Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

TUSCALOOSA COUNTY, ALABAMA

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 Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Tuscaloosa 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 Tuscaloosa 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 Tuscaloosa 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.

Those who have found a free ancestor on the 1860 Tuscaloosa 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 Tuscaloosa 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 Tuscaloosa County, Alabama (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 36) reportedly includes a total of 10,145 slaves. This transcription includes 60 slaveholders who held 33 or more slaves in Tuscaloosa County, accounting for 3,858 slaves, or 38% of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 826 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, the locality where held 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 nationwide. Though not specifically looking for such named slaves, the transcriber did not notice any such slaves named in this county. On page 405, a 101 year old male held by Burch Darden was not named, but the comment was made, "mind good, perfect eye sight". 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 Tuscaloosa County population included 12,971 whites, 84 "free colored" and 10, 145 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population of Tuscaloosa County had decreased about 9% to 11,787, while the "colored" population decreased about 19% to 8,294. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 77,719 whites, about six times more than 100 years earlier, while the 1960 total of 31,303 "Negroes"was about three times more 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 Tuscaloosa 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:

ADAMS, (see Scott, Scott & Adams)

BATTLE, Alfred, 190 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 381

BEALLE, John S., 114 slaves, Western Div., page 417

BOWDEN, J. P., 34 slaves, Carthage, page 394B

BRIDGES, O. W., 36 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 379B

CHAMBERS, John C., 60 Eastern Div., page 398

CLEMENT, Rufus H., 114 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 377B

CLEMENTS, Hardy, 238 slaves, Blockers, page 402

CLEMENTS, L. M., 80 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 381B

CLEMENTS, N. N., 71 slaves, Blockers, page 401

CLEMENTS, Rush, 66 slaves, Blockers, page 401B

COCKRAN, Est. Wm. H., 71 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 384

COLWELL, John S.?, 51 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 377

COOK, Chelsey M., 40 slaves, Western Div., page 434B

DEARING, James. H., 108 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 378B

DEVENPORT, Nelson, 35 slaves, Spiller Beat, page 391

DRIVER, E. L., 64 slaves, Western Div., page 414

DUNLAP, Robert, 62 slaves, Western Div., page 418B

EDDINS, S. W., 43 slaves, [no locality shown], page 399

EDDINS, T. H., 39 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 377

ELLISON, Robert, 61 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat, page 388B

FOSTER, Charles M., 45 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 385

FOSTER, J. Collier, 70 slaves, Western Div., page 415

FOSTER, Joshua, 34 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat, page 405

FRIERSON, R. P., 57 slaves, Spiller/Carthage, page 392

GATES, Rebecca A.?, 36 slaves, Western Div., page 420B

GOREE, Dan, 49 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat, page 405B

GRAY, Est. Jas., 80 slaves, Carthage, page 393B

GUILD, James, 52 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 371

HALEY, James, 44 slaves, Western Div., page 429B

HARGROVE, H. H., 47 slaves, [no locality shown], page 403B

HESTER, C. A., 50 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 380

HESTER, Wm., 66 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 375B

HILL, Thomas J., 79 slaves, Western Div., page 420

HINTON, Wm., 33 slaves, Spiller Beat, page 390

IRISH, John R., 42 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 373B

JAMISON, Robert, Steam? Ball? Place, 94 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat 16, page 407

JEMISON, R. Jr., Cherkee? Plantation, 84 slaves, Carthage, page 396B

JEMISON, Wm. H., 46 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 376B

JONES, Wm. H., Wm. H. Dumone? Aget for, 62 slaves, Carthage, page 396B

MANLEY, Basel, 38 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 369B

MARAST, Wm. D., 36 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat, page 388

MARR, Wm. M. Est., 90 slaves, [no locality shown], page 399B

MAXWELL, Thomas, 42 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 370

MOODY, Washington, 33 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 378

OWEN, Agnes N.?, 69 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 376

PEGUES, J. J., 54 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat 16, page 406

