Interesting Numbers

I took another look at the census data and came up with some interesting numbers. In 1850 there were 38 people in 17 different occupations that were listed in the census. In 1870 that number grew to 84 people in 26 occupations. A huge jump in the numbers for such a small town.

Now, of those 84 people in 1870, 29 were domestic servants and another 29 were "keeping house", the latter being housewives. An odd coincidence.

Of the 29 domestic servants, all but one were black, Hermie Brown being the only white woman who was 15 years old. The age range of the servants was large, 9-65 years old with an average age of 25.

Over half of the 84 in 1870 were not on the 1860 census. This suggests that people were not only setting up new residences in Port Tobacco but were either bringing their servants with them or possibly hiring on newly freed slaves (quite possibly some of their own).

This isn't really new news since this was a pretty common practice but I wanted to show what information you can get from the census when you really look at it.

More to come later on the census data.

- Peter

Port Tobacco Occupations

Jim put together a simple set of tables showing what occupations were listed in the census data that we have collected for Port Tobacco from 1850-1880. When you break down any data into smaller, more manageable sections, some interesting facts start to appear. Here's a few tidbits about the occupations of the PT residents of the 19th Century.

- There is a dramatic upswing in the number of people employed in the town from 40 in 1850 to 151 in 1880, although 65 of those 151 are listed as either "at home, at school, or keeping house" so that number actually drops to 86 which is still double that of 1850.

- The number of servants jumped from 1 in 1860 to 33 in 1870. Could the jump in servants be from the number of ex slaves who were now employed by their previous owners? It was a common occurrence across the country after the war.

- The variety of occupations in the town changed from 19 in 1850 to 35 in 1880.

It is in the post Civil War censuses that we start to see more diversification in occupations while servants and merchants make up the majority of jobs held in town. The town was in decline but the specialty shops and occupations were actually increasing.

So there's a few interesting things about the census that we hadn't really looked at. There is more we can learn from the census data and I'll post more on it another time.

- Peter

Carter Griffin

Mr. Griffin was a resident of Port Tobacco from around 1840-1860. He is mentioned in all three censuses in that timeframe. The 1840 census doesn't give us much information to go on other than his name and possible age (35). The census of 1850 lists him as 45, and the 1860 census as 55 years old.

So what's so special about Carter Griffin? From the census data, the only thing that stands out is his financial state in 1850-1860. During that time, his personal value almost tripled from $2500 to $6000. His real estate value went from nothing to $5000 during that time. Mr. Griffin was a wheelwright and up until when the automobile took off in the early 20th Century, wagons and horses were still the best overland transportation next to the railroad. So imagine if you will, traveling in a wagon and going from place to place on dirt roads. Pretty bumpy ride. And wagons didn't have rubber wheels or shocks to help with the comfort level of the ride. (they did have metal leaf springs that weren't very different from those on automobiles today.) A typical wheel prior to the Civil War was made out of wood with a metal tire on the outside.

Now we know that around 1857 the Atzerodt brothers (you remember them, right?) supposedly had a carriage shop in Port Tobacco. They certainly would have needed the services of a wheelwright. Could there be a connection here? It's possible that there was a business venture between the two brothers and Carter Griffin.

I will ask our wonderful volunteer, Elsie, to look at the Port Tobacco Times abstract for any information on Carter Griffin and then post an update if anything comes up. And Elsie, since I know you read this, thank you in advance.

- Peter

Dr. William R. Wilmer

Dr. William Wilmer was the son of the Rev. Lemuel Wilmer of Port Tobacco. He also appears to have been a prominent citizen of the town. While he isn't famous, he did achieve a large amount during his lifetime.

Pouring through the census along with information gathered from the PT Times abstracts (Thank you Elsie) gives us a view of some of the things that happened to this particular citizen.

Starting with the 1860 census, he was a 30 year old physician in Port Tobacco and again in the 1870 census. According to the work Elsie has done, he moved to Baltimore between the 1870 and 1880 census with his brother.

Before he left though, he made his mark on the town and county as a physician as well as local politician. Here's a list of some of his achievements:

1860 - Treasurer Medical & Chirurgical Society
1866 - President, Charles County Board of School Commissioners
1867/68 - One of 2 white trustees for establishment of “colored” schools in Nanjemoy and Durham districts
1871 - elected to the House of Delegates
1874 - Dr. William R. Wilmer announces Republican candidacy for Congress

This is where some interesting things happened that kind of make me scratch my head and ask "what happened?"

