The recent release of the 1930 U.S. census
provides an appropriate opportunity to reexamine the first U.S. census of 1790
for Connecticut. Have you found that census frustrating to use? If so, chances
are you were looking for an ancestor who lived in one of the Connecticut towns
with heads of households listed alphabetically. Or perhaps your ancestor lived
in a town enumerated together with other towns in the same county. Genealogists
are encouraged to study the neighbors of their ancestors on the theory that
family members often lived near one another. When names are listed
alphabetically, determining who neighbors were is impossible. When several towns
are enumerated together, it may not be possible to determine in which town a
specific head of household lived.
Background
With no precedents, census taking in America was far
from uniform in 1790. According to the introduction to Heads of Families at
the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790, Connecticut
(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1980), enumerators in New England
presented population by towns or counties, while elsewhere in the new nation, it
was done primarily by counties. Nationwide, seventeen marshals of the judicial
districts supervised the undertaking. They were authorized to appoint as many
assistant marshals in their districts as they deemed necessary (approximately
650 in all). Each assistant was assigned a district to enumerate that could
comprise one or more counties, cities, towns, townships, or parishes.
Apparently the federal government provided little assistance to the marshals,
who may actually have received instructions from governors of their states. Each
enumerator did receive a copy of the Census Act of 1790. Although Massachusetts
furnished forms, marshals in other states had to devise their own forms on paper
they themselves supplied. Completed schedules varied in length from a few inches
to several feet and all were handwritten on handmade paper of very uneven
quality. Many contained blots, erasures, and misspellings, as well as errors in
copying and counting, as any researcher who has looked at microfilms of the
original records can attest. Enumerators made two copies of each return. They
posted one locally for information and corrections and sent the other to their
district marshal for forwarding to the President.
The objects of the first census were two-fold: to determine how to apportion
representation to the lower house of Congress and to obtain information about
the military and industrial potential of the new nation. Thus, an accurate
accounting of males old enough for military service or full-time work (free
white males sixteen years of age and over, in particular) was of primary
importance. Indians were neither taxed nor counted. Free persons, including
indentured servants, mulattos, and free blacks of both sexes, were listed
separately, as were slaves.
Enumerators of 1790 often encountered suspicion and hostility. Citizens
accustomed to the freedom of the frontier feared federal control and questioned
motives for government inquiry into their personal affairs. Others feared an
increase in taxes or that divine retribution would follow an enumeration of all
the people.
Human problems were compounded by difficult working conditions. Roads were
poor to nonexistent, travel was slow, inns were scarce, and town and county
boundaries were not always clear. In spite of these problems, most enumerators
met the deadline of nine months with a reasonably accurate counting of residents
within their districts. Pay was based on the number of persons counted. The rate
for the backcountry was $1.00 for each 150 persons counted, and in counties
where population was more dispersed, pay could be as high as $1.00 for every 50
persons. In cities or towns with more than 5,000 persons, pay was $1.00 for
every 300 persons.
Connecticut Towns with Alphabetical Listings
Considering the
difficulties and limitations associated with taking the first census, how can we
explain why some enumerators went to the additional work of alphabetizing their
lists when it was not required? Hartford County census enumerators listed
alphabetically, apparently by sections of towns, residents of Berlin,
Glastonbury, and Hartford. In Litchfield County, residents of Bethlem [sic],
Cornwall, Harwinton, Kent, New Milford, Southbury, Warren, Washington,
Watertown, and Woodbury were also placed in alphabetical order. In Middlesex
County, only residents of the town of Chatham were listed alphabetically and in
Tolland County, only the residents of Stafford. Names of heads of households in
Fairfield and New Haven counties were not alphabetized.
Connecticut Towns Listed Together
Under "Errata" on page 8 of
Heads of Families, First Census of the United States, 1790 Connecticut,
the fact that twelve towns in Litchfield County were all returned under the
heading "Litchfield" is mentioned but not explained. Those towns included
Barkhamstead, Canaan, Colebrook, Goshen, Hartland, Litchfield, New Hartford,
Norfolk, Salisbury, Sharon, Torrington, and Winchester. No notation explains
listing together residents of all the towns of New London County, making it
difficult to determine exactly where in New London County any individual head of
household lived. Separating towns listed together might be possible if it could
be shown that the marshals completed one town before beginning the next.
Separating the Towns of Norwalk and Stamford
In Fairfield County,
David Maltbie was assistant marshal for the towns of Greenwich, Norwalk, and
Stamford. For reasons unknown today, he listed residents of Greenwich
separately, yet listed residents of Norwalk and Stamford together. In 1790
Stamford included all of Darien, then called Middlesex Parish, and part of New
Canaan, called Canaan Parish. Norwalk included the remainder of Canaan Parish as
well as Wilton.
About 1980 the late Lois Bayles, then librarian at the New Canaan Historical
Society, worked out the route the 1790 census enumerator took through Canaan
Parish. Drawing on her extensive knowledge of the settlement pattern of the
area, she found that the enumerator moved along in a very orderly manner, from
house to house and street by street. At certain points the enumerator followed a
road from Canaan Parish into Norwalk or Stamford and then returned to Canaan
Parish.
