As was previously mentioned, Barney’s 1775 WILL listed 2 sons: John and Barnet.
For old man Barney I have designated him as BA1, his son John J1 and his son Barnet BA2. There are some researchers that refer to BA2 as James Barney, but I have found no such reference. Barnet or Barney seem to be most prevalent designations for the man I call BA2.
I find it hard to understand, but people often confuse these two, J1 and BA2. It is clear that BA1 had two sons named John and Barnet per his WILL. There is clear evidence that BA2 ended up in Madison County, KY where he lived before 1800 to his death in 1821. It is not known where he was buried, but it was presumed to be somewhere in Madison County.
Son John J1, was mentioned a few times in North Carolina records. The following table summarizes the possible events found:
Event 1 is the first and is very important because it shows him living near “Barney’s place”. What is not clear about this event is why he was apparently selling what may have been a significant part of his household goods, possibly including his land.
Events 2, 3, and 4, assuming this is J1 and not BA1, indicate that he may still have been in the area of Rowan County as was his father.
Event 5 finds a John Stagner signing a petition to establish a courthouse in Guilford County that was formed from Rowan County in 1770-71. Does this mean that J1 could have been living in Guilford County at the time? Perhaps, but no land records have been identified yet for him in this location.
Event 6 has either J1 or BA1 involved in a lawsuit with John Thompson. Details of this lawsuit have not been found, but John Thompson was a neighbor of BA1.
Events 7 and 8 find J1 mentioned in the writing and probate of BA1’s WILL.
Event 9 indicates that in 1784 a John Stagner (J39) was trying to collect pay for sundries that he sold to the military for provisions likely used during the Revolutionary War. He was shown in the Salisbury District which included Rowan and surrounding counties. Importantly, listed next to John Stagner in this list was Nathan Dillon. This is important because a John Stagner and William Stagner carried a chain while surveying property for Nathan Dillon in Guilford County in 1789 (Event 10). So this seems to indicate that the John Stagner in Event 9 and the John Stagner in Event 10 may have been the same person and may indicate that he was in Guilford County from 1784 (maybe as early as 1773) to at least 1789. In fact, he may have been there as late as 1791 per another request for payment. This was the last mention of a John Stagner in this part of North Carolina. It cannot be proven, but it would appear, that the John Stagner in Events 5, 9 and 10 may have been J1. The fact that a William Stagner was also listed really supports this fact. The William Stagner in Event 10 was very likely W1, a presumed son of J1. This was the last and only time a William Stagner was mentioned at this time in North Carolina.
It should be pointed out that there is a possibility that the Event 10 for John (J46) could have been the son of J1, who appeared to have been John (J5) and not J1 himself.
Now this is where I think some researchers have gone wrong. From 1779 to 1800 a John Stogner or Stagner (J16) is found in Montgomery County, NC. His events are shown below and he appeared in the 1790 and 1800 Federal Censuses. Others believe that this was BA1‘s son J1, but I do not believe that to be true.
His timeline is shown in the figure below as J16 compared to J1. It can be see how they might be construed as the same person as they were born around the same time and if you take out the Guilford County events, the events would fall sequentially, suggesting they could be the same person. But if J1 is the same person that shows up as J3 in Warren County, KY in 1799, then it is not very likely they were the same person as they would have event overlaps in different parts of the county.
I strongly believe that J16 is the same John Stogner(J18) who left Mecklenburg County, VA in 1774 and turned up in Montgomery County, NC records 5 years later. He was referred to as Stogner in Virginia, primarily as Stagner in North Carolina. It can be seen below that the two timelines show a birth overlap and sequential events, supporting this theory.
Additional support for the Stogner vs Stagner name in Montgomery County, NC was that a George and Benjamin Stogner were also found there, although it might be possible to interpret the name as Stagner. I believe that Stogner is most correct because it fits with the Virginia Stogner disappearance and other Stogners who appeared later in North Carolina counties other than Rowan County. At this point these Stogners do not appear to have any connection to the Stagners that are the subject of this discussion.
As mentioned above, I also do not believe that J16 was the same person as J2+J3 because J16 was on the Montgomery County census in 1800, when J3 was on the tax list in Warren County, KY in 1800. It is not known what happened to J16 after 1800, but there was a J23 whose name is difficult to interpret (Kignar, could have been Stagner or Stognor) in the 1810 census of Rockingham County, NC. This J23 is of sufficient age to have been J16. It appears he may have been living with a younger family. There was no further mention of the name in Rockingham County that I found, so who this was cannot be decided. Stagners were not known to occupy Rockingham County, NC, nor were they known to occupy Montgomery County, NC.
The next time a John Stagner (J2)was found listed in records was in tax lists in 1798 in Sumner County, TN. Then across the state line into Warren County, KY where one was found in the tax list in 1799. This John was designated as J3. In the 1810 Warren County Census, there were two John Stagners listed. In tax lists they were shown as junior and senior, so the assumption could be made they were father and son. One was shown as greater than 45 years old and the other as 26-44 years old, which supports this. This son I designated John (J5) to distinguish him from his potential father (J3) and grandfather (BA1). J3 remained in Warren County until he finally disappeared from records in 1820. After which it is presumed that he died. He would have been 75-80 years old.
It can be seen in the timelines above how the events for J1, J2 and J3 fall in a sequential manner, which indicate they could be the same person. Also their birth ranges overlap indicating possible similar age. For this reason J1=J2=J3 is combined into one individual designated as J123.
Another early John Stagner (J34) was found in New York in 1761 in the NY Militia. The entry stated he was born in England in 1736. I cannot prove, but suspect that he may have been the J18 discussed above, because in 1757 a John Stogner Jr. was listed in a group of men from Brunswick County, VA who gave insufficient excuse or failed to appear at court regarding military service. This may have been the same person, but there is no proof, just a hypothesis. The fact that he stated he was born in England may support that, along with my supposition that this Virginia family of Stagner or Stogners may have last originated from England. [It should be pointed out that Stagner and Stogners have been found in 1700s English records, but no attempt has been made to seriously evaluate these people.]
There was one other John Stagner (J33) and William (W11) Stagner who appeared in the military in Camden, SC in 1781. Camden is not that far from Rowan or Guilford Counties, but it is my belief that these are not the same John and William discussed above who were found in Guilford County, NC in 1789. I believe these two were related to Daniel Stagner (AA123)of South Carolina and had no direct relationship to BA1 or J1
In conclusion I have presented a summary of the men named John Stagner who were found in North Carolina and surrounding areas in the 1700s. There is still some work to do, but this summarized what I have researched.