|
Questions From Early Pennsylvania
by James E. Punches
During my research into my family origins I have found some data which I have puzzled over, data which I can’t resolve using published information from the Pontius Family Association (PFA), of which I am a member. I am hoping that by presenting it here one or more members of the association may be able to resolve my puzzlement.
I will refer to census data from the state of Pennsylvania for the census years of 1800, 1810, and 1820 in this article. My puzzlement stems from the discovery of a seeming contradiction between what has been published by the PFA in The Bridge Builder [a PFA publication] and the contents of the census records. I will begin the examination and discussion of the data starting with the census of 1800 and then following in order, 1810 and 1820. Reference sources will be indicated as numbers enclosed within parenthesis.
1800 CENSUS (1)
There are only six recognized Peters who should be living during this census according to the Bridge Builder (8). Those Peters are:
1. Peter (J1-3) 1747-1835 b. Berks Co., PA d. Snyder Co., PA 2. Peter (Ni-4) 1759/61-1785 killed by Indians 3. Peter (J1-18) 1783-1862 d. Union Co., PA 4. Peter (J1-35) 1783-1850 5. Peter (Ni-42) 1785-1851 d. Stark Co., OH 6. Peter (J1-12-3) 1801-1882 d. Stark Co., PA
In the listing for Penns Twp., Northumberland Co., we find, in the middle of the ‘’P’s’’, in this order, the names of Peter Pounteous, John Pounteous, Simon Pickel, Peter Pounteous and Nicholas Pounteous. It is no mistake, there are two Peters listed on microfilm page 139. A cursory examinations reveals that both Peters are at least 45 years of age. Can we determine if both are accounted for by the PFA, especially as the table above shows only one Peter should be alive and over 45 years of age in the year 1800. To aid in seeing the data, I’ll do a tabular listing of the members of each household. Each family will be assigned a number for ease of discussion. The reference number shall be listed first, separated by a dash from a family number, i.e., [1-1], [1-2], etc.
Head-of-Household Member status Birth Occurred
[1-1] John Pounteous 1 male under 10 1791-1800 1 male of 10 and under 16 1785-1790 1 male of 16 and under 26 1775-1784 1 male of 45 and over before 1756 1 female under 10 1791-1800 2 females of 10 and under 16 1785-1790 1 female of 45 and over before 1756
[1-2] Nicholas Pounteous 5 males under 10 1791-1800 1 male of 10 and under 16 1785-1790 1 male of 26 and under 45 1756-1774 3 females under 10 1791-1800 1 female of 10 and under 16 1785-1790 1 female of 26 and under 45 1756-1774
[1-3] Peter Pounteous 1 male under 10 1791-1800 1 male of 10 and under 16 1785-1790 2 males of 16 and under 26 1775-1784 1 male of 45 and over before 1756 2 females under 10 1791-1800 1 female of 10 and under 16 1785-1790 1 female of 16 and under 26 1775-1784 1 female of 45 and over before 1756
[1-4] Peter Pounteous 1 male of 10 and under 16 1785-1790 1 male of 16 and under 26 1775-1784 1 male of 26 and under 45 1756-1774 1 male of 45 and over before 1756 2 females under 10 1791-1800 2 females of 16 and under 26 1775-1784 1 female of 45 and over before 1756
The above listings show the existence of two Peters, both born before 1756 while PFA published data shows only one born before 1756 and still living in 1800. We will examine the next census to see if we can learn anything new in support of the above data.
1810 CENSUS (2)
We find Pontius families of interest in Miles Twp., Centre Co., Centre Township, Northumberland Co., and in Penns Twp., Northumberland Co., Pennsylvania in the census of 1810.
Miles Township, Centre County
Head-of-Household Member status Birth Occurred
[2-1] Peter Punch 1 male of 26 and under 45 1766-1784 1 female of 16 and under 26 1785-1794
The Peter listed here appears to be the person who purchased land in Lake Township, Stark County, Ohio on 18 October 1810, according to available records from the Steubenville, Ohio land office which identify the purchaser as Peter Pontius of Centre Co., Pennsylvania.
