Accuracy of Census documents?
gera...@earthlink.net
1850-1920, and have a question.
The documents that you see on Ancestry: are they the original
documents as taken down directly from the residents at the Census
office, or are they copies of the original? That is, were rough
drafts made first, of which the Ancestry documents are copies?
The reason I'm suspecting that they are not the originals is that I'm
finding mistakes that could not have happened if the resident being
recorded was personally present. Wrong middle names, even wrong first
names, wrong relationships, etc. Wrong ages -- often way off -- are
common. An answer for this would be that we are viewing a copy of a
draft, and that the person making the copy was unable to read the
draft.
Yesterday I came across a case where the head of the household was
certainly Herbert W. Cline. However, the Census document called him
Hobert M. Cline. Absolutely no doubt it's the same family -- the
names, locations and ages all match the references in previous and
subsequent Census years. How could the Census worker have screwed up
the man's name if he was present? That's why I'm guessing that what
we see on Ancestry are copies made from the original drafts.
Can anybody confirm or refute this thieory?
the_ver...@comcast.net
The census taker took information from whoever happened to be home- or
sometimes even a neighbor.
You also have to consider the census take wrote down what he heard,
and that wasn't always what was actually said.
Differences in dialect and language also played a part- as did non-
standardized spelling in certain time periods.
Google on "census errors" and there is a LOT more info available.
Betti Cogswell
the copier was unable to get the correct spelling, or read the writing,
and it was changed. this is what I was told anyway, I too found a
mistake and wrote ancestry.com and told them it was wrong, since I knew
who the person was.
gera...@earthlink.net wrote:
--
Betti [chinmom]
home.comcast.net/~chinmom
Percival P. Cassidy
The transcriptions of those images are not always correct, and I have
submitted corrections of some.
Perce
Anne Chambers
> the census documents on ancestry are - I am told - copied, and sometimes
> the copier was unable to get the correct spelling, or read the writing,
> and it was changed. this is what I was told anyway, I too found a
> mistake and wrote ancestry.com and told them it was wrong, since I knew
> who the person was.
>
Ancestry transcribe their indexes from scans of the actual census documents - there are mistakes in
transcription and those can & should be corrected. If the actual census *document* (if the census taker wrote
down incorrect information) is incorrect, then the trasncribed index should continue show the error.
--
Anne Chambers
South Australia
anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com
Huntersglenn
> But are not the *images* scans of the original census taker's records?
>
> The transcriptions of those images are not always correct, and I have
> submitted corrections of some.
>
> Perce
>
While it's true that the images on ancestry.com are scans of the Federal
Census documents that are held by the government, they are not scans of
the original records. Most census takers did not write directly onto
the official forms - they would take notes and then copy those notes
onto the forms at a later date. Some even hired other people to go
door-to-door for them to take notes, and then they would copy those
notes to the census forms. So there were plenty of opportunities for
mistakes to happen - the enumerator mis-hearing a name, getting a wrong
name from a neighbor or border (or from the landlord), or making errors
when transferring those notes to the official forms.
I've been told that if you can't find a person on the Federal Census,
then to go to the state level - NOT the official state census (if they
were in a state that held those), but to look at the copy of the Federal
Census that was sent to the state. Because names that might have been
left out on one copy, just might be on one of the other copies. In
North Carolina, you have to go to the state archives to see their copies
of the Federal Census for North Carolina.
Cathy
Huntersglenn
You are partially correct. In a lot of the census years, enumerators
would take down the information and then later write it down on the
official document. Some enumerators would hire others people to help
them collect information, and then would have to read their notes - so
there was a lot of room for errors to happen at that point. I know that
at least two copies were made at the time of the census - one went to
the state and one went to the Federal government. I've been told that
if you can't find a person on the Federal government's copy (which is
what Ancestry.com has scanned), then you should look at the state copy
of their Federal Census (NOT the State census. Many states held their
own censuses, and those are a separate issue).
As others have replied, the information could come from many sources.
If someone wasn't home, or refused to talk to the enumerator, then
neighbors were consulted. Sometimes it might be an older child of the
household giving the information, or a boarder - in my husband's family,
we were perplexed because his great-grandmother's name on the 1930
Federal census is wrong. It's Blanche and her name was Lucinda. Then
we were telling my mother-in-law about it, and she laughed because her
father had been a boarder in her grandparent's house (that's how her
parents met) and he always jokingly called Lucinda "Blanche". So, we
know that he's the one who gave the family information to the enumerator.
Ancestry.com will accept alternative information for names, even if it's
an error on the census itself and not an indexing/transcribing error.
So, if you see a name that's wrong, you can report that to them.
They're supposedly working on having a way to give alternative
information for ages, places of birth - the information on the census
page would still be wrong - but the alternative information would show
up in the indexing.
Cathy
Bruce Remick
"Huntersglenn" <hunter...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0hzWm.68750$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
> Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>> But are not the *images* scans of the original census taker's records?
>>
>> The transcriptions of those images are not always correct, and I have
>> submitted corrections of some.
>>
>> Perce
>>
>
> While it's true that the images on ancestry.com are scans of the Federal
> Census documents that are held by the government, they are not scans of
> the original records. Most census takers did not write directly onto the
> official forms - they would take notes and then copy those notes onto the
> forms at a later date. Some even hired other people to go door-to-door
> for them to take notes, and then they would copy those notes to the census
> forms. So there were plenty of opportunities for mistakes to happen - the
> enumerator mis-hearing a name, getting a wrong name from a neighbor or
> border (or from the landlord), or making errors when transferring those
> notes to the official forms.
