SUMTER COUNTY, ALABAMA
LARGEST SLAVEHOLDERS FROM 1860 SLAVE CENSUS SCHEDULES
and
SURNAME MATCHES FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS ON 1870 CENSUS
Transcribed by Tom Blake, October 2001
PURPOSE. Published information giving names of slaveholders and numbers of slaves held in Sumter County, Alabama, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Sumter County, Alabama 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 Sumter County, Alabama 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 Sumter County, Alabama 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.
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 Sumter County, Alabama (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 35) reportedly includes a total of 18,091 slaves which ranks as the 8th highest total in the State and the 18th highest in the U.S. in 1860. This transcription includes 122 slaveholders who held 40 or more slaves in Sumter County, accounting for 9,158 slaves, or 50% of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 767 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, the number of slaves they held in the County and the first census page on which they were listed. Pages numbers under 205 were shown as in the Northern Division, and those over 210 in the Western Division. The holders on pages 207 through 209B were listed as in Township 22, Range 3 West. 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. 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 Alabama 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 nationwide. The transcriber did not notice any such slaves named in this county, except for 101 year old female, Jennie, held by seth Little at page 160. 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 Sumter County population included 5,919 whites, 25 "free colored" and 18,091 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population of Sumter County had decreased about 12% to 5,202, while the "colored" population increased about 4% to 18,907. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 4,743 whites, about 20% less than 100 years earlier, while the 1960 total of 15,297 "Negroes"was about 15% less than what the colored population had been 100 years before.) Where did the freed slaves go who did not stay in this county? Dallas, Montgomery and Mobile counties in Alabama all saw increases in the colored population between 1860 and 1870, so that could be where some of these Alabama freed slaves went. Between 1860 and 1870, the Alabama colored population increased by 37,000, to 475,000, a 17% increase. 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 freed Alabama slaves go if they did not stay in Alabama? States that saw significant increases in colored population during that time, and were therefore more likely possible places of relocation for colored persons from Sumter County, included the following: Georgia, up 80,000 to 545,000 (17%); Texas, up 70,000 (38%); 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:
AMASON, Ara, 54 slaves, page 197B
AMASON, Elbart, 59 slaves, page 175B
ARRINGTON, Joseph, 60 slaves, page 250B
BLACKSHIR, U. T., 40 slaves, page 261B
BOLING, W. Est., J. J. Lee Exr., 47 slaves, page258
BROWN, George A., 52 slaves, page 183B
BROWN, J. C., 49 slaves, page 200B
BROWN, Jerrett, 540 slaves, page 188B
BROWN, John E., 180 slaves, page 192B
BROWNIGG, Wiley, 82 slaves, page 236
BRYANT, E. N., 44 slaves, page 198
BRYANT, E. N. Admr., 86 slaves, page 198
CARPENTER, Thamas, 69 slaves, page 155
CHANEY, Heirs of G. B., C. Alston Gardian, 46 slaves, page 238
CHAPMAN, Ruben, 106 slaves, page 237
CLAY, B. C., 47 slaves, page 226B
COCKRELL, William J., 48 slaves, page 186B
COLEMAN, A. A., 53 slaves, page 250
COLGIN, Est. S. A. F., 68 slaves, page 173B
CROOME, B., 40 slaves, page 214
CROOME, N. P., 75 slaves, page 213B
