|
Post by markland on Apr 10, 2006 8:02:33 GMT -6
I became curious as to whether the inhabitants of military posts were enumerated during a census. So, I took a look at the 1870 census for Wyoming Territory and Kansas (Ellis, Ellsworth & Ford counties) and discovered that the forts and their inhabitants are enumerated. As a matter of fact, on the Kansas-Ellis county roll, the very first name is DeRudio's as they enumerated a "camp of the 7th cav." who were living in tents. This was near Ft. Hays. Ft. Hays is next where I spotted Reno & Benteen. You know, I didn't even notice if Reno's wife was there or not. Kate L. Benteen, aged 26, was there as well as Fred Jr. and their Danish housekeeper. A near irony...the enumeration of the 7th at Ft. Hays took place on June 24, 1870. At Ft. Harker, I spotted Nelson A. Miles, aged 30 with his family and a large portion of his regiment. Unfortunately, the Kansas State census of 1865 did not enumerate anyone at Ft. Riley but the next time I go over, I will check other forts. I also will check other US census returns for different years to see if the enumeration at the forts was a constant. All in all, a pretty nice snapshot of history. Best of wishes, Billy P.S. This was originally buried in another thread but I felt that the information could help someone doing either historical or genealogical research, not only on the 7th , but for members of other regiments.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 10, 2006 8:13:51 GMT -6
More information regarding the 1880 census. That is on-line as a searchable database from the LDS web site: www.familysearch.orgThe direct link to the census search page (you select which census you want) is: tinyurl.com/25pqDoing that, I find Capt. & Brevet Colonel Frederick Benteen at Ft. Mead on the 1880 census. Best of wishes, Billy
|
|
|
Post by ephriam on Apr 10, 2006 23:36:15 GMT -6
Census records are an important source of information about the frontier army. Nearly all army garrisons appear in the 1870 census, which provides our best look at the full garrison. The most complete listing of laundresses, for example, appears in this census, a group that regular army records are otherwise virtually silent. In addition, the 1870 census gives an excellent perspective on the literacy rate among the enlisted soldiers during the period, information not recorded in the Register of Enlistments. All of the census records, from 1790 through 1930 have been indexed and are accessible through several online genealogy sites such as ancestry.com.
And if you think the federal census records are helpful for researching the army, you should see the Office of Indian Affairs census records for the various agencies. Many of the agencies on the Great Sioux Reservation have some modest coverage beginning with the Army assuming control in the fall of 1876 following the death of Custer. At the Standing Rock Agency, we can track every Hunkpapa, Blackfeet and Yanktonai family from January 1877 forward, with at least one census annually and in some years more often. In September 1881, shortly after the arrival of Sitting Bull at Standing Rock, a census was conducted recording not only the names of heads of families, but also wives, children and other family members. They even asked how many buffalo and deer they had killed during the past year! Starting in 1886, all reservations were required to conduct and submit an annual census.
Census records are an important research tool and certainly deserve more attention!
|
|
|
Post by YellowRose on Apr 20, 2006 15:58:20 GMT -6
Greetings Markland and Ephriam
Thanks for the census updates.
Ephriam, I agree that census records deserve more attention. Are the Indian census records to which you refer online?
Markland: I am always happy when I see your name on a post as I know that I will soon get a mini-history lesson. Your attention to detail inspires me. That's a good thing for me as I learn more about this hypnotic subject. Speaking of (as you say) "a pretty nice snapshot of history," I wanted to note the following that I found in my research of federal census records:
June 20,1860: West Point (Orange County) New York: GAC listed as a 20 year old cadet along with others in his class
1870: (actual date is illegible) GAC/Lifbbie are counted in the Monroe county census
Jan 9,1920:Manhattan, New York. Libbie is listed as Head of HH, renting her apt. and is self employed as a "writer of general topics." She lists a boarder (a teacher), a nurse, and a student residing with her. District 1091.