Centre Township, Northumberland County
Head-of-Household Member Status Birth Occurred
[2-2] Joseph Pontious 1 male of 16 and under 26 1785-1794 -farmer- 1 female under 10 1801-1810 1 female of 16 and under 26 1785-1794
[2-3] Peter Pontious 2 males under 10 1801-1810 -farmer- 2 males of 16 and under 26 1785-1794 1 male of 45 and over before 1766 5 females of 16 and under 26 1785-1794 1 female of 45 and over before 1766
[2-4] Peter Pontious 1 male under 10 1801-1810 -miller- 1 male of 16 and under 26 1785-1794 1 female of 16 and under 26 1785-1794
Penns Township, Northumberland County
Head-of Household Member Status Birth Occurred
[2-5] Henry Pontious 2 males under 10 1801-1810 -farmer- 1 male of 26 and under 45 1766-1784 3 females under 10 1801-1810 1 female of 26 and under 45 1766-1784
[2-6] Peter Pontious 3 males of 10 and under 16 1795-1800 -laborer- 1 male of 45 and over before 1766 2 females of 10 and under 16 1795-1800 1 female of 16 and under 26 1785-1794 1 female of 45 and over before 1766
It can’t be helped but to notice that we still have two Peters who were born in the generation of the children of Johannes (J1) and Nicholas (Ni).
1820 CENSUS (3)
In the census of 1820 we have a number of entries which are interesting. We note that there are no more Pontius families in Centre County and that Northumberland County has again been split with Centre Township and Penns Township going to the new Union County. Since our Pontius families are in Centre and Penns townships, we concentrate on Union County. This particular census is itself very interesting because having recently gone through the War of 1812, federal authorities wanted to know how many young men were coming to military age. This census was modified in order to achieve this count by the inclusion of an extra column for males of age 16 and under 18. The result was that young men of that criterion were counted twice in the enumerations, once in the normal category of, ‘’of 16 and under 26," and again in the new category. For the sake of brevity, I will list only the new category data where there is the overlap just described.
CENTRE TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY
Head-of-Household Member Status Birth Occurred
[3-1] Peter Ponticis 1 male of 10 and under 16 1805-1810 1 male of 16 and under 18 1803-1804 1 male of 45 and over before 1776 1 female under 10 1811-1820 1 female of 16 and under 26 1795-1804 1 female of 45 and over before 1776
WEST BUFFALO TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY
Head-of-Household Member Status Birth Occurred
[3-2] Andrew Pantius 1 male of 16 and under 26 1795-1804 1 male of 26 and under 45 1776-1794 1 male of 45 and over before 1776 2 females of 10 and under 16 1805-1810 1 female of 16 and under 26 1795-1804 1 female of 45 and over before 1776
[3-3] Peter Pantius 1 male of 10 and under 16 1805-1810 1 male of 26 and under 45 1776-1794 3 females under 10 1811-1820 1 female of 16 and under 26 1795-1804
BUFFALO TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY
Head-of-Household Member Status Birth Occurred
[3-4] Frederick Pontius 1 male of 16 and under 18 1803-1804 1 male of 26 and under 45 1776-1794 1 female under 10 1811-1820 3 females of 16 and under 26 1795-1804
[3-5] Henry Pontius 1 male of 10 and under 16 1805-1810 1 male of 45 and over before 1776 2 females of 26 and under 45 1776-1794 1 female of 45 and over before 1776
[3-6] Philip Pontius 1 male under 10 1811-1820 1 male of 10 and under 16 1805-1810 1 male of 16 and under 26 1795-1804 1 male of 26 and under 45 1776-1794 2 females under 10 1811-1820 1 female of 26 and under 45 1776-1794
PENNS TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY
Head-of-Household Member Status Birth Occurred
[3-7] Henry Pontius 4 males under 10 1811-1820 3 males of 10 and under 16 1805-1810 1 male of 16 and under 18 1803-1804 1 male of 45 and over before 1776 1 female of 10 and under 16 1805-1810 1 female of 45 and over before 1776
[3-8] Joseph Ponteus 3 males under 10 1811-1820 1 male of 26 and under 45 1776-1794 3 females under 10 1811-1820 1 female of 10 and under 16 1805-1810 1 female of 26 and under 45 1776-1794
The entries for Henry Pontius and Joseph Ponteus are badly faded but readable. The Stemmons Index to the 1820 Pennsylvania census gives Joseph’s surname as Pontrees, but in my own reading of the entry, I read it as Ponteus.
