Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

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

Return to Home and Links Page

You are thevisitor to this page.