Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

MARENGO COUNTY, ALABAMA

LARGEST SLAVEHOLDERS FROM 1860 SLAVE CENSUS SCHEDULES

and

SURNAME MATCHES FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS ON 1870 CENSUS

Transcribed by Tom Blake, March 2001

PURPOSE. Published information giving names of slaveholders and numbers of slaves held in Marengo County, Alabama, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Marengo 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 Marengo 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 Marengo 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.

SOURCES. The 1860 U.S. Census Slave Schedules for Marengo County, Alabama (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 31) reportedly includes a total of 24,409 slaves, which ranks as the second highest total in the State and the fifth highest in the U.S. in 1860. This transcription includes 47 slaveholders who held 100 or more slaves in Marengo County, accounting for7,115 slaves, or 29% of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 897 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 Township-Range (all Ranges are East) or Division where the slaves were enumerated and the first census page 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. 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, and the transcriber did not find any such information on the enumeration of the transcribed slaveholders. 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 Marengo County population included 6,761 whites, 1 "free colored" and 24,409 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population had decreased 10% to 6,090, while the "colored" population decreased almost 18% to 20,058. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 10,264 whites, a 52% increase, but the 1960 total of 16,832 "Negroes"was a 31% decrease from what the colored population had been 100 years before.) Where did all the freed slaves go? Montgomery, Mobile and Dallas Counties in Alabama all saw increases in the colored population between 1860 and 1870, so obviously that is where some of these freed slaves went. Between 1860 and 1870, the Alabama colored population increased by 37,000, to 475,000, a 17% increase. 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 Marengo 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:

BOCOCK, Willis P., 127 slaves, 17-4, page 56

BODDIE, Josephine, 125 slaves, 16-4, page 35

BROWNING, Joseph L. (2 others), 168 slaves, 16-4, page 36

BRYAN, Richard, 106 slaves, Western Div., page 109

CALHOUN, A. P., 100 slaves, 17-4, page 57

CHRISTIAN, Annie & 7 others, 136 slaves, 18-5, page 87B

COLLINS, John, 361 slaves, 18-4, page 74

CRAIGHEAD, Mrs. Zain? P., 110 slaves, 16-5, page 49B

CROOM, Isaac, 219 slaves, 18-4, page 77

DUBOSE, James H., 167 slaves, 18-4, page 73

DUBOSE, Kim C., 129 slaves, 17-4, page 58B

FASCUE?, A., 132 slaves, Western Div., page 137B

FRITTS, Allen, 114 slaves, 15-4, page 30B

GLOVER, E. A., 205 slaves, Western Div., page 117B

GRIFFIN, G. G., 230 slaves, Western Div., page 133B

HARRIS, R. N., 134 slaves, 18-5, page 85

HARRISON, Mrs. L. M. 1 other, 125 slaves, 17-5, page 67B

HATCH, Alfred, 164 slaves, Western Div., page 125

HUCKABEE, May, 114 slaves, 18-5, page 92B

JONES, Sallie? & 2 others, 111 slaves, 12-3, page 1

LISWICK?, N.? B., 139 slaves, 15-5, page 25

LYON, F.? S., 189 slaves, Western Div., page 131

LYON, Frank S., 135 slaves, 17-4, page 55

LYON?, Geo. G.?, 101 slaves, Western Div., page 128B

MANNING, James, 106 slaves, 18-4, page 84

MCFADDEN, Estate R. H., number of heirs unknown, 105 slaves, 18-4, page 81B

MCREA, Mrs. Josephine, 110 slaves, 18-4, page 71B

MINGO?, W. H., 125 slaves, 17-5, page 65B

NELSON, Gideon E., 118 slaves, Western Div., page 123

ORMOND, John J., 148 slaves, page 86

PICKERING, R. K.?, 115 slaves, 16-4, page 42B

PRINCE, Edward, 149 slaves, Western Div., page 119

REESE?, Dr. N. W., 111 slaves, Western Div., page 135

REEVES, L. W., 105 slaves, 16-4, page 39B

ROBERSON, J. & J. B., 105 slaves, Western Div., page 122B

STEELE, L. G., 110 slaves, 15-5, page 22

STRINDWICK?, Saml., 129 slaves, Western Div., page 124B

TAYLOE (see TAYLOR)

