ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY-L Archives

Archiver > ETHICS-IN-GENEALOGY > 2002-04 > 1018892628


From: "Myra V Gormley" <>
Subject: Re: [Ethics] Re: Using circumstantial evidence
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:43:48 -0700
References: <145.cd7c6cd.29e9edef@aol.com> <3CB91962.7EAB60A3@zimres.net> <002101c1e3a8$c3f4dd60$5986570c@amburgey> <3CBA13C9.DE4854D6@zimres.net> <005501c1e499$a1025b60$07141eac@joanbest>


>We are all familar with how census records regularly record that some
individuals age only 7 or 8 years each decade. <

This is a familiar problem, but we don't know who gave the census
information or if the enumerator even "heard" the answer correctly. I've
often wondered if the enumerator asked "how old are you?" and my ancestor
did (as I sometimes do now) said, "well, let's see, I was born in 1839 ..."
now did the enumerator do the math -- and if so, did he do it correctly?

Have you ever noticed particularly on the U.S. 1900 Soundex where it asked
for month/year of birth AND for the age that sometimes there are
discrepancies with the answer?

Another problem with U.S. censuses is the information was supposed to be
recorded as of the Official Census Day (which varied) -- not the day of the
enumerator's visit. We don't know that the enumerator followed
instructions, but it is important to know what they were supposed to do.
Many researchers, especially newbies, try to figure their ancestor's birth
date based on the date of enumerator's visit. It might or might not be
correct. The age recorded was supposed to be as of the official census day,
which was 1 June for the years 1830 through 1900; 15 April, 1910 and 1
January 1920.

Bill Dollarhide in his "The Census Book," pointed out something that caused
me to go back and re-check on information from the 1820 and 1830 U.S.
censuses. The official census day changed from the first Monday in August
1820 to the first day of June in 1830 -- that's not exactly 10 years apart
and the two-month difference might reveal some surprising results. For
example, if a person were born between 1 June 1820 and 7 August 1820, that
child would appear in the 1820 census in the "under 5" group. In the 1830
that person would appear in the "under 10" column rather than the "of 10
and under 16" category since the person had not turned 10 yet.

The author pointed out that comparing the other age categories for a person
appearing 10 years later and not in the correct age category might give you
a clue to a person's date of birth within a two-month period.

Another thing to be aware of is the problem with the 1820 U.S. census,
which asks for all males 16-18 years of age and in another column for all
"males 16-26 years of age." A male shown in the 16-18 column SHOULD be in
the 16-26 column also. Some times our "extra" male family members are
obtained because these columns were not read closely and we are not aware
of this peculiarity of the record. You can check this by adding all the
marks for males and females, then go to the far right-hand side of that
census and find the "total number in the household."

The more we understand the records we use and how and why they were
created, the better genealogists we become.

--Myra Vanderpool Gormley




----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan Best" <>
To: <>
Sent: April 15, 2002 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Ethics] Re: Using circumstantial evidence



This thread: