Tuesday's Tip - Using Other Ancestry Trees

Heck or any other family tree you find on the internet. No this isn't a post saying that you should seek out and copy information into your tree that other people have. Even when you collaborate you need to verify research. After all you may find that something was wrong! I'm talking about using the information from family trees to break through a brick wall.

I only uploaded my tree to Ancestry.com a year ago, but I've been delighted since. Originally I had wanted to wait until it was "done" before uploading it, but are our trees ever really done? Nope. Anyway, hits came up as "hints" next to people that I thought I'd done exhaustive searches on Ancestry's site. Hits that I hadn't gotten before. I don't know why exactly it happens. I think it's just a quirk of the system that the results vary on the search engine (general search versus a specific record set on Ancestry), but it happens. That's a different post and I digress...

I've never been a big fan of using other people's trees. Sharing research I love, but I won't ever copy someone's information and put it in my tree. However, you'll get hints on Ancestry for other trees that share the same person...or Ancestry thinks it might be the same person. I don't speak for Ancestry, but I'm going to guess that they aren't asking you to just steal someone else's tree/research and make it your own. They want you to use it. How do you do that?

Doubtless there are several ways, but I'm going to share what recently happened with me when I was clicking on hints for my Brogan line. Elizabeth Brogan had a hint next to her. Just one and it was a family tree. Several family trees, actually. All I had on Elizabeth was that she was born in March 1888 in Pennsylvania and I had gotten that from a census record. I found nothing else on Elizabeth. I didn't know if she married, when she married, or if she died a spinster. After clicking on that hint though I now know.

Screenshot of Ancestry Family Tree hint

I don't know ShirleyLong90 who created the Coyle Family Tree Ver 2, but I'm going to be sending her an email. I've got Coyles in my family tree and we both have Elizabeth Brogan (and I'm sure many more people) in common. So what did I do with this information? I didn't just put it in my tree and assume it was right. I compared it with other trees that also popped up under the hint to see if more than one person had this information. Sure, that can just mean that other people copied it from another tree, but finding similarities can be significant. So I searched Newspapers.com* for Elizabeth McHugh's death in March of 1963. I found it easily.

The Hazleton Standard Speaker, 20MAR1963,
pg 20

After seeing the obituary I can now put in Elizabeth's marriage and death. Because it was in 1963 I also can search the Pennsylvania Death Certificates database and maybe even find her birth. It will certainly/hopefully confirm the rest of the information on here and it's always important to get as many different sources to confirm your findings! From this obituary I can even see when her husband passed, who her children are, and where she is buried. I've walked past so many McHughs in St. Gabe's and this summer I'll be looking for her and Patrick's stones because I now know they belong to me.

So a lot of this blog post is common sense. Many of you are probably sitting there having gotten to this point and are saying, "Duh! Where's the real news here, Cherie?" The thing of it is, if you're already doing this then you're ahead of the game. There are people out there though that scoff at the idea of looking at anyone else's tree. Sometimes it's because they consider it cheating. Sometimes it's just because they don't trust other trees. Guess what? Don't trust other trees. Don't trust other research completely ever until you verify it yourself. I don't trust anything even when collaborating unless I can make the connection as well. Maybe some would say that this holds my research back. Perhaps it does, but I've had incorrect information in my tree before and I'll work hard to make sure it doesn't happen again. Here you aren't simply trusting another tree. You're using it as a tool to test that connection and see if it is valid.

As for cheating, you're only cheating if you take someone else's work and put it in your tree without conducting your own independent research. And that's not cheating it's stealing. It's plagiarizing. Don't do it!

Now I'm off to contact the creator of that tree and say hello.

*It's probably about time that I made this statement because I've talked about Newspapers.com and Ancestry.com multiple times throughout my blog's history...I am in no way associated or a paid representative or promoter of Newspapers.com or Ancestry.com. I just really love the results I get with them. Although with how often I crow about their sites maybe I should get paid ;)

Tuesday's Tip - The Case of the Two Viola Vanias

When you've got someone in your family tree with the married name of Viola Vania you would think that if you found a death date for her that it would be your Viola Vania. I mean, how common could that name be? And if you found a Viola Vania in Algoma, Wisconsin where your Viola lived then you were good, right? Never assume anything, my dear Watson. Never.

Viola Cayemberg was the daughter of Gustav Joseph Cayemberg (he went by Joseph) and Virginia Wautlet. This is a branch of my husband's family that I don't have much on. The reason is that our reunions are based off Gustav's brother, Eli Cayemberg. Many (though not all) of the descendants of Eli and Florence seem to ignore moving beyond Eli or tracing those lateral lines. I don't. Cousins are a wonderful thing and they can help fill in holes and confirm data. Plus if we keep track of the cousins of Eli and Florence why not of Philippe and Catherine, Eli and Gustav's parents?

The Algoma Record Herald,
Thurs. 30APR1992, pg4

I found two different death dates for Viola from various sources on Ancestry and FindAGrave. One date was November 21, 1994 and the other was April 24, 1992. Seeing those two dates was a bit much. One is my husband's birthday and the other is mine (wrong years...I wish I was that young!). So I put both down for a bit of research when I went back to Wisconsin for Christmas. When I got there I pulled the microfilm for the The Algoma Record Herald and started with the earlier date...

"Viola Vania

Viola Vania, 92, 601 Navarino St., Algoma, died Friday, April 24, at Kewaunee Health Care Center.

The former Viola Buss was born May 9, 1899 in Milwaukee to August and Louise (Bloehmil) Buss. She moved to Algoma from Milwaukee in 1932. In 1919 she married Joseph Vania in Milwaukee. They owned and operated a bar in Algoma until 1947.

Survivors include nieces, Mrs. Mabel Murawski, Muskego, Mrs. Ethel Brauer, Algoma; and other nieces and nephews.

She was preceded in death by her husband, one brother and one sister.

Friends called from 3-8 p.m. Monday at the Wiesner-Massart Funeral Home, Algona, and after 9:30 a.m. Tuesday at the church. Funeral services were 11 a.m. Tuesday at St. Paul's Lutheran Church, the Rev. Brent Merten officiating. Burial was in Pilgrims Rest Cemetery, Milwaukee."

