In a message dated 8/18/04 11:38:56 PM, [email protected] writes: << 1790 Census: Pendleton SC Listed together Joseph Land Jun 1 1 1 [husband, wife, minor son-HH] Joseph Land Sen 1 1 3 [husband, wife, minor male, and two other females-HH]>> _____________ J. The error (lack of a surname) probably is in transcription rather than an omission of the census taker. A look at the original should solve the issue. Brackets [] are added. Joseph FRENCH of NJ would have been married since 1749 (41 years). His youngest known daughter, Mary, was married 1781. If Joseph FRENCH, Sr., NJ, this Census could reflect younger adult female with children in addition to Joseph (Sr.) and wife. If Joseph FRENCH, Jr., son of Joseph of NJ, we now know that he was married with child before he left the area. This is exploratory, thus conjecture at this point. Best regards, Hugh

Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case. I just looked at the original and there's definitely no "French" there, nor is there any other person with surname French on the entire page (which is three columns wide). Of course there's also no room for a longer name as the names touch the borders on both sides. Dave Dardinger ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 4:07 AM Subject: Re: [FRENCH-L] 1790 census - Joseph Jun & Joseph Sen -- curious > > In a message dated 8/18/04 11:38:56 PM, [email protected] writes: > > << 1790 Census: Pendleton SC > > Listed together > > Joseph Land Jun 1 1 1 [husband, wife, minor son-HH] > > Joseph Land Sen 1 1 3 [husband, wife, minor male, and two other females-HH]>> > _____________ > J. > > The error (lack of a surname) probably is in transcription rather than an > omission of the census taker. A look at the original should solve the issue. > > Brackets [] are added. Joseph FRENCH of NJ would have been married since > 1749 (41 years). His youngest known daughter, Mary, was married 1781. If Joseph > FRENCH, Sr., NJ, this Census could reflect younger adult female with children > in addition to Joseph (Sr.) and wife. > > If Joseph FRENCH, Jr., son of Joseph of NJ, we now know that he was married > with child before he left the area. > > This is exploratory, thus conjecture at this point. > > Best regards, > Hugh > >