CROOME, S. M., 45 slaves, page 214B
CUSACK, Thos., 55 slaves, page 248
DAVID, Henry M., 57 slaves, page 200
DEANE, N. P., 56 slaves, page 218
DENT, J. H., 66 slaves, page 244B
DILLARD, Est. J. J., W. O. Winston Admr. Of, 60 slaves, page 166
DRAKE, William, 55 slaves, page 218B
EADS, Caswell, 41 slaves, page 227B
EASON, John F., 62 slaves, page 187
EPES, Richard J., 88 slaves, page 184B
FULTON, William F., 73 slaves, page 182B
GALESPIE, Joseph, 56 slaves, page 262
GANEY, J. H., 67 slaves, page 258B
GARBER,. M., 60 slaves, page 246
GARRETT, Est. R. W., 92 slaves, page 201
GEIGER, Alexander, 75 slaves, page 209B
GERIDEY?, Sam., 53 slaves, page 228
GIBB, Jesse A., 57 slaves, page 167B
GILLESPIE, Robert, 58 slaves, page 207B
GRANT, G. M., 58 slaves, page 228B
HADLEY, John S., 62 slaves, page 188
HAINSWORTH, T. A., 49 slaves, page 2114
HAIR, James, 66 slaves, page 247B
HARE, L. H., 79 slaves, page 164B
HARRISON, Simmons, 79 slaves, page 203
HAWKINS, Thos. H., 49 slaves, page 248B
HERNDON?, Est. T. H., 171 slaves, page 1179
HIBBLER, W. H., 72 slaves, page 164
HOUSTON, H., W. V. Hare Gard. of, 92 slaves, page 154
HOUSTON, M. C., 100 slaves, page 250B
HOUSTON, R. F., 40 slaves, page 248B
HUTCHINS, James L., 72 slaves, page 183B
JACKSON, Jacinth, 55 slaves, page 194
JAMISON, M. A., 73 slaves, page 231B
JOHNSON, Robert, 65 slaves, page 204
JONES, Est. B. A., 74 slaves, page 179
JONES, Wm. Jr., J. J. Wendham agent for, 176 slaves, page 158B
KENNEND?, J. P., 58 slaves, page 243B
KERR, A., 42 slaves, page 176
LEE, J. M., 63 slaves, page 232
LEE, John R., 60 slaves, page 241
LEE, Susan, 83 slaves, page 241
LEWIS, Est. of J., J. P. May Exr., 60 slaves, page 256
LEWIS?, John M., 72 slaves, page 186
LITTLE, Est. of Gray, B. B. Little Admr., 63 slaves, page 163
LITTLE, Seth, 75 slaves, page 160
LITTLE, Wm., 69 slaves, page 162B
MABRY & WINSTON, 118 slaves, page 181B
MARSHAL, M. A., 89 slaves, page 268
MATHEWS, Jno., 152 slaves, page 224B
MAY, Jonathan, 54 slaves, page 249
MAY, Phillip, 52 slaves, page 264B
MCALPIN, W., 44 slaves, page 231B
MCBEE, Wm., 42 slaves, page 264B
MCDOW, M. L., 72 slaves, page 171
MCKERROL, W. J., 55 slaves, page 168
MCMILLIN, Duny?, 54 slaves, page 241B
NELSON, M. M., 53 slaves, page 180
NEVILLE, William St., 51 slaves, page 209
OLIVER, Lewellyn, 140 slaves, page 160B
OSMOND, Thomas, 66 slaves, page 202
PALMER, William, 54 slaves, page 184
PARKER, Soc.?, 68 slaves, page 230
PATTEN, Joseph, 40 slaves, page 240
PHARRIS, J. C., 201 slaves, page 255
POOL, Est. S. F., 80 slaves, page 177B
POTTS, L. M., 65 slaves, page 259
RAMSEY, A. K., 88 slaves, page 178
REAVIS, Turner, 98 slaves, page 174
RENCHER, D.?, 61 slaves, page 208
RICHARDSON, A. W., 42 slaves, page 199
ROBINSON, Minos?, 77 slaves, page 207
RUSHING, Jas. M., 46 slaves, page 266
SHACKLEFORD, R. D., 153 slaves, page 259B
SIDE, H. S., John Lawton agt., 116 slaves, page 196
SLEDGE, M. H., 48 slaves, page 192
SMITH, Jas. R., 51 slaves, page 268B
SPRIGHT?, E. G., 54 slaves, page 155B
STRUDIVANT, J. M., 49 slaves, page 226
STUERT?, J. M., 46 slaves, page 243
STURDIVANT, E. T., 83 slaves, page 261
SWELLES?, Samuel, 64 slaves, page 167
TANKERSLEY, George G., 115 slaves, page 196B
TAYLOR, Mat. B., 49 , slaves, page 265B
TOMKINS, John, 75 slaves, page 153
TRAVIS, Amos, 62 slaves, page 171B
TRAVIS, Anna, 54 slaves, page 234B
WEIR, Peter, 140 slaves, page 160B
WESTON, John M., 72 slaves, page 160
WHITE, P., 46 slaves, page 221B
WHITEHEAD, L. F., 70 slaves, page 252B
WHITFIELD, R. H., 51 slaves, page 186
WHITSETT, John C., 201 slaves, page 172
WIDIWAW?, W. A., 41 slaves, page 220
WILLIAMS, Mary, 54 slaves, page 207
WINSTON (see also Mabry & Winston)
WINSTON, A. A., 84 slaves, page 170
WINSTON, Issac, J. W. Frost agt. For, 88 slaves, page 169
WINSTON, James M., 54 slaves, page 171
WINSTON, John A., 110 slaves, page 181
WINSTON, Wm. O., 56 slaves, page 165B
YARBOROUGH, N. S., 52 slaves, page 174B
