BURKE COUNTY, GEORGIA LARGEST SLAVEHOLDERS FROM 1860 SLAVE CENSUS SCHEDULES and SURNAME MATCHES FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS ON 1870 CENSUS Transcribed by Tom Blake, October 2001 Transcribed by Tom Blake, tmblake@juno.com February, 2002 The information in this Archive file is also part of Tom Blake’s web site, "Large Slaveholders of 1860 and African American Surname Matches from 1870". As of May, 2002, that site contains the names of 7,250 large slaveholders (as well as the name of every slaveholder in Charleston, SC), accounting for approximately 1 out of 6 of all the slaves held in the United states in 1860, listed in 5,676 alphabetized County/surname combinations. The Large Slaveholder site is at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ajac/ [you can cut and paste this address into your browser file open box to link to the site]." PURPOSE. Published information giving names of slaveholders and numbers of slaves held in Burke County, Georgia, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Burke County, Georgia 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 Burke County, Georgia 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 Burke County, Georgia 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 Burke County, Georgia (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 142) reportedly includes a total of 12,052 slaves. This transcription includes 87 slaveholders who held 40 or more slaves in Burke County, accounting for 5,540 slaves, or 46% of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 633 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 counted, the number of the District 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 Georgia 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, and the transcriber found none in this County. 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 Burke County population included 5,013 whites, 100 "free colored" and 12,052 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population had decreased about 15% to 4,243, while the "colored" population increased about 10% to 13,436. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 6,911 whites, about 38% more than in 1860, while the 1960 total of 13,681 "Negroes"was about 12% more than 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. Chatham County saw an increase in colored population of almost two thirds between 1860 and 1870, so obviously that is where many freed slaves went. Other Georgia Counties showing significant increases include Fulton, Houston and Richmond. Between 1860 and 1870, the Georgia colored population increased by 80,000, to 545,000, a 17% increase. Where did freed Georgia slaves go if they did not stay in Georgia? States that saw significant increases in colored population during that time, and were therefore more likely possible places of relocation for colored persons from Burke County, included the following: 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: ALLEN, Elisha, 59 slaves, Dist. 67, page 206 BINES, Joseph A., 41 slaves, Dist. 61, page 172 BLOUNT, Est.?, 52 slaves, Dist. 73, page 225 BRACK, Miles F., 40 slaves, Dist. 74, ends on page 236 BROWN, James S., 42 slaves, Dist. 65, page 192B BULLARD, Needham, 60 slaves, Dist. 74, page 240 BYNE, John S., 96 slaves, Dist. 74, page 240B (ends on 235) BYNE, William, 42 slaves, Dist. 67, page 209 CARSWELL, John W., 58 slaves, Dist. 61, page 167B CARTER, Edward S.?, 49 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 176B CARTER, Isiah, 71 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 174B CHURCHILL, Salena A., 55 slaves, Dist. 61, page 167 CONELY, Robert F., 40 slaves, Dist. 73, page 223B CONEY, Robt., 40 slaves, Dist. 72?, ends on page 223 CORKER, Sarah ad her child Earnest?, 43 slaves, Dist. 61, page 171B COX, John H., 41 slaves, Dist. 66, page 195B COX, William, 43 slaves, Dist. 66, page 199B CROCKETT, Estate Floyd, 53 slaves, Dist. 66, page 1998B DANTIGNAL?, Wm. M., 