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 . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 3
Microfilm 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