BARNWELL COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
LARGEST SLAVEHOLDERS FROM 1860 SLAVE CENSUS SCHEDULES
and
SURNAME MATCHES FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS ON 1870 CENSUS
Transcribed by Tom Blake, February, 2002
PURPOSE. Published information giving names of slaveholders and numbers of slaves held in Barnwell County, South Carolina, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Barnwell County, South Carolina census for 1860 and not know whether that person was also listed as a slaveholder on the slave census, because published indexes almost always do not include the slave census.
Those who have found a free ancestor on the 1860 Barnwell County, South Carolina census can check this list to learn if their ancestor was one of the larger slaveholders in the County. If the ancestor is not on this list, the 1860 slave census microfilm can be viewed to find out whether the ancestor was a holder of a fewer number of slaves or not a slaveholder at all. Whether or not the ancestor is found to have been a slaveholder, a viewing of the slave census will provide an informed sense of the extent of slavery in the ancestral County, particularly for those who have never viewed a slave census. An ancestor not shown to hold slaves on the 1860 slave census could have held slaves on an earlier census, so those films can be checked also. In 1850, the slave census was also separate from the free census, but in earlier years it was a part of the free census.
African American descendants of persons who were enslaved in Barnwell County, South Carolina in 1860, if they have an idea of the surname of the slaveholder, can check this list for the surname. If the surname is found, they can then view the microfilm for the details listed regarding the sex, age and color of the slaves. If the surname is not on this list, the microfilm can be viewed to see if there were smaller slaveholders with that surname. To check a master surname list for other States and Counties, return to Home and Links Page.
The information on surname matches of 1870 African Americans and 1860 slaveholders is intended merely to provide data for consideration by those seeking to make connections between slaveholders and former slaves. Particularly in the case of these larger slaveholders, the data seems to show in general not many freed slaves in 1870 were using the surname of their 1860 slaveholder. However, the data should be checked for the particular surname to see the extent of the matching.
The last U.S. census slave schedules were enumerated by County in 1860 and included 393,975 named persons holding 3,950,546 unnamed slaves, or an average of about ten slaves per holder. The actual number of slaveholders may be slightly lower because some large holders held slaves in more than one County and they would have been counted as a separate slaveholder in each County. Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, with about 1 in 70 being a slaveholder. It is estimated by this transcriber that in 1860, slaveholders of 200 or more slaves, while constituting less than 1 % of the total number of U.S. slaveholders, or 1 out of 7,000 free persons, held 20-30% of the total number of slaves in the U.S. The process of publication of slaveholder names beginning with larger slaveholders will enable naming of the holders of the most slaves with the least amount of transcription work.
SOURCES. The 1860 U.S. Census Slave Schedules for Barnwell County, South Carolina (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 1229) reportedly includes a total of 17,401 slaves, ranking it the seventh highest County total in the State and the twenty-first in the United States. This transcription includes 90 slaveholders who held 40 or more slaves in Barnwell County, accounting for 6,123 slaves, or 35% of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 1,108 slaveholders, and those slaveholders have not been included here. Due to variable film quality, handwriting interpretation questions and inconsistent counting and page numbering methods used by the census enumerators, interested researchers should view the source film personally to verify or modify the information in this transcription for their own purposes. Census data for 1860 was obtained from the Historical United States Census Data Browser, which is a very detailed, searchable and highly recommended database that can found at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/ . Census data on African Americans in the 1870 census was obtained using Heritage Quest's CD "African-Americans in the 1870 U.S. Federal Census", available through Heritage Quest at http://www.heritagequest.com/ .
FORMAT. This transcription lists the names of those largest slaveholders in the County (actually shown as "District" on the census page), the number of slaves they held in the County where the slaves were enumerated and the first census page of that County on which they were listed. The page numbers used are the rubber stamped numbers in the upper right corner of every set of two pages, with the previous stamped number and a "B" being used to designate the pages without a stamped number. The census shows no subdivisions within the County. Following the holder list is a separate list of the surnames of the holders with information on numbers of African Americans on the 1870 census who were enumerated with the same surname. The term "County" is used to describe the main subdivisions of the State by which the census was enumerated.
