Hi Russ,
As a relatively new user of FTM2014, I appreciate your “this is how I do it” tips – they have been very helpful in getting me up to speed.
I have a question that I have not seen addressed by you: how to you handle pre-1850 US Census records? I am not so much concerned about the citation as I am in how you handle the dreaded tick marks. In my mind there are two different scenarios: those cases where I believe that I have sufficient evidence to identify the person(s) enumerated within particular categories and those cases where I am not as sure.
How do you handle these cases? Do you create events for the people that you are confident of?
Thanks!
Tom Phelps
Thomas Phelps
ReplyDeleteThe reason that I haven't addressed them is that I don't find them helpful. Can't be sure about who is represented on that record. Basically, not enough information.
If I am trying to determine IF I have "all the people in the family", I might look.
The Citation, IF I used found would be by using the Appropriate Template in FTM2014.
Yes, I have used them, and have cited them, but don't rely on them.
Basically, I look for other records
Russ
Thanks for your response.
ReplyDeleteI agree that they are not helpful, if they are taken as standalone references. However, in my own research I have found them to be very helpful when used in conjunction with other information, such as deeds, wills, probate records etc. Using those records in conjunction with census records, I have been able (in some but certainly not all cases) to identify that the members of a particular household in a particular census identified by the tick marks only were almost definitely X, Y and Z.
While I can (and do) identify this information in my notes outside of FTM, I think my records (and the records in the AMT) would be more complete if I record this information in FTM along with my rationale explaining why I am saying that Jane Jones is the person "recorded" as the lone female aged over 40 (or whatever the category may be) living in the household of John Jones in 1830 (because I have John's will dated 1832 naming his wife Jane Jones, and I have a baptismal record for Jane Smith showing her birth as abt 1785, and I have a marriage record showing John Jones and Jane Smith married in 1815, and I have another record showing Jane Jones died in 1852 at age 67: therefore I have Indirect Evidence that she is the person corresponding to the tick mark.)
As you have pointed out on many occasions, your blog demonstrates your personal methodology for using FTM, and each of us has to make our own decisions and establish our own practices. In my case, I believe that there are certain cases where I have sufficient information to reliably assign an event to a person not explicitly named in a pre-1850 census.
Of course, If I don't believe I have sufficient information to make a definitive statement that tick mark "x" must correspond to person "y", I won't do that.
Tom
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with you at all and you should continue to do what works for you. It's a matter of how much time I have to research and how much new information can I pull from these or any other records. Are there other records for me to look for and fine that gets me to the same place.
Up until now, I have not spent a lot of time with those records. I have them and used them, early on, but haven't recently because of the other records that are now available online.
I have a lot of colonial Quakers, those Quaker Records are where I am going to spend my time.
But thats just me. IF, however, I do run into a good example of those early census' I'll blog about it. I have a list of todo blog posts.
Thank you,
Russ