April 11, 1930: Manhattan, New York. Libbie is listed as Head of HH, owning the apartment valued (acc to census)at $18,200. Residing with her are two servants. No occupation listed. District 31-275.
Markland, she confused her birthplace in 1930 and said "New York" - forgivable for a gracious little lady of 88, don't you agree?
To me, all of the above are "snapshots of history."
|
|
|
Post by markland on Apr 21, 2006 5:34:02 GMT -6
YellowRose...love the name by the way, as a matter of fact I must get my Chief Dan George quote from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" back out to honor it...when it comes to primary source research and attention to detail, no one surpasses Ephriam, Dietmar, GAC, Graham and a couple of others who I sadly have to neglect due to foggy brain cells. To put it in modern vernacular, they are the Jedi Knights.
Me? I am just an interested amateur with access to interesting information who hopes to continually learn from the above mentioned masters.
Best of wishes from a Jedi wannnabe,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by ephriam on Apr 22, 2006 7:15:34 GMT -6
Yellow Rose:
Unfortunately, the Indian census records are not online anywhere yet. The 1886 and later annual reservation census records are microfilmed and are available through the National Archives, without indexes. (I am working on a master index of the Great Sioux Reservation census, including Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Standing Rock, Cheyenne River, Crow Creek and Lower Brule). A few older census records are scattered among the correspondence received by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for each of these agencies, but requires considerable digging to find them.
And in the agency records at the regional archives in Kansas City, there are some additional census records for each of the agencies, some are duplicate examples of the above annual census records as well as some earlier examples found no where else. The regional archives is a treasure trove of material! Most of these have not been microfilmed; some have been recently microfilmed by the South Dakota Historical Society and are available via interlibrary loan.
To give you an example, here is the entry for Sitting Bull in the fall of 1881, shortly after surrendering and being transferred to the Standing Rock Agency (Sitting Bull Surrender Census):
Tatonka iyontanke Sitting Bull 43 Tasina topa win Her Four Blankets wife 26 Oyate win yakepi Nation That Sees Her sis in law 30 Tasunke ot win Her Plenty Horses dau. 17 Wanyag meni pi win Saw Her as They Go By dau. 14 Wanekoksin One Who Takes Part With Others son 13 He to Blue Mountain son 11 Kangi siha Crow Feet son 7 Tetansiyanhe win The Appearance of Her Tepee dau. 5 Wakan yannajin win The Woman That Appears Mysteriously dau 4 Awan ye stan pi The One They Shoot at With Arrows son 3 Unyan napapi Rejection son 3
Hope this helps!
ephriam
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 24, 2006 11:44:53 GMT -6
How accurate were the counts and did the Indians try to conceal their numbers to get more food and supplies by overstating the number of people.
|
|
|
Post by YellowRose on Apr 28, 2006 23:25:48 GMT -6
Billy and Ephraim: I have been remiss in thanking you for your responses. I have been buried in "remodel hell" for my family room. Bill Gates could not afford to pay me to scrape wallpaper again!
Billy: Thanks for coming over from the Dark Side! I am looking forward to the Chief Dan George quotation re/YellowRose.
Ephraim: Now here is where I show my pitiful lack of knowledge regarding Native American (NA) names. In my small amount of reading in this area, I remember that NA would sometimes change their names throughout their lives. If that is so, how would you account for this in the Indian census records?
Also, in the area of NA names, could you recommend further reading for me in this area?
Thanks in advance to both of you.
Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by ephriam on Apr 29, 2006 7:45:54 GMT -6
Good morning:
Crazy Horse: The accuracy of the agency census records vary considerably. All of the records prior to 1876-77 are inaccurate, with the numbers inflated sometimes by an order of three or four. During the Great Sioux War, accurate counts were conducted at most of the agencies. Because the military had the manpower and ability to force compliance, bands were divided up and seperated so that the counts could be done accurately, to avoid individuals from moving to other families or camps and being counted more than once.