Dec. 1874 - William R. Wilmer & Lemuel Wilmer and others "stricken from registration lists." (Were they removed from voter lists because they had moved to Baltimore sometime during the year?).

September 1877 - Republican convention: …Dr. Wilmer resigned

October 1877 - Dr. Wilmer has been transferred from the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue, 3rd Maryland District to Night Superintendent of Baltimore Post Office. [These were remunerative political appointments that would have gone to Republicans in the years after the Civil War and before implementation of civil service procedures and termination of the 'spoils system.']

1880 - William R. Wilmer (Wilmore) living with brother Lemuel & Lemuel’s family in Baltimore. William is listed as widowed and a P.O. clerk

1883 - Is Naval officer for Port of Baltimore – no mention of when appointed

Some interesting career changes over his life. He went from a physician, to politician, to Post Office Superintendent, to PO clerk, to a Naval officer. Why all the different changes in his life? What was his reason for leaving Port Tobacco? Political? His political career does not seemed to be very distinguished. These questions can't be answered easily but I'm sure there are answers out there. The small town of Port Tobacco sure has had its share of interesting residents throughout history, Dr. Wilmer included.

- Peter

Finding Residents Through the Census

Using the US Censuses seems an obvious way of finding out who was living in the town of Port Tobacco in the 1800's. However. Charles County Census data was collected by districts and not by towns. Like most of the 1890 Census, the 1890 Maryland census data was destroyed by fire in 1921. However, the 1880 and 1870 Censuses do indicate who was living in Port Tobacco. For those years the Charles County census takers tended to skip lines in the ledger in order to group residences, and they specifically identified the people residing in the town of Port Tobacco. The Charles County census takers for prior years did no such groupings.

So how do we find the town residents before 1870?

We should be able to find out assuming

1) Census takers would ride from residence to residence collecting data, so people living near each other would appear in close proximity on the census pages.

2) Some people would continue to live in the town and would appear in consecutive censuses.

Using an on-line census database, the 1860 Census was searched for the head of each 1870 Port Tobacco residence. Some could not be found in Charles County. They may have lived outside Charles County, or else their names were not identifiable based on the census taken as writing and/or spelling. Luckily, a subset of 1860 Census pages associated with 1870 Port Tobacco residents was identified. The starting residence on the first page and the ending residence on the last page could not be definitively identified but could be bracketed by any residents who were farmers. Farmers would have needed more land than that of a town lot.

The same process works for the 1850 Census and for the 1840 Census, but it doesn't appear to help with the 1830 Census. So maybe the above assumptions don't hold for 1830. The assumptions definitely could not be used for the 1790 Charles County Census that has people listed in alphabetical order by surname.

- Carol Cowherd

More Census Data, Part 2

I decided to repeat my analysis of the 1860 census on the 1870 census data. What I found is that a similar pattern holds true.

Of the 67 surnames that appear in Port Tobacco's 1870 census, only 28 also appear in the 1880 census. That is 42% retention.

Taking it down to the level of individuals, of the 215 residents in 1870 only 41 remain in 1880. That is 20% retention. These individuals are:

H. Herber Boswell - a white male of 9 years in age in 1870 who is "at school" in 1880
Maria C. Boswell - a white female of 15 years in 1870 who is "at home" in 1880
Mary F. Boswell - a white female of 43 years in 1870, listed as "keeping house" both years
Mary F. Boswell (Jr) - a white female of 17 years in 1870, listed as "at home" in 1880
William Boswell - a white male of 48 in 1870, a merchant and farmer in 1870 and a merchant in 1880

Philip Chesley - a mulatto male porter of 42 in 1870, listed as a servant in 1880

John D. Corvall/Covall - a white male shoemaker of 43 in 1870 who continues this profession in 1880

John H Edelen - a mulatto male carpenter of 54 in 1870 and a laborer in 1880

Eliza C. Hawkins - a black female of 10 years in age in 1870

John H. Jenkins - a white male cabinetmaker of 43 years in age in 1870, who continues this profession in 1880
Lydia Jenkins - a 10 year olf white female in 1870 who becomes a teacher by 1880
Ruth Jenkins - a 3 year old white femaile in 1870 who is "at school" in 1880
Sarah E. Jenkins - a 17 year olf white female in 1870 who is "at home" in 1880

