George E. Hattorf 1880 in New York

In einer eMail vom 10.02.2007 11:36:39 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
hannover-l-request@genealogy.net:

George E. Hattorf 1880 in New York

Hy Phyllis

Thank you for your mail. Thats really great so there is absolutely no chance
to see him in a census year. Well the question is, why is he NOT in the 1880
census. Did he move after the census was taken to the adress, then there is
theoretically a little chance to find him in another enumeration disctrict.
But i have tried all and everything i was searching for George born around
1845 and Jennie born around 1849 and i have been looking for two boys George
born 1877 and August born 1879 the 3rd child Frederick is born 1882 all 3 in
NY !

That is what i found in the 1900 census a certain George Hattorf born around
1847 but i have no absolute proof that he is George E. and Hattorf well this
is a prob i have found in the 1900 census a Henry Hattorff but he is no in 4
other censusyears they are Hittorfs. Thats why i need George ONE more time in
another census year.
Ok the names of the boys would be absolutely perfect cause the father of
George was Frederick August who had a brother named George and a father named
August, so the ring closes.

Ok looks the only chance is to turn around every page of the 1880 New York
Census Manhattan.

Have a fine weekend

Armin

Dear Armin,

The 1900 NY Federal Census with Hattorf Family…
George E. born 1847 - Born New York- salesman
Jennie? born 1849 - Germany - housewife - gives 1870 to U.S. /30 years in U.S…
George??/Henry??? (hard to read)- watchmaker - born 1877
August - plate printer -born 1879
Fredrich - Porter - born 1882
Gives name of street as WestThrid Street, Manhattan Boro, New York City, New York

Figured 1880 census Hattorf name corrupted....

Noted Siffert enumerated same district Hattorf.. so attemped to find them on 1880 census familysearch thinking your Hattorf nearby...well didn't find Hattorf but I think good page to start might be...

  Census Place New York, New York (Manhattan), New York, City-Greater, New York
  Family History Library Film 1254876
  NA Film Number T9-0876
  Page Number 41D
  Henry and Catherine Siffert, ages 28 (1880)

These are same individuals found on 1900 Census page of George Hattorf..

Here is what is strange...

Tried to find Jennie..just searching by name of Jennie and birth year of 1849 at familysearch online 1880 census data...

Weird thing here...

Jennie Van Brunt?? Born 1849
  Census Place New York, New York (Manhattan), New York City-Greater, New York
  Family History Library Film 1254894
  NA Film Number T9-0894
Page Number 200A

But could not find the Van Brunt searching HQ 1880 census..
But.. thought odd.. here is that Van Brunt name again...??

Barbie-Lew

In einer eMail vom 10.02.2007 11:36:39 Westeurop�ische Normalzeit schreibt
hannover-l-request@genealogy.net:

George E. Hattorf 1880 in New York

Hy Phyllis

Thank you for your mail. Thats really great so there is absolutely no chance
to see him in a census year. Well the question is, why is he NOT in the 1880
census. Did he move after the census was taken to the adress, then there is
theoretically a little chance to find him in another enumeration disctrict.
But i have tried all and everything i was searching for George born around
1845 and Jennie born around 1849 and i have been looking for two boys George
born 1877 and August born 1879 the 3rd child Frederick is born 1882 all 3 in
NY !

That is what i found in the 1900 census a certain George Hattorf born around
1847 but i have no absolute proof that he is George E. and Hattorf well this
is a prob i have found in the 1900 census a Henry Hattorff but he is no in 4
other censusyears they are Hittorfs. Thats why i need George ONE more time in
  another census year.
Ok the names of the boys would be absolutely perfect cause the father of
George was Frederick August who had a brother named George and a father named
August, so the ring closes.

Ok looks the only chance is to turn around every page of the 1880 New York
Census Manhattan.

Have a fine weekend

Armin

Hello Again :slight_smile:

I don't know if my previous message made any sense...lol.

What I meant was... when I have no luck finding someone on the census that should be there... my next step is search for nearby neighbor that was listed on the last census my people were listed and normally that helps me to find the family.

Does that make sense?

