Census Sunday - The Kuhn, Risch, Scherrer Neighborhood in 1880 and 1900

On the street where I grew up in the 1950s and 60s there were five families that were related: sisters, brothers, parents, cousins, grandparents and so forth.  In fact, my aunt and uncle lived down the street from us and others lived within a mile or two.  This close proximity of sibling families seemed very normal.  So, why was I surprised to find it in 1880 or 1900?  I guess I wasn’t really so surprised, just happy to find more potential stories. 

When I began researching the censuses of my great grandparents, Charles and Mary Kuhn, I came across a broad family togetherness tale. It came about as I was training myself to be thorough I guess.  One learns from those who are really good at family research to always study the neighbors in a census, not to stop when you find the family you first went after.  I’ve been told to pay attention to people who might be connected in some way that are living nearby.  This is one of those illustrations of the wisdom of that lesson.  So anyway, what’s the big deal here?!  It turns out to be a family story extravaganza, a part of which I’ll tell here today.  This particular research brings so many possibilities for family history stories, I can’t mention them all!    

The beginning of this neighborhood fiesta is the 1880 census record of Charles and Mary Kuhn in Indianapolis, living at 101 High Street with their three month old son. They told the enumerator that Charles works at a brewery, he was born in Hessen, and both of his parents were also born there.  And that Mary was born in Indiana, her father in Baden and her mother in Bavaria. All of this information is super because it confirms the origins of the families and helps complete and document their history more strongly.  Of course, I took a while when I found the Kuhn family to just think about what all the information meant and to file it in my database. 

But then….I started looking further at the other names on the page.  Low and behold, I noticed the John and Wilhelmina Scherer (Scherrer) family living at 91 High Street.  Wilhelmina and John are documented through several other records as Charles’s sister and brother-in-law.  And a few more houses away, at 83 High Street, is the Joseph and Anna Maria Roesch (Risch) family.  The age of Joseph, his occupation and his parentage tie him in as Mary (Risch) Kuhn’s brother.  From her early life I know that she has a half-brother named Joseph.   So, this census puts these sisters and brothers a few houses apart in Indianapolis.  What a threefer!   Of course, these facts don’t stand alone as documentation of these relationships, but with additional facts they are building my evidence.  And how convenient to find them on the same page.  (You can see for yourself the many interesting tidbits by clicking on the 1900 census image above. Hold your cursor over the image for the line numbers. Enumeration district 129, City of Indianapolis, Page 21.)

As a side note to these revealing bits of family information provided by the 1880 census, there was one expected relationship that it did not contain.  It would have been so nice if Charles and Wilhelmina’s mother, Katherine Kuhn, was listed with Wilhelmina Scherrer’s family.  Other records indicate she lived with them in 1879 and 1883 through 1890, when she died.  So now, did they just forget to say she lived there?  Was she living with a different child that year?  Visiting someone?  I can’t find her in 1880 at all. This is a mystery that I would like to solve.  It sure would be nice to have that one dab of glue!

But, with or without Katherine, after finding these close family living situations in 1880, I was especially anxious to move along in the census searches to see if anyone moved or what else I could discover. (Of course, we wish for 1890, but that nasty fire burned most of that year’s records!) My 1900 Indianapolis census research reveals the High Street neighborhood with the Kuhn, Resch and Scherrer families still living in the same homes, with expanded families.  However, with the considerable increase in population in Indianapolis, this year the families are enumerated three pages apart.  And the street numbers have been changed as well.  It took a little more looking in the neighborhood to connect these dots in 1900. But they were all there for the finding. 

Charles and Mary Kuhn’s family, at 1050 High Street, now includes six children that were born in these twenty years. But the child who was a baby in 1880, is not listed.  Other records indicate that he passed away shortly after that census.  This is the first time I see my grandmother, Tillie Kuhn, listed as the daughter of Charles and Mary.  She is nine years old. The neighborhood must have been fun for her, with aunts, uncles and cousins close by. (See the 1900 census for the Kuhns on the right, lines 39-46.  Enumeration district 165, Center Township, Ward 13, Sheet 3A.)