Joseph G. Lacey - a 38 year old white merchant in 1870, who continues in this profession in 1880
Joseph R. Lacey - an 11 year old white male in 1870 who becomes a store clerk in 1880

James A. Mason - a 29 year old black baker in 1870 who becomes a Barber in 1880

J Forbes Middleton - a 36 year old white male clerk who is listed as a "penman" in 1880

Mary R Owen - a 20 year old white female in 1870, listed as "keeping house" both years
T Somerset Owen - a 2 year old white male in 1870 who is "at school" in 1880
Thomas T Owen - a 23 year old white male clerk in 1870 who becomes a merchant in 1880

Samuel C Padgett - an 8 year old white male in 1870 who becomes a store clerk by 1880
William Padgett - a 48 year old white male merchant who continues in this profession in 1880

John Penn - a 1 year old black male in 1870 who is "at school" in 1880
Maria Penn - a 28 year old black female "keeping house" in 1870 and a servant in 1880

Martha A Pye - a 2 year old mulatto female in 1870 who is "at home" in 1880
Washington Pye - a 30 year old black male in 1870 who is listed as a blacksmith for both years

Adelaide Quensell/Quenzal - a 39 year old white female in 1870, listed as "keeping house" both years
Douglass Quensell/Quenzal - a 9 year old white male in 1870, and a printer in 1880
Helene Quensell/Quenzal - an 8 year old white female in 1870, "at home" in 1880
Julius Quensell/Quenzal - a 40 year old white male watchmaker in 1870 and a "watch repairer" in 1880

Amanda E. Swann - a 7 year old mulatto girl in 1870, "at home" in 1880
Jeanette Swann - a 3 year old mulatto girl in 1870, "at school" in 1880
John Swann - an 8 year old mulatto boy in 1870, "at home" in 1880
Martha Swann - a 29 year old mulatto female in 1870, listed as a school teacher in 1880

Henry Thomas - a 17 year old black male cook in 1870 and a farmer in 1880

Samuel Thompson - an 8 year old black male in 1870, no occupation listed in 1880

Jane C. Welch - a 43 year old white female, keeping house in 1870 and "at home" in 1880
William Welch - a 17 year old white male in 1870, and a printer in 1880

Anna E Wells - a 27 year old white female in 1870, "keeping house" both years

Harriet J Wells - a 9 year old white female in 1870, "at home" in 1880
Samuel O Wells - a 14 year old white male in 1870, an editor in 1880

Ann S. Wingate - a 27 year old white female in 1870, "keeping house" both years.

-April

More Census Data

I decided to probe a bit further into the Port Tobacco population trends I mentioned yesterday. I went through each surname in the 1860 census (pre-Civil War) to see if the same surname appeared in the 1870 census (post-Civil War). What I found is that only 40% of the surnames appeared in both.

Taking the analysis to th next level, I studied the individuals of these surnames to see if the same people were in Port Tobacco in 1860 and 1870. What I found is thatonly 15 of the over 134 residents of Port Tobacco appear in both the 1860 and 1870 censuses. These people are:

Charles A Edeline/Edelen - a white male who was 3 at the time of the 1860 census
John H Edeline/Edelen - a mulatto male who was 54 in 1860 - a carpenter then a laborer
John Jenkins - a white male, 33 year old cabinetmaker who appears in 1860, 1870, and 1880
Fenita H Jenkins - a white female, 33 who also appears all three years
Sarah E Jenkins - a white female, 9 years old in 1860, also all three years in Port Tobacco
Julius C. Middleton - a 20 year old white male clerk in 1860 and hotel keeper in 1870
Bennett Neal - a 45 year old white physician in 1860
Ann C Neal - a 39 yer old white female
William Neal - a white male, 4 years of age in 1860
Earnest Neal - a white male, 1 year old in 1860
Winfield Scott - a 10 year old white male in 1860 who is listed as a teacher in 1870
James W. Shackelford - a white male, 1 year old in 1860
Francis Toleson/Tollson - a black male, 5 years of age in 1860
William Welch - a 38 year old white male shoemaker in 1860, listed as postmaster and boot/shoemaker in 1870
William Welch (Jr) - a white male, 8 years old in 1860 who becomes a printer by 1880

Of these 15, only 4 appear in all 3 censuses.
John Jenkins
Fenita Jenkins
Sarah Jenkins
William Welch Jr.

So now I am back to the possible post-Civil War exodus of Port Tobacco that was an integral component of my hypothesis. Although the white population of Port Tobacco stayed relatively constant from 1860 to 1880, there was a significant amount of turnover in the town's population.