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)
AMASON, 29, 26, 22, 13, 13, 12
ARRINGTON, 270, 79, 26, 52, 50, 19
BLACKSHIR, 10, 10, 10, 6, 6, 6
BOLING, 115, 26, 10, 23, 19, 5
BROWN, 27013, 1585, 175, 1321, 878, 107
BROWNIGG, 0, 0,0, 0, 0, 0
BRYANT, 2129, 227, 20, 156, 109, 11
CARPENTER, 763, 74, 6, 53, 42, 2
CHANEY, 207, 82, 14, 72, 67, 10
CHAPMAN, 1251, 168, 15, 140, 106, 12
CLAY, 1465, 117, 12, 140, 76, 8
COCKRELL, 142, 71, 12, 60, 55, 12
COLEMAN, 4329, 483, 16, 414, 291, 10
COLGIN, 9, 5, 4, 5, 3, 3
CROOM, 158, 71, 17, 40, 39, 10
CUSACK, 8, 6, 5, 4, 4, 4
DAVID, 422, 44, 2, 44, 30, 1
DEANE, 45, 5, 5, 3, 2, 2
DENT, 399, 36, 1, 34, 15, 1
DILLARD, 568, 69, 3, 49, 39, 3
DRAKE, 647, 140, 8, 87, 72, 4
EADS, 22, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2
EASON, 203, 30, 18, 30, 20, 13
EPES, 85, 9, 9, 5, 5, 5
FULTON, 348, 22, 8, 29, 15, 7
GALESPIE, 20, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
GANEY, 15, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0
GARBER, 6, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2
GARRETT, 1025, 113, 26, 88, 60, 16
GEIGER, 51, 16, 15, 5, 5, 4
GERIDEY?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
GIBB, 26, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
GILLESPIE, 248, 19, 12, 22, 8, 5
GRANT, 2331. 146, 19, 134, 78, 13
HADLEY, 147, 1, 0, 4, 0, 0
HAINSWORTH, 31, 29, 20, 23, 22, 14
HAIR, 56, 10, 3, 5, 5, 3
HARE, 174, 18, 15, 13, 7, 6
HARRISON, 3639, 349, 26, 320, 220, 15
HAWKINS, 2816, 212, 5, 194, 138, 2
HERNDON?, 246, 21, 3, 22, 14, 1
HIBBLER, 44, 23, 22, 12, 10, 10
HOUSTON, 976, 122, 30, 92, 71, 18
HUTCHINS, 211, 39, 21, 28, 26, 17
JACKSON, 19100, 1454, 37, 1371, 872, 23
JAMISON, 217, 11, 2, 19, 6, 1
JOHNSON, 33402, 2048, 42, 1783, 1130, 23
JONES, 27193, 2497,125, 2125, 1451, 71
KENNEND?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
KERR, 195, 14, 4, 13, 10, 4
LEE, 6357, 644, 66, 490, 371, 43
LEWIS, 8707, 729, 40, 635, 449, 20
LITTLE, 984, 135, 73, 96, 82, 43
MABRY, 139, 13, 5, 4, 4, 1
MARSHAL, 816, 71, 5, 60, 44, 5
MATHEWS, 1877, 243, 26, 195, 151, 20
MAY, 1116, 233, 36, 193, 151, 27
MCALPIN, 40, 16, 1, 14, 12, 1
MCBEE, 42, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0
MCDOW, 33, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3
MCKERROL, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
MCMILLIN, 19, 6, 2, 4, 3, 0
NELSON, 3371, 271, 7, 254, 165, 6
NEVILLE, 55, 6, 0, 9, 6, 0
OLIVER, 1482, 217, 28, 177, 139, 16
OSMOND, 5, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0
PALMER, 1211, 80, 5, 81, 53, 3
PARKER, 4448, 353, 35, 287, 203, 24
PATTEN, 143, 25, 0, 23, 17, 0
PHARRIS, 7, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2
POOL, 572, 101, 0, 78, 66, 0
POTTS, 317, 25, 3, 18, 15, 2
RAMSEY, 605, 67, 15, 69, 46, 13
REAVIS, 29, 9, 4, 7, 7, 3
RENCHER, 49, 26, 12, 12, 9, 4
RICHARDSON, 3741, 341, 13, 301, 201, 9
ROBINSON, 8046, 459, 16, 430, 270, 11
RUSHING, 88, 13, 7, 15, 10, 6
SHACKLEFORD, 138, 46, 11, 26, 21, 4
SIDE, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
SLEDGE, 240, 76, 16, 61, 53, 10
SMITH, 29087, 2290, 76, 1820, 1286, 52
SPRIGHT?, 13, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0
STUERT?, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
STURDIVANT, 117, 28, 15, 18, 18, 9
SWELLES?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
TANKERSLEY, 39, 16, 7, 13, 13, 6
TAYLOR, 11696, 934, 48, 800, 547, 31
TOMKINS, 52, 3, 0, 5, 3, 0
TRAVIS, 302, 40, 13, 25, 22, 8
TRAVIS, 302, 40, 13, 25, 22, 8
WEIR, 84, 7, 2, 6, 2, 0
WESTON, 304, 29, 19, 14, 11, 6
WHITE, 9567, 693, 25, 622, 406, 16
WHITEHEAD, 614, 60, 16, 44, 35, 12
WHITFIELD, 689, 83, 10, 74, 53, 8
WHITSETT, 43, 16, 7, 14, 11, 5
WIDIWAW?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
WILLIAMS, 28865, 2335, 76, 2095, 1417, 52
WINSTON, 853, 141, 52, 111, 85, 38
YARBOROUGH, 80, 10, 4, 6, 4, 1
You are thevisitor to this page.