Sticks And Stones, There's N---'s Living with the Bones!

The role of the historian is to report things as they were found, not as the historian or the rest of modernity wish they had been. In the last post, we discussed using racial descriptions as names to search for African-Americans. We were successful using "slave," "colored," and "Negro" to find records that if combined with othe records could resolve long-standing problems and perhaps crumble some pre-1870 brickwalls. It occurred to me that if the recordkeepers were using "colored" and "Negro," whatever would keep them from using "nigger"? [I know that it is fashionable these days not to say that word aloud, but to refer to it euphemistically as "the N-word." However, in context, it is fair and even imperative to use the word itself. In the heading of this post, I thought it would be too shocking, having not laid the premise yet. Those who are offended may go read something else]. Indeed, recordkeepers and census takers did use this slur of slurs as a first name and as a last name for black people (and, inexplicably, for a few whites as well). Thus, for example, in the 1860 census in Clermont County, Ohio, we find "Nigger Dave," age 90, and "Nigger Jim," age 80, residing with the Bone family of Williamsburg. The researcher cannot let his or her umbrage get in the way--this is valuable information that's likely not to be had any other way. We also learn that "Red Nigger Mills" died in Rusk County, Texas, in 1932; and that "Lucy Nigger," a black woman, resided in Loudon County, Virginia, in 1850. But the use of such disparagements was not limited to African-Americans. The 1860 census, for example, identifies nearly every male Chinese immigrant in California and Oregon simply as "Chinaman" or "John Chinaman." (There's a "Sam" or two thrown in as well). Now that we live in a more enlightened age, shouldn't we go through and "correct" these errant and offensive records? My answer is no. What do you think?

Research Tip: Slaves and Slavs in the U.S. Census (and how to tell the difference!)

"No census taken between 1790 and 1860 contains even one slave's name."

Harriet C. Frazier, Runaway and Freed Missouri Slaves and Those Who Helped Them, 1763-1865, (McFarland & Company: 2004), p. 12.

Most genealogists will not find this statement particularly surprising. We all know that, except for a very few free blacks, African-Americans were not enumerated by name in the federal census until 1870. The only problem with this bit of conventional wisdom is that it isn't true!

In fact, a number of slaves are listed by name in several states in several census years. To find them, put the word "slave" in either the first name or the surname search box in your Favorite Commercial On-line Research Website (you know who I mean!).

Searching "slave" as a first name, and leaving the surname box empty, yields several census results. Of course, there are the 1850 and 1860 Slave schedules, but these don't list the slaves by name. Then there are the Mortality Schedules for 1850-1880, but again these don't list the slave's names . There are names on these schedules, but they are the names of slaveholders (although there are several instances where the names of slaves appear--see for example, the 1860 slave schedule for Oglethorpe County, Georgia, Ancestry.com. 1860 U.S. Federal Census - Slave Schedules [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 2004. Original data: United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1860. M653, 1,438 rolls). Where are there names of slaves? Patience, Grasshopper, patience.

In the 1840 census of Nansemond, Virignia, there is a person described as "Demsey of Stallings (slave)". However, there appear to be at least two "free colored persons" living in this household, so it is not entirely clear that "Demsey of Stallings" really is a slave. I should note that on this census there are several individuals listed thusly "(first name) of _______." They are all "free colored persons."

In the 1820 census of St Mary's County, Maryland, there is a person described as "Slave Backey of Boutte." Examining the document, it appears that there are three or perhaps four individuals in the household and they all appear to be slaves. Even so, I would understand if someone felt that this example seems a bit ambiguous.

So try this: put the word "slave" in the surname box and leave the first name box empty. Now on the 1840 census, there are a number of persons, mainly in Mobile, Alabama, with the apparent surname "Slave." But notice how they all have the same middle initial: "A"! So it's not "Nancy A. Slave;" it's "Nancy, a slave." You can tell this by noticing that there are no marks or numerals in the corresponding columns for "free white people" or "free colored people." The household seems to be enumerated just in the "slaves" columns. Thus there are at least 13 slaves named in the 1840 census of Mobile, Montgomery County, Alabama. And there are several others around the country: "Delilia, a slave," and "James, a slave" are found in Knox County, Tennessee, while "Shedrick, slave" resides in Loudon County, Virginia. "Franky, a slave, owner unknown," was counted in Wake County, North Carolina. [Can a person be a slave if their owner is "unknown"?].

The 1860 census has several bondpersons listed in Wilmington, North Carolina, including "A Mute Slave."

