Some thoughts/gripes on the Census

[Montauk6]

I understand the justification for keeping post-1930 census reports confidential is to protect the privacy of any of the folks that are still around. I guess I just don't see the logic. First off, after perusing census form after census form, what intimacies are being betrayed after all? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right of privacy. But here I just don't get it. Did Kinsey take over composing the questions? I mean, why do we have to wait until 2012 to be able to see the 1940 (!!!!) rolls? And what about those on the 1930 census that are still alive? Did we just say, aw screw 'em, they're old, nobody cares? And what about those that born after 1940 who are dead????

You want the definition of "lucky bastard"? The amateur family sleuth who actually finds relevant info in the 1890 census.

Do you ever go over some of these forms and develop the urge to jump in a time machine, find and strangle the census taker? It's as if the questions were along the lines of "OK, can you give a rough guesstimate of what you name might be?"

And why no Soundex for the first names??? Usually, it's Molly but then you get Mollie, Maaleee, Marlee, Mole, Molie; CURSE THOSE DRUNKARDS! I'll bet the guy responsible for the 1921 fire that wiped out the 1890 rolls drank too much scotch!

Other than that, how's YOUR research going?

[fudge stripe cookays]

1. Argh indeed!

Sorry you're frustrated Montauk.

I definitely understand where you're coming from. I've GOT all the older generation of my family pretty much traced. I need the next generation that followed them, and some of them I can't find until 1940.

What has really helped me is trying to post obits, wedding announcements etc for my folks at the main county page where my folks settled (Rock County, Wisconsin). I've had at least 3 cousins find ME that way. And two of them were brick walls that I was going to have to wait until 1940 to find.

Try going here:
http://resources.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/townco.cgi

Enter the name of the town where you think they settled, and this will give you the county. Then click on the link. It will give you lots of resources for that county. You'll be surprised what you might find. Usually rootsweb always has a main county page for resources for that county, and that's where I post lots of the goodies I find. Not enough for anyone to abscond with all my research, but like little trails of breadcrumbs for folks to find their way to me.

If it makes you feel any better, I found one of my guys, Aleck Myers (already fun because he varied between MEYERS, MYERS, and MEYER every census) down in at least 2 censuses as "Ellick." His parents were German, from the old country, and he evidently picked up the accent. Took me FOREVER to find him. Then I did a wide open search in Godfrey for the last name and checked each first name.

I wish you lots of luck! Keep commiserating. That's what this board is for.

:hi:
fsc

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. The most frustrating thing about the census for me...

is the near-uselessness of the records for 1840 and earlier (when heads of household were the only persons listed). It's especially frustrating given that I have a lot of Southern ancestry (Georgia and Virginia), and the census is almost the ONLY source for info thanks to the massive loss of records to fire during the Civil War. Most of my dead ends are in Georgia and Virginia between 1800 and 1860 (and most of the rest are in Kentucky in the late 1700's-early 1800's, record keeping on the frontier not being that great, either).

[Montauk6]

3. Great point, SJ

In fact, my cutoff year is 1870, after the Emancipation. I can't make heads or tails out of the Slave Schedules.

But that whole head-of-household thing sticks in my craw anyway; and who, again, was the genius who came up with the idea that wives must take their husbands surnames at marriage? I know this is a take-for-granted item and that only feminists would object, blah-blah-blah. But it really comes back to bite you in the ass when you're trying to research family history. Marriage records? BWAHAHAHAAAA, good luck!

[fudge stripe cookays]

5. Understood!

When I find out that some of my families had daughters, it's like....CRAP...here we go again!

Trying to find those marriage records, or sit in Madison at a microfilm reader for years and years worth of articles, praying for a hit during a specific period.

I also hit the FHL databases and Worldconnect tree with serious frequency. I've found all kinds of interesting doo-dads there that I haven't found anywhere else. Obviously, you have to take the info with a gran of salt. But I source that that's where I got it from, then go about proving the info is true. I've connected with lots of other cousins that way with info they've posted.

[Montauk6]

6. Yeah, and with the census you have to REALLY put on your thinking cap

Fortunately, people didn't stray far from the nest back then (at least with my people).

Come to think of it, now I truly understand that cliched line from old comedies you don't hear much anymore; when the wife gets upset with hubby, "I'm going home to Mother!"

My point is I have been able to deduce maiden names by proximity and what the older children are named (I promise you, that's NOT a reliable method, but you can only go with whatcha got.).

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Then there's the problem of people who DIDN'T APPEAR in the census...

my great-great-grandfather, who came over from Ireland in 1849 and lived in Kentucky, appears in NONE of the censuses between 1860 and 1920. Not him, not his children. The first census my great-grandmother (born 1897) appears in is 1930. (Which makes me wonder if there was a general suspicion of giving information to government agents among Irish immigrants, a hold-over from the old country...wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.)

[Montauk6]

10. Oh don't get me started on that one!

Was the census voluntary?

[bobbieinok]

11. my grandfather born in 1879 in NC......can't find him in any census

my mom said from the stories he told about his family they probably all left for the hills when the census people came by

[Montauk6]

4. accidental repost deleted

[Montauk6]

7. Here's another headache!

1870, Louisiana. Some genius decided to fill in the form with surnames and first-name initial. OHHHH, so HELPFUL!!!!

[fudge stripe cookays]

8. Geez...that's even worse than the early ones with only one person's name!

Yikes!

fsc

[foreverdem]

12. I've found many problems with Census records

I'm new to this forum, but was glad to find it since I'm researching my family ancestry. I've found alot of errors in birth dates in the Census records I've seen. I'm trying to trace the Dorgan family and the census of 1900 lists my g grandfather's birth place as NJ, yet his death certificate states he'd lived in NY since birth. The birth years of some of his children are wrong as well.

[CBHagman]

13. Oh, don't get me started on ages.

I think Census information was at times second- and third-hand, so you can't always take the ages as the gospel truth, and the same goes for birthplaces.

Family Tree magazine did a really good article on breaking through genealogy brick walls, and that was one of the problems mentioned. The suggestion is that you take everything as clue and question everything. For example, my great-great-grandmother's birthplace is variously listed as England, Ireland, and New Jersey. Those could be hints on moving patterns, ethnicity, or the identity of the informant.

I've also been driven to near madnes by my family's apparent tendency to peel 15 years off the age of the deceased on the death certificate. I've seen it at least three times so far, and I have documentation to contradict the age in every case.

That said, the ages in most of the census records have been fairly accurate. You do hear funny stories, though, about people who age less than five years between censuses.

[CountAllVotes]

14. yeah my grandfather

I know who my grandfather was. I found him in the 1910 census and it states that he was from Sweden and that both of his parents were from Sweden too and that he spoke Swedish.

That is real nice I guess except for one trivial FACT. He was full-blooded Irish and he spoke English and was born where I always knew he was said to be born - not Sweden that is for sure! :grr:

His father lied a lot and so did his mother (my great grandmother). She died in 1936 and states she was 50 years old in 1930 (she was in fact 61 years old). They lied a lot about things like age, etc.

Very frustrating and the only thing I can say is make sure you read the entire census page you find an ancestor on as there is likely another relation living nearby I've found.

And to think, Albert Kroeber, the famous anthropologist, deemed the 1910 census to be a highly accurate instrument. What a joke is all I can say.