Double Enumeration of the 1870 Census in Philadelphia

As I was creating my Pennsylvania locality guide in preparation for accreditation, I learned that in 1870 the federal census was enumerated twice in both Philadelphia and New York City.  Wikipedia gives the following reason:

Although Francis Walker, the Superintendent of the 1870 Census, defended the quality of the census, arguing that standardized, clear, and statistical approaches and practices were carried out across all regions of the United States, the public at the time was disappointed in the national growth rate and suspected underenumeration. With especially bitter complaints coming from New York and Philadelphia claiming up to a third of the population was not counted, the President made the rare move to order a recount in those areas. While it was thought a large fraction of the population was not counted for being indoors in the wintry cold, newer estimates resulted in only a 2.5% increase in Philadelphia’s population and a 2% increase in New York’s.

The existence of a second enumeration had slipped my mind when I was researching the family of Lewis Childs of Philadelphia last week. I found Lewis on the first 1870 census (enumerated on 20 July) with wife Josie, children Washington and Henry, and mother-in-law Sophia. A few minutes later, I found another family of Lewis Childs on the second enumeration (taken on 29 November) with wife Josie and only one son, Washington. I was confused about the similarities between the families until I remembered the double enumeration of the 1870 Census in Philadelphia.

A closer look at both census records confirmed that the families in question were indeed the same family – they were both located in Philadelphia Ward 21, and many of the neighbors were the same. Interestingly enough, son Henry is not listed in the second enumeration, which is a clue that he may have died between July when the first census was enumerated and the end of November when the second one was enumerated, even though the census instructions clearly stated that the family members who were living as of 1 June should be listed. I had already suspected Henry died as a child and it looks like my hypothesis may be correct. I’m looking forward to continued research on this family.

What discoveries have you made with the double enumeration of 1870?

2 Responses

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *