Things changed in 1850. Everyone was counted by name, address, age, sex, color (white, black or mulatto) if they were deaf and dumb, blind, insane or idiotic, the value of the real estate they owned, their occupation, place of birth, if they were married that year, attending school that year, unable to read or write if they were over 20, and if they were either a pauper or convict.
The same questions were asked in 1860 and 1870. In 1870 Chinese and Indian were finally allowed to be counted. Also counted was citizenship for males over 21.
In 1880 everything changed. The census was divided into five parts: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Social Statistics. The process took 7 years to complete.
The 1890 census changed many things. It was also destroyed by fire in 1921. The following questions were asked including name, address, gender, age, marital status, married within the year, number of families in house, number of persons in house, whether a soldier, sailor or marine (Union or Confederate) during Civil War, or widow of such person, relationship to head of family, race, described as white, black, mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, Chinese, Japanese, or Indian, mother of how many children, and number now living, place of birth of person, and their father and mother, if foreign born, number of years in US, whether naturalized, whether papers have been taken out.
Also asked were profession, months unemployed during census year, ability to read and write, ability to speak English, and, if unable, language or dialect spoken, whether suffering from acute or chronic disease, with name of disease and length of time afflicted.
Was the person defective in mind, sight, hearing or speech, or whether crippled, maimed or deformed, with name of defect, whether a prisoner, convict, homeless child, or pauper, home rented, or owned by head or member of family, and, if owned, whether free from mortgage, if farmer, whether farm is rented, or owned by head or member of family; if owned, whether free from mortgage; if rented, post office box of owner.
In 1900 the process was simplified to name, address, relationship to head of family, sex, race, age, marital status, number of years married, number of children born to women, immigration, months not employed, education, ability to speak English, if on a farm, and did they rent or own their home.
Basically the same questions were asked in 1910 and 1920, along if naturalized, mother tongue of person and parents, year of immigration, blind, deaf or dumb, and if they were a survivor of the Union or Confederate Armies.
Article comments
1 - Dr Dreadful
This was my first experience of being censified by the US, and I must say it did get a little ridiculous. I mean, there was the notice we all got telling us we were about to get a census form, then the actual census form, then a notice telling us they'd recently sent us a census form, then a letter about the notice about the recent census form... phew.
Maybe they're just trying to make it easier to do a census of trees.
2 - SJ Reidhead
I just think the whole process has been over-blown, hyped, and turned into something absurd. About six weeks ago census forms for certain areas were literally dumped on rural post offices throughout the country. The postmaster was then assigned the task of locating the person, etc. where the forms belonged, even if the "resident" used a different post office.
The process has become insane.
SJR
3 - Dr Dreadful
About 25 years ago I worked on a local history project which involved indexing census returns for an area of south London from 1801 to 1881 (the latest data available at the time: under UK law, census returns are kept confidential for 100 years). This was before the days of powerful, searchable computer databases, so everything had to be handwritten onto index cards and filed carefully in drawers.
As in the US, the UK takes a national census every 10 years. 1801 was the first, and was simply a count of the number of people in a given town or village. By 1881 the survey had become much more detailed and there was a wealth of information available for historical and genealogical researchers. It was fascinating to see the movement of people, the make-up of communities and the growth of London's suburbs, and the changes in the kind of data which the government felt it important to collect over the decades.
Unlike in the US (I think), the British census is treated more like a 'snapshot' of the nation. You are required to report exactly who is in your household on a given night (April 15th, IIRC) - regardless of whether they actually live there or are just visiting. Which can be a bit misleading, but it does give a more reliable indication of population.
Regardless of the country, collecting a census is a daunting project, and because they're usually taken only every ten years nobody really knows what they're doing - hence the farcical nature of some attempts at data collection!
I'm not sure, though, how much information does need to be collected. If it's for the stated purposes, it seems to me that a market research company could do a better job of collecting some of that data.
4 - roger nowosielski
Not to mention, Dreadful, the entire computer program especially designed for 2010 Census was riddled with errors and had to be scrapped.
I'm not really surprised why people clamor about the inefficiency of government projects and the resulting waste. One has got to look no further than this.
5 - Baronius
I haven't run across any anti-Census things, other than complaints about the race questions.
6 - SJ Reidhead
What is so crazy is they've always asked versions of the race question.
About 10 years ago I was working on my DAR papers. I needed a second proof linking my grandfather Reidhead to his parents. Fortunately the time frame had additional state and county census. I went through the 1900 and 1910 census - he was never at home! He was always visiting with his cousins. I found a local census, finally with the specific "proof" I needed since we did not have a birth certificate!
It was great, and tells me something about him as a kid, always out visiting, probably annoying his parents the way my sister did ours and my niece does.
