Thursday, July 12, 2012

Treasure Chest Thursday - 1910 U.S. Census Record for Fred W. Seaver Family

It's Treasure Chest Thursday - time to look in my digital image files to see what treasures I can find for my family history and genealogy musings.


The treasure today is the 1910 United States Census record for my grandparents and their family in Fitchburg, Massachusetts: 



A closeup of the Seaver family entry:




The extracted information for the family, residing at 116 Lawrence Street in Fitchburg, taken on 19 April 1910, is:

*  Fred W. Seaver -- head, male, white, age 33, first marriage, married for 10 years, born Massachusetts, father and mother born Massachusetts, can speak English, superintendent in a comb shop, an employee, worked on 15 April 1910, not out of work in 1909, able to read and write, owns home with a mortgage
*  Bessie A. Seaver -- wife, female, white, age 28, first marriage, married for 10 years, four children born, four living, born Connecticut, father born England, mother born Connecticut, can speak English, no occupation, able to read and write
*  Marion F. Seaver -- daughter, female, white, age 8, single,born Massachusetts, father born Massachusetts, mother born Connecticut, attended school since Sept 1909

*  Evelyn Seaver -- daughter, female, white, age 7, single, born Massachusetts, father born Massachusetts, mother born Connecticut, 
attended school since Sept. 1909 
*  Stanley R. Seaver -- son, male, white, age 4, single, born Massachusetts, father born Massachusetts, mother born Connecticut
*  Ruth W. Seaver -- daughter, female, white, age 2, single, born Massachusetts, father born Massachusetts, mother born Connecticut
*  Marion E. Coleman - servant, female, white, age 18, single, born Massachusetts, father born Massachusetts, mother born Massachusetts, can speak English, a servant, works for private family, an employee, not out of work on 15 April 1910, no weeks out of work in 1909, able to read and write English, did not attend school since Sept 1909.
*  James H. Richmond - brother-in-law, male, white, age 23, single, born Connecticut, father born English, mother born Connecticut, speaks English, a comb-maker, works in a comb shop, an employee, not out of work on 15 April 1910, out of work 24 weeks in 1909, able to read and write.


The source citation for the census image is:

1910 United States Federal Census, Worcester County, Massachusetts, population schedule, Fitchburg; Enumeration District 1745, Sheet No. 6B, dwelling #82, family #125, Fred W. Seaver household; online image, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com); citing National Archives Microfilm Publication T624, Roll 608.

I consider the 1910 U.S. Census records to be an "Original Source" (because this "family snapshot" in April 1910 is in its first written form); as "Secondary Information" (since we don't know who provided the information - although it was probably Bessie Seaver), and as "Indirect Evidence" for most of the information (the exception being the home address, the names of the children, the birthplaces, and Fred's occupation which were certainly known by the informant).  

I see no obvious errors in this census record (based on what I know about these persons from other records, including birth and marriage records).

The surprise for me is the presence of a servant, Marion Coleman, age 18.  When this enumeration was made on 19 April 1910, Stanley R. Seaver had scarlet fever, and died five days later on 24 April 1910.  Did Marion start working just before the enumeration, or was she a long-term employee?  I don't know.  I wonder if Marion was a family friend or a neighbor, or a young lady out on her own.

If I did not know that Bessie Seaver was a Richmond, there is an obvious clue to her maiden name here because Fred's brother-in-law, James H. Richmond, is residing with them.  He is probably working for Fred in the same comb shop.  


Copyright (c) 2012, Randall J. Seaver

2 comments:

Sharon said...

I just love the way we family historians create questions from a few lines of data...you echo my delight, surprise, and/or confusion when a name new to us appears as servant/lodger/boarder...I admit to wanting to stop right there and look into that person's history;)

Dave Lynch said...

I'm not so sure I agree with your characterization of the evidence from the census. I agree that the image is considered an "original" as it isn't a derivative. I can somewhat agree that most of the information is secondary, although it is a primary source for addresses and maybe names. The other data is likely secondary but both because the reporter may not have been a witness, but also due to the time elapsed form the event for births etc. Each fact needs to be considered separately.

Where we do differ is that I consider the evidence to be direct in that it gives actual specific information answering questions. Right or wrong, if it says that the birthplace is in Massachusetts, then that's what it says. DOB may be indirect (have to calculate from age) while age is direct (usually). Indirect evidence is when you must make the argument, not when a document states something.