OK, did you enjoy that? Well take a couple of aspirins and read my theory. First off, I theorize that the Census takers in Clinton Co. were a scurrilous bunch of lazy bums! Most of the confusion can be attributed to this. They have , probably, just guesstimated the ages. And since the census takers were the County Marshalls (ie. the LAW) they were of course all English speakers, and so the surnames get a bit garbled. As I have recently heard some talk of the Amlaw's being bootleggers, maybe they were a little nervous about visits from the LAW, askin' alot of questions!
Keeping this in mind let's look at 1790.
Remember that 3 yrs before this, in 1787, there was an enumeration of the refugees of Clinton Co. in which there was only one Amlaw, Charles. So why is there another man, named John Baptist? His name appears in the census fairly close to Baptist. I assume that Jean Baptist is Charles, he has a wife and 2 children, one son and one daughter, Baptist seems to be living alone. Now, in 1798, there was a Tax evaluation of the County that again has only one Amlaw, Charles. This "other" man's absence from the 1787 list of refugee's is explained by the fact that this list was of refugees who had been soldiers. I suppose that his absence from the 1798 tax assesment is because he didn't own any land, he was probably living with Charles. There is only one log house listed for Charles (in the 1798 tax assesment)and the land is leased. The 1790 and 1800 Census's seem to indicate that this "other" Amlaw was the head of a household in his own right, but that may may just be more Census taker's confusion.
2 years later the 1800 census has 2 men, John Bt. Amlin and Charles "Amla". John Bt. lives alone and Charles has 3 young sons and 3 young daughters.There is an older couple living in the household, presumably Charles and Agathe. There is a younger man (26-45) living there.Who is the younger man? Charles son should be no more than 10 at this point. I guess he might be just a brother in law or some other friend/relation staying with them, but I suspect that this is the "other" Baptist (the brother?) being double counted. He seems to have actually live in some sense with Charles but at least thought of himself as the head of his own house.Take note that Charles is listed next to Francis Chadonet. In 1806 Charles leased some land from him, he might already be living on it by 1800. This lot was very near to Francis Chadonet's Inn.
On to 1810. We find only one Amlaw, Battis. Household consists of an older couple, again presumably Charles and Agathe.One younger man(16 - 26) and a young female (10 - 16)2 young boys (10 - 16) and two little girls under 10. it would seem that they lost a number of the children in these years. Child mortality was very high in those days.
I must refer you here to the deed of 1816. Read it carefully and you will see that there MUST have been a man named Amlaw (Baptist or John Baptist) living in Chazy, that was not a son of Charles and Agathe, but was a relation of some kind. In this period it looked like the Congress was about to make a law relating to military pensions which would have required that the applicants be totally without property of any kind in order to collect their pensions. Because of this many many people were trying to "get rid" of their land. It was apparantly an open fraud that local authorities frequently turned a blind eye to. There was general disgust with the Congress, and the law was never passed. You'll see on the deed that Charles and Agathe Amlaw and BAPTIST AMLAW (1) sell the farm to BAPTIST AMLAW (2) for $10.(the bracketed numerals are on the original) That is very obviously a token payment. Charles has the land back again with no record of another transaction. BAPTIST AMLAW (1)is obviously Charles and Agathe's son who had an interest in the land because of the previous deed of 1809. But WHO is this BAPTIST AMLAW(2) that they trust enough to "give" him the farm and have no fear that they will actually continue to have it? Some relative of Charles that came down from Quebec to settle nearby? Could he be the other Amlaw in the 1790-1800 Census'? Is he Charles' brother Jean Baptiste?
Are any of the later Amlaw men in Clinton Co. actually HIS sons? If not then they may well have returned at a young age to Quebec.
Also must mention that Charles' son Joseph would be an adult by 1816, but it seems unlikely that the local magistrates would have turned THAT much of a blind eye to "selling" the land to a son.
OK, now to 1820. We have 3 Amlaws. The one in Beekmantown(Charles) seems to be an older couple living alone. The 2 men in Chazy seem like they might be 2 younger men, Possibly Charles' sons. Joseph seems to have a son 10-16 yrs old, and 3 young sons under 10. We know that Louis Amlaw was Joseph's son and was born in 1813, so it seems that one of these boys should be him. I can't explain the other 2 boys under 10 or the one son 10-16. Joseph would be about 30 in 1820. There is a very real chance that some of these sons we can't account for may have resettled in Quebec.
