Summary of CARRICO Birthplaces Given in the U.S. Censuses

Table of Contents

Diana, Goddess of the Hunt — for Ancestors!

Every-Name Index

Summary of CARRICO Birthplaces As Given in the U.S. Censuses

Years of working on CARRICO have left me with some general impressions about the surname, but I decided it was time to replace some of these impressions with hard evidence. I've compiled this summary of CARRICO birthplaces from the U.S. Census beginning in 1850, the first census in which birthplace was recorded, and ending with 1930, the latest census released to the public (as of this writing).

The "impressions" to be tested are:

1) that the majority, if not all, early CARRICOs in the U.S. descend from the single immigrant, Peter CARRICO I, the 1674 immigrant to Maryland, for the simple reason that no other early CARRICO immigrant has been found. While not all have been connected to Peter on paper, DNA testing so far supports this view.
2) that the majority of early CARRICOs who left Maryland can be found in these regions:

in Kentucky (thence to Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri), primarily descendants of Peter II and possibly his brother, James, both sons of Peter I;

in northeastern Virginia (Fauquier, Prince William, Fairfax, and Culpeper Cos.) and west-central West Virginia (Tyler, Harrison, and Doddridge Cos.), presumed descendants of William CARRICO;

in northeastern West Virginia (Monongalia, Marion, Tucker, and especially, Preston Cos.), primarily descendants of Peter, whom most believe is Peter III, grandson of Peter I.;

in southwestern Virginia (several counties, but especially Grayson and Carroll), descendants of Abel I, son of Peter I;

3) that the orthography of the name suggests its origin is Portuguese, Spanish, or Italian.

I have divided the results of this search into two tables, one for foreign-born CARRICOs and one for native-born CARRICOs. The foreign-born table is finished, while the native-born table is not, but already one impression is supported by the fact that no foreign-born CARRICO (of that spelling) appears in any U.S. census prior to 1900, meaning all the ones in the 1850 through 1880 censuses descend from an early immigrant (or immigrants) who was (or were) deceased by the 1850 census.

Of the foreign-born ones found in the 20th-Century censuses, all were born in either Italy, Mexico (i.e., origin Spain), Portugal, or the Portuguese Azores Islands, supporting the suspected origins suggested by the name's spelling. In some cases, I'm splitting hairs as to what is and is not CARRICO, but the tables are heavily foot-noted to allow you to decide whether you want to accept someone as a CARRICO, or not, or check the record yourself, or not (if you have a different opinion or feel I've made an error, please don't hesitate to contact me). The most surprising thing about the foreign-born table, at least to me, is how very few CARRICOs immigrated to the U.S., at all.

The summary is limited by the fact that I searched the census indices at Ancestry.com on just two spellings: CARRICO and CARICO, with the addition of one small line of Kentucky CARRICOs known to have converted to CARRACO. The surname is less often misspelled by the enumerators than it is misread by the indexers, but the result is that many CARRICOs are missed by a search on just these names. One thing all of us with subscriptions to Ancestry.com can do to help remedy this situation is to take the time to add a correction to the index every single time we find a mis-indexed or mis-enumerated CARRICO — please!

The summary is flawed by the fact that wives of CARRICOs will be tallied as CARRICOs. In cases where a female has an unexpected birthplace, I have checked the census page itself and eliminated these wives and widows who were not "born" CARRICO. When I have more time, I will refine the tables by removing the wives (though not all, because quite a few CARRICOs married CARRICOs). As I find them, I will also add the CARRICOs who are currently mis-indexed.

Lastly, these tables are a "first draft" based on one run of (mind-numbingly tedious) searches in the census indices at Ancestry.com. Over time (like years), I will work on refining the data as it becomes more clear just who is or is not a CARRICO and as more mis-indexed CARRICOs are found. Still, I think the main points to be drawn can be made based on this preliminary compilation.

Legend

not CARRICO
by blood

desc/o Peter II
(and James I?)

desc/o
Abel I

desc/o
Thomas?

desc/o
William

desc/o
Peter (III?)

The CARRICOs in Massachusetts are said to be (and there's some evidence to support that they are) descendants of Thomas CARRICO of Virginia, whose parents are unknown. We need a descendant of the Massachusetts CARRICOs to be DNA tested!

