Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found three of my ancestors, all men, living in Worcester, MA, in the 1790 census. They are also listed in the AGBI (American-Genealogical Biographical Index) with the same birth year: 1750, under which is notated: “Heads of fams. at the first U.S. census. Ms. By US Bureau of the Census. Washington, 1908. (363p.): 233.”
Source: Godfrey Memorial Library, comp.. American Genealogical-Biographical Index (AGBI) [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 1999. Original data: Godfrey Memorial Library. American Genealogical-Biographical Index. Middletown, CT, USA: Godfrey Memorial Library.
However, one of the men had already married and had a child by 1761, when this “man” would have been 11! I have the original copy of the image (taken from Ancestry.com).
Upon further reading about this index, it offers a bit of a “proceed at your own risk” language, or at least that’s how I interpret it:
“The efficient indexing of a genealogical work requires practical commonsense, as well as good editorial judgment. At times it also requires something approaching detective ability, for genealogies have been compiled by all sorts of people, most of whom have not had any previous experience in writing, and the material in some of them is devious and obscure to the last degree to everyone except the person who compiled it. If, in a given text, a genealogical descent is obscure or ambiguous, we decipher it and index the names cited according to the best conclusions we can arrive at without undue delay or abnormal cost. We are indexing, not unraveling obscurities.” – Credit/Source: Ancestry.com
I'm certain I have the right person, because his surname is unusual, and he appears in the right place at the right time. Is it safe to assume that these birthdates must be off a bit?
Only heads of household were listed on U.S. federal census prior to 1850. I would expect that anyone listed in 1790 census would be old enough to be living on their own.
Admittedly that standard was a lower age than today.
Can you find any other documentation on this person? Vital records, church records, city directories?
Only heads of household were listed on U.S. federal census prior to 1850. I would expect that anyone listed in 1790 census would be old enough to be living on their own.
Admittedly that standard was a lower age than today.
Can you find any other documentation on this person? Vital records, church records, city directories?
I found them all in the 1790 census, so I know they were there as heads of household, but the birth year of 1750 doesn't fit at least one man, who had his first child by 1761 (and I have the original scanned image of that), when he would have been 11 years old. That's the quandry!
I found them all in the 1790 census, so I know they were there as heads of household, but the birth year of 1750 doesn't fit at least one man, who had his first child by 1761 (and I have the original scanned image of that), when he would have been 11 years old. That's the quandry!
Oh, I see the problem. I've seen many records that have wrong birth years for people. The 1750 year could have been transcribed incorrectly. Sometimes a mistake appears in one place & just gets repeated over & over in different records.
Do you know where the person was born (the one that had a child born in 1761)? Some places had good reporting of births & some did not.
For example, if he was born in England than you'd have a good chance of finding a birth record to confirm his date of birth, which one would assume would be more likely circa early 1740's.
Last edited by daliowa; 03-19-2014 at 09:33 PM..
Reason: edit
If you're looking at AGBI, it's simply an index to other resources. You have to go to that resource. And if your resource is the 1790 census, as you say, they're simply names and the year of the census. There is nothing on the census indicating that any individual listed is anyone you think it is. You are the one identifying that record with a specific individual (the person whose first child was born by 1761). The 1790 census doesn't do that.
So as far as your question goes, the INDEX is accurate.
Oh, I see the problem. I've seen many records that have wrong birth years for people. The 1750 year could have been transcribed incorrectly. Sometimes a mistake appears in one place & just gets repeated over & over in different records.
Do you know where the person was born (the one that had a child born in 1761)? Some places had good reporting of births & some did not.
For example, if he was born in England than you'd have a good chance of finding a birth record to confirm his date of birth, which one would assume would be more likely circa early 1740's.
That's probably the answer. Good grief, I don't know why I didn't think of that, and I'll look further. That AGBI data threw me a bit. Thanks for the input!
Quite right. I found his place and date of birth - MA, 1741. Wish I'd looked further into this before posting; sorry for the trouble, guys!
If only all genealogical mysteries could be solved so easily. Thanks for letting us know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