TERMINOLOGY. Though the census schedules speak in terms of "slave owners", the transcriber has chosen to use the term "slaveholder" rather than "slave owner", so that questions of justice and legality of claims of ownership need not be addressed in this transcription. Racially related terms such as African American, black, mulatto and colored are used as in the source or at the time of the source, with African American being used otherwise.
PLANTATION NAMES. Plantation names were not shown on the census. Using plantation names to locate ancestors can be difficult because the name of a plantation may have been changed through the years and because the sizeable number of large farms must have resulted in lots of duplication of plantation names. In South Carolina in 1860 there were 482 farms of 1,000 acres or more, the largest size category enumerated in the census, and another 1,359 farms of 500-999 acres. Linking names of plantations in this County with the names of the large holders on this list should not be a difficult research task, but it is beyond the scope of this transcription.
FORMER SLAVES. The 1860 U.S. Census was the last U.S. census showing slaves and slaveholders. Slaves were enumerated in 1860 without giving their names, only their sex and age and indication of any handicaps, such as deaf or blind Slaves 100 years of age or older were supposed to be named on the 1860 slave schedule, but there were only 1,570 slaves of such age enumerated, out of a total of 3,950,546 slaves. Though not specifically looking for such slaves, the transcriber did notice the following: 100 year old female named January, "an African" held by Julia C. Ervin on page 290B; and 102 year old male named Prince, "an African", held by Robt. Martin on page 291. Freed slaves, if listed in the next census, in 1870, would have been reported with their full name, including surname. Some of these former slaves may have been using the surname of their 1860 slaveholder at the time of the 1870 census and they may have still been living in the same State or County. Before presuming an African American was a slave on the 1860 census, the free census for 1860 should be checked, as almost 11% of African Americans were enumerated as free in 1860, with about half of those living in the southern States. Estimates of the number of former slaves who used the surname of a former owner in 1870, vary widely and from region to region. If an African American ancestor with one of these surnames is found on the 1870 census, then making the link to finding that ancestor as a slave requires advanced research techniques involving all obtainable records of the holder.
MIGRATION OF FORMER SLAVES: According to U.S. Census data, the 1860 Barnwell County population included 12,702 whites, 640 "free colored" and 17,401 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population had increased 7% to 13,578, while the "colored" population had increased 23% to 22,146. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 10,004 whites, about 21% less than the 1860 total, while the 1960 total of 17,582 "Negroes"was just slightly less than what the colored population had been 100 years before.) It should be noted however, that in comparing census data for 1870 and 1960, the transcriber did not take into consideration any relevant changes in county boundaries.
Where did the freed slaves go? Charleston County saw an increase in colored population of almost two thirds between 1860 and 1870, so likely that is where many went. No other South Carolina County showed such a significant increase. Between 1860 and 1870, the South Carolina colored population only increased by 4,000, to 416,000, a 1% increase. States that saw significant increases in colored population during that time, and were therefore more likely possible places of relocation for colored persons from Barnwell County, included the following: Georgia, up 80,000 (17%); Texas, up 70,000 (38%); Alabama, up 37,000 (8%); North Carolina, up 31,000 (8%); Florida, up 27,000 (41%); Ohio, up 26,000 (70%); Indiana, up 25,000 (127%); and Kansas up from 265 to 17,000 (6,400%).
