A one-line entry in a document handwritten by someone named
William Mitchel on November 15, 1820, shows the itemization of the household
count for one “Henery Flowers.” Long, but one line.
The Flowers household was situated in Madison
Township in the then-newly-formed Perry County,
centrally located in the state of Ohio.
While my hopes were up, fervently wishing that “Henery” was
the Henry Flowers of our direct family line, I had to sit down and do a
calculated tally of my own to see if it were really so. After all, it wasn’t
just out of idle curiosity that I was doing all this math for a family of
eleven. I was hoping that this discovery would lead to inclusion in the next
set of designees for the Ohio Genealogical Society’s program known as First Families of Ohio. With a program deadline of arrival in Ohio by December 31 of 1820,
this November 15 census record would sure be cutting it close.
The 1820 census, unlike those most researchers are familiar
with from the 1900s, only listed the head of the household by name. Indeed,
this was the custom for all census records until 1850.
The tally for this particular household ran like this:
Males under
10: 4
Males under
16: 2
Males 45 or
older: 1
Females
under 10: 3
Females to
45: 1
I pulled up my database entry for the Flowers families from
that time period, and scoped out which families would have a head of household
aged 45 or older. Right from the start, it was clear it wouldn’t be the senior
Henry Flowers, who by this time would have been decades older than forty five.
With so many small children in the household, it was also unlikely that the
senior Henry Flowers would be there as the resident grandfather, with only one
male showing aged above forty five.
While the ages didn’t align perfectly, there was a match
close enough to indicate that this was the family of John Henry Flowers, not his father, Henry Flowers—showing that,
as was predicted in the naming patterns explanation from yesterday, the first
name “John” had been dropped from the son’s name for everyday usage.
Here’s how the family lines up for this 1820 census, given
my tentative dates of birth:
John Henry, born in 1771, would by now be 49 years of age.
His wife, Susannah, would be 40. While their oldest son, Matthias, should have
shown as seventeen years of age, perhaps the memories of war the family left
behind in Pennsylvania induced them to under-represent his age—or perhaps it
was just the matter of a late-in-the-year birthday, combined with the parental
tendency of unbelief that one’s son could actually be that old.
The next two sons—Peter, aged 15, and Isaac, aged 12, may
have been accounted for in the next age bracket in the census. Or, younger son
Isaac may have been included in the slot for the four youngest boys indicated—along
with sons Joseph (9), Jacob (7), and George (1). That age shift would allow for
all six of the boys to be accounted for.
John Henry’s wife, Susannah, of course would be the eldest
female represented on the census. Their three daughters under the age of ten
would include Elizabeth, Susannah, and Barbara. However, even though census
records spanning several decades consistently showed Elizabeth as having been
born in 1811, it conflicts with the birth year for her brother Joseph and the calculation of age from her
death record, which represented her as having been born in Ohio in 1809. At this point,
I hardly care to quibble over a two year wobble on year of birth, when either date would handily qualify any
descendant of John Henry and Susannah Ambrose Flowers as members of the First
Families of Ohio program.
Don’t take that as “sour grapes” on my part, though. Even
though it is obvious that this pre-deadline document does not give me the
coveted prize, there is another Henry Flowers record—this time from 1813—that we’ll
look at tomorrow. Maybe this time….
Above left: Georgios Jakobides, The Favorite; courtesy Wikipedia; in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the artist plus seventy years.
I'm willing to bet most applicants are not nearly as thorough. The FFO will be blown away when you present your evidence and won't be able to deny you.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate your encouragement, Wendy! Although, up to this point, all I've been uncovering is un-evidence!
DeleteWell, fiddle. I must have gotten lost in the story because I thought you were on the trail. Bummer.
DeleteOh, but you know there will be more to the story :)
Delete