Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

ORANGEBURG COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

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 Orangeburg County, South Carolina, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Orangeburg 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 Orangeburg 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 Orangeburg 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 Orangeburg County, South Carolina (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 1236) reportedly includes a total of 16,583 slaves, ranking it the ninth highest County total in the State and the twenty-sixth in the United States. This transcription includes 109 slaveholders who held 35 or more slaves in Orangeburg County, accounting for 7.028 slaves, or 42% of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 984 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. Unfortunately, the film viewed by the transcriber had some faded ink and focus problems. 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, except for 100 year old female Lizzie, held by S. H. Legare on page 478B. 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 Orangeburg County population included 8,108 whites, 205 "free colored" and 16,583 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population had decreased about 30% to 5,709, while the "colored" population had decreased about 34% to 11,156. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 27,367 whites, over a three fold increase from the 1860 total, while the 1960 total of 41,181 "Negroes"was about two and a half 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 Orangeburg 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:

HOLMAN, Adam, 55 slaves, page 375

ZIMMERMAN, Thos., 89 slaves, page 375

ZIMMERMAN,R. H., 63 slaves, page 376

SELLERS, John & Samuel, 78 slaves, page 377

STACK, David, 51 slaves, page 379

SMOKE, Aaron, 57 slaves, page 379B

WANNAMAKER, John, 103 slaves, page 379B

KEITT, George, 51 slaves, page 380

HOUSER, David, 55 slaves, page 380B

HYDRICK, A.? P., 43 slaves, page 383

MCGILL?, R., 36 slaves, page 384B

DANTZLER, James, 40 slaves, page 385B

BUTLER, Joel, 95 slaves, page 386B

WANNAMAKER, W.? W.?, 74 slaves, page 387B

MCKENZIE, Daniel, 45 slaves, page 388

HAYNE, D. J., 127 slaves, page 388B

DARBY, A.? T., 53 slaves, page 389B

THOMPSON, W.? R., 36 slaves, page 389B

THOMPSON, Mrs. E., 75 slaves, page 390

KENNERLY, Mrs. M., 155 slaves, page 390B

WOLFE, Ellen & eight others, 50 slaves, page 391B

GATES, Christian, 51 slaves, page 392B

KEITT, Jacob G., 49 slaves, page 393

DANTZLER, J. S., 37 slaves, page 393

DANTZLER, O. M., & one other, 102 slaves, page 393B

THOMPSON, Charles, 37 slaves, page 394B

TREZEVANT, J. D., 39 slaves, page 394B

MCCORD, Mrs. L.? S., 169 slaves, page 395

DEVAUX, M. N., 189 slaves, page 396

FABER, A.? K.?, 160 slaves, page 399

FELDER, Lewis?, 52 slaves, page 399

QUICK, Martin, 50 slaves, page 400

WEEKS, J. B., 37 slaves, page 401

KEITT, John D., 84 slaves, page 403

KELLER, W., 88 slaves, page 403B

SHULER, Oliver?, 38 slaves, page 404

SHULER, George, 38 slaves, page 405B

DANTZLER, Dr. Lewis, 90 slaves, page 406

DANTZLER, Huddleston, 51 slaves, page 406B

FLUDD, Edward, 50 slaves, page 408B

FLUDD, Augustus, 85 slaves, page 409

DAVIS, William, 59 slaves, page 409B

DANTZLER, Daniel, 35 slaves, page 410

NORRIS, George, 65 slaves, page 410

SHULER, David, 46 slaves, page 412

FELDER, J. H., 58 slaves, page 414

KEMMERLING?, Conrad, 85 slaves, page 415

FELDER, Frederick, 46 slaves, page 420B

WETSIL, John, 58 slaves, page 422

BOWMAN, Frederick, 67 slaves, page 423

BOWMAN, Susan, 55 slaves, page 423B

BOWMAN, Eugene, 38 slaves, page 424

BAXTER, David H., 40 slaves, page 426B

FELDER, John, 44 slaves, page 427

ROBINSON, Murry, 94 slaves, page 427B

ONEAL, Lark, 59 slaves, page 428B

BOWMAN, John S., 63 slaves, page 429

COONER, Lewis E., 72 slaves, page 429B

FREDERIC, L. S.?, 50 slaves, page 430

FARRY, F. W., 55 slaves, page 431B

ORR, Abraham, 42 slaves, page 432

BOWMAN, John W.?, 37 slaves, page 434

BOWMAN, David, 45 slaves, page 434

COX, Andrew, 44 slaves, page 434B

EDWARDS, Richard, 56 slaves, page 435B

FREDERIC, A. J., 102 slaves, page 436

MOORER, Henry, 50 slaves, page 436B

GRAMBLING, Caroline, 48 slaves, page 437

