William DANIEL will always be near these folks becayse each page is
John R. Clarke
410 Highland Ave.
Batesburg-Leesville, SC 29006-1311
----- Original Message -----
From: "P. A. Miller" <gen(a)pamiller.net>
To: "daniel list" <DANIEL-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [DANIEL] Fw: William Daniel of Wayne
Hi, same thing, quote and reply so I can keep my thoughts straight!
John R. Clarke wrote:
If I am reading your 1810 census information correctly for William
Daniel of Wayne
(20010-1001-00) he is 26-45, he has 2 boys < 10 and one girl < 10 and a
wife 26-45, so a girl must have died between 1790 and 1810, but he still
has the two boys <16 from the 1790 census, although 20 years has passed
since that census. If the 2 boys in the 1790 census had even been
infants in 1790 they would be over 16 in 1810. For this reason, I do
not think the 1790 William DONNELL of the 1790 census was William DANIEL.
For sure the William Donn-- of 1790 is an iffy thing, it's that he's so
much in the correct neighborhood and the William Daniel land had just
been bought there in 1787 "bounding Richard Ham, Packer and Flowers" -
in the 1790 census Richard Ham is right there near the William Donn--
along with Micajah Packer who is majorly in many of the pertinent
records; also the specific Jonathan Outland is in common in 1790-1800.
But I don't see a reason to think those 2 boys under 16 in 1790 are the
same as the two under 10 in 1810, even with funky census taking methods.
The two boys under 16 in 1790 would likely be out of the house in 1810
(ages 0-16 in 1790 so ages 20-36 in 1810). The problem I see is that the
1790 two boys under 16 aren't in the 1800 census, neither in the 10-16
column nor 16-26 column, lots of speculation possible about out-of-the
house and/or dead for either of them. Also, on the plus side, for the
William Donn--, he's just two away from the Margaret Daniels 0-2-2
listing who I was suggesting could be the widow of of my posited elder
William Daniel. But the William Donn-- will always remain iffy but
possible to me.
RE: Robert = Robert Daniel in 1810, 20010-21100-03. Robert is 26-45, no
wife of same age, 2 boys <10,0 boys 10-15, 0 boys 16-25, 2 girls <10, 1
girl 10-15, 1 girl 16-25 who coul have been his wife but not the mother
of the older kids. It sure was not Penelope LANE because she would have
been 37 in 1810, born 1773, which tells me Robert had an earlier wife
who was the mother of at least the girl who was 10-15, and maybe some of
the others. The 3 slaves seem to match because Robert had 5 in 1820.
These Robert numbers aren't the 1810, they're the 1800 census, so if
Penelope is b.1773 she's age 26-27 in 1800, she could easily be the one
in the 16-26 column.
I assumr you knoe hoe these early censuses wer taken - often from the
mailbox ant they were paid by the number of records they turned in, so
they did like the water meter reader does in this town - just update the
previous census or meter reading based upon the interval since the last
census or reading. [snip]
Yep, but these census we're talking about are overall different enough
from each other that they look to me to be new enumerations, not
bring-along copies. For future archive searchers, I'll add to your info
that bring along copies especially happened in tax lists, that's why
"defaulters" weren't always wicked non-payers, they were frequently
people who had just moved on but their land sales hadn't been fully
Pam in CA
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
DANIEL-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date:
10/24/2007 2:31 PM