United States Census, 1860 - FamilySearch Historical Records/Known Issues

From FamilySearch Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Note[edit | edit source]

NOTE: To determine which digital records are likely to be found within a collection or to find missing images, see, How do I use the catalog to learn more about the collections in Historical Records?.

NOTE: To view films, see Where do I find a family history center?.

Known Issues[edit | edit source]

Question 1[edit | edit source]

Question 1: Some records are missing. Where can the records be viewed?
Answer 1: See answers below for information about known missing records and respective film numbers, if available, or alternate online location:

  • Walker County, Alabama records are not indexed. You can view the 1860 Census images for Walker County, AL online at Internet Archive, which also provides the images of the 1860 Walker County slave schedules
  • Blount County, Tennessee records for Pages 135-139 for the 16th District were not indexed and not available on Fold3. View the 1860 Census images for Blount County, TN online at Internet Archive

Question 2[edit | edit source]

Question 2: Various errors occur with family groups listed in the record detail pages. How can I locate the correct family members?
Answer 2: If a family group begins on the bottom of a census page, and continues at the top of the next census page, the family members are generally not grouped together. Search for the head of the household as a spouse or parent to yield search results for the remaining family group.
In other cases, family members were just not indexed as a family group. Assemble family groups by viewing the images online or ordering the microfilm.

Question 3[edit | edit source]

Question 3: There are two versions of abbreviations for the state name Indiana for Daviess County.
Answer 3: The enumerator for Daviess County, Indiana, very frequently used two abbreviations for the state of Indiana—Ind and India—with no periods. The indexers transcribed these same abbreviations when they were used, which was most of the time, especial India. So the original records were misleading, and the indexes of these records have accurately transcribed the errors.