Maryland State Archives
(Assessment of 1783, Index)
Maryland County Information
Queen Anne's County
- This county did not appear to list the number of male or white inhabitants for the property listed. Instead, the number of slaves was listed and was broken down into age categories.
- Since the inhabitant information was not listed on the web page, this information was no longer captured into the database beginning with this county and continuing through the remaining counties.
- If an individual owned more than one piece of land, their database records were not linked in any way as was done in previous counties.
- If more than one property had combined acreage, only one record was entered and all properties were listed in that one record. In prior counties, these records were entered individually and were linked.
- For this county, at the end of each hundred were a list of additions and a list of abatements. This information was entered as all other records, but the word "Addition" or "Abatement" was entered in the Notes field.
The information for this county included the number and value of slaves; whether land was original, grant, resurvey or escheat; and the number of inhabitants broken down into males and females. The information also included the quality of the soil, arable land and woodland and improvements on the land (i.e. details of the house, etc.). The quantity of this information varied between hundreds.
The original microfilmed records for this county contained small print and were difficult to read for some of the hundreds, and therefore there may be discrepancies in tract names.
For some of the hundreds of this county, it was difficult to determine which person owned which land. An assumption was made based on review of the original records, that the list of property preceded the owner's name in most instances.
The spelling of Monokin Hundred was used based on review of the original records. However, other records indicate that the spelling may have been Manokin or Monakin.
The records for this county were broken down by districts with the various numbers of hundreds per district. Also, the districts were broken down into general and land assessments. For the general assessment, the number of acres was listed, but there was no tract name listed. Therefore, only the number of acres was entered into the data base.
The county also listed out the number of slaves broken down into age categories.
- The last page of the first and second districts lists the names of people whose property did not amount to ten pounds. These people were entered in the database as paupers.
- Due to the way that the land assessments were set up, many tracts were listed with one person and one set of acreage. Therefore, each person was entered with one record and the number of characters in the tract field was expanded to 254.
- For the third district, paupers were noted by not having any assessment value associated with them and were entered into the database as such.
- The last pages of the land assessment for each district list all names of tracts and who owns them. The third district also listed the number of acres owned.
Property was listed and number of acres was broken down into acres of woods, meadows and arable land.
- The number of slaves was broken down by age categories with associated values.
- The first 2 pages of the Marsh Hundred were not microfilmed well, and thus the bottom of the pages were cut off and many names could not be determined.
- The Fort Frederick, Linton, Upper Antietam and Jerusalem Hundreds included a list of all bachelors in the entire county broken down by hundred. These bachelors were entered as single and the correct hundred was also entered.
This county lists property, number of acres, number of slaves broken down into age categories and the number of white male and white female inhabitants. If the number of inhabitants totaled one, the person was entered as single.
- The spelling of Bouquetenorton Hundred was used based on review of the original records. However, other records indicate that the spelling may have been Boquenorton.
- If the individual had no assessment amount, they were entered as a pauper.
- The spelling of Mattopony Hundred was used based on review of the original records. However, other records indicate that the spelling may have been Mattapony or Mattapany.
Return to Assessment of 1783
Copyright October 17, 2005 Maryland State Archives