In This Article
His Story
In the summer of 1776, while the American colonies were declaring their independence from Great Britain, a gunsmith named John Yost was working in Georgetown, Maryland, preparing firearms for the revolutionary government.
His workshop stood within a growing commercial community along the Potomac River, where merchants, craftsmen, and manufacturers supplied the surrounding region. Georgetown had not yet become part of the nation’s capital. During the Revolution, it belonged to Maryland and participated in the colony’s efforts to equip its military forces.
On July 7, 1776, only three days after the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, Maryland’s Council of Safety recorded an agreement with John Yost for the manufacture of 300 muskets and 100 rifles. The contract amounted to £1,750 in Maryland currency, a substantial undertaking that required skilled labor, specialized equipment, and dependable supplies of metal and firearms components.
The surviving government correspondence reveals that Yost was more than an individual craftsman making one firearm at a time. His workshop employed multiple workers, repaired weapons belonging to the militia, and developed equipment for boring gun barrels. He also attempted to coordinate production with another Maryland manufactory that could supply unfinished gun locks.
These activities placed Yost within the developing American arms industry at a moment when the revolutionary governments were struggling to provide weapons for their soldiers. Every firearm produced or repaired by a domestic workshop reduced, at least in principle, the colonies’ dependence upon imported arms.
John’s family history reaches back to German immigration during the early eighteenth century. Family genealogical research identifies his father as Hans Casper Yost, who reportedly arrived at Philadelphia aboard the ship Samuel on August 17, 1733. The family subsequently became associated with Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, before establishing connections in Georgetown.
John’s brother Henry Yost also appears in historical accounts of Maryland firearms manufacturing. The presence of two brothers in the trade suggests a family closely connected with skilled mechanical work, although the available records do not establish how either man learned gunsmithing.
John’s personal military service is less certain. Later family history attributes service under George Washington and participation in the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. However, the claim presents substantial historical difficulties. The fighting was conducted primarily by local Massachusetts militia, hundreds of miles from John’s known associations in Maryland. Washington had not yet been appointed commander in chief, and no contemporary evidence places Yost in Massachusetts during the engagements. His alleged participation is therefore historically improbable rather than merely undocumented.
The family legend may preserve a genuine memory of Revolutionary War involvement that became associated with the conflict’s opening battles in later generations. John’s documented contribution, however, was the manufacture and repair of arms for Maryland’s revolutionary government, an important form of wartime service in its own right.
His later life presents another historical problem. One account associates John Yost with a death in Alexandria, Virginia, in 1806. A separate family history places his death in Tazewell County, Virginia, in 1826, reflecting a tradition of Yost family settlement in southwestern Virginia. Whether these records concern the same gunsmith or different men named John Yost remains unresolved.
What can be established is that John Yost was an active firearms manufacturer during one of the most demanding periods of the American Revolution. His government contracts and surviving correspondence preserve the experience of a civilian craftsman whose labor supported the military struggle for independence.
Early Life
The Yost Family’s German Origins
John Yost’s ancestry has been traced by family historians to German-speaking Europe. The family name appears in historical materials under several forms, including Yost and Jost, reflecting the spelling variations common among German immigrants and English-speaking record keepers.
Genealogical research identifies John’s father as Hans Casper Yost, reportedly born in 1712 in a location described as Meintz, Franconia, Germany. His proposed parents were Christian Jost, whose dates are given as 1687–1728, and Barbara Bowarn, whose dates are given as 1687–1727.
These ancestral identifications are preserved in the WikiTree profile for Hans Casper Yost and in related family research. The original European baptismal and family records have not yet been independently examined for this biography.
Arrival in Pennsylvania, 1733
According to the family research and WikiTree’s Palatine Migration Project, Hans Casper Yost arrived in Philadelphia aboard the ship Samuel on August 17, 1733, when he was approximately twenty-one years old.
The account states that he signed the required immigration oath using an O-shaped mark. This detail is attributed to the passenger and oath records associated with the voyage.
The date is important because it places the family’s reported arrival in Pennsylvania more than a decade before John’s commonly cited birth year of 1743. Earlier references suggesting immigration during the 1740s are inconsistent with the 1733 arrival tradition.
