Why would a historian read this secondary source?
go to:https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1900_questionnaire.pdf This is an image of the 1900 Census. Census records are primary sources. In 1900, census collectors asked Americans the following questions and recorded in the census:addressnamerelationship to head of familysexraceagemarital status and, if married, number of years marriedfor women, number of children born and number now livingplace of birth of person, and their parentsif foreign born, year of immigration and whether naturalizedoccupationmonths not employedschoolability to speak Englishwhether on a farmhome owned or rented, and, if owned, whether mortgagedHow would this information prove useful to a historian?OR you can explore this question:Class, I found this journal article in our library using JSTOR. It is written by a historian who had to use the census to collect some of the data in the article. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/stable/483344?&Search=yes&term=1900&term=States&term=United&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DUnited%2BStates%2B1900%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%3Don&item=9&ttl=26420&returnArticleService=showArticleBarsh, Russel Lawrence. “Puget Sound Indian Demography, 1900-1920: Migration and Economic Integration.” Ethnohistory 43, no. 1 (1996): 65-97. Accessed February 14, 2020. doi:10.2307/483344.How did Barsh use primary sources to build his argument in this paper? Why would a historian read this secondary source?