Foreign-born CARRICO and CARICO in the U.S. Censuses
-

Birthplace	1850	1860	1870	1880	1890¹	1900	1910	1920²	1930³	Totals
Bohemia⁴								`0`		`0`
Canada⁵						`0`	`0`	`0`		`0`
Nova Scotia⁶								`0`		`0`
England⁷	`0`	`0`		`0`			`0`	`0`	`0`	`0`
Scotland⁸									`0`	`0`
Holland⁹									`0`	`0`
Germany¹⁰								`0`		`0`
Prussia¹¹			`0`					`0`		`0`
Poland¹²								`0`		`0`
Sweden¹³								`0`		`0`
Norway¹⁴								`0`		`0`
Ireland¹⁵	`0`						`0`	`0`		`0`
France¹⁶								`0`	`0`	`0`
Spain^17,18,19,20	`0`					`0`		`0`		`0`
Puerto Rico²¹								`0`	`0`	`0`
Philippines²²									`0`	`0`
Mexico^23,24,25,26						`0`	`0`	`1`	`0`	`1`
Italy^27,28,29,30						`16`	`25`	`7`	`2`	`50`
Portugal³¹						`0`	`0`	`0`	`2`	`2`
Azores³²							`0`	`0`	`1`	`1`
Totals	`0`	`0`	`0`	`0`		`16`	`25`	`8`	`5`	`54`