100 slaves, Dist. 66, page 199 DAVIS, William B., 56 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 182B DAWSE, Gideon, 51 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 180 DILLARD, Nancy M., 43 slaves, 65 or 67?, page 209B DIXON, Robert J., 40 slaves, Dist. 74, page 235B FULTON, M. C., 68 slaves, Dist. 71, page 220B GREEN, Jessee P., 69 slaves, Dist. 66, page 201B GREEN, John G., 53 slaves, Dist. 67, page 204 GREEN, Moses P., 80 slaves, Dist. 67, page 204 GREEN, Moses P., 47 slaves, Dist. 74?, ends on page 241 GREENWOOD, Henry, 45 slaves, Dist. 73, page 217B (ends on 224B) GRESHAM, Edmund P.?, 58 slaves, Dist. 74, page 235 GRESHAM, Edward B., 41 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 174B GRUBBS, James, 50 slaves, Dist. 71, page 222 GRUBBS, James, 62 slaves, Dist. 74, page 236 HAWKINSON?, 60 slaves, Dist. 64, page 189 HODGSON, William B., 240 slaves, Dist. 66, page 197 HUGHES, William W., 68 slaves, Dist. 69, page 214 INMAN, Avey?, 68 slaves, Dist. 74, page 237B INMAN, Daniel, 43 slaves, Dist. 74, page 238B INMAN, Jeremiah Sr., 70 slaves, Dist. 74, page 238 INMAN, Jeremiah S., 78 slaves, Dist. 74, page 237 INMAN, Jeremiah Sr., 42 slaves, Dist. 71, page 222B JONES, Batt, 121 slaves, Dist. 61, page 169 JONES, Est. S. A., 58 slaves, Dist. 73, page 231B JONES, Francis A., 54 slaves, Dist. 71, page 222B JONES, Henry W., 49 slaves, Dist. 74, page 238B JONES, James V., 66 slaves, Dist. 74, page 239 JONES, Joseph B., 98 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 177B JONES, William B., 59 slaves, Dist. 74, page 239B KEY, Joshua, 128 slaves, Dist. 69, page 216 KIMBREL, William, 46 slaves, Dist. 61, page 173 LAMAR, George, 43 slaves, Dist. 73, page 234B LAWSON, Andrew J., 92 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 175B LEWIS, Augustus, 50 slaves, Dist. 74, page 236 LEWIS, Henry, 89 slaves, Dist. 70, ends on page 218 LEWIS, Ranson, 45 slaves, Dist. 63, page 183 LOVETT, William H., 42 slaves, Dist. 68, page 211B MARTIN, Alexander, 81 slaves, Dist. 69, page 215B MCCLENHAN, William F., 68 slaves, Dist. 70, page 218 MCKINNEY, Estate John, 78 slaves, Dist. 67, page 204B MCNATT, Adam, 95 slaves, Dist. 73, page 225B MILLER, Baldwin B. Sr., 60 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 179 MILLER, Baldwin B., 91 slaves, Dist. 73, page 233 MORRIS ( see Poythress & Morris) MORRISON, Robert, 47 slaves, Dist. 73, page 226 MURPHREE, Augustus, 55 slaves, Dist. 73, page 228 (ends on 229) NIXON, Michael, 46 slaves, Dist. 67, page 203 PALMER, Edmund, 53 slaves, Dist. 67, page 205 PEARCE, Thomas and two others, 40 slaves, Dist. 73, page 228B POWELL, Green B., 42 slaves, Dist. 66, page 200 POYTHRESS & MORRIS, Jonas H. Skinner agent for, 48 slaves, Dist. 61, page 166 REYNOLDS, James M., 162 slaves, Dist. 73, page 230 ROGERS, Thomas, 41 slaves, Dist. 66, page 201 ROSIER, John A., 44 slaves, Dist. 71, page 221B ROYAL, James H., 45 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 179B SAPP, Dennis, 41 slaves, Dist. 64, page 190 SAPP, William, 138 slaves, Dist. 64, page 188 SCHLEY, Henry J., 69 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 177 SHEWMAKE, Jas. A., 49 slaves, Dist. 63, page 183B SKRINE, Quintillian, 50 slaves, Dist. 69, page 217 TAYLOR, Ira H., 51 slaves, Dist. 72?, page 228B (ends on 228) THOMAS, Jefferson, 55 slaves, Dist. 63, page 186 THOMAS, Martha, 61 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 181 WALKER, Moses, 40 slaves, Dist. 69, page 214 WHITEHEAD, Amos G., 74 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 178B WHITEHEAD, John P. C., 93 slaves, Dist. 71, page 220 WHITEHEAD, T. Randolph, 67 slaves, Dist. 60 & 62, page 180B WIGGINS, Amos W., 69 slaves, Dist. 67, page 207 WILLIAMS, Ezekiel, 90 slaves, Dist. 66, page 196B ***Compare the above listing to those same surnames enumerated as African American families in the 1870 Census*** SURNAME MATCHES AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANS ON 1870 CENSUS: (exact surname