ROOTS-L Archives
Archiver > ROOTS > 2008-06 > 1212548797
From: Dave Hargreave <>
Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] ROOTS Digest, Vol 3, Issue 322
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:06:37 -0400
References: <mailman.38892.1212541664.32677.roots@rootsweb.com>
Hi Anne,
Nicholas shows five females in 1790 -- probably Abigail and four daughters.
In 1800 there are three daughters listed, but only one of them under 10
years of age (probably Elizabeth). Were any others married or deceased?
There should now be at least five, maybe six if there is an unknown
daughter. If Sophia was born in 1791 or later, then there would have to be
an unaccounted for daughter in the 1780s. However, that doesn't square with
the 1800 census which shows only one girl under 10. If Sophia was counted
in the 1790 census (1791 in point of fact in Vermont) then there probably
weren't any missing daughters from the 1780s. The bottom line is, we can't
draw any definitive conclusions. The 1790 data are too aggregated to be of
much use. The small number of girls in 1800 is, however, suspicious. Two
of the four girls counted in the 1790 census weren't counted in the 1800
census. But Mary, the oldest (or maybe second oldest if there is a missing
dughter) wasn't married until July of 1801. I don't think that either Anna
or Eunice were married at that time--they weren't having kids that early
anyway. Certainly none of the others were married. Of course, two of them
might have been simply living elsewhere. I'm inclined to think that there
was another daughter who had a child out of wedlock and may have died in
childbirth (i.e., just before the 1800 census was done), but I don't how
we'd ever prove it.
Dave
This thread:
| Re: [ROOTS-L] ROOTS Digest, Vol 3, Issue 322 by Dave Hargreave <> |