-April

Supporting "April's Hypothesis"?

A few weeks ago, I posted a research idea that Jim Gibb dubbed "April's Hypothesis". Since then we have obtained a wealth of information from the 1860, 1870, and 1880 census records, all compiled by one of our most dedicated volunteers.

I conducted a simple analysis of the the census data. The preliminary results show a changing population but raise some additional questions.

1860 population = 134 total, 11 Black, 11 Mulatto, 112 White
1870 population = 215 total, 45 Black, 50 Mulatto, 120 White
1880 population = 202 total, 36 Black, 49 Mulatto, 117 White

The most important question that we must ask is "Do these population changes reflect changes within a finite area or did the boundaries of the census change each year?". Another important question is "Does the increasing population of individuals identified as Black or Mulatto (mixed race) reflect migration or birth rate changes or are these individuals being identified and counted as a result of post-Civil War policy changes?". Interestingly, the average age of the population (24) does not change over the 30 years. This suggests that the birth and death rates remained stable and that migration or changes in census procedure are more likely.

It will take a lot more research to truly test my hypothesis but this census data suggests that "Whites" did not abandon Port Tobacco after the Civil War. Their population remains constant. However, the population does appear to shift from 84% White to 58% White, and with the politics of the 19th century this shift must be reflective of a social and economic shift in Port Tobacco itself.

-April

More on Carriage Wheels

Some days ago I wrote about what kinds of artifacts we might find in connection with a carriage shop, specifically cast-iron wagon boxes, also called skeins. These are bearings that were inserted into the hub and through which the axle extended. Packed in grease, they allowed horse-drawn vehicles to move smoothly.





This picture, taken by me years ago at the Museums at Stony Brook on Long Island (they have a world class collection of carriages), shows a partly disassembled carriage wheel in a shop. In the wooden box below, just to the left of the leftmost spoke, is a wagon box. Obviously, it is for a wagon wheel hub and could not possibly have fit into the small wheel hub of a carriage.



The picture to the right shows a wagon wheel with a new-fangled patent wheel. These machine-made hubs eliminated the very specialized skill necessary in turning a wooden hub on a lathe and then cutting the mortises for the spokes. Machine-made hubs and wheels made the appearance in the marketplace as early as the late 1860s and by the 1880s dominated the market. Sarven and Palmer were among the most popular types. Their introduction was part of a general de-skilling of the American workforce. When they appear on carriage, wagon, and wheelwright shops, they indicate a postbellum date for the deposit in which they are found and a craftsman who by choice or the demands of his customers is part of a larger market system through which he purchases parts for repair work rather than making new parts.

The Atzerodt shop probably will not have these artifacts unless it continued in operation after George Atzerodt's execution for his part in the Lincoln conspiracy. We know from the census work that Carol is doing that wheelwrights and blacksmiths continued to work in Port Tobacco at least into the 1880s, so we can expect to find old-style wagon boxes and new-style patent wheel hub parts in town.

Jim

Spring Field Session/April's Hypothesis

I have submitted to the board of the Archeological Society of Maryland a proposal for holding its annual field session at Port Tobacco. Typically, the field session includes Memorial Day weekend and the previous or following weekend, and the week between. With a Friday set-up and Monday wrap-up, the field session covers about eleven days. ASM brings with it several thousands of dollars in grant money and, conservatively, $25,000 in contributed labor with 20 to 50 volunteers on site each day, often more on the weekends.

Holding the field session at Port Tobacco would provide the project with an enormous lift and virtually insure continued activity on site through at least the middle of the summer, by which time we hope to have secured additional funding. The research strides that we could make during those eleven days and the subsequent weeks of laboratory work we can only guess at, but they would be tremendous.

Port Tobacco is not the only site under consideration for this spring. If you are interested in working at Port Tobacco with the ASM field session...if you support holding the field session at Port Tobacco this spring...drop me a line. I would like to show the board and the field session committee that there is interest in making this happen among ASM members and interested groups and individuals apart from ASM. Contact me at: JamesGGibb@comcast.net.

Now, in continuing the conversation of what we might call April's Hypothesis, Elsie offered this insight:

"John & Roberta Wearmouth's recent book on Port Tobacco, has some info related to Friday & Sat's blogs and comments. Pages 183-184 quote an article from 12-22-1906 Baltimore American. Here are a couple of excerpts. 'You will see handsome old colonial homes...where once dwelt prosperous families... now tenanted by colored people, two or three families occupying one house.' 'Only three white families live in the dying town. The other families are colored. The total population does not number 40.'