The Redemptioner Tradition
Family historian Alfred C. Yost described Hans Casper as a redemptioner, an immigrant who paid for passage through an agreement to work for another person after reaching America.
The family account identifies William Moerschel, also rendered Marshall, of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, as the man for whom Casper reportedly worked for two years.
Such arrangements were common among German immigrants to colonial Pennsylvania. They provided a means of reaching America for individuals who could not pay the full cost of transatlantic passage before departure.
Although the account is plausible within the historical circumstances of Pennsylvania immigration, the original indenture or redemptioner agreement has not been examined. The identity of the employer and the length of service therefore remain claims preserved by family research.
Marriage and Family in Lancaster County
According to family tradition, Casper married Eleanor Catherine Moerschel, identified as the daughter of William Moerschel, after completing his period of service. WikiTree reports a marriage in Lancaster County in 1736.
The identification requires further examination because the supplied transcription of Casper’s 1777 will names his wife as Helena Cathrina. The difference may involve alternate forms of a personal name, an additional marriage, or an error in transcription. No conclusion can yet be drawn from the available evidence.
WikiTree also includes a reported connection to Verena Glatt as a possible spouse, introducing another genealogical question that should not be silently merged with the documented family tradition.
John Yost’s Reported Birth
Alfred C. Yost’s family history places John’s birth in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in 1743. If this date is correct, John was approximately thirty-three years old when Maryland contracted with him to manufacture firearms in July 1776.
An alternative estimate of approximately 1735 or 1736 is associated with the age attributed to a John Yost who died in Alexandria in 1806. That would make the gunsmith approximately forty years old at the time of the government contract, assuming the Alexandria identification is correct.
The birth estimates cannot presently be reconciled because no original baptismal or birth record has been established and the Alexandria burial identification remains uncertain.
The Family’s Move to Georgetown
Family research places Hans Casper Yost in Lancaster County during the middle decades of the eighteenth century. It associates him with a forty-acre farm in 1742 and describes him as a tanner in Lancaster Borough by 1765.
The family subsequently established connections in Georgetown, Maryland. A reported property transaction dated August 16, 1771, identifies Casper with lot number 88, a property also mentioned in the transcription of his 1777 will.
Georgetown was a commercially active settlement on the Potomac River, making it a practical location for tradesmen who depended upon regional commerce and access to materials.
John’s apprenticeship and early training remain undocumented. Although his brother Henry also worked in firearms manufacturing, there is no surviving evidence in the reviewed materials proving that their father taught them the trade or operated a family gunsmithing shop.
Revolutionary War Service
Maryland’s Wartime Arms Industry
When the Revolutionary War began in 1775, the American colonies faced a serious shortage of military equipment. Colonial militias possessed firearms of different designs and conditions, while the developing Continental Army required a more dependable supply of muskets, rifles, ammunition, and related equipment.
Maryland’s revolutionary government responded by contracting with private manufacturers and directing the repair of weapons already in circulation. The Council of Safety became an important administrative body responsible for coordinating military preparations and procurement.
John Yost’s surviving correspondence places him within this manufacturing system. His workshop was expected to produce new firearms while also addressing the immediate needs of militia units whose weapons required repairs.
The July 7, 1776 Firearms Contract
On July 7, 1776, Maryland’s Council of Safety recorded an agreement with John Yost for the manufacture of 300 muskets and 100 rifles.
The muskets were priced at £4 5s each, while the rifles were priced at £4 15s each. The total contract value was £1,750 in Maryland currency, and the Council authorized an advance of £150.
The distinction between muskets and rifles is significant. Smoothbore muskets were commonly employed by organized infantry because they could be loaded relatively quickly and fitted with bayonets. Rifles offered different advantages, particularly in accuracy, but their production required additional specialized work.
The contract demonstrates that Yost was expected to manufacture both types of weapons. It does not establish that all 400 firearms were completed or delivered. A contract records the government’s order and the manufacturer’s obligation, not necessarily the final outcome of production.
The agreement is preserved in the Archives of Maryland, Volume 12, page 3.
The August 1, 1776 Letter
Less than a month after the July contract, Yost wrote from Georgetown concerning the progress of his manufacturing work.