SLAVEHOLDER LIST:
AARON, John, 81 slaves, page 269
ALDRICH, A. P., 75 slaves, page 274B
ALLEN, J. D., 40 slaves, page 282
ALLEN, Miss L. A., 61 slaves, page 255B
ASH, Richard, 45 slaves, page 224
ASHLEY, Charles, 51 slaves, page 218B
ASHLEY, William, 108 slaves, page 241B
AYER, L. M. Sr., 142 slaves, page 213B
AYER, L. M. Jr., 57 slaves, page 214B
BAILEY, S. J., 92 slaves, page 246
BARKER, W. R., 49 slaves, page 276B
BELINGER, Lucious, 42 slaves, page 200B
BLACK, Mrs. A. G., 81 slaves, page 249
BOSTICK, W. M., 89 slaves, page 260
BRABHAM, Josiah J., 52 slaves, page 191
BROOKS, Walker J.?, 66 slaves, page 222B
BROWN, James C., 140 slaves, page 280B
BROWN, T. J., 50 slaves, page 250B
BUNN, B. H., M. Jouvers? Overseer, 64 slaves, page 295
BUNN, B. H., John H. Lafitt overseer, 74 slaves, page 295B
BUSH, David, 58 slaves, page 243
BUSH, G. W., 46 slaves, page 237
COONER, Estate of, 52 slaves, page 202B
DOWLING, William B., 40 slaves, page 211B
DUNBAR, A. R., 41 slaves, page 248
DUNBAR, F. F., 43 slaves, page 247B
DUNBAR, George, 90 slaves, page 248B
DUNBAR, Miss C.? F., 60 slaves, page 243B
DUNBAR, W. P., 49 slaves, page 249B
DUNCAN, H. D., 56 slaves, page 221B
DUNCAN, J. G. W., 106 slaves, page 265B
ERWIN, J. D.? Junr., 44 slaves, page 290B
ERWIN, James D., 79 slaves, page 288B
ERWIN, Julia C., 65 slaves, page 290
ERWIN, Samuel M., 40 slaves, page 289
ESTES, A. B., 79 slaves, page 223B
FAUST, Owen R., 50 slaves, page 212B
FOGLER, Ann E., 45 slaves, page 292
GRAHAM, Z. G., 47 slaves, page 215
HAGOOD, E. A.?, 41 slaves, page 240
HAGOOD, J. O., 64 slaves, page 266B
HAMMOND, J. H., 294 slaves, page 252
HARDIN, Robert, 44 slaves, page 224
HARLEY, J. R., 42 slaves, page 272B
HAY, Susan C., 53 slaves, page 287
HAY, T.? J., 40 slaves, page 286B
HICKSON, John, 49 slaves, page 218
HOGG, T. F., 43 slaves, page 276
HOLLY, John, 125 slaves, page 285B
HUTTO, Henry, 42 slaves, page 195B
JEMMISON?, D. F., 77 slaves, page 204B
KIRKLAND, Robert, 59 slaves, page 192
LAWTON, Dr. B. W., 65 slaves, page 261
LAWTON, J. S., 69 slaves, page 222B
LAWTON, Rev. J. W., 62 slaves, page 260B
LAWTON, W. J., 94 slaves, page 257B
MAINER, S. P., 79 slaves, page 259B
MARTIN, J. U.?, 53 slaves, page 296
MARTIN, Robt., 125 slaves, page 291
MARTIN, William A., 63 slaves, page 289
MILHOUSE, C.? H., 44 slaves, page 270
MOYE, George W., 51 slaves, page 193
NEWMAN, William, 52 slaves, page 242B
NIMMONS, William, 121 slaves, page 203B
NOBLES, J. A., 43 slaves, page 250
PATTERSON, Angus Est., by E. L. Patterson Extr., 172 slaves, page 273
PATTERSON, F. E., 60 slaves, page 283
PATTERSON, James, 68 slaves, page 264
PINKNEY, Lucia, 99 slaves, page 200
PLATTS, John, 46 slaves, page 283B
PRIESTER, Elizabeth, 57 slaves, page 278
RANSEY, G. T., 48 slaves, page 238B
RAYZOR, P. Owner, Orange Parish S. C., A. J. Hugis manager, 42 slaves, page 196B
REYNOLDS, Dr. W. S., 64 slaves, page 222
RICE, David H., 62 slaves, page 190B
RICE, Wm. B., 48 slaves, page 191
RICE, Wm., 43 slaves, page 209
RICHARDSON, Mrs. M. A., 175 slaves, page 258