¹1890 Census: The entire 1890 census was lost.
²1920 Census: As a "help" to its users, Ancestry.com went back over the 1920 census adding alternate spellings to the existing index. Unfortunately, these added names are less accurate than the original index, vastly increasing the number of bogus hits, which is why you see so many zeros in the 1920 column and so many footnotes for 1920.
³1930 Census: Although the 1930 census has an every-name index, birthplace is indexed only for the head-of-household, not the spouse or children, hence we see a large drop in numbers for all locations in 1930 because most birthplaces are blank. These omitted birthplaces are something to keep in mind whenever searching in the 1930 census at Ancestry.com because including a birthplace in your search may cause you to not get a hit.
⁴Bohemia: In 1920, the woman indexed Carrico is a wife.
⁵Canada: In 1900, there's an individual who is indexed Carrico, but his surname looks more like Carrier to me. In 1910, the three Carrico's are wives. In 1920, the Carrico is a wife. In 1920 in ME, the couple born in Quebec and indexed Carrico and Carrier could be Carrico, Carrier, or Carries; however, the fact that they are in their 60s and he has been in the U.S. since 1879, without being detected as a Carrico, supports that, whichever he is, he is not Carrico. In 1920 in MA, the woman giving birthplace Canada and indexed both Carrier and Carrico is Carrier. In 1920 in ND, the husband born in Canada and indexed both Carrico and Carriere looks like Carriere. In 1930 in MA, the family born in Canada and indexed Carrico appears to be Cairns. In 1930 in OH, the nun indexed Carrico looks more like Carier.
⁶Nova Scotia: In 1920, one Carrico is a wife; the other is a mis-reading of U.S. for N.S. (and in any case is a step-child).
⁷England: In 1850 and 1860, the women indexed Carrico are wives. In 1880, the woman indexed Carico is a wife. In 1910, the woman indexed Carrico is a wife. In 1930 in New York, the man indexed Carrico is possibly Canrio, but not Carrico.
⁸Scotland: In 1930 in Detroit, the individual indexed Carrico is probably Cairnis, or something similar.
⁹Holland: In 1930 in Brooklyn, a woman indexed Carrico has an unreadable surname, but if I had to give a reading, I'd call it Cardaco.
¹⁰Germany: In 1920, the Carius couple indexed both Carius and Carrico is definitely Carius. In 1920, the female indexed Carrico is a wife.
¹¹Prussia: In 1870 in MN, there is a family indexed Carrico. The page image is blurry and hard to read at Ancestry.com, where it does indeed look like Carrico, but the page image at Genealogy.com is clear — and the surname clearly Carrier.
¹²Poland: In 1920 in NY, the individual indexed both Carrier and Carrico is Carries. In 1930 in Manhattan, a male named Enrico Coruco?/Coinco?/Corrico? gives birthplace "Polonia" (the Latin name for Poland). His given name is the Italian form of Henry and his wife is Italian, yet it says he speaks Polish and she speaks Italian. It's hard not to believe there is some enumerator error here; in any case, I doubt he is Carrico.
¹³Sweden: In 1920 in MD, the woman indexed Carrico is a wife.
¹⁴Norway: In 1920 in MT, the woman indexed Carrico is a wife. In 1920 in TX, the woman indexed Carrico is a wife.
¹⁵Ireland: In 1850, the individual indexed Carrico is actually a male of unknown surname living in a Carrico household. In 1910, the woman indexed Carrico is a wife. In 1910, the man in MT indexed Rever Carrico is Robert Crozier (the image at Ancestry.com is too blurry to read, but the one at Genealogy.com is readable). In 1920 in MN, a man born "at sea" (with parents born in Ireland) is indexed Benks and Carrico; looks to me like Brooks. In 1920 in OH, the woman indexed Carrico and Carroll does appear to be Carroll (in any case, she's a widow). In 1930 in Massachusetts, the couple indexed Carrico has a surname not entirely readable, but it's possibly Carricy; most importantly, the last letter has a long descender, so cannot possibly be Carrico.
¹⁶France: In 1920, there is a Carrica indexed Carrico. In 1920 in MA, the woman indexed both Carrico and Corrozio is Corrazio. In 1920 in WA, the woman indexed Carrico is a wife. In 1930, the individual indexed Carrico is Carrica.
