Russell Family & Allegheny - Pittsburgh Census Records

West70

I have been trying to run down some info relating to just exactly when did Joseph Russell enter into the clothing business, etc., and it finally dawned on me that although Joseph lists such as his occupation on the 1850 Allegheny census, I do not ever recall seeing a business listing for "J L Russell & Son" until sometime in the 1860s or 70s.

If someone would care to shed some light, I will share that there are business listings for other "Russells" who were in the clothing business in All/Pitt during these same time periods. I also suspect that "Charles Tays Russell" may have been Joseph's early employer who eventually financed him into his own store?

I have also ran across a third "Charles Russell" in the area assuming it was not a typo.

NOW, for a really long shot that is as wild as the Masonic Lodge connection chase:

Again, while looking at some of the area census records, I noticed something that I had never bothered to look at before.

The 1880 Pittsburgh Census lists an "Eliza Russell", who lived on Broad St in Pitt.

Interestingly, Eliza does not show up in previous area records even though she lists her age as 59. She also lists "Ireland" as her birth country. She is also listed as an "Unemployed", "Divorced", "Head of HouseHold".

Of course, Charles Taze's Mother's name was "Ann Eliza", but according to CT's Bio, she DIED when CT was 9 (1861). Thus, she would not show up in the 1860 Census, but then again, I can't find Joe or Chuck either in the 1860 census.

Just thought some other researchers might not have noticed this little oddity. Probably is nothing. But, it isn't like Taze never LIED about anything else!

Leolaia

I've found researching Charles Russell in the censuses to be a confusing mess. The 1860 census is rock solid, as is the listing of him in the 1900 census, but it's hard to make sense of the years in between, where I cannot yet find "our" Charles Russell from the many other Charles Russells of Pennsylvania. There's even a Charles Russell married to a Maria Russell in the 1880 census of Pennsylvania, but definitely not our Russell because they had children.

Of course, Charles Taze's Mother's name was "Ann Eliza", but according to CT's Bio, she DIED when CT was 9 (1861). Thus, she would not show up in the 1860 Census, but then again, I can't find Joe or Chuck either in the 1860 census.

No, I've got the family in the 1860 census. Joseph L. Russell, 45 years old, father, "Grocer" (born in "Ireland"), Anne Russell, 39 years old, mother (born in "Ireland"), Jane Russell, 15 years old, Charles Russell, 8 years old, and Margaret Russell, 6 years old, all living in the 7th Ward of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Elsewhere, we know that Charles was "one of three children" (w55, 1/1 p. 7), with Charles as the "second son" (jv, p. 42), and that Joseph L. Russell had stores in Philadelphia, as well as other places (ibid.).

If Charles Russell was born on 2/16/1852, his 9th year would have been 2/16/1860 to 2/15/1861. The census was held on 6/26/1860. Thus, Ann Eliza Russell could easily have been in the 1860 census if she died between 6/27/1860 and 2/15/1861.

West70

I forgot to note that "Ann E." shows up in the 1850 Allegheny Census as age 26. Thus, the ages are very close, with "one year's difference" possibly explainable as dependng on the month/day of her birth and when the census was taken. Also, maybe one or the other was a typo or even a mistake, or maybe given the extra 30 years had provided more accurate info???

If this was Taze's divorced Mother, why would she show back up in Pitt in 1880, and not before?

Remember that 63/4 year old Joseph remarried Maria's 23 year old sister, Emma, in 1879. That's enough to make it worthwhile.

West70

Thanks Leolaia:

I believe the 1850 Allegheny Census showed a male born to the family in 1850, which would make 4 children counting Jane who was born around 1845.

Also, according to this Philly Census, Taze's Mother age increased 3 years, which matches up with the "Eliza" that showed up in the 1880 census.

Could Ann Eliza and Joe divorced in Philly, with the older daughter and Mother staying there, and Joe, Chuck, and Margaret returning to Allegheny?

Leolaia

Bear in mind that in the 1850 census, Joseph L. Russell is stated as 32 years old, which is 3 years short of what it should be according to the 1860 census. Similarly, Ann E. Russell is stated as 26 years old, which is also 3 years short of what her age is supposed to be from the point of view of the 1860 census (which claims she is 39 years old). Things are weird however in that there is an F. Russell at 6 months old (absent in the 1860 census), whereas Jane Russell who should have been alive by then is not mentioned.

West70

Leolaia:

I don't want to "wear out my welcome", but when you have time could you let us know roughly how many "Russells" and "Birneys" were in Philly in 1860s. If "lots", please don't count. Thanks.

A possible answer for Jane's absence from the 1850 Census was that with Ann Eliza expecting her second child in 1850, 5 year old Jane had been sent to stay with relatives. Or, if Joe and Ann had just moved to Pitt that year, again with Ann pregnant, they had left Jane wherever it was they came from???

Thanks.

Leolaia

You make a good point. The census data only records who was under what roof on a particular day, not whether a person was otherwise a member of the family.

BTW, we know that "Joseph L. Russell" of "Allegheny, Pennsylvania" applied for naturalization papers in the district court of Allegheny County in the year 1846.

There were about 523 known Russells and 11 Birneys in Philadelphia in 1860.

Moreover, there were at least 22 Eliza Birneys in the US in 1880, so I would not necessarily assume a later E.B. is the same person as Russell's mother.

West70

Thanks Leolaia:

I realize that someone who knows where Ann Eliza was buried in 1861 is probably LTAO, but I'm at least enjoying the fantasy until they burst my bubble.

Continuing anyway ....

Bear in mind that this "1880 Eliza" has "Russell" for a last name.

Joe and Eliza might have only been "separated with support" for all those years, and when Joe wants to marry Emma, he brings Eliza back to Pitt and agrees to set her up in her own home if she will give him a complete Divorce.

And, just because she talks with a census taker doesn't necessarily mean that anybody else in Pitt knew she was there, or who she really was. After all, Joe's wife had been dead for almost 20 years. How much does a fake plot and stone cost?

:)

:)

Thanks.

Leolaia

You have seen this from Wikipedia?

Charles Taze Russell was born to Joseph Lytel Russell and Ann Eliza Birney on Monday, February 16, 1852 in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, USA . Charles, the second of five children, was one of only two to survive into adulthood. The other Russell children included Thomas, (1850–September 4, 1855), Margaret ("Mae", married name Margaret Land) who died in the late 1940s, Lucinda (1857–July 21, 1858), and Joseph Lytel, Jr. (1859–April 25, 1860). Their mother died on January 25, 1861 at the age of 29. The patriarch, Joseph, died December 17, 1897, at the age of 84.

So this complicates the picture a little. Jane Russell is not mentioned at all....why? Margaret Russell fits of course, and Thomas and Lucinda would have already died by the 1860 census. Could Jane have been a niece or cousin who went to live with the Russells or adopted by them?

Leolaia

Their mother died on January 25, 1861 at the age of 29.

Hey, that hits the bulls-eye! I gave a range between 6/27/1860 and 2/15/1861.

Russell Family & Allegheny - Pittsburgh Census Records

Share this