PERKINS, Claudias H., 36 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat, page 387

PERKINS, S. M., 38 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat, page 387

PONDE?, Wm., 41 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat, page 405

PRINCE, Mrs. A. S., 44 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 385B

PRINCE, Oliver T., 66 slaves, City of Tuscaloosa, page 385B

PRUETT, John W., 196 slaves, Western Div., page 428

ROBINSON, Wm. B., 47 slaves, Tuscaloosa Beat, page 388B

SANDERS, John, 41 slaves, Western Div., page 422

SCOTT, SCOTT & ADAMS, RR con camp, 60 slaves, Eastern Div., page 412

SCOTT, SCOTT & ADAMS, 66 slaves, Eastern Div., page 398B

SCOTT, SCOTT & ADAMS, Northeast & Southwest RR contract, 73 slaves, Eastern Div., page 409

SHAMPSON?, Newton, 71 slaves, Tuscaloosa, page 400B

STEWART, Daniel, 60 slaves, Western Div., page 416

WALKER, M. Pearce?, 48 slaves, Western Div., page 431

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)

ADAMS, 4295, 384, 5, 334, 232, 2

BATTLE, 900, 196, 6, 129, 112, 5

BEALLE, 62, 60, 29, 28, 28, 13

BOWDEN, 232, 10, 1, 15, 6, 1

BRIDGES, 396, 57, 3, 44, 34, 3

CHAMBERS, 1237, 136, 4, 118, 84, 2

CLEMENT, 178, 12, 0, 12, 7, 0

CLEMENTS, 364, 61, 35, 46, 41, 23

COCKRAN, 52, 9, 1, 10, 7, 1

COLWELL, 227, 25, 0, 23, 14, 0

COOK, 3149, 409, 9, 339, 253, 7

DEARING, 71, 8, 3, 11, 4, 2

DEVENPORT, 145, 8, 0, 6, 4, 0

DRIVER, 216, 29, 0, 31, 21, 0

DUNLAP, 454, 45, 10, 43, 24, 7

EDDINS, 71, 40, 19, 25, 19, 5

ELLISON, 382, 35, 2, 31, 20, 1

FOSTER, 2611, 408, 90, 291, 242, 49

FRIERSON, 236, 28, 21, 37, 22, 16

GATES, 531, 36, 0, 51, 22, 0

GOREE, 50, 28, 1, 20, 18, 1

GRAY, 3207, 208, 16, 224, 137, 11

GUILD, 14, 5, 5, 2, 2, 2

HALEY, 295, 26, 4, 25, 16, 4

HARGROVE, 272, 38, 3, 43, 24, 1

HESTER, 359, 43, 13, 42, 30, 9

HILL, 6675, 646, 10, 541, 373, 5

HINTON, 615, 83, 21, 52, 43, 18

IRISH, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

JAMISON, 217, 11, 1, 19, 6, 1

JEMISON, 149, 76, 18, 61, 44, 6

JONES, 27193, 2497, 35, 2125, 1451, 17

MANLEY, 98, 6, 3, 4, 2, 2

MARAST, 9, 9, 0, 6, 0, 0

MARR, 61, 5, 4, 4, 1, 0

MAXWELL, 761, 60, 5, 54, 36, 2

MOODY, 716, 72, 7, 56, 42, 5

OWEN, 851, 110, 7, 87, 63, 4

PEGUES, 137, 9, 6, 20, 6, 5

PERKINS, 1897, 165, 14, 164, 102, 6

PONDE?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

PRINCE, 619, 111, 29, 85, 73, 20

PRUETT, 89, 43, 0, 28, 24, 0

ROBINSON, 8046, 459, 3, 430, 270, 2

SANDERS, 3090, 345, 20, 294, 199, 9

SCOTT, 8407, 565, 6, 473, 322, 0

SHAMPSON?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

STEWART, 3848, 285, 14, 222, 154, 4

WALKER, 8492, 827, 24, 727, 474, 19

Return to Home and Links Page

You are the visitor to this page.