I feel sorry for people who don't understand the treasure of information a census can deliver.
SJR
7 - Jamison
1) they spent money on sending out a letter a week before it arrived telling me it would arrive in a week. 2) They spent money on a mailout the week after I got it reminding me to send it in. 3) they spend loads of cash making mediocre TV ads I guess trying to increase the PR of "getting your fair share", and 4) They still mail it out when we posses internet technology. Please try and convince me the government doesn't waste our tax dollars. It will fall on very calloused and grizzled ears.
8 - roger nowosielski
Waste is not the word. Pissing away is more like it.
9 - SJ Reidhead
That's the whole point. Both sides are making fools of themselves.
The whole thing is the way money has been flushed. Does anyone in the Obama Administration understand the idea that one is not to spend every cent?
SJR
10 - Arch Conservative
The census is Obama's ticket to a second term.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Yeah, Arch! Great comment! Stick with it, and tell all your conservative buddies to NOT fill out the census! Remember, the census is nothing but a vast left-wing conspiracy, so any REAL conservative should do the patriotic thing and NOT fill it out!
Dave? Clavos? Christine? et al?
Unfortunately, most BC conservatives are smart enough to know how important the census is to all Americans, and that by not filling out the census, they're really just shooting themselves in the foot. But maybe, just maybe, with help from people like Michelle Bachmann and those who think like her, a lot fewer conservatives will resist filling out the census, and as a result, a lot more federal funds will flow to the blue states instead of the red states, thereby correcting the longstanding disparity where red states receive more federal funding than the taxes they pay in while the blue states pay more federal taxes than the federal government allots back to them.
Go Arch-con Go Arch-con GO! I'm right behind you all the way! Don't fill out the census, and tell all your conservative friends, too! We've got your back! Really we do! Honest!
12 - Joanne Huspek
Hmm... A few things...
I worked for the Census in 1980, and it wasn't hyped to the max back then.
The post cards, cards, actual form and TV and billboard spots are over the top. Waste of money.
While I'm leaning libertarian, I filled out the form. I get it. However, in this modern age, do we really need a recounting by snail mail and census takers? Doesn't the government already know, via other means such as IRS, SS, state rolls, etc? This overproduction of the same information funneled through different departments is a waste of taxpayer funds. Which is why I politely declined a Department of Labor monthly census after filling out the form (manually, there was no quick way of doing it) for two years. They can get the same info off our payroll tax statement.
I was surprised that ACORN didn't do the Census this year. They obviously bloated the voting pool in 2008.
13 - Glenn Contrarian
Joanne -
You lean libertarian? And you might not fill out the census? That's good! Be sure to tell your conservative friends to follow your example!
14 - David
I agree the census is important. My concern is when it may be used for gerrymandering. That's why I don't believe we should give more info other than necessary.
I also am very annoyed by all the money that is being spent on advertising for it. We don't have the money!!!
15 - Glenn Contrarian
In the big picture, the money we spend on the census is truly chump change, a pittance indeed when compared to its importance.
16 - Charlie
You know, when you really think about it, the mailings are not that expensive, and the census is important. While most people have internet, not everyone does, which is why it needs to be snail mail and not email.
17 - Vijai
Perhaps I'm missing something here.
There is a question that begins all the race-related questions:
Is this person Hispanic or Latino.
The answers:
Yes, Hispanic or Latino
No, Not Hispanic or Latino
Then it asks you for the race (White, Black, Asian, etc).
I wonder why such a question about Hispanics/Latinos to begin with. Couldn't it be simply included in the normal race question?
On the question of whether I own or rent a home, I couldn't care less- I doubt anyone else should either.
18 - none of their damn business
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution only specifies that the people be counted. That's all that's Constitutionally mandated, nothing more. Regardless of whether other questions were historically asked is totally irrelevant. Tradition isn't law and shouldn't carry the weight of law. How is it any of the government's business or your business when I go to work in the morning, how many 1-ton capacity vehicles I own, how much money I make, or anything else besides the number of people living in my house? It isn't your business. The reason the census exists is to apportion Congress according to the population; not to find out any other information whatsoever from the household. And, if you do some research, you'll find that you're not required by law to answer those questions either; you're only required (Title 18, USC I think) to answer how many people live in your household.
In short: It's none of their damn business.
19 - Scott Deitche
Funny how none of this whining, complaining, and out-and-out ignorance of the history of census all came into play during any other presidency. Just an observation.
20 - EJ
It did, but not to the extent that it has this year. It has gotten steadily worse each time we have the census. The census workers tell people that they're required to answer the questions. While that's true, they're only required by law to answer certain questions- the number of people living in the houshold. Don't believe me? Go look it up for yourself.