Relinking Family Tree Maker 3
Frustration strikes again with the linkage between Family Tree Maker 3 for Mac and my tree on Ancestry. I’m not sure how it happened but my Family Tree Maker (FTM) file for the Darling-Huber tree said it wasn’t linked to Ancestry, but when I went to Ancestry, it indicated that it was linked with Family Tree Maker and gave me the file name it was linked in. The same one that said it wasn’t linked. My on-line tree has many people I’m sharing with and my FTM has underlying source links and media that I don’t want to lose connections to.
I called Ancestry and spoke to their support. No help. They told me to break the tree, then go to FTM, start a new tree, and then download from Ancestry. Basically, revert to Ancestry’s version of my data. I have done that in the past and found that my sources were generally all messed up and that most of the media I had with my sources seemed to be lost. Then I happened upon a new idea.
I decided to go ahead and break the tree on Ancestry. Then in FTM, create a new tree by importing from Ancestry. After that task was complete, I merged my old FTM file into the new one. After completion there were a few duplicated individuals and a few duplicated sources but, all the connections appear to be correct. That’s okay. I’d rather have duplicates that I can select the best source from than have missing source information.David Sweazy [Sr.] & the 1820 Census
The 1920 Census is always problematic because only the head of the household is named. Others in the household are only given a range of ages, sex, and status. There is also identification of what sector of the economy the individual was engaged in.
 |
| 1820 Census Entry for David Sweazy – Image via Ancestry.Com. |
I find it important to analyze the census information and associate all that I can determine.
For example:
|
Census Item
|
Value
|
|
|
WM* Ages to 10
|
2
|
1 Presumed to be William Marsh who was age 6.
1 Presumed to be Daniel S who was 9 or 10.
|
|
WM ages 16 to 26
|
1
|
Presumed to be Evan who was 17 or 18.
David Jr. is enumerated elsewhere in the Census.
|
|
WM ages 26 to 45
|
3
|
All three are unknown individuals.
|
|
WM 45 & Up
|
1
|
Oldest male presumed to be David Sweazy age 58
|
|
WF** 10 to 16
|
3
|
1 Presumed to be Edith, age 12 or 13.
1 presumed to be Elizabeth, age 15 or 16.
1 Possibly Sarah who would be 19 or 20.
|
|
WF 45 & Up
|
1
|
Presumed to be wife Alice, age 51
|
In addition, an entry indicates that four people were engaged in Agriculture and one was engaged in Manufacture.
First, I believe there is enough detail to assure that I have the correct David Swazey/Swayze.
Then I take the information that is there and derive the following facts
For David, William, Daniel, Evan, Edith Elizabeth, and Alice I would add the following:
Name – I’d add Sweazy as an alternate surname for all.
Birth – In the Notes section, I’d add, “1820 Census is consistent.
For David – Census – Date: 7 Aug 1820 | Place: Richland, Fairfield, Ohio: Living with 10 others in household, He was engaged in either Agriculture or Manufacture.
For Sarah, – Birth – in the Notes section, I’d add “1820 Census is NOT Consistent” Sarah may have been 10 to 16 in 1820 Census or may be numerated elsewhere.
In the notes for the 1820 Census Source Citation I’d add: Neighbors: Love, Bailey, McBride, & Young
For Alice and any of the children, I might or might not add:
Lived 7 Aug 1820 – Richland, Fairfield, Ohio – Presumed to be living with (father) David Swayze.
I think that fairly well covers the things that we know from the Census. I would love to hear in the comments anyone who thinks I missed a fact or I added a “fact” not in evidence.
David Sweazy [Jr.] & the 1820 Census
Using the same process for David Sweazy (Jr.) I find
 |
| 1820 Census entry for David Sweazy [Jr.] from Ancestry.Com |
The same process for
|
Census Item
|
Value
|
|
|
WM* Ages to 10
|
1
|
Unknown male – b. 1810-1820
|
|
WM ages 16 to 26
|
1
|
Presumed to be David [Jr.] Age 24
|
|
WM ages 26 to 45
|
1
|
Unknown Male born b. 1775-1794
|
|
WF** to 10
|
1
|
Presumed to be Elizabeth, age 2
|
|
WF 26 to 45
|
1
|
Presumed to be Catherine, Age 25-26
|
|
WF 45 & Up
|
1
|
Unknown female – b. bef 1775
|
* WM = White Males | **WF = White FemalesIn addition, an entry indicates that two people were engaged in Agriculture.
This Census is a bit more concerning because a daughter, Emily Ann Swayze is not accounted for. If she was born on 21 Jan 1820 she should be enumerated here but isn’t. Also, there are two other adults who are unknown. We know that David’s parents were enumerated elsewhere, so, these two adults could possibly be Katherine’s parents, James & Margaret. Everything else seems to fit so I’m going to accept this entry as being that of David Swayze/Sweezey
Facts Found
For David, Elizabeth, and Catherine I would add the following:
Name – I’d add Sweazy as an alternate surname for all.
Birth – In the Notes section, I’d add, “1820 Census is consistent.
For David – Census – Date: 7 Aug 1820 | Place: Richland, Fairfield, Ohio: Living with five others in household, He was engaged in Agriculture.
For Emily – Birth Notes – 1820 Census NOT Consistent – Not enumerated. May have been born after 7 Aug 1820.
For Emily – Under Tasks – Analyze birth information regarding Emily. Could she have been born after 7 Aug 1820?
In the notes for the 1820 Census Source Citation I’d add: Neighbors: Noble(?), Williams, Marguhart, & Martin
In my research notes for Catherine’s parents, James & Margaret Walker, I’d add
the following note:“Conjecture: May have lived with daughter Catherine during 1820 Census. “
And under my tasks for them, add a task to search for James Walker in the 1820 Census.
Again, I would love to hear in the comments below if anyone thinks I missed a fact or I added a “fact” not in evidence.
Endnotes
—–
[i] “United States Census, 1820,” Database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHLS-J2K : accessed 16 June 2015), David Sweazy, Richland, Fairfield, Ohio; citing p. 191, NARA microfilm publication M33, (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll 87; FHL microfilm 181,393.
Discover more from Don Taylor Genealogy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.