I couldn't find Henry Pieper on the 1910 census..but I could on the 1920 census ... so I then searched for nearby neighbors..and low and behold there was my Henry.. somehow he was skipped in search index..but was where he should have been.

Barbie-Lew

Dear Armin,

The 1900 NY Federal Census with Hattorf Family…
George E. born 1847 - Born New York- salesman
Jennie? born 1849 - Germany - housewife - gives 1870 to U.S. /30 years in U.S…
George??/Henry??? (hard to read)- watchmaker - born 1877
August - plate printer -born 1879
Fredrich - Porter - born 1882
Gives name of street as WestThrid Street, Manhattan Boro, New York City, New York

Figured 1880 census Hattorf name corrupted....

Noted Siffert enumerated same district Hattorf.. so attemped to find them on 1880 census familysearch thinking your Hattorf nearby...well didn't find Hattorf but I think good page to start might be...

  Census Place New York, New York (Manhattan), New York, City-Greater, New York
  Family History Library Film 1254876
  NA Film Number T9-0876
  Page Number 41D
  Henry and Catherine Siffert, ages 28 (1880)

These are same individuals found on 1900 Census page of George Hattorf..

Here is what is strange...

Tried to find Jennie..just searching by name of Jennie and birth year of 1849 at familysearch online 1880 census data...

Weird thing here...

Jennie Van Brunt?? Born 1849
  Census Place New York, New York (Manhattan), New York City-Greater, New York
  Family History Library Film 1254894
  NA Film Number T9-0894
Page Number 200A

But could not find the Van Brunt searching HQ 1880 census..
But.. thought odd.. here is that Van Brunt name again...??

Barbie-Lew

In einer eMail vom 10.02.2007 11:36:39 Westeurop�ische Normalzeit schreibt
hannover-l-request@genealogy.net:

George E. Hattorf 1880 in New York

Hy Phyllis

Thank you for your mail. Thats really great so there is absolutely no chance
to see him in a census year. Well the question is, why is he NOT in the 1880
census. Did he move after the census was taken to the adress, then there is
theoretically a little chance to find him in another enumeration disctrict.
But i have tried all and everything i was searching for George born around
1845 and Jennie born around 1849 and i have been looking for two boys George
born 1877 and August born 1879 the 3rd child Frederick is born 1882 all 3 in
NY !

That is what i found in the 1900 census a certain George Hattorf born around
1847 but i have no absolute proof that he is George E. and Hattorf well this
is a prob i have found in the 1900 census a Henry Hattorff but he is no in 4
other censusyears they are Hittorfs. Thats why i need George ONE more time in
  another census year.
Ok the names of the boys would be absolutely perfect cause the father of
George was Frederick August who had a brother named George and a father named
August, so the ring closes.

Ok looks the only chance is to turn around every page of the 1880 New York
Census Manhattan.

Have a fine weekend

Armin

Armin stop that sniffling and wipe those tears from your eyes! You're beginning to remind me of someone else I know - me! :frowning:

Armin writes:

i found some new Hattorff i never knew before, what shows me that the tree is indeed incomplete.

Have you not learned yet that the acorns rarely fall far from the tree? Those little "nuts" rolling around eventually sprout arms and legs and soon become human.

And who is in the list: Fourtheenth assembly district, 8 election district, 362 enumeration. 3RD Avenue House Number 115 George E. Hattorf and in another apartement Elisha van Brunt.

Well at least you found him in one source! Does the age line up suitably? If so you are making SOME progress at least. You probably should attempt to access the CITY DIRECTORIES for NYC [Manhattan] for that period. They may spell out more (sometimes a lot more).

Looks like another family is living in his apartement. And now i cant find him in the index. Is he one of those forgotten people, so will i ever see him and his wife and the name of his children ??? This is not fair really not fair i am so sad now.

Forget the fairness factor. Nothing else in life is, so why should this be an exception?!

The only chance seems to be to find him in the 1885 New York Census, but this one is of course not only so i will need a researcher in New York.

As Phyllis pointed out with that handy referral page, there is no NY state census to fill the void unfortunately. State censuses are often difficult to go through anyway, as few have been indexed so far (whether it be for NY or elsewhere). Big cities therefore present LARGE searches. Your next best options : additional voter registers and the NYC city directories.

