Chenoweth Family in the US Census

1790-1930 Census discussions

basic research by Peter Chenoweth

[COAT-OF-ARMS]

Quick Links

[Master Site Menu] [Main Page]

Page Sections

[Census explanations]
[Discussion of the 1790 Census]
[Discussion of the 1800 Census]
[Discussion of the 1850 Census]
[Discussion of the 1860 Census]
[Discussion of the 1870 Census]
[Discussion of the 1880 Census]
[3rd generation distribution: 1850 & 1860]
[Census Spellings]
[Overview of Census Work on Chenoweths]

[ Chenoweths in the 1860 Indiana Census >::< Menu detail]
[ WV: Families of Revolutionary John in the 1880 Census >::< Menu detail]
Ordered by State, County: [the 1850 Census] [1860 Census Detail]
Ordered by Descendant Line: [the 1850 Census] [1860 Census Detail]
Ordered by Alphabetic Listing: [the 1850 Census] [1860 Census Detail]
[Chenoweth males in the Censuses: 1790-1930: from Aaron to Zenis]
Missing Family members in the Census: [ 1850]
Missing Male Chenoweths in the Census: [ 1860] [ 1870]


Census Research and Tools

The best result we have achieved in any Census is finding about 90% of the names we are searching for. This result is for the new fully indexed 1880 Census and for the 1850 & 1860 Censuses which are the baseline of the existing family. The 1880 complete indexing greatly improves the researcher's ability to find specific families despite the many mutations of the name in question. Just as there are duplicate records, there is undercount where families were missed. This is especially true of those that were on the move and single individuals. That said, Census research is subject to four debilitating conditions. First there is the accuracy itself of the record. How conscientious was the Census taker? Did he actually talk to the family or just take a neighbor's rendition? Who did he talk to and how much did they know? Did he leave something out or misinterpret what was said? Did he make some sort of error in setting it down? Second, how easy is the cursive handwriting to read? The range of legibility of the writing itself travels the gamut from excellent to unreadable. Third is there is the condition of the Census page itself. The age and handling of some pages have rendered some records illegible. Fourth and last, how searchable, accurate, and faithful is the indexing you are using to locate the record itself. Each of these filters reduces our ability to extract the correct record.

Finding people in the Census is sometimes easy and sometimes an art form. Having spent some time squinting over the darkened cursive of a Census microfiche at the Pacific Archives, I enjoy being able to use the following Census tools at my leisure at home. This is a list of what I do have:

A Census explanation by Peter Chenoweth

1790 - 1840: show the names of enumerated heads of household only; other members of the household were simply tallied by age group, sex and race. 1790 census schedules for DE, GA, KY, NJ, TN and VA were apparently destroyed during the British attack on Washington during the war of 1812. The 1790 for VA was reconstructed from state records.

1850: Population 23.2 million [30 states]. Was the first to record each person, their age, occupation if over age 15 and place of birth.

1860: Population 31.4 million [33 states]. Same as 1850

1870: Population 38.6 million [37 states]. If the parent of a person enumerated was of foreign birth, that fact is indicated.

1880: Population 50.2 million [38 states]. Added the relationship of each individual to the head of the household. Was the first census that was indexed according to the Soundex code. However, for 1880 only, the Soundex lists only those entries for households that include a child age 10 or under. Soundex: gives name, race, month and year of birth, age, citizenship status, place of residence by state and county, civil division, and, where appropriate for urban dwellers, the city name, house number, and street name. The cards also list the volume number, enumeration district number, and page and line numbers of the original schedules from which the information was taken. It also includes on "household" cards each member of the household by name and shows the relationship to the head of the household, month and year of birth, age, birthplace, and citizenship status, if foreign-born.

1890: Population 63 million [44 states]. Destroyed by fire and no census records exist

1900: Population 72.6 million [45 states]. Two population schedules were prepared - native Americans and all other residents. Census gives, for each person: name; address; relationship to the head of household; color or race; sex; month and year of birth; age at last birthday; marital status; if a wife is listed within the household than the number of years married, the number of children born of that marriage, and number of children living; places of birth for each individual and their parents; immigration information; occupation; read; write; speak English; own or rent; home or farm; and whether mortgaged or not.