The Algoma Record Herald,
Thurs. 24NOV1994, pg7

Not my Viola. On to the next obituary hoping I wasn't going to get double-whammied and end up with no good result:

"Viola Vania

Mrs. John (Viola) Vania, 90, Algoma, died on Monday, Nov. 21 in the Algoma Long Term Care Unit.

The former Viola Cayemberg was born on August 2, 1904 at Rosiere. She graduated from the Rosiere Graded School. Her family later moved to Algoma. She married John Vania in Algoma on March 4, 1924 and they resided in Algoma until the time of their deaths.

She is survived by eight children, Gladys Krueger, James and Lloyd (Janet), Gloria (Jack) March, John (Pat), all of Algoma; Mae (Richard) Dreier, Concord, Calif.; Donna (Ernest) Walker and Raymond (Carol), Green Bay; 24 grandchildren, 21 great-grandchildren and one sister, Ann Vania, Algoma. She was preceded in death by four sisters and one brother.

Friends called at the Schinderle Funeral Home from 4 to 8 p.m. on Tuesday and after 10 a.m. on Wednesday at St. Mary's Catholic Church, Algoma, until time of services. Parish vigil was at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday evening. Funeral services were on Wednesday at 11 a.m. at St. Mary's Church, with the Rev. Jim Massart officiating. Burial was in St. Mary's Cemetery."

Now this is my Viola! Lots of great information in here that I didn't previously have. I did have that Viola was one of seven children and a sister was Ann(a), so it looks like a sister also married a Vania, but I'll have to look into that one to be sure. At least now I know that all of her siblings, save one passed before November 21, 1994. That's helpful.

This research and discovery was important...is important because we know that so many of the public trees we find are rife with errors. The errors are usually caused by inexperience and sloppiness. I know when I first started out I made a lot of mistakes. I learned and was open to the fact that I could be wrong. Accepting this possibility is an important part of becoming a better researcher and genealogist. Most people learn and evolve in their research, unless they can't acknowledge their faults. Even professional, paid researchers can get it wrong sometimes. If the best can be mistaken then anyone can. Only those that refuse to admit their shortcomings will continue down the wrong paths, and they'll hit more brick walls in their trees.

An obituary isn't confirmation of a connection. It's a secondary source of information provided by grieving relatives that can get things wrong, but it can help to establish proof and lend credibility to assumptions when combined with other primary and secondary sources. I already knew Viola Cayemberg was born on August 2, 1904 because I had previously pulled her birth record at the Wisconsin Historical Society. The birth date matching up perfectly strengthened both of these records  as well as the other census data I had collected.

Even if you're fairly certain that someone you found is the right person you need to check the records and confirm your research. Write it down in a research log and put your assumption/what you hope to find. If it turns out to be true you can happily and confidently put that person in your tree.

Until next time, have fun tending those roots!

(Viola Vania nee Cayemberg is my husband's first cousin twice removed)

Tuesday's Tip - Don't Rely on the Search Engine

Don't get angry when you don't find what you're
looking for in the main search engine. Look under
more specific databases!

So after being out of the genealogical loop for awhile I finally found the motivation (and time) to get back into things.  I started by going through my family tree and verifying that everything was sourced and had been researched to the best of my abilities.  A daunting task, but one that needed doing.  So I came across a couple in my tree that I hadn't been very good at getting information for.  I had a tombstone, knew who they belonged to by talking with family, but not much else.

I was looking at the tombstone for this couple, one Raymond and Hazel Herman buried in Union Cemetery in Dodge County, Wisconsin, when I noticed that Raymond died in 1959 at the age of about 39.  How young.  How sad.  I also noticed his wife outlived him by quite a lot and passed in 2006.  I did a search on Ancestry for Raymond Herman and got a bunch of nothing regarding his death.  This was before the SSDI really covered much so I wasn't too hopeful there.  I did find an obituary for his wife, Hazel, fairly easily.  The obit was wonderful and told me when they were married and the year for when he died.  Well, that's lovely, and very useful, but I wanted more of a date.  Even a month to go with that year would help.  A location of death would help too although looking at her obit I could narrow it down to Kohlsville, Washington County, WI.  Still I didn't want to be looking through an entire year's worth of obits to try to find Raymond.

So I jumped to the Ancestry.com homepage and clicked on the link for Birth, Marriage, and Death Records and saw a link on the far right under "Featured Collections" where I could search their entire card catalog.  I typed in "Wisconsin".  I was delighted when I saw that there was a death record index from 1959-1997.  I entered Raymond's name and it popped up as easy as that.  I have no idea why it didn't come up in my main search.  I had his name spelled the same as it appeared in the death record, but it took me actually searching that specific database to get anything.  Now I know that Raymond died on December 14th, 1959 and I can try to find an obituary or request a death certificate for him.  I need to verify that this Raymond truly was the child of Valentine and Hulda Herman.  Now I can get a little closer to doing just that.

Bottom line though...search engines can be temperamental. You can put your information into the main engine and find very little that is relevant to the person you're looking for, but if you perform the same search in a specific database, it can yield genealogical gold!

Happy hunting!

Tuesday's Tip - Say That Again?

Have you ever searched for someone in a census record, a death certificate, birth certificate...heck the list goes on and on...and couldn't find them because of the spelling variations?  Of course you have!  We've all been there.  Even the most experienced researchers have found it difficult.  After all, everyone was a novice genealogist at some point.  When researching you need to remember that you shouldn't get overly hung up on spelling.  What is more important is how the last name sounded.

Yep.  We get twisted up about grammar and misspellings all the time, but think about the time many of these records were created.  The grammar and spelling police weren't out in force.  Additionally, some names actually went through changes over time.  You should see the rather annoying evolution of the surname "Cayemberg"...I mean..."Caeyenberghs" would really throw you for a loop!  I can see the evolution in that name, but how many would over-look it.  I digress...

When these records were created, sure they may have been asked to spell their surname.  What if they couldn't?  Or perhaps their accent was just too thick.  Ever deal with that?  Perhaps the registrar or census taker just wrote down what they heard (Yes...they did that) and moved on.  I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've overcome a brick wall (granted a low brick wall) by going by how a surname would sound.

Take the surname Boegel.  I was a German major in college.  I know that Boegel was originally Bögel.  English doesn't have an umlaut (the two dots over a vowel)  so when writing it in English an "e" gets added after the vowel that had the umlaut.  It's an attempt to keep the sound similar.  I don't personally find it that similar, but it is what it is.  Bottom line...Boegel and Bögel are the same thing.  Trust me on this one.  Now how is that pronounced?

To me Bögel can sound like "bur-gell," "buy-gell," or even "bay-gell".  You get various spellings depending on the how the person reporting the information says it (how strong their accent is or which region of the homeland they hail from) and what the recorder hears and if they have any knowledge about where the person comes from.  In this case, do they know any German?

I wasn't finding much with my knowledge of how German should be pronounced so I asked my mother-in-law how she pronounces the surname Boegel.  After all it's her line.  I was absolutely flabbergasted when I heard her say "Beagle"...yep...like the dog I own.  Well, that explained why I was having a difficult time.  Once I knew this I realized the brick wall I was trying to climb was actually only a small bump in the road and researching names like Boegel (Beagle) and Kuehl/Kühl (Keel) became much easier.

If you don't have someone readily available to answer your question about how a surname is pronounced, ask a stranger.  Go to the message boards and find someone that is researching the same line from the same area of the country and ask.  Remember that region is important with pronunciation!  Words today can sound drastically different depending on whether you're hearing them said from someone in the north (and even us northerners have huge differences in accents), the south, the west and midwest.

Figuring out how they said that can make a world of difference when scaling that brick wall!

Tuesday's Tip - Tombstones Aren't Forever

Susan Lee's death year is completely buried.  I've danced/stomped on this grave trying to uncover it.

I've blogged before about going to photograph tombstones of my ancestors and finding stones that were slowly being eaten by the earth.  I've desperately tried to push down the ground around one of these tombstones in particular to see what a death year was.  As luck would have it there's an ant mound right near the grave as well, so any lingering visit to unearth the information results in me doing a very embarrassing get-the-ants-off-me-dance.  Less than 5 years later and the dates have gone from barely visible to gone completely.  So tempted to head to the cemetery next year with a small shovel to move away the dirt and grass and finally get a look at those dates...I'll bring a can of Raid to deal with the ants.  I think I might get odd stares if I march up to a grave and start digging though.

So my point in mentioning this is that even though there's a tombstone marking ancestors' graves right now, this may not always be the case.  As genealogists we appreciate the convenience of various websites such as FindAGrave, BillionGraves, etc especially when we're researching from afar, but we love actually visiting cemeteries, seeing, and touching the graves.  Being in the place where our ancestors are eternally at rest.  Yes, we can be an odd lot, but cemeteries are some of our favorite places to visit.

Many tombstones won't always be there though.  Those websites that we adore for convenience, but sometimes scorn because "real" genealogists get their feet dirty in cemeteries may one day be our only source to view these tombstones once they are gone.  Some disappear because they are reclaimed by the earth.  Many more are vandalized.  Regardless of how it happens, tombstones are often ephemeral.

It doesn't look like it's disappearing does it?

We'll always enjoy going through cemeteries.  They aren't going away anytime soon, but that doesn't mean a tombstone here today won't be gone tomorrow.  Don't hoard your genealogical tombstone-treasures. Share them with one of these sites. Your uploaded tombstone can and will help your descendants in the future.

This is the "Barrett" tombstone from another side.  It really is sinking

Four of my ever-sinking family tombstones

Still has a ways to go before the dates are gone, but severely leaning to
the left

Mary Quirk's tombstone is actually leaning forward quite precariously

Ella's tombstone (of the four from the picture above) is fairing the
best with only a slight forward lean.

Tuesday's Tip - A Little Find A Grave Class...and a Pet Peeve...

OK, I'm not the Find A Grave police.  Wouldn't want to be either, but is it really that difficult to use it?  Seriously, if you've got the skills to submit a spreadsheet with almost 500 names on it, you would think that you could have figured out to check against the database so you aren't submitting 300 duplicates.  I'm not joking either.

Each week I would drive 18 miles round trip to the local veterans cemetery in Killeen.  My goal (at least it was before we found out we were moving away) was to eventually have a photo with every grave that's in there.  I would go to Find A Grave and click on the name of the cemetery, in this case "Central Texas State Veterans Cemetery", I click on "view all interments" and the sort by those without a tombstone.  So I make a list of those that need a picture taken and I head out to the cemetery.  They've got a great computer system there that tells you the location of each person buried there.  It's such a pleasure doing this.

Well, as I went to upload my most recent batch of 40+ photos and create my next list, I saw names that I recognized.  I often question my sanity, but this was just too much dejavu.  I went to the file I have of photos I submitted and wouldn't you know I had already uploaded a photo for this person.  So my intuition kicked in and I sorted the cemetery by those memorials that had been added in the last 24 hours.  Someone apparently submitted an enormous spreadsheet (almost 500 names) and didn't check to see if they were already in the database.

Why stress Cherie?  I really didn't want to, but I also really didn't want to spend a rather large chunk of time, effort and gas money (not to mention the heat in Texas) to be going out and taking pictures of stones...again.  So I very patiently went through and sent an edit link to the person that submitted the duplicates, informing him/her of the error.  My purpose wasn't to spam his email, but it would give him the link to each memorial and could therefore be removed.  I also wanted to send the links before people started posting flowers and remembrances, because it's then really too late to correct the mistake.  Will he ever remove the duplicates?  I don't know.  I hope so, but apparently a class needs to be given on using Find A Grave.

I say that with sarcasm because the people that care actually look into what they are doing.  Doing a spreadsheet with almost 500 names shows some dedication on that person's part, but doing such a large job and doing it in a half-assed manner shows another side of that person.  So a brief class...

Aside from what I already mentioned above such as sorting a cemetery if you are looking to add photos/memorials, there are a couple of other points I'd like to make.  First, what do you do if you notice that there is a memorial for someone, but they are missing some information?  Well, it's actually not that difficult and you certainly don't have to create a duplicate.  There is an "Edit" tab on the top right of each memorial created.  Just click on the "Edit" tab and click "Suggest a correction or provide additional information".  Type in your correction/addition, click send and BAM!...you're done!  Easy!

If you have a Find A Grave profile (and if you don't WHY don't you?) and you'd like to add a cemetery to your profile so you can easily find it again, just go to the cemetery's main page and at the top right, click on the "Add this to My Cemeteries" and it's done! Then if you want to quickly get to that cemetery again to do some work just go to "Contributor Tools".  Under "Customize" on the left-hand column you'll see several subcategories such as "friends", but for our purposes, just click on the "Edit" button by "My Cemeteries" and it will take you to a page with all of your saved cemeteries and you can go from there.

Find A Grave is a great resource and we all put so much time into genealogy research as well as helping others.  If we're going to be helpful to others we also must be considerate.  Wouldn't we want that directed at us as well?

Pet peeve over.  Tip(s) conveyed, now let's go do some good work!

Tuesday's Tip - Stitching Photos Together...I Cheated

Did I cheat?  I'll let you decide...

So most of you have seen me fix photos before on my blog.  I use Serif PhotoPlus X2 to do photo editing and have had some great successes with it.  I love it.  It was cheap and it's effective, but I really like being taught how to use things.  Sadly, there's no class to teach me how to use PhotoPlus. Just a lot of hard work, instruction book reading, and swearing....a lot of swearing.

I'm sure my program has a way to stitch together photos, but I haven't bothered checking it out because I've discovered a really neat trick.  Many of you probably know this trick already, but just in case you don't I'll let you know my little cheat...I use Power Point.

I took these two images below and lined them up on one Power Point slide until they matched flawlessly (or almost flawlessly). 

Then I selected both images at once, right-clicked, and selected "save as image".  Simple and done.

So what do you think?  Did I cheat by taking the easy way out?

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1880 U.S. Census

1880 U.S. Federal Census

Last week's inputtable census form was for 1870.  Now I'll move on to the 1880 U.S. Federal Census.  Just click on the image or text referring to this census and you'll be taken to the Google Document I created for it!

Sadly the U.S. Census Bureau's website didn't post the instructions for this census on their site (always a good place to look for great information).  There are, however, lots of links to documents regarding the statistics gathered on various schedules.  For instance there are statistics on:

-Population (of course!)
-Manufacturing
-Agriculture
-Transportation
-Cotton Production
-Valuation, Taxation, & Public Indebtedness
-Newspapers/Periodicals
-Forests of North America
-Production technology (petroleum, coke, stone)
-Mortality
-Precious Metals
-Mining Laws
-Mining Industries
-Water Power
-Social Statistics of Cities
-Report on the statistics of wages in manufacturing industries; with supplementary reports on the average retail prices of necessaries of life, and on trades societies, and strikes and lockouts (very cool!)
-Defective, Dependent, and Delinquent classes
-Power and machinery used in steel/iron works
-Fisheries

There are more that they list, but aren't available online.  Remember that these links are for a statistical summary or report and will not be the exact schedule that people/businesses were enumerated on.  It will however give you information that may be of value to your family history.  Clues to life in the 1880s!

The people at 1930census.com have the decade's history up for the 1880s!  Plenty of interesting facts (National Geographic magazine was first published in 1888!) too!  They also have working links to the questions asked and the map of the country at that time.

Again, I took a page from Ancestry.com's playbook and made the spreadsheet in landscape form rather than portrait, so it was easier to read, but I tried to be as true to the original as possible.  As a result there are only 6 lines to input the family data for an ancestor.  I know...many of our ancestors had more than 6 people in their family, but you can easily continue on another sheet.  The goal is digitization and not so much paper (at least for me).

The spreadsheet is still locked so you can't accidentally type over the form data, but I left the section on the far left unlocked so you can change the numbers to correspond with the numbers for your ancestors.  They are currently numbered 1 through 6 but can easily be changed.

As always, just let me know if there are any problems with the spreadsheet and I'll get them fixed.  The spreadsheet still looks like it's multiple pages in Google Documents, but will be one page once it's downloaded.

Next Tuesday I'll get an inputtable spreadsheet up for the 1890 census for those of you lucky enough to actually be able to find anyone in the surviving records.  Until then, have fun tending those roots!

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1870 U.S. Census

1870 U.S. Federal Census

Last time I posted the inputtable census form for the 1860 Schedule 2 (Slave Schedule).  Today, I've got the form up so you can download, input your data and save to your computer information from the 1870 U.S. Federal Census!

No more slavery!  Remember this census was taken a mere 5 years after the Civil War concluded and one of the most noticeable changes (apart from not needing another schedule and not having "Free inhabitants" written at the top) is that last question...good ol' #20, "Male Citizens of the U.S. of 21 years of age and upwards, whose right to vote is denied or abridged on other grounds than rebellion or other crime."

Why was this needed?  Here's the excerpt from the Instructions to Assistant Marshals:

1870 Instructions to Assistant Marshals - U.S. Census Bureau

Since the Civil War had been concluded, what a perfect time for the Federal Government to ensure that those former slaves are not being denied the right to vote via illegal laws (that should have been repealed and are null and void).

The entire 26 pages of Instructions to Assistant Marshals are actually quite interesting, and truthfully all instructions should be read so that you can fully understand the intent of the questions asked as well as the enumerators' responsibilities.  You'll most likely get more out of the census if you do!

These instructions as well as other great information on the 1870 census can be found on the U.S. Census Bureau's website.

Again, 1930census.com gives us the map of the U.S. at the time of the census and a historical chronology for the decade of the census to help put it all in perspective.  Their link for questions asked is empty (bummer!), but we can easily get that information by looking at the census.

The census form I created is in landscape view as opposed to portrait like the original.  I did take a tip from Ancestry.com's sheet (which is also in landscape) when creating this spreadsheet.  It was possible to create one just like the original census, but my concern was that the questions would be too difficult to read and defeat the purpose of the form.  As a result there are only 6 lines to input the family data for an ancestor.  I know...many of our ancestors had more than 6 people in their family, but you can easily continue on another sheet.  The goal is digitization and not so much paper (at least for me).

The spreadsheet is still locked so you can't accidentally type over the form data, but I left the section on the far left unlocked so you can change the numbers to correspond with the numbers for your ancestors.  They are currently numbered 1 through 6 but can easily be changed.

As always, just let me know if there are any problems with the spreadsheet and I'll get them fixed.  The spreadsheet still looks like it's multiple pages in Google Documents, but will be one page once it's downloaded.

Until next week, when I hope to get the 1880 U.S. Federal Census up, have fun tending those roots!

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1860 Census, Schedule 2

1860 U.S. Federal Census, Schedule 2

Last week I posted the 1860 U.S. Federal Census, Schedule 1.  This week I've posted the form for the Slave Schedule for this 1860 (Schedule 2).

This Schedule is almost identical to the one I posted previously, so rather than a long rambling about it all, I will direct you to the former post here for the details.

There were only 2 federal censuses that had the Slave Schedule.  Emancipation was on it's way, although I'm sure it still seem so far away to those living through 1860.

The only difference on this Schedule 2 from the last (aside from the year) is the tally section at the bottom of the sheet.

As always, if you have any difficulties with the form (downloading, inputting, saving, etc) just let me know and we'll figure out how to fix it.  So far, there haven't been any issues since the very first census form.  Let's hope my luck holds out!  The forms still appear to be 3 pages long when viewed through Google Docs, but rest assured that when you download it, it will be one page!

Next week we move on to one of the first censuses that we genealogists/family historians love...the 1870 U.S. Federal Census.  Finally, lots more info to make our little hearts happy! 

Until next time, have fun tending those roots!

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1850 Census, Schedule 2

1850 U.S. Federal Census, Schedule 2

Last week I posted the Schedule 1 for the 1850 census which for the first time only collected data on free inhabitants of the United States.  This is the first census where slaves were counted in a completely separate schedule, so we've got to have a separate inputtable form to go with it right here!

Whether we are researching our own genealogy as descendants of slaves or slave owners or researching someone else's, it is certainly convenient to have a form that you can transcribe to and save!

At this point in my blog post, I would normal start directing you to websites such as www.1930census.com or the site for the U.S. Census Bureau.  While those sites are worth checking out as I mentioned in last week's census post, they are rather lacking with details on the Slave Schedules.  Perhaps I missed something.

I have previously glossed over the information on Ancestry's website, not because there isn't information worth sharing, but it's like beating a dead horse.  Been there, done that, everyone's used their site before.  In this instance, however, I do defer to quite a well-written source explanation that they posted from William Dollarhide's, The Census Book: A Genealogist's Guide to Federal Census Facts, Schedules and Indexes (affiliate link) and Loretto Dennis Szucs', "Research in Census Records." in The Source: A Guidebook of American Genealogy (affiliate link). Check out the excerpt on Ancestry's 1850 Slave Schedule census page for some great information before diving in.

Some good general information on census research on FreedomCenter.org.  One page of stuff that we pretty much already know, but it's always a good to be reminded of some things!

Netplaces.com has a sweet little article written by Kimberly Powell on jewels we can find in all the special census schedules.  If you haven't worked with any of the special schedules yet, this article will get you ready to jump in.

Perhaps my favorite site so far for Schedule 2 is an essay written by David E. Paterson on Afrigeneas which points out that the schedules were controversial and rewritten specifically to exclude the names of the individual slaves, places of birth, etc.  It's really a very interesting essay, but be warned it may get your blood going when you have to read through the prejudice of the past.

As always, if you have any trouble viewing or downloading the spreadsheet, just comment or send me an email and I'll see what I can do to fix it.  So far there hasn't been any trouble since the very first sheet I posted.

When you view the census through Google documents it does appear as if it were 3 pages, but rest assured that when downloaded it looks like the image at the top of the blog and in one simple page.  The sheet is locked so you can't accidentally erase the headers and you can only input in the blanks.

One word of warning.  I couldn't figure out how to wrap the text so the cells would fill in the entire left side of the form and then start again in the right column.  So right now when you hit "tab" it will move across the entire row before wrapping around.  I've been trying to look up ways to assign cell order, but so far, no good.  Just keep your eyes on where you're typing!

Let me know if there are any mistakes as well.  I'm sure you can imagine my eyes were starting to go crossed by the time I was done with this form!  Corrections and suggestions are always welcome!

Next week I'll be traveling back home to Texas so we'll see if I can get the next schedule out and ready to go before then!  Until next time, have fun tending those roots!

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1850 U.S. Census, Schedule 1

1850 U.S. Federal Census, Schedule 1

A little break from census forms as I drove from Texas to Pennsylvania, but time has now permitted me to continue with another form to share.  This week I created an inputtable form for the 1850 census.  It was easier than in some of the past censuses I did.  It's not that there's not a lot of good information on the form, there is.  Rather they became a little smarter with how they recorded that information, leaving room for more detail (in my opinion).  Still it's not all the information we data-hungry genealogists would like to have, but it's better than a sharp stick in the eye!

For the first time we've got the names of everyone in the household and not just the head of the household.  Major improvement.  No relationships are listed, but we know if they lived under the same roof and what their names were.  Make sure you don't go into making hard and fast conclusions just because they lived in the same household.  You need to verify relationships.  Sometimes people brought in lodgers and there was no relationship!

Also recording people by age range rather than putting their exact age.  Gone.  We've got a spot for occupation, but only recorded for those aged 15 and up.  I don't know about you, but I've got plenty of ancestors that were working in the coal mines well before the age of 15!

Sadly, no marital status, but if they were married within the past year, ya got lucky...there'll be notice of that!  There's also a column to be marked if the person was, "Deaf and dumb, blind, insane, idiotic, pauper, or convict."  So obviously we'll know the name of the unfortunate person, however my smart-aleck side says that there's a huge difference between all of those groups and we won't even go into political correctness!

This is also the first census I can use in my family tree.  Experience level.  Still low.  Only one ancestor came over by 1850 on my side of the family and a couple on my hubby's side.

As before the people who bring you 1930census.com have some good information.  A map of the US at the time and the US is certainly starting to look a bit more like what we know today.  The western states are still fewer, but there more boundary lines.  A good history for the decade is included.  California became a state in September 1850.  Even though the census date was set for June 1, 1850 they were included in it.

The US Census Bureau's website has lots of yummy information as well.  For example:

"The Seventh Census of the United States: 1850. Embracing a statistical view of each of the States and Territories, arranged by counties, towns, etc...with an introduction, embracing the aggregate tables for the United States compared with every previous census since 1790..."

