Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

DARLINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

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 Darlington County, South Carolina, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Darlington 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 Darlington 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 Darlington 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 Darlington County, South Carolina (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 1230) reportedly includes a total of 11,877 slaves,. This transcription includes 72 slaveholders who held 40 or more slaves in Darlington County, accounting for 5,974 slaves, or just over 50% of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 867 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 (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. 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 Darlington County population included 8,421 whites, 52 "free colored" and 11,877 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population had increased 20% to 10,097, and the "colored" population had also increased 35% to 16,146. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 29,420 whites, about three and a half times the 1860 total, while the 1960 total of 23,475 "Negroes"was about two 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 Darlington 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:

ASHBY, Thos. Jnr., 71 slaves, page 321

BACOT, A. W., 60 slaves, page 308B

BACOT, Cyrus, 82 slaves, page 325

BACOT, E. L., 80 slaves, page 300B

BACOT, P. S., 83 slaves, page 308

BELL, James, 50 slaves, page 363B

BLACKWELL, M. A., 43 slaves, page 317

CHARLES, E. W., 96 slaves, page 353B

CHARLES, H. G., 49 slaves, page 326

COKER, C., 114 slaves, page 314B

DARGAN, Est. Geo. W., 120 slaves, page 360

DARGAN, Julius A., 52 slaves, page 372B

DARGAN?, Jno. O. P., 71 slaves, page 345

DAVIS, J. McIver, 40 slaves, page 354B

ERVIN, H. R., 72 slaves, page 361

EVANS, Edwd. E., 122 slaves, page 309B

EVANS, W. H., 136 slaves, page 310

FLINN, H. K. W., 67 slaves, page 342

FOUNTAIN, Tho. E., 42 slaves, page 355B

FRASER, W. H., 83 slaves, page 335

GANDY, Abel, 64 slaves, page 352

GANDY, M. J.?, 87 slaves, page 370

GEE, Jac, 64 slaves, page 330B

GIBSON, A. D., 58 slaves, page 302B

GREGG, S. A., 49 slaves, page 320

HART, Rob. L., 80 slaves, page 342B

HILL, Jas. W., 71 slaves, page 340B

HOWE, M. M., 45 slaves, page 356B

JAMES, Jno. T., 42 slaves, page 318B

JAMES, Wm. E., 123 slaves, page 304

JORDAN, B., 51 slaves, page 303B

KELLY, Jacob Sr., 60 slaves, page 338

KILLIN, J. F., 42 slaves, page 341B

LAW, Wm., 71 slaves, page 325B

LIDE, A. C., 59 slaves, page 359B

LIDE, Evan J., 108 slaves, page 346

LIDE, T. P., 65 slaves, page 327B

MCCALL, E. M., 46 slaves, page 319B

MCCALL, Geo. J. W., 120 slaves, page 348

MCCALL, Jas. S. Senr., 70 slaves, page 332

MCCALL, M. S., 118 slaves, page 323B

MCCANN, Jno.?, 77 slaves, page 356

MCINTOSH, Est. J. H., 110 slaves, page 347

MCIVER, A. E., 97 slaves, page 305B

MCIVER, J. J., 46 slaves, page 315B

NETTLES, J. B., 93 slaves, page 316

NORWOOD, Jas.?, 65 slaves, page 352B

PAULEY, J. H., 63 slaves, page 347B

PETTIGREW, J. A., 67 slaves, page 319

PORCHER, Edwd., 60 slaves, page 321B

PRESSLEY, S. H., 62 slaves, page 309

REYNOLDS, Wm., 48 slaves, page 333B

ROGERS, F. M. Senr., 51 slaves, page 329

ROGERS, Jno. A., 64 slaves, page 307B

ROGERS, Robt., 97 slaves, page 307

SMITH, Thos., 318 slaves, page 348B

VANN, Wm., 44 slaves, page 366

WARING, A. H., 69 slaves, page 344B

WARING, P. N.? Jr., 90 slaves, page 336

WICKHAM, L. W. T., 44 slaves, page 321B

WILDS, (Mrs.) S. H., 180 slaves, page 328B (continues on 329)