DISCUSSION OF THE ABOVE ENTRIES
The PFA current 3-generation charts will be used as an aid in examining the data from the three census enumerations. The people listed in these charts have birth years which fall primarily in years before 1820 and it may be possible therefore to directly identify an entry family from the published data. As seen already, there are two Peters 45 or older recorded in the census enumerations for 1800 and 1810 where the PFA data says there should only be one older than 45 in census 1800. The one who should be there is Peter J1-3. While this is very interesting, we will first look at the other families who live nearby and who have the same surname. It is worth noting that these families were on the same page as the Peters. Entry 1-1, John Pounteus gives the probable as being before 1756. This narrows the number of possible matches in the Johannes charts to Johannes J1 and John Jr. J1-5. These people have been, to the best of my knowledge, the only chart members to commonly use the given name of John for themselves in that historical period. Johannes J1 can be eliminated by virtue of his passing in the year 1792, leaving only John Jr. as a viable candidate from the PFA chart. John Jr. is said to have been born in 1751 (4, page 5). This date falls into the period given from the census data. The Johannes generational charts however, show only five children as being offspring of John Jr. and his wife, Barbara Katterman:
J1-51 Catherine born 1777 J1-52 John born 1779 J1-53 Esther born 1781 J1-54 Jacob born 1783 J1-55 Susann born 1790
and the census listing shows six children, three males and three females. If we reconstruct the known offspring of John Jr. into a format consistent with the census listing, we achieve:
J1-51 Catherine of 16 and under 26 J1-52 John of 16 and under 26 J1-53 Esther of 16 and under 26 J1-54 Jacob of 16 and under 26 J1-55 Susann of 10 and under 16
It is obvious that in comparing the census listing, 1-1, with the above reconstruction, only two of the known children will fit into the census data. We might conclude that the three oldest children may have been married or otherwise living apart from their parents in 1800, leaving only 17 year old Jacob and 10 year old Susann still living with the parents. But how can we resolve the problem of the other two girls under 16 years of age? On the basis of the above data we are forced to conclude that either, John Jr. J1-5 had more children than are currently acknowledged or that there is another family headed by another John who is not in the PFA listings, and who co-temporally existed with that of the identified personage of John Jr. J1-5. If the latter conclusion is correct, which one is the true John Jr.?
In entry 1-2, we have Nicholas Pounteus. The census listing requires his birth to have occurred during the 1756 through 1774 time period. The author examined the remote possibility that this entry could be Nicholas J1-14. However, he can be eliminated because of (1) his birth year being 1775; (2) the number of children he would have had to sire before turning 25; and (3) his third child per PFA records, David J1-143, was born after the 1800 census. Comparing entry 1-2 with the PFA charts, this is most likely Nicholas Ni-6. Nicholas was born in 1763, which falls into the required time frame of the census data. We will list the acknowledged children of Nicholas with both their birth years and in census format for consideration.
Ni-61 Benjamin born 1787 of 10 and under 16 Ni-62 Elizabeth born 1788 of 10 and under 16 Ni-63 Gabriel born 1790 of 10 and under 16 Ni-64 John born 1790 of 10 and under 16 Ni-65 Soloman born 1793 under 10 Ni-66 Magdalene born c1794 under 10 Ni-67 Mary born 1796 under 10 Ni-68 Margaret born 1797 under 10 Ni-69 Nicholas born 1797 under 10 Ni-6-10 Samuel born 1808 not yet born Ni-6-11 Sally born c1816 not yet born Ni-6-12 Anne born c1818 not yet born
It can be immediately seen that Benjamin fills the requirement for one male of 10 and under 16, and likewise with Elizabeth for the females. The three girls, Magdalene, Mary, and Margaret fit the requirement for three females under 10. Four of the five males under 10 years of age can be filled by the remaining boys, if we include Gabriel and John in the group. Despite the discrepancy of a missing male child under 10 years of age, we can probably say with a high degree of confidence, that this family is the one identified as belonging to the PFA’s Nicholas Ni-6. Now we come to the most interesting of the 1800 entries, those of 1-3 and 1-4; both headed by men named Peter Pounteus. Both have required birth years before 1756, which presents a problem when considering the PFA data and charts. PFA published data and charts only show one Peter as meeting the requirements of being born prior to 1756 and continuing to survive beyond 1790. That is Peter J1-3 in the charts. Another Peter, Ni-4, is said to have been killed by Indians in 1785, leaving two children, William and Peter, as orphans. As before, we will list the acknowledged children of this man identified as Peter J1-3, both with birth years, and in census format, comparing the results with the actual census listings to see if there is any correlation with one of them.