¹⁷Spain 1850: In 1850, there is an individual indexed "Antonie Carrico" in New Orleans. I would read his surname as beginning "Carr" and possibly ending in "o," but uncertain in-between and with too many "bumps" to be Carrico. I searched for him in 1860, to get a better reading of his surname, but failed to find him. I did find an "Antoine Carriere" in New Orleans in 1840, who is the right age to be the man in 1850.
¹⁸Spain 1900: In CA, the individual indexed Carrico does not appear to be Carrico. The name is not entirely readable, but there's an extra bump between the second "r" and the "i." He's indexed Carruco at Genealogy.com, but the name is not entirely readable on their image, either, although it's sharper than the image at Ancestry.com. I'm convinced, however, that it doesn't end in "o." In New Orleans, there's a woman indexed Annie Carrico whose given name looks, to me, like Susie, and whose surname looks more like Canairs or Cansiro.
¹⁹Spain 1920: In CT, the individual indexed Carrasco and Carrico is Carrusco.
²⁰Spain 1930: In NV, the man indexed Carrico is Carrica.
²¹Puerto Rico: In 1920, all the individuals born in Puerto Rico and dual-indexed with one of the names, Carrico, turn out to be, if not the other name, then some other name (i.e., none are Carrico) — most are Carrión. In 1930, none of the individuals indexed Carrico appear to be Carrico; the ones that are legible look like Carrero.
²²Phillipines 1930: The man indexed Carrico looks more like Carriero, but I'll grant could be Carrico (compare "hook" on lower case "c" in names elsewhere on the page, a hook lacking in this name).
²³Mexico 1900: The family indexed, "Carrico," is "Carasco."
²⁴Mexico 1910: The family indexed both "Carrico" and "Carrieo" looks to me like, "Carrieo."
²⁵Mexico 1920: The individuals indexed both Carrarco and Carrico are Carrasco; the family indexed both Carrea and Carrico is more likely Carrea. The individual indexed Carrico and living on the Gila River Indian Reservation in AZ does appear to be either Carrico or Carrieo, though I cannot find him in 1910 or 1930, suggesting his name may not be correct in 1920 (he immigrated in 1901). In CA, the individual indexed both Carrico and Carosio is Carosio (so are his three family members born in CA). In CA, the couple indexed both Carmo and Carrico has surname beginning "Ca" and ending "o" with four bumps in-between. In CA, a couple is indexed both Carrillo and Carrico; the name has too many bumps to be Carrico, but the ascenders are too short to be Carrillo; it could be Carrices. In NM, a couple indexed both Carasco and Carrico is Carasco. In TX, the couple indexed both Carasco and Carrico is Carasco. In TX, the couple indexed both Carosco and Carrico is Carasco. In TX, the husband indexed both Carasco and Carrico is Carasco. In TX, the male teenager indexed both Carasco and Carrico is Carasco. In TX, the female teenager indexed both Carrico and Carrias is indecipherable, but looks like Carrias, Cassias, or Carries, not Carrico. In El Paso, the family indexed both Carrieo and Carrico could be Carrieo or Canico or Canieo; does not look like Carrico. In El Paso, the woman indexed both Carrico and Carrasco is Carrisco or Carusco (in any case, she's a widow).
²⁶Mexico 1930: In TX, a couple indexed Carrico might be Carreco of Carrsco, but isn't Carrico. In El Paso, the family indexed Carrico is Carrsco.
²⁷Italy 1900. In NY, a couple indexed Carrico looks more like Corriero to me (the name is not clearly readable). In RI, a lone male is indexed Carrico, but his name is not entirely readable. The rest born in Italy were either clearly or probably Carrico or Carico.
²⁸Italy 1910. In MA, the family indexed Carrico is Casarico. In NJ, a couple indexed Carico and Curico is Curico.
²⁹Italy 1920: In CO, the couple indexed both Cucco and Carrico has a surname that is unreadable, except that the first letter is a capital "C" and the last letter has a descender, so it is certainly neither Cucco nor Carrico. In CT, the couple indexed both Caruso and Carrico is Caruso. In CT, the couple indexed both Castico and Carrico is Castico. In CT, the couple indexed Carrico looks to me more like Caruco. In Chicago, the family indexed Carrico and Caruso looks to me like Caruso. In LA, the family indexed Caruso and Carrico is Caruso. In MA, the man indexed Carrico is Carulo, like the other two Carulo males in the household. In MI, the man indexed Farnico and Carrico is not entirely readable, but Farnico is certainly much closer than Carrico. In MI, the family indexed Camen and Carrico is Caruso. In St. Louis, the couple indexed Carrico