Talk:Albert Woolson

Mismatched Birthdates
The birthdate at the beginning of the article, and the birthdate under the picture, do not match. Could someone please research this and make the two dates match? Jimindc (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/nation/8889332.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp (archive)
 * In Albert Woolson on 2007-08-21 12:17:44, 404 Not Found
 * In Albert Woolson on 2007-08-29 21:43:01, 404 Not Found

The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version:. -- Stwalkerbot 21:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GAR membership
Does anyone else find it interesting that he was named senior vice commander in chief in 1953? Of course in 1953 there had to be less than a dozen Civil War vets left, if not fewer, so it is no wonder he was so high in the organization! --Daysleeper47 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Census research links needed
They are available here

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/5991

Ryoung122 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"In mid-2006, new census research indicated that Albert Woolson was actually only 106 years old, being listed as less than 1 year old in the 1850 census. Previous research in 1991 has suggested he was younger than claimed, although this does not affect his veteran status." - As most of you know the census took months, and many times D.O.B. could by off be one to three years. I maintain he was born in in 1848. The original claim was 1847. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a comment is completely stupid. The census did not take months, and it certainly did not take 2 years. Further, the census taker asked questions such as 'age as of May 1, 1850'. 3rd, if Albert Woolson was listed as 3 months old in the 1850 census, how is waiting 3 months to take the census going to make him born in 1848? Ridiculous logic. 4th, the census record is more accurate the closer it is to the birth event, so 1850 is likely correct. 5th, Woolson had a reason to lie about his age...claiming to be older so he could join the army. The fact that he was made just a drummer boy suggests that the Union army didn't really think he was an adult...age 14 in 1865, instead of 17, makes sense. If he were 16 or 17, he would have been more likely to be in a combat role. Neal (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Late to the party here, but Neal there is nothing at all stupid about what he said. You've obviously never done any genealogy research using census info from the 1800s. It is generally pretty inaccurate. Census takers often asked neighbors if the people they needed to survey were not home. This was one of many causes for misspellings, incorrect names and ages, etc. An actual example for you is my great-great-great grandfather. He was listed as 8 years old on the 1860 Census (he was actually 3) and in 1870, he's listed as 15 (also wrong obviously). It really wasn't that important to the census taker if the ages were exactly correct. Albert Woolson simply needed to be counted. If he's listed as 9 months old or three years old, he still can't vote, and that was really all they wanted to know. Richjenkins (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Neal. While a census record might be off by several years for an ADULT, it usually is much more accurate for a child. To add weight to the argument, already advanced, that the 1850 census shows Albert Woolson as a baby (rather than as a 3 year old), the 1860 census lists him living in Antwerp, Jefferson County, NY, page 52, and shows him as age 11.

In 1910, he is living in Duluth, MN, (St Louis County), Enumeration District 180, sheet 6a, and shows him as age 60 (i.e. again, born 1850)

On the 1905 MN state census, he is in Faribault County, town of Winnebago, at age 56 (i.e. born 1849-1850)

It appears likely to me (and what I am about to say, I concede, is a bit of speculation) but that he added 2-3 years to his actual age of 14 when he enlisted in 1864. Such would be well documented for teenage Civil War soldiers to add a few years to one's age to enlist (see, for example, Bruce Catton "America Goes To War", 1958 Wesleyan University Press, page 50). His actual birthday appears to have been February 11, 1850.

Dave-c-anderson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

1991 Citation
Marvel's 1991 finding of "108" appears to have been based on a later census, not the 1850 census.

http://genealogytrails.com/main/lastveterans.html

Ryoung 122 05:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency on 'fighting' status
The intro indicates that Mr. Woolson was the last person living who fought in the Civil War. Yet, the biography section indicates that he never saw action in the war. Are these claims consistent? Would it be more accurate to state that Mr. Woolson was the last living Civil War-era veteran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.218.2 (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed intro to read "served", rather than "fought". Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Woolson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040618114220/http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/woolson_bust.htm to http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/woolson_bust.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)