Searching "slave" as a first name and separately as a surname yields a treasure trove of results other than federal census records. There are state census records. And moreover, there are birth, death, and even marriage records for slaves in a number of states. Many of these records name slaves. And they reveal much about the social brutality of slavery. Search for the word "slave" as a surname in the Ancestry.com database "Rockingham County, Virginia Births, 1853-1857," and you'll see what I mean.

Searching for the word "slave" as a name also results in quite a few immigration and passenger records for African-Americans prior to 1860. For example, on 12 June 1820, Michel Allain arrived at the Port of New Orleans from Cuba with "his slave, a black man named Louis," according to Ancestry.com's New Orleans Passenger Lists, 1820-1945.

Tina Turner's Great-Grandfather was a Slave, But What's Slav Got to Do With It?

One thing to be careful about is that "Slave" may in fact be a legitimate surname or at least a transcription of a legitimate surname. It appears that a number of people from the Baltics and other eastern European states were either named or referred to as "Slave." So you can be sure that Slave Dimitriss who arrived in New York on 21 April 1910 from Southampton was not a former African bondman. But records can be tricky. How can you with great confidence tell a slave from a Slav?

First, look at the geographical area to which the record refers. Slaves tend to be found in the South; Slavs, not so much. Slavs generally are found in northern cities; Slaves, not so much. Then look to the time period. Slaves are generally so referred to prior to 1865; Slavs generally later than that. Look at first names as a clue. If there is a place of birth or race listed in your record, that's a clear giveaway.

Of course, for every rule, there is the ambiguous case. So for example, what's up with 18 year-old Ellen L. Slave of Waterbury, Connecticut, enumerated on the 1860 census of New Haven County, Connecticut? Answer: we could take a guess, but we really don't know without more. Or how about the "Slaves" of Edmonson County, Kentucky on the 1860 census? Well, this is probably just a transcription error.

"Slave" also turns up as a surname from the United Kingdom, especially Ireland and Scotland.

Other Searches

Other non-standard searches to find African-Americans include searching the word "Negro" as a first name or surname or the word "colored" as a first name or surname. These searches yield information that when combined with other information may help identify pre-1870 African-American ancestors. For example, a search on the word "colored" results in over 100 records in Ancestry.com's St Louis City Death Records.


The Last Word

We've seen that it is not true that slaves did not appear by name in the census until 1870. We've also learned that a number of records can be accessed by racial description in a name search. That, of course, is because of the way records were kept in a different era. And speaking of racial descriptions in a different era, some of you may be wondering the same thing I was wondering. I'll get to that in the next post.

