Barnum's in the Barbour Collection

by given name

Includes Births and Marriages

The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Vital Records was named for Lucius Barnes Barbour, State Examiner of Public Records from 1911-1934. You can see futher information on the collection by following this link to the Connecticut State Library site.

Connecticut State Library, Barbour Collection

RETURN TO TAPPERO HOME PAGE

I have taken the information from the microfilm at the FHL Salt Lake City, Film # 002891 and all spellings are as they appear on the index.

I have made no attempt at identifing families on these pages. I will leave that up to you.

Remember that any death of a female could be of a Mrs. Barnum, and any marrige of a female named Barnum could be the widow of a Barnum.

I won't guarantee that this file is error free, but I have checked and double checked the records. The index itself is know to have errors, so it is a good idea to check the town records that they reference. It is also known that there are omissions in the index. If you think there should be someone listed but they are not check the town records. Please notify me of any errors you may find. The following is an explanation on the errors that can be found in the Barbour File.

Subj: Re: SURPRISE: Barnum/'Barnham Newsletter Vol. 3-1 Date: 01/23/2000 1:42:49 PM Mountain Standard Time From: camfield@olympus.net (Tom Camfield) To: JATappero@aol.com: Hello, Ann (and gang).
Certainly a very nice file with wonderful access...and thanks again, Ann, for carrying the research standard on everyone's behalf!: I just want to insert a note of caution with regards to Barbour. I found some major carelessness on his part with regard to my Camfield line (one of my direct-line Camfield ancestors married a Barnum girl) back in the early 1700s or thereabouts (not pausing to look it up at the moment).
If I remember correctly, the erroneous path on which he sent me did not become obvious until I had floundered about for some time. I have a general recollection at the moment that he had misinterpreted early handwriting. My own corrections to his "facts" were made only after I accessed original land records in Kent, Conn., etc.: Some years ago, I wrote the state library in Connecticut,attempting to get someone to correct, or at least amend, the famous Barbour Collection. I don't believe I ever heard back from them.
The point I'm making is that this researcher was not without fault and perhaps tried to encompass too much within the time at his disposal.: I will attempt to find my documented complaint and be a bit more specific sometime in the near future.
Regards, Tom: Tom Camfield

Subj: Re: SURPRISE: Barnum/'Barnham Newsletter Vol. 3-1 Date: 01/23/2000 1:58:18 PM Mountain Standard Time From: JA Tappero To: camfield@olympus.net: Tom, would you mind if I put you post on the errors in the Barbour Collection on the web site. It will warn others of the possible problems.
Ann

Subj: Re: SURPRISE: Barnum/'Barnham Newsletter Vol. 3-1 Date: 01/24/2000 11:38:56 AM Mountain Standard Time From: camfield@olympus.net (Tom Camfield) To: JATappero@aol.com: Hi, Ann.
No problem. I checked my book, and I made only a brief mention of Barbour's erroneous material. It basically concerns the birth years of two of the children of Mary Barnum (b. 1711, daughter of Thomas), who married Samuel Camfield (1710-1804).: He had misinterpreted the fancy manner in which numerals appeared in original land records for the town of Kent, Conn. Barbour had transcribed 1756 and 1758 for the birth years of children Daniel and Abigail, respectively. The confusion was between the numerals 3 and 5. Prolonged and closer study of the original records showed that the birth years actually were 1736 and 1738.
Other information also proves this error. Abigail, for instance, married in 1764--and obviously was more than 6 years old at the time. My correction also eliminates a 9 1/2-year gap between the births of the sixth and seventh children--and restores the constant 17- to 21-month interval between the births of the family's various children.: Barbour certainly cannot be faulted too critically for this mistake, as the handwriting was easy to misinterpret. However, in transcribing this material in later years, neither he nor others paid little heed to the inconsistency of the alleged birth years.
Regards, Tom: Tom Camfield

The births are indexed on the IGI.

If you would like to view the collection (which is on 98 rolls of microfilm) the film numbers can be found in the FHL library catalog on FamilySearch and can be ordered into your local LDS Family History Center.

I hope this will be of some help to those who visit this page.

me with any questions or corrections at Tappero9135@msn.com