Big changes have come to — all content is now read-only, and member subscriptions and the Shop have been discontinued.
Learn more

Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Regional: U.S. States: New Hampshire: Cheshire County

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

1790 census wierdness
Posted by: Diana Gale Matthiesen (ID *****0513) Date: September 28, 2006 at 16:03:20
  of 342

Does anyone know what's going on with the 1790 census of Cheshire County?

I have three sources I'm dealing with: Broderbund's 1790 Census Index (CD-311) and subscriptions to the indices and page images online at and

There's a sequence of pages, 117 thru 131, from Cheshire Co., NH, that are one (roughly) alphabetical sequence, so they obviously represent the enumeration of one geographical location (the digital images are two-page spreads, so each image includes two census pages). A large number of individuals are involved because each page has four columns of names, and there are about 75 names in each column. The Broderbund CD shows these as "Cheshire Co., NH," without breaking them down into towns. And how could they be indexed by town? There's nothing on the pages to indicate the town.

These same page images, containing the single alphabetical sequence, are duplicated 31 times (!), with each set having a different town label and with individuals being indexed in different towns. I see no conceivable way to tell which town an individual is in.

The situation is even more bizarre at, where page images are duplicated and given different town names, even though they are clearly *one* alphabetical sequence, namely:

The image of pp. 117-118, which contains surnames beginning A and B is given twice, labeled Croydon the first time and Lempster the second time.

The image of pp. 119-120, which contains surnames beginning B thru E is given twice, labeled Dublin the first time and Charlestown the second time.

The image of pp. 121-122 , which contains surnames beginning E thru H is given twice, labeled Alstead the first time and Hinsdale the second time.

The image of pp. 123-124, which contains surnames beginning H thru L is given twice, labeled Langdon the first time and Charlestown the second time.

The image of pp. 125-126, which contains surnames beginning L thru P is given twice, labeled Gilsum the first time and Marlow the second time.

The image of pp. 127-128, which contains surnames beginning P thru S is given twice, labeled Chesterfield the first time and Cornish the second time.

The image of pp. 129-130, which contains surnames beginning S thru W is given twice, labeled Charlestown the first time and Croydon the second time.

The image of pp. 131-132, which contains surnames beginning W thru Y is given once and is labeled Packersfield.

And the weird thing about the index at like the one at, individuals indexed in Cheshire County *include* the town names.

There are some stray pages for New Grantham, Plainfield, and Protectworth on another microfilm roll, but let's not complicate things further. However, what's a little disturbing about these at they are written in an entirely different hand in a different style and format, with the town name very obvious, which makes me worry that there were once such pages for the rest of the towns, which have been lost. Was the index compiled from a different set of pages, ones that included the town names? If so, why were those pages not digitized? Are the images we're viewing a handwritten copy of missing pages? Does anyone know what's going on here?

It seems to me that until we understand where the town locations in the indices came from, we should ignore them.

Notify Administrator about this message?

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network