1930 Census Confusion-KESSELMAN #general


Jackye Sullins <jsullins@...>
 

The more I do genealogy, the more twists and turns this journey takes. The
more work I do, it seems like I know less.

#1. Family lore (heard >from two sisters who were very sure) has it that
their father deserted the family and returned to Russia. He left his wife
a few years earlier and they were divorced. She struggled as a nurse's
aide to make ends meet. The sisters remember distinctly that he left on a
Sat. night shortly after one sister's 10th birthday. She said the date
was March 19, 1927. Well, I found the family right where I was told they
would be -in the Bronx and there was the father! Said he was naturalized
but I don't believe that and the occupation fits. The only thing I can
see wrong is the daughter is a year older in the census but that doesn't
bother me.

Question: Could the wife make it look like he still lived with them to
avoid embarrassment? Could she tell the census taker he still lived there?
Any other suggestions are welcome.

#2. The sister of the above KESSELMAN had twins on March 1, 1930 and I
have the listing >from the NY birth index to substantiate the date. They
are not listed in the census taken on April 5th.

What to do? What to do?

Jackye Sullins
San Diego


sallybru <sallybru@...>
 

1. Since the census-taker came during the day, usually, and wrote down
what the person said, it is possible that the wife gave the interviewer the
impression that the husband lived there. Of course, seeing the woman and
kids, he could have just asked the husband's information and she gave it.
Divorce was rare, and she didn't say she was a widow...

2. Are you sure that you are looking at the right address for the family
with twins? They might have moved with a new, larger family. People moved
often, but usually in the same area.

Sally Bruckheimer
Albany, NY


m leonards <m_leonards@...>
 

<<#2. The sister of the above KESSELMAN had twins on March 1, 1930 and I
have the listing >from the NY birth index to substantiate the date. They
are not listed in the census taken on April 5th.>>

Although the 1930 census was taken in April, it was supposed to reflect
matters as of January 1, 1930. Thus babies born that year should not be
on the census. And, people who'd died often are!

Monica Leonards
Glenside, PA


Joel Weintraub <jweintraub@...>
 

Although Monica's reply is correct, that people not in existence (not born
yet, died) at the time of the enumeration date should not show up on the
census population schedules, she is very incorrect as to that date for the
1930 Census. The enumeration date was April 1, 1930, not January 1st. The
actual enumeration in the U.S. started on April 2, 1930. The twins born in
March of 1930 should have been eumerated on the 1930 census. If they had
been born on April 2, then the enumerator was instructed not to count them.
Perhaps they were still in the hospital or similar institution and should
be looked for there on the Census.

Joel Weintraub, Dana Point, CA