1910: Population 92.2 million [46 states]. In addition to the information for 1900, included was - if unemployed, number of weeks in 1909; if a survivor of the Union or Confederate Army or Navy; if blind in both eyes; and if deaf and dumb.

1920: Population 106 million [48 states]. Census date was changed from the traditional spring/summer to 1 Jan. It was felt that harvests would be completed and information about the harvests fresh in farmers' minds, and more people would be at home in January than in April. Information was the same as 1900, omitting questions about the number of children born and how long a couple had been married. Questions added provided information about the year of naturalization and three about the mother tongue. (Released April 1, 1992)

1930: Population 123.2 million [48 states]. This Census was recently release in April 2002. It is largely unindexed and divided into Enumeration districts. However recently Ancestry.com has completed indexing the Census for subscribers.

1940: Population 132.1 million [48 states]. This Census is scheduled to be release on April 2, 2012. This is based on a law enacted in October 5, 1978 to keep census records sealed for 72 years.

In general: The instructions to the enumerators did not require that individuals spell out their names. Enumerators wrote down the information given to them; they were not authorized to request proof of age, date of arrival or other information. People were known to change their ages between censuses. Individuals were also enumerated as residents of the place in which they regularly slept, not where they worked or might be visiting.

Census Day: each Census was to be based of a specific day. This rule was generally followed but not always uniformly. It is important to know this day when looking at a Census


1790 Census: [the first Census]

The 1790 Census is as much of a puzzle as it is an aid in shaping knowledge about the family. The Virginia Censuses do not exist. The Kentucky Census is really just tax listings. There are 8 Chenoweth households in Maryland. That there is no 1800 Census of Baltimore Co. exacerbates the problem.

total 14 older males, 6 sons, 20 females = 40

Alive and living in Baltimore at the time should be:

There is no listing for a Thomas. Thomas the son of Arthur should be in Frederick Co. with a large family, but is not found. The listings for Samuel and Frances are self evident and closely resemble what we would expect. That leaves 6 listings of 2 Arthurs, 2 Williams and 2 Richards.

The listings on page 29 are for the Soldiers Delight Hundred. This is where the families of ARTHUR were. This is confirmed by Samuel's presence in this area. The are listings in this area for an Arthur, William and Richard. Logically Arthur would be Arthur, Jr. and the family numbers are somewhat similar. It could be that his son Arthur is living with him as an older male, but who the young male is unknown. The William would appear to William, the son of Arthur, Jr. He has daughters and it is known that he has not yet moved to Hampstead. William(3), the son of Arthur, is likely deceased and likely never married. The Richard does not fit Arthur's son Richard, there would be more daughters, so this may be Richard Beasman who has recently married with maybe his brother and or sister living with them. So missing from The ARTHUR families are Arthur himself, the family of his son Richard and as previously mentioned the family of his son Thomas. As Richard inherits the lands of Arthur, Sr. and is the youngest son, it is likely that Arthur, Sr. is living with Richard and family.

That leaves us with 3 remaining listings of for an Arthur, William and Richard that appear to be in the line of RICHARD. The listing for Arthur matches what we know of Richard's son Arthur. The listing for William (in the Back River Upper Hundred) may include his brother Thomas who is recently married. It is uncertain who the Richard is. Is this Richard, Jr. or Richard, the son of John(3)? Who is the male child. He appears to be too young to be George, who appears as an unknown. It may be this son is the unknown John b: 1789 who will marry Ann Perinne.

So it is possible to sort the listings out somewhat, but there are questions in doing so that are not easily resolved.

