The 1940 census - Who will be in it?

Given that tomorrow is the "big day" (at least insofar as American genealogy is concerned), I thought I would consider who I will look for in the 1940 U.S. Federal census. Both my parents should be in it (single, as they married in 1943). So I'll be looking for Dad in Newark, New Jersey (this may be tough given the size of the city), and Mom in Newberry, South Carolina (much easier, as it was a small town and I know where she was living 10 years earlier). All 4 of my grandparents should be in it (Dad's parents in Newark, Mom's parents in Newberry), as well as both of my paternal great-grandmothers (probably both in Newark). After those essential 8 individuals, I can look for a large number of aunts and uncles and cousins. UPDATE: It looks like I'll want to be looking at ED 25-73 and ED 25-76 for Newark, as their border runs along Chambers Street, where a lot of my Smith ancestors lived.

The 1940 U.S. Federal census is almost here!

Bodie/Boddie marriages in Bienville Parish, Louisiana

Yesterday, I found a little time in the morning, just before our local society's board meeting, to do some research into the Bodie/Boddie family. The John F. Germany Library had recently obtained a copy of a number of new books, including many pertaining to Louisiana. Because a major branch of the Bodie/Boddie family ended up in Bienville Parish, I was glad to find that one of the new books was John C. Head's compilation "Bienville Parish Louisiana Marriage Records 1848-1900". It is the only Bienville Parish genealogy source in the library's collection.

The index to the book listed 11 individuals named "Bodie" or "Boddie", so I was able to copy those pages and then compare the marriage book entries to what I already had. In some cases, I lacked exact dates, or my dates were a few days off. This enabled me to provide a source (if only a secondary source, although I'm not likely to find myself in Bienville Parish anytime soon to obtain a copy of the primary source) for 10 marriages. The 11th entry is for a Bodie/Boddie who I don't already have in my files, so I'm not sure yet where they fit in. That particular one is for George HOLDER married to Eliza BODDIE, on 13 April 1871, and the original record can be found in Book B (1860-1872) on page 363.

A Holder website (http://home.earthlink.net/~bgholder/1880Texas2Wyoming.html) identifies this couple (and their children) as:

Geo. W. HOLDER - Precinct 2, Bell Co., TX - Head of House - Male b.<1850> Bienville Parish, LA
George William Holder b. 1/12/1849
s/o William Pryor Holder b. 1805 Warren Co., KY & Emily Elizabeth Jordan b. 1816 LA
Eliza HOLDER - Precinct 2, Bell Co., TX - Wife - Female b.<1855> SC
Eliza Boddie
Gilbert W. HOLDER - Precinct 2, Bell Co., TX - Son - Male b.<1873> LA
James D. HOLDER - Precinct 2, Bell Co., TX - Son - Male b.<1875> LA
Levi E. HOLDER - Precinct 2, Bell Co., TX - Son - Male b.<1877> TX
Pinkie HOLDER - Precinct 2, Bell Co., TX - Dau - Female b.<1879> TX

This information is most likely taken from the 1880 census (except for George's parents). I don't know yet who Eliza Boddie Holder's parents were.

Nathan Bodie, Sr. in 1840

According to John Bennett Boddie (on page 386 of his Seventeenth Century Isle of Wight County Virginia) , Nathan Boddie [sic], Jr. states in a petition that Nathan Boddie (Sr.) died 8 November 1841. If so, we should expect to find him in the 1840 census, at approximately the age of 66. However, he does not appear to be heading his own household. If he is in the household of one of his children, which one? Not that of Nathan Bodie, Jr. Which Bodie households appear in the 1840 Edgefield District census, other than that of Nathan Bodie, Jr.?

Felix Boddie
Elizah Boddy
Obidiah Boddy
Westly Boddy
John Bodie

The household of Westly Boddy has a male in his 70s and a male in his 40s, and Nathan Sr. had a son named John Wesley Bodie (the Bodie family had several males who became Methodist ministers) born in 1797. While the age of the older male is a bit old, it's not impossible for that to be John Wesley Bodie's household with his father Nathan Sr. in it. John Wesley Bodie would have been Nathan Sr.'s oldest surviving son in 1840.

What should John Wesley Bodie's 1840 household look like? In addition to a male in his 40s, it should have 4 (or possibly 5) sons: one 15-20, three 5-10, and possibly one less than 5. What does the "Westly Boddy" household actually have? one 15-20, two 10-15, one 5-10, and two less than 5. Close. It's possible that two sons born in 1832 could be listed as two years older. And another very young son could have died prior to 1850. Nathan Sr. also had a son, Michael Boddie, by his second wife, and Michael was born about 1829. Perhaps he's one of the males in the 10-15 group?

Let's now look at the females: We should see Laura Amanda Smith Bodie (John Wesley's wife) at the age of 38, but I'm not aware of any daughters. The census household shows a woman in her 40s, a woman in her 30s, and a female less than 5. Again, the daughter could have died prior to 1850. But who is the oldest woman? Could she be Nathan's second wife, or was she already dead by 1840?

