Steve's Genealogy Blog

The United States Decennial Census has been conducted on different days throughout its history, and the information contained in the census might be interpreted in different ways, depending on whether the information was accurate as of the official day of the census or as of the actual day the enumerator recorded the information.

It’s not clear if the enumerators for the 1790, 1800, and 1810 were instructed to ensure that the data collected was accurate as of the first Monday in August. Certainly, as of the 1820 Census, the enumerators were expected to record information as of the enumeration date, not the date on which the information was recorded, but there is little way to know if the enumerators actually followed these instructions.

1790 US Federal Census

The 1790 Census enumeration began on the first Monday in August – August 2, 1790.

1800 US Federal Census

The 1800 Census enumeration began on the first Monday in August – August 4, 1800. The census was to be completed within nine months.

1810 US Federal Census

The 1810 Census enumeration began on the first Monday in August – August 6, 1810.

1820 US Federal Census

The 1820 Census enumeration began on the first Monday in August – August 7, 1820. The census was to be completed within six months, but the completion date was extended to September 1, 1821. All data collected was to be accurate as of August 7, 1820.

1830 US Federal Census

The 1830 Census enumeration began on June 1, 1830, and the enumerators were instructed to transmit the returns to the marshals by December 1, 1930. All data collected was to be accurate as of June 1, 1930.

1840 US Federal Census

The 1840 Census enumeration began on June 1, 1840 and the enumerators were instructed to transmit the returns to the marshals by November 1, 1840. This deadline was extended to May 1, 1841. Due to discrepancies in the reports, the enumeration of Montgomery County, Maryland was repeated beginning on June 1, 1841, with the returns due by October 1, 1841. All data collected was to be accurate as of June 1, 1840.

1850 US Federal Census

The 1850 Census enumeration began on June 1, 1850 and the results were returned to the Secretary of the Interior by November 1, 1850. All data collected was to be accurate as of June 1, 1850.

1860 US Federal Census

The 1860 Census enumeration began on June 1, 1860. All data collected was to be accurate as of June 1, 1860.

1870 US Federal Census

The 1870 Census enumeration began on June 1, 1870. Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants) was due to be completed by September 10, 1870 and all other schedules were due by October 1, 1870. All data collected was to be accurate as of June 1, 1870.

1880 US Federal Census

The 1880 Census enumeration began on June 1, 1880. All data collected was to be accurate as of June 1, 1880.

1890 US Federal Census

The 1890 Census enumeration began on June 2, 1890 (June 1 was a Sunday). In cities with populations less than 10,000, the enumeration was to be completed within two weeks. All data collected was to be accurate as of June 1, 1890.

1900 US Federal Census

The 1900 Census was enumerated as of June 1, 1900. The enumeration was to be completed within two weeks in areas with a population greater than 8,000 and within a month in rural areas. All data collected was to be accurate as of June 1, 1900.

1910 US Federal Census

The 1910 Census enumeration began on April 15, 1910 .  The enumeration was to be completed within two weeks in cities of 5,000 inhabitants or more and within 30 days in smaller or rural areas. All data collected was to be accurate as of April 15, 1910.

1920 US Federal Census

The 1920 Census enumeration began on January 2, 1920, but all data collected was to be accurate as of January 1, 1920.

1930-2000 US Federal Census

The 1930-2000 US Federal Censuses was taken as of April 1. All data collected was to be accurate as of April 1.

To summarize, Census Day for the various US Federal Censuses was:

• the first Monday in August for the 1790-1820 Censuses
• June 1 for the 1830-1900 Censuses
• April 15 for the 1910 Census
• January 1 for the 1920 Census
• April 1 for the 1930-2000 Censuses

The information in the Census Records is intended to be accurate as of the official Census Day.

Copyright © 2006 by Stephen J. Danko

The information contained within a source, whether the source is original or derivative, may be Primary Information or Secondary Information.

PRIMARY INFORMATION:  details originally recorded at the time or close to the time of an event by a participant, eyewitness, or official recorder of the event.

Even if details in a record qualify as Primary Information, Primary Information does not guarantee that the information is accurate .  Errors might have made when the details were recorded .  Nonetheless, Primary Information is usually the most accurate information available, as long as the details are recorded by someone capable of understanding the significance of the information and does so without bias .  Frequently, the recorder is someone acting in an official capacity, such as a Registrar, Clerk, Secretary, Minister of the Peace, or Priest.

SECONDARY INFORMATION:  details originally recorded at a time or place distant from the original event or by a person who was not either a participant, eyewitness, or official recorder of the event.

Secondary Information, since it is generally recorded at a much later time than the actual event or by someone who does not have first-hand knowledge of the event, may be less reliable than Primary Information .  As with Primary Information, the quality of Secondary Information is subject to the qualifications of the person who recorded it.