Approximate known locations of family in 1790

[1790 USA]

LEGEND: JOHN RICHARD HANNAH ARTHUR WILLIAM THOMAS RUTH UNKNOWN

Families depicted


1800 Census: [the second Census]

The 1800 Census is a disaster for the Chenoweth family. Of the estimated 43 Chenoweth named families of that time, 41 are in Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio or Tennessee. There is no Census of Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, though there is a Tax list for Kentucky & Ohio. The 1800 Census of Virginia was lost. In Maryland, the entire Census of Baltimore Co. was lost leaving only 3 listings in Frederick Co. and Harford Co. In all we find just 4 Census listings and 8 tax listings. Tax listings are without any household numbers. This lack of data puts a big dent in the family knowledge at a very crucial time, when the third generation is expanding and the 4th generation starting. It is like a 20 year black hole from the vagaries of the 1790 Census:

What we have and don't have (Census locations in BOLD):


1850 Census

Called the first Modern Census, the 1850, 7th US Census, was the first to include all the names living in a household. Lemuel Shattuck of Massachusetts was the primary motivator and designer of this significant redesign. Based on his work in Boston, federal officials had asked him to Washington, DC to help plan the 1850 Census. The result of his work transformed the researcher's world. For the first time the Census could be largely used to trace all descendants captured in a Census throughout their life spans and identifying them to ascendant and descendant families. What more we would know today had this been done earlier.

Basic Information: Census Day: June 1, Population 23.2 million (including 3.2 million slaves). In 1850 the population center was 23 miles southwest of Parkersburg, present day WV. The basic information in each listing gives their name, age, sex, state of birth and occupation.

The 1850 Census page is a baseline of what is known and verifiable of the family history. Three views are available, one ordered by State & County, one ordered by descendant line and one ordered by alphabetic listing. Posted in 2005, ensiung efforts have added 152 additional families to the 817 in the orginal run through. The majority of these additions have come from newly deveolped lines and marriages that have come to light. The family is basically found in 19 States of the 31 in the Census, as well as the Washington and Oregon listings for the Oregon Territory. For the most part the family lived in rural areas and the common occupation was farming. There were dozen or so families in the City of Baltimore, who had migrated into the growing urban area from the surrounding Baltimore Co., where the family had started in the 1730s. Just a handful lived in the newer western cities of Louisville, Cincinnati and St. Louis. These urban dwellers represented less than 5% of the known family. The area of the future state of West Virginia has been broken out separately. The families range from a few aging 4th generation members to a handful of 7th generation parents just starting their families. At present there are close to 5,098 family members found in the Census comprising 969 households and another 78 families listed on the missing list. 220 of them are Chenoweth named families and 779 are daughter lines. The most common household surnames by 1850 were Chenoweth 220, Ashbrook 22, Heaton 16, Carter 15, Downing 12, Wilson 10 and Butler & Smith at 8 each. In order these family lines are John: 371, Richard 38, Hannah 73, Arthur 110, William 144, Thomas 190 and Ruth 43. In location the family households are found as follows: Ohio 268, Indiana 192, Illinois 128, Virginia (incl WV) 82, Kentucky 62, Pennsylvania 57, Missouri 39, Maryland 42, Iowa 33, Tennessee 20, Wisconsin 14, Georgia 12, Arkansas 7, Texas 5, Alabama 4, Massachusetts, New York, California (6 single men, no families), and the Oregon Territory 2. This puts more than 60% of the family into the newly formed "melting pot" states of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The center of gravity of this is well west of the national center, putting the family firmly on the edges of the frontier. The Census page itself is ordered by state and county, listing the known families within the county. I have used the same colors as developed by the Reunion committee to give an easy glance to which of the 7 known branches of the children of the family of John and Mary Chenoweth. Though the page is still under construction, the detail 100% complete for found families. A second page lists out families that we believe exist but have not been located within the Census itself: [1850 Missing families].

[1850 USA]

Distribution of Chenoweth Family in 1850


1860 Census

The 8th Census, taken on the eve of the Civil War, followed the format developed for the 1850 Census. The population of the Untied States had grown by close to 33% to over 31 million people. Two new States had been admitted since the last Census: Minnesota and Oregon, bringing the total to 33. New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Nebraska and Kansas had been formed into territories. The dispute over the question of slavery had engulfed politics and the question of whether slavery would be allowed in new states a bitter point of debate. A violent struggle had developed over the Kansas and Nebraska Territories. The nation was about to be plunged into a devastating blood bath. We estimate that there may have been 400 males named Chenoweth born before 1850 living in 1860. 150 of these would serve in the conflict to come.

