Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

GEORGETOWN COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

LARGEST SLAVEHOLDERS FROM 1860 SLAVE CENSUS SCHEDULES

and

SURNAME MATCHES FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS ON 1870 CENSUS

Transcribed by Tom Blake, August 2001

PURPOSE. Published information giving names of slaveholders and numbers of slaves held in Georgetown County, South Carolina, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Georgetown 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 Georgetown 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 Georgetown 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 Georgetown County, South Carolina (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 1235) reportedly includes a total of 18,109 slaves, ranking it among the 20 highest County totals in the U.S. Georgetown County was the only County in the U.S. in the 1860 Census with a slaveholder owning 1,000 or more slaves. This transcription includes 82 slaveholders who held 80 or more slaves in Georgetown County, accounting for 14,638 slaves, or over 80 % of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 399 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 District where the slaves were enumerated and the first census page of that District on which they were listed. 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. The census enumerator listed the Georgetown County holders as Prince Georges District and then in three numbered Divisions.

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, 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 Georgetown County population included 3,013 whites, 183 "free colored" and 18,109 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population had dropped by 240 to 2,773, but the "colored" population had dropped by 4,904 to 13,388. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 27,083 whites, almost a ten fold increase, but the 1960 total of 16,969 "Negroes"was actually a decline from what the colored population had been 100 years before.) Where did all these 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 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 Georgetown 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:

ALLSTON, Benjamin, 119 slaves, Division #2, page 128

ALLSTON, Charles, wife and children, son of ? Allston of 1781, 203 slaves, Division #2, page 133

ALLSTON, J. Blythe wife and 1 child, 175 slaves, Division #3, page 170

ALLSTON, R. F. W., 631 slaves, Division #2, page 120

ALSTON, Charles Sr., wife and 4 children, 209, Division #3, page184

ALSTON, Jas. Jr. (Dark Place), 198 slaves, Division #3, page 200

ALSTON, W. Algernon Sr., 426 slaves, Division #3, page 192

ALSTON, Wm. Allan, 151 slaves, Division #3, page 175

ALSTON, Wm. A. and father, 171 slaves, Division #3, page 178

ATKINSON, C. J., 98 slaves, Division #2, page 12

BARNWELL, Jane R., widow, 230 slaves, Division #2, page 112

BELIN, Allard H., 114 slaves, Division #2, page 147

CORDES, Mary L., 101 slaves, Division #2, page 73

DOAR, Stephen D. wife and children. 109 slaves, Division #2, page 154

DUNKIN, B. F. wife and 3 children, 101 slaves, Division #2, page 115

DUNKIN, B. F. wife and children, 135 slaves, Division #3, page 207

EASTERLING, John R., 79 slaves, Division #2, page 49

EXUM, Est John a son-in-law, a daughter and 2 grandchildren to whom the estate entails, 99 slaves, Division #2, page 50

FLAGG, Mrs. M. E., 107 slaves, Division #2, page 149

FORD, Est. Stephen to be divided among 2 male and 4 female heirs, 118 slaves, Division #2, page 37

FORD, F. W., 108 slaves, Division #2, page 100

FORD, Fredrick W., 100 slaves, Division #2, page 40

FORD, J. Reese, 90 slaves, Division #2, page 67

FORD, J. Reese, 89 slaves, Division #2, page 38

FORSTER, A. M.,for S. B.? Withers, Tr. of Mrs. A. M. Forster and 6 children, 273 slaves, Division #2, page 16

