Census birth year vs. family given dates

[Guest Michael Dietz]

I have a family with eight children, all born in the range of 1832-1850. I received the data about the family from another family member who has done quite a bit of research. She has definite birth dates for each of these children, eg. August 22, 1840. I have the 1850 census image for the family. Every age given in the census would place the birth year for that person from one to two years earlier than the date given by the family member. The 1840 example above has age 11, 1839, in the census record.

 

I could understand one or two of them being off a year because of the relation of census date to the actual birth date, but all eight??? I am beginning to think the actual dates given by the family member are actually baptismal dates and not the birth dates.

 

Any comments or discussion will be appreciated.

 

Mike

[retsof 0]

When did the census taker actually visit the home? If late in the year, ages may seem like a year more than you might think. It's an estimate, but may be closer to the numbers you had in mind. The homeowner will likely answer the questions based on the day the enumerator is standing there. The fractional ages reported as months/12 for a child less than 1 year will also help to narrow down the census years.

 

Here is an example:

The official census date for the 1850 Lincoln County, TN Federal Census was June 1, 1850, although the enumerator may have visited the household at a later date.

 

Your family birthdates will probably be the best, first level reference, but more references for the same person are also helpful. Do not depend on any one source. More is always better. If you can find some tombstones or birth/death records somewhere, that's also helpful. Don't depend on that, either. My great-great-great grandfather's tombstone states that he died in 1861. HOWEVER, he made a will in 1864. The chiseler left the horizontal stroke off of the 4.

Edited December 11, 2007 by retsof

[elevator 0]

Like the other poster said; that the years of birth are off by a year or two in census enumerations are not necessarily a reason to doubt the data you already have. I am fortunate to come from a part of the world that have reliable birth and baptismal records back to the mid 1600s and access to several censuses from the same area. It is in fact quite common that the years are off. The reasons for this may be many, including:

- Like "retsof" said; date may be based on the actual enumerator visit.

- Family may not know when the family member were born (mostly for older people, or people not present at the time of enumeration visit)

- Some places I have even seen rounding. If person was 18 years 10 months, I have seen it listed as both 18 and 19.

- Social standings may even impact the accuracy of date information in the census

 

At least where I come from originally (Norway), I have seen that prior to 1900, census enumeration may be quite riddled with innacrurate or "almost-but-not-quite" accurate data. The reason I can say this is precisely because of the good birth and baptismal records available so it is possible to compare census years to actual date recorded in birth and baptismal records.

 

If the census record is the ONLY primary source available, go with it. And if not; put things into perspective by using all available sources and recording all information available.

 

Ken.

 

I could understand one or two of them being off a year because of the relation of census date to the actual birth date, but all eight??? I am beginning to think the actual dates given by the family member are actually baptismal dates and not the birth dates.

[Barbara Grempler 0]

My great-great-great grandfather's tombstone states that he died in 1861. HOWEVER, he made a will in 1864. The chiseler left the horizontal stroke off of the 4.

Was the space for the horizontal stroke there? If so, the stroke was probably cut into the stone. From years of stone reading, that stroke is one of the first to erode away, so we rely on the spacing of 1861 and 186 1.

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

Another reason the dates can be off. Benjamin and Dorothy married in 1859. Their first child is born in 1859, 6 months after the wedding. 11 months later his brother is born in 1860. 14 months later a daughter is born in 1861.

 

Now the census taker comes around in 1870 and asks momma the ages of her children. This is a guy from the government, and momma knows the state knows she married in 1859 because she has a license, but they don't know when the kids were born because they don't have birth certificates, so now child one is born in 1860, child two in 1861 and child three 1862.

 

Who can tell by looking at a child that he is 9 instead of 8? Mom who was pregnant and 16 when she married, tells the census taker that she is 30. That now makes her 19 when she married and all her children legitimate in the eyes of the government. And no one knows for another 137 years.

 

 

A reason for them being older? Well like me, she can't subtract. I have been a year older than I actually am for the last three years. My husband keeps reminding me that I am really a year younger than I tell people. And once you get past that third child who can remember all the birthdates and years anyway. Add in she had to tell him as off a date months previously and that just adds to the confusion.

[retsof 0]

Was the space for the horizontal stroke there? If so, the stroke was probably cut into the stone. From years of stone reading, that stroke is one of the first to erode away, so we rely on the spacing of 1861 and 186 1.

That's a good tip, but this stone could have been either way. It was not obvious on the stone that it was supposed to be a 4. The fairly wide spaced font read more like 1 8 6 1. I think I remember that the top of the 1 had a curved serif, and was not angled as a 4 would be, looking at others of similar font. There are also closed and open 4s. I think most of these were closed. I'm not certain now, but that was my impression at the time. We didn't have a camera with us, but now can take more pic of tombstones as time permits. The chiseling for what was there was fairly deep, and I didn't see any evidence of a weak stroke. Other later stones are made of marble instead of slate or granite, and the acid rain in the midwest is doing a number on them and on the trees on the ridges in the general area. Some stones that were clear to me 40 years ago are nearly or completely illegible now. Another graveyard suffers from being too close to a high school. The vandals tip and break them now and then. One stone broken in half that we repaired with a stainless steel connector was broken off at the bottom the last time I noticed. Yet a third graveyard does not now suffer from this indignity but from another one. The stones were removed and placed in the basement of the church, where they remain. The graves were not removed to another cemetery, but paved over for a parking lot. An uncle lived 2 blocks from there, so that was his impression. One of my great-grandfather and some of his children are buried under there somewhere. Another tradition is that the father of the "1861" stone was buried on the farm. Stones were broken up and placed in low spots in the road as fill. Edited December 12, 2007 by retsof

[Linda Reid 0]

I have a family with eight children, all born in the range of 1832-1850. I received the data about the family from another family member who has done quite a bit of research. She has definite birth dates for each of these children, eg. August 22, 1840. I have the 1850 census image for the family. Every age given in the census would place the birth year for that person from one to two years earlier than the date given by the family member. The 1840 example above has age 11, 1839, in the census record.

 

I could understand one or two of them being off a year because of the relation of census date to the actual birth date, but all eight??? I am beginning to think the actual dates given by the family member are actually baptismal dates and not the birth dates.

 

Any comments or discussion will be appreciated.

 

Mike

Mike,

You've been given a number of reasons why birth years may vary from that indicated in the census. Note also that when companies like Ancestry calculate birth year, they simply take the census year and subtract the age of each person. That is quite often off by a year, because many censuses are in the first part of the year, and more than half the people recorded have not had their birthday for that year.

 

My next question is: what are your relative's sources for the birth dates she gave you? If she has copies of the birth registrations, or of parish records (although churches often just record the baptismal date, not the birth date), or of a family bible, those sources are probably better than family stories. But even a family bible may not have been recorded near the time of the event - are all the entries in a similar hand, with the same ink? That would suggest they might have just recorded family stories told some time after the events.

 

Sourcing your information is needed for just this sort of situation.

 

Pierce