ORANGEBURG 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 Orangeburg County, South Carolina, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Orangeburg 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 Orangeburg 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 Orangeburg 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 Orangeburg County, South Carolina (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 1236) reportedly includes a total of 16,583 slaves, ranking it the ninth highest County total in the State and the twenty-sixth in the United States. This transcription includes 109 slaveholders who held 35 or more slaves in Orangeburg County, accounting for 7.028 slaves, or 42% of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 984 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. Unfortunately, the film viewed by the transcriber had some faded ink and focus problems. 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. The transcriber did not notice any such slaves in the course of making this transcription, except for 100 year old female Lizzie, held by S. H. Legare on page 478B. 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 Orangeburg County population included 8,108 whites, 205 "free colored" and 16,583 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population had decreased about 30% to 5,709, while the "colored" population had decreased about 34% to 11,156. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 27,367 whites, over a three fold increase from the 1860 total, while the 1960 total of 41,181 "Negroes"was about two and a half times 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 Orangeburg 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:
HOLMAN, Adam, 55 slaves, page 375
ZIMMERMAN, Thos., 89 slaves, page 375
ZIMMERMAN,R. H., 63 slaves, page 376
SELLERS, John & Samuel, 78 slaves, page 377
STACK, David, 51 slaves, page 379
SMOKE, Aaron, 57 slaves, page 379B
WANNAMAKER, John, 103 slaves, page 379B
KEITT, George, 51 slaves, page 380
HOUSER, David, 55 slaves, page 380B
HYDRICK, A.? P., 43 slaves, page 383
MCGILL?, R., 36 slaves, page 384B
DANTZLER, James, 40 slaves, page 385B
BUTLER, Joel, 95 slaves, page 386B
WANNAMAKER, W.? W.?, 74 slaves, page 387B
MCKENZIE, Daniel, 45 slaves, page 388
HAYNE, D. J., 127 slaves, page 388B
DARBY, A.? T., 53 slaves, page 389B
THOMPSON, W.? R., 36 slaves, page 389B
THOMPSON, Mrs. E., 75 slaves, page 390
KENNERLY, Mrs. M., 155 slaves, page 390B
WOLFE, Ellen & eight others, 50 slaves, page 391B
GATES, Christian, 51 slaves, page 392B
KEITT, Jacob G., 49 slaves, page 393
DANTZLER, J. S., 37 slaves, page 393
DANTZLER, O. M., & one other, 102 slaves, page 393B
THOMPSON, Charles, 37 slaves, page 394B
TREZEVANT, J. D., 39 slaves, page 394B
MCCORD, Mrs. L.? S., 169 slaves, page 395
DEVAUX, M. N., 189 slaves, page 396
FABER, A.? K.?, 160 slaves, page 399
FELDER, Lewis?, 52 slaves, page 399
QUICK, Martin, 50 slaves, page 400
WEEKS, J. B., 37 slaves, page 401
KEITT, John D., 84 slaves, page 403
KELLER, W., 88 slaves, page 403B
SHULER, Oliver?, 38 slaves, page 404
SHULER, George, 38 slaves, page 405B
DANTZLER, Dr. Lewis, 90 slaves, page 406
DANTZLER, Huddleston, 51 slaves, page 406B
FLUDD, Edward, 50 slaves, page 408B
FLUDD, Augustus, 85 slaves, page 409
DAVIS, William, 59 slaves, page 409B
DANTZLER, Daniel, 35 slaves, page 410
NORRIS, George, 65 slaves, page 410
SHULER, David, 46 slaves, page 412
FELDER, J. H., 58 slaves, page 414
KEMMERLING?, Conrad, 85 slaves, page 415
FELDER, Frederick, 46 slaves, page 420B
WETSIL, John, 58 slaves, page 422
BOWMAN, Frederick, 67 slaves, page 423
BOWMAN, Susan, 55 slaves, page 423B
BOWMAN, Eugene, 38 slaves, page 424
BAXTER, David H., 40 slaves, page 426B
FELDER, John, 44 slaves, page 427
ROBINSON, Murry, 94 slaves, page 427B
ONEAL, Lark, 59 slaves, page 428B
BOWMAN, John S., 63 slaves, page 429
COONER, Lewis E., 72 slaves, page 429B
FREDERIC, L. S.?, 50 slaves, page 430
FARRY, F. W., 55 slaves, page 431B
ORR, Abraham, 42 slaves, page 432
BOWMAN, John W.?, 37 slaves, page 434
BOWMAN, David, 45 slaves, page 434
COX, Andrew, 44 slaves, page 434B
EDWARDS, Richard, 56 slaves, page 435B
FREDERIC, A. J., 102 slaves, page 436
MOORER, Henry, 50 slaves, page 436B