GAILLARD, S. J.?, 94 slaves, Division #2, page 44

GOURDIN?, Robert M., 106 slaves, Division #2, page 63

GRIER, Est. John, 108 slaves, Division #2, page 58

GUERRARD, E. P., 80 slaves, Division #2, page 45

HERIOT, Eliza S. and minor childen (2), 112 slaves, Division #2, page 152

HORRY, Thomas, 91 slaves, Division #2, page 104

HORRY, Wm. B. S. and brothers, 177 slaves, Division #2, page 84

HUME, Est. G., 102 slaves, Division #2, page 99

IZARD, Est. R.S., 343 slaves, Division #2, page 53

JOHNSTON, Andrew, 204 slaves, Division #2, page 90

JORDAN, D. W., 261 slaves, page 209

LABRUCE, J. W., 92 slaves, Division #2, page 146

LABRUCE, John wife and 5 children, 150 slaves, Division #3, page 181

LADSON, Jas. H., 242 slaves, Division #2, page 81

LANCE, M. H., 154 slaves, Division #2, page 21

LOWNDES, Est. E. B., 101 slaves, Division #2, page 158

LOWNDES, Richard H., 136 slaves, Division #2, page 118

LOWNDES, Rollin residing in Charleston, 129 slaves, Division #2, page 159

LUCAS, Henry E., 93 slaves, Division #2, page 95

LUCAS, Semion?, 100 slaves, Division #2, page 103

LUCAS, William, 86 slaves, Division #2, page 144

MAGILL, John D. wife 2 sons and 2 daughters, 189 slaves, Division #3, page 173

MANIGAULT, A. M., 114 slaves, Division #2, page 97

MAXWELL, W. R., 125 slaves, Division #2, page 86

MAYBRANT, sarah H., 81 slaves, Division #2, page 75

MIDDLETON, , J. Izard wife and children, 181 slaves, Division #3, page 198

MIDDLETON, H. A., 266 slaves, Division #2, page 13

MIDDLETON, J. Izard wife and children, 107 slaves, Division #2, page 141

MIDDLETON, R. Izard, 81 slaves, Division #2, page 89

NESBIT, Est. Robert 2 sons and 2 daughters, 161 slaves, Division #3, page 202

PARKER, F. S., 100 slaves, Division #1, page 10

PARKER, F. S., 122 slaves, Division #2, page 20

PERKINS & CARRAWAY? (Turpentine ___?), 102 slaves, Division #2, page 61

PINCKNEY, Eliza non resident, 82 slaves, Division #2, page 162

PIPKIN, Elisha (turpentine ___?), 83 slaves, Division #2, page 65

PRINGLE, Jas. R., 147 slaves, Division #2, page 78

PRINGLE, Julius I., 199 slaves, Division #2, page 138

PRINGLE, Julius Izard wife and children, 199 slaves, Division #2, page 138

PRINGLE, Robert, 144 slaves, Division #2, page 46

PRINGLE, Wm. Bull, 226 slaves, Division #2, page 70

PYATT, Jos. B., 352 slaves, Division #2, page 28

PYATT, Martha H., 213 slaves, page 204

READ, J. Harleston, 511 slaves, Division #2, page 105

RUTLEDGE, H. P. Est heirs iin Charleston Dist., 159 slaves, Division #2, page 142

SPARKMAN, Est. W. E. widow and 3 children, 113 slaves, Division #2, page 42

SPARKMAN, J. R., 167 slaves, Division #2, page 150

TRAPIER, H. J?., 245 slaves, Division #2, page 33

TRAPIER, Jas. H., 81 slaves, Division #2, page 36

TRAPIER, W. H. wife and children, 189 slaves, Division #2, page 136

TRAPIER, Wm. H. wife and 3 children, 87 slaves, Division #3, page 226

TUCKER, Est John H. 5 children, 159 slaves, Division #2, page 156

TUCKER, Est. J. H. 3sons and 2 daughters, 182 slaves, Division #3, page 183 & 187

TYDIMAN, Est. P., 126 slaves, Division #2, page 96

WARD, Est. of Joshua J., 1130 slaves, Division #3, page 212

WESTON, Francis, wife and children, 332 slaves, Division #2, page 129

WESTON, P. C. J. and wife, 334 slaves, Division #3, page 188

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)

ALLSTON, 261, 226, 120, 230, 223, 120

ALSTON, 960, 193, 3, 218, 189, 3

ATKINSON, 465, 40, 1, 52, 37, 1

BARNWELL, 149, 111, 0, 117, 107, 0

BELIN, 17, 15, 3, 15, 15, 3

CARRAWAY?, 34, 5, 1, 6, 5, 1

CORDES, 13, 12, 2, 12, 12, 2

DOAR, 4, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0

DUNKIN, 85, 15, 12, 14, 14, 1`2

EASTERLING, 61, 22, 1, 33, 21, 1

EXUM, 52, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0

FLAGG, 67, 4, 0, 8, 4, 0

FORD, 2562, 293, 36, 378, 284, 36

FORSTER, 47, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0

GAILLARD, 125, 112, 17, 116, 112, 17

GOURDIN?, 29, 29, 9, 29, 29, 9

GRIER, 204, 28, 5, 31, 24, 5

GUERRARD, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

HERIOT, 11, 10, 6, 10, 10, 6

HORRY, 17, 16, 8, 16, 16, 8

HUME, 59, 14, 7, 17, 14, 7

IZARD, 26, 16, 3, 17, 15, 3

JOHNSTON, 2186, 224, 3, 265, 211, 3

JORDAN, 2359, 127, 9, 181, 121, 9

LABRUCE, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7

LADSON, 132, 118, 21, 122, 117, 21

LANCE, 43, 32, 17, 31, 31, 17

LOWNDES, 18, 13, 0, 13, 12, 0

LUCAS, 997, 71, 7, 79, 66, 7

MAGILL, 40, 12, 2, 16, 11, 2

MANIGAULT, 123, 121, 10, 123, 1121, 10

MAXWELL, 761, 110, 7, 133, 105, 7

MAYBRANT, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

MIDDLETON, 916, 373, 11, 431, 369, 11

NESBIT, 182, 96, 25, 106, 95, 25

PARKER, 4448, 227, 15, 322, 219, 14

PERKINS, 1897, 52, 4, 109, 48, 3

PINCKNEY, 294, 224, 18, 230, 217, 17

PIPKIN, 53, 6, 0, 9, 4, 0

PRINGLE, 126, 73, 6, 77, 72, 5

PYATT, 39, 29, 23, 30, 29, 23

READ, 779, 70, 16, 85, 70, 16

RUTLEDGE, 252, 90, 31, 110, 88, 31

SPARKMAN, 73, 7, 3, 11, 7, 3

TRAPIER, 7, 7, 4, 7, 7, 4

TUCKER, 2023, 153, 13, 198, 148, 13

TYDIMAN, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

WARD, 2525, 106, 11, 164, 99, 11

WESTON, 304, 102, 6, 123, 100, 6

Return to Home and Links Page

Georgetown County, SC GenWeb (Great resources)

Charleston slave broker Alonzo J. White article with listings of some slave names, at University of South Florida Africana Heritage Site.

You are the visitor to this page.