I have placed one qualifier in the definitions of Primary and Secondary Information that most genealogical references do not, in that I have defined Primary and Secondary Information in terms of when the details were originally recorded .  Thus, a transcript may be a Derivative Source, but the transcript may include Primary Information if the source from which it was transcribed contains Primary Information .  Primary Information in a Derivative Source is, however, subject to the potential flaws of the source itself.

A source often contains both primary and secondary information . Â For example, a Death Certificate usually contains Primary Information about the death itself, but may also include Secondary Information about the birth of the decedent.

Bibliography:

Devine, Donn. “Reliable Information- Whatever the Source: The Key to Sound Research.” Ancestry Magazine 19 (January/February 2001) .  Online <http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=3657> . 19 August 2006.

Leary, Helen F. M . â€œPart 1: Definitions” Evidence Analysis, A Workshop, 1999 NGS Conference in the States, National Genealogical Society (Arlington, Virginia: NGS, 1999).

The Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCC Genealogical Standards Manual. Orem, Utah: Ancestry Publishing, 2000.

The definitions for Original Source and Derivative Source provided in the literature sometimes don’t seem to fit the needs of genealogists .  In particular, the literature places exact images such as photocopies and microfilm images in the category of Derivative Sources .  If so, Original Sources are rare!

What do we end up with if we consider what Original Sources we have in our possession?  Perhaps we have a Certificate of Naturalization or a family bible, or a sampler with the name and date of birth of a child .  Beyond that, we might have photocopies of Vital Records, or electronic images of Passenger Manifests or Census Records .  By definition, then, some of the most useful records genealogists have in their possession are Derivative Sources . 

Recently, some genealogy authorities have classified exact images as Original Sources and, perhaps, the definitions of Original Source and Derivative Source should be modified to reflect this line of thought .  Otherwise, the differentiation between Original Source and Derivative Source is almost meaningless; almost all of our sources are Derivative Sources .  Most Original Sources have either been archived or destroyed.

Consider the following definitions as an attempt to take into account the records actually available and to allow genealogists to evaluate the quality of sources more precisely.

ORIGINAL SOURCE:  a record that provides information not obtained or derived from another record .  An Original Source can be an Original Record or and Exact Image.

This definition of Original Source takes into account that the information on an Exact Image, if it faithfully preserves the appearance and information in the Original Record, can substitute for the Original Record.

ORIGINAL RECORD:  the first record in which information is captured in a fixed form, whether on paper, in stone, in electronic form, or in some other medium .  An Original Record can be either an Original Source or a Derivative Source, but there can exist only one Original Record.

This definition of Original Record takes into account that paper documents are not the only Original Records .  Inclusion of media other than paper is increasing important in a digital world .  This definition also considers that an Original Record can be either an Original Source or a Derivative Source .  An Original Record is an Original Source only if the information in that record was not obtained or derived from some other record.

EXACT IMAGE:  a reproduction of an Original Record in a photograph, photocopy, microform, digital form, or other media that preserves both the appearance of and information in the Original Record.

The quality of the image is an important characteristic to consider when deciding if an image qualifies as an Exact Image .  Severe distortion of the image or alteration of the image (such as when a vital records office obscures the cause of death in a death certificate) may disqualify an image from being an Exact Image.

DERIVATIVE SOURCE:  a record which is generated based on information in an Original Record and is not an Exact Image of the Original Record .  Derivative Sources include Transcriptions, Abstracts, and Compiled Sources.

This definition of a Derivative Source considers Duplicate Originals and Official Copies to be Derivative Sources, unless those sources are Exact Images .  Some Derivative Sources are also Original Records .  For example, a certified vital record that is a transcript rather than an Exact Image is an Original Record, but is also a Derivative Source.

These definitions are proposed here to try to clarify some ambiguities in the existing literature and to generate discussion .  Please post a comment or send me an email (click the “E-mail Steve” link on the right-hand side of the page to find my email address).

A few days ago, I wrote about using A Preponderance of Evidence to come to a conclusion in genealogical studies, and in that article I provided the definition of Original Source as published in The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual:

“original source:  the person or record whose information did not come from data already spoken or written .  The original is the most authoritative source .  Often, however, it no longer survives or its preservation dictates that it be examined only as an image copy (microfilm, digitized image, and so on).”

The Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCC Genealogical Standards Manual (Orem, Utah: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 8-9.

According to The BCC Genealogical Standards Manual, the definition of Derivative Source is:

“derivative source:  a person or record that supplies information that is repeated, reproduced, transcribed, abstracted, or summarized from something already spoken or written .  Because every repetition or recopying of data is an opportunity for error, the closer the derivative is to the original the more reliable the data are likely to be.”

The Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCC Genealogical Standards Manual (Orem, Utah: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 9.

In 1999, a workshop on Evidence Analysis was held at the NGS Conference in the States where Helen F. M. Leary, CG, CGL, FASG, FNGS, the President of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, elaborated on these definitions .  She defined Original Source as:

“ORIGINAL SOURCE:  one that contributes written, oral, or visual information not derived from a prior written record or oral communication .  “Original” in this sense refers to the form in which the information is found or was created – not to its quality, reliability, or other characteristics.”

