I’ve been talking about the problems that exist when people
assume things about the records we use. Here is a follow-up.
US Census records included more and more (or different)
information in almost every successive year. As I mentioned before, 1790-1840
censuses listed heads of household only. But in 1850 they included the names of
all people in the household, with their ages, but did not indicate how the
people were related to each other. Since many people took in family members, a
child in a home, even if he/she had the same surname as the “man of the house,”
could not be assumed to be his child. By 1880, they learned. This helps a lot.
Also, eventually occupations, birth locations (and, in time, locations of the
births of each listed person’s parents). In 1900, things got even better - that
census included the birth month and year; but that info was not repeated in
later years. We do get information about when the people got married, how many
times they had been married (not consistently, but sometimes), relationships to
head of household, income information, property value, and education all give
us a sense of who the people were. Hence, the use of these documents to get
rolling on who the people were.
When we add City Directories (the precursors to telephone
directories), we can learn if people moved between years of the census. But
they are not all on the Internet, so sometimes we have to contact libraries in
other areas for information from the directories that might be helpful. This
involves searching in individual volumes . . . and it can be long and tedious,
especially if alternate spellings of a name need to be considered.
One word about names: people often altered names (and for
many reasons), so a Velton could be a Felton; a Bounder could be a Pounder; a
Kroch could be a Crock; etc. So when we look in indexes, we have to look for
alternate spelling options . . . again, time consuming.
No comments:
Post a Comment