Census Sunday - John Ralph Austin Family - 1925 New York State Census

The 1925 New York State Census, the last year this census was taken in New York, shows my great-grandfather John Ralph Austin living with his wife Therese, age 28 and son Alfred, age 9 at 158 East 184th Street, Bronx, New York.

Source: 1925 New York State Census, Bronx County, New York, population schedule, Bronx, Block 2, Election District 30, Assembly District 8, p. 9 (penned), as of 1 June 1925, house no 158, East 184th Street, John R AUSTIN: digital images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 21 June 2014); from New York State Archives.

© 2014, copyright Thomas MacEntee. All rights reserved.

Ancestry Adds New York State Census Records for 1892, 1915 and 1925

Ancestry.com has just released three important record sets for researchers of New York genealogy:

• 1892 New York State Census
• 1915 New York State Census
• 1925 New York State Census

These are all fully-indexed and searchable. If you don't have a subscription to Ancestry, check out the special offer here for those who currently live in New York. The offer is good only for New York records on Ancestry.

I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for these records to become available especially in indexed form.  I know what I'll be doing the next few days!

© 2012, copyright Thomas MacEntee

Census Holiday Names - Festivus

Recently Randy Seaver of Genea-Musings posted several Christmas Names in the Census Records and it was fun to see the various combinations including some bizarre and unintentional ones such as Robert Crachet.  In addition, Megan Smolenyak has a great post at The Huffington Post about unusual names not being a more recent practice especially among the celebrity set!

On a lark, I decided that Festivus is almost upon us, (and if you are a Seinfeld fan you surely know what this is), I would see if there were any records in the United States Federal Census or perhaps other indices for people with Festivus as a first or last name.

Well there doesn't seem to be much in terms of US records:

• No surnames listed as Festivus however there were lots of Fastoffs/Fasthoffs/Fastovs.

However interesting results over across the pond, as they say:

• Pinnegar George David Festivus, born 22 Sep 1991 - (London, England, Births and Christening Notices from The Times, 1983-2003) on Ancestry.

Influenced by the Seinfeld episode? Or a family name?  Let's look back a bit more:

• Arthur Festivus Padfield who sadly was born and died in the same month, September 1870, in Cardiff, Wales (England & Wales, FreeBMD Birth Index, 1837-1915) on Ancestry.

• Sidney Festivus Cob Hancock, born abt 1869 and died 13 Mar 1933 in Saint James Parish, Enfield, Middlesex (London, England, Deaths and Burials, 1813-1980) on Ancestry.

Not much really.  Hmmmm.  I had my hopes up for a Festivus miracle but such hopes are dashed.  Now I must prepare my list of grievances and practice my feats of strength.

© 2009, copyright Thomas MacEntee

Census Search Trick - Finding Non-Indexed Entries

Well, my Leehive saga continues. I spent much of yesterday looking for the 1930 Federal Census record for Michael Leehive, son of John Leehive, born 1870 in Greenwich, London, England. Being an Ancestry subscriber, I was using their search form and even utilizing my "no surname trick," I could not locate the information.

Thinking Michael had passed, I even tried his wife Catherine and his two children Julia and Michael, Jr. with no luck.

So, I thought: go with what you know. I knew that Michael Leehive and his family had appeared in the Kingston, New York census for 1900, 1910 and 1920. Since many of the other Leehive children had moved to Bayonne, New Jersey to work in the oil refinery business, I made searches there as well. No dice.

Thinking that Michael, at age 60 probably remained in Kingston, I looked closely at the 1920 Federal Census and found that Michael Leehive and family lived in the 5th Ward of Kingston, Board of Election District No. 1, and specifically at 222 East Union Street. Since they had lived at the same address since the 1910 Federal Census, there was a good chance I could find their 1930 Federal Census record by reviewing all the pages for the same enumeration district.


Upper left corner of census sheet showing state, county and division


Upper right corner of census sheet showing ward and enumeration district

So I performed a basic Leehive search in the 1930 Federal Census using Ancestry's search form:

Ancestry "old search" form

I pulled up the first result which was not a Leehive record but that didn't matter.  I just wanted access to the "breadcrumb" links above the record which read "New York, Ulster, Kingston."

Ancestry's 1930 Federal Census record for New York, Ulster, Kingston, District 14

I clicked on "Kingston and a list of enumeration districts displayed.  I scanned the list looking for Ward 5 - usually enumeration districts change from census to census and I could not be certain the 1930 Federal Census district was the same as the 1920 Federal Census district.