Basic Information: Census Day: June 1, Population 31.4 million (including 3.9 million slaves). In 1860 the population center was 20 miles southeast of Chillicothe, OH some 55 miles further west than in 1850, an area that the Chenoweths had settled near in 1796. The basic information in each Census detail gives the name, age, sex, state of birth and occupation of each household member, the same format used in the 1850 Census.

The 1860 Census page is a baseline of what is known and verifiable of the family history. Three views are available, one ordered by State & County, one ordered by descendant line and one ordered by alphabetic listing. The family is basically found in 23 States of the 33 in the Census, as well as the District of Columbia and Kansas, Nebraska and Washington Territories. For the most part the family lived in rural areas and the common occupation was farming. There were dozen or so families in the City of Baltimore, who had migrated into the growing urban area from the surrounding Baltimore Co., where the family had started in the 1730s. Just a handful lived in the newer western cities of Louisville, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis. These urban dwellers represented less than 5% of the known family. The area of the future state of West Virginia has been broken out separately. 4th generation households had shrunk from 104 to 66. The 18 seventh generation households found in the 1850 Census had swelled to 112 households, 79 of these being in the line of John. The balance was almost equally dived between the 5th and 6th generation. In the ten years from the 1850, the Chenoweth family only migrated to one additional territorial area in any numbers: Kansas. The first family moved into the Nebraska territory. Small household counts were also recorded in Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Connecticut, the latter state representing a migration out of Massachusetts. Most of the population increases occurred in in-filling existing states with family populations. The westward end of this increased density benefited Oregon, Texas and Missouri. On the Pacific coast the family population had increased from 20 to 120. A Solid base of the family, 75%, centered in just 6 continuous states, WV, OH, IN, KY, IL and MO. Based on our back to back details of both the 1850 and the 1860 Census, the family growth was over 49%, greater than that of the general population growth of the country as a whole. On reflection, there is a built in reason why a the general family’s growth would exceed the general population despite the infusion of immigration into the country. As family members marry they add in aggregate, dynamically to a family’s population. At present there are close to 7,612 family members found in the Census comprising 1,514 households. 257 of them are Chenoweth named families and 1,257 are daughter lines. We estimate that there is another 760 family members that have not been found in the Census, a 10% figure that comparable to other time period studies. This puts the known family size at 8,200 people. This would not include those lines which we have not yet been able to develop. The most common household surnames by 1860 were Chenoweth 257, Ashbrook 29, Heaton 25, Carter 21, Stalnaker 17, Wilson 16, Smith 14, Miller 13, and Hale 12. In order these family lines are John: 619, Richard 56, Hannah 109, Arthur 139, William 229, Thomas 289 and Ruth 73. In location the family households are found as follows: Ohio 320, Indiana 289, Illinois 249, Virginia (incl. WV) 117, Kentucky 100, Pennsylvania 66, Missouri 92, Iowa 88, Maryland 40, Texas 30, Wisconsin 22, Georgia 19, Tennessee 18, Kansas 16, Oregon 16, Arkansas 11, California 6, Washington 2, Alabama, DC, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, South Carolina, with single individuals found in Connecticut and Mississippi. Also see 1860 Indiana Census Overview

[1860 USA]

Distribution of Chenoweth Family in 1860


1870 Census

The 9th Census, in the aftermath of the Civil War, followed the same basic format used in the 1860 & 1850 Censuses. The population of the United States had grown by close by 23% to over 38 million people, a growth dip reflecting the heavy toll of the war. Four new States had been admitted since the last Census: Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada and West Virginia split from Virginia, bringing the total to 37. The rest of the country was divided into 10 territories that would become 11 States. The former slaves of the South were now citizens and part of the general population. The war effected the population size, not only by the extraordinary numbers of casualties, but by taking many of the males way from their families stunting the natural family growth.

Basic Information: Census Day: June 1, Population 38.6 million. In 1860 the population center was 48 miles northeast of Cincinnati, OH some 110 miles further west than in 1860. The basic information in each Census detail gives the name, age, sex, state of birth and occupation of each household member, the same format used in the 1850 and 1860 Census. Other census details include values of real estate and personal property, whether married within the year, the month of birth for anyone born during the year, adult males that were citizens and whether that right had been abridged, whether the individual had attended school within the year, whether an adult could read or write, and whether they were considered deaf, dumb, blind insane idiotic, a pauper or were a convict.

