Issue #1
The 1790 U.S. Census enumerates under these categories:
• Number of free white males under 16
• Number of free white males 16 and over
• Number of free white females
• Number of other free persons
• Number of slaves
• Total in household
In the 1790 US Census for NC, William Pilgreen is listed in Pitt County. In the household there are three people listed as "other free persons." Total number in the household is three. Neighbors include Hardville, Kelly, Jolly, Highsmith, Barnhill, Knox, Perkins, Dannells, William Congleton, Ward, Albritton, Hubanks (Eubanks), Clemmons.
According to Archives.gov (italics mine),
"The Federal Population Schedules, 1790–1840
Only the heads of free households appear in these records. All others, including slaves, are noted statistically under the head of household or reported owner.
Free African Americans in 1790–1840 Censuses: enumerated with the remainder of the free population. Black (B) or Mulatto (M) indicates the race of the head of the household. Other members of the household were listed in age brackets by sex. Censuses for 1790 and 1810 list free nonwhites in a category titled “all other free persons”; there is no distinction made between free blacks and Native Americans not on reservations. The censuses for 1820–1840 listed people of color separately.
Slaves in the 1790–1840 Census: no notation of slave by name, age, sex, or origination appears. The census lists slaves statistically under the owner’s name."
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/census/african-american/census-1790-1930.pdf
What can we learn from this?
First, one member of the household is William; the others could be male or female. We just don't know.
Second, William and his household members are free; he was enumerated, while slaves were enumerated under their masters' names.
Third, the members of the household are considered "other free persons," which means they could be free black or free Native Americans.
Fourth, no ages are given. Household members could be any age.
The obvious conclusion is that William could be either black or Native American, while Book is always listed as a free white male.
Issue #2
Arrived today: Special List #34: List of Free Black Heads of Families in the First Census of the United States 1790, complied by Debra L. Newman for the National Archivesand Records Service, General Services Administration, Washington, 1973.
The pertinent passages are from Page 1 of the Introduction:
"On March 1, 1790, President Washington approved the First Census Act. This act did not directly provide for the enumeration of free black persons, specifying only that all free persons (white or 'other persons') should be listed and all Indians who were not taxed should be excluded."
"...Names of heads of families under 'All Other Free Persons' to which racial designations were not added can be safely assumed to be names of blacks because few Indians living in the United States at that time were taxed..."
Guess who is listed in North Carolina on Page 146 with three in the family? Yup. William Pilgreen.
More indications that William Pilgreen could be black or Native American.
Issue #3
William Pilgreen disappears from the 1800 US Census for NC. Instead we see Priscilla Pilgreen enumerated as a free white female 26 - 44 in Pitt County. Also enumerated are one free white male under 10 and one FWM 10 - 16. Neighbors include Ward, Yarbanks, Jolly, Clemmons, Swain, Bullock, Barnhill, Highsmith, Reuben Gurganus, William Congleton. It's safe to say that this is likely the same family from the 1790 Census—minus William, of course.
https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/7590/4440904_00242/336042?backurl=&ssrc=&backlabel=Return#?imageId=4440904_00242
The older white male 10 -16 would be born 1784 to 1790. The young would be born 1790 - 1800. Their birth years do not square well with Book Pilgreen's birth year, which is about 1777.
Now that's a problem.
Issue #4
In 1800 Priscilla is the head of household female 26 to 44. The earliest she could have been born is 1766; the latest 1784. She couldn't have been born after Book in 1784 and still be his mother! If she was born in 1766, she'd have been 11 when she gave birth to Book. One scenario is unlikely; the other, impossible.
Issue # 5
Again she is listed as free and white, as are her children.
Issues 1 - 5 are glitches, but are they problems?
I don't mean that in the literal sense. Personally I don't care if my relatives are black, Caucasian, Hispanic, Islamic, or what-have-you. My interest is in finding out who they are.
What I mean is, does William's being either black or Native American disqualify him from being the father of Book Pilgreen, who was listed as "free, white" in every Census?
Not necessarily.
In tracing one line through Georgia, I came across documents for a man I'm convinced is my umpteenth great-grandfather. Even if he's not, the original documents prove my point: though Native American and married to a Native American, he was Christian and carried a Christian name. His wife was always enumerated as white, and their children were always enumerated as white.
In addition, from Sketches of Pitt County, A Brief History of the County 1704 - 1910, from the East Carolina University Digital Collections:
So, yes, there are problems that don't necessarily bar William & Pricilla from being Book's father—but I tend to think William and Priscilla are not Book's parents.
Needs more research. When I get it done, I'll let you know.
Free African Americans in 1790–1840 Censuses: enumerated with the remainder of the free population. Black (B) or Mulatto (M) indicates the race of the head of the household. Other members of the household were listed in age brackets by sex. Censuses for 1790 and 1810 list free nonwhites in a category titled “all other free persons”; there is no distinction made between free blacks and Native Americans not on reservations. The censuses for 1820–1840 listed people of color separately.
