I was a census taker in 1990. Never again! But I tend to be shy about asking people personal questions. I can't imagine anyone who is into genealogy not wanting to fill a census form in for posterity, but if you don't fill in your census, the enumerator can get a neighbor to fill it in for you. My daughter filled one in for a family that refused to give me the info. She and a daughter of the family were in school together. Another woman absolutely refused to even talk to me. I was allowed to go back 3 times, which I did, and the mother of the woman almost through me off the porch (just kidding) the third time. So, I had the ex-mother-in-law of the woman give me the information on the woman's family. I'd much rather give the info myself and get it right than let a stranger fill it in for me, based on what little or much they might know. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Smith" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 3:28 PM Subject: [TNCLAIBO-L] Fw: [HOPPER-L] FIRST CENSUS TAKERS HAD THEIR PROBLEMS I found the article below very interesting from the HOPPER list email, and I thought others might want to read it. It is exactly as I had always suspected. The first eunumerators of the census had a very difficult and low paying job. Not only were the names sometimes spelled wrong, but as we all know, sometimes the census taker never did find them at home. Several of my neighbors I have today simply refuse to fill out the census because they say it is the government wanting to check out things they have no business knowing and that the information is used by the tax assessors. They throw them in the garbage as fast as they get them. To the contrary, I was made to fill one out three times on the last census, so I can only imagine what my descendants could possibly think about me. I think they thought I was lying everytime they came by my house. The first one I got in the mail I quickly filled out and mailed back. A month or two later a census taker came by my house and asked me if I filled it out and I told them, YES, and they insisted that I had been reassigned to a different area and needed to fill out another one... then a few weeks later another gentleman came by and I explained to him I had already filled it out twice, but he insisted that he thought it had not be received and wanted another one filled out. With a name like SMITH, it's already confusing enough to keep them straight, now they will find three of me in the same census..... (laughing.) Enjoy Steve Smith ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 2:37 PM Subject: [HOPPER-L] FIRST CENSUS TAKERS HAD THEIR PROBLEMS FIRST CENSUS TAKERS HAD THEIR PROBLEMS Contributed by Steve Edgerton February 04, 2004 The article below first appeared in the "Kentucky Farmer" and was written by Nevyle Shacklford who is with the Department of Public Information, College of Agriculture, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- "Sir: I beg to report that I have been dogbit, goose-pecked, cowkicked, briar-scratched, shot at, and called every 'fowel' that can be tho't of. I have worked 12 days and made $2. I have had enough and I beg to resign my position as a census taker for Crittenden Township." So wrote Roger Waite to a marshal of census enumerators for the State of Vermont on August 24, 1790 – the year of the first national census of the United States. Research does not reveal whether or not the disheartened and disgusted Waite's resignation was accepted or denied. What is revealed is that the pay for enumerators was very low, even for that day. Government records that the highest rate paid under any condition was $1.00 for the count of 50 persons and that was for enumerators in outlying districts where the inhabitants were "widely dispersed." In cities and towns the rate was $1.00 for every 300 persons counted. Out of these amounts, the census takers were obliged to furnish their own schedules "properly ruled" and to take care of any other expenses incurred. In some instances the cost of the schedules was more than the fees collected. --- There were various other reasons on the part of the population for the reluctance to answer questions, but in a 1909 publication issued by the U.S. Census Bureau, it is written that the most potent factor was the widespread belief that the census was connected with taxes. --- At the end of this first census in 1790, the total population count was a fraction under 4 million. Some authorities of that ime, however, were a bit dubious of that figure. Because of the low pay they believed that to make ends meet, some of the enumerators in the "more remote and sparsely settled sections" of the country may have included "some persons not in existence." --- One reasonable ground for such suspicion stemmed from what was described as the "absurd and ludicrous combinations of the names and surnames" listed on the census taker schedules and turned in to the marshals. Officers of the Bureau of Census believed that such names as "Joseph Came, Peter Went, John Sat, Joseph Grackbone, Ruth Shaves, Web Ashbean, Comfort Clock, Sarah Goosehorn, Moses Rainwater, Mercy Cheese, Unity Tallowback, Lookinbill Barnthistle, Sussannsh Beersticker, Constance Cathole," and hundreds of other equally absurd, were spurious and not the names of real citizens. Read more at this Link. http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccumber/centakers.html Regards, Dyane --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ==== TNCLAIBO Mailing List ==== If you are having any difficulties with the list please contact the list owner Pamela Burnette at: [email protected]