The 1870 Census page is a baseline of what is known and verifiable of the family history. Three views are available, one ordered by State & County, one ordered by descendant line and one ordered by alphabetic listing. Each of the 3 basic sorts has been split into 2 pages for this census for size considerations. The family is basically found in 24 States of the 33 in the Census, as well as the District of Columbia and Utah, Arizona, Montana and Washington Territories. For the most part the family lived in rural areas and the common occupation was farming. There were dozen or so families in the City of Baltimore, who had migrated into the growing urban area from the surrounding Baltimore Co., where the family had started in the 1730s. Just a handful lived in the newer western cities of Louisville, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis. These urban dwellers represented less than 5% of the known family. The area of the future state of West Virginia has been broken out separately. 4th generation households had shrunk from 66 to 32. The 8th generation had begun with 6 households. The 6th generation dominated the family with 1,213 households. On the Pacific coast the population had increased from 120 to 295. A Solid base of the family, 60%, centered in just 6 continuous states, WV, OH, IN, KY, IL and MO. This is down by almost a 1/3 from 1860, indicating a strong move west. 484 families, 22 percent of the family, were west of the Mississippi, up from 275 in 1860 which was 17% then. Based on our back to back details of both the 1860 and the 1870 Census, the family growth was over 39%, greater than that of the general population growth of the country as a whole. As noted in the 1860 detail above, there is a built in reason why a general family’s growth would exceed the general population despite the infusion of immigration into the country. As family members marry they add in aggregate, dynamically to a family’s population. At present there are close to 10,533 family members found in the Census comprising 2,159 households. 308 of them are Chenoweth named families and 1,847 are daughter lines. We estimate that there is another 1,000 family members that have not been found in the Census, a 10% figure that comparable to other time period studies. This puts the known family size at 11,500 people. This would not include those lines which we have not yet been able to develop. The most common household surnames by 1870 were Chenoweth 322, Ashbrook 41, Heaton 28, Carter 25, Downing 23, Miller 20, Wilson, Stalnaker, and Smith 19, Tredway 17, Fox 16 & Butler and Petro 15 . In order these family lines are John: 889, Richard 81, Hannah 149, Arthur 217, William 298, Thomas 421 and Ruth 104. In location the family households are found as follows: Ohio 404, Indiana 383, Illinois 370, Iowa 140, West Virginia 130, Kentucky 117, Missouri 115, Pennsylvania 82, Maryland 63, Kansas 61, Texas 44, Oregon 29, Tennessee 28, Wisconsin 21, Georgia 21, Arkansas 20, California 20, Virginia 19, Michigan 15, Minnesota 9, Washington 8, Nebraska 8, DC 4, Mississippi 4, New York 2, Massachusetts 2, Utah 2, Alabama, with single individuals found in Montana, Arizona, & New Mexico. As in 1860 , Indiana led the list for families with the Chenoweth name at 68. In all, the 1870 Census has families from 181 different 4th generation lines. A very broad family base.

[1860 USA]

Distribution of Chenoweth Family in 1870


Households: 3rd generation lines: 1850-1870 Census comparison

Through 1870 we are tracing 39 of the known 58 3rd generation children. We know of only 4 marriages and none of the children of the 19 not extended to the 1860 Census. To Modern times, only one of these 39 traceable lines has died out. 22 of these 39 lines were Chenoweth male lines. Today 17 of these carry the name forward.