There are also mortality statistics as well for you to check out.  All of this can be reached through their 1850 census page.

Remember that there were 6 schedules of data collected for this census and the form is only for Schedule 1:

Schedule 1 - Population
Schedule 2 - Slaves
Schedule 3 - Mortality
Schedule 4 - Agriculture
Schedule 5 - Industrial
Schedule 6 - Social Statistics

As always, if you have any trouble viewing or downloading the spreadsheet, just comment or send me an email and I'll see what I can do to fix it.  So far there hasn't been any trouble since the very first sheet I posted.  I'll cross my fingers!

When you view the census through Google documents it does appear as if it were 3 pages, but rest assured that when downloaded it looks like the image at the top of the blog and in one simple page.

Let me know if there are any mistakes as well.  I'm sure you can imagine my eyes were starting to go crossed by the time I was done with this form!  Corrections and suggestions are always welcome!

To access the form simply click on the image at the top of the page or click on anywhere it says "1850 census".


Next week I'll post an inputtable Slave Schedule for 1850.  Until next time, have fun tending those roots!

Tuesday's Tip - eBay - Don't Be Stupid, Sparky

Sounds a bit harsh?  I'm not saying don't use eBay to look for lost family treasures or bits or regional memorabilia.  I have searches on eBay that go straight to my Google Reader account.  They're great.  This is more of a tip for those selling the memorabilia on eBay.  Don't insult the item in the title or description.  Don't be stupid, Sparky.  You want to sell it don't you?  This is the item that caught my attention and inspired this brief post:

Difficult to read.  Click to enlarge.

The screen shots are cropped to hide the seller's name and other items he's currently selling, but I think you can see what I'm talking about.  I'm from the Hazleton area.  Born and raised and that is not without embarrassment to say considering the awful state of the area now.  There are truly sweet and wonderful people there, but they are drowned out by the much more prevalent personalities like this one here.  Sad but true.

HINT:  If you want to sell something, even if you don't think it's the best thing in the world, you aren't going to by insulting it.  You should describe it in a way that makes people want to buy it.

Needless to say the item wasn't sold.  Shocker, I know.  There is apparently some deep rooted issues this person has with the items or with the area (although he lives there still so he can't hate the area too much!).  It shouldn't have come out in the attempted sale.  He's at least $8.50 poorer than he would have been if he had described the item properly.  Of course, unless there was something very dear to me in these photos the starting price is more than a little too high.

Ah, well...back to trying to find ephemera on eBay.  It is really a great tool when used properly.  At least he didn't just title it "7 Stupid Photos".  At least with "Hazleton" in the title it popped up on my reader.

I'm on vacation right now, and actually am on the road so no census this week.  I should be back with the 1850 census next Tuesday, but who knows...I may be having way too much fun!

Have fun tending your roots!

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1840 U.S. Census

1840 U.S. Federal Census

It's that time again.  Time for another census form!  If you thought that the 1830 census was looking a bit cramped, well creating a one-page spreadsheet for the 1840 census was very challenging, but it's done and legible, even when printed.

The information is getting better.  At least we're asking for pensioners this time and asking about jobs even if it's a generalization of occupations...it's something.  Also, there are questions about education and this group is broken down into various degrees/types of education which is quite nice.  Finally, we've got the old "cannot read and write" block to mark which we're all familiar with other later censuses.

The same discriminatory features still persist in that white people have more age brackets to assign members of the household which is very helpful in narrowing people down or excluding them from our branches.  Slaves and Free Colored People are treated the same as far as there are fewer brackets which gives the researcher a more general view, making things potentially more difficult to narrow down or eliminate erroneous branches in our family trees.  Again, we must take it in historical context.  That's the way of things back then.  I don't have to like it, but I can't change it.

The U.S. Census Bureau acknowledges that the 1840 census closely mirrored that of the 1830 census with some adjustments:

"No population questionnaire was prescribed by the Congress—the design of the questionnaire was left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, and closely followed that used in1830. The law did specify the inquiries to be made of each household."

You can view the "Compendium of Enumeration" as well as the "Census of Pensioners" on their webpage via a .pdf listed as Volume 3 and 4 respectively by clicking here.

On www.1930census.com you can again watch our nation expanding, by viewing a map of the changing states' boundaries, and a timeline-history of that decade.  Sadly, the tab for "Census Questions Asked" and big blank.  Ah well!  You can't have everything!

As always, if you have any trouble viewing or downloading the spreadsheet, just comment or send me an email and I'll see what I can do to fix it.  So far there hasn't been any trouble since the very first sheet I posted.  I'll cross my fingers!

Let me know if there are any mistakes as well.  I'm sure you can imagine my eyes were starting to go crossed by the time I was done with this form!  Corrections and suggestions are always welcome!

To access the form simply click on the image at the top of the page or click on anywhere it says "1840 census."

Good luck and have fun tending those roots!

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1830 U.S. Census

1830 U.S. Federal Census

Last week was the 1820 census.  This week it's time to topple the 1830 census!  More cells to input data although that doesn't necessarily mean more usable information.  I'll make my point on that in a moment.  The U.S. Census Bureau sums up this census by stating:

"Prior to the passage of the census act authorizing the fifth census in 1830, President Adams, in his fourth address to the U.S. Congress on December 28, 1828, suggested the census commence earlier in the year than August 1. He also proposed that the collection of age data should be extended from infancy, in intervals of 10 years, to the “utmost boundaries of life”. These changes were incorporated into the census act of March 23, 1830. As in the previous census, the enumeration was made by an actual inquiry by the marshals or assistants at every dwelling house, or, as the law stated, by “personal” inquiry of the head of every family, and began on June 1."

So the data is better for you in that it gives more age groups (still only the heads of households though).  More age groups means it's easier for you to better analyze who is in the household and perhaps rule out or confirm that they are your ancestors.  Not more information on those people.  There is a column to mark if any were "Deaf and Dumb," blind or not naturalized, but it doesn't give you any indicators as to who those people are.  Still, it's better than nothing and they are improving.