Slaves in the 1790–1840 Census: no notation of slave by name, age, sex, or origination appears. The census lists slaves statistically under the owner’s name."
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/census/african-american/census-1790-1930.pdf
What can we learn from this?
First, one member of the household is William; the others could be male or female. We just don't know.
Second, William and his household members are free; he was enumerated, while slaves were enumerated under their masters' names.
Third, the members of the household are considered "other free persons," which means they could be free black or free Native Americans.
Fourth, no ages are given. Household members could be any age.
The obvious conclusion is that William could be either black or Native American, while Book is always listed as a free white male.
Issue #2
Arrived today: Special List #34: List of Free Black Heads of Families in the First Census of the United States 1790, complied by Debra L. Newman for the National Archivesand Records Service, General Services Administration, Washington, 1973.
The pertinent passages are from Page 1 of the Introduction:
"On March 1, 1790, President Washington approved the First Census Act. This act did not directly provide for the enumeration of free black persons, specifying only that all free persons (white or 'other persons') should be listed and all Indians who were not taxed should be excluded."
"...Names of heads of families under 'All Other Free Persons' to which racial designations were not added can be safely assumed to be names of blacks because few Indians living in the United States at that time were taxed..."
Guess who is listed in North Carolina on Page 146 with three in the family? Yup. William Pilgreen.
More indications that William Pilgreen could be black or Native American.
Issue #3
William Pilgreen disappears from the 1800 US Census for NC. Instead we see Priscilla Pilgreen enumerated as a free white female 26 - 44 in Pitt County. Also enumerated are one free white male under 10 and one FWM 10 - 16. Neighbors include Ward, Yarbanks, Jolly, Clemmons, Swain, Bullock, Barnhill, Highsmith, Reuben Gurganus, William Congleton. It's safe to say that this is likely the same family from the 1790 Census—minus William, of course.
https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/7590/4440904_00242/336042?backurl=&ssrc=&backlabel=Return#?imageId=4440904_00242
The older white male 10 -16 would be born 1784 to 1790. The young would be born 1790 - 1800. Their birth years do not square well with Book Pilgreen's birth year, which is about 1777.
Now that's a problem.
Issue #4
In 1800 Priscilla is the head of household female 26 to 44. The earliest she could have been born is 1766; the latest 1784. She couldn't have been born after Book in 1784 and still be his mother! If she was born in 1766, she'd have been 11 when she gave birth to Book. One scenario is unlikely; the other, impossible.
Issue # 5
In the 1810 US Census for NC, Presiden (reads as “Presilla”) Pilgreen is living in Pitt County, NC, as a free white head of family. In the household are two males under 10 (born 1800 - 1810), two males 16 - 25 (born 1785 - 1796), one female 16 - 25 (born 1785 - 1796), 1 female 26 - 44 (born 1766 - 1786); Two people under 16, one over 25, six people in the household. Neighbors: Chana (O’hara??), Jolly or Lolly, Legat, Cagleton, Moore, Garganus, Taylor, Borough, Knox, Briton, Handcok, Richard, Smith, Jones, Ward, Andrews, Crawford, Davenport, Rollin.
https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/7613/4433311_00500/395687?backurl=&ssrc=&backlabel=Return
Again she is listed as free and white, as are her children.
Issues 1 - 5 are glitches, but are they problems?
I don't mean that in the literal sense. Personally I don't care if my relatives are black, Caucasian, Hispanic, Islamic, or what-have-you. My interest is in finding out who they are.
What I mean is, does William's being either black or Native American disqualify him from being the father of Book Pilgreen, who was listed as "free, white" in every Census?
Not necessarily.
In tracing one line through Georgia, I came across documents for a man I'm convinced is my umpteenth great-grandfather. Even if he's not, the original documents prove my point: though Native American and married to a Native American, he was Christian and carried a Christian name. His wife was always enumerated as white, and their children were always enumerated as white.
In addition, from Sketches of Pitt County, A Brief History of the County 1704 - 1910, from the East Carolina University Digital Collections:
"At first no one but a minister of the Church of England was allowed to perform the marriage ceremony, but owing to the scarcity of those ministers laws were passed giving others that right also. There were laws against the marriage of Indians and whites and of whites and negroes or mulattoes, yet these latter seem to have been rather frequent, especially between whites and Indians."
https://digital.lib.ecu.edu/16821#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=7&xywh=1498%2C1178%2C1859%2C1909So, yes, there are problems that don't necessarily bar William & Pricilla from being Book's father—but I tend to think William and Priscilla are not Book's parents.
Needs more research. When I get it done, I'll let you know.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI'm a Pilgreen.
What have you discovered regarding Book Pilgreen?