After the agencies were returned to the control of the Office of Indian Affairs, many of them returned to loose counts and the numbers inflated again. This is most visible in the records for the Oglala at the Red Cloud/Pine Ridge agency. In a few cases, most notably at Standing Rock, the agents maintained the strict census, issuing to individuals instead of band leaders, and the counts appear to have remained accurate. Beginning in 1886, an annual census was conducted at each agency, not only with the head of family listed, but every member of the family. From that point forward, you find the tightening control on the daily lives of these people, monitoring everything from births, to marriages to deaths. Anyone who resisted this intense oversight risked having their rations withheld, thereby forced into compliance. For this reason, the records from 1886 forward appear to be very accurate.
ephriam
|
|
|
Post by ephriam on Apr 29, 2006 8:21:15 GMT -6
Yellow Rose:
Regarding Indian names, you are correct: they can and often did change over time. In addition, an individual might have several names at any one time: a formal name, a nickname, and a ceremonial name known only to a few. And of course, these names were in their own native language and were sometimes translated (or mistranslated) in a variety of ways by different interpreters. All of these variations can make matching up people in the Indian census records a bit of a challenge.
To accomplish this, I compare each annual census against the next one. In the basement of my house along the blank walls of a long hallway (which fortunately my wife rarely ventures!) I have hundreds of sheets of paper with families printed out for each year, lines drawn to the same family and individuals for the next year, and so on, from 1877 through 1910. If the husband and wife lived past 1900, the federal census for that year asks them how long they were married. This allows for us to account for any name changes that might have occurred with the wife. For the children, I generally just use the ages to track them year by year through sometimes two or three name changes in their adolscent years. These also get matched up against marriage and death records, if they have survived for that agency. I know -- I probably should find a new hobby!
Anyway, this variation in names decreases over time. The Office of Indian Affairs put considerable pressure on Lakota culture to limit the amount of name changing, particularly for the head of household, to make tracking families easier for the agency staff. As the allotment period began (dividing the reservations into plots of land and deeding them to individual Indians), there was pressure to not only keep the names the same but also to move to the personal name/surname format that Americans use. So Short Bull became Grant Short Bull; his son Runs Away became known as Charlie Short Bull, and so on. In 1890, the Office of Indian Affairs published instructions for all Indian agents and superintedents of Indian schools on how to alter the native culture regarding names. John Wesley Powell, Director of the USGS and the National Anthropological Archives wrote (April 4, 1890) that this new naming process was important "not only in its relation to the inheritance of property, but also because it will enable much more accurate census enumerations to be made in the future, and because it will tend strongly toward the breaking up of the Indian tribal system which is perpetuated and ever kept in mind by the Indian's own system of names."
If you would like to learn more about how names changed traditionally, I would recommend for the Lakota Royal Hassrick's book, The Sioux: Life and Customs of a Warrior Society. This is an excellent general overview of the culture and includes a section on names. For the Cheyenne, I would recommend George B. Grinnell, The Cheyenne Indians, a two volume review of various aspects of the culture. Both of these are very readable. There is also more technical material in the anthropology literature, such as the work of John H. Moore on Cheyenne names.