and Caruso is Caruso. In MA, the couple indexed both Caruso and Carrico could be either, except the "i" is not dotted, so I'll go with Caruso. In NJ, two men, who are heads-of-household, plus an entire household are indexed both Caruso and Carrico; all are Caruso. In NJ, a family indexed both Currao and Carrico is Caruso. In NJ, a family indexed Casarico and Carrico is Casarico. In NM, a family is indexed both Cunico and Carrico; I'd go with Cunico. In NY, a couple indexed Carrico could be Carrico or Carries, but I'm accepting them as Carrico's and tallying the husband above. In NY, a couple indexed both Persico and Carrico is Persico or Perrico. In NY, the teenager indexed Caretto and Carrico is either Caretto or Carrito. In NY, a couple is indexed Carivco and Carrico; the name is unclear, but I would read it as Carivco (definitely not Carrico). In NY, the husband indexed both McCarrico and Dol?? is Del Monico. In Brooklyn, the couple indexed both Carrico and Caruso could be either, but I lean towards Caruso. In Manhattan, the couple indexed Carrico and Anrico is indecipherable (possibly Cuhlco), but is not Carrico. In Manhattan, the couple indexed both Carrico and Caruso is probably Caruso. In Manhattan, a woman is indexed Carrino and Carrico; I find the name indecipherable, but in any case, she's a widow. In Manhattan, the man and his daughter indexed both Carrico and Caruso are Caruso. In Manhattan, the husband indexed Carrico could be Carrico or Carrieo, but I'll accept him as Carrico and tally him above. In NY, the female indexed Currie and Carrico is Curric. In OH, the couple indexed Crestico and Carrico is most likely Crestico. In Philadelphia, the couple indexed Carrico and Caruso is Caruso. In RI, the couple and son indexed both Canico and Carrico could be either, but I lean towards Canico. In RI, the couple indexed both Carrico and Cartner has an indecipherable surname that, whatever it is, is not Carrico (does appear to include a "t"); ditto the adult male "lodger" living with them.
³⁰Italy 1930: In San Francisco, the man indexed Carrico is Carrzeo or Carrgeo. In CT, a couple indexed Carrico is Carrieo. In CT, a couple indexed Carrico is Caruso. In MA, the couple indexed Carrico is Carecio. In St. Louis, the family indexed Carrico is Carrito. In NJ, the couple indexed Carrico is on a page that is too blurry to read at Ancestry.com; at Genealogy.com the image is sharp, but the handwriting makes it unclear whether the name is Carriea or Carrica. In the Bronx, the couple indexed Carrico is Casario. In Brooklyn, the couple indexed Carrico is Corraco. In Brooklyn, the man indexed Reish Carrico looks like Reich Camis. In Brooklyn, the man indexed Carrico looks more like Canica. In NY, a man indexed Carrico is Caruso. In NY, a couple indexed Carrico has a surname that is indecipherable, but is "C____o." In OH, a couple indexed Carrico might be Carrico (and might not be), but I've tallied the husband above. In PA, the husband indexed Carrico is Carrcio. In PA, the couple indexed Carrico is Caruco. In VT, the man indexed Carrico has a surname that is blurred and unreadable; whatever it is, it's too long to be Carrico.
³¹Portugal: In 1910, the family in WA indexed Carrico looks more like Carreio, to me. In 1910 in MA, the daughter indexed Carrico appears to be Carriea, like her mother. In 1920 in MA, the couple indexed both Carrier and Carrico is Carrier. In 1920 in CA, the man indexed both Carrica and Camin is most likely Carrica, but could be Carrier or Carrico, though I've not tallied him above. In 1920, there are several Carrica's and a Carriso. In 1930 in Brooklyn, the man indexed Carrico looks more like Corriea. In 1930 in NY, there is a man indexed Carrico who is either Carrico or Carreco, so I have tallied him above. In 1930 in RI, the couple indexed Carrico could be Carrico or Carrieo, but I've gone ahead and tallied the husband above.
³²Azores (can be indexed as "Atlantic Islands"): In 1910 in MA, the individuals indexed Carrico and Carries are Carries (I also checked them in 1900, where they are enumerated and indexed Carriero). In 1930 in MA, the husband indexed Carrico appears to be Corrieco or something similar (too many bumps to be Carrico). In 1930 in RI, the couple indexed Carrico could be Carrica, but might not be; still, I've tallied the husband above (the fact that I can't find him in 1920 suggests his name may be closer to something else).

