A dillema (Opinions requested)
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Jeff
A dillema (Opinions requested)
I know this is not uncommon but here goes anyway.
1900 Census Baltimore Maryland
Charles Rehberger born Aug 1864, has a wife name Ida born 1868 and a
daughter named Ida born 1895 and some other children. The census gives
specific months of birth and says they were both born in Maryland. This
would "probably" be correct as Charles father was born in Maryland as well.
1920 Census Baltimore Maryland
Charles Rehberger with wife Ida and daughter Ida. Except in 1920 it says he
is 48 years old which would put his birth somewhere aorund 1872 and wife Ida
is 47 which would put her birth around 1873 and daughter Ida is 23 which
would put her birth around 1897 rather than 1895. There are also two
additional children born after 1900. It also says Charles and Ida are born
in Virginia rather than Maryland.
Opinions requested.
J
1900 Census Baltimore Maryland
Charles Rehberger born Aug 1864, has a wife name Ida born 1868 and a
daughter named Ida born 1895 and some other children. The census gives
specific months of birth and says they were both born in Maryland. This
would "probably" be correct as Charles father was born in Maryland as well.
1920 Census Baltimore Maryland
Charles Rehberger with wife Ida and daughter Ida. Except in 1920 it says he
is 48 years old which would put his birth somewhere aorund 1872 and wife Ida
is 47 which would put her birth around 1873 and daughter Ida is 23 which
would put her birth around 1897 rather than 1895. There are also two
additional children born after 1900. It also says Charles and Ida are born
in Virginia rather than Maryland.
Opinions requested.
J
-
Jeff
Re: A dillema (Opinions requested) Also....
Charles C Rehberger is enumerated at 9 years of age in the 1880 Baltimore
Census. This would make him born of course in 1871.
Census. This would make him born of course in 1871.
-
MikeS
Re: A dillema (Opinions requested)
"Jeff" <tankerHC@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9jXbe.30188$AE6.663@tornado.texas.rr.com...
No dilemma here. As you indicate a variance in age as well as place of
birth is not uncommon from census to census. You seem to be making an
assumption that a family member provided all of this data to the enumerator,
overlooking the fact the census information could have been provided by the
postman, milkman, neighbor or some other third party.
Mike
news:9jXbe.30188$AE6.663@tornado.texas.rr.com...
I know this is not uncommon but here goes anyway.
1900 Census Baltimore Maryland
Charles Rehberger born Aug 1864, has a wife name Ida born 1868 and a
daughter named Ida born 1895 and some other children. The census gives
specific months of birth and says they were both born in Maryland. This
would "probably" be correct as Charles father was born in Maryland as
well.
1920 Census Baltimore Maryland
Charles Rehberger with wife Ida and daughter Ida. Except in 1920 it says
he is 48 years old which would put his birth somewhere aorund 1872 and
wife Ida is 47 which would put her birth around 1873 and daughter Ida is
23 which would put her birth around 1897 rather than 1895. There are also
two additional children born after 1900. It also says Charles and Ida are
born in Virginia rather than Maryland.
No dilemma here. As you indicate a variance in age as well as place of
birth is not uncommon from census to census. You seem to be making an
assumption that a family member provided all of this data to the enumerator,
overlooking the fact the census information could have been provided by the
postman, milkman, neighbor or some other third party.
Mike
-
Jeff
Re: A dillema (Opinions requested)
Hey Mike, actually what I was looking at was due to the fact that there are
specific months of birth in the 1900 census that that information was
probably given by a member of the household whereas the 1920 information was
probably given by a neighbor. I am going with the 1900 Census information as
being correct as I doubt anyone but a member of the family would know the
exact months of husband, wife and all 5 childrens birth.
specific months of birth in the 1900 census that that information was
probably given by a member of the household whereas the 1920 information was
probably given by a neighbor. I am going with the 1900 Census information as
being correct as I doubt anyone but a member of the family would know the
exact months of husband, wife and all 5 childrens birth.
overlooking the fact the census information could have been provided by
the postman, milkman, neighbor or some other third party.