ephriam
|
|
|
Post by maaloxmya19 on May 24, 2006 18:24:35 GMT -6
Re: Census: It is an argument of the "Let's reconsider Western Culture as Evil" crowd, that all Indian Censuses were understated. [glow=red,2,300]Tracing families in successive documents[/glow] may give us a REAL confirmation - - one way or the other ! ! ! Please say more (e.g., Peruvian Parish records confounded the Great Dobyns Thesis -- that the Spanish killed off the Indians with Diseases -- you see: Dobyns listed Diseases that took out HUGE chunks of Population -- and treated each as A PERMANENT REDUCTION -- ie 3 Plagues in 150 years (simplifying): mean: half of half of half, or one-8th, left alive). Parish records show population would recover up to the capacity of the Land to feed, then the now- malnourished Multitude would be devastated (often by half), then recover again, etc. But there are also REAL Declines: e.g. the Arikara/ Mandan/ Hidatsa group, tied to village life, DID decline, OVER a factor of 10, -- but that was mostly Inter-Indian Warfare, the city life of the Mississippian Culture losing ground ever since the 1250's (also, the Sioux got Smallpox Vaccine through the Hudson Bay Company, more Southern tribes, not). My city Library has some Photocopied counts. Maybe pre-LBH "sloppy records" encouraged some to take rations twice, but they had to give names and so could get caught, SMALL CHILDREN WERE NOT COUNTED FOR RATIONS yet most modern analysts reduce the numbers of Warriors, by assuming Very numerous small kids. ( e.g. the lbh-italian site, which has 447 Warriors out of 7,000+ Indians at LBH: ) - - PLUS the large numbers Sitting Bull persuaded NOT to take Handouts ... More importantly Gray & others have been taking the POST-LBH supervised counts as STILL inflated, because "real" censuses near 1900 showed fewer Sioux BUT that was AFTER much of the Land was distributed to individuals (who therefore ceased to be, to the Government, tribal members) (which gets into Prideful Questions about how many "deserted" the Tribe) well: how do we know ? In the Long Term this may be the MOST important research on LBH since the digging, because, after all, FOR DECADES AFTER LBH, _GRANT_ , NOT Custer was blamed for LBH because, not only was Custer overwhelmed by numbers but [glow=red,2,300]HE HAD PREDICTED IT[/glow] __Ordered to: "round up those 3-400 with Sitting Bull" ... after he [CUSTER] had testified to Congress that the shenanigans with the Sioux rations over the Winter would put EVERY YOUNG MAN in the Reservation out hunting Food (which accords with the Indian attitude at LBH, especially after the "summer wanderers" arrived ... Sioux were normally NOT eager to talk, or shy about fighting). Well, everyone in the USA who lived through that time, knew (then) that: ... if Custer was RIGHT in his testimony in Washington ... ... he might be OVERWHELMED in Battle. ... And then he was. Everyone IN THOSE DAYS, thought of URIAH THE HITTITE [in the Bible], [glow=red,2,300] sent to the Forefront of the fiercest Battle[/glow] by his own King [David]. - - to get rid of him. MOST Americans who lived through those times, ASSUMED Grant "arranged" for a hated Whistle-blower [GAC] to die. Put yourself in Custer's position: [glow=red,2,300]if he's NOT killed, his reputation is Toast! [/glow] Before the Battle, the USA was told there would be Either 300 - - - or 10,000, Indians to fight. Who was right? Grant (300) or Custer (10,000?) ? Today, I say: [glow=red,2,300] there is a lot in-between those extremes! [/glow] Sorry to be so wordy, but this is not a simple Pro/ANTI issue - - WHERE in that vast gulf is the real number? (& one of Crook's Officers estimated 20,000, remember. Sheridan told Mrs. Custer OVER 10,000, based on the width of the trail. PS Custer never gave a number, saying that 'if I was a Sioux, I'd be off the Reservation'. Many recorded him nodding assent to many different, larger than usual numbers & re-hired a Scout fired by Reno for saying 3,000. But I think Sheridan gave him a blistering talk about his Foot-in-Mouth disease).
... the records would be fine if we could trust them, ... OR trust them to be reliably TWICE what they say, ... OR 3, ... OR 10 times or ... some specific RATIO.
Especially bothersome to me is Sneering not just at the Pre-LBH, but at the "supervised" Post-LBH [Army] counts. I also speculate the suffering of Dependants in the Winter following LBH must have been awful, substantially cutting population BEFORE the recounts yet AFTER the battle. Just look at the "Trail of Tears" [Cherokee, etc.] Losses. As I said, primitive populations can HALVE under malnourished conditions (On the other hand many, likely most, families stayed on the Reservation save during the brief post-Occupation panic). ... In short everything I see is [glow=red,2,300]vague, insinuated, guessed[/glow] And very Partisan. Tracking the families would NOT BE.
Please Work on this, even if it takes Years. Best of Luck, "ephriam".
|
|