWs which may have come on the ships Unity or the John and Sara.

Because of the circumstances of our Scottish POWs’ entrance into the New World, there is often not a lot of information about their arrival, and some gave aliases or their names were so misspelled, and so on, so that many cannot find an actual record to tie them to a particular ship or even to the Scottish POWs with certainty. Rather, their descendants have circumstantial evidence, such as when and where they arrived, their earliest associations and places of residence and work, and even DNA to prove they are of Scottish descent, etc. I don’t think it is my place to tell the descendant that their ancestor WAS NOT a Scottish POW but I do think that I should not add their names to the previously compiled lists.

We should have alternate lists for those that feel very strongly that their ancestor belongs on our site. Time will tell if they have made the correct assumption.

I recently saw a page where three lists had been compiled for the passengers of the Mary and John in 1630. See: Great Migration Passengers of the Mary and John 1630.
Here are their THREE lists: the A, B and C lists. 
“A list- certain or highly probable passengers”
“B list: Probable passengers”
“C List: Possible passengers”

So, I think I am going to do something similar on our site. In order to not add to the confusion already associated with many of the POWs I am going to post the lists as they are transcribed from the primary and secondery records. I will then create a list of probable and possible POWs based on individual research of their descendants.

I hope this will satisfy everyone involved.

This entry was posted in John and Sarah, PRISONERS of WAR:, Scotland:, Unity and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Our Need for Further Clarification of the Passengers’ Lists

  1. Your suggestion makes sense to me. My ancestor, John Law, is in the yet to be proved category

  2. Way Yuen says:

    It’s true. i often wondered how sure we were about our own ancestor. There is alot of evidence but after all his name is JOHN which is rather common. maybe only to pages a on the list. and good case for.

  3. Eleanor Hall says:

    Three lists is a great idea! Thank you for doing this, Teresa.

  4. Elizabeth says:

    Wonderful idea! We don’t want to exclude anyone just because a source has yet to be located.

  5. DOROTHY N. McKenney(Makane ) Chapman says:

    My anscestor is John Makane on the ship John andSara. We. Follow him through the Saugus Iron works; much later in Scarborough Maine where he was involved in theFrench and Indian War.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *