1880 and 1900 Census Soundex
Lin Wright
Don Nickell wrote:
>
> Rob Stieglitz wrote:
> >
> > It is my understanding that the families found in the 1880 Soundex are
> > those with children under 10 (?) years old. Those people (families) with
> > no children or with children greater than ten are not listed. Is this
> > correct and is it the same for the 1900 Census Soundex?
That's true of the individual cards. From the NARA web page at
http://www.nara.gov/publications/microfilm/census/1790-1890/part1.html:
"Some researchers may need to search for a third kind of Soundex
card, an Individual Card. This card contains data only on a child
age 10 or under who (1) had a surname different from the head of
family, or who (2) was not an immediate member of a family (e.g.,
stepson or nephew), or who (3) resided in an institution without
a family. For the first two purposes, the Individual Card
duplicates part of the information on a Family Card; it
cross-references a census schedule. The Individual Card ordinarily is
the only card referencing a particular child. Institution Cards
appear at the end of the last roll of Soundex microfilm for a
state or territory."
> For what state, Rob? I've 6-8 states of those years on my HD that I've
> created from hand copying at the local LDS then entered at home.
>
> Here's an excerpt from KY, 1880 w/Census indicees:
> Morgan Co., Blackwater precinct
> NICKELL, A.J. h 48 KY 22 86 7 36
> Emly w 38 KY
> James T s 18 KY
> Leona d 16 KY
> Nanie B. d 8 KY
> Ealimire ? s 5 KY
> Sarah A d 8/12 KY
That doesn't answer his question since he asked about families WITHOUT
children under 10 and the family above has children under 10.
> Many of the 1880 Soundex files bug me because they contain lots of
> "initials only" for the "head of household". Maybe your rumor comes from
> a state I'm not dealing with.
>
I have not seen an example where the soundex only had the initials where
the original census had a full name -- that is, it isn't a problem of
the soundex but rather of the original census.
Lin
Rob Stieglitz
It is my understanding that the families found in the 1880 Soundex are
those with children under 10 (?) years old. Those people (families) with
no children or with children greater than ten are not listed. Is this
correct and is it the same for the 1900 Census Soundex?
Thanks, Rob
Don Nickell
For what state, Rob? I've 6-8 states of those years on my HD that I've
created from hand copying at the local LDS then entered at home.
Here's an excerpt from KY, 1880 w/Census indicees:
Morgan Co., Blackwater precinct
NICKELL, A.J. h 48 KY 22 86 7 36
Emly w 38 KY
James T s 18 KY
Leona d 16 KY
Nanie B. d 8 KY
Ealimire ? s 5 KY
Sarah A d 8/12 KY
Many of the 1880 Soundex files bug me because they contain lots of
"initials only" for the "head of household". Maybe your rumor comes from
a state I'm not dealing with.
Don
Herbert G Anderson
There were both single adults and families with adult children listed.
Rob Stieglitz wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that the families found in the 1880 Soundex are
> those with children under 10 (?) years old. Those people (families) with
> no children or with children greater than ten are not listed. Is this
> correct and is it the same for the 1900 Census Soundex?
>
> Thanks, Rob
--
Herb Anderson
e-mail: wa4...@fuse.net
Gerry Wright
> It is my understanding that the families found in the 1880 Soundex are
> those with children under 10 (?) years old. Those people (families) with
> no children or with children greater than ten are not listed. Is this
> correct and is it the same for the 1900 Census Soundex?
>
> Thanks, Rob
The 1880 Soundex (i.e. index) to the 1880 census only included families with
children under the age of 10; the actual census includes everyone the census
taker could find.
As I understand it the selective indexing of only families with children
under the age of 10 was to be used by the Social Security agency in proving
eligibility of those apply for benefits when the system began in the 1930s
(someone born between 1870 and 1880 would be in the right age bracket for
benefits).
The Soundex for the 1900 census includes all families.
Gerry Wright
San Francisco
Merritt Mullen
> It is my understanding that the families found in the 1880 Soundex are
> those with children under 10 (?) years old. Those people (families) with
> no children or with children greater than ten are not listed. Is this
> correct and is it the same for the 1900 Census Soundex?
That is true for the 1880 census (actually the criterion is age 10 and
younger). The purpose of indexing was to provide proof of age for the new
social security system (there were few places keeping birth certificates
before the 1900-1920 time period). Anyone older than age 10 in 1880 would
have been older than 66 in 1936 (when social security began) and not
eligible for the SS system.
But, that doesn't mean that persons older than age 10 aren't soundexed. As
long as the family had at least one child age 10 or younger, the complete
family is in the soundex (indexed under the head of household). Also, any
individuals, age 10 or younger, who have a different surname than the head
of household, will be in the soundex.
This only applied to the 1880 census. The 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930 (when
it is released in 2002) index ALL families (and individuals living alone or
with different surnames than the head of household). But only the 1900 and
1920 soundexes cover the entire country. The 1910 soundex covers only 21
states and the 1930 soundex fully covers only 10 states and partly cover 2
other states.
Merritt
L3532
since 1790 and each one of them will list every child given to the census
taker. Only the census from 1850 has NAMED the wife and kids however.
Soundex is only a word used to discribe the method your using to search the
last name......Good Luck.....Regards, Larry
Michael Maxfield
Yes and NO! The thread was discussing the use of the Soundex Indexes
which are more than just a word describing the way the names are indexed.
Soundex itself is a system patented in 1918, but it's use in the indexing
of the census records followed more than just the Soundex rules. The rules
followed when indexing the census included who to place in the index and
who not to place there, so it IS possible that the person will not find
children in the soundex even though they are on the actual census detail.
--
Michael Maxfield
tw...@io.com
Bunny
children under 10 years old.
L3532 wrote:
> Rob...........No, it is not correct The census has been taken every ten years
> since 1790 and each one of them will list every child given to the census
> taker. Only the census from 1850 has NAMED the wife and kids however.
> Soundex is only a word used to discribe the method your using to search the
> last name......Good Luck.....Regards, Larry
--
Researching Boone, Cox, Daley, Fitzsimmons, George, Hathaway, Johnson, Kellogg,
Kent, Klein, Maloy/Malloy, McClellan(d)
, McGrew, Palmateer/Palmatier, Palmer, Quigley, Seely, Sharrock, Sherwood,
Schoelmester and Weaver.
Ethelind Wright
>The 1880 Soundex and, I believe, the 1880 Census itself only lists
>families with
>children under 10 years old.
The 1880 soundex only indexed families with children 10 and under. The
census lists everyone.