[Top]

Native-born CARRICO and CARICO in the U.S. Censuses
-

Birthplace	1850	1860	1870	1880	1890¹	1900	1910	1920²	1930³	Totals
Alabama		`1`	`6`	`4`		`6`	`5`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Alaska								`-`	`-`	`-`
Arizona						`1`	`3`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Arkansas						`12`	`17`	`-`	`-`	`-`
California		`1`	`5`	`5`		`4`	`20`	`-3`	`-`	`-`
Colorado				`1`		`10`	`18`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Connecticut⁴		`0`					`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Delaware⁵		`0`	`0`	`0`		`0`	`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Dist. of Columbia⁶	`11`	`11`	`9`	`12`		`5`	`12`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Florida⁷							`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Georgia⁸						`1`	`2`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Idaho			`1`	`2`		`2`	`12`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Illinois⁹	`45`	`54`	`49`	`61`		`83`	`110`	`-11`	`-`	`-`
Indiana^10,11,12	`25`	`59`	`87`	`120`		`247`	`304`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Iowa¹⁰	`0`	`0`		`5`		`2`	`7`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Kansas		`7`	`4`	`7`		`19`	`13`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Kentucky¹³	`209`	`238`	`301`	`301`		`343`	`405`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Louisiana¹⁴	`5`	`2`	`3`	`2`		`2`	`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Maine¹⁵						`0`	`0`	`-6`	`-`	`-`
Maryland¹⁶	`36`	`34`	`37`	`37`		`19`	`23`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Massachusetts	`13`	`17`	`17`	`9`		`13`	`15`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Michigan¹⁷							`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Minnesota¹⁸						`0`	`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Mississippi¹⁹		`3`	`3`	`1`		`0`	`1`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Missouri	`54`	`48`	`75`	`138`		`205`	`271`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Montana								`-`	`-`	`-`
Nebraska						`11`	`24`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Nevada			`1`					`-`	`-`	`-`
New Hampshire²⁰		`0`				`0`	`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
New Jersey²¹							`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
New Mexico²¹						`1`	`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
New York²³	`6`		`3`			`3`	`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
North Carolina	`7`	`5`	`11`	`23`		`49`	`50`	`-`	`-`	`-`
North Dakota							`3`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Ohio	`10`	`9`	`17`	`17`		`32`	`62`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Oklahoma						`3`	`3`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Oregon²⁴			`1`	`4`		`5`	`2`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Pennsylvania²⁵			`0`	`0`		`0`	`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Rhode Island²⁶							`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
South Carolina^27,28		`0`	`1`	`0`		`0`	`0`	`1`	`2`	`4`
South Dakota							`8`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Tennessee	`5`	`2`	`12`	`9`		`15`	`30`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Texas	`2`	`6`	`18`	`17`		`43`	`55`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Utah²⁹							`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Vermont³⁰		`0`				`0`	`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
SE Virginia	`1`							`-`	`-`	`-`
SW Virginia^31,32	`93`	`152`	`158`	`256`		`341`	`349`	`-`	`-`	`-`
NE Virginia³³	`44`	`30`	`42`	`19`		`64`	`40`	`-`	`-`	`-`
NW West Virginia³⁴	`8`	`9`	`19`	`34`		`37`	`32`	`-`	`-`	`-`
SW West Virgina				`2`		`8`	`9`	`-`	`-`	`-`
S West Virginia						`4`	`32`	`-`	`-`	`-`
NE West Virginia	`24`	`22`	`30`	`81`		`52`	`61`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Washington				`8`		`8`	`13`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Wisconsin³⁵		`1`	`1`	`1`			`0`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Wyoming³⁶						`6`	`4`	`7`	`-`	`17`
United States³⁷						`1`	`1`	`-`	`6`	`-`
Unknown^38,39	`1`					`1`	`1`	`-`	`-`	`-`
Totals	`602`	`711`	`891`	`1166`		`1658`	`2026`	`-`	`-`	`-`
	1850	1860	1870	1880	1890	1900	1910	1920	1930

