Colorado Censuses Existing and LostEdit This Page

From FamilySearch Wiki

Revision as of 16:04, 10 August 2011 by Joycebevans (Talk | contribs)

United States  >  Colorado  >  Census  >  Existing and Lost

Colorado: Existing and Lost Federal Census Schedules[1][2][3]
Exact Date Population Schedules Veterans/ Pensioners Slave Owners Mortality Agricultural Industrial/ Manufact- urers Defective Indian[4]
1940 Apr 1 Public release in 2012 - - - - - - -
1930 Apr 1 Exist - - - - - - -
1920 Jan 1 Exist - - - - - - -
1910 Apr 15 Exist - - - - - - Exist
1900 Jun 1 Exist - - - - - - Exist
1890 Jun 2 Lost Lost - - - - - -
1885 Jun 1 Federal Garfield Co. lost[5] - - Exist Exist Exist - -
1880 Jun 1 Exist - - Exist Exist Exist Exist -
1870 Jun 1 Exist - - Exist Exist Exist - -
1860 Jun 1 Exist as part of KS, NE, and NM Territories - See KS, NE, NM Territories  See KS, NE Territories  See KS, NE Territories  - -

Sources and Notes

  1. Anne Bruner Eales, and Robert M Kvasnicka, ed., Guide to Genealogical Research in the National Archives of the United States, 3d ed. (Washington, D.C.: NARA, 2000), 31-43.
  2. William Thorndale, and William Dollarhide, Map Guide to the U.S. Federal Censuses, 1790-1920 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1987), 51-59.
  3. William Dollarhide, The Census Book: A Genealogists Guide to Federal Census Facts, Schedules and Indexes (Bountiful, Utah: Heritage Quest, 1999), 103-104.
  4. Only for Indian schedules taken along with Federal population schedules.
  5. Thorndale and Dollarhide, 55, says Fremont and Garfield counties missing (from National Archives copy); Colorado State Archives copy includes Fremont, but lacks Garfield and 18 other counties.

FamilySearch Historical Record Collections

An online collection containing thie record in located in FamilySearch.org.

A wiki article describing this collection is found at:

Colorado 1885 State Census (FamilySearch Historical Records)


 

Need additional research help? Contact our research help specialists.

Need wiki, indexing, or website help? Contact our product teams.


Did you find this article helpful?

You're invited to explain your rating on the discussion page (you must be signed in).