Family:Washington Wheeler and Celia Houghton (1)

Facts and Events
Marriage[1][3] Bef 1827
Children
BirthDeath
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
References
  1. Jackson, James R., editor; George C., compiler Furber; Ezra S. Stearns; James R. (James Robert) Jackson; Ezra S. (Ezra Scollay) Stearns; and George C. (George Clarence) Furber. History of Littleton New Hampshire: in Three Volumes. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States: Cambridge, Mass: The University Press, 1905)
    Vol. 3, p. 517.

    Washington Wheeler, s/o George Washington Wheeler, m. [first child b. 5 Mar 1827] Celia Houghton.

  2.   Hillsborough, New Hampshire, United States. 1850 U.S. Census Population Schedule
    [1].

    Nashua, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, 12 Aug 1850, Dwelling 599, Family 669
    Washington Wheeler, age 45, Manufacturer, b. New Hampshire
    Celia Wheeler, age 40, b. Vermont
    Fanny B Wheeler, age 21, b. New Hampshire
    Henry H Wheeler, age 19, Sailor, b. New Hampshire
    Silas H Wheeler, age 13, b. New Hampshire
    Olive C Wheeler, age 10, b. New Hampshire
    Emily H Wheeler, age 6, b. New Hampshire
    Edwin B Wheeler, age 4, b. New Hampshire
    Diadema Hull, age 25, b. New York
    Mahala Hull, age 20, b. New York
    Mary Dudley, age 23, b. New Hampshire
    Harriet Temple, age 18, b. New Hampshire

  3. Note that many of the ages in the census do not line up with the birthdates given in the History of Littleton. This might not be important, but having no marriage record, and missing birth records for some of the children, it does call into question the credibility of the only source for some of this data, namely the History of Littleton (liberally repeated or copied, in Wheeler's History of the Wheeler Family). Specific issues include: Celia's death given as 1852 versus gravestone saying 1854, Fanny's birth (important because it implies when the marriage occurred) given as 1827 versus nearly consistent use of 1829 by census and other records, Henry's birth given as 1829 when census and records appear to use 1831. Based on the fact that only Silas is covered further, the author probably talked to a descendant of Silas, and in particular, his coverage of children older than Silas appears questionable, and probably error-ridden.