A summary of the 1870 census (on pages 211-212) lists 37 households of which about 7 include black servants living in (assumedly) white households and several households of people of color. The summary of the 1880 census (pages 213-214) lists 36 households of which 5 are black or mulatto. The only (assumedly) white households including black servants are the St. Charles and Carrollton Hotel (first time I've seen this name). I'm not sure I summarized this stuff correctly, I'm sure Carol's work will be more detailed. Will be very interesting to see what 1890 & 1900 census show about the shift in demographics.

Pages 183-185 also refer to early 20th C articles about Port Tobacco in Washington Star and Baltimore Sun."

Yes, I think Carol's meticulous data collection from the decennial censuses and her subsequent analyses should go a long way toward accurately and quantitatively describing the changing demographics of Port Tobacco. Those data will inform on variability in household structure, occupation, and other matters of anthropological and historical interest.

Jim

More on April's Hypothesis

This photograph is one example of what April wrote about yesterday. It purportedly shows the Owen House in 1925. The young African American woman walking by may have been a resident; we do not know. We do know that there was a large African American population in the vicinity after the Civil War and, likely, before as well. Carol Cowherd has been collecting census data for Port Tobacco and its immediate environs...she should have a thing or two to say on the matter soon.

Last December, I came before the Charles County Commissioners to ask them to support a federal grant application that I had put together, which they did. After my presentation, one of the commissioners, Dr. Edith Patterson, asked me to be sure that we addressed African American history in the course of our research, especially the matter of slavery. I did not have a response for her.

In part, as an anthroplogically trained archaeologist I take for granted that we will explore all facets of a community...that is what we do and it is one of archaeology's principal strengths that it examines the lives of the general populace, including those of the poor and disenfranchised, and not just the wealthy and politically powerful. I've got to admit, as well, that I'm not sure what we can contribute to the understanding of slavery that has not already been discovered by a host of very able archaeologists specializing in the subject and period of slavery. No doubt that opinion will change with immersion in the subject.

But I have another interest and one, I suspect will be shared by others: African American life after Emancipation, and specifically the formation of African American communities through development of African American institutions. This is the story of groups that, in the face of Jim Crow laws, general racial bigotry, poverty, and highly circumscribed economic opportunity created bonds of community, political systems, schools, churches, and businesses. It is a story that brings the researcher and reader much closer to the realities of the early 21st century. And it is a story that can be explored and told largely through the study of African American institutions.

Happily, half the team (April and I) have been part of a growing movement in archaeology to study local institutions; first in our research and publication on rural one-room schoolhouses, and currently in editing a book on the archaeology of institutional life, a book filled with contributions from scholars in the USA, the United Kingdom, and Australia (anticipated publication in December 2008, University of Alabama Press). We will study African American life in Port Tobacco, looking at the formation and growth of African American institutions alongside those of their European American neighbors, and the persistence of those institutions after many of the European American institutions left town...along with much of the European American population...with the county seat.

As in all things related to the history and archaeology of Port Tobacco, we welcome collaborators, professional and avocational.

Jim

Wade Smithy

And here, the last bit from the 1880 Manufacturing Schedules of the US Census...at least for now.

The census marshal recorded C.Edward Wade in the Population Schedule as a wheelwright...a craftsman who makes and repairs vehicle wheels. (Having written my master's thesis on these guys, and a wheelwright shop in New York in particular, I might regale our readers with wagon and wheelmaking trivia in a future post.) In the Manufacturing schedules, however, wheelwright is struck and blacksmithing inserted. The two crafts are closely related.

Wade's shop operated full time 10 months of the year, part-time the remaining two months. He was assisted by one man, whom he paid at either skilled ($1.35/day) or unskilled (.75) rates.

We don't know where his shop was located. We do know that Mr. Barbour identified Coombs blacksmith shop directly across the drive from the Burch House. We don't know if Coombs occupied an earlier shop used by Wade. We are fairly certain that we found traces of a blacksmith shop at that location and hope to explore it further.

Jim

More about Milling

Last week I wrote about Andrew Chapman's grist and sawmill on Kennicks Branch of the Wicomico River, and more particularly about some details of the complex as recorded by the census marshal in 1880. Well, Chapman had a competitor in the Port Tobacco district; a competitor that did not depend on the vicissitudes of rainfall and available water, and who did not need a mill seat. James S. Ammon owned a mill with a steam engine that generated 28 horsepower, 75% more than Chapman's overshot water wheel.