If teens were left to provide family census data in some cases, I wonder
how many today would know where each of their parents and grandparents were
born, let alone how old their parents are. I also wonder how many older
folks remember whether they gave their true age information for the last
census. I know I have been a head of household for four census so far but I
can't recall a single census taker visit or form in the mail.
Huntersglenn
>
> If teens were left to provide family census data in some cases, I wonder
> how many today would know where each of their parents and grandparents were
> born, let alone how old their parents are. I also wonder how many older
> folks remember whether they gave their true age information for the last
> census. I know I have been a head of household for four census so far but I
> can't recall a single census taker visit or form in the mail.
How very true about whether or not teenagers today, or in the past,
would have known all that much about where their parents or grandparents
were born. I know that in my own researching experience on immigrants,
the year of immigration will often vary. Then you have people who might
have been born in say, Ohio, but the family moved to California when
they were an infant, or too young to remember Ohio, so they thought they
were born in California.
Our household did get one of the 'short' census forms in the mail last
time around. Don't know if we'll be getting that short one again, or
get the longer one. It sometimes feels that as we get more technology,
we lose less information on people via the census records - mostly with
the various schedules that went with some of them. Do all farmers today
get an agricultural schedule with their census, or does anyone (outside
of family historians) really care about that kind of information? Seems
that all the government wants to know is how many people are living in
an area (for voting/representative purposes) and income and how we
classify ourselves racially and culturally. The little things, such as
having been married for 50 years, with every two children being born in
a different state (or being in the same city, but on a different street
every ten years), just doesn't matter. At least, that's the way the
modern censuses come across to me <grin>.
Cathy
Wes Groleau
> The census taker took information from whoever happened to be home- or
> sometimes even a neighbor.
> You also have to consider the census take wrote down what he heard,
> and that wasn't always what was actually said.
> Differences in dialect and language also played a part- as did non-
> standardized spelling in certain time periods.
Census takers were never issued lie detectors, either.
One of my ancestors on each census was eight years older
than the previous. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
Film Review: El último tren
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1480
Lesley Robertson
"Wes Groleau" <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote in message
news:hgfrc0$avj$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> the_ver...@comcast.net wrote:
>> The census taker took information from whoever happened to be home- or
>> sometimes even a neighbor.
>> You also have to consider the census take wrote down what he heard,
>> and that wasn't always what was actually said.
>> Differences in dialect and language also played a part- as did non-
>> standardized spelling in certain time periods.
>
> Census takers were never issued lie detectors, either.
>
> One of my ancestors on each census was eight years older
> than the previous. :-)
>
before people got used to them:
"Jean! There's a man at the door wants to know how old your Mother is!"....
Lesley Robertson
Bruce Remick
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:b59a6$4b2b78eb$83b4502b$28...@news1.tudelft.nl...
.....along with the value of her home, how much everything else she has is
worth, and how many iPods in the household.
jlHotz
> Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> > But are not the images scans of the original census taker's
I have an example of a relative who was married in early 1900 but was
listed as single in his father's household, and then six houses later
(on the same census page) listed again as married, living with his wife
and her daughter. I imagine he was counted in his father's home because
the enumerator just asked the names and ages his children. And there's
no way to know who was providing the information.
On the topic of copies of the Federal Census being sent to the states,
if that was the practice, why hasn't the 1890 Federal Census been
reconstructed? That would fill in a lot of missing information.
Jerry
D. Stussy
news:hgfrc0$avj$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > The census taker took information from whoever happened to be home- or
> > sometimes even a neighbor.
> > You also have to consider the census take wrote down what he heard,
> > and that wasn't always what was actually said.
> > Differences in dialect and language also played a part- as did non-
> > standardized spelling in certain time periods.
>
> Census takers were never issued lie detectors, either.
>
> One of my ancestors on each census was eight years older
> than the previous. :-)
Don't forget about all those transgendered babies out there!
Surgery not required.
ne...@jecarter.us
Allow for the errors in transcription: I have an ancestor whose first
name was "Guy". The 1920 census at Ancestry has him indexed as
"Gray". The census taker's handwriting was not the best, whuch is a
factor in many errors. There are also differences in the "standard"
form of handwriting over time.
Definitely allow for the census taker having had poor or no
instruction. Some years they would accept information from almost
anyone: small child, neighbor, etc. Other years had more specific
instructions, such as only accept info from an adult resident at the
dwelling.
Some people (especially children) may be recorded more than once in
the same census. One of my wife's gg-grandmother was recorded twice:
once at home with her parents and again at her grandparents' house a
couple of days later.
John
Huntersglenn
>
> I have an example of a relative who was married in early 1900 but was
> listed as single in his father's household, and then six houses later
> (on the same census page) listed again as married, living with his wife
> and her daughter. I imagine he was counted in his father's home because
> the enumerator just asked the names and ages his children. And there's
> no way to know who was providing the information.
>
> On the topic of copies of the Federal Census being sent to the states,
> if that was the practice, why hasn't the 1890 Federal Census been
> reconstructed? That would fill in a lot of missing information.
>
> Jerry
I've also wondered why there aren't any state copies of the 1890 Federal
Census. Maybe they had revised the requirements by that census, and no
longer provided a separate copy to each state? It wouldn't surprise me
any if the Federal government by then felt that it wasn't necessary to
provide each state with a copy - and it could be that by then, the
population was large enough that requiring the enumerators to make that
many copies would have been too time consuming.
What irks me the most about the 1890 was that more pages could have been
saved - they weren't burned in the fire, they were waterlogged due to
the firefighting efforts. Whoever was in charge didn't think it
important enough to even try to separate and dry pages - yes, some ink
might have been smeared, but I've seen plenty of smeared pages from
other census years. Saving that census just wasn't important enough to
them, and that's a shame. Even more of a shame that even today, there
are still government officials (local, state and Federal) who feel that
original records aren't necessary. I know one man who now has some
original records from the North Carolina county where his ancestors
lived because he just happened to be there the day they decided to trash
them. The attitude was that they had just completed having them
scanned, so they didn't need to take up valuable office space with the
originals. He asked if he could have them, and they at least had the
sense to say yes, rather than insist that the records had to be trashed.
Cathy
Wes Groleau
> Definitely allow for the census taker having had poor or no
> instruction. Some years they would accept information from almost
In prior jobs as a technical writer and as an instructor, I learned
that many people DO NOT READ. In many censuses, each page contained
clear printed instructions on how to enter certain items, and under
what conditions to ask or not ask a certain question. These
instructions were often ignored.
> Some people (especially children) may be recorded more than once in
> the same census. One of my wife's gg-grandmother was recorded twice:
> once at home with her parents and again at her grandparents' house a
> couple of days later.
My grandmother was recorded twice in 1930. She was recorded at the
college dorm where she was living. And she was recorded at her
parent's house in defiance of the instructions to record people
ACTUALLY living there.
--
Wes Groleau
There ain't no right wing,
there ain't no left wing.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
(apologies to Jim Krueger)
paul c
...
> If teens were left to provide family census data in some cases, I wonder
> how many today would know where each of their parents and grandparents were
> born, let alone how old their parents are. I also wonder how many older
> folks remember whether they gave their true age information for the last
> census. I know I have been a head of household for four census so far but I
> can't recall a single census taker visit or form in the mail.
>
Some older 19th century census forms have columns like "can read" and
"can write" (not to mention "indentured" and "is an idiot"). I worked on
a census once and wished sometimes to have some of those columns back.
Was also pretty sure some enumerators cheated, especially when nobody
was home so they could save a return trip. One grandmother married late
to a younger man, on manifests not just census, she always understated
her age and never by the same amount.
Christopher Jahn
>> Some people (especially children) may be recorded more than
>> once in the same census. One of my wife's gg-grandmother was
>> recorded twice: once at home with her parents and again at
>> her grandparents' house a couple of days later.
>
> My grandmother was recorded twice in 1930. She was recorded
> at the college dorm where she was living. And she was
> recorded at her parent's house in defiance of the instructions
> to record people ACTUALLY living there.
>
The census taker might have also asked the wrong question:
instead of "How many children are currently living here," she
might have asked "How many children do you have?" People are
sloppy and imprecise in their communications.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Whoever controls your eyes, controls your mind.
Christopher Jahn
news:hggh6i$ljs$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
It would, if the states all kept their records. some did, most
did not. Ancestry.com does have a "reconstitued" 1890 census,
consisting of whatever records they can find for that span, and
it includes some state census data, as well as mortality records
and city directories.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Despite the high cost of living, it remains a popular item.
Wes Groleau
> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote in
>> at the college dorm where she was living. And she was
>> recorded at her parent's house in defiance of the instructions
>> to record people ACTUALLY living there.
>
> The census taker might have also asked the wrong question:
> instead of "How many children are currently living here," she
> might have asked "How many children do you have?" People are
> sloppy and imprecise in their communications.
Exactly. They asked the names of the children instead of
what the instructions told them to ask for. And then they
recorded those names right beneath those instructions.
--
Wes Groleau
Alive and Well
http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/
Phyllis
request. I can see no reason why they need to know where I work, what time
I leave and return to my house, and what route I take. Neither do they need
to know when my house was built nor how much it cost. I liked the old forms
much better, including the ones with "idiot" on them.
Steve Hayes
<phyllis...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
>I can see no reason why they need to know where I work, what time
>I leave and return to my house, and what route I take.
They need to know this to plan roads and public transport.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Bruce Remick
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:mv3gj5d1so725b4mb...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:07:47 -0500, "Phyllis"
> <phyllis...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
>
>>I can see no reason why they need to know where I work, what time
>>I leave and return to my house, and what route I take.
>
> They need to know this to plan roads and public transport.
By the time they have sorted and chewed on the information they collect
from this census, those who provided it likely will have moved, changed
jobs, and will have been replaced by transplants with different lifestyle
patterns. Instead of planning roads, we would be better served by
controlling suburban growth. In many congested urban suburbs, to encourage
commuters to forego their cars and use public transportation, they raise
public transportation rates during the peak commuter hours. Am I missing
something here?
Steve Hayes
I wasn't commenting on the useful \ness of such information, nor do I see any
point in arguing about it in a genealogy newsgroup, especially since the
identity of "they" is unclear. I was simply trying to point out a possible
reason for the inclusion of such a question in a census. And the main purpose
is not for individuals, but to get an idea of patterns and demographics -- do
they need to build more schools in this area, fewer in that?
Of course your descendants might well find things like the route you took to
work of some interest, but that is not why the census takers collect such
information. Most of the records used by genealogists to get information about
their ancestors was compiled for other purposes.
D. Stussy
<phyllis...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
> >I can see no reason why they need to know where I work, what time
> >I leave and return to my house, and what route I take.
>
> They need to know this to plan roads and public transport.
Which has nothing to do with the constitutional purpose of the census (at
least in the U.S.).
Only two things are required in today's world: Address and Social Security
Number.