In his letter dated August 1, 1776, he explained that firearms associated with an earlier agreement were ready except for bayonets that had not yet arrived. He also described how the repair of militia weapons had interrupted progress on the newer government order.
The letter illustrates a recurring difficulty in Revolutionary War manufacturing: a firearm might be nearly complete but remain undeliverable because one necessary component was missing.
It also shows the competing demands placed upon private craftsmen. Yost could not devote his entire workforce to new contracts when the militia required existing firearms to be repaired and returned to service.
The correspondence survives in the Archives of Maryland, Volume 12, page 159.
A Horse-Powered Barrel-Boring Mill
A letter dated September 13, 1776, reproduced in Alfred C. Yost’s family research, describes John Yost’s installation of a horse-powered mill for boring gun barrels.
Boring a barrel required a high degree of precision. The interior passage needed to be formed and finished so that the firearm could function safely and reliably. Mechanical power offered the possibility of increasing production beyond what could be accomplished through manual operations alone.
The letter also describes a workforce of nine men, with two additional workers expected to join the operation. This was a substantial undertaking for a local colonial workshop.
The installation of machinery and employment of multiple craftsmen suggest that Yost was organizing production on a scale appropriate to government contracts rather than working exclusively as an individual artisan.
The exact archival page containing the September correspondence remains to be independently confirmed. Its details are presently attributed to the family historian’s transcription.
The Fredericktown Gun Locks
Yost also sought permission to purchase 300 unfinished gun locks from the Fredericktown manufactory.
According to the surviving account, the Fredericktown operation was producing forged locks more rapidly than its workers could finish them. Yost proposed acquiring the unfinished components and completing the work in his Georgetown shop.
The request demonstrates how firearms manufacturing could be distributed among separate establishments. One workshop might forge a component while another performed the finishing and assembly.
Such arrangements were particularly useful during wartime, when the demand for weapons exceeded the capacity of individual craftsmen and shortages could interrupt otherwise productive workshops.
The available material establishes the request but does not conclusively document the delivery or completion of all 300 locks.
Additional Maryland Payments and Orders
Alfred C. Yost’s historical compilation reproduces additional references to John Yost in the proceedings of Maryland’s revolutionary government.
These include a reported £50 payment in August 1776 relating to an earlier contract, a delivery order in September 1776, and a further advance of £200 in March 1777.
These references suggest that the relationship between Yost and Maryland’s authorities continued beyond the July 1776 agreement.
However, the original entries should be examined individually before attempting to calculate the total amount paid to Yost or the number of firearms ultimately accepted by the government.
The Reported Rifle Purchased by George Washington
Later historical research associates John Yost with a rifle reportedly purchased by George Washington on March 5, 1770, for £6 10s in Maryland currency.
If confirmed in Washington’s original financial records, the transaction would demonstrate that Yost was engaged in the firearms trade before the Revolution and that his work reached a prominent Virginia customer.
The original ledger entry has not yet been independently verified for this biography. The reported purchase is therefore retained as a historical research lead rather than a conclusively established transaction.
Even if the purchase is authenticated, it would not establish that Washington carried the rifle in battle or that it was one of the weapons manufactured under Yost’s later Maryland contract.
Battles and Campaigns
Lexington and Concord — A Questionable Family Tradition
April 19, 1775 — Massachusetts
One of the more intriguing claims preserved in the Yost family history is that John Yost participated in the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the opening engagements of the American Revolutionary War. Alfred C. Yost’s genealogical account associates John with these events and with military service under George Washington. However, the historical circumstances surrounding the battles raise substantial questions about this tradition.
The fighting on April 19, 1775, was fundamentally a local Massachusetts uprising. British regulars marched from Boston toward Concord to seize colonial military supplies, encountering militia from Lexington and neighboring communities. As the British withdrew, additional Massachusetts militia companies assembled along their route. The engagements occurred before the Continental Army had been formally organized and before George Washington had been appointed commander in chief.
John Yost, meanwhile, was associated with Georgetown, Maryland, several hundred miles to the south. No contemporary evidence examined for this biography places him in Massachusetts during April 1775. Although a Maryland resident could theoretically have been traveling or temporarily living in New England, there is presently no documentation suggesting that Yost was among the militia who responded to the British expedition.