WILDS, Julia S., 113 slaves, page 326B

WILLIAMS, Jno. W., 92 slaves, page 313B

WILLIAMS, Jno. N., 126 slaves, page 311B

WILLIAMS, Jno. N., 231 slaves, page 312

WILLIAMSON, B. F., 109 slaves, page 322B (continues on 324)

WILLIAMSON, Est. T. C., 71 slaves, page 327

WILLIAMSON, Est. B., 50 slaves, page 324B

WILSON, F. E., 40 slaves, page 362B

WILSON, Jno. P., 85 slaves, page 358

WITHERSPOON, Est. J. D., 196 slaves, page 343B

ZIMMERMAN, Jno. P., 90 slaves, page 358B

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)

ASHBY, 175, 6, 0, 7, 6, 0

BACOT, 32, 28, 23, 28, 28, 23

BELL, 4784, 189, 10, 324, 177, 10

BLACKWELL, 733, 46, 10, 63, 42, 10

CHARLES, 457, 66, 21, 82, 65, 20

COKER, 158, 26, 6, 38, 26, 6

DARGAN, 46, 32, 20, 32, 32, 20

DAVIS, 13725, 1065, 43, 1500, 1093, 43

ERVIN, 221, 30, 5, 50, 27, 5

EVANS, 3275, 238, 11, 353, 234, 10

FLINN, 87, 20, 14, 23, 20, 14

FOUNTAIN, 342, 15, 10, 22, 15, 10

FRASER, 357, 217, 6, 232, 212, 6

GANDY, 54, 9, 7, 12, 8, 7

GEE, 296, 17, 14, 23, 17, 14

GIBSON, 2529, 175, 8, 240, 170, 8

GREGG, 224, 89, 16, 111, 87, 16

HART, 1129, 80, 17, 117, 79, 17

HILL, 6675, 272, 15, 489, 256. 15

HOWE, 180, 14, 6, 17, 11, 6

JAMES, 3993, 397, 68, 560, 389, 68

JORDAN, 2359, 248, 0, 181, 121, 29

KELLY, 1747, 161, 21, 222, 158, 21

KILLIN, 10, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

LAW, 337, 21, 10, 35, 19, 10

CHARLES, 457, 66, 21, 82, 65, 20

LIDE, 64, 28, 26, 36, 27, 26

MCCALL, 474, 88, 34, 126, 86, 34

MCCANN, 82, 4, 0, 10, 4, 0

MCINTOSH, 408, 55, 17, 81, 52, 17

MCIVER, 188, 54, 36, 55, 33, 36

NETTLES, 177, 31, 16, 52, 31, 16

NORWOOD, 403, 17, 9, 40, 16, 9

PAULEY, 6, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0

PETTIGREW, 67, 15, 3, 19, 15, 3

PORCHER, 41, 37, 0, 37, 37, 0

PRESSLEY, 65, 40, 2, 42, 40, 2

REYNOLDS, 1197, 68, 2, 94, 64, 2

ROGERS, 2129, 106, 5, 192, 100, 5

SMITH, 29087, 1487, 41, 2156, 1407, 40

VANN, 180, 12, 7, 19, 12, 7

WARING, 90, 55, 1, 58, 54, 1

WICKHAM, 25, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

WILDS, 49, 31, 28, 31, 31, 28

WILLIAMS, 28865, 2124, 92, 3049, 2007, 92

WILLIAMSON, 1289, 113, 32, 170, 102, 32

WILSON, 10819, 844, 37, 1210, 819, 36

WITHERSPOON, 315, 115, 12, 151, 115, 12

ZIMMERMAN, 71, 15, 3, 20, 15, 3

Return to Home and Links Page

Darlington County, SC GenWeb (County genealogical resources)

You are the visitor to this page.