To Tell the Genealogical Truth

Some Lessons about Census Records Contestant #1: My name is Julia McDavid. I was born in the nineteenth century and had a daughter named Helen. Can you find me in the 1880 or 1900 census? Contestant #2: My name is Julia McDavid. I was born in the nineteenth century and had a daughter named Helen. Can you find me in the 1880 or 1900 census? Contestant #3: My name is Julia McDavid. I was born in the nineteenth century and had a daughter named Helen. Can you find me in the 1880 or 1900 census? Announcer: It's time for "To Tell The Genealogical Truth!" Only one of these ladies is telling the genealogical truth and is the "real" Julia McDavid, born in the nineteenth century and who later had a daughter named Helen! Join us today as she and her partners try to stump our expert panel! This is a lesson about census records. As you've guessed by now, our subject is one Julia McDavid. But the Julia McDavid we're looking for was born in the nineteenth century and had a daughter named Helen. Can we find her on the 1880 or 1900 censuses? Well, let's give it a try! Let's look first at all the available censuses to see if we can find a person who matches our parameters. Lesson #1: Even if you think you know where to look, don't ignore the other census records. There may be valuable information there. Our global perusal tells us that on each available census, there are several Julia McDavids (not too many to look at each individually) and that they are described in a variety of racial terms, a variety of ages, and a variety of places of birth. More on all that later. But only one seems to be linked to a little girl named Helen. In the 1910 census for Garland County, Arkansas, Hot Springs Ward 2, at page 285, at 330-332 Laurel Street, we find a Julia McDavid living in the Lee household. Her entry looks like this: McDavid, Julia Roomer F Mu 37 M 16 [?] 3 AR AR AR English Laundress Census Place: Hot Springs Ward 2, Garland County, Arkansas; Roll: T624_50; Page: 4B; Enumeration District: 62; Image: 1090. Decoding this, we can tell that Julia McDavid rents a room from the head of the household; is female; her race is described as "mulatto"; she's 37 years old; she's married and has been for 16 years; we can't read the entry for "number of children born; she has three children presently living; she, her father, and her mother were born in Arkansas; she speaks English; and she's a laundress. As we work down several lines, we notice that there are a number of other adult roomers here; all but one female. Lesson #2: Notice the demographics of the household. This may give good information about the nature of the household. And at the end of the Lee household enumeration, there are three children all surnamed McDavid: Sterling, 14; Clayton, 11; and Helen, 8. So this appears to be the Julia McDavid we're looking for. So now let's see if we can find this Julia McDavid on the 1900 census. Again, there are several Julia McDavids on the 1900 census. But there's only one in Arkansas. She's in Little Rock, which is not far from Hot Springs. Is this the same Julia McDavid? Lesson #3: Geographical proximity sometimes helps track a person through several censuses. The Julia McDavid in Little Rock in 1900 is enumerated like this: McDavid, Julia Boarder W F Jun 72 27 S AR SC MO Pros Census Place: Little Rock Ward 7, Pulaski County, Arkansas; Roll: T623_74; Page: 5B; Enumeration District: 89 Hmmm!? This Julia McDavid is white and single, and the part of the form for recording the number of children is blank. Our Hot Springs Julia was "mulatto," married for 16 years, with three children. And this Little Rock woman is a prostitute! Lesson #4: Dealing with racial discrepancies on the census: Racial categories on the census were not measured scientifically (because race is not a scientific concept!). Most often, the census taker made an eyeball assessment of race. A person may be described several different ways over the course of several censuses. You may have to use other clues to identity when the racial descriptions vary. Lesson #5; Dealing with marital status discrepancies on the census: This is not a frequently encountered problem. It's curious in this case, though. In 1910, Julia tells the census taker that she's been married for 16 years. In 1900, when she's working as a prostitute, she says she's single. Obviously, she had an incentive to misrepresent her marital status under the circumstances. Lesson #6: The nature of the living quarters: Note that our 1910 Hot Springs Julia lived in a boarding house of some sort. The fact that both she and our 1900 Julia lived in similar circumstances may suggest that they are the same person. Then there is the curious description of birthplaces. Lesson #7: Identity of birth places is some times some evidence of a person's identity over several censuses. In this case, our 1910 and our 1900 Julia's birth are said to have been born in Arkansas. But there are differences in the parents' birth places. This is not unusual, especially in the early twentieth century and in the nineteenth century. Many people did not know where their parents were born. Some times a relative gave this information and may have assumed that because a person previously lived a certain place ("came from"), that the person was born there. Consider this: everything you know about when and where you were born is hearsay. So much so about when and where your parents were born. So is the white, 27 year old single prostitute living in Little Rock the same person as the 37 year old "mulatto" married mother living in Hot Springs ten years later? We can't say for sure. Let's go to the 1880 census. There we find no Julia McDavid in Arkansas. But we do find a Julia McDavid in South Carolina and a Julia McDavid in Missouri. Look at these entries: Carroll County, Missouri McDavid, Julia Ann W F 10 . . . MO MD KY Census Place: Rea, Carroll County, Missouri, Roll: T9_679; Page: 533, Enumeration Dist.: 156 Anderson County, South Carolina McDavid, Julia A. B F 11 . . . SC SC SC Census Place: Honea Path, Anderson County, South Carolina; Roll: T9_1219; Page: 291.2000; Enumeration District: 31. The main difference here is that these two Julias are somewhat older than our Arkansas Julias. So is the white, 27 year old Arkansas prostitute whose parents were from South Carolina and Missouri the same person as the 10 year old Missouri girl whose parents were from Maryland and Kentucky? Or is the 37 year old Arkansas mulatto wife and mother whose parents wre from Arkansas the same person as the 11 year old black South Carolina girl who parents were from South Carolina? Or is the 27 year old white Arkansas prostitute the same person as the 11 year old black girl from South Carolina? Is the 37 year old mulatto wife and mother the same person as the 10 year old white Missouri girl? Now let's add another piece to the puzzle. The 1920 census for Caddo Parish, Louisiana, shows this: McDavid, Julia F B 42 widowed MO MO MO Census Place: Shreveport Precinct 7, Caddo, Louisiana; Roll: T625_608; Page: 17B; Enumeration District: 54. Remember "1910 Julia's" children in Hot Springs? The 1920 census for Caddo Parish, Louisiana has just above Julia McDavid, this entry: McDavid, Clayton M B 22 M[arried] AR AR AR "1910 Clayton" was listed as 11 years old. Also on the 1920 Caddo parish census just above Clayton is this: Cornelius, Helen F B 18 M AR AR AR "1910 Helen" was 8 years old. Coming Next: Will the Real Julia McDavid Please Stand Up?