GRAMBLING, Caroline, 48 slaves, page 437
ANDREWS, J. J., 66 slaves, page 437B
WANNAMAKER, Jacob. G., 41 slaves, page 438
HORGER, David, 83 slaves, page 439
INABINET, T. T., 73 slaves, page 439B
MOORER, J. T.? And two others, 69 slaves, page 440
KEITT, Ann, 37 slaves, page 440B
RUMPH, Margaret and two others, 63 slaves, page 441
FELDER, Samuel, 37V41B
HOUSER, Peter M., 55 slaves, page 442
RUMPH, D. J., 44 slaves, page 444B
KNOTTS, Joseph E., 42 slaves, page 445B
RILEY, D., 46 slaves, page 446
RILEY, Jacob, 38 slaves, page 446B
AMAKER, Adam, 83 slaves, page 449
WHALEY, Thos. B.?, 124 slaves, page 450
OLIVER, Tho. W., 69 slaves, page 451
GAUCK, Morgan, Agt., 39 slaves, page 451B
MOSS, William C., 41 slaves, page 452
LOUIS, D., 38 slaves, page 452
MORGAN, Joseph H., 91 slaves, page 454
STROMAN, Jacob, 151 slaves, page 455
FELDER, P. S., 37 slaves, page 456B
JENNINGS, John S., 184 slaves, page 457B
ROWE, Donald C., 45 slaves, page 459
EASTERLING, John, 98 slaves, page 459
MCMICHAEL, John, 47 slaves, page 459B
SHULAR, A., agent, 69 slaves, page 461
JENNINGS, Henry, 49 slaves, page 461B
KENNERLY, John C., 54 slaves, page 467
LIVINGSTON, Elizabeth, 39 slaves, page 467B
MILLHOUSE, S. R., 69 slaves, page 468
MOSS, James E., 36 slaves, page 468B
HOLMON, Harriett, 46 slaves, page 471B
GIGNARD, John, 41 slaves, page 473
SALLEY, John A., 38 slaves, page 473B
JONES, James D., 67 slaves, page 474
TATE, P. J., 80 slaves, page 475
TATE, J. H. P., 110 slaves, page 475B
BEACH, Diana, 42 slaves, page 477
GLOVER, Thos. W., 55 slaves, page 477B
LEGARE, S. H., 52 slaves, page 478
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)
AMAKER, 9, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2
ANDREWS, 1160, 69, 2, 98, 68, 2
BAXTER, 315, 38, 12, 48, 37, 12
BEACH, 71, 3, 0, 5, 3, 0
BOWMAN, 926, 79, 29, 99, 78, 29
BUTLER, 4225, 320, 9, 451, 307, 9
COONER, 8, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4
COX, 2288, 65, 0, 120, 62, 0
DANTZLER, 55, 20, 10, 23, 19, 10
DARBY, 165, 34, 7, 51, 33, 7
DAVIS, 13725, 1065, 25, 1500, 1019, 24
DEVAUX, 14, 12, 0, 12, 11, 0
EASTERLING, 61, 22, 0, 33, 21, 0
EDWARDS, 3741, 359,17, 499, 337, 16
FABER, 12, 3, 0, 2, 2, 0
FARRY, 5, 1, 0, 2, 1, 0
FELDER, 346, 124, 59, 199, 124, 59
FLUDD, 12, 12, 2, 12, 12, 2
FREDERIC, 16, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0
GATES, 531, 37, 6, 64, 36, 6
GAUCK, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
GIGNARD, 4, 4, 0, 4, 4, 0
GLOVER, 1147, 320, 48, 394, 307, 48
GRAMBLING, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0
HAYNE, 60, 34, 7, 36, 34, 7
HOLMAN, 278, 32, 1, 46, 31, 1
HOLMON, 9, 2, 0, 2, 1, 0
HORGER, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
HOUSER, 89, 7, 6, 20, 7, 6
HYDRICK, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
INABINET, 5, 5, 1, 5, 5, 1
JENNINGS, 848, 97, 2, 135, 94, 2
JONES, 27193, 1346, 45, 1922, 1261, 45
KEITT, 36, 29, 24, 34, 29, 24
KELLER, 186, 30, 5, 33, 27, 5
KEMMERLING?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
KENNERLY, 29, 10, 1, 10, 10, 1
KNOTTS, 38, 8, 0, 10, 8, 0
LEGARE, 31, 30, 0, 28, 28, 0
LIVINGSTON, 296, 67, 21, 83, 65, 20
LOUIS, 858, 16, 1, 37, 16, 1
MCCORD, 166, 18, 2, 32, 16, 2
MCGILL?, 253, 62, 0, 70, 60, 0
MCKENZIE, 216, 22, 1, 31, 21, 1
MCMICHAEL, 57, 1, 0, 5, 1, 0
MILLHOUSE, 25, 5, 2, 7, 4, 2
MOORER, 54, 13, 9, 27, 13, 9
MORGAN, 2507, 154, 2, 252, 148, 2
MOSS, 935, 44, 6, 56, 40, 6
NORRIS, 750, 74, 1, 98, 72, 1
OLIVER, 1482, 96, 10, 157, 92, 9
ONEAL, 360, 28, 0, 39, 27, 0
ORR, 289, 25, 0, 41, 24, 0
QUICK, 92, 44, 0, 50, 42, 0
RILEY, 1050, 109, 8, 142, 107, 8
ROBINSON, 8046, 554, 14, 832, 534, 14
ROWE, 211, 27, 9, 32, 26, 9
RUMPH, 67, 4, 1, 33, 4, 1
SALLEY, 10, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0
SELLERS, 225, 31, 2, 40, 30, 2
SHULAR, 19, 12, 11, 17, 12, 11
SHULER, 65, 41, 25, 47, 39, 25
SMOKE, 52, 27, 10, 30, 27, 10
STACK, 21, 5, 3, 6, 5, 3
STROMAN, 23, 17, 15, 19, 17, 15
TATE, 1015, 40, 2, 70, 36, 2
THOMPSON, 8826, 590, 20, 890, 571, 19
TREZEVANT, 5, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0
WANNAMAKER, 16, 14, 7, 12, 12, 7
WEEKS, 324, 21, 0, 24, 20, 0
WETSIL, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
WHALEY, 167, 36, 13, 39, 35, 12
WOLFE, 47, 8, 4, 12, 8, 4
ZIMMERMAN, 671, 15, 2, 20, 15, 2
You are the visitor to this page.