families

decent  line

1870

1860

1850

root name

John(2) William

286

186

120

Chenoweth

John(2) John

174

118

79

Chenoweth

John(2) Thomas

36

30

14

Chenoweth

John(2) Richard

45

34

19

Chenoweth

John(2) Absolom

48

39

25

Chenoweth

John(2) Mary

177

123

68

Ashbrook

John(2) Arthur

31

23

14

Chenoweth

John(2) Rachel

92

66

32

Seaton

Richard(2) John

61

38

25

Chenoweth

Richard(2) Arthur

1

1

Chenoweth>Passmore

Richard(2) Hannah

16

13

10

Ashton

Richard(2) Thomas

3

4

3

Chenoweth

Hannah(2) Nancy Ann

39

27

17

Rees

Hannah(2) James

85

65

42

Carter

Hannah(2) William

12

5

7

Carter>Trimble

Hannah(2) John

13

12

8

Carter

Arthur(2) Arthur

92

52

42

Chenoweth

Arthur(2) John

43

35

29

Chenoweth

Arthur(2) Samuel

24

18

9

Chenoweth

Arthur(2) Thomas

9

5

6

Chenoweth

Arthur(2) Richard

29

18

16

Chenoweth

Arthur(2) Ruth

20

11

7

Butler

William(2) Mary

167

121

72

Sutton

William(2) Joseph

11

7

5

Chenoweth

William(2) Absolom

14

10

9

Chenoweth> Jennings & others

William(2) William

50

44

31

Chenoweth

William(2) Issac

56

47

25

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Sarah

25

17

13

Scott

Thomas(2) Mary

76

52

31

Downing

Thomas(2) John

30

28

25

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Thomas

66

44

28

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Arthur

55

33

19

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Richard

37

29

20

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) William

12

9

5

Chenoweth>Garrett, Ellis

Thomas(2) Elijah

73

50

29

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Abraham

47

27

21

Chenoweth

Ruth(2) James

50

33

18

Peteet>Tredway

Ruth(2) Mary

21

13

10

Vaughn

Ruth(2) Richard

33

27

16

Peteet

Totals

2159

1514

969


1880 Census

In 2001, the LDS Church completed transcribing the 1880 Census to full electronic media. This is a fantastic resource of immense value to any family researcher. Though there may be transcription errors, for the first time every individual in a nationwide Census was fully indexed. This valuable tool has helped us set a second baseline for the database. I deeply appreciate this effort. A full review of this resource and how to obtain it can be found in a Rootsweb review by Myra Vanderpool Gormley

Some general comments. The 1880 Census is significant for two features. For the first time the relationship between individuals listed in a household was given, making the Census less ambiguous. Also the birth states of an individuals parents were listed. This can be great asset in helping researchers identify them in the western "melting pot" states. So far I have identified 2,156 individuals bearing the Chenoweth name in the US in 1880. 125 of these individuals are not part of the family of John Chenoweth and Mary Calvert, and 77 of these spell their names beginning with "Chyn". 1,951 individuals are descendants of John and Mary. There are 153 that are a part of the unknown file we presently believe belongs to the family and 80 are not yet identified to either our main file or our unknown file. This is a confirmation that as a rule of thumb about 9 out of 10 Chenoweths in the United States are descendants of this one Colonial Family.

Excluding other lines, in 1880 there were about 407 households with the name of Chenoweth. 70% of these lived in the states of Maryland (198), West Virginia (179), Ohio (273), Indiana (343), Illinois (277) and Missouri (176). Kansas and Iowa were the next most populated each with over 100 individuals. Texas, California, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee and Arkansas in descending order each had between 65 to 23 individuals. Another 103 Chenoweths are found scattered in 16 other states, with few in New England and few in the Deep South. In all the family is found to have spread to 30 States in the Union. There were 1,067 males and 964 females, 419 of these spouses. There were 1050 children, better than half of the population. 80% were less than the age of 40. The identified lines are: John 43%, Thomas 26%, Arthur 14%, Richard 11% and William 7%. These individuals would be predominately 6th and 7th generation with the 8th generation underway, elders in the 5th generation and a very few left from the 4th.

To date, we have found roughly 90% of the known family males in the 1880 Census. These male lines breakdown as follows in 1880: John: 418, Richard 55, Arthur 216, William 80 and Thomas 280. Families grow in surges, when the each new generation reaches a marriageable age and begins to have children. For the Chenoweth male lines, this spurt is noticeable about every 30 to 40 years. The growth decades for the Chenoweths were the 1790s, 1840s and 1890s. There is a noticeable growth dampening from the Civil War. The growth period of the 1840s is unparalleled. For some reason, the family in this one short decade, more than doubled in size.