...And if you don't have the latter and aren't Amish, you're an illegal
alien, so get out.
Steve Hayes
<spam+ne...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
>news:mv3gj5d1so725b4mb...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:07:47 -0500, "Phyllis"
><phyllis...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
>> >I can see no reason why they need to know where I work, what time
>> >I leave and return to my house, and what route I take.
>>
>> They need to know this to plan roads and public transport.
>
>Which has nothing to do with the constitutional purpose of the census (at
>least in the U.S.).
>
>Only two things are required in today's world: Address and Social Security
>Number.
The OP did not mention the country, and if there is a constitutional purpose
in US censuses, that only applies to one country.
But I'm curious -- I'm pretty sure that the US did not have social security
numbers when the constiution was drawn up -- did they have a speciall
constitutional amendment to include them?
Terry Wells
>
> Only two things are required in today's world: Address and Social Security
> Number.
>
> ...And if you don't have the latter and aren't Amish, you're an illegal
> alien, so get out.
Rubbish. The census records everybody at a particular location at a
particular time and date. This includes people staying in hotels, guest
houses etc. You have just informed all tourists in your country that they
are illegal aliens and so should get out.
Earlier this year I was on a business trip to Kazakhstan and just happened
to get included in their census.
--
Terry Wells
Bruce Remick
Understood. But in these times of increasing concerns about individual
privacy, it can be counterproductive for the govt to keep adding questions
to the census that might seem curiously intrusive to many-- especially
recent immigrants-- if an accurate, comprehensive survey is the goal.
Bob Melson
opined:
In the US, the Article I of the Constitution prescribes that a census shall
be taken every 10 years for the purpose of apportioning direct taxes and
members of the US House of Representatives. There is no other
constitutionally mandated purpose.
On the other hand, anybody familiar with "Statistical Abstracts of the
United States"? These publications give a detailed view of the country
and its people and report on such things as number of households without
indoor plumbing, quality of drinking water in municipalities, number of
dams and bridges and a host of other interesting and useful things. They
deal with people in the abstract, so you'll never find Joe and Jane Doe
listed in the Abstracts, although their data does form a part of the big
picture. And, guess what? - the Abstracts are compiled from that nosy,
intrusive and frequently resented decennial census.
And, just to round out the picture, the Census Bureau collects information
apart from the decennial "nose count" and does so in the other 9 years of
the decade. They do other surveys on specific topics, such as
neighborhood crime, number of television sets per household, and an
uncounted number of other things of interest to planners, politicians and
bureaucrats. To give the devil his due, these special surveys and the
census proper have been innocuous in the past, although it's hard to say
they'll continue so in the future - the increased use of computers does
make abuse possible and, in today's political climate, inevitable. (Think
on this, though: were it not for the census, the Hollerith punched card
would not have been invented, there likely would, as a result, have been
no IBM and possibly no computers as we know them.)
The US Census is neither good nor bad, of itself. The uses to which the
information gathered is put has, for the most part, been beneficial,
although there is no guarantee that there were, are and will not be
abuses.
Statistical Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke's 3d Law
Percival P. Cassidy
>>> I can see no reason why they need to know where I work, what time
>>> I leave and return to my house, and what route I take.
>>
>> They need to know this to plan roads and public transport.
>
> Which has nothing to do with the constitutional purpose of the census (at
> least in the U.S.).
>
> Only two things are required in today's world: Address and Social Security
> Number.
>
> ...And if you don't have the latter and aren't Amish, you're an illegal
> alien, so get out.
As a foreign graduate student in the USA my only reason for having a
social security number was so that I could be employed as a Teaching
Assistant. Other than that I did not need an SSM.
Perce
Steve Hayes
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
>news:mv3gj5d1so725b4mb...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:07:47 -0500, "Phyllis"
><phyllis...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
>> >I can see no reason why they need to know where I work, what time
>> >I leave and return to my house, and what route I take.
>>
>> They need to know this to plan roads and public transport.
>
>Which has nothing to do with the constitutional purpose of the census (at
>least in the U.S.).
>
>Only two things are required in today's world: Address and Social Security
>Number.
The OP did not mention the country, and if there is a constitutional purpose
in US censuses, that only applies to one country.
But I'm curious -- I'm pretty sure that the US did not have social security
numbers when the constiution was drawn up -- did they have a speciall
constitutional amendment to include them?
Bob Melson
opined:
Steve,
The US Constitution only requires that there be a decennial "nose count"
for purposes of apportioning representation in the House of
Representatives - our lower chamber of the legislature. And that's all
that's required under the Constitution. Everything else that's been added
over the last hundred years or so has been tacked on by our legislators
and other bureaucrats, who've decided the decennial census is a convenient
vehicle for gathering additional information. Whether it's legal or
not .. well, if there have been court challenges, I've not read of them,
tho' I daresay some civil libertarian or the ACLU would have protested by
now.
Social Security numbers (SSNs) only came into being in 1935 under Franklin
Delano Roosevelt as part of the depression era Social Security Act. While
the Social Security system was at first only intended as a safety net for
folks who'd lost their pensions as a result of the 1929 market crash or
who didn't have one to begin with, it's expanded over time to encompass
just about everybody in the US. As a result, SSNs have become an almost
universal identification number and the next thing to a national identity
number. There are a lot of people in the US who believe this is a
perversion - among many - of the intent of the original legislation.