The family account’s association with George Washington introduces an additional chronological problem. Washington was not appointed commander in chief until June 15, 1775, nearly two months after Lexington and Concord, and did not assume command of the army outside Boston until July 3. Consequently, John Yost could not have fought at Lexington or Concord under Washington’s command.
The legend may reflect a later confusion between the opening battles of the Revolution and some other form of wartime service. It may also preserve a broader family memory of John’s participation in the struggle for independence, subsequently associated with its most famous opening engagements. Neither possibility can presently be demonstrated.
Given the geographic distance, the local character of the fighting, the absence of corroborating military records, and the chronological inconsistency involving Washington, John Yost’s alleged participation at Lexington and Concord must be regarded as historically improbable rather than established fact.
Participation classification: Family tradition; historically improbable and unsupported by contemporary documentation.
Maryland’s Revolutionary Mobilization
1775–1777 — Maryland
As the conflict expanded, Maryland’s revolutionary government organized military forces, purchased supplies, and sought to increase domestic production of weapons.
Private manufacturers such as John Yost became part of this mobilization. Their work supported the equipping of militia and other military forces even when the craftsmen themselves were not serving in the ranks.
Yost’s July 1776 contract, August correspondence, and reported later government transactions place him directly within Maryland’s wartime procurement system.
John Yost’s connection: Documented arms manufacturing and repair work for Maryland’s Council of Safety.
Participation classification: Confirmed civilian wartime contribution; military enlistment and battlefield participation not established.
Military Activity
July 7, 1776 — Council of Safety Contract
The Maryland Council of Safety proceedings record the government’s agreement with John Yost to manufacture 300 muskets and 100 rifles.
The contract prices were £4 5s for each musket and £4 15s for each rifle, producing a total value of £1,750. An advance of £150 was authorized.
Source: Archives of Maryland, Volume 12, page 3.
August 1, 1776 — Letter from Georgetown
Yost’s letter discusses firearms awaiting bayonets and explains how militia repair work interfered with progress on a government manufacturing contract.
The letter is especially important because it provides evidence of the manufacturer’s own explanation of production difficulties.
Source: Archives of Maryland, Volume 12, page 159.
September 13, 1776 — Manufacturing Correspondence
A letter reproduced in Alfred C. Yost’s family research describes the horse-powered barrel-boring mill, the workshop’s labor force, shortages of materials, and the proposed purchase of unfinished gun locks from Fredericktown.
Source status: Family historian’s transcription of correspondence attributed to Maryland government records. Exact original archival page remains to be independently confirmed.
June 1777 — Will of Hans Casper Yost
A typed transcription of the will of Casper Yost, dated June 23, 1777, identifies John among Casper’s sons and associates him with the administration of the estate.
The will also refers to Georgetown lot number 88 and a property bond dated June 20, 1777.
Source status: Genealogical transcription supplied for this research. The original probate manuscript has not yet been examined.
Revolutionary War Pension
No Revolutionary War pension application has been conclusively identified as belonging to John Yost, the Georgetown gunsmith.
His documented manufacturing contracts do not establish that he enlisted in the Continental Army or served in a military unit. Civilian arms production, although important to the revolutionary effort, was distinct from military service for purposes of veteran pension eligibility.
Later family history attributes military service to John, including the improbable Lexington and Concord tradition, but no verified pension declaration, discharge, or regimental record has yet been connected to him.
Research into men named John Yost or Jost in Revolutionary War military and pension records remains necessary, particularly because later genealogical accounts may have combined information about different individuals.
Original Testimony
The August 1776 Correspondence
John Yost’s August 1, 1776 letter provides direct testimony about his manufacturing activities in Georgetown.
He explained that firearms associated with an earlier agreement were awaiting bayonets and that repairing militia arms had delayed work on the government’s more recent order.
The letter demonstrates that the progress of wartime manufacturing depended not only upon the skill of the gunsmith but also upon the availability of components and the changing priorities of military authorities.
Source: John Yost correspondence, August 1, 1776, Archives of Maryland, Volume 12, page 159. Paraphrased.