I also found it interesting that for the whites they had 13 categories where age was broken down for the men and the women.  For slaves and free colored persons it was less than half that at 6 categories for each gender.  It does give us an insight into the minds of the people at that time.  I will stop there or may become too critical.  Historical context, I know.  I must detach myself emotionally from that.

Sadly, no attempt to collect data on business/agriculture/industry was made. The Bureau didn't state why, but I'm sure there were reasons.

Again, more good information at www.1930census.com with their overview of the census, the map of the United States in 1830, and the historical facts for that time period are back!  It's always a great idea to check out what was going on in the country and world at that time so you can put the data into better context.

As I've mentioned before the spreadsheet will appear to have more than one page when viewed through Google Docs, but when you download it there will only be one page.  Again, the cells where there are test are locked so you can't accidentally type over the text.  It also makes it easier going from cell to cell without having to avoid the text cells.  It will just jump to the next empty cell.

Sorry, not "Notes" block on this form.  Too much information to squeeze in and the font was already too small.  Didn't want to push my luck there.  The rows for data input are numbered so it's easier when moving to the bottom group.

If you have any trouble viewing or downloading the spreadsheet, just comment or send me an email and I'll see what I can do to fix it.  So far there hasn't been any trouble since the very first sheet I posted.  I'll cross my fingers!

Let me know if there are any mistakes as well.  I'm sure you can imagine my eyes were starting to go crossed by the time I was done with this form!  Corrections and suggestions are always welcome!

To access the form simply click on the image at the top of the page or click on anywhere it says "1830 census".

Good luck and have fun tending those roots!

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1820 Census

1820 U.S. Federal Census

Last week I talked about the 1810 census and how similar it was to the 1800 census.  This week we'll take a look at the 1820 census...and what a census!  We started getting our act together here!  More data than in the last three and by the looks of it a fair bit more organized!  Still not as much data here as we genealogists enjoy in the later censuses, but we can now see at least the type of work the people were engaged in and the number of people of foreign birth that were not naturalized.  It still only gives the names of the heads of household, but you can at least tell a bit more about citizenship/birth and that may lead you to documents!

The census form each person spreads over 2 pages, so make sure you check out both sides or you'll be wondering where the rest of the information is!

The people at the U.S. Census Bureau have not only posted on their site a copy of the legislation enacting the 4th U.S. Census, a.k.a. the 1820 census, but the statistics from that census, the oaths sworn by the census takers and their version of the census form!

The 4th U.S. Census was conducted under the direction of the Secretary of State.  The legislation was enacted in March of 1820 and the census began in August 1820, concluding in September 1821.

The people at www.1930census.com have once again provided a map to what our country looked like at the time the census was taken.  Sadly, their timeline/historic data for this decade is down,  for the count.  Hopefully we'll see some great historical context in there soon!

I've got to say that creating these inputtable forms is really helping me understand that you can get more out of the older censuses than we may realize.  Next week I'll have the 1830 census ready to post and then the week after the 1840 census (and the first one that I really have any family in America to use!).  

As for the inputtable form, the same applies as before:

1)  The Google document claims to be more than one page, but rest assured that once you download the form it will be one page only

2)  The form is locked so you don't have to worry about typing in the wrong fields and erasing the census questions.  You can only make changes to the blank fields.

3)  If there is any trouble downloading the form please let me know and I'll see what can be done to fix it.

Remember to get to the Google Form just click on the image at the top of the blog post or the 1820 link in the first paragraph.

Until next week I hope you enjoy the forms and enjoy tending those roots!

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1810 U.S. Census

1810 U.S. Federal Census

Another in the series of inputtable census forms!  It’s time for the 3^rd U.S. Federal Census, a.k.a. – the 1810 census.  Sounds a bit like a broken record right now, but I haven’t really used the 1810 census much as my earliest ancestors arrived in America in 1835 and later.  

It’s quite nice to be able to go and learn about each census as I go through and create these forms.  Not much of a difference between the 1810 and 1800 census.  The “Totals” column found at the end of some of the 1800 census sheets is found immediately following the name of the head of the household and before they tallied each age group.  Of course I haven’t gone through every copy of the census for 1810 so there may be some that match the old form identically.  I would not be surprised.

A few websites if you’re looking for information on the various censuses:

The U.S. Census Bureau - Again, not tons of information here, but it certainly gives an insight into what the census takers were instructed to do.  The outline for the 3rd U.S. census was enacted on March 26, 1810 and instructed the census taker to perform, "an actual inquiry at every dwelling house, or of the head of every family within each district, and not otherwise" and commenced on the first Monday of August that year.  The Bureau also points out that in 1812 a type of census occurred where data was collected on manufacturers and their businesses.  For more information check out their website under "Volume 2".

www.1930census.com - I don't know how I missed this site when collecting data for my other forms.  Most likely I had tunnel vision and ignored it when I saw the URL and simply assumed that Google was giving me a bad result.  Whatever the reason, this site is pretty awesome.  Not only do they give much of the same information that the Bureau gives but they've sweetened it up by providing links to historical items of interest that occurred around the period of the census, and there are maps that show what the U.S. looked like at the time of the census.  The site does claim that it's "The #1 Census Source for Genealogy & Family History".  I can't vouch for that, but I can say that I'll be using it in the future!

Lastly, Ancestry.com - Not much to say here.  We all know that they give an explanation on their site regarding the various censuses and even have printable sheets to write in the census data...of course, the inability to type your transcription in the form is the main reason I started creating my own census forms to use since most of us type faster than we write and I like having digital copies!

Once again, I've locked the form, so you don't have to worry about inputting data into the header.  You'll only be able to input into the appropriate blank fields. If you encounter any problems downloading or accessing the forms, please let me know and I will try to resolve them.  As I mentioned in previous posts, the form appears to have more pages than it actually does when you view it as a Google Document, but rest assured that when you download it to your computer it will be on page.

Next Tuesday should bring the 1820 census!  To check out the previous forms, just check out my "Tuesday's Tips" posts.  

Enjoy tending those roots!

