m32p06wr

So, with Daniel McAninch’s immediate family only "1 2 1 0 0" in ‘1790 census’ counts, who

are the other four people in the "3 1 4 0 0" counts reported on the census? Is it possible that both

Daniel McAninch’s family and William McAninch’s family were enumerated together in 1790?

William McAninch (1G.4) [12], born before 1765 (colonial Pennsylvania?, northern Ireland?)

and Daniel McAninch (1G.1) [12], born ca.1750 (1748-1752), were fellow travelers (related?,

brothers?, cousins?), and, in the early 1790s, they went south together down the Great Valley of

the Shenandoah to eastern Tennessee and Lincoln County, Kentucky. William’s oldest (known)

child, son James McAninch, was born before 1786, so, William may have had an earlier 'first wife',

who would have been the mother of James. [William Notes] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

In 1790, William McAninch’s immediate family was probably just 3 people:

(1) William McAninch, born before 1765, age at least 25 years old in 1790;

(2) William’s (first) wife, name unknown, probably 20-25 years old in 1790; and

(3) James McAninch, son, born before 1784, age at least 6 years old in 1790. [James, Note 30]

So, William’s immediate family would have been only "1 1 1 0 0" in ‘1790 census’ counts:

(a) 1 Male over 16 (William, born before 1765, age at least 25 years);

(b) 1 Male 16 or under (son James, born before 1784, age at least 6 years old), and

However, if both Daniel McAninch’s family and William McAninch’s family were enumerated

together in 1790, the combined group would have added up to "2 3 2 0 0" in ‘1790 census’ counts:

(a) Two free white males, 16 years and upward, including heads of families

(a.1) Daniel himself, age ~40, head of household

(a.2) William McAninch, age at least 25 (born before 1765)

(b) Three free white males under 16 years

(b.1) Daniel’s oldest son, John, age 11-12 years old (b.1779-1780)

(b.2) William’s oldest son, James, at least 6 years old (born before 1784)

(b.3) Daniel’s second son Samuel, age 1 year (born 1789, in Pennsylvania)

(c.1) Daniel’s wife, Mary Smith (born est.1750-1796, married 11 June 1776),

(c.2) William’s (first) wife (name unknown, probably 20-25 years old in 1790).

We do not know who gave the information to the Marshall taking the census, but two possible

shifts in the interpretation of the data might fit the "3 1 4 0 0" counts reported on the census:

(1) John, age 11-12, was probably a large lad, could have been miscounted as ‘16 or over’, and

(2) the baby Samuel could have been not counted (as ‘too young’), or miscounted as a female.

So, a possible (speculative) composition of the "3 1 4 0 0" counts could have been

(a) Three free white males, 16 years and upward: Daniel, William, and John (miscounted);

(b) One free white male under 16 years: James, and

unknown female (an unknown daughter? unknown mother? unknown sister? we do not know).

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Daniel McAninch and John McAninch in the 1790 Census", Copyright Frank McAninch

McAninch Family History Newsletter, v.XXXII (32) n.1 / June 2024 / page 2024-06