spellings only are reported, no spelling variations or soundex) The following surnames and numbers are the number of African Americans shown on the 1870 Heritage Quest African American Census Index CD with that surname, in the following order: living in the U. S.in 1870; living in this State in 1870; living in this County in 1870; born in this State; born in this State and living in this State in 1870; born in this State and living in this County in 1870. These figures may help those seeking to make connections between slaveholders and former slaves. For example, descendants of former slaves and of former slaveholders living in the County in 1870 who share the same surname might want to research further whether there was a bond by slavery and maybe even by blood." Note: For example, in Crawford County, I report surnames of large holders accounting for 60% of the slaves, and I further report that the colored population in 1870 was about the same as the 1860 slave population, yet only about 6% of the colored population in 1870 had surnames of the large 1860 slaveholders. Feedback I have from researchers looking for slave ancestors indicates they understand and appreciate my surname match data. (SURNAME, # in US, in State, in County, born in State, born and living in State, born in State and living in County) ALLEN, 6198, 615, 18, 729, 513, 18 BINES, 14, 9, 2, 8, 8, 2 BLOUNT, 350, 86, 4, 89, 79, 4 BRACK, 34, 2, 0, 4, 1, 0 BROWN, 27013, 2419, 68, 2547, 1930, 65 BULLARD, 146, 33, 1, 30, 26, 1 BYNE, 42, 38, 30, 38, 38, 30 CARSWELL, 92, 89, 8, 86, 85, 8 CARTER, 7164, 598, 35, 653, 479, 34 CHURCHILL, 88, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 CONELY, 7, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 CONEY, 68, 33, 0, 29, 28, 0 CORKER, 17, 13, 9, 12, 12, 9 COX, 2288, 260, 7, 303, 211, 5 CROCKETT, 275, 11, 3, 17, 11, 3 DANTIGNAL?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 DAVIS, 13725, 1329, 29, 1532, 1081, 28 DAWSE, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 DILLARD, 568, 66, 1, 78, 57, 1 DIXON, 1757, 174, 0, 198, 143. 0 FULTON, 348, 43, 0, 39, 37, 0 GREEN, 11070, 1053, 53, 1190, 860, 51 GREENWOOD, 227, 29, 1, 57, 28, 1 GRESHAM, 160, 81, 3, 82, 76, 3 GRUBBS, 108, 23, 12, 24, 22, 12 HAWKINSON?, 8, 4, 0, 2, 2, 0 HODGSON, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 HUGHES, 1641, 112, 7, 121, 87, 5 INMAN, 69, 14, 5, 14, 14, 5 JONES, 27193, 2842, 164, 3155, 2331, 161 KEY, 532, 89, 7, 96, 74, 7 KIMBREL, 15, 9, 6, 8, 8, 6 LAMAR, 285, 187, 11, 189, 163, 11 LAWSON, 1047, 179, 13, 193, 156, 12 LEWIS, 8707, 664, 37, 758, 525, 35 LOVETT, 139, 58, 5, 53, 51, 5 MARTIN, 5318, 560, 11, 616, 462, 11 MCCLENHAN, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 MCKINNEY, 459, 43, 0, 47, 32, 0 MCNATT, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 MILLER, 6577, 557, 11, 602, 446, 10 MORRIS, 3112, 298, 14, 332, 241, 13 MORRISON, 751, 77, 6, 84, 69, 6 MURPHREE, 23, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 NIXON, 524, 65, 0, 43, 38, 0 PALMER, 1211, 111, 14, 118, 89, 13 PEARCE, 349, 36, 2, 42, 32, 2 POWELL, 2420, 243, 7, 276, 205, 7 POYTHRESS, 26, 26, 0, 24, 24, 0 REYNOLDS, 1197, 164, 13, 191, 133, 13 ROGERS, 2129, 244, 4, 294, 211, 4 ROSIER, 36, 7, 2, 8, 7, 2 ROYAL, 185, 27, 6, 22, 21, 5 SAPP, 111, 76, 37, 82, 71, 36 SCHLEY, 32, 23, 2, 18, 16, 2 SHEWMAKE, 11, 9, 4, 9, 9, 4 SKRINE, 4, 4, 0, 4, 4, 0 TAYLOR, 11696, 715, 3, 846, 552, 3 THOMAS, 11418, 1285, 73, 1493, 1064, 70 WALKER, 8492, 1199, 79, 1317, 997, 76 WHITEHEAD, 614, 211, 23, 194, 177, 21 WIGGINS, 753, 115, 4, 127, 98, 4 WILLIAMS, 28865, 3136, 141, 3439, 2520, 139 ======================== USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing free information on the Internet, data may be freely used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. These electronic pages cannot be reproduced in any format for profit or other presentation. The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for FREE access. ==============