Rena writes:

In the UK we have to register every year to be on the voters list. If this is true for the USA then we know he was in NY 1879 at least.

The key thing here is not the stated YEAR of the voter registration, but the actual date in which the voter applicant registered for it. This could be as early as a year or two before, or even longer if "carry-overs" were allowed (I have seen such things lots of times, in addition to spurious [improper] registrations later disqualified).

Armin:

And he is not in 1860, 1870, 1880 always on a Europe trip. I think he is so hard misspelled that noone can find him or he was moving around in New York, so he was just leaving as the enumerator came or ???

So many possibilities indeed. To name a few of the most obvious: he was out of town at the time of the enumeration (on a business trip, or visiting friends or relatives); he moved out of the area recently (perhaps only temporarily); he was simply missed by the census taker (either due to sloppy procedures, or the house/farm was remote enough that it was overlooked - sometimes purposely by "fast freddy" enumerators); he (the occupant(s)) was avoiding the census taker BY DESIGN (for reasons now unknown); he was enumerated but is now "missing" because of a misspelling in the index. The possibilities go on from there, but in the end we really have to consider ourselves LUCKY that so many do show up as they are 'supposed to', both in the original pages and the later compiled indexes, as there are so many ways they might not make them.

A US-Citizen? Perhaps Candada? Why not? Some of the Hattorf family have been going to Canada.

Not a common occurrence, but these things did occur sometimes. Some folks did relocate to Canada from the US in the 19th century (I've seen it before), but much more commonly to other US cities or states. Remember, people looking for new opportunities could move great distances only to return to their earlier/original towns or cities years later.

As for heading back to Germany, another possibility, but it goes without saying that most who did this were those who could afford to. That means maybe 5-7% of the immigrant population at best back then (not much different for the American populace in general either), and of that percentage not many would have, as most would have needed more compelling reasons since "vacations across the seas" were not regular occurrences in those days. Some exceptions did occur with those of lesser means, and some of the better off did take such excursions, only it was by no means commonplace prior to the 20th century for most.

Well the question is, why is he NOT in the 1880 census [?].

Answered up above. The next best thing to look for when one runs into these deficits, that is after trying all census search avenues, is alternative records to fill the gaps. Would be so much handier if you were in NYC naturally. :wink: Or act on a few of Phyllis's "end-around" suggestions.

I have tried it hundred times easily and Jennie and George junior and August nothing at all.

This is a point I allude to regularly: there is rarely gain without some pain! You have to get used to it in these kinds of pursuits. So repeat after me: DAY BY DAY AND IN EVERY WAY IT'S GETTING BETTER AND BETTER! Now go grab a beer or martini and toast your success so far.

Same procedure with his 3 boys in 1910, 1920 and 1930 this is not normal.

Normal? NORMAL! Piecing together all these scraps and tidbits from the past is not normal, our own ancestors would be the first to tell us. They do not owe us any sympathy or lending hand when it comes to making our efforts any the easier. In fact I can hear their voices chiming in unison: YOU ALL HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS! NOW PLEASE, GET BACK TO WORK!! Call it our blessings indeed.

The only thing i can still do is 1880 Census New York, Greater New York and then turning around each and every page ....

Sometimes this is the only way. And even here, after all the work, there is no guarantee of success. Only a small taste of pain-for-gain. You might want to have your wife grab the scissors and trimmers, as she may need to tidy up your growing beard while you're at it. Nothing like spending an entire day or more scratching and clawing your way through the census pages like a depraved animal while your brain sings "la la la la la" only to discover you are no further at midnight that your were at 8AM :: not a thing found! Ah only infinitely wiser for it. Plonk! Sleep well my son, the discovery may come to you yet in your dreams. lol

Barbie's suggestion to search by looking for associative neighbors and/or relatives is one of those smart tricks that often pays off, though it requires extra work. Fortunately this approach is more accessible than ever today with computer searching, as opposed to the days when you brought along toothpicks for your eyelids to keep them propped during those excruciating sessions of plowing thru microfilmed pages ad nauseum. I can still vividly recall days where my eyes and brain went into dream-like states from the effort. LOL.

