Ancestry.com is indicating that it’s “U.S. WWII Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947” is updated as of today.

The card of my grandfather’s first cousin was one of my new discoveries. It’s a great card as it provides his place of birth (West Point, Illinois), father’s name and residence (Harry L. Sparks, Truman, Martin County, Minnesota), and his residence (1935 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado).

The database of these cards is a work in progress. Unfortunately the state I really need (Illinois) has not been placed in the database as of yet. Ancestry.com subscribers can search the database to see extractions from the cards, but a Fold3.com membership is required to view the actual cards. Based on several cards I have seen it’s advisable to view the actual card as the index entries occasionally seem to have misinterpretations of the places of birth.

This database is a great one as these cards were not readily available before these indexes and images were made. It was possible to get the cards but this database greatly facilitates that process. I’ll have to wait to locate my uncles and numerous cousins until the database updates. 

From the Ancestry.com website description of this database:

This database contains images and indexes for registration cards filled out by men born between the years of 1898 and 1929 from Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and North Carolina. The following states are also found in the index with a link to the images available on Fold3:

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Maryland
  • New Mexico
  • Nevada
  • Oklahoma
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • West Virginia
  • Wyoming
  • District of Columbia
  • Virgin Islands

I’ve made some good discoveries searching this database by place of birth. As we will see in a future post, there are some issues with “U.S. WWII Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947” in terms of searching based on place of birth.

Share

Categories:

3 Responses

  1. Looks like they’re doing the smaller states first. The ones I need are in California and Texas. I imagine Illinois and New York would be considered large too.

    • That’s what I’m thinking. They are wanting to get as many states in the list as possible. 😉

  2. No New Jersey yet 🙁 Small, but densely populated. All my people were from NJ. Florida is listed…big state, not as many people in the 1940s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Genealogy Tip of the Day Book