Mike
-
L Covey
Re: A dillema (Opinions requested)
Jeff wrote:
In my experience, the ages can differ as can other data. It depends on
who is answering the enumerator's questions: head, wife, child (if
allowable), etc. and also how the enumerator interpreted or wrote down
the responses.
Can't definitely rely on all data, but at least it is something for us.
Also, note the date at the top...as well as any additional dates on
the left margin.
Be sure to read a blank copy so you know the "rules" for that census
year. I can't recall exactly, but for example, the 1880 census "rules"
at the top of the page have specific requirements.
Sorry to be so vague, I am kind of tired tonight and I don't have the
information in front of me.
Lani
I know this is not uncommon but here goes anyway.
1900 Census Baltimore Maryland
Charles Rehberger born Aug 1864, has a wife name Ida born 1868 and a
daughter named Ida born 1895 and some other children. The census gives
specific months of birth and says they were both born in Maryland. This
would "probably" be correct as Charles father was born in Maryland as well.
1920 Census Baltimore Maryland
Charles Rehberger with wife Ida and daughter Ida. Except in 1920 it says he
is 48 years old which would put his birth somewhere aorund 1872 and wife Ida
is 47 which would put her birth around 1873 and daughter Ida is 23 which
would put her birth around 1897 rather than 1895. There are also two
additional children born after 1900. It also says Charles and Ida are born
in Virginia rather than Maryland.
Opinions requested.
J
In my experience, the ages can differ as can other data. It depends on
who is answering the enumerator's questions: head, wife, child (if
allowable), etc. and also how the enumerator interpreted or wrote down
the responses.
Can't definitely rely on all data, but at least it is something for us.
Also, note the date at the top...as well as any additional dates on
the left margin.
Be sure to read a blank copy so you know the "rules" for that census
year. I can't recall exactly, but for example, the 1880 census "rules"
at the top of the page have specific requirements.
Sorry to be so vague, I am kind of tired tonight and I don't have the
information in front of me.
Lani
-
Robert Heiling
Re: A dillema (Opinions requested) Also....
Jeff wrote:
and the 1910, which I haven't seen mentioned as yet shows them both as 39!
btw: I have cases in the 1900 where mo/yr are incorrect for the HOH and I
know that because I have a baptismal record in one case. Don't trust that
mo/yr either because I suspect that there were people who really didn't know
their own birthdate.
Bob
Charles C Rehberger is enumerated at 9 years of age in the 1880 Baltimore
Census. This would make him born of course in 1871.
and the 1910, which I haven't seen mentioned as yet shows them both as 39!
btw: I have cases in the 1900 where mo/yr are incorrect for the HOH and I
know that because I have a baptismal record in one case. Don't trust that
mo/yr either because I suspect that there were people who really didn't know
their own birthdate.
Bob
-
Donna
Re: A dillema (Opinions requested)
Jeff,
Censuses are wrong all the time. That's why it's helpful to get as many
censuses as are available so as to get something close to an accurate
picture.
I have had the head of the families first name given as totally wrong.
I've also had our name McCreary spelled Maleery by an enumerator. Sometimes
the errors are small, and sometimes they are gross.
Regarding something like the 1900 census, I can picture a census taker
riding up on his/her horse or in his/her buggy, and getting all the
information from the teenage son hoeing in the field closest to the road.
You can bet he'd make a stab at it, and the guesses would probably be just
close enough to confuse us later.
The official instructions to the enumerators beginning in 1850 are very,
very interesting
and can be found here:
http://www.ipums.umn.edu/usa/voliii/tEnumInstr.html
Something that helps round out the picture is the poem below:
"The Census Taker"
by Darlene Stevens
(published in Genealogy Bulletin No. 39 page 28)
It was the first day of census, and all through the land;
The pollster was ready . a black book in hand.
He mounted his horse for a long dusty ride;
His book and some quills were tucked close by his side.
A long winding ride down a road barely there;
Toward the smell of fresh bread wafting, up through the air.
The woman was tired, with lines on her face;
And wisps of brown hair she tucked back into place.
She gave him some water . as they sat at the table;
And she answered his questions . the best she was able.
He asked of her children. Yes, she had quite a few;
The oldest was twenty, the youngest not two.
She held up a toddler with cheeks round and red;
His sister, she whispered, was napping in bed.
She noted each person who lived there with pride;
And she felt the faint stirrings of the wee one inside.
He noted the sex, the color, the age.
The marks from the quill soon filled up the page.
At the number of children, she nodded her head;
And he saw her lips quiver for the three that were dead.
The places of birth she "never forgot";
Was it Kansas? Or Utah? Or Oregon?..or not?
They came from Lithuania, of that she was clear;
But she wasn't quite sure just how long they'd been here.
They spoke of employment, of schooling and such;
They could read some, and write some, though really not much.
When the questions were answered, his job there was done;
So he mounted his horse and he rode toward the sun.
We can almost imagine his voice loud and clear;
"May God bless you all for another ten years."
Now picture a time warp . it's now you and me;
As we search for the people on our family tree.
We squint at the census and scroll down so slow;
As we search for that entry from long, long ago.
Could they only imagine on that long ago day;
That the entries they made would effect us this way?
If they knew, would they wonder at the yearning we feel;
And the searching that makes them so increasingly real.
We can hear if we listen the words they impart;
Through their blood in our veins and their voice in our heart.
Good hunting-----------
Donna
Censuses are wrong all the time. That's why it's helpful to get as many
censuses as are available so as to get something close to an accurate
picture.
I have had the head of the families first name given as totally wrong.
I've also had our name McCreary spelled Maleery by an enumerator. Sometimes
the errors are small, and sometimes they are gross.
Regarding something like the 1900 census, I can picture a census taker
riding up on his/her horse or in his/her buggy, and getting all the
information from the teenage son hoeing in the field closest to the road.
You can bet he'd make a stab at it, and the guesses would probably be just
close enough to confuse us later.
The official instructions to the enumerators beginning in 1850 are very,
very interesting
and can be found here:
http://www.ipums.umn.edu/usa/voliii/tEnumInstr.html
Something that helps round out the picture is the poem below:
"The Census Taker"
by Darlene Stevens
(published in Genealogy Bulletin No. 39 page 28)
It was the first day of census, and all through the land;
The pollster was ready . a black book in hand.
He mounted his horse for a long dusty ride;
His book and some quills were tucked close by his side.
A long winding ride down a road barely there;
Toward the smell of fresh bread wafting, up through the air.
The woman was tired, with lines on her face;
And wisps of brown hair she tucked back into place.
She gave him some water . as they sat at the table;
And she answered his questions . the best she was able.
He asked of her children. Yes, she had quite a few;
The oldest was twenty, the youngest not two.
She held up a toddler with cheeks round and red;
His sister, she whispered, was napping in bed.
She noted each person who lived there with pride;
And she felt the faint stirrings of the wee one inside.
He noted the sex, the color, the age.
The marks from the quill soon filled up the page.
At the number of children, she nodded her head;
And he saw her lips quiver for the three that were dead.
The places of birth she "never forgot";
Was it Kansas? Or Utah? Or Oregon?..or not?
They came from Lithuania, of that she was clear;
But she wasn't quite sure just how long they'd been here.
They spoke of employment, of schooling and such;
They could read some, and write some, though really not much.
When the questions were answered, his job there was done;
So he mounted his horse and he rode toward the sun.
We can almost imagine his voice loud and clear;
"May God bless you all for another ten years."
Now picture a time warp . it's now you and me;
As we search for the people on our family tree.
We squint at the census and scroll down so slow;
As we search for that entry from long, long ago.
Could they only imagine on that long ago day;
That the entries they made would effect us this way?
If they knew, would they wonder at the yearning we feel;
And the searching that makes them so increasingly real.
