Home
>
Perkins/Durham Research >
Commentaries >
Warner's Census and Probate
Analysis
Perkins/Durham
Research: Warner's Census and
Probate Analysis
The
following analysis of Warner Perkins Census records divides its focus
into two parts.
In
part one, focus is on the members of Warner's household on the 1820,
1830 and 1840 census listings compared to the heirs listed in his
probate records of 1849.
The
second part of this analysis focuses on the neighboring Perkins
households to Warner on the various censuses: Visnon, Thomas and William
Purkins. What could their relationship be to Warner?
Please
refer to my comments regarding race in the Research
Journal if the "free colored person" notations below
causes confusion. The race classification is highlighted in this
analysis as a way to further draw commonalities between the various
Perkins/Purkins households. There have thus far been no definitive
conclusions as to the heritage (Indian, African, etc.) for this family
line.
I
invite comments and alternate viewpoints from others. Please direct
comments to Lisa Perkins.
Part 1: Focus on Warner's immediate household and
heirs
Warner's heirs per his probate records of 1849
The earliest know Perkins ancestor is Warner Perkins who died around
1849 and according to his probate records, his heirs were listed in
the following order:
1. Mitchel Perkins (administrator)
2. Raymond Foster & wife
3. Brinkley Perkins
4. Joseph Perkins
5. Mahaley Perkins
6. Lovey Perkins
7. Warner Perkins
Each received $17.31 of his estate around July 1849.
We might assume that heirs are listed in the order oldest to youngest.
It is not known who Raymond Foster and wife are and how they could be
related. Perhaps Raymond's wife was one of Warner's
daughters. Raymond was found on subsequent census in Delaware
with a wife named Eliza.
Census
of 1840 Delaware, Sussex Co., Nanticoke Hundred
Warner's
household is listed as follows: 14 "Free colored persons":
2 males
under 10 (? and ?)
2 males
between 10 and 24 (Warner and ?)
2 males
between 24 and 35 (Brinkley and Joseph?)
1 male
between 36 and 55 (Warner Perkins Sr.?)
4 females
under 10 (4 x ?)
2 females
between 10 and 24 (Lovey and Mahaley?)
1 female
between 36 and 55 - (?)
Names in
parentheses are my best guess as to whom they might be referring based
on the probate listed heirs. Since there is a Mitchell Perkins listed
in another household in New Castle County, I assumed his son Mitchel
is not included in this census. Perhaps the younger males and females
were Warner's grandchildren.
Census
of 1830 Delaware, Sussex Co., Nanticoke Hundred
Page 47
Warner Perkins, mulatto, is listed as follows 11 "free colored
persons"
2 males
under 10 (Joseph and Warner Jr.?)
2 males
between 10 and 24 (Mitchel and Brinkley?)
1 male
between 36 to 55 (Warner Sr.?)
2 females
under 10 (2 x ?)
3 females
between 10 to 24 (Lovey and Mahaley and ?)
1 female
between 36 to 55 (?)
Names in parentheses are my best guess as to whom
they might be referring based on the probate listed heirs. Since
Mitchel Perkins would have been 17 at the time of this census, I
assumed he is included in Warner's household. Perhaps the younger
females are Warner's grandchildren, children who died after the census
and before Warner's probate, or perhaps children of a wife who had
children of her own?
Census of 1820 Delaware,
Sussex County, Nanticoke 100
Warner Purkins (note different spelling) Number
of persons engaged in agriculture: 1
7 "Free Colored
Persons":
3 males under 14 (Mitchel,
Brinkley, Joseph?)
1 male over 45 (Warner)
2 females under 14 (Lovey and
Mahaley?)
1 female between 26 and 45
(wife)
Again, names in parentheses are my best guess as to
whom they might be referring based on the probate listed heirs. This
household list closely parallels the breakdown of his heirs noted on
his 1849 probate, with the absence of youngest son Warner.
Part 2: Warner Perkins' Neighbors named Perkins
The censuses above are very probably the census
listing for our ancestor Warner Perkins from 1820 through 1840. All
those censuses were taken in Delaware, Sussex County, Nanticoke 100.
It appears that Warner stayed in the same place all those years. What
is interesting to note are the other Perkins from Nanticoke 100 listed
on these census'.
Perkins' in the 1840 Census - Nanticoke
100
Warner Perkins is the only Perkins in the 1840 census in Nanticoke
100.
Perkins' in the 1830 Census - Nanticoke 100
In addition to Warner, there was also a "Visnon Perkins"
listed in the 1830 Nanticoke 100 census.
Warner Perkins - Page 47 - see part 1 for details
Visnon
Perkins - Page 57 - 8 "Free colored persons" as follows:
2 males
under 10
2 males
between 10 and 24
1 male
between 36 and 55
2 females
between 10 and 24
1 female
between 36 and 55
Perkins
in the 1820 Census - Nanticoke 100
In addition
to Warner's household of 7, the following "Purkins"
households were listed on the same page of the Nanticoke 100
census:
Warner Purkins - see Part 1 for details
Visnon
Purkins - 1 person engaged in Agriculture. 6 "Free Colored
Persons":
1 male
under 14
1 male
between 26-45
3 females
under 14
1 female
between 26-45
William
Purkins - 1 person engaged in Agriculture. 2 "Free Colored
Persons":
1 male
over 45
1 female
between 14-26
Thomas
Purkins - 1 person engaged in Agriculture. 3 "Free Colored
Persons":
1 male
under 14
1 male
between 14 and 26
1 female
between 14 and 26
Comments:
-
Note the
varying spelling of Perkins as "Purkins".
-
Note all
Purkins were listed on the same page implying their living in very
close proximity to one another, and in turn, suggesting a possible
family relationship to one another.
-
Note
that the William Perkins, aged 45 or older is living only with a
girl aged 14 to 26. Could William be the family patriarch with one
of his granddaughters, or some other young girl, caring for him?
Look forward to a future analysis of "William
Perkins/Perkins" in the Census, which is already partially
compiled.
-
Note the
age ranges for the heads of household: Thomas Purkins (14-26),
Visnon Purkins (26-45), Warner Purkins (over 45), William Perkins
(over 45). The young age range of Thomas implies that Thomas is
not in the same generation as Warner or William, although, it has
been known to happen that siblings could be 20 years apart in age.
In
summary, relationships between Warner, Visnon, Thomas and
William are likely but will not be presumed until further evidence
ties them together. A recent family history of Vincent Perkins
(received Nov 2002), however, states that Warner and Visnon were
indeed brothers based on oral tradition in that family. Further
investigation and analysis of this received genealogy is pending.
Home
>
Perkins/Durham Research >
Commentaries >
Warner's Census and Probate
Analysis |