My Great-Grandmother - age 6 along with baby brother
listed as Bastard Grandchildren in the 1880 Federal Census
This word cut through the hearts of many. It shamed families and mostly hurt children and left scars for a couple of generations.
 |
I have copied and pasted the information I found on the Census, which I had never encountered before in my years of research. Though it doesn't matter to me, it reflects a time when such details were important enough to be recorded, not anticipating that future generations would have access to such sensitive information. So why was this on the 1880 Federal Census? .png) I discovered that the 1880 Federal Census of the United States was only the fourth U.S. census to include detailed information about the country’s inhabitants (until 1850 only basic information about head of household and number of inhabitants was collected). One of the pieces of information new to this census year was data about illness and disability. I guess illegitimacy was considered a disability? Columns were added next to people's names that included headings to record if a person was blind, deaf and dumb, insane, idiotic, maimed, crippled, bedridden, or otherwise disabled. To expand on this information and provide details about other groups, such as homeless children and paupers, a supplement to the census was added called the 1880 Schedules of Defective, Dependent, and Delinquent classes (also known as DDD). The information included in these schedules can tell you some very interesting things about your ancestors. I do feel sad for my 2nd Great Grandmother, who was subjected to invasive personal questions. "What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger," and they were strong back then. |
Wow, this is the first time I have seen such a notation on a census as well. I wonder if a neighbor was the informant, rather than a family member, and passed on their bad attitude to the census taker. Your great-grandmother and her brother look so wonderful in the photo. So unfortunate they had to put up with being labeled.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen anything like that since.
DeleteVery interesting and, I have baptismal and wedding certificates on my mom's family and there were a few that were recognized as a "bastard". I'm glad things have changed
ReplyDeleteWow. I haven't found that yet - I'm always looking for the unusual.
DeleteHi Debby - your posts are so interesting and indepth. Read both A and B. Now waiting to see what you share with C.
ReplyDeletearpitamisra.blogspot.com
I'm glad you are enjoying it.
DeleteI'm always uncomfortable judging history, because so many things have change and what is the norm in one time may be considered terrible in another. So I will just say, the concept of disabilty has certainly evolved a whole lot in what is after all a very short time.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Times were different, and that is just how things were.
DeletePeople back then would've been absolutely scandalized had they known it would someday be socially acceptable and commonplace for couples to live together and have multiple kids without being married! The pendulum always swings from one extreme to the other.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad I won't have to piece together the family histories of today—who belongs to whom, etc.
DeleteOh, my goodness, that is so sad that people had to be burdened with that label, it was such a stigma in those days. It would never be allowed in our politically correct society now.
ReplyDeleteI haven't come across that either, so far anyway. For sure trying to figure out who is who is hard enough when you're on the scene these days, much less in the future. Hopefully someone is making notes.
ReplyDeleteWow! Just wow! Children shamed like that is just painful.
ReplyDeleteAre we not all a little Defective, Dependent and Delinquent - still, we wouldn't want to be labelled as such...
ReplyDeleteThey certainly were rough back then. The saddest part is the child had no control over the circumstances of their birth but paid the price. regardless.
ReplyDeleteI have a distant relative (no blood relation) who posted a supposed reproduction of the testimony of where one of my second great grandfather's divorced my second great grandmother with a tale of her promiscuity. When this relative contacted me when I first went on Ancestry. My thought was oh. I kept looking for the father of my great grandmother and I found it was this great grandfather. She was not the bastard this relative said she was. She was just the youngest of five.
Ironically, the DNA says that none of the second wife's children were his. He did have brothers and sisters and they are linked by DNA to me. I would tell this distant relative but as my grandmother said, If you see a pile of dog poop, walk by and don't stir it up. Actually this persons messages are down right creepy. His/her name is shrouded and I don't know if it is a man or woman.