Ammon had only one run of stones, as opposed to Chapman, but he ran his mill full time 6 months a year, and half-time the remaining 6 months. Chapman's gristmill was idle 9 months of the year. Ammon ground a little more livestock feed (36,000 pounds), and less than a quarter of the corn meal that Chapman's mill produced; but he ground 18,000 bushels on corn and rye (no wheat, apparently) to Chapman's 9200. Both mills custom milled only, and both millers produced comparable amounts of board feet of lumber in their respective sawmills.

Whether powered by steam or water, both millers provided critical services and products to the community. Identification and archaeological study of both mill sites would offer insights into their sizes and configurations. More importantly, we would have the opportunity to identify engineering solutions to problems in staffing the complexes and meeting market demand, as well as determine whether Chapman and Ammon expanded their respective mill complexes to garner larger market shares from one another or from competing millers in neighboring districts.

Jim

Chapman's Mill

Several weeks ago, after returning from a lecture that I had given on mills in Carroll County, I posted a blog about mills in the Port Tobacco area. Where were they? Did they produce for an exclusively local market or did they send wheat and rye flour, and corn meal out to the larger world? Did they supply local bakeries that made hard tack for ship's galleys?

Yesterday, working with Pete at the Maryland State Archives, I examined several microfilm copies of the Manufacturing Schedules of the US Census for the years 1850, 1860, and 1880. The Archives didn't have one for 1870, or at least I haven't found it yet. The census marshals appear not to have submitted returns for the Port Tobacco/First Election District in 1850 and 1860. In 1880, they listed three millers, one of whom was Andrew G. Chapman.

Chapman operated a gristmill and a sawmill on Kerricks Branch of the Wicomico River. The identical descriptions for the motive power--an overshot wheel 4'9" in breadth, turning at 6RPM and generating 16 horsepower under a 23' fall of water--suggests that the two operations were part of the same complex, a not uncommon arrangement, especially where good mill seats are few.

The grist mill had two run of stones (two pairs of milling stones) and could process as much as 200 bushels of grain per day. Three men and a boy worked the mill up to 12 hours a day from May through November and 8 hours a day from November to May. From June of 1879 through May of 1880, they ground 1200 bushels of wheat worth $1500 and 8,000 bushels of grain (probably maize and rye) valued at $5,500. They produced 240 barrels of wheat flour, 448,000 pounds of corn meal, and 30,800 pounds of livestock feed, earning $7,980. The mill did custom work, 'exclusively'; which is to say they were not shipping products aboard but fulfilled only local demand.

The grist mill remained idle nine months of the year, but the sawmill operated six months out of the year, suggesting that the crews moved back and forth between the two operations. The mill used a circular saw to produce 100,000 board feet, valued at $1,000, over the previous twelve months. The crew harvested much of the timber themselves, which probably kept them employed during some of the winter months.

This is, of course, an account of only one mill in one year. We know nothing about earlier operations in the area...yet.

On a personal note, and on behalf of April and Pete, I wish Scott a speedy recovery from his shoulder operation this past week.

Jim

Port Tobacco Research Moves Indoors

Sorry, no artifacts today: Pete is taking a well-deserved day off. Which isn't to say he isn't working: he just isn't working here. Pete is at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, recounting his adventures on an excavation in Spain this summer.

As we await a new infusion of grant money, the project team has moved operations indoors and seeks volunteers to lend a hand. The Maryland Historical Trust has lent us its laboratory facilities in Crownsville for a few weeks so that we might get some help washing and cataloging. The facility is only open during the week, but we hope some folks can join us on Wednesdays between 9AM and 3PM. Please contact me if you would like to pitch in: 443.482.9593 or JamesGGibb@comcast.net.

Crownsville is a long hike for those in Southern Maryland, but we could use some help in Charles County as well. Pete and I are just finishing a simple database for the US censuses (1790-1930) and we need assistance collecting data from the microfilms at the Southern Maryland Research Room, College of Southern Maryland in La Plata. We will also collect information from area newspapers (1844-1896), but we have not yet devised a form for data collection. If interested, again: please contact me. We can split up the censuses so that several people can work on them simultaneously.

And there is lots more to do, but lets focus on a couple of things at a time.

Jim