Using Mrs. Bayles' study, I set out to determine whether additional divisions
between Norwalk and Stamford towns and parishes could be established. The 1790
tax list for the town of Stamford, kept at the Stamford Historical Society,
provides a contemporary listing of Stamford heads of household. In addition to
taxpayers in Stamford, this list includes names of taxpayers in the parishes of
Middlesex and Canaan in Stamford. Since a poll tax was included, most adult
males were taxed, and hence listed. Logically, residents not included in the
Bayles study of Canaan Parish or in the Stamford/Middlesex Parish tax list
probably lived in Norwalk.
In the 1790 Connecticut census, the names of families who lived on the
Norwalk side of Canaan Parish precede the names of those who lived on the
Stamford side. For this reason and because the census listing is entitled
"Norwalk and Stamford Towns," I reasoned that Maltbie began taking the census in
Norwalk and completed that town, including Canaan Parish in Norwalk (plus a few
families living in Middlesex Parish near Norwalk). He then enumerated those
residing in Stamford and Canaan Parish in Stamford and finally listed residents
of Middlesex Parish (later Darien) in Stamford. With the exception of families
who lived on or near the town lines, I found fairly clear-cut divisions between
towns and parishes in the census listing. It is evident that the enumerator did
continue along streets that crossed town or parish boundaries.
The divisions between Norwalk, Stamford, Canaan Parish, and Middlesex Parish
are as follows:
| Town or Parish |
Begins With |
Ends With |
| |
|
|
| Norwalk |
Mott, Reuben |
Sterling, Thaddeus |
| Canaan Parish/Norwalk Exception: Canaan/Stamford |
Elles, John Hanford, Samuel |
Hanford, Alexander |
| Norwalk Exceptions; Middlesex Parish Stamford |
Reed, Abigail Reed, Thaddeus Selleck, Nathaniel |
Bishop, Jacob |
| Canaan Parish/Norwalk Exceptions: Canaan Parish/ Stamford |
Hanford, Levi Benedict, Caleb Weed, Abraham Boutain,
Eleazer Gray, Hannah Silliman, Samuel Silliman, Dr. Joseph |
Waring, Solomon |
| |
Kellagg, Nathan |
|
| Norwalk |
Green, Caleb |
Kellagg, James |
| Canaan Parish/Norwalk Exceptions: Canaan Parish/Stamford
Middlesex Parish/ Stamford |
Benedict, Thomas 2nd St. John, Caleb Comstock, Thomas |
Raymond, William |
| Norwalk |
Arnolds, Isaac |
Birchard, Jemima |
| Canaan Parish/Norwalk |
Birchard, James |
St. John, Matthias |
| Norwalk Exceptions: Middlesex Parish/ Stamford |
Clinton, Joseph Waring, Enoch Raymond, Abraham |
Wilson, Charles |
| Stamford |
Webb, Samuel |
Hait, Uriah |
| Canaan Parish/Stamford |
Hait, Samuel, Junr |
Young, Robert |
| Stamford |
Webb, David, Junr. |
Crissy, Nathl, Junr. |
| Canaan Parish/Stamford |
Young, Mary |
Stevens, Abraham |
| Stamford |
Stevens, Amos |
Howard, Sarah |
| Canaan Parish/Stamford |
Dan, Nathaniel |
Weed, Steven |
| Middlesex Parish/Stamford |
Stevens, Obadiah |
Stevens, Sarah |
| Stamford |
Stevens, Admer |
Waterbury, Thankful |
| Middlesex Parish/Stamford |
Weed, Silvanus |
Waterbury, John |
| Canaan Parish/Stamford |
Seely, Jonas |
Seely, Ebenezer |
| Middlesex Parish/Stamford |
Bates, John Junr. |
End of listing |
In the Stamford portion of the census, there are sixteen heads of households
listed for whom I found no other indication of Stamford residency. Their names
do not appear on the 1790 Stamford tax list or in any other extant town records.
It is, however, likely that most or all did live in Stamford. They include
Abigail Smith, Darius Peck, Martin Dissabrose, Capt. Nathanial Starr, Janus
Waterbury, Widow Elizabeth Comestock, Widow Molly Smith, Lewis M. Donald, Widow
Mary Wilson, Augustus Wilkes, Amos Stevens, Jr., Isaac Stevens, Sarah Howard,
Zepeniah Slason, Widow Esther Seely, and Joseph Sudmore. Of the six women on the
list, four were widows. Without knowing the names of their husbands, tracing
them is difficult. In addition, economic conditions of aged widows often
precluded taxation. Women lacked the right to vote and hence did not pay a poll
tax.
Numerical results of this somewhat arbitrary division of Norwalk and Stamford
residents in 1790 indicated Norwalk had 858 family heads and a population total
of 4,759, while Stamford had 756 family heads and a population total of 3,980.
Sixteen family heads and a population total of seventy-one persons are not
placed. I may have unintentionally placed some families in the wrong town and
will be happy to hear from readers who have information I lack.
An earlier version of this article, as well as photocopies of pages from
the 1790 Connecticut census, appeared in Connecticut Ancestry 32 (May
1990):163-172.