RUSOR?, Mrs. Mary, 41 slaves, page 205
SIMKINS, A. A., 47 slaves, page 239
SIMS, W. G., 70 slaves, page 198
STALLINGS, John, 52 slaves, page 220
SWEAT, B. S., 49 slaves, page 198B
WALKER, W. P., 76 slaves, page 226
WEATHERBEE, Riley, 40 slaves, page 235B
WILLINGHAM, B. F., 104 slaves, page 296B
WILSON, J. J., 43 slaves, page 245B
WOOD, J. A., 64 slaves, page 250B
WOOD, J. J. Est. of, 54 slaves, page 247
ZIEGLER, Ann, 46 slaves, page 208B
SURNAME MATCHES AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANS ON 1870 CENSUS:
(exact surname spellings only are reported, no spelling variations or soundex)
(SURNAME, # in US, in State, in County, born in State, born and living in State, born in State and living in County)
AARON, 111, 15, 4, 18, 15, 4
ALDRICH, 26, 2, 1, 7, 2, 1
ALLEN, 6198, 255, 40, 383, 232, 38
ASH, 310, 27, 4, 41, 26, 4
ASHLEY, 285, 47, 38, 56, 40, 35
AYER, 24, 13, 12, 13, 13, 12
BAILEY, 2281, 162, 3, 210, 152, 1
BARKER, 549, 32, 16, 41, 31, 15
BELINGER, 7, 4, 0, 4, 4, 0
BLACK, 2318, 232, 4, 292, 225, 4
BOSTICK, 245, 48, 0, 54, 48, 0
BRABHAM, 26, 26, 22, 26, 26, 22
BROOKS, 4486, 164, 9, 274, 157, 9
BROWN, 27013, 2611, 106, 3423, 2537, 98
BUNN, 156, 4, 0, 11, 4, 0
BUSH, 1228, 123, 57, 158, 122, 57
COONER, 8, 4, 0, 5, 4, 0
DOWLING, 41, 9, 8, 12, 9, 8
DUNBAR, 291, 91, 74, 86, 81, 64
DUNCAN, 1366, 122, 20, 178, 119, 20
ERWIN, 265, 28, 6, 39, 26, 6
ESTES, 188, 25, 0, 37, 24, 0
FAUST, 61, 18, 10, 16, 16, 9
FOGLER, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
GRAHAM, 1787, 292, 6, 348, 284, 6
HAGOOD, 79, 55, 22, 56, 53, 22
HAMMOND, 632, 101, 12, 121, 91, 12
HARDIN, 451, 22, 1, 27, 22, 1
HARLEY, 140, 36, 21, 45, 35, 20
HAY, 192, 67, 50, 69, 65, 50
HICKSON, 72, 30, 19, 32, 30, 19
HOGG, 98, 15, 11, 20, 15, 11
HOLLY, 387, 37, 15, 46, 34, 13
HUTTO, 18, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15
JEMMISON?, 16, 0, 0, 0, 0,0
KIRKLAND, 173, 51, 27, 61, 51, 27
LAWTON, 149, 63, 19, 74, 63, 19
MAINER, 14, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
MARTIN, 5318, 358, 19, 533, 343, 19
MILHOUSE, 42, 2, 2, 9, 1, 1
MOYE, 34, 15, 11, 16, 15, 11
NEWMAN, 649, 28, 8, 40, 27, 7
NIMMONS, 19, 18, 16, 17, 17, 15
NOBLES, 151, 16, 0, 28, 16, 0
PATTERSON, 2478, 203, 28, 296, 186, 27
PINKNEY, 277, 68, 2, 102, 65, 2
PLATTS, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
PRIESTER, 7, 6,. 6, 6, 6, 6
RANSEY, 20, 8, 6, 8, 8, 6
RAYZOR, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0
REYNOLDS, 1197, 68, 3, 94, 64, 3
RICE, 1528, 225, 28, 295, 221, 28
RICHARDSON, 3741, 492, 9, 620, 478, 9
RUSOR?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
SIMKINS, 80, 49, 0, 55, 48, 0
SIMS, 1411, 166, 1, 229, 164, 1
STALLINGS, 167, 22, 22, 18, 15, 15
SWEAT, 67, 17, 0, 23, 17, 0
WALKER, 8492, 515, 53, 778, 486, 52
WEATHERBEE, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
WILLINGHAM, 152, 11, 0, 17, 11, 0
WILSON, 10819, 844, 16, 1210, 819, 16
WOOD, 2672, 109, 9, 174, 105, 9
ZIEGLER, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
You are the visitor to this page.