To answer your specific question, though, there has been no constitutional
amendment to include them in the information gathered for the census. In
my mind's eye, I can see a group of bureaucrats - all faceless, of
course - gathered around a conference table, saying something like, "Hey,
we have this Social Security Number thing that's damned near unique and
universal. Why'n't we use it in the census to make sure we get
information from everybody?" As with every bureaucratic "solution", there
are inevitably "gotchas" - not everybody _has_ a SSN, there _are_
duplicates (forged SSNs used by, e.g. illegal immigrants), etc. I leave
to your imagination the number of ways in which this could go wrong.
Short answer: US Constitution only requires a nose count; no special
provision made for use of SSNs in the post-1930 censuses (censii?).
Superlative Ol' Bob
Terry Wells
> Short answer: US Constitution only requires a nose count; no special
> provision made for use of SSNs in the post-1930 censuses (censii?).
>
Right first time - censuses
--
Terry Wells
Bruce Remick
"Bob Melson" <amia...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:w6qdnVsGIu_CRd3W...@earthlink.com...
The irony here is that on my 1950's SS card it specifically says " For
Social Security Purposes. Not For Identification". Are people even issued
SS cards any more? On the back of mine it says "If you lose this card apply
for a duplicate, not a new number". It's probably been fifty years or more
since anyone asked to see my actual SS card.
D. Stussy
opined:
> > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:07:47 -0800, "D. Stussy"
<spam+ne...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> >>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:mv3gj5d1so725b4mb...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:07:47 -0500, "Phyllis"
<phyllis...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
> >>> >I can see no reason why they need to know where I work, what time
> >>> >I leave and return to my house, and what route I take.
> >>>
> >>> They need to know this to plan roads and public transport.
> >>
> >>Which has nothing to do with the constitutional purpose of the census
(at
> >>least in the U.S.).
> >>
> >>Only two things are required in today's world: Address and Social
> >>Security Number.
> >
> > The OP did not mention the country, and if there is a constitutional
> > purpose in US censuses, that only applies to one country.
> >
> > But I'm curious -- I'm pretty sure that the US did not have social
> > security numbers when the constiution was drawn up -- did they have a
> > speciall constitutional amendment to include them?
>
True, but for two people with the same name born on the same day, the SSN
will tell them apart. The goal is to enumerate the population, which also
includes ensuring that one hasn't counted any person more than once. As
the count required is so that congressional district boundaries may be
determined so that each district per state contains approximately the same
number of people, that's why I stated address. The SSN is supposed to be a
unique number, so that is all which is needed. Technically, name and age
can be derrived from the SSN (if the Census agency has access), so such
isn't needed. Excluded from enumeration is all transient non-citizens
(i.e. foreign visitors not resident).
People who are travelling, in jail short-term (NOT prison - i.e. long
term), or students at school are types of people who usually get counted
more than once, at least initially.
Although outside the U.S., I have seen instances where two people share a
name, birthdate, and birthplace (at the town/city level) yet are different
because they have different parents. In those cases, the fathers are
usually cousins [not necessarily first degree] thus explaining the shared
surname. As name, birthdate, and birthplace are collectively (i.e. in
combination) not unique, something more is needed to tell the people apart.
Address may not work.
Wes Groleau
>> universal identification number and the next thing to a national identity
>> number. There are a lot of people in the US who believe this is a
>> perversion - among many - of the intent of the original legislation.
>
> The irony here is that on my 1950's SS card it specifically says " For
> Social Security Purposes. Not For Identification". Are people even issued
> SS cards any more? On the back of mine it says "If you lose this card apply
> for a duplicate, not a new number". It's probably been fifty years or more
> since anyone asked to see my actual SS card.
I've heard, but never bothered to verify, that it originally was illegal
to use it for ID, a provision added to alleviate worries about privacy
and "Big Brother." Irony to me is that not only do dozens of gov. and
non-gov. agencies use it for that, but they demand the "original" card,
still made exactly as it was in the 1950s, if not earlier, and _very_
easy to forge.
--
Wes Groleau
The Miracle Worker?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=668
Tony H.
> It's probably been fifty years or more
> since anyone asked to see my actual SS card.
>
>
at our local Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The lamination on my long-ago
laminated card had yellowed and all the numbers were not readable to the
ultra-efficient bureaucratic clerk. I had to go to the SS office (40
miles round trip), apply for a duplicate card, and then return to the
BMV with a letter proving that I had applied for a duplicate card before
they would renew my drivers license. Such bureaucracy at its finest
still irks me to no end.
Bruce Remick
"Tony H." <punkyNOSP*M...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:P8GdncpioYeWctzW...@insightbb.com...
Nowadays I'll bet many people would be reluctant to carry their card with
that SS# on it (if they can still find it) for fear of the consequences if
it were lost or stolen. My state used to use that as the ID number on a
drivers license, but eventually offered the option of a random number and
now will not use one's SS number at all.
And isn't it still required that you sign the back of your credit card for
it to be valid, too? Handy protection for merchants in internet
purchases.
Doug
B65...... Yup I can still remember it. Then they changed and my official
number, when I got out in '73, was my SSN. My original card is in my
safe deposit box, I think.
Tony H.
>
>
> Nowadays I'll bet many people would be reluctant to carry their card with
> that SS# on it (if they can still find it) for fear of the consequences if
> it were lost or stolen. My state used to use that as the ID number on a
> drivers license, but eventually offered the option of a random number and
> now will not use one's SS number at all.
>
> And isn't it still required that you sign the back of your credit card for
> it to be valid, too? Handy protection for merchants in internet
> purchases.
>
>
My new SS card came with instructions to (1) keep it in a safe place and
not carry it with you, and (2) not laminate the card. Things sure have
changed in the past 50 years.
As to credit cards...I read some credit card safety tips awhile back.
One of them that I have started doing is not to sign the back of the
credit card, but instead print "Photo ID required". So far, nobody has
asked to see a photo ID. LOL
Bruce Remick
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Nowadays I'll bet many people would be reluctant to carry their card with
>> that SS# on it (if they can still find it) for fear of the consequences
>> if it were lost or stolen. My state used to use that as the ID number on
>> a drivers license, but eventually offered the option of a random number
>> and now will not use one's SS number at all.
>>
>> And isn't it still required that you sign the back of your credit card
>> for it to be valid, too? Handy protection for merchants in internet
>> purchases.
> My new SS card came with instructions to (1) keep it in a safe place and
> not carry it with you, and (2) not laminate the card. Things sure have
> changed in the past 50 years.
I'll say. Makes one wonder why they even bother issuing a card when they
caution against carrying it with you. A paper notice should suffice. I
laminated my card decades ago because it was getting scuffed in my wallet.
Hope I can still make it into heaven.
>
> As to credit cards...I read some credit card safety tips awhile back. One
> of them that I have started doing is not to sign the back of the credit
> card, but instead print "Photo ID required". So far, nobody has asked to
> see a photo ID. LOL
I read the same safety advice. And I know several friends who did opt for
that "photo ID required" feature and they are usually asked for their ID
when presenting the card. Not a bad idea for protection with in-person
purchases, but not much help online.
Wes Groleau
> One of them that I have started doing is not to sign the back of the
> credit card, but instead print "Photo ID required". So far, nobody has
> asked to see a photo ID. LOL
I get about fifty percent not looking at the back at all,
twenty percent looking at the back and asking for ID, and
thirty percent _looking_ but not asking for ID.
And a lot of places do not ask you to sign the ticket
if under $25. Then there are those little electronic
"signing pads" that can't possible fit the average person's
signature. I no longer even try--just tap the pen on it.
I can imagine a court case:
"Is this your signature, Mr. Groleau?"
"No, sir. It looks like a dot to me."
--
Wes Groleau
Some schools are cutting back on homework …
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1508
Christopher Jahn
At the same time, there is nothing in the Constitution that says
that the Census Bureau CAN'T collect the rest of the information.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
The only number that is both even and odd is infinity.
Bruce Remick
"Christopher Jahn" <xj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF8C81...@94.75.214.90...
By the same token, there's nothing in the Constitution that says a head of
household must provide answers to all the other questions the Census Bureau
decides to ask. I suppose enough usually do though to give the Bureau stuff
to chew on for the next nine or ten years.
Brian
<xj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>At the same time, there is nothing in the Constitution that says
>that the Census Bureau CAN'T collect the rest of the information.
That isn't, or shouldn't be, the way the Constitution works.
It's supposed to be that the government can only do what the
Constitution says it can do rather than that it can do anything not
expressly prohibited.
Bob Melson
opined:
> Bob Melson <amia...@mypacks.net> wrote in
> news:w6qdnVsGIu_CRd3W...@earthlink.com:
>
<snip>
>> Short answer: US Constitution only requires a nose count; no
>> special provision made for use of SSNs in the post-1930
>> censuses (censii?).
>>
>
> At the same time, there is nothing in the Constitution that says
> that the Census Bureau CAN'T collect the rest of the information.
>
Christopher - see the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The United States
has the power to count noses, but the collection of other information as
part of the census is not a delegated power.
And, of course, that answer is pure sophistry. I have no doubt that
there's a law on the books - or maybe a Federal Regulation - that empowers
the collection of that other information. (Quite aside from the original
discussion, didja ever consider that the Code of Federal Regulations has
the force of law but not one regulation is the direct result of
legislation?)
Slippery Ol' Bob
Gene Y.
The constitution gives the federal government the right and authority to
make laws. They made laws regarding the census. The constitution does
not prohibit the actions required by these federal laws, therefor the
census questions are constitutional.
You have to remember that unless the constitution expressly prohibits an
action, that action is not un-constitutional.
--
Gene Y.
Ralph Bailey
Ralph
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
ALT-GENEAL...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Ralf Nadir
> By the same token, there's nothing in the Constitution that says a
> head of household must provide answers to all the other questions the
> Census Bureau decides to ask.
>
As a matter fact, there is:
"The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first
meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent
term of ten years, IN SUCH MANNER AS THEY SHALL BY LAW DIRECT." (emphasis
mine)
That clause provides the Feds wide latitude to ask heads of households
anything they want, in any manner they want, and to mete out any penalty
they want for noncompliance.
Good luck with your Supreme Court appeal.
Bruce Remick
"Ralf Nadir" <post...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFBAE094...@188.40.43.245...
It looks like there's also a wide latitude for defending a refusal to answer
every question posed on a census form. Hard to refute an "I don't know or
remember" response.
Wes Groleau
> "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first
> meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent
> term of ten years, IN SUCH MANNER AS THEY SHALL BY LAW DIRECT." (emphasis
> mine)
>
> That clause provides the Feds wide latitude to ask heads of households
> anything they want, in any manner they want, and to mete out any penalty
> they want for noncompliance.
>
> Good luck with your Supreme Court appeal.
I strongly suspect the Court would rule that it really means
"... in such manner as they shall by law direct, so long as they don't
direct anything that violates the rights of privacy implied by the
overall context of the constitution."
There's also the point that the actual questions aren't being written by
Congress.
--
Wes Groleau
Learning Another Language is Hard!
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1013
Ralf Nadir
> I strongly suspect the Court would rule that it really means
>
> "... in such manner as they shall by law direct, so long as they don't
> direct anything that violates the rights of privacy implied by the
> overall context of the constitution."
>
The Court would rule according the actual language of the constitution
rather than your amended version of the constitution. The constitution
clearly gives Congress broad powers with respect to the census.
> There's also the point that the actual questions aren't being written
> by Congress.
>
Congress authorizes the Census Bureau to do that. All perfectly legal and
constitutional.
Maybe you'd have better luck trying to overturn the 16th Amendement.
toot...@webtv.net
why is race/ethnicity still included, since that won't matter for
representation? Or will it???? Obviously it is used for other than
deciding how many representatives a state gets, just as those other
questions are used for other things.
Race and the Census: http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?book_id=4013%204059
Wes Groleau
> The Court would rule according the actual language of the constitution
> rather than your amended version of the constitution. The constitution
> clearly gives Congress broad powers with respect to the census.
The Court has made it quite clear in recent decades that
"the Constitution means what _we_ say it means."
--
Wes Groleau
People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
-- Peg Bracken
Christopher Jahn
news:hia6nm$mh5$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Ralf Nadir wrote:
>> "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years
>> after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States,
>> and within every subsequent term of ten years, IN SUCH MANNER
>> AS THEY SHALL BY LAW DIRECT." (emphasis mine)
>>
>> That clause provides the Feds wide latitude to ask heads of
>> households anything they want, in any manner they want, and
>> to mete out any penalty they want for noncompliance.
>>
>> Good luck with your Supreme Court appeal.
>
> I strongly suspect the Court would rule that it really means
>
> "... in such manner as they shall by law direct, so long as
> they don't direct anything that violates the rights of privacy
> implied by the overall context of the constitution."
>
> There's also the point that the actual questions aren't being
> written by Congress.
>
No, but the data that the questions are trying to discover is
dictated by Congress.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
(Groucho Marx)
Christopher Jahn
> Ralf Nadir wrote:
>> The Court would rule according the actual language of the
>> constitution rather than your amended version of the
>> constitution. The constitution clearly gives Congress broad
>> powers with respect to the census.
>
> The Court has made it quite clear in recent decades that
> "the Constitution means what _we_ say it means."
But mostly, it means what the words say it means.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
"Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support
group for
that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar."� - Drew
Carey
Christopher Jahn
news:kphak5dpbn7853fna...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:39:56 +0000 (UTC), Christopher Jahn
> <xj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>At the same time, there is nothing in the Constitution that
>>says that the Census Bureau CAN'T collect the rest of the
>>information.
>
> That isn't, or shouldn't be, the way the Constitution works.
"Shouldn't be" is a matter for debate. "Isn't" is simply wrong.
> It's supposed to be that the government can only do what the
> Constitution says it can do rather than that it can do
> anything not expressly prohibited.
Well, it's obvious you haven't studied much Constitutional law.
The Constitution lays out a general framework for what can be
done, and that was always the intent.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
"Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support
Christopher Jahn
>>
>> At the same time, there is nothing in the Constitution that
>> says that the Census Bureau CAN'T collect the rest of the
>> information.
>>
>
> Christopher - see the 10th Amendment: "The powers not
> delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people." The United States has the
> power to count noses, but the collection of other information
> as part of the census is not a delegated power.
I've read the 10th Ammendment, and it still doesn't say that the
Census Bureau can't collect the other information, if Congress
directs it to do so.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
YOU kill it -- I'm bitter.
Christopher Jahn
news:1247-4B49...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:
> Since this is a body count and all "races" are counted equally
> nowadays, why is race/ethnicity still included, since that
> won't matter for representation?
Define "equally." Are all races making the same kind of wages?
Do they acheive they same kind of education? Are they getting
the same kind of jobs? Do they own houses in the same
percentages?
The answer, of course, is "no." And census data provides that
information to our representatives.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
Wipe your glasses with what you know. (James Joyce)
Bob Melson
opined:
You'll recall I indicated what I said was pure sophistry. So far as I can
tell, there's nothing whatever in the Constitution that prohibits the
collection of other information. It could be argued, I suppose, that
there's nothing in the Constitution that _permits_ the collection of that
information, in which case it becomes necessary to determine where that
authority lies - in legislation or in the CFR (and I suspect the latter,
for some reason).
Apropos the 2010 Census, I understand from news reports that there will be
all of 10 questions on this year's questionnaire. Color- and
racially-blind society that we are, there are bound to be at least a
couple of questions dealing with race and ethnicity, which leaves one to
wonder about the rest. I wouldn't be surprised to find a question about
computers in the home, possibly even one dealing with what kind of
telephone is in use.
Frankly, I look forward to it. I'm a "useless" fact junkie and get a good
deal of pleasure from the odd-ball statistics that appear in the
Statistical Abstracts and other similar publications.
Snoopy Ol' Bob
toot...@webtv.net
each person, regardless of race or ethnicity, or where in the USA he/she
lives, is counted/should be counted as one person, not 3/5ths of a
person as slaves were counted. Therefore, since an African
American/Black/Negro person counts as ONE person just as any other
person does, why is it necessary for the question about race/ethnicity?
Perhaps I was being just a little bit facetious in my question, but
there seemed to be so much fuss about why the other questions were being
asked when the census was supposedly just a body count, that it seemed
to me a legitimate query that no one had raised. Of course the answer is
that data collected with that question is used for other than
determining how many representatives an area gets.
Christopher Jahn
news:10764-4B4...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:
>
> By "equally" I was not referring to their circumstances. I
> meant that each person, regardless of race or ethnicity, or
> where in the USA he/she lives, is counted/should be counted as
> one person, not 3/5ths of a person as slaves were counted.
> Therefore, since an African American/Black/Negro person counts
> as ONE person just as any other person does, why is it
> necessary for the question about race/ethnicity?
To find out if they're being treated equally. That question is
answered with all the questions on the census.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
I've learned that you cannot make someone love you. All you can
do is
stalk them and hope they panic and give in.
Wes Groleau
> toot...@webtv.net wrote in
> news:10764-4B4...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:
>
>> By "equally" I was not referring to their circumstances. I
>> meant that each person, regardless of race or ethnicity, or
>> where in the USA he/she lives, is counted/should be counted as
>> one person, not 3/5ths of a person as slaves were counted.
>> Therefore, since an African American/Black/Negro person counts
>> as ONE person just as any other person does, why is it
>> necessary for the question about race/ethnicity?
>
> To find out if they're being treated equally. That question is
> answered with all the questions on the census.
As long as we are pretending there actually is such a thing as "race"
and as long as we have to ask questions about it, then they aren't
being treated equally.
Our "historic" president shows we've come a long way.
Calling him "historic" shows we've not come far enough.
--
Wes Groleau
He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
-- Samuel Butler, 1612-1680
Christopher Jahn
>> To find out if they're being treated equally. That question
>> is answered with all the questions on the census.
>
> As long as we are pretending there actually is such a thing as
> "race" and as long as we have to ask questions about it, then
> they aren't being treated equally.
I was young once, too.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
The top 10 things men know about women:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Phyllis
people living in households and that "enumeration" was to be done according
to the laws set forth. But then, what do I know, I'm just a little old
lady.
Brian
There's a lot that happens that isn't supposed to. Some people are
lazy, some are ignorant, some people are hard to find, etc.
Lesley Robertson
"Brian" <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k54vl51tcnlv7uqv9...@4ax.com...
True.
My Dad was one of the enumerators on the 1991 UK census. Some people were
too afraid to open their doors - he illed in a couple of forms by having the
residents answer questions through the letterbox. Others were illiterate
beyond signing their own names, and several wouldn't admit they couldn't
read what was said.
Then you can't expect the enumerators to know whether the HoH's mother in
law is really 82 and born in Edinburgh, or whether he's guessing because
she's no longer to answer questions, or he doesn't want to admit that he
doesn't know, and the spouse who's lied to their partner about their age,
etc, etc.
I sometimes think that we're lucky that there's as much accuracy as there
is!
For what it's worth, I trust official douments in the following order:
Birth
Marriage
Death*
Census
Death*
*Death occurs twice because d.certs are normally fairly accurate if you're
dealing with the same generation (siblings, spouse) or parent as the
registering person, but become less reliable with each generation away
(grandchildren, etc) and with non-relatives (the neighbour or the porter at
the Poorhouse, for example).
Lesley Robertson
cecilia
>[...]
>For what it's worth, I trust official douments in the following order:
>
>Birth
>Marriage
>Death*
>Census
>Death*
>
>*Death occurs twice because d.certs
Me too, but trust is relative thing - I am a bit leery even about
Birth certs, knowing of too many cases of parental inadvertant errors,
deliberate equivocations, and outright lies.
Brian
>Me too, but trust is relative thing - I am a bit leery even about
>Birth certs, knowing of too many cases of parental inadvertant errors,
>deliberate equivocations, and outright lies.
We don't know my mother's real age. She claims that her birth wasn't
recorded when she was born and when she started work, she wanted to
appear older so she had a friend write her name at the top of the
page. We were back home last year and I was doing some research. I
checked the book of birth records and her information was written in
at the top of the page.
I checked subsequent years and there was no record and nothing blacked
out.
Phyllis
name as his father's. My brother-in-law misspelled my sister's first name
even though they'd been married 25 years. My stepfather's death
certificate stated his lung problems were caused from smoking. He never
smoked a day in his life as he had had lung problems from birth.
I have everything written down for my death certificate and obituary;
parents names, where and when they were born, former spouse, children,
everything I can think of so it will be accurate.
Graham
"Phyllis" <phyllis...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
news:pZqdnWuz3P0Os_fW...@buckeye-express.com...
...but someone will probably make mistakes entering your details,
whether it be because of being sloppy, loss of concentration,
interruption or many other causes. At least you have tried.
Good luck,
Graham
Graeme
"Phyllis" <phyllis...@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
Which is fine right up to the point that whoever goes off to the registrar
forgets to take your notes along!
When I registered my father's death I went along happy that I'd got all the
correct answers. Then spent about 5 minutes looking blank at the registrar
when it came to place of birth. My mind just stopped.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
cecilia
>I have everything written down for my death certificate and obituary;
>parents names, where and when they were born, former spouse, children,
>everything I can think of so it will be accurate.
Looking at the Death Notice drawn up by our grandmother, my then 12
year-old brother commented that it must have irritated her that she
had to trust her inefficient family to enter the correct date of
death.
toot...@webtv.net
so spot-on that I knew that he, like you, had written everything out
himself.
toot
___________________________________
Researching:
A D K I N S O N, A T K I N S O N,
D A N I E L , D A V I S, J O N E S, NC->TN->AR
H E A R D, Miss->Ark
G I L L E T T E ~ G I L L E T, S P E N C E - Alabama ->Arkansas
All above in Clark County, Arkansas by 1870
GILLETTE - in Ouachita County, Arkansas 1880
J O N E S, P A I N E, F A N E, F A I N~
Chicot/other SE Arkansas counties