1870 US Census 1rst or 2nd Enumeration?
Rob Stieglitz
In looking for some records in the 1870 NYC Federal Census I found two
records! They are listed as the FIRST and SECOND Enumeration. Is the
Second more complete or does anyone know why they did it twice?
Thanks,
Rob Flanagan Stieglitz
Fargo, North Dakota
Charles Sullivan
the census. In 1870 the political pressure was such as to force a
recount in some of the cities, NY City (Manhattan only at the time)
included. There are differences but I don't think you can say the
2nd Enumeration is either more or less complete. One big difference
is that street addresses were included in the 2nd Enumeration.
Rob Stieglitz <rstie...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8fmafm$3qoq$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
bfor...@postoffice2.bellatlantic.net
Merritt Mullen
>
>> In looking for some records in the 1870 NYC Federal Census I found two
>> records! They are listed as the FIRST and SECOND Enumeration. Is the
>> Second more complete or does anyone know why they did it twice?
They did it twice because the first filming was not done very well. You
should normally order the SECOND filming. If you have a problem with
reading the second filming, you can try the first filming to see if the
particular page is clearer there. But in most cases the second filming is
the better.
If I remember correctly, both the 1860 and 1870 censuses were filmed twice.
This applies to the whole country, not just NYC, by the way.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
OOPS! I misread your post as inquiring about the 1st and 2nd FILMING, when
you were asking about the 1st and 2nd ENUMERATION. I know that was done in
New York City, but can't give you the reason. Sorry.
Merritt
William Mills
Merritt Mullen <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>Merritt Mullen at mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us wrote on 6/16/00 4:56 PM:
>
>>> Rob Stieglitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> In looking for some records in the 1870 NYC Federal Census I found two
>>>> records! They are listed as the FIRST and SECOND Enumeration. Is the
>>>> Second more complete or does anyone know why they did it twice?
From the LDS New York Research Outline at
http://www.familysearch.org/sg/New_York.html:
Census takers enumerated Manhattan (New York County) twice in 1870 and
both versions are microfilmed. The second enumeration, taken in
December, is not indexed but includes street addresses, which make it
easier to find your ancestor. In addition, the National Archives
microfilmed all of the 1870 federal census schedules twice. As a
result, there are four sets of microfilms for the Manhattan 1870
federal census.
... A statewide 1870 census index
for Kings, New York (Manhattan and part of the Bronx), Queens,
Richmond, and Suffolk counties is available in compact disc format
(FHL compact disc no. 9 pt. 287). The compact disc including the 1870
Manhattan (New York County) index is for the first enumeration.
Philadelphia and Indianapolis were also enumerated twice in 1870, and
St. Louis in 1880. I haven't found an explanation of why the second
enumeration was done (though I did turn up a reference to a book index
to the 2nd 1870 enumeration of NYC at
http://www.jewishgen.org/jgsp/lbtitljp.htm).
>>
>> They did it twice because the first filming was not done very well. You
>> should normally order the SECOND filming. If you have a problem with
>> reading the second filming, you can try the first filming to see if the
>> particular page is clearer there. But in most cases the second filming is
>> the better.
>>
>> If I remember correctly, both the 1860 and 1870 censuses were filmed twice.
>> This applies to the whole country, not just NYC, by the way.
Interestingly, the National Archives microfilm catalog of 1790-1880 censu
microfilms doesn't seem to mention two filmings, though the LDS
library catalog lists both the 1st and 2nd filming for 1870.
Bill
Mike Hobart
> Census takers enumerated Manhattan (New York County) twice in 1870 and
> both versions are microfilmed. The second enumeration, taken in
> December, is not indexed but includes street addresses, which make it
> easier to find your ancestor. In addition, the National Archives
> microfilmed all of the 1870 federal census schedules twice. As a
> result, there are four sets of microfilms for the Manhattan 1870
> federal census.
> ... A statewide 1870 census index
> for Kings, New York (Manhattan and part of the Bronx), Queens,
> Richmond, and Suffolk counties is available in compact disc format
> (FHL compact disc no. 9 pt. 287). The compact disc including the 1870
> Manhattan (New York County) index is for the first enumeration.
>
> Philadelphia and Indianapolis were also enumerated twice in 1870, and
> St. Louis in 1880. I haven't found an explanation of why the second
> enumeration was done (though I did turn up a reference to a book index
> to the 2nd 1870 enumeration of NYC at
> http://www.jewishgen.org/jgsp/lbtitljp.htm).
The instances where there was a second enumeration usually were the result
of local officials challenging the accuracy of the results of the first
count. These challenges were fairly common in localities which were rapidly
growing or changing. Most such challenges were turned down by the census
officials and/or the courts but some did result in additional enumerations
as mentioned above.
I have had occasion to look up some distant cousins in the 1880 St. Louis
enumerations (films of both) and from what little additional data I have on
these cousins it appears that both of these counts were rather poor :-( In
the first enumeration the husband was listed as the coroner, in the second
as an office clerk. The name of the wife was diffferent in both and
differed from that of the birth records for the children. There is enough
other evidence to substantiate that this is in fact the correct family, but
if one only had to depend on these censuses one certainly could not come to
that conclusion!
Regards, Mike Hobart