The September 1776 Workshop Account
Yost’s September correspondence, as reproduced in family research, describes the installation of a horse-powered barrel-boring mill and the employment of nine workers, with two more expected.
The account also describes shortages of materials and the difficulty of obtaining the components needed to complete government contracts.
Source: Letter attributed to John Yost, September 13, 1776, reproduced in Alfred C. Yost’s family compilation. Paraphrased; original archival page requires confirmation.
The Fredericktown Lock Request
Yost’s request to purchase 300 unfinished gun locks from the Fredericktown manufactory illustrates his effort to obtain partially completed components that could be finished in Georgetown.
His proposal reflects the practical organization of wartime manufacturing, in which several shops might contribute to the production of a single firearm.
Source: Historical firearms references and correspondence reproduced in family research. The exact original transaction record remains to be independently verified.
Military Service Record
| Name | John Yost |
| Occupation | Gunsmith and firearms manufacturer |
| Wartime Residence | Georgetown, Maryland |
| Documented Role | Civilian arms contractor for Maryland |
| Government Authority | Maryland Council of Safety |
| Contract Date | July 7, 1776 |
| Muskets Ordered | 300 |
| Rifles Ordered | 100 |
| Contract Value | £1,750 Maryland currency |
| Initial Advance | £150 |
| Manufacturing Equipment | Horse-powered barrel-boring mill, reported September 1776 |
| Workforce | Nine workers, with two additional men expected, according to September correspondence |
| Other Work | Repair of militia firearms |
| Military Rank | Not independently verified |
| Regiment | Not established |
| Enlistment | No verified enlistment record identified |
| Battle Participation | Lexington and Concord family tradition historically improbable; no verified battlefield participation |
| Military Pension | None conclusively identified |
| Reported Birth | 1743; alternative estimate circa 1735–1736 |
| Reported Death | 1806 in Alexandria or 1826 in Tazewell County |
| Burial | Disputed Alexandria identification; not conclusively verified |
Later Life and Burial
Life After the Revolution
The years following John Yost’s documented Revolutionary War manufacturing work remain incompletely understood.
Alfred C. Yost’s family research describes a movement of members of the Yost family from Maryland into southwestern Virginia, where later generations became associated with farming, tanning, saddlery, and other skilled trades.
This account is significant because the Yost family maintained longstanding connections with the Tazewell County region. Nevertheless, the precise movements of the Georgetown gunsmith after the Revolution have not been independently reconstructed through deeds, tax lists, or probate records.
The 1806 Alexandria Death Account
One historical identification associates John Yost with a death in Alexandria, Virginia, in 1806.
Research connected with the Old Presbyterian Meeting House refers to the burial of a John Yost recorded by Reverend James Muir on March 8, 1806.
The location is geographically plausible for a man who had lived and worked in Georgetown. Alexandria and Georgetown were closely connected commercial communities along the Potomac River.
However, the burial reference must be connected to additional records before it can conclusively establish that the deceased John Yost was the gunsmith who supplied Maryland during the Revolution.
The age associated with this identification has also contributed to an alternative birth estimate of approximately 1735 or 1736, differing from the 1743 date preserved in family history.
The 1826 Tazewell County Death Account
Alfred C. Yost’s family history places John’s death in Tazewell County, Virginia, in 1826.
This account connects John to the broader movement of Yost family members into southwestern Virginia, where descendants reportedly remained for generations.
The tradition should not be dismissed simply because another source identifies an earlier death in Alexandria. The family historian’s work represents a sustained effort to reconstruct the genealogy, and the regional continuity provides a reasonable basis for further investigation.
Nevertheless, a family tradition of settlement does not independently establish that the Georgetown gunsmith died in Tazewell County. The relevant land, estate, tax, and burial records must be compared to determine whether the account concerns the same individual.
Evaluating the Conflicting Death Reports
The Alexandria account presently offers a more specific burial-related reference, including a date and an identified minister. That makes it a promising lead, although it does not by itself establish identity.
The Tazewell County account has the support of an established family-history tradition and the documented presence of later Yost generations in southwestern Virginia. Its weakness is the absence, in the materials presently examined, of an original death or probate record conclusively identifying the Georgetown gunsmith.
