TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-12 > 1291819628


From: "Elissa Scalise Powell, CG" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Census enumerations
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:47:08 -0500
References: <6ea0b.53aa3956.3a30ef45@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <6ea0b.53aa3956.3a30ef45@aol.com>


You can say a little more with the proper analysis: In 1850 John Doe was a
15 year old boy in the household of William Doe who is old enough to be his
father although it does not state the relationship. The Doe family's
neighbors were the Smiths and Joneses and we find the same configuration in
the 1840 census in which William Doe's household includes a male age 0-5
years and also has the same Smith and Jones families as neighbors. This
neighborhood is also listed in the tax records for 1840 through 1850 and a
deed of 1855 when John Jones sold his property listing his abutting
neighbors as the Samuel Smith and William Doe. Therefore it is highly likely
that John Doe is the young boy in the 1840 William Doe household.

Building a case is not just pulling the data but building it from all
evidence into a proof argument.

My .02,
Elissa

Elissa Scalise Powell, CG
www.PowellGenealogy.com
CG and Certified Genealogist are Service Marks of the Board for
Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants
after periodic evaluations by the Board.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 9:25 AM
>
> All you can say for
> 1840 is that a certain number of males and females were enumerated
> (counted) in various age brackets in the household of, say, William Doe.
One of
> those tick marks in the appropriate sex and age category may have been
John
> Doe, but it is not immediately obvious.


This thread: