Forums
I have run across several census records where no civil division or county subdivision (such as a town, township, district, etc.) was recorded. How should this be addressed in the citation? Does the way this should be handled vary based on the year?
For example, the entire 1850 Montgomery Co., NC census has no county subdivisions of any kind listed. There's a blank on each page for listing this very thing ("Free Inhabitants in ___________ in the County of..."). I feel like the citation should address this using something along the lines of ...
1850 U.S. census, Montgomery County, North Carolina, population schedule, no county subdivision, p. 145 (stamped), dwelling 617, family 619, James Cook household; digital image, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 25 April 2018); citing NARA microfilm publication M432, roll 637.
Does this seem correct? Is it necessary? Would it also be needed for earlier years where the absence of county subdivisions seems more frequent? I noticed that EE 6.19 and EE 6.23 both give examples of census records, 1790 and 1830 respectively, where there was no county subdivision (or district subdivision in the case of South Carolina in 1790). Both examples omit any mention of the absence of a subdivision, but in EE 6.24, the 1840 census citation example for Lowndes Co., AL includes the phrase "no township" where the county subdivision would normally be placed. I was just curious as to your thoughts on this and when it's needed and when it's not. Also, how would this apply to the shortened forms?
It's optional, jdchess, not
It's optional, jdchess, not necessary Some people prefer to make note of that. Some people see no reason. EE "gives you permission" to do it either way.