Charles (in Chazy) seems to have another adult male and one small boy living with him. We should have a Joseph Amlaw (m. Sophia) aged 2 living somewhere. If the birthdate on Joseph's(younger) stone is correct (12 July, 1818) then he and Charles(younger) can't be brothers because the birthdate on Charles' stone is 10 Jan, 1818, only 6 months apart. So possibly Joseph(younger) was the son of Joseph(older), but that is not likely either. Louis, Dolphin and Harriet are clearly the heirs of Joseph Amlaw (older) and no mention is made of Joseph(younger).
Who is the older man living with Charles(younger)?
Possibly the census takers have double counted the father (Charles Sr.) once here and once again at his new residence in Beekmantown. Maybe the father-in-law, or even old uncle Jean Baptiste.
Charles (older) died on July 3rd, 1829. (not May!), on the probate of his estate (he died intestate, probate was required) there are three persons named Agathe Amlaw, Baptist Amlaw and LIZETTE Amlaw. From what I can gather of the confusing laws at the time, anyone with an "interest" in the Estate had to sign, since the only thing Charles had was the land (or some vague "rights" to the land) Agathe had to sign off on this document because the law said that a widow had rights. Baptist signs because of the deed made the year before in which his father "gave" him the "rights" he held on the land. The only other person who would have had to agree to this probate would then have been Baptist's wife. The law gave wives the right to approve any deal involving the family home. This seems to give us a name for this wife, Lizette (Marie (Mary) Lizette?). At least this is my "impression". I ran it by 2 professional Genealogist a while back (for free) one said that I was probably right, the other felt that "ALL' the potential heirs of Charles Amlaw should have had to sign off on the Probate. I still feel that I was right on this, the deed that gave the land to Baptist, the oldest son, would have negated the need for other "heirs" to sign (I think). Besides, we know there must have been more than 2 children surviving to 1829, look at all those kids in the Census's !
By 1830, Charles (older) is dead. We have 2 Amlaws, Joseph and Baptist. Baptiste is living on Charles Amlaw(older)'s land(same neighbors). He has one son, 5-10. Joseph(m. Sophia) and Charles (Baptiste little brother) were 12 this year, this could be one of them. Joseph Amlaw (older) has 1 son 10-15 yrs old, 1 son 5-10, and 1 son under 5. The boy under 5 would seem to be Dolphin Amlaw (b. 1827), the boy of 10-15 seems to be Louis Amlaw (b.1813) who would have been 17. But who was the boy of 5-10? Joseph Amlaw (younger) would be 12. But if Joseph was Louis and Dolphin's brother, why is he not mentioned in the deed as an heir? And why do he and Charles(younger) seem to act like kinsmen? They live almost side by side on the Lakeshore, share the same occupation, and they both moved their familys to Manchester NH at roughly the same time. If Joseph ( husband of Sophia), was a son of Joseph(older), then Joseph (younger) and Charles Jr. (husband of Adaline), would have been nephew and uncle. I wish I had known that Charlotte Longchamps remarried after Joseph (older)'s death to Joseph Goyette. There may be a will or Probate in the Courhouse for her under the name "Charlotte Goyette". That might indicate that she had left the land to 3 children and not any others, that would explain why no other "heirs at law" are given on the deed of 1866.
Then there's 1840.
Agathe is living with a John Breete.
Louis (Lewis) Amlaw is the head of his own house, he was 27, he had 1 daughter under 5.
Allright, who the he.. is Mary Amlaw?!?! She is listed both as the head of the household and also as a revolutionary widow. I swear, I have double checked the service records and the paymasters book in Albany and Agathe is the only widow. No man of the name Amlin Amelin Hamelin Etc etc. served but Charles. This must be an error. Mary is not the name of Joseph's widow, he died in 1834-35, but his wife was Charlotte. The register of the mission of Quebec says that the parents of Placide(b.1809) and Charles (b.1818) were a Charles Amlin and MARIE BUREAU,(Mary?) The coincedence in the names seems weird. Anyway Mary's house has an old woman 80-90 years old in it, along with a middle aged woman 50 -60, and two young girls. So, maybe a middle aged widow and her 2 daughters. Living with an old lady, maybe a Mother-in-law. Could the middle aged woman be Charlotte Amlaw (nee Longchamps), the old woman would be who? Patience Longchamps(nee Gorden?), Charlottes mother? Or could the widow be the wife of Baptist (Lizette?).
And maybe the confusion arose because the old woman in the house was not an Amlaw but was a pensioner, maybe the census taker confused her with Agathe Amlaw. At any rate the best guess is that this Mary Amlaw was Baptist Amlaw's (Agathe's son) widow. (Lizette - MARIE? Lizette) They were all "Marie" something!!!!
I NEED ANOTHER ASPIRIN !!!!