SUMTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

LARGEST SLAVEHOLDERS FROM 1860 SLAVE CENSUS SCHEDULES

and

SURNAME MATCHES FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS ON 1870 CENSUS

Transcribed by Tom Blake, May 2001

PURPOSE. Published information giving names of slaveholders and numbers of slaves held in Sumter County, South Carolina, in 1860, is either non-existent or not readily available. It is possible to locate a free person on the Sumter 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 Sumter 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 Sumter 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 Sumter County, South Carolina (NARA microfilm series M653, Roll 1238) reportedly includes a total of 16,682 slaves, ranking it among the 25 highest County totals in the U.S. This transcription includes 86 slaveholders who held 50 or more slaves in Sumter County, accounting for 7,888 slaves, or 47 % of the County total. The rest of the slaves in the County were held by a total of 736 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 where the slaves were enumerated and the first census 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.

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, except for 100 year old male Amos Fraser held at page 300 by L. L. Fraser. 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 Sumter County population included 6,857 whites, 320 "free colored" and 16,682 slaves. By the 1870 census, the white population had increased almost 9% to7,463, while the "colored" population had only increased just under 5% to 17,805. (As a side note, by 1960, 100 years later, the County was listed as having 39,846 whites, almost a six fold increase, but the 1960 total of 34,997 "Negroes"was only about double what the colored population had been 100 years before. This comparison does not make any adjustment for the formation of Lee County from Sumter in 1902, on the presumption the comparison groups were equally affected, but for a more precise comparison the affect of the formation of Lee should be fully calculated.) Though the colored population did not drop in the ten years following 1860, it did not increase at the same rate as the white population, so there must have been some early free slave migration from the County. 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 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 Sumter 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:

ALLEN, Sarah, 51 slaves, page 283

ANDERSON, William, 149 slaves, page 302

BOYKIN, A. H., 58 slaves, page 259

BRADFORD, G. W., 51 slaves, page 304

BRADLEY, John S., 71 slaves, page 309B

BRADLEY, Samuel J., 88 slaves, page 260B

BURGESS, Warren H., 78 slaves, page 262B

BURGESS, William S., 64 slaves, page 245B

CAIN, R. B., 66 slaves, page 297B

CALDWELL, James M., 101 slaves, page 263B

CHANDLER, Samuel R., 70 slaves, page 268B

COLCLOUGH, Elizabeth, 468 slaves, page 284

COOPER, George W., 374 slaves, page 248B

CROSSWELL, Jefferson for another, 73 slaves, page 305B

DENNIS, Adaline E. and 4 others, 55 slaves, page 242

DESSAUSSURE, John M., 301 slaves, page 291

DICK, L. W. and 3 others, 52 slaves, page 314

DINGLE, James H., 58 slaves, page 271B

DUBOSE, Dr. T. J., 89 slaves, page 311

DURANT, Elias, 52 slaves, page 247

DURANT, John O.?, 67 slaves, page 267

ELLERSON, William, 63 slaves, page 301B

ELLIOT, Sarah J. C., 124 slaves, page 306B

FERMAN, Charles M., 86 slaves, page 274B

FRASER, Ladson? L., 137 slaves, page 299B

FRIERSON, John N.?, 141 slaves, page 261B

FULLWOOD, Est. Robt. H., 55 slaves, page 256

GAILARD, Samuel T.?, 122 slaves, page 287

GREEN, Henry D., 110 slaves, page 281B

GREGG, E. MN., 76 slaves, page 239B

HAYNESWORTH, Joseph C., 52 slaves, page 229

HERRIOT, Robert L., 85 slaves, page 283

JENINGS, James M., 81 slaves, page 273B

JENINGS, Lauringdon? R.?, 96 slaves, page 273

KENEDY, William G.?, 67 slaves, page 280B

KENNEDY, G.? H., 86 slaves, page 269B

KNOX, John L., 110 slaves, page 288

LENOIR, Isack A., 50 slaves, page 289B

LEWIS, William, 53 slaves, page 228B

MANNING, R. J. and 2 others, 95 slaves, page 313B

MCBRIDE, James S., 134 slaves, page 222B

MCCUTCHEN, George Senr., 96 slaves, page 234B

MCFADDEN, James D., 148 slaves, page 226B

MCFADDEN, Leah, 52 slaves, page 225B

MCINTOSH, James G.?, 52 slaves, page 296

MCKAIN, Wiley J., 86 slaves, page 231

MELLETT, F. M., 65 slaves, page 298

MOORE, J. D., 129 slaves, page 304B

MOORE, James S., 210 slaves, page 265B

MOORE, M. S., 55 slaves, page 307B

MOTGOMERY, John W.?, 55 slaves, page 237B

MULDROW, John E., 83 slaves, page 221

MULDROW, Thomas M., 97 slaves, page 243

MULDROW, William J., 110 slaves, page 224

MULDROW, William J. for 8 others, 116 slaves, page 225

MURRY?, Elizabeth N.?, 114 slaves, page 279B

NELSON, Patrick H., 110 slaves, page 277

NELSON, Sarah R., 128 slaves, page 278B

PINKNEY, Henry L., 118 slaves, page 276

PITTS, J. M., 59 slaves, page 312

PLOWDEN, William E., 84 slaves, page 223B

RAMSEY, E. A., 109 slaves, page 251B

REESE, W. Waties?, 87 slaves, page 263

REMBERT, James E., 77 slaves, page 282

REYNOLDS, Marcus, 59 slaves, page 264B

REYNOLDS, William J., 57 slaves, page 246B

REYNOLDS, William J. for 6 others, 51 slaves, page 300B

SANDERS, Marion, 64 slaves, page 293B

SANDERS, Thomas O.?, 66 slaves, page 245

SANDERS, William, 77 slaves, page 244B

SCOTT, Wm. M., 53 slaves, page 237

SHAW, William, 72 slaves, page 257

SINGLETON, Mary L., 65 slaves, page 265

SPANN, Henry, 65 slaves, page 316

SPANN, Laurence M., 83 slaves, page 275B

STUCKEY, Edmund, 66 slaves, page 214

STUCKEY, Hardy, 74 slaves, page 213B

STUCKEY, Howel, 57 slaves, page 256B

STUCKEY?, [practically illegible], 59 slaves, page 217B

TERDREAU?, Mrs. E., 51 slaves, page 251B

WHEELDON, Sarah, 54 slaves, page 270

WHITE, Mariah F., 87 slaves, page 315

WHITE, William N.?, 55 slaves, page 315

WILSON, K. B., 56 slaves, page 240

WITHERSPOON, Hamilton J., 112 slaves, page 297

WITHERSPOON, J. E., 56 slaves, page 241

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)

ALLEN, 6198, 255, 16, 383, 232, 16

ANDERSON, 8173, 544, 42, 820, 514, 42

BOYKIN, 399, 29, 11, 46, 29, 11

BRADFORD, 911, 47, 27, 80, 44, 25

BRADLEY, 1305, 170, 24, 215, 165, 23

BURGESS, 425, 98, 7, 115, 98, 7

CAIN, 445, 64, 8, 78, 62, 8

CALDWELL, 1034, 170, 2, 212, 160, 2

CHANDLER, 616, 55, 11, 72, 54, 11

COLCLOUGH, 43, 30, 26, 30, 30, 26

COOPER, 3459, 250, 16, 382, 244, 16

CROSSWELL, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

DENNIS, 959, 47, 4, 79, 46, 4

DESSAUSSURE, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

DICK, 204, 41, 15, 46, 39, 15

DINGLE, 65, 42, 4, 42, 42, 4

DUBOSE, 252, 47, 5, 106, 44, 5

DURANT, 107, 82, 43, 88, 81, 43

ELLERSON, 25, 5, 0, 5, 5, 0

ELLIOT, 279, 6, 0, 15, 4, 0

FERMAN, 19, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

FRASER, 357, 217, 8, 232, 212, 8

FRIERSON, 236, 34, 30, 50, 34, 30

FULLWOOD, 19, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5

GAILARD, 2, 2, 0, 2, 2, 0

GREEN, 11070, 1384, 48, 1714, 1323, 47

GREGG, 244, 89, 9, 111, 87, 9

HAYNESWORTH, 8, 8, 4, 8, 8, 4

HERRIOT, 7, 7, 3, 6, 6, 3

JENINGS, 34, 5, 0, 5, 5, 0

KENEDY, 177, 25, 4, 40, 24, 4

KENNEDY, 781, 149, 4, 184, 143, 4

KNOX, 657, 58, 17, 89, 53, 17

LENOIR, 62, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2

LEWIS, 8707, 285, 14, 470, 269, 14

MANNING, 448, 55, 2, 77, 54, 2

MCBRIDE, 339, 73, 7, 89, 73, 7

MCCUTCHEN, 63, 28, 5, 30, 28, 5

MCFADDEN, 225, 121, 13, 137, 119, 13

MCINTOSH, 408, 55, 15, 81, 52, 14

MCKAIN, 17, 1, 0, 3, 1, 0

MELLETT, 5, 5, 3, 5, 5, 3

MOORE, 8698, 486, 26, 746, 463, 24

MOTGOMERY, 1303, 163, 23, 249, 157, 23

MULDROW, 65, 22, 14, 58, 22, 14

MURRY?, 662, 77, 0, 94, 71, 0

NELSON, 3371, 359, 30, 488, 347, 29

PINKNEY, 277, 68, 9, 102, 65, 9

PITTS, 649, 63, 4, 84, 60, 4

PLOWDEN, 42, 18, 7, 19, 17, 7

RAMSEY, 605, 43, 6, 69, 40, 6

REESE, 824, 85, 22, 138, 82, 21

REMBERT, 98, 15, 14, 27, 15, 14

REYNOLDS, 1197, 68, 16

SANDERS, 3090, 319, 24, 430, 311, 24

SCOTT, 8407, 591, 19, 764, 568, 19

SHAW, 1163, 72, 16, 117, 71, 16

SINGLETON, 1321, 623, 52, 739, 617, 52

SPANN, 265, 56, 31, 130, 54, 31

STUCKEY, 37, 9, 7, 20, 9, 7

TERDREAU?, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

WHEELDON, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

WHITE, 9567, 758, 44, 1037, 735, 43

WILSON, 10819, 844, 118, 1210, 819, 117

WITHERSPOON, 315, 115, 22, 152, 115, 22