J1-31 Henry born 1773 of 26 and under 45 J1-32 Elizabeth born 1776 of 16 and under 26 J1-33 Catherine born 1778 of 16 and under 26 J1-34 Margaret born 1780 of 16 and under 26 J1-35 Peter born 1783/5 of 16 and under 26 J1-36 Joseph born 1787 of 10 and under 16 J1-37 Rosanna J1-38 Anna Maria J1-39 Barbara born 1794 under 10 J1-3-10 George born 178? of 10 and under 16?
This offspring listing can cause problems because of the three birth uncertainties in the PFA data. However, if the proper household can be reasonably identified, we may be able to put some year limits in, in place of no data and uncertain data. Examination of entry 1-3 shows that two males are required of 16 and under 26. The child listing for Peter J1-3 does not strictly meet this requirement. Examination of 1-4, on the other hand, shows two females of 16 and under 26 in the household. It is not unreasonable to expect and argue that one or two of the daughters have married and are no longer living with the parents. The same argument can be used for 1-3 also, as the daughters were 24, 22 and 20 respectively, and marriage for any of the daughters is not out of the question. We must enter the realm of reasonable conjecture at this point in our examination of 1-3, 1-4 and the family of Peter J1-3. If we assume that the birth of George probably occurred in 1780-1784, the requirement of 1-3 for 2 males of 16 and under 26, is fulfilled. Since the published data on Peter J1-35 (8, pg.6 and 9, pg.33) have differing birthdates, the earlier date seems best to fit the other assumed data points and so has been chosen as the more probable one. The conclusion, after all the preceding considerations, leads to a strong sense that entry 1-3 is the family of Peter J1-3, as currently held in the PFA records, and that the census enumeration can be reconstructed as follows:
1 male under 10 unknown 1 male of 10 and under 16 Joseph 2 males of 16 and under 26 George, Peter 1 male of 45 and over Peter J1-3 2 females under 10 Anna Maria, Barbara 1 female of 10 and under 16 Rosanna 1 female of 16 and under 26 Margaret 1 female of 45 and over Anna Catherine W J1-3
This reconstruction requires that Henry, Elizabeth, and Catherine all be removed from the family household, probably via marriage, although this in itself is not required for the condition. The other Peter Family, 1-4, is then an unknown as far the PFA records are concerned and the same question must be asked as was asked for John Pounteus, Which Peter entry is the true J1-3 family? Is it the one in the PFA records or is it the one which is not? When we turn to the entries of 1810, we begin to have more confusion in the discrepancies between PFA published data and census data. We find only one Peter previously considered, still remaining in Penns Township, with the other Peter apparently having relocated to Centre Township. It would appear that Joseph J1-36 had married only a short time before the census, as the entry 2-2 could well be him; likewise for Peter J1-35, entry 2-4. Entry 2-5 in Penns Township could well be Henry J1-31, with Henry remaining in Penns with his family when the others moved on. And, the presence in Centre Township, along with Joseph and Peter J1-35, strongly suggests that entry 2-3 is the one identified by PFA as Peter J1-3. There are problems with 2-3 as a continuation of 1-3, even granting the 10 year separation between the data groups. Either Peter J1-3 was more prolific than previously suspected, or he had other relatives living in his household. Look at the 2-3 entry. There are 2 males listed as under 10. They are found nowhere in the PFA records for Peter J1-3. From the number of males and females in age regime of 16 and under 26, it might be safe to conclude that at least one son with his wife and one daughter with her husband are living in the home with the under 10 children being grandchildren. I know of no information that has ever been published to corroborate or deny this conjecture. Is there any? Entry 2-1 is fairly straight forward. This Peter has obviously been recently married and there are no children yet born at the time of the census. Reference 6 identifies Peter Ni-42 as entering Lake Township, Stark County, Ohio. As previously mentioned, the land sale records from the Steubenville land office identify a Peter Pontius from Centre County, Pennsylvania as the purchaser of land in Lake Township on 18 October 1810. A reasonable conclusion is that this entry, 2-1, is Peter Ni-42 as identified in the PFA records. The Peter remaining in Penns Township, entry 2-6, is apparently the same as examined in entry 1-4. But, we also have some extra people again in the 1810 count who were not in the 1800 count. We will do a side-by-side comparison of the census entries.