Many newer to this sport have no idea how far we have come with our tools and online implements today, or what it was like just 20-25 years ago going through things like the census records manually in the days before indexes were commonplace (and YES, that WAS after hiking uphill for hours through hail and blizzards, barefoot and hungry throughout! grrrr).

Keep chipping away my friend. You know it wouldn't be as much fun if there weren't some heady challenges lining the way, and if those "black holes" didn't keep drawing us back into what seems like dark voids. If I had a dollar for every "if only" or "why oh why" or "nothing yet!" or "how can THAT be?", I'd be on extended leave right now with Karl on Kauai, sipping an oversized Mai Tai as the rest of you grind and peck away. Only once the suntan faded and the fun was over, I'd be right back where it all began, looking through those dusty ledgers and often fuzzy films and asking "How can THAT be!??"

Jb

PS. Re Haste, Kreis Schaumburg, the locale does not look well covered in the online FHLC, but Schaumburg-Lippe (+ Grafschaft Schaumburg) are. Go here and click PLACE SEARCH button:
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/FHLC/frameset_fhlc.asp
Type in 'Schaumburg' in the place box (ignore the optional box) and look around. Keep your eyes open for VIEW FILM NOTES in upper right corners as you proceed, as they spell out additional info. Much of this will be a mix of both English and German.

JB, why do you e-mails have a paperclip just like when you get a att.
I just picked out one of your e-mails but the paperclip continue in all your
e-mails also those from Cactus Flower. What is going on. I know that I
am not that expericanced with computers but this does not seem right.
Greetings, Anna Marie

Oh no, you're on to us Anna Marie! Ok I confess, Barbie and I have been implanting zombie bots on unsuspecting list machines for nefarious purposes. It's all part of an Amway SPAM ring, a pyramid scheme to quick riches. I told you it wouldn't work Barbie!! Ahhhhhhhhhhh! :frowning:

No actually, this is a fairly common occurrence. False attachment tags are sometimes generated based on settings between certain e-mail clients and anti-virus programs running in the background. This is caused by the way your email client sees the anti-virus Email Certification stating the email has been scanned.

Curious: Are you running say AVG + OE?

In a nutshell, you need to turn off (disable) e-mail scanning if you are using an Anti-Virus agent (e.g. like AVG 7 or above) with say Outlook Express. Will this compromise your PC security? Not at all, as you will still be covered by the main part of the program. I'll provide a link here that explains why you don't need e-mail scanning as such. It's from Norton, but it applies to ALL anti-virus programs:

http://snipurl.com/bmf6

A bit more for anyone curious:

Though the industry standard states that it should show the certification as part of the e-mail body at the bottom of the e-mail, not all e-mail clients do it that way. Some will, some won't. So you can either live with this or turn it off. To use AVG Anti-virus as an example of what to change, since it comes up in that A-V program a lot:

- Open AVG CONTROL CENTER
- Right-click E-Mail Scanner > Properties > Plugins tab
- Click Configure button
- Uncheck 'Certify mail'

-or-

- Open AVG CONTROL CENTER
- Control Center > Email Scanner> Configure
- Put a check in: 'With attachments only'

Many folks think "certify" means to check the e-mail for viruses. All it means in reality is "add a message to the e-mail saying that it was checked for viruses". The default configuration of the AVG Email Scanner, for example, is to check and certify both incoming and outgoing mail. For some odd reason, the certification then appears as an attachment even though it appears at the bottom of the email body as it should. So either configure the Email Scanner to check - but not certify - your e-mails, =OR= disable e-mail scanning all together since it often causes other problems too!

One other thing: If you have elected to read all e-mails as plain text in your email client (program), then any messages you receive that have been formatted as HTML will have the HTML content included as an attachment also.

Hope this helps. Jb

PS. Now leave Barbie and me alone on our next "project". :wink:

O.K. JB, You had your laugh, it makes sense, what scanner I have I
don't know my son-in-law set it up, but that's o.k. I will just ignore the
paperclip now that I know what it is, so get back to your serious
genealogical work. p.s. hope the weather in calif. is better than here.
greetings from Holland, Anna Mairie