It looks like it's going to be necessary to go forward in time with the John Wesley Bodie household to pin down some names and dates.

Nathan Bodie, Jr. in 1830

Let's look at what we should expect to find for Nathan Bodie, Jr. in 1830. We would expect to see at least 2 sons under the age of 5 (Jesse Pitts Bodie was born in 1826, and Andrew Jackson Boddie was born in 1828); Nathan himself at the age of 26; possibly no daughters; and Nathan's wife, Mary Edna "Edney" Eidson, who would be 24.

When we search the Edgefield District census for 1830, we find two households headed by a "Nathan Body". The head of the one listed between Isaac Crouch and William Whittle is in his 60s (too old to be Nathan Bodie, Jr., but the right age for Nathan Bodie, Sr.), but the head of the one listed next to W. Deloach is in his 20s. If we assume that this is Nathan Bodie, Jr.'s household, then we have:

3 males under 5
1 male 15-20
1 male 20-30 (Nathan Bodie, Jr.)
1 female 20-30 (Mary Edna Eidson Bodie)

The extra male under 5 may be a son who died prior to the 1840 census. The male born between about 1810 and 1815 may be a younger brother to Nathan or to Mary Edna. So far as I know, Nathan's only younger brother, Joseph Bodie, was born in 1808, so Joseph would be too old. Mary Edna may have had at least 4 younger brothers: William Wiley Eidson, born in 1809; Mahlon Eidson, born before 1819; James Russell Eidson, born in 1821; and Allen Eidson, born about 1832. So Mahlon remains a possibility. It will be necessary to find the household for Mary Edna's parents and some of her siblings to rule out Mahlon living with those other households.

Nathan Bodie, Jr. in 1840

The 1840 census for Edgefield County/District, SC shows a Nathan Boddie. The data for Nathan indicates:

Males under 5: 1
Males 5-10: 1
Males 10-15: 2
Males 30-40: 1
Females under 5: 1
Females 5-10: 2
Females 30-40: 1

How well does this match up with what is supposedly known about Nathan's family? Nathan was born in 1804, and his first wife, Mary Edna Eidson (Jane's mother) was supposedly born in 1806, so those match up with the 2 adults. Their children should be Jesse Pitts Bodie (born 1826), Andrew Jackson Bodie (born 1828), James Russell Bodie (born 1831), Mary Bodie (born 1832), Anne M. Bodie (born 1834), and Elizabeth J. Bodie (born 1836). Amanda Bodie was not born until 10 June 1840, and so should not be counted as the effective date of the 1840 census was June 1. So we have a perfect match except for the fact that there should be a son born sometime between 1835 and 1840. Yet no such son appears in the 1850 census. Unless there is evidence to contradict it, I'll have to assume that there was another son who died prior to 1850. His most likely birth year is 1838, as there is a 4-year gap between Elizabeth and Amanda.

Nathan Bodie, Jr. in 1870

In 1870, 66-year-old Nathan Bodie appears in the census in the Saluda section of Edgefield County, SC with his third wife, Nancy Warren, and three children: 19-year-old Virginia and 16-year-old Daniel (children of his second wife, Elizabeth Warren, who was Nancy's twin sister), and 12-year-old Elizabeth (his daughter by Nancy).

Jane Belle Bodie in 1850

Jane isn't hard to find in 1850. Although there are several different Jane Bodies located in Edgefield District in 1850, only one is of the right age. The family is split across 2 census pages. In the second page, Jane appears with her older sisters Susan, Amanda, Elizabeth, and Anne, as well as a younger half-sister, Virginia. On the previous page are head of household Nathaniel (47), Elizabeth (32), Russell (20), and Mary (18).

The focus now switches from Jane to her father, Nathan(iel).

Jane Belle Bodie in 1880

The gravestone says 1848. The 1900 census says 1852. When does the 1880 census say Jane was born? It gives her age as 32, which matches the gravestone.

Tomorrow, I'll follow the family back to 1870.

Jane Belle Bodie in 1900

Jane married her third husband, John C. Farmer, sometime after the death of her second husband (my great-grandfather) and prior to 1900. I was able to find the household in the 1900 census using my grandfather, George Martin, as the index term. Most things match, but there are some discrepancies. John Farmer and his wife Jane appear in the household with his step-children George Martin, Cora Martin, Jannie Bell Martin, and Hammitt Martin. I clearly remember my great-uncle Hammitt. Cora is the same as the Chicorah Lee Asbill who is buried next to Jane.

The discrepancies relate to Jane's age and the number of children. Jane's gravestone says that she was born in 1848, but the 1900 census indicates 1852. Vanity? Also, the census indicates that she has had a total of 7 children, with 5 still alive. She certainly had 5 living children from her second marriage to my great-grandfather, Edmund Manley Martin, and it's certainly possible that she lost 2 children at an early age for them (who would fit gaps in the calendar).

But the count should have included her children by her first husband, Wiley Long. Perhaps this situation is more complicated than it looks.