Tuesday's Tip - Inputting Data on the 1800 U.S. Census

1800 U.S. Federal Census

The next in the series of inputtable census forms!  This time the 2nd US Federal Census, a.k.a. the 1800 US Federal Census.  Again, I don't have tons of experience using the 1800 census since all of my known ancestors came over around potato-famine-time, or later.  A positive aspect with creating these forms (aside from the obvious, being able to actually input and save your data on a copy of the form) is that it forces me to become a bit more familiar with a resource that I have not really dealt with.  I'm still no where near being an expert, but a bit less of a novice!

Again, I've tried to keep the form as close to the original as possible.  Not entirely easy since the forms still varied slightly by region and by census taker.  Not all forms have the header at the top either, so using this form will at least help to remind you what each column is referring to!

The last column on the census varies from district to district, but refers to the total number of persons enumerated for that household.  For lack of a better term (and lack of a term given on the form) I've titled it simply "Totals".  You won't see this column on all census forms, but occasionally it pops up.

I love the fact the the US Census Bureau had information for the various Federal Censuses, and while they didn't give overwhelming details about the 1800 census on their page, they did give some important details:

"A February 28, 1800, act provided for the taking of the second census of the United States, which included the states and territories northwest of the Ohio River and Mississippi Territory. The guidelines for the 1800 enumeration followed those of the first enumeration, except that the work was to be carried on under the direction of the Secretary of State....The enumeration was to begin, as in 1790, on the first Monday in August, and conclude in 9 calendar months."

So the administration of this census was more centralized under the direction of the Secretary of State as opposed to the 1790 census which was carried out under the direction of the U.S. Marshals of the various judicial districts.

Once again, I've locked the form, so you don't have to worry about inputting data into the header.  You'll only be able to input into the appropriate blank fields.  I'm still a novice with Google Docs (looking forward to Thomas MacEntee's webinar on Legacy Family Tree "Google Forms for Genealogists"  this Wednesday), so if you have any problems downloading the spreadsheet or encounter any other problems with it, please let me know and I'll do my best to fix it. 

When you click on the census in Google Docs to view it, for some odd reason (yet again) it appears to be 3 pages long and in landscape format.  It will be one page and in portrait when you download it.  I have no idea why this happens, I'm just happy that it seems to download correctly!

Next week, I hope to have the 1810 census ready to post, but Cub Scout Day Camp is all next week in the evenings so I'll have to play it by ear.  I may be forced to post somewhat less time-intensive posts!  We'll see!

Tuesday's Tip - DANGER, Will Robinson!!!!!

I've never actually watched Lost In Space.  I guess that just shows how that phrase has worked it's way into our culture!  Anyway...

I was intending on posting the next census form this week, but I started messing about on Ancestry.com while waiting for an appointment and made some pretty good discoveries that I will be seeking to verify in the immediate future.  What discoveries, you may ask?  Well, after posting George Rosbeck's obituary yesterday, I figured that I'd try to locate his name on the passenger lists on Ancestry.com.  I do believe I found him and it wasn't terribly difficult.  The names are a good match as are the dates of birth.  Not having any other information yet to verify his parents or siblings, I will be digging deeper until I have conducted my "reasonably exhaustive search" (I loved learning all that stuff at the NGS conference!).

So what's my tip?  Well, after realizing that George and his parents arrived in 1857, I attempted to see if I could find them in the 1860 US Federal Census.  If they are my Rosbecks they hopefully found themselves a nice place in Wisconsin by then.  I couldn't find them.  I initially cursed the new Ancestry search, but then decided it would be more productive to adjust my search parameters.  After all I need to figure out how to use their new search since it's only a matter of time before they eventually take that "Old Search" button away!  So I stopped searching for an exact match with my "Geo* Rosb*" search and used the default settings.  It worked, but I was almost tempted to not click on the result.  Thank goodness my brain was working because this was what I found:

I guessed that the transcriber may have gotten the born in "Australia" bit wrong.  Since my husband's Rosbecks are from Germany (for lack of a better region at this point in my research...if you know the history of the region at all you'll understand what I mean!).   So once I pulled up the image it was exceedingly clear that George and his family were born in AUSTRIA not Australia. 

Excerpt of 1860 US Federal Census - for the city of Wayne, Washington County, WI - John Raseback household

Lesson #1 for today - Keep an open mind and expect errors in the indexes...we all make mistakes!

The surname, while listed as Raseback on the census is close enough to Rosbeck.  It is certainly possible that the name changed over time.  It is just as possible that the census taker wrote the name phonetically. Either way, the spelling difference isn't an enormous concern.

Now for Lesson #2.

I wanted to see what else I could find, so I went back and expanded my search to "all categories".  I was intrigued by the "Photos" section, but they were all private and the information didn't seem to match up very well, so I cringed and clicked on the "Family Trees" tab.  There were 147 trees.  The first few that I clicked on were submitted by people I had been in contact with.  I didn't explore them very far.  I just wanted to see if anyone had made the jump to having Anna and Johannes (John) as his parents and if they had, did they use more than the passenger list and census to make that jump.  I clicked on a few more trees and then came to one that was created by someone I did not recognize so I opened it up.

Yikes!  That's really all I could say at first.  This person had made the jump, but I was no longer really interested in looking at the sources, because of one huge, glaring error that s/he had not bothered to fix or annotate.  Can you see it?  I put some pretty arrows there in case you're feeling a bit tired today:

So daddy died about 11 years before his son was born?  According to this tree he did.  Father, Johan, died in 1841 and son, George, was born in 1852.  A medical miracle.  Particularly since daddy was on the passenger list in 1857.  What you can't see from the image above is that this person has daddy down as dying in 1841 in WISCONSIN.  Yep, that would be 16 years before the family arrived in America.  It could be a typo.  Either way, most genealogy programs will point out glaring errors like that.  Does that mean that all the other information on this tree is wrong?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I mean this person had a few more generations back for my husband's Rosbeck line, and the surname Hassel is vaguely familiar.

So, Lesson #2 - family trees that are posted (on any site) are subject to errors.  Some are subtle.  Some are pretty big.  Does that mean we shouldn't use these trees?  Of course not!  They can be a great way to try to further your research and get through a brick wall or two, but you need to verify the validity of the specific bit of information you are looking for and conduct your own reasonably exhaustive search.  Any researcher worth anything won't mind you testing their conclusions.  After all, researching our genealogy and family history isn't about us being right.  It's about the facts being right.