[1-4] Data Birth Occurred [2-6] Data
1795-1800 of 10 and under 16 3 males 1 male of 10 and under 16 1785-1790 1 male of 16 and under 26 1775-1784 1 male of 26 and under 45 1756-1774 1 male of 45 and over before 1756/66 of 45 and over 1 male 1801-1810 under 10 2 females 1795-1800 of 10 and under 16 2 females 2 females under 10 1791-1800 1785-1794 of 16 and under 26 1 female 2 females of 16 and under 26 1775-1784 1 female of 45 and over before 1756/66 of 45 and over 1 female
The only seeming constants here are the older couple and the two youngest 1-4 females, who seem to show up as the two females of 10 and under 16 in 2-6. It seems unlikely that the children under 10, in entry 2-6, would be the offspring of the older couple, unless they were menopausal children, for the wife was at least 45 and surely pre-menopausal in 1800. It may be however, that these were grandchildren living with the family for whatever reason. We shall have to wait for more and better information for a determination. When considering the data from the census of 1820, we are struck by the disappearance of most of the Peters. The only county of interest in 1820 is Union County with four townships represented; Centre, Buffalo, West Buffalo, and Penns. Entry 3-1 in Centre Township is that of Peter Ponticis. Since the head-of-household parameters still show a birth date before the third generation Peters, and since the PFA’s Peter J1-3 had previously been identified with this family in Centre Township, it seems safe to say that this is the census listing for Peter J1-3. The two males under the age of 18 are consistent with the two males under 10 in the 2-3 entry. We have however, a new minor child, a girl, under 10 in this 3-1 entry. This now a total of four children in this family’s counts which are not accounted for in the PFA data. The clustering of families in Buffalo and West Buffalo Townships seem to point to a common origin for these families. Entry 3-5 would appear to be the family identified by PFA data as being that of Henry J1-31. The age regimes for the heads-of-household in entries 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 and 3-6 are consistent with the children of Henry J1-1; Andrew J1-11, Peter J1-18, Frederick J1-12, and Philip J1-1-11. I am satisfied that these are probably correct. In considering those families in Penns Township in the 1820 census, we have only one direct repeat from 1810, that of Henry Pontius, entry 3-7. Joseph Ponteus has moved from Centre Township, entry 2-2, to Penns Township, entry 3-2, and remains a good candidate for Joseph J1-36 of the PFA records. Henry is still believed to be Henry J1-31 of the PFA records. Of those records considered in this article, the greatest inconsistencies lie with the identifications of 1-1 John Pounteous and the second Peter, entries 1-4 and 2-6. In the case of John, the number of children recorded in the census data disagrees with those recognized by the PFA. This is compelling enough that we should entertain the possibility that the PFA record is a misidentification, due solely to the commonality of the given name JOHN. In the case of Peter, we have shown two households headed by men with the common name of PETER and being of similar age, where the PFA has identified only one, Peter J1-3. The possibility of PFA misidentification does exist in both these cases and should be resolved by the best possible research and evidence obtainable. The questions presented by the analysis of the census data from the three census years of 1800, 1810, and 1820 deserve consideration and answer. The answers could be profound and the implications, exciting.
SOURCES REF. #
Index to 1800 Pennsylvania Census, pub. John Stemmons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Microfilm page 139, 1800 Pennsylvania Census
Index to 1810 Pennsylvania Census, pub. John Stemmons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Microfilm pages 219 and 222, 1810 Pennsylvania Census Index to 1820 Pennsylvania Census, pub. John Stemmons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Microfilm pages 48, 57, 84, and 93, 1820 Pennsylvania Census
Bridge Builder Vol. III, No.1, May 1970, pp. 5, 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Bridge Builder Vol. IV, No.1, June 1971, pp. 10, 11, 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Bridge Builder Vol. IX, No.2, December 1976, pp. 4, 18, 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bridge Builder Vol. X, No.1, July 1977, pg. 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bridge Builder Vol. XI, No. 1, July 1978, pg. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bridge Builder Vol. XIV, No.1, January 1993, pp. 33, 34. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 9
|