It has been a while since I looked at the materials I used
for that old post from October 25, 2004.
> First, I think I found George in the 1820 census. I used
> Heritage Quest, an electronic database (that has its fair
> share of errors) and, indexed as "Dwinny" was a George.
> When I actually looked at the image, however, it seemed
> to be either Devinney or Davinney.
The image for this was at
I read it as:
CENSUS YEAR: 1820
DISTRICT: Election District 2
ENUMERATOR: Francis Gottier
CENSUS-DAY: December 18, 1820
Divinny, George: 4 white males 10 & younger;
1 white male 10 to 16;
0white males 16 to 18;
1 white male 16 to 26;
0white males 26 to 45;
1 white male over 45;
1 white female 26 to 45;
1 white female over 45;
Occupation field has 1 working in agriculture.
Slaves field shows 2 male slaves aged 14 to 26.
Line also shows 1 freed female over 45.
I interpret this as follows:
Only one George Diveny household appears in the 1820
census, which would be that of George Devinney, Jr.,
now over 45 himself. Because she is between 40 and 50
in the 1830 census, the white female between 26 and 45
is probably George Devinney, Jr.'s wife. The white female
over 45 is probably his widowed mother, listed as between
80 and 90 in the 1830 census. Presumably the freed female
listed was one of the three slaves from the 1810 census
and the two male slaves between 14 and 26 are the other
two slaves of the 1810 census. They might be sons of the
freed female. By 1830, the George Devinney household
would be free of slaves.Henry E. Devinney might be
one of the four white males under 10, but neither Caleb
nor Ephriam had been born yet. The white male in the
household between 16 and 26, but older than 18 is probably
the the white male between 10 and 16 of the 1810 census,
and is a candidate for either Levi Devinney, or the James
Devinney who married Eliza Thornton in 1835.
Census data for 1800 has also become available since I
wrote that old post:
1800 MarylandCounty: CecilPage No: 38
Enumerator: John D. Humphries
2 white males 16 to 26;
1 white male over 45;
1 white female 10 to 16;
2 white females 16 to 26;
1 white female over 45
I interpret this as:
In the 1800 census, George Deviney, probably George
Devinney of the 1790 census, would be the white male
over 45, and his wife would be the female over 45. Only
two of the three white males who were under 16 in 1790
remain in the household in 1800, but both of the white
males who were over 16 in the 1790 census have left the
household. However, all of the females present in 1790 are
still in the household in 1800. Presumably George Devinney,
Jr. is the older of the two white males between 16 and 26
in this census.
> You have analyzed census statistics and I believe you
> have estimated that George Devinney Sr. was born before
> 1740-1750? Do you know when he died?
George Devinney, Sr. is listed as over 45 in 1800.Thus,
his birth must have been before 1755.In the 1830 census
of the George Devinney, Jr. household, I presume the woman
aged between 80 and 90 is the widowed mother of George
Devinney, Jr.This puts her date of birth as between
1740 and 1750.Since they are both listed as over 45 in
both the 1800 and 1810 censuses, I presume that George
Devinney, Sr. was within a few years of the same age as
his wife. This would mean that his birth must have been
after 1735, and most probably between 1740 and 1750.
This, of course, assumes both that the age range data in
the censuses is relatively reliable, in addition to the
assumption that my analysis of these censuses is correct.
I do not have any information on the year of death for the
George Deviny who patented Burt in 1789 whom I believe
to be one and the same as the George Devinney / Deviney
of the 1790, and 1800 censuses, and the George Deviney on
Page 248, line 12 (stapled page no. 22) of the 1810 census.
Archives of Maryland land patent references show the
original land patent as:
Name: Deviny, George, 1789
Certificate:93.75 Acres, Liber IC#D, Folio 509
Patent:93.75 Acres, Liber IC#E, Folio77
Plats references to this that I have are:
Burt, 93 3/4 Acres, 1789; Patent Record IC D, p. 509,
Certificate; MSA S 1586-425
Burt, 93 3/4 Acres, 1789; Patent Record IC E, p. 77,
Patent; MSA S 1586-426
> I am exploring the hypothesis that there might have been
> some connection stronger than "neighbor" between the
> Devinney family and the Jameson famiy. Any ideas?
I do not have any ideas about this Jameson family at all.
Do you have any ideas about an Eliza Thornton or any other
Thornton's living somewhere near the Devinney family at
Burt, Cecil Co., Maryland before 1835?