It is evident however, by examining the 1880 Census coverage of Chenoweth males, that there is little that is lost in what we know of male lines. The bulk of what is there, nationwide, is identifiable to either the family itself, groups that we believe belong to the family, or other immigrations. There are only a handful of families in 1880 that cannot be so identified. There are a larger number of stray single males, both unidentified and missing. Stray, single males are hard to identify in any Census for lack of sufficient information about them. It is also obvious that Census takers were far more likely to miss these people as they were both more mobile and in more remote areas. There are always people missed in a Census. In the present political argument over this aspect of the Census, I side with the Conservatives. Ways should be found to find people, statically projections do not help the genealogist.

It is also evident, what a wonderful tool the LDS 1880 Census is. Its total indexing of all individuals in the Census has allowed us to thoroughly identify the family within a few weeks' time. Hopefully this sort of improved access to Census data will continue. This process has also impressed on me what an thorough effort Shirley and Richard Harris did with the 1880 Census when they conducted their research for their book.

Roughly 1200 are spelled the name Chenoweth or Chenowith , other variation and Census taker and transcription misspellings include [The bulk of these belong to these latter two classifications and were not really in use]: Ceonoworth, Chameth, Chemneth, Chemworth, Chaniworth, Chanocoth, Chanyworth, Chaworth, Cheavwith, Chemoweth, Chenauth, Chenaweth, Chenawith, Chenaworth, Chendweth, Cheneoickth, Cheneoweth, Cheneweth, Chenewett, Chenewith, Cheneworth, Chenewoth, Chenewuth, Cheniwith, Chenilworth, Cheniworth, Chenmeth, Chenneworth, Chenneyworth, Chennoweth, Chenoeth, Chenoneth, Chenoth, Chenoueth, Chenowerth, Chenoweuth, Chenourth, Chenousth, Chenoveth, Chenovith, Chenowath, Chenowerth, Chenowet, Chenowethw, Chenoworth, Chenowoth, Chenowth, Chensworth, Chenweth, Chenworth, Chenwortt, Cheoweth, Cheowith, Cheoworth, Cheowth, Cherworth, Cherwurth, Chesroweth, Cheusmith, Chimwith, Chinawath, Chinawith, Chinawoith, Chinaworth, Chincry, Chinewath, Chineworth, Chinewoth, Chinneworth, Chinnoth, Chinnoweth, Chinnowth, Chinometh, Chinoneth, Chinoth, Chinouth, Chinowell, Chinowerth, Chinoweth, Chinowith, Chinoworth, Chinroth, Chinworth, Chionaweth, Chirrouth, Chissoweth, Chmneyworth, Chonowet, Chonowsth, Chronoth, Chuiowsh, Chusworth, Ciniwith, Clinoweth [Note spellings in current modern use, though often rare, are in bold]


Chenoweth Spellings

This chart was put together using searches at Ancestry.com. Early Census spelling really have no meaning. They were almost random and often done phonetically, and probably not what the family actually used. Numbers befor 1850 are for households and it is not until 1850 where we get an every person count. Early Census households are distorted because of the missing Virginia Censuses in 1790 and 1800 and missing sections of the 1800 Baltimore Census. These are the vary areas where most all of the family lived.

Looking at the chart you can get a sense of a trend towards the spelling Chenoweth. This not so much as people changing the spelling of their names, but better recording and Census data handling. As much of these early Census variations have to do with index transciptions as the actual Census document. The chart numbers do not include truly random and odd spellings as well as mis-identications to names like "Chesworth, Charlesworth and Chenault". [see 1880 listing of spellings found immediately above for a sense of these variantions] This means the numbers presented are slightly lower than actual. Another point is the obvious poor indexing [or actual Census count?] of the 1930 Census as the family numbers take their first dip ever. Maybe 15% is missing from the norm. Of course every Census is an undercount of some 5 to 10% by our analysis. Then there is this caveat: these spelling totals are what is in the index and may not be what what is actually on the Census page itself because of transcription problems.