Also in the 1900 census, three pages from the Kuhns, there were other family ordeals that came to light for the Scherrers and Resches. Wilhelmina Scherrer and Mary Resch are both listed as widows, John and Joseph having passed away. These two ladies are only in their mid 50s.  I presume they had to depend somewhat on the young-adult children as yet living with them for support. For instance, Mary Resch indicates she is the head of the household, with her daughter and son-in-law and five-year-old granddaughter living with her at 1013 High Street.  Her daughter’s husband is a teamster and there are no occupations listed for either of the ladies. Wilhelmina Scherrer also maintains a household with five of her children between the ages of 18 and 34, all of them employed, but not their mother. Their house number changed from 91 to 1023 High Street with the renumbering by the city planners.  (See the Scherrer (lines 59-64) and Resch (lines 72-74) families in the census on the left. Enumeration district 165, Center Township, Ward 13, Sheet 6B.)

I seem to find another detail or an idea for more research pops out of these pages each time I open them.  I’m thankful that the records are available, even if they weren’t intended for family historians’ use.  I’m going to always remember to look at the neighbors!

The High Street neighborhood stories of the Kuhn, Risch and Scherrer families are still emerging. I feel sure of that.  Some of them span more generations than these censuses I talked about here.  Some of them can only be imagined. 

Thank you for visiting our online neighborhood here at Indiana Ties.  Please stop by often.

Census Sunday - Joseph Niehaus Family in 1900

The 1900 census for the Joseph Niehaus family is rich with history.  This research find helped to bring the family’s image into a much sharper focus.  But first, when researching this census on ancestry.com I had to be patient and use a few tricks to find the record.  
This story is an example of how one tiny letter can result in losing a family, temporarily.  In this case, it appears that when the name was written on the census form an extra “n” was inserted.  The name recorded was Nienhaus.  That by itself might take some extra searches, or tedious reading of the pages of search results.  But secondly, the indexer transcribed this difficult handwriting with yet another wrinkle.  You can see why on the image below.  For this family, the ancestry.com indexer came up with Nienhams. 
Searching the 1900 census for this family on ancestry.com had a few challenges.  When I started with the correct spelling, Joseph Niehaus in Indianapolis appeared as my first result. Wow, that seemed easy! But a quick look told me that’s the wrong Joseph Niehaus, no children and much older.  (Don’t have any evidence of a family connection at this time.)
It takes some ingenuity to find the correct Niehaus family. Since I know the location is Indianapolis, I decided to try various other combinations for searching ancestry.  The one that worked was:  the wildcard search for the last name, Nie*, along with Joseph’s birthdate and “living in” Indianapolis.  With this search, the incorrectly-spelled Nienhams family does show up at the top of the results.
There’s really a tremendous amount of background to be learned about Joseph Niehaus and family thanks to the extent of questions in 1900.  A notable fact for  this Niehaus clan is that Joseph is a widower at 52 years of age. (Gertrude passed away in 1895.) Here we see that nine of their eleven children are living with their father at the family residence on South West Street.  Six of the children, from age 15 through 23, are working.  The four girls are employed in the cotton mills.  From additional research I believe the company is C. B. Cones & Son Manufacturing Co.  Many Niehaus and extended family were employed at C. B. Cones.  (Another story for another day.)
Also in this 1900 census I learned that they immigrated in 1887; and Joseph indicates he is naturalized.  These leads are still in the pending category as I try to find their passenger list and his naturalization records.  Whoever is the person in the family providing this census information also states that everyone in the family can read, write and speak English.  Of course, after 13 years in the United States this isn’t a surprise. But it makes me stop to think  about whether anyone in the family spoke English when they arrived.  My grandfather, John, is only ten years old.  I wonder if he spoke both English and German when this census was taken since his older sisters and brothers were born in Germany.

The census story also states that Joseph was a furniture filler.  This is a surprise since he is well known to be a weaver.  His loom was in the home on West Street.  The family story is that he was a weaver and merchant in Germany. This is the only time any other occupation comes up for Joseph. Perhaps this was a temporary job, or maybe another mistake.  Who knows?!
Lastly, I’ll mention the home where this Niehaus family of ten is enumerated, 1117 South West Street, Ward 15, Center Township, Indianapolis, Indiana.  Joseph has a mortgage on his home at this time.  I would presume that all the employed family members are helping to pay the expenses for their home. 
This home is still standing 113 years later.  The address has changed to 1135 South West Street.
Wow, if these walls could talk!  Maybe they would tell us about the 12th day of June, 1900, when the enumerator, William Gibbs, interviewed a representative of the Niehaus family in district 182 of Indianapolis, Indiana.   Wouldn’t that be fun!