Helen F. M. Leary, “Part 1: Definitions” Evidence Analysis, A Workshop, 1999 NGS Conference in the States, National Genealogical Society (Arlington, Virginia: NGS, 1999).

She also defined Derivative Source as:

“DERIVATIVE SOURCE:  one that contributes information copied, transcribed, abstracted, summarized, or repeated from information in a previously existing source .  Derivatives may be created (a) contemporaneously with the source (e.g., index entries made when the deed were transcribed into the official record book) or years or centuries later (e.g., a person’s “record set: in a genealogical data base); (b) by officials in the course of performing their duties or by private parties pursuing their own interests (e.g., describing the results of a genealogical investigation); and (c) in handwritten, typed, electronically recorded, computer-generated, or exact-image form.”

Helen F. M. Leary, “Part 1: Definitions” Evidence Analysis, A Workshop, 1999 NGS Conference in the States, National Genealogical Society (Arlington, Virginia: NGS, 1999).

One other useful definition that Ms. Leary provided was for Exact Image:

“EXACT IMAGE:  the form of any record that captures its appearance and all the information it carries – as by microfilm, photograph, photocopy, or computer-scanned image .  An exact image is a DERIVATIVE SOURCE whose value depends on its technological quality (e.g., a clear, complete, unaltered reproduction of the ORIGINAL RECORD, in photocopy or microform, carries the same information) .  With the same appearance, the image can stand in place of the original.”

Helen F. M. Leary, “Part 1: Definitions” Evidence Analysis, A Workshop, 1999 NGS Conference in the States, National Genealogical Society (Arlington, Virginia: NGS, 1999).

From these definitions, Original Sources are rare, indeed .  In fact, I don’t think I have any source documents that can be considered Original Sources if Exact Images are Derivative Sources.

George Morgan and Drew Smith discussed Original Sources and Derivative Sources on the June 1, 2006 edition of the Genealogy Guys Podcast .  In that podcast, the Genealogy Guys indicated that a reproduction of an Original Source could also be considered an Original Source.

Today, in an online chat with Brenda Dougal Merriman, CG, CGL of the National Institute for Genealogical Studies, I asked the Brenda whether exact images were Original Sources or Derivative Sources .  Brenda answered that exact images could be considered Original Sources, especially these days when so many Original Sources are available as digitized images.

At this point, one more definition may be useful - Original Record:

“ORIGINAL RECORD:  the first paper writing created in response to a specific event or situation .  An ORIGINAL SOURCE can be an ORIGINAL RECORD if written or electronically recorded .  An original record is unique – the can be only one “first” – and therefore irreplaceable .  The original record should not be confused with a DUPLICATE ORIGINAL or an OFFICIAL COPY .  Although “original” is sometimes used to refer to any record of which a copy has been made or from which information has been taken, a more-appropriate term in those case in simply SOURCE”

Helen F. M. Leary, “Part 1: Definitions” Evidence Analysis, A Workshop, 1999 NGS Conference in the States, National Genealogical Society (Arlington, Virginia: NGS, 1999).

There are some conflicting views here .  Is an Exact Image an Original Source or a Derivative Source?

Tomorrow:  New Definitions of Original Source and Derivative Source (A Proposal)

When evaluating the quality of genealogical information and the sources in which that information appears, genealogists are often confronted with conflicting data .  Thus, the concept of a preponderance of the evidence has been adopted from the legal profession and applied to genealogical analysis, whereby the accuracy of information and the reliability of the sources must be evaluated in order to come to a conclusion.

For genealogists, the evidence must be carefully evaluated and documented before coming to a conclusion about a genealogical fact or event .  The Board for Certification of Genealogists has established the Genealogical Proof Standard as a guideline for evaluating the credibility of genealogical data.

The Genealogical Proof Standard states that:

“(a)  We conduct a reasonably exhaustive search in reliable sources for all information that is or may be pertinent to the identity, relationship, event, or situation in question;

(b)  We collect and include in our compilation a complete, accurate citation to the source or sources of each item of information we use;

(c)  We analyze and correlate the collected information to assess its quality as evidence;

(d)  We resolve any conflicts caused by items of evidence that contradict each other or are contrary to a proposed (hypothetical) solution to the question; and

(e)  We arrive at a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.”

The Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCC Genealogical Standards Manual (Orem, Utah: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 1-2.

So, what does all this mean?

In short, the Genealogical Proof Standard is a guideline for evaluating the preponderance of the evidence .  The five tenets of the Genealogical Proof Standard require that the genealogist find all relevant information, document the sources of that information, analyze the information and evaluate the quality of the information, resolve any conflicts between different sources of information, and come to a conclusion.

That’s quite a job!  Obtaining from reliable sources all information relevant to the genealogical question at hand is no small task .  Even assuming that one has obtained all relevant information, the next step is equally daunting:  properly citing the sources.

Tomorrow:  Citing the Sources of Information on Great Aunt Mary’s Birthdate