Enumeration district listing for 1930 Federal Census, Kingston, New York

I clicked the link for District 19 and was presented with Page 1 of 37 pages for the district.  I would need to scan each sheet and then click "Next" to proceed to the next sheet.


1930 Federal Census, Enumeration Distict 19, Kingston, New York, page 1

When I arrived at Page 7, my Michael Leehive was there waiting for me - at the same 222 East Union Street address as the 1920 Federal Census.  

(http://www.ancestry.com), accessed April 2, 2009, citing Census Place: Kingston, Ulster, New York; Roll: 1655; Page: 7A; Enumeration District: 19; Image: 251.0

It is important to remember that when using online databases such as Ancestry, not all pages or entries may have been properly indexed or indexed at all.  After exhausting every other possible search method, the only method left was to do a visual review page by page.  I was lucky in that my Leehive family did not move since the 1920 Federal Census otherwise I'm not sure how I would have found them.

Census Search Trick - Drop The Last Name

As I described in yesterday's Madness Monday post, I've been focusing my efforts on my Lehive line, namely John Lehive b. 1833 in Ireland who was my 3rd great-grandfather.

While I had searched about all I could for John and his son John Jr., I decided to start looking to the other children of John Lehive for clues. Although some may think this is a waste of time, very often an elderly parent can be found living with one of the children or there may be other valuable clues in reading census records for those who were your great aunts and uncles.

While looking for Dennis Lehive who was last noted in the 1900 census living in Rosendale, Ulster County, New York, I seemed to hit a wall. There were no records past 1900 - or so Ancestry's census database would lead me to believe.

So I tried using surname variations as well as wildcard searches (with Lee* and Leh* for the surname) but to no avail. So, I tried dropping the last name - and it worked!

I need to qualify that further. I felt I had enough information (first name, residence state and county, birthplace and year of birth) that I could find my Denis without the last name. So using the criteria below:



I was able to find my Dennis list in the 1930 census as Dennis Lechrie:



Using my wildcard search of Leh* and Lee* would not have found this record while my "no surname" search did. Of course, the culprit here is the person who indexed the record. Perhaps it is just me - and because I've been so immersed in the research of the Lehive/Leehive surname - but it doesn't look like Lechrie on the original:

[1]

For the 1920 census, the record appeared as Lehigh which is a common error with the Lehive surname:



And sure enough, in checking the original, the offender this time is the census enumerator who perhaps "heard" Lehigh:

[2]

And finally, for the 1910 census, the record appears indexed as Shive:



And in looking at the original, since it is blurry and the handwriting is obscured, I can't blame the indexer for reading it as Shive and not Lehive:

[3]

For each of the above records I did submit additional/corrective information. I do this not so much to improve Ancestry's product but more as a RAOGK so that others researching the Lehive line won't have to struggle the way I did.

So try this search trick out the next time you are stuck and feel one of your ancestors is hiding in the census forest. Of course, this trick won't work every time. I was lucky in my assumption that Dennis Lehive stayed in Ulster County, New York and did not move down to New Jersey like his father, his siblings and even his oldest son. I had enough information for me to find these records rather quickly by disregarding the surname and using what I already knew about Dennis Lehive.

Notes:

[1] 1930 US Census, NARA, (http://www.ancestry.com), accessed March 30, 2009, citing Census Place: Kingston, Ulster, New York; Roll: 1655; Page: 8A; Enumeration District: 26; Image: 432.0.

[2] 1920 US Census, NARA, (http://www.ancestry.com), accessed March 30, 2009, citing Census Place: Kingston, Ulster, New York; Roll: T625_1271; Page: 7A; Enumeration District: 156; Image: 57.

[3] 1910 US Census, NARA, (http://www.ancestry.com), accessed March 30, 2009, citing Census Place: Rosendale, Ulster, New York; Roll: T624_1085; Page: 16B; Enumeration District: 160; Image: 931.


(Note: source citations have been withheld for purposes of readability. They are available upon request.) I am including endnotes for this post - please see To Cite or Not To Cite for a discussion on source citation and blog post readability.

Who Are The 67 Bodies of Fort Craig?

Late last evening, I came across an interesting story(1) on the AP newswire concerning the exhumation of 67 bodies which was done in secret by federal archaelogists near Fort Craig, New Mexico.