¹1890 Census: The entire 1890 census was lost.
²1920 Census: As a "help" to its users, Ancestry.com went back over the 1920 census adding alternate spellings to the existing index. Unfortunately, these added names are less accurate than the original index, vastly increasing the number of bogus hits, which is why you will see so many zeros in the 1920 column and so many footnotes for 1920.
³1930 Census: Although the 1930 census has an every-name index, birthplace is indexed only for the head-of-household, not the spouse or children, hence we will see a large drop in numbers for all locations in 1930 because most birthplaces are blank. These omitted birthplaces are something to keep in mind whenever searching in the 1930 census at Ancestry.com because including a birthplace in your search may cause you to not get a hit.
⁴Connecticut: In 1850, the one Carrico giving birthplace Connecticut is a wife. In 1910, the two siblings indexed Carico are, if you can believe this, actually O'Brien.
⁵Delaware: In 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, and 1910 the one Carrico giving birthplace Delaware is a wife (same one). In 1900, the record for the one indexed Carico is so faded I can't believe they even tried to index it, but if I had to guess, I'd say it was Curier.
⁶District of Columbia: In 1880, a search on State="District of Columbia" produces only a few hundred hits (in other surnames). A search on State="Washington" brings up over 100,000 hits and includes both Washington, D.C., records and Washington Territory records. To find all DC records, you have to search on both State="District of Columbia" and State="Washington, D.C."
⁷Florida: In 1910, the female indexed Carica and Corica is a wife.
⁸Georgia: In 1910, of the five Carrico's indexed in Georgia, two are wives, one looks like Carries, and two do appear to be Carrico. In 1910, the male indexed Carico looks more like Corica (and is African-American).
⁹Illinois: In 1850, both "Illinois" and "Ill" must be searched. For whatever reason, the abbreviation is not being read as Illinois by the Ancestry search engine.
¹⁰Iowa=Indiana: In the 1850 and 1860 censuses, indexers have mis-read "Ia.," which was then one of the abbreviations for Indiana, as Iowa, so (nearly?) all the births indexed as "Iowa" in the 1850 and 1860 censuses are actually Indiana.
¹¹Indiana 1850: There were two individuals in Indiana in whose birthplace was not given in the index, but an inspection of the page shows (faintly) that they were born in Indiana.
¹²Indiana=India: In 1870 in Texas, an individual born in "Ind" [Indiana] is indexed with birthplace "India." In 1900 in Indiana, a family born in "Ind" is indexed as born in "India."
¹³Kentucky: In 1900 in KY, there's a family of four with no birthplaces, but this enumerator left everyone's birthplace blank. Until I identify the family, I'm going to assume they were born in KY. In CO, there's a couple whose birthplaces are too faded to read, so their birthplaces are indexed blank, but the husband is an individual known to be born in KY, so that is where he's tallied.
¹⁴Louisiana: In 1880, there is a Carico in New Orleans with birthplace, "N O La," who does not come up on a search of State = "Louisiana." In 1910, the four sons indexed Carrico have a name that I cannot decipher, but it's not Carrico (and they are African-America). Also in 1910, there is a family of ten indexed both Carico and Gains; the name is unreadable, but I'd lean towards the latter, so they're not included in the tally. Also in 1910, the family of six indexed Carrico is Cario, so they're not tallied. The one remaining Carico in 1910 is Carico, but she's a widow, so she's not tallied.
¹⁵Maine: In 1900 and 1910, the woman indexed Carrico is a wife.
¹⁶Maryland: In 1860, the enumerator in Charles County didn't use ditto marks, but simply left the columns blank after entering "Md" at the top of the column. In most cases, the indexers knew to consider these birthplace Maryland, but there was one family of four that the indexers left blank, which I've tallied as Maryland. In 1910, the family indexed both Carries and Carico looks more like Carries.
¹⁷Michigan: In 1910, the woman indexed Carrico and Carrier looks more like Carrier.
¹⁸Mississippi: In 1900, the 22 Carrico's in MO indexed as born in MS were born in MO. In 1900, the Carrico in TX is a wife.
¹⁹Minnesota: In 1870, the individual indexed Carrico is Carrier. The image is too blurry to read at Ancestry.com, but there is a clearer image at Genealogy.com (where he is indexed Carrier). In 1900 and 1910, the woman indexed Carrico is a wife. In 1910, the woman indexed Carico is a wife.
²⁰New Hampshire: In 1860, the woman born in NH and indexed Carrico is a wife. In 1900, two individuals indexed Carrico and are both Currier. In 1910, the one individual indexed Carrico and Currier is Currier or Curries.
²¹New Jersey: In 1910, the family indexed Carrico and Carrice is Carrice. Also in 1910, the four daughters indexed Carico and Curico are Curico.
²²New Mexico: In 1910, the individual indexed Carrico and Corvico is Corvico, and the individual indexed Carico and Casias is Casi??.
²³New York: In 1910, the family in Chicago indexed Carrico (parents b. Italy, children b. NY) is Caruso. Also in 1910, the family in Brooklyn indexed Carrico and Caruso is Caruso, and the family in Manhattan indexed Carrico and Corriss looks more like Corriss. The other two Carrico's in 1910 are wives. Also in 1910, the widower and children in Manhattan indexed Carico and Cauco are Cauco. Lastly for 1910, the husband in Manhattan indexed Carico is not entirely readable, but doesn't look like it could be Carico.