Census Sunday - Adam and Amelia Weber: Two Times in 1870

I have learned so much from census records.  My research on Adam and Amelia Weber in 1870 is one example.  They were enumerated twice, four months apart, in the same Indianapolis location.  When I found these two records, I was a little confused. There were more questions the more I thought about why, when, how.  Learning the answers helped me to expand my bank of research knowledge.  Considering the census records alongside other research helped me to come to conclusions about the best family history.
Among my questions were: Are these actually the same family?  If so, why did someone repeat the census?  Was the second census for everyone? What parts of the differing information are correct?  If they are not the same Weber family, which one’s mine?
First I started searching the Internet for information on the 1870 census and an answer to why a family might have been counted twice. I learned that there were two legitimate enumerations in 1870. Here’s the explanation from the evidenceexplained.com website:  “The accuracy of the 1870 census was bitterly disputed by many jurisdictions who felt their population had been undercounted. Recounts were made in three cities: New York City, Philadelphia, and Indianapolis.” (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/census-instructions-1870)
So, it just so happens that the Webers were in a small group in the country that answered the census-takers questions a second time.  Great!  I have different recorded information for a family I believe is the same because of the location and similarities in the people.
After that, I went further to see what these censuses might tell me about Adam and Amelia (Micol) Weber’s family?  The family was inhabitants of the 15th subdivision of Indianapolis in February and of the sixth ward of Indianapolis in June.  This appears to be the same region with an alteration in the way the census districts were named. 
I’m posting the images of each of these censuses here that can be clicked for a closer look. And here’s a quick comparison of the specific family information that will point out the matches and the differences in the Feb and June versions:
Feb 13, 1870 Enumeration: Adam Weber, male, age 50; Emily Weber, female, age 37; Henry Weber, male, age 11; Emily Weber, female, age 9; Theodore Weber, female, age 7

June 6, 1870 Enumeration: Adam Weber, male, age 50; Mary Weber, female, age 36; Henry Weber,male,  age 11; Mary Weber, female, age 8; William Weber, male, age 6
Note that the mother and one daughter are named Emily in February and Mary in June.  In fact, their names are both Amelia. There are no other instances out of the many records for Adam Weber’s wife where her name is anything but Amelia.  But, the younger Amelia is named Marie in one other record.   This could be just a difference in how the person recording the census information heard the answers. Pronunciation of the name Amelia in 1870 with a German accent could very well sound like Emily or Mary.  Since they are in the same neighborhood in both censuses and I know from other research that they are inhabitants of this area of the city, I still believe this is the same family. 
Just wait, though.  The major difference in the family’s makeup in the two records is the youngest child.  The February, 1870, enumeration has a female, age 7, named Theodore.  And the later June record lists the youngest child as male, age 6, named William.   Further research confirms that the youngest child in this Weber family is actually Theodore, a male, who would have been age 5 in February and 6 in June. Although I don't have any idea how the name was mistaken, I can see the enumerator writing down the wrong sex one time and the parent giving a slightly differing age depending on how the question was asked.
After all is said and done, I’m glad that Adam and Amelia’s family were a part of both censuses in 1870.  This resulted in further digging and analyzing.  In this case, a combination of both records turns out to be the answer. Adding this information to other research led to what I feel is the most conclusive answer to the family makeup in June, 1870. 
Here’s that basic family picture:
Adam Weber, male, age 50; Amelia Weber, female, age 36; Henry Weber, male, age 11; Amelia Marie Weber, female, age 8; Theodore Weber, male, age 6.
This experience illuminated for me that it is a wise idea to carefully examine all the sources of family history that we rely upon if we want to be as accurate as possible.  By continuing to look at all of the records I thought might relate to this family, I found the second census.  Then, by answering the questions that arose, I learned more about the census system in general and this family in particular.  I would say that the most helpful lesson in this researching experience is that we should doubt, double check and analyze based on all the information we can gather.   
One excellent source for the  history and volumes of background about the census is online at http://www.census.gov/history/.  At this site one can find the questions asked on each census taken since 1790, along with the instructions and frequently asked questions.
Thanks for visiting our family website.  Family history is available in the links to the left or at the companion site, www.indianaties.net.  Leave your comments below or send me an email at nancyhurley1 at gmail dot com.  I'm always happy to hear from cousins with questions or suggestions for topics.
Happy family hunting!