It appears that some graves had already been looted over the course of several years, mainly for the Civil War artifacts they contained. The archaeologists, working for the Bureau of Land Reclamation, came upon scores of empty graves, 20 of which had been looted.

At first I thought it odd that there would be Civil War artifacts buried at Fort Craig which is in Socorro County, New Mexico, but upon further research it makes sense. Many of the bodies buried at Fort Craig undoubtedly either fought at the Battle of Valverde (February 20-21, 1862) or had served in other locations back East. After the Civil War, many of the men who chose to remain in the military were stationed "Out West" at various outposts in what is now Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. This was part of the "Indian Campaigns" in various territories with purpose of containing Indian raids on new settlements.

No doubt the identification process for the 67 bodies will take years, and information such as census data for Fort Craig may be used. In my preliminary search of the censuses for the period 1860 - 1880 (Fort Craig was abandoned by the military in 1885), I found that the makeup of the residents changed quite a bit during that 20 year period.

In the 1860 census, there are 199 residents and the overwhelming majority of them are of Spanish or Mexican descent judging from the surnames listed. For this census, it appears that both Valverde and Fort Craig are used as towns to list the residents of Fort Craig.(2)

In the 1870 census, there are 239 people listed in Valverde with no Fort Craig listed at all in the data. In addition, almost all the names are of Hispanic descent which leads me to believe that while the military still had a presence at Fort Craig until 1885, the data for the military families must be listed either at one of the other forts (Bascom maybe?) or by the precinct number.(3)

In the 1880 census, there are many more surnames matching Roberts, Gardner, and Williams with many of the residents having been born in New York, Vermont and Illinois. Some of those born in the New Mexico Territory do not have Hispanic surnames leading me to believe that they were born there in the Valverde/Fort Craig area. The 1880 census lists a total of 141 residents of just Fort Craig.(4)

Notes:

(1) 67 bodies secretly exhumed from NM grave, Melanie Dabovich, Associate Press article, retrieved on April 9, 2008.

(2) 1860 United States Census, (http://www.ancestry.com), accessed April 9, 2008, citing Census Place: Fort Craig, Socorro, New Mexico Territory; Roll: M653_714.

(3) 1870 United States Census, (http://www.ancestry.com), accessed April 9, 2008, citing Census Place: Census Place: Socorro, Socorro, New Mexico Territory; Roll: M593_896.

(4) 1880 United States Census, (http://www.ancestry.com), accessed April 9, 2008, citing Census Place: Fort Craig, Socorro, New Mexico; Roll: T9_804; Family History Film: 1254804.

A Wall Broken Down

I am happy to announce some progress on the MacEntee side of my family tree. I have been able to determine my 2nd great-grandfather as John W. MacEntee born about 1846 in New York state.

For the past few months I have been stopped at his son, Elmer A. MacEntee (b. November 27. 1881, died aft. 1930) but some diligent research brought me to John.

In the 1910 Census for the town of Gardiner, Ulster County, New York, there is a page that is very poorly digitized. So much so, that the name comes up as "McEnton."

But, as we all you, you should still give a look especially since there was an Elmer as the head of household. Sure enough, on the last line for the family group was listed John W. MacEntee, father, aged 64.

Since all the other members of the household match up with the Elmer A. MacEntee census records for 1930, 1920 and 1900, I'm much convinced this is the correct person.

Now I'm off to get more information on my elusive John.

Juror Records

I'm not sure why, but the concept of jury duty keeps following me around, like a bad odor. I guess it all started earlier in the week when a co-worker announced that he had been called for jury duty and he wasn't sure how long the court would require him to be there.

I've never been a big fan of jury duty, but when I lived in California, there was a law which stated that you were told on the first day if you were to be on a jury. If not, you were dismissed and couldn't be called back for another year. People always came up with excuses and ploys to get out of jury duty, many of which are no longer accepted. Recently, in Colorado, so few people showed up for jury duty, that the court staff went out and subpoenaed people on the street for "emergency jury duty." Read the article here.

Laughs aside, I have found that many counties have jury duty-related records available. Many times they are listed as "jurors census" or "jurors lists." Of course, being in the 19th century, only men were allowed to serve as a jury of "peers" but these records also tend to list occupations. An example of such a list is a list of Grand Jurors, 1883, 1885 from the town of Herkimer in Herkimer County, New York.