²⁴Oregon: In 1910, the family in OR indexed Carico and Caine is Paine. Also in OR in 1910, the female indexed Carico is a wife and two of the individuals indexed Carrico are wives.
²⁵Pennsylvania: In 1870, the female indexed Carrico is a wife, and the male looks more like Curries, which is what he's indexed as at Genealogy.com. In 1880, of the seven individuals giving birthplace PA, four are wives, one of whom is actually Carrier, along with two of her children. The seventh is a Carrico known to have been born in IL, not PA. In 1900, the three women indexed Carrico are wives, and the Carico is a wife. In 1910, the individual indexed Carrico and Carries, is a mis-enumerated Carringer. In 1910, the family in Philadelphia indexed Carrico and Caruso is Caruso. In 1910, the two remaining individuals giving birthplace PA and indexed Carrico are wives.
²⁶Rhode Island: In 1920, the individual in Providence indexed Carico and Coriso looks like Coriso.
²⁷South Carolina: In 1860 and 1880, the Carrico's giving birthplace SC are wives. In 1900, the female Carrico giving birthplace SC is a widow. Also in 1900 is an individual indexed simply "Carico," with no given name, but the "Carico" is actually "Carrie" and she's the wife of the head-of-household, John Gunter. In 1930, the De Carrico giving birthplace SC is a wife (marital status "M"), but she's living alone. Also in 1930, there are two African-Americans in FL born in SC and indexed "Carrico," but their surname is not entirely readable (possibly "Carrir?").
²⁸South Carolina: The one Carico giving birthplace SC in 1870 is a 70-yr-old Gabriel. This census record is the one-and-only incidence of a Gabriel Carico/Carrico I have yet found. He is living with known Carrico's (born in AL and TX), so perhaps the enumerator erred in giving him their surname.
²⁹Utah: The female in AZ indexed Carrico is a wife.
³⁰Vermont: There is an elderly couple (in their 80s) indexed "Carrico" in NY in 1860; he was born in VT, she in CT. I cannot find them in the 1850 census, nor can I find him in any earlier census, which suggests to me he is not a Carrico and is indexed under another surname in earlier years, a surname so unlike Carrico that I can not pull him up on a search. (There are no Carrico's in any pre-1850 census of VT or CT.) In 1900, the family in VT indexed Carrico is Carrier. In 1900 and 1910, the female in MA indexed Carrico is a wife.
³¹Virginia 1860: The enumerator of Russell Co., VA, left the columns blank when the birthplace was VA. In most cases, the indexers knew to consider the birthplace VA, but in some the birthplace was indexed blank. These consisted of one family of seven (two of whom were mis-indexed as surname Lafayett), plus one lone male. I have tallied these as VA.
³²Virginia 1870: There is an Amanda Carrico in Rockingham Co., VA, who appears to me to be "Carrier."
³³Virginia 1880: There is a William P. Carrico with birthplace "W" living in Harrison Co., WV. His birthplace in 1870 was VA, so he is tallied in NE Virginia.
³⁴West Virginia: In 1880, there is a William Carico in Lewis Co., WV, enumerated "WVirginia" and indexed with birthplace "Wva." He does not come up on a search of birthplace "West Virginia." In 1870 he is in Harrison Co., WV.
³⁵Wisconsin: In 1910, the husband in WV indexed as born in WI is known to be born in WV (this is enumerator error). In 1910, the husband in WA indexed Carrico may be Carri?? or Cassi??, but his parents were born in Ireland, so I don't think he could be Carrico. I searched exhaustively in 1880, 1900, and 1920 to find him or his family, without success, so he must be badly indexed in 1910. The other individuals in 1910 were wives.
³⁶Wyoming. In 1930, the Bennite Carrico indexed in Carbon County is Bennito Carasco.
³⁷United States: In 1900, the two Carrico's in CO without birthplace are a widow and son. I can still read the mother's birthplace as IL, but her son's birthplace is not clear. It may be Washington. In any case, he was born in the U.S.
³⁸Unknown 1850: In 1850, there are three individuals with no birthplace given. Two can be found again in the 1860 census, one born in VA and the other in KY, and they are tallied there. Another is a young male boarding with a farm family in IN, who is likely related to the other Carrico's in IN, but I can't find him in 1860, so he is one of the two listed as "unknown." A very elderly Thomas Carraco is boarding in Carroll Co., KY; his birthplace is either MD or VA, based on "birthplace of father" as inconsistently given by his children in the 1880 census. Most likely he was born in MD, as were the other Carrico's in Carroll Co., KY, but I've tallied him as unknown.
³⁸Unknown: In 1900 and 1910, there's a Carico in an insane asylum in AZ with unknown birthplace.
⁴⁰1900 Census: The family indexed Carico and giving birthplaces OH (1), MO (2), CO (3) and AZ (1), may or may not be Carico because I find the surname barely readable; however, I have included them in the tallies.

[Top]

CARRICO Census Hub

Contact

Home
Page

Table of
Contents

DNA
Hub

"The Cloud" is double-speak for "dumb terminal on a main frame." Been there; done that. Never again.
You are giving away not only your privacy, but control of your data, your apps, and your computer to a corporation. Is that really where you want to go?
The IT guys on the big iron hated the Personal Computer because it gave users freedom and power; now they've conned you into being back under their control.

Table of Contents

Every-Name Index