It remains possible that the two accounts concern different men named John Yost. It is also possible that a later genealogical reconstruction attached the death of one family member to another.
Present conclusion: The 1806 Alexandria identification appears somewhat stronger because of the specific burial reference, but the 1826 Tazewell County tradition remains a legitimate competing account. Neither has been conclusively established as the death of the Georgetown gunsmith.
Family History
Father: Hans Casper Yost
Family research identifies John Yost’s father as Hans Casper Yost, a German immigrant reportedly born in 1712 and arrived in Pennsylvania aboard the ship Samuel in August 1733.
Casper is associated with Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, before the family’s move to Georgetown, Maryland.
His reported occupations and property holdings suggest that he participated in the commercial and skilled-trade economy of colonial Pennsylvania and Maryland. The family history identifies him as a tanner rather than conclusively establishing him as a gunsmith.
The 1777 will attributed to Casper provides an important potential connection between the family historian’s genealogy and the Georgetown records because it identifies a son John and refers to property in Georgetown.
However, the original will should be examined before treating every genealogical identification as fully resolved.
Mother: Eleanor Catherine Moerschel
Alfred C. Yost’s family history and the WikiTree genealogy identify John’s mother as Eleanor Catherine Moerschel, reportedly the daughter of William Moerschel of Lancaster County.
The family tradition places her marriage to Hans Casper Yost in approximately 1736.
The transcription of Casper’s 1777 will, however, identifies his wife as Helena Cathrina. This difference remains unresolved.
It is possible that the names reflect different renderings of a German personal name, but that explanation cannot be assumed. A separate marriage or a transcription error must also remain under consideration.
The 1777 Will of Casper Yost
The will attributed to Casper Yost is dated June 23, 1777, and identifies him as a resident of Georgetown in Montgomery County, Maryland.
The supplied transcription refers to his wife Helena Cathrina, provides for her through money and household property, and names John Yost in connection with the execution of the estate.
The document also refers to a bond dated June 20, 1777, involving lot number 88 in the addition to Georgetown. This property reference may provide an important means of connecting the will to the family’s earlier land transactions.
The transcription names four sons: Casper, John, Henry, and Philip. It also names three daughters: Anna Elizabeth, Margaret Anna, and Susannah.
Although the transcription refers to eight children, only seven distinct children are legibly identified in the supplied text. No eighth child should be inferred without examining the original probate manuscript.
The family group also differs from the list displayed on WikiTree, which includes additional names and does not consistently match the will transcription. These discrepancies raise the possibility of incomplete transcription, differing naming conventions, or incorrectly combined family relationships.
The original probate record is therefore an important priority for further research.
Brother: Henry Yost
Henry Yost is identified in family history as John’s brother and is also associated with firearms manufacture during the American Revolution.
Historical accounts connect Henry with the production and repair of muskets, rifles, bullet molds, and related equipment in Maryland.
The participation of both brothers in firearms manufacturing is an important aspect of the family’s history. It suggests that skilled mechanical trades played a significant role in the family’s economic activities.
However, no surviving apprenticeship record examined for this biography establishes whether John and Henry trained together, worked in the same shop, or learned their trade from a particular family member.
John Yost’s Reported Wife: Rebecca
Alfred C. Yost’s family history identifies John’s wife as Rebecca Bonham, with the surname also appearing in the form Bonniham.
The family account places their marriage in Maryland around 1767 or 1768.
The original marriage record has not been independently examined, and the available evidence does not conclusively establish Rebecca’s maiden surname.
Because the later-life accounts for John Yost remain disputed, particular care is needed to avoid combining the spouse and children of different men with the same name.
Present classification: Rebecca is the wife identified by the family historian; Bonham and Bonniham remain reported surname variants rather than independently verified identifications.
Children Attributed to John and Rebecca Yost
Family research describes John and Rebecca as the parents of several children. The reported Georgetown household in 1776 included Katherine, John Jr., Mary, and Elizabeth.