We can hear if we listen the words they impart;
Through their blood in our veins and their voice in our heart.
Good hunting-----------
Donna
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: A dillema (Opinions requested) Also....
Robert Heiling <robheil@comcast.net> wrote in
news:42705149.B3992E07@comcast.net:
OR didn't keep track of it;
"How old are you?"
"Um..forty...um, yeah, 40."
ACtual age could be up or down a year or two.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Overall, there was a smell of fried onions.
news:42705149.B3992E07@comcast.net:
Jeff wrote:
Charles C Rehberger is enumerated at 9 years of age in the 1880
Baltimore Census. This would make him born of course in 1871.
and the 1910, which I haven't seen mentioned as yet shows them both as
39!
btw: I have cases in the 1900 where mo/yr are incorrect for the HOH
and I know that because I have a baptismal record in one case. Don't
trust that mo/yr either because I suspect that there were people who
really didn't know their own birthdate.
OR didn't keep track of it;
"How old are you?"
"Um..forty...um, yeah, 40."
ACtual age could be up or down a year or two.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Overall, there was a smell of fried onions.
-
Gjest
Re: A dillema (Opinions requested) Also....
I recently disagreed with my 80-yr old aunt over the age of HER son. She
almost had HIM convinced that he was 59 and not 58. She "didn't realize
he was that close in age" to me. And I said "He's not!"
She was there when I was born, 3 first cousins in a row, my mother and
her 2 brothers' children in October, November and December. So it's not
like she doesn't know my exact birth year, since the October birth was
her daughter.
She even had a corroborating event for which the date had gotten wrong,
that being the date my uncle came home from the Army after WWII. "No,
Bobby was born in 1945 because that's the year when Robert came home."
Wrong. It was 1946.
The fact that a niece had celebrated with a big 60th birthday party was
critical in convincing her I was right, since she recalled the age
difference between them. Otherwise we'd probably still be discussing it.
almost had HIM convinced that he was 59 and not 58. She "didn't realize
he was that close in age" to me. And I said "He's not!"
She was there when I was born, 3 first cousins in a row, my mother and
her 2 brothers' children in October, November and December. So it's not
like she doesn't know my exact birth year, since the October birth was
her daughter.
She even had a corroborating event for which the date had gotten wrong,
that being the date my uncle came home from the Army after WWII. "No,
Bobby was born in 1945 because that's the year when Robert came home."
Wrong. It was 1946.
The fact that a niece had celebrated with a big 60th birthday party was
critical in convincing her I was right, since she recalled the age
difference between them. Otherwise we'd probably still be discussing it.
-
singhals
Re: A dillema (Opinions requested)
It's an appealing theory, but then again, read the instructions on the
census very carefully -- one is required to answer to the best of one's
ability, one is NOT required to be correct.
My GM told the funeral home when she was making pre-arrangements that
her birthdate was 15 Feb; it wasn't -- it's 15 Apr which she knew
_perfectly_ well. Lord only knows what she was thinking when she said
February!
Generally speaking, the younger the child on the census the better the
chance of it being right.
Cheryl
Jeff wrote:
census very carefully -- one is required to answer to the best of one's
ability, one is NOT required to be correct.
My GM told the funeral home when she was making pre-arrangements that
her birthdate was 15 Feb; it wasn't -- it's 15 Apr which she knew
_perfectly_ well. Lord only knows what she was thinking when she said
February!
Generally speaking, the younger the child on the census the better the
chance of it being right.
Cheryl
Jeff wrote:
Hey Mike, actually what I was looking at was due to the fact that there are
specific months of birth in the 1900 census that that information was
probably given by a member of the household whereas the 1920 information was
probably given by a neighbor. I am going with the 1900 Census information as
being correct as I doubt anyone but a member of the family would know the
exact months of husband, wife and all 5 childrens birth.
overlooking the fact the census information could have been provided by
the postman, milkman, neighbor or some other third party.
Mike