Census Year

Census Year

1790

1800

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1900

1910

1920

1930

Chenoweth

1

1

8

23

32

43

512

588

815

925

2047

2399

2789

2756

Chenowith

7

14

15

15

222

263

253

308

528

603

601

485

Chenowth

27

2

15

24

49

52

56

6

Chinowth

20

0

7

13

40

1

11

Chinworth

1

2

1

0

3

11

4

17

21

35

23

13

9

Chenworth

8

42

61

2

40

127

54

14

Chinouth

1

0

0

0

8

2

24

20

11

Cheneweth

3

1

9

3

10

30

13

3

Chinoweth

1

9

10

21

14

4

97

39

30

17

3

Cheneworth

2

13

54

89

75

41

60

38

15

Chinowith

15

1

15

17

19

29

17

Chineworth

1

7

28

36

18

13

41

11

18

17

Chineth

1

1

2

1

9

1

10

4

7

Chinneth

1

2

47

5

4

11

6

11

others

7

1

1

6

0

0

10

10

1

6

Total

8

3

19

50

49

83

909

1040

1296

1506

2888

3449

3648

3354

% Chenoweth

12.5%

33.3%

42.1%

46.0%

65.3%

51.8%

56.3%

56.5%

62.9%

61.4%

70.9%

69.6%

76.5%

82.2%

Chynoweth

9

19

50

74

161

161

247

239

This is a brief run through of the spellings:



[GRAPH]



Current status of Chenoweth mamed males Census work

This is a listing of Chenoweth males in the family of John and Mary that have discernable lives at each Census year and the number we have presently identified in the each year's Census. What is presented is obviously not complete, but it does reflect most all Census work data we have used in the database. Peter Chenoweth has done yeoman's work on this data. His extensive work with the 1920 Census has helped bridge the past with the present. Enough can't be said on the importance that his efforts had had on defining and documenting family knowledge. The effect of lack of a VA Census in 1790 and 1800 as well as the lack of an 1800 Census of Baltimore Co. and a 1810 Census for Ohio badly skews the early data. Hopefully, these figures should improve as we hone in on what is missing from each Census. [Note our figures prior to 1850 are for head of households only]. We have Just finished a first run through on the 1930 Census using Ancestry.com and the recent indexing available there. We have also completely updated the 1910 census based on new indexing. The recent Indexing of the complete 1880 Census by the LDS Church and our entire family review of the 1850 Census has boosted the "found" percetages for both these periods to over 90%. The 1850 Census marks a true base line from which the present family has been developed. This Census data provides a strong documentation backdrop for the database structure and detail of the Chenoweth name. Our present research tracks nearly 3,550 males including John himself that are part of the family and another 285 of unplaced groups who we believe are part of this family.

Census

males

found

pct

1790

29

10

34.5%

1800

43

12

27.9%

1810

55

39

70.9%

1820

82

58

70.9%

1830

95

82

86.3%

1840

140

121

87.1%

1850

586

550

93.9%

1860

737

665

90.2%

1870

845

750

89.1%

1880

1068

976

91.4%

1900

1397

1196

86.0%

1910

1569

1341

85.9%

1920

1677

1452

87.0%

1930

1778

1471

83.1%


Special 1860 Indiana Census Pages


Special 1860 Indiana Census Pages


West Virginia families: Special 1880 Census Pages

Though I have complete listing on the family in my file, these have not been organized yet as a website presentation. There is howver a special presentation of the large family tree of JOhn Chenoweth of Randolph County, WV. John was 4th generation and the first born great grandson in the family.

This 8 page study details Randolph Co., WV and the family of John Chenoweth and his wife, Mary Pugh, that settled there in 1795. It traces this family to the 1880 census were 224 descended families are found in West Virginia and across the country. This is the oldest 4th generation branch of the family and, by far, the largest. The details of this branch are so well known that only thirteen additional families or individuals that are part of this branch have not been located.


Additions and Correction appreciated - Jon Egge

You can reach me by e-mail at:
jegge@chenowethsite.com
Copyright c 2003-2009 by Jon D. Egge. Any republication of this page material for personal use requires inclusion of this copyright. Any other republication of this page material requires the express consent of the author.

[IMAGE] to return to Chenoweth Main...

Last Revision Monday, November 3, 2008 Return to Start