Additional children attributed to the couple include William Henry, Susanna, Lucy, and Rebecca.
| Reported Child | Source Status |
|---|---|
| Katherine Yost | Attributed in family history |
| John Yost Jr. | Attributed in family history |
| Mary Yost | Attributed in family history |
| Elizabeth Yost | Attributed in family history |
| William Henry Yost | Attributed in family history |
| Susanna Yost | Attributed in family history |
| Lucy Yost | Attributed in family history |
| Rebecca Yost | Attributed in family history |
These names are preserved as part of the genealogical tradition. Individual parent-child relationships have not yet been independently established through original birth, marriage, probate, or land records.
The competing reports concerning John’s death in Alexandria and Tazewell County make verification especially important. An incorrect identification of the father could affect the entire reconstruction of the descendants.
The Yost Family in Southwestern Virginia
Later generations of the Yost family became established in southwestern Virginia, particularly in the region associated with Tazewell County.
This regional continuity is one reason the family-history account placing John’s death in Tazewell County in 1826 deserves continued examination.
Nevertheless, the presence of descendants in the region does not by itself establish that John, the Georgetown gunsmith, personally moved there or died there.
Determining the correct connection will require tracing documented relationships from the later Virginia families backward through wills, land transactions, marriage records, and other contemporary evidence.
An Invitation to Yost Family Researchers
Help Resolve the John Yost Family History
The Yost Post welcomes documented corrections and additional information concerning John Yost, the Georgetown gunsmith who manufactured firearms for Maryland during the American Revolution.
We are particularly interested in records establishing his birth date, identifying his wife, confirming his children, and determining whether he died in Alexandria in 1806 or Tazewell County in 1826.
We also welcome any contemporary military records that might clarify the family tradition of service at Lexington and Concord. At present, the known circumstances make that claim historically improbable, but new documentary evidence should be evaluated on its merits.
Original deeds, wills, estate inventories, church records, family Bible entries, cemetery records, military rolls, and historical correspondence may help resolve these questions.
Researchers are encouraged to provide the source and location of any records they share so that conflicting accounts can be evaluated fairly.
Original Sources
- Maryland Council of Safety, July 7, 1776. Archives of Maryland, Volume 12, page 3. Records the firearms contract with John Yost. View published government record.
- John Yost, letter dated August 1, 1776. Archives of Maryland, Volume 12, page 159. Describes manufacturing delays, bayonets, and militia repairs. View published correspondence.
- John Yost, correspondence dated September 13, 1776. Reproduced in Alfred C. Yost’s family research. Discusses barrel-boring machinery, employees, material shortages, and unfinished gun locks. Original archival page remains to be confirmed.
- Alfred C. Yost, Yost family historical research. Genealogical compilation preserving family traditions, biographical details, and transcriptions attributed to historical government records, including the reported Lexington and Concord service. Exact publication information should be confirmed against the supplied source.
- Hans Casper Yost, Last Will and Testament, June 23, 1777. Supplied typed genealogical transcription. Original probate manuscript not yet examined.
- Ralph Beaver Strassburger, edited by William John Hinke. Pennsylvania German Pioneers, 1934. Published passenger and immigration oath records relevant to the reported arrival of Hans Casper Yost.
- WikiTree, Hans Casper Yost. Genealogical profile maintained within the Palatine Migration Project. Includes reported birth, immigration, marriage, and family relationships. View profile.
- WikiTree, John Yost. Genealogical profile containing family-history information requiring comparison with original records. View profile.
- FamilySearch, John Yost. Collaborative genealogical profile. View profile.
- American Gun Makers. Historical firearms reference discussing colonial gunsmiths. Exact edition and page for the John Yost entry require confirmation.
- Clayton E. Cramer, Gunmaking: A Family Affair. Secondary historical research on early American firearms manufacturing. Read article.
- Revolutionary War Journal, Washington’s Mystery Firearm. Secondary discussion of Washington-era firearms. Read article.
- Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 5: Financial Papers. Potential source for verification of the reported March 5, 1770 rifle purchase. View collection description.
- Alexandria Revolutionary War Patriots Registry. Local historical research concerning Revolutionary-era individuals associated with Alexandria. View registry.
- City of Alexandria, Old Presbyterian Meeting House Walking Tour. Historical cemetery and meeting-house information relevant to the disputed Alexandria burial. View historical guide.