TAYLOR, B. O., 150 slaves, 17-5, page 54B [also reported as TAYLOE]

TAYLOR, J. H., 115 slaves, 18-4, page 72B [also reported as TAYLOE]

TAYLOR, Wm. H., 125 slaves, 18-5, page 89 [also reported as TAYLOE]

TERRELL, J. Lee, 177 slaves, 16-4, page 40B

THOMAS, John, 114 slaves, 14-3, page 11

WALKER, Charles, 154 slaves, 17-5, page 65B

WALTON, John T., 136 slaves, 16-5, page 46B

WEAVER, Phillip I., 220 slaves, 17-5, page 62

WHITFIELD, Gaius, 383 slaves, Western Div., page 151

WHITFIELD, Genl. N. B., 249 slaves, Western Div., page 136

WILLIAMS & HAYWOOD, Messrs.?, 115 slaves, 15-3, page 33

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)

BOCOCK, 9, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0

BODDIE, 79, 15, 6, 11, 7, 2

BROWNING, 252, 45, 15, 39, 27, 9

BRYAN, 1098, 103, 21, 74, 50, 13

CALHOUN, 560, 119, 8, 78, 61, 1

CHRISTIAN, 786, 106, 10, 89, 66, 8

COLLINS, 3004, 257, 24, 246, 160, 10

CRAIGHEAD, 51, 9, 0, 6, 6, 0

CROOM, 158, 71, 1, 40, 39, 0,

DUBOSE, 252, 152, 49, 96, 86, 16

FASCUE?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

FRITTS, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

GLOVER, 1147, 152, 33, 147, 98, 19

GRIFFIN, 2464, 255, 3, 207, 152, 2

HARRIS, 11315, 1052, 38, 910, 648, 25

HARRISON, 3639, 349, 23, 320, 220, 13

HATCH, 187, 20, 2, 9, 8, 1

HAYWOOD, 580, 63, 12, 49, 30, 6

HUCKABEE, 44, 37, 1, 15, 15, 0

JONES, 27193, 2497, 148, 2125, 1451, 85

LISWICK?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

LYON, 307, 38, 2, 32, 25, 1

MANNING, 448, 76, 15, 80, 51, 9

MCFADDEN, 225, 2, 0, 3, 1, 0

MCREA, 79, 21, 0, 13, 10, 0

MINGO?, 135, 9, 1, 5, 4, 0

NELSON, 3371, 271, 7, 254, 165, 4

ORMOND, 25, 12, 0, 10, 10, 0

PICKERING, 30, 16, 15, 15, 14, 13

PRINCE, 619, 111, 27, 85, 73, 16

REESE?, 824, 276, 8, 191, 168, 4

REEVES, 771, 104, 1, 89, 67, 0

ROBERSON, 1638, 215, 7, 192, 130, 3

STEELE, 610, 223, 28, 167, 152, 22

STRINDWICK?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

TAYLOE, 12, 4, 0, 1, 1, 0

TAYLOR, 11696, 934, 36, 800, 547, 19

TERRELL, 401, 60, 15, 44, 37, 10

THOMAS, 11418, 1092, 31, 888, 631, 21

WALKER, 8492, 827, 34, 727, 474, 7

WALTON, 1110, 155, 44

WEAVER, 873, 150, 14, 95, 75, 7

WHITFIELD, 689, 83, 36, 74, 53, 24

WILLIAMS, 28865, 2335, 125, 2095, 1417, 65

Return to Home and Links Page

Marengo County, AL GenWeb (County genealogical resources)

You are the visitor to this page.