1790 New Hampshire Census Analysis

The first federal census in the United States was conducted on or about August 2, 1790. Results showed a total population of about 3.9 million people nationwide. There were nearly 142,00 people counted in New Hampshire, of which 32,881 (within 5331 'families') were living in Hillsborough Co., Dunbarton itself contained 134 families made up of 921 people.[1]

Three Jameson families can be found for that part of the census taken in Dunbarton;[2] Alexander Jameson, Daniel Jameson and John Jameson. This is consistant with what is known about Jamesons in that area at that time. Notably missing, or at least unnamed, from this collection of Dunbarton Jameson's, is Hugh Jameson (the immigrant). He was by 1790 either dead or no longer considered the 'head" of a household.

Very little information was captured on any US census before that of 1850, making it difficult to understand if the results were in any way in conflict with what is independently known about that family or household at that time. That coupled with difficult to read handwriting, poor condition of the original documents, notoriously bad spelling errors, general inexperience and regular reports of mistakes, makes deciphering and understanding the results very difficult. Unfortunately this is true of all three Jameson families in the 1790 Dunbarton, NH census.

Alexander and Daniel Jameson's enumerations are found successively on page 350. This is expected and logical. They are brothers who grew up in the same household on a large farm with their parents. In 1782 they (Alexander and Daniel) entered into and agreement with their parents whereby they jointly inherited the property in exchange for providing for their parents thereafter.[3] Precisely how or where the two Jameson brother were actually living is not addressed in the census, only that they are considered two separate families.

The results listed for Alexander Jameson are in considerable conflict with what is now known about his family at that time. It is accepted today from everything known that there were three sons (Hugh, Joseph Brown and Daniel) alive at that time, not two as listed. There is only one known female in the household at that time (wife Janet), not three as listed. It is possible that Alexander's mother Jane may have been living with them, although she would be more likely have been living with brother Daniel if she was still alive. It is also possible that daughter Anna was born earlier (by one year) than is generally thought and that she then would have made up one of the three. It is also possible that there was another female child of this family, perhaps one who had died early (although after the census counted) or one who has since become unknown. It is however possible that the census taker had gotten his numbers mixed up and that there were actually three males under 16 and two females, not the other way around. This would still not explain why there is a conflict with one female and what we accept now. But, explaining one unknown female is far easier than two unknown females and one unknown male.

Results for Daniel are also somewhat confusing. He is shown to have two adult males, two females and one other (gender unidentified) person living within the household. The two females are correct from what we know independently and would be his wife Hannah and a daughter Betsey. The two adult males along with a third unidentified person however are a bit of a mystery. One of those would undoubtedly be Daniel's (and brother Alesander's) younger brother Thomas, who would not yet have been 20 years old and was presumably still living at home. The other 'unknown' may have been their father Hugh, if in fact he was still alive. It is also possible there was an unrelated person, perhaps a boarder or an employee, living in the household at that time.

It should be noted here that regarding both Daniel and Alexander the 1800 census, also in Dunbarton, NH. Seems to have no conflicts, with everything in order when compared to what is known about both families at that time, although curiously in the 1800 census the brothers are enumerated 22 families apart.

Issues with the results for John Jameson (actual census entry can be seen by clicking on the graphic in the upper left - he's on page 351, the fourth one down) are more complicated because we know independently so much less about him at that time. What we do know comes from "The Jamesons in America"[4] and shows there would have been one young male and two female daughters. This mostly jives with the census information except where it shows two males under 16 years old. Perhaps they had a second son who died very young and was unknown to E.O Jameson when he published the Jameson book.

In summery, the results can be said to be confusing and conflicting, therefore inconclusive. It can however be said that these three Jameson families were without a doubt in Dunbarton, Hillsborough Co., NH in 1790 and at least some parts of what we independently knew about them confirmed.