Person talk:Levi Lincoln (4)

death date [9 June 2019]

I removed a death date of Aug 1850 along with source "U.S.Federal Census Mortality Schedules Index; Levi Lincoln; 1850; Orange Co., VT; age 76; month of death: Aug; state of Birth: CT. ID@197_193914."

Levi Lincoln is listed in the alive part of the 1850 census in Oct 1850 as cited on the Person page.

The only mortality schedule of 1850 listing for Levi Lincoln is for Place:Roessleville, Albany, New York, United States, and is undoubtedly a different person despite having the same birth year and state. No listing for Levi Lincoln in Vermont has been located, nor have any Vermont entries at all been found in the 1850 mortality schedule. Nor is a death record found in Vermont vital records, nor gravestone in Find a Grave. --Jrich 22:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Levi Lincoln

in the U.S., Federal Census Mortality Schedules Index, 1850-1880

Surname: Levi Lincoln Year: 1850 County: Orange CO. State: VT Age: 76 Gender: M (Male) Month of Death: Aug State of Birth: CT ID#: 197_193914 Occupation: NONE LISTED

This is the record I was using. It seems to fit Levi. I don't have an explanation as to why he was listed in the 1850 census in October, when this record would seem to indicate that he died in August of that year. Perhaps the indexer made a mistake when transcribing the month. This does seem to be a record that pertains to Levi ... his age matches, also the state of birth. I doubt there were two Levi Lincolns running around Orange County, Vermont, the same age, the same state of birth.

Is there anyway to access the original record cited above to check for transcription errors?--Davidpeirce 21:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Original data: Jackson, Ron V., Accelerated Indexing Systems, comp.. AIS Mortality Schedules Index. Compiled and digitized by Mr. Jackson and AIS from microfilmed schedules of the U.S. Federal Decennial Census, territorial/state censuses, and/or census substitutes.--Davidpeirce 21:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I just double checked the mortality schedules you were using on Family Search. These schedules do not include information from all of the states ... Vermont's mortality schedules are not included in the database you were searching.--Davidpeirce 21:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link to another source for the mortality schedules ... Levi is listed in the schedule for Chelsea, Orange County.

http://www.newhorizonsgenealogicalservices.com/mortality-schedules/1850-mortality-schedule-vt-orange.htm--Davidpeirce 21:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I have searched familysearch.org, internet.org, and heritagequest.com. This link suggests access to ancestry may be required. Which requires a visit to the library, which will take a few days. --Jrich 22:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I have access to Ancestry.com ... that was the source of my original citation. Ancestry doesn't have a searchable image. It only has an index, and the index Ancestry has exactly corresponds to last index I already cited, so please don't go out of your way to look at Ancestry, because I have already accessed their index of the mortality schedule. I haven't been able to find a source to examine an image of the original, unfortunately. There are two indexes for the mortality schedule that say that a Levi Lincoln died in Chelsea, Vermont, August 1850, at the age Levi would have been at death had he died then. I can't explain the discrepancy ... perhaps the indexer made a mistake in transcribing the month of death. I think the safest thing to do would be to say that he died before 1 January 1851, as he most certainly died sometime between when the census was taken and the end of that year. The other possibility ... perhaps the census taker started enumerating the town, and he did this over some time, recording Levi earlier than the date on the top of the census form would suggest. But I think it would be important to cite the mortality schedule, since Levi is most certainly listed on it.--Davidpeirce 23:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You're still off a year. The mortality schedule means he died Aug 1849. The year is implied, the form only asks for the month of death. "8. Under heading, entitled Month in which the person died, insert, in all cases the month when the death occurred opposite the name of the deceased. Should it happen that the date is not known, insert 'unknown'." This is a conflict with 1850 census that is not amenable to simple explanations. The mortality schedule was to records deaths in the year prior to the census ("listing inhabitants of the United States who died between June 1849 and May 1850", "included inquiries about persons who had died in the year immediately preceding the enumeration"), and the two records should be mutually exclusive. Neither one should have been filled out in 1851, and taken literally it says there were two Levi Lincolns. The Levi in 1850 was a pauper and possibly town records might show them reimbursing the people he was living with, which of course, would stop at some date showing about when he died. --Jrich 02:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It's puzzling, that's for certain. Two Levis with the same year of birth and the same place of birth, yet one dies August 1849 and the other lives in October 1850. By the way, the only recorded birth I could find in CT records was my Levi. No other birth records are available. And how strange that a town teaming with my Lincoln family had another Levi Lincoln, possibly not related, living in their midst. I'm sure there's an explanation, but we may never know. Given that he was poor, it's sad that his family didn't pitch in for a gravestone. There's a Lincoln cemetery in Chelsea that I've visited several times, and I took photos of all of the gravestones, so I know there wasn't one for him. Also odd that the town records would not have recorded this death, but I suppose if someone is a pauper, perhaps they didn't care? Also, the family genealogy that was published in 1893 mentions him, but only says "Levi, who did not marry." So much for the single people. He probably worked as a laborer all of his life, living with his siblings, and since it looks like all of his siblings died before he did, (we don't know about Elihu), he ran out of siblings and ended up in the poor house.

And so if there were two Levis, as you seem to be insisting, which one was which? And why insist that the one enumerated in the census is the one who was the son of Samuel and Phillis?

I think there was just one person, and the explanation of the conflicting records is yet to be solved, or may never be solved. Maybe whoever reported on the members of the poor house had a memory problem , they were all old, after all, and reported that Levi was living there, when actually he was dead? Or perhaps the man running the poor house still wanted to be paid for housing poor Levi. I'm joking now ... but seriously I doubt there were two Levi Lincolns living in the same town with the same birth year and same birth place. I've written to the historical society to get their reading of it and ask for their help.--Davidpeirce 02:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not insisting on anything. I think the most likely case is that one record is a mistake, and I would guess the death record, because one would think an actual body would be needed to generate the Oct 1850 census entry. But they could have included his name out of habit. Possibly it is another Lincoln who is misrecorded as Levi through similarity/confusion. Perhaps there is a math error in the age. I see no evidence he was married, but I have seen records of wife of xxx presented as xxx. I doubt the town reimbursed for paupers based on census contents, usually they had a person appointed to manage the poor, but some kind of fraud is possible, I suppose. All speculation. Evidence is needed. Unfortunately town records aren't online. Usually there is an item in town expenditures reimbursing caretakers for taking paupers into their house. Before they are paupers, there are often guardians appointed to keep them from squandering their estate, but I saw no entry in the guardian indices. So he may have been dependent on a relative and left with no support when that relative died, becoming a town paper. This might explain when he isn't found in any census prior to 1850, because he was never head of household. Or he could have become disabled and so a town pauper. Many, many possibilities. --Jrich 03:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree ... I think there was one person, and an error made ... and yes, hard to ignore a live person! I'm hoping that the local historian will help. I guess I'm crazy ... but sometimes I care more about the single people in my tree ... they are often forgotten, since they don't have children. I think that's probably my motivation ... I think all should be remembered in some way. Thanks for your help. I will let you know if I hear back from the historian.--Davidpeirce 03:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)