Establishment Level Data Coverage
The Census of Manufacturers data is rich and detailed, but it does not cover all manufacturing establishments in the United States. There are two main reasons for this:
-
500 dollar minimum threshold: 500 dollar minimum threshold: Only establishments producing at least $500 worth of goods were included, leaving out very small manufacturers including potential part-time manufacturers and things made at home. These smaller businesses were often included in the Agriculture Census as home manufacturing, but they are not included in these data.
-
Missing manuscripts: Some original manuscript records have been lost over time, particularly when the records were returned from Washington DC to the individual states. Additionally, for 1880, “special agent schedules” covering some industries were all lost.
As a result, aggregating these establishment-level records will differ from the tabulated county-level and county-industry level data. These data also differ due to tabulation errors and potential differences in processing and allocation to industries.
Comparison to County and County-Industry Data
At the time each census was completed, all manuscripts were gathered by the Census Bureau and tabulated at both the county level and the county-industry level. Comparing the data to the tabulations provides insight into the broad coverage of the data:
| State | 1850 | 1860 | 1870 | 1880 | State | 1850 | 1860 | 1870 | 1880 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | MO | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| AZ | - | - | 0% | 0% | MT | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | |
| AR | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NE | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| CA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NV | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | |
| CO | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | NH | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| CT | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NJ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| DE | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NM | - | 0% | 0% | ✓ | |
| DC | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NY | ✓ | ✓ | 82% | 99% | |
| FL | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | NC | ✓ | 84% | ✓ | ✓ | |
| GA | 0% | 0% | 0% | ✓ | ND & SD | - | - | 0% | 18% | |
| ID | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | OH | ✓ | 26% | 74% | 68% | |
| IL | ✓ | ✓ | 46% | ✓ | OR | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| IN | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | PA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| IA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | RI | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| KS | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | SC | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| KY | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | TN | ✓ | 30% | 35% | ✓ | |
| LA | 0% | 0% | 0% | ✓ | TX | ✓ | ✓ | 85% | ✓ | |
| ME | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | UT | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| MD | ✓ | ✓ | 0% | ✓ | VT | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| MA | ✓ | ✓ | 32% | ✓ | VA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| MI | ✓ | ✓ | 49% | ✓ | WA | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| MN | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | WV | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | |
| MS | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | WI | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
This table shows our coverage of counties. Percents indicate estimates of the share of establishments that we digitized, given the published county-level tabulations. In 1850, the Census records for three counties in California (Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) were lost and never tabulated, and we have complete coverage of the remaining counties in California. Dashes indicate that no survey was conducted, check marks indicate that we have complete coverage.