ANDREWS, J. J., 66 slaves, page 437B

WANNAMAKER, Jacob. G., 41 slaves, page 438

HORGER, David, 83 slaves, page 439

INABINET, T. T., 73 slaves, page 439B

MOORER, J. T.? And two others, 69 slaves, page 440

KEITT, Ann, 37 slaves, page 440B

RUMPH, Margaret and two others, 63 slaves, page 441

FELDER, Samuel, 37V41B

HOUSER, Peter M., 55 slaves, page 442

RUMPH, D. J., 44 slaves, page 444B

KNOTTS, Joseph E., 42 slaves, page 445B

RILEY, D., 46 slaves, page 446

RILEY, Jacob, 38 slaves, page 446B

AMAKER, Adam, 83 slaves, page 449

WHALEY, Thos. B.?, 124 slaves, page 450

OLIVER, Tho. W., 69 slaves, page 451

GAUCK, Morgan, Agt., 39 slaves, page 451B

MOSS, William C., 41 slaves, page 452

LOUIS, D., 38 slaves, page 452

MORGAN, Joseph H., 91 slaves, page 454

STROMAN, Jacob, 151 slaves, page 455

FELDER, P. S., 37 slaves, page 456B

JENNINGS, John S., 184 slaves, page 457B

ROWE, Donald C., 45 slaves, page 459

EASTERLING, John, 98 slaves, page 459

MCMICHAEL, John, 47 slaves, page 459B

SHULAR, A., agent, 69 slaves, page 461

JENNINGS, Henry, 49 slaves, page 461B

KENNERLY, John C., 54 slaves, page 467

LIVINGSTON, Elizabeth, 39 slaves, page 467B

MILLHOUSE, S. R., 69 slaves, page 468

MOSS, James E., 36 slaves, page 468B

HOLMON, Harriett, 46 slaves, page 471B

GIGNARD, John, 41 slaves, page 473

SALLEY, John A., 38 slaves, page 473B

JONES, James D., 67 slaves, page 474

TATE, P. J., 80 slaves, page 475

TATE, J. H. P., 110 slaves, page 475B

BEACH, Diana, 42 slaves, page 477

GLOVER, Thos. W., 55 slaves, page 477B

LEGARE, S. H., 52 slaves, page 478

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)

AMAKER, 9, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2

ANDREWS, 1160, 69, 2, 98, 68, 2

BAXTER, 315, 38, 12, 48, 37, 12

BEACH, 71, 3, 0, 5, 3, 0

BOWMAN, 926, 79, 29, 99, 78, 29

BUTLER, 4225, 320, 9, 451, 307, 9

COONER, 8, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4

COX, 2288, 65, 0, 120, 62, 0

DANTZLER, 55, 20, 10, 23, 19, 10

DARBY, 165, 34, 7, 51, 33, 7

DAVIS, 13725, 1065, 25, 1500, 1019, 24

DEVAUX, 14, 12, 0, 12, 11, 0

EASTERLING, 61, 22, 0, 33, 21, 0

EDWARDS, 3741, 359,17, 499, 337, 16

FABER, 12, 3, 0, 2, 2, 0

FARRY, 5, 1, 0, 2, 1, 0

FELDER, 346, 124, 59, 199, 124, 59

FLUDD, 12, 12, 2, 12, 12, 2

FREDERIC, 16, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0

GATES, 531, 37, 6, 64, 36, 6

GAUCK, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

GIGNARD, 4, 4, 0, 4, 4, 0

GLOVER, 1147, 320, 48, 394, 307, 48

GRAMBLING, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0

HAYNE, 60, 34, 7, 36, 34, 7

HOLMAN, 278, 32, 1, 46, 31, 1

HOLMON, 9, 2, 0, 2, 1, 0

HORGER, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

HOUSER, 89, 7, 6, 20, 7, 6

HYDRICK, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2

INABINET, 5, 5, 1, 5, 5, 1

JENNINGS, 848, 97, 2, 135, 94, 2

JONES, 27193, 1346, 45, 1922, 1261, 45

KEITT, 36, 29, 24, 34, 29, 24

KELLER, 186, 30, 5, 33, 27, 5

KEMMERLING?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

KENNERLY, 29, 10, 1, 10, 10, 1

KNOTTS, 38, 8, 0, 10, 8, 0

LEGARE, 31, 30, 0, 28, 28, 0

LIVINGSTON, 296, 67, 21, 83, 65, 20

LOUIS, 858, 16, 1, 37, 16, 1

MCCORD, 166, 18, 2, 32, 16, 2

MCGILL?, 253, 62, 0, 70, 60, 0

MCKENZIE, 216, 22, 1, 31, 21, 1

MCMICHAEL, 57, 1, 0, 5, 1, 0

MILLHOUSE, 25, 5, 2, 7, 4, 2

MOORER, 54, 13, 9, 27, 13, 9

MORGAN, 2507, 154, 2, 252, 148, 2

MOSS, 935, 44, 6, 56, 40, 6

NORRIS, 750, 74, 1, 98, 72, 1

OLIVER, 1482, 96, 10, 157, 92, 9

ONEAL, 360, 28, 0, 39, 27, 0

ORR, 289, 25, 0, 41, 24, 0

QUICK, 92, 44, 0, 50, 42, 0

RILEY, 1050, 109, 8, 142, 107, 8

ROBINSON, 8046, 554, 14, 832, 534, 14

ROWE, 211, 27, 9, 32, 26, 9

RUMPH, 67, 4, 1, 33, 4, 1

SALLEY, 10, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0

SELLERS, 225, 31, 2, 40, 30, 2

SHULAR, 19, 12, 11, 17, 12, 11

SHULER, 65, 41, 25, 47, 39, 25

SMOKE, 52, 27, 10, 30, 27, 10

STACK, 21, 5, 3, 6, 5, 3

STROMAN, 23, 17, 15, 19, 17, 15

TATE, 1015, 40, 2, 70, 36, 2

THOMPSON, 8826, 590, 20, 890, 571, 19

TREZEVANT, 5, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0

WANNAMAKER, 16, 14, 7, 12, 12, 7

WEEKS, 324, 21, 0, 24, 20, 0

WETSIL, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

WHALEY, 167, 36, 13, 39, 35, 12

WOLFE, 47, 8, 4, 12, 8, 4

ZIMMERMAN, 671, 15, 2, 20, 15, 2

Return to Home and Links Page

You are the visitor to this page.