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 1880 Census]
[3rd generation distribution: 1850 & 1860]
[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.

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:

Ancestry.com has new expanded indexes for each Census for every indivadual. They also have the complete 1930 Census.

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 50 additional families to 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 4,613 family members found in the Census comprising 867 households and another 86 families listed on the missing list. 218 of thm are Chenoweth named families and 649 are daughter lines. The most common household surnames by 1860 were Chenoweth 219, Ashbrook 21, Carter 15, Wilson 10 and Butler, Heaton & Smith at 8 each. In order these family lines are John: 361, Richard 31, Hannah 67, Arthur 105, William 104, Thomas 162 and Ruth 37. In location the family households are found as follows: Ohio 237, Indiana 169, Illinois 111, Virginia (incl WV) 88, Kentucky 61, Pennsylvania 52, Missouri 38, Maryland 36, Iowa 31, Tennessee 21, Wisconsin 13, Georgia 10, Arkansas 7, Texas 4, Alabama 3, Massachusetts, New York, California (3 single men, no families), and the Oregon Territory 1. This puts almost 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. Three new States had been admitted since the last Census: California, 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 24 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 96 to 63. The 15 seventh generation households found in the 1850 Census had swelled to 78 households, 67 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, Louisiana, 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 7 to 103. A Solid base of the family, 76%, 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 nearly 46%, 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 6,787 family members found in the Census comprising 1,335 households. 255 of them are Chenoweth named families and 1,180 are daughter lines. We estimate that there is another 650 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 7,400 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 255, Ashbrook 31, Carter 20, Stalnaker 17, Wilson 15 and Smith, Miller, Heaton, and Hale at 12 each. In order these family lines are John: 587, Richard 55, Hannah 103, Arthur 129, William 160, Thomas 240 and Ruth 61. In location the family households are found as follows: Ohio 268, Indiana 242, Illinois 228, Virginia (incl. WV) 111, Kentucky 95, Pennsylvania 58, Missouri 86, Iowa 77, Maryland 39, Tennessee 18, Wisconsin 17, Georgia 16, Arkansas 11, Texas 28, Kansas 13, Oregon 12, 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

Households: 3rd generation lines: 1850-1860 Census comparison

Through 1860 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.

Census

Year

Year

descent line

1860

1850

root surname

John(2) William

184

118

Chenoweth

John(2) Mary

120

66

Ashbrook

John(2) John

105

77

Chenoweth

Hannah(2) James

63

41

Carter

John(2) Rachel

62

32

Seaton

William(2) Mary

57

36

Sutton

Arthur(2) Arthur

54

43

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Elijah

47

26

Chenoweth

William(2) William

44

30

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Thomas

43

27

Chenoweth

William(2) Issac

42

24

Chenoweth

Richard(2) John

37

23

Chenoweth

John(2) Absolom

36

24

Chenoweth

John(2) Richard

34

19

Chenoweth

Arthur(2) John

33

29

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Arthur

30

19

Chenoweth

Ruth(2) James

29

18

Peteet>Tredway

Thomas(2) Richard

28

19

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Abraham

27

20

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) John

26

25

Chenoweth

Hannah(2) Nancy Ann

24

16

Rees

Ruth(2) Richard

24

13

Peteet

John(2) Thomas

23

11

Chenoweth

John(2) Arthur

23

14

Chenoweth

Thomas(2) Mary

21

12

Downing

Arthur(2) Richard

17

16

Chenoweth

Arthur(2) Samuel

14

8

Chenoweth

Richard(2) Hannah

13

10

Ashton

Hannah(2) John

12

8

Carter

William(2) Absolom

10

9

Chenoweth> Jennings & others

Thomas(2) Sarah

9

10

Scott

Thomas(2) William

9

5

Chenoweth>Garrett, Ellis

Ruth(2) Mary

8

7

Vaughn

William(2) Joseph

7

5

Chenoweth

Arthur(2) Ruth

6

5

Butler

Arthur(2) Thomas

5

6

Chenoweth

Richard(2) Thomas

4

3

Chenoweth

Hannah(2) William

4

4

Carter>Trimble

Richard(2) Arthur

1

Chenoweth>Passmore

totals

1335

878

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]

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 3,400 males including John himself that are part of the family and another 308 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

57

69.5%

1830

93

81

87.1%

1840

139

118

84.9%

1850

580

542

93.4%

1860

727

654

90.0%

1870

831

707

85.1%

1880

1048

948

90.5%

1900

1368

1162

84.9%

1910

1525

1298

85.1%

1920

1620

1407

86.9%

1930

1715

1396

81.4%

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 2003-2007 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, July 23, 2007 Return to Start