- Yost Family Pages: Family History Archives: View Yost Origins, Yost’s During the Revolution, and Yost Descendants
Historical Research Note
Source basis: The strongest evidence for John Yost’s Revolutionary War activities comes from the published proceedings and correspondence of Maryland’s Council of Safety. These records establish his firearms manufacturing contract and provide direct evidence of his workshop’s activities.
Military service: Later family history attributes military service to John Yost, including a tradition of participation at Lexington and Concord. No independently verified enlistment, regiment, rank, discharge, or pension record has been connected to the Georgetown gunsmith. His documented role is that of a civilian arms manufacturer.
Lexington and Concord family legend: Alfred C. Yost’s family history preserves the claim that John participated in the fighting on April 19, 1775. The historical circumstances make the claim improbable. The engagements were fought primarily by local Massachusetts militia responding to a British expedition from Boston, while John was associated with Georgetown, Maryland, several hundred miles away. No contemporary evidence places him in Massachusetts during the fighting. The family account’s association with George Washington also presents a chronological inconsistency: Washington was not appointed commander in chief until June 15, 1775, and did not assume command outside Boston until July 3. The legend has been preserved as part of the family’s historical tradition, but it is not accepted as evidence of battlefield participation.
Manufacturing records: The July 7, 1776 contract establishes an order for 300 muskets and 100 rifles. It does not independently establish that every firearm was completed and accepted. The August correspondence confirms difficulties involving bayonets and militia repair work.
September correspondence: Details concerning the horse-powered barrel-boring mill, workforce, and unfinished gun locks have been preserved through family-history transcription and related firearms references. The exact original archival page should be located and compared with the transcription.
Reported Washington purchase: A rifle purchase dated March 5, 1770, has been attributed to John Yost in secondary research. The original financial record has not yet been independently verified, and no claim is made that Washington used such a rifle in battle.
Birth: Alfred C. Yost’s family history reports 1743 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. An alternative estimate around 1735–1736 is associated with the disputed Alexandria identification. No original birth record has been verified.
Parentage: Family research identifies Hans Casper Yost and Eleanor Catherine Moerschel as John’s parents. The supplied transcription of Casper’s 1777 will names a son John and provides a promising connection to Georgetown, but the original probate manuscript remains to be examined.
Casper Yost’s wife: Family genealogy identifies Eleanor Catherine Moerschel, while the will transcription names Helena Cathrina. The discrepancy remains unresolved. These names have not been assumed to identify the same woman.
Casper Yost’s children: The supplied will transcription refers to eight children but legibly identifies only seven distinct individuals. Its list also differs from the WikiTree family group. No missing eighth child has been invented.
John’s wife: Rebecca is identified in family research, with Bonham and Bonniham reported as surname variants. No original marriage record has been independently verified, and her maiden name remains uncertain.
Children: The eight children attributed to John and Rebecca in the family history are preserved as genealogical research leads. Their relationships to the Georgetown gunsmith have not been individually established through original records.
Conflicting death reports: One identification places John’s death in Alexandria, Virginia, in 1806, with a burial-related reference to the Old Presbyterian Meeting House. Alfred C. Yost’s family history places his death in Tazewell County, Virginia, in 1826. The Alexandria account presently offers a more specific burial lead, while the Tazewell account reflects an established family-history tradition. Neither has been conclusively connected to the Georgetown gunsmith.
Burial: The Alexandria burial identification remains provisional. No verified grave or burial record has been conclusively linked to the John Yost who supplied Maryland’s revolutionary government.
Portrait: The accompanying image is a modern AI-generated artistic reconstruction portraying a prosperous eighteenth-century civilian gunsmith. It is not an authenticated historical likeness of John Yost. His actual appearance is unknown.
Further research: The most important outstanding records include the original 1777 Casper Yost probate file, Georgetown property deeds, Maryland Council of Safety correspondence, the reported Washington financial entry, Alexandria burial documentation, and Tazewell County land and probate records. Contemporary Massachusetts militia rolls and other April 1775 records would also be necessary to reassess the Lexington and Concord family legend. Together these sources may clarify John’s military status, family relationships, movements, and death.