TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2010-12 > 1292854638
From: Rick Van Dusen <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] "Conclusions"
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 06:17:18 -0800
References: <20101219115520.088611@Terry> <4D0E6A38.email@example.com><4D0E7F64.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Yes, that's right (I'd forgotten): The Adamsville Census lists his
occupation as prisoner!
As far as the time element: First, Daniel went to prison 1878-1900
(pardoned by Gov. T. Roosevelt), so the Census Date is not an issue.
Even so, as Terry noted, there was a specific date for effective residence.
And as you've said, even if the date issue being nailed down two
different ways wasn't enough, the fact that his occupation is given as
prisoner should have done it.
But of course the Census is always correct. (And I can get you a good
deal on some swampland.)
bob gillis wrote:
> On 12/19/2010 3:25 PM, Rick Van Dusen wrote:
>> But that's not to say that the documents are always correct. (Any
>> beyond-neophyte knows that's not even close to true.) For example,
>> Daniel Van Deusen could not have been in Adamsville, NY and also in
>> Clinton Prison, NY on the Census day in 1880, so at least one Census
>> entry is wrong.* However, I can record both Census entries as they
>> exist, and I should do so without "conclusion", letting the record speak
>> in my report output.
> A person being recorded in two places in the same Census can and does
> Without doing a lot of searching, I do not know what the enumeration
> instruction were for the 1880 Census. If the instructions were to record
> the people who normally reside at the location, then it can happen as
> the informant says that Daniel normally resides there. and the Prison
> Warden makes the same assumption.
> In this particular case the fault lies with the enumerator and
> supervisor n Bethlehem ED who wrote and allowed that his occupation was
> Clinton Prison (Prisoner) and he should not have been counted
> The British Census recognized this problem many years ago and only those
> people who were in residence at the location on the night of the Census
> date were counted. I do not know when the US Census got the wording
> changed so that this would not happen.
> So in the British Enumeration Daniel would not have been counted
>> We know the documentary evidence is often questionable and we know that
>> in many cases we'll probably never find "conclusive" evidence (e.g. the
>> records of the New Salem DR Church are G-O-N-E-gone, and evidence
>> suggests they were already gone by 1865). We must be content with
>> reporting what we find, and stopping at that.
>> * Court proceedings put him convicted in 1878, so "part of the year"
>> doesn't explain anything. Also, presuming that the Census record from
>> Adamsville is his mother's wishful thinking, and also knowing that her
>> reports of at least three very different birthplaces, her reliability as
>> a witness is questionable and calls into question ALL Census records
>> where she might have given the report. (And yes, I've allowed myself
>> some conclusions in this paragraph.)
>> Terry Reigel wrote:
>>> Darrell A. Martin wrote:
>>> ...Whether that was correct is, of course, another matter.
>>> Terry Reigel
|Re: [TMG] "Conclusions" by Rick Van Dusen <>|