Slave/Freedmen Surnames

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Luckie Daniels on July 12, 2009 at 3:45pm

Awwhhh Michael Hait, the subject that has become the proverbial thorn in my side! Looking forward to reviewing the survey findings!

Luckie.

Permalink Reply by Toni Carrier on July 12, 2009 at 4:03pm

Hi Michael,
Thank you so much for this problem-oriented research in a very sticky research area! --toni :)

Permalink Reply by GeneJ on October 7, 2009 at 4:17pm

Hi Michael, Luckie and Toni:

While I don't have a survey entry for you, per se, I do have an interesting set of records from which others might draw some data if it has not already been included in a strudy. The items I'm writeing about relate to April Dawn's challenge, "Lewis Siler - May The Circle Be Unbroken." AprilDawn hopes to discover if her Siler ancestors from Pike County, Alabama, were known by the surname Allen in the U.S. Federal Census 1870 and 1880.

In support of the research, we are documenting items about her African American Siler ancestry. We've identified slaveholder-Siler items that provide information from mid 1850's through the Civil War era (incl. published genealogy, wills and estate records, Civil War items). As well, and to the point of my post, we are working with U.S. Federal Census (1860 and 1870 population schedules; 1860 Slave Schedules) and have access to 1866 Alabama State Census [head of all households (black and white)] and the 1867 Alabama voter registraton rolls [adult males]

The census and voter list items seem relevant to from the standpoint of how "Slave/Freedmen Surnames" were (or were not) recorded. --GJ

Permalink Reply by Michael Hait on October 7, 2009 at 5:14pm

Thanks Gene!

It would certainly be a very interesting project to compare how African-American families are represented across the 1866 state census, 1867 voter rolls, and 1870 federal census.

Michael

Permalink Reply by Rodney Williams on October 26, 2009 at 3:43pm

Some researchers have put forth the theory that the common practice was for slaves to (secretly) use the surname of the owner of the earliest direct paternal ancestor to be enslaved, and that surnames were then passed down along the paternal line as in white American society. I don't have evidence to support this theory, but it would explain why so few former slaves had the same surname as their last owner (given the prevalence of ownership transfers), and also why some did (ie, their family was held by the same white family since the first direct male slave ancestor arrived). If proven true, this might suggest a different approach to researching slave ancestors than the traditional genealogical approach, that of moving backwards in time in your research. The one slaveholder I have found on my own tree happened to have the same surname as my ancestors, and research of the slaveholding family suggests that the family tended to not buy or sell slaves, only transferring ownership through inheritance and occasional 'gifts'.

Permalink Reply by Michael Hait on October 27, 2009 at 8:20pm

I would be very interested if you could cite the researchers who have put forth this theory.

From my research, I believe that this is at least partially true. The states where slaves were imported directly and stayed for over 200 years -- Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, for example -- seem to have a very low occurence of freedmen choosing to use their final owner's names, and indeed the surnames appear to have been passed down through the generations. I have found evidence of one family that used the same surname from about the time of the Revolution all the way into freedom after the Civil War.

On the other hand, states where slaves were mainly sold and transported, often away from their families -- such as Texas, Alabama, and other states of the "southwest" -- seem to have a much higher proportion of slaves who chose to use their direct owner's names. For some reason, parts of Georgia and North Carolina also appear to fit into this category as well, though I cannot explain why.

I am still investigating this phenomenon, to see if there are any other possible explanations to address these patters that appear to be emergining. For this reason, I am continuing to collect data through my survey, and conducting statistical research using a variety of records from around the country. I am also reading as many studies of slave communities as I can find, so if you could provide a name or a citation where this theory is discussed, I would truly appreciate it.

Thanks a lot, Rodney.

Permalink Reply by Rodney Williams on November 16, 2009 at 12:09am

Sorry for the delay; I'm just now seeing your request. If memory serves (and it often does not) I believe I first read about this theory in 'The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom-1750-1925' by Herbert G. Gutman. I also seem to remember Gutman citing specific sources. I will be on vacation starting tomorrow for 4 days, and will take this book with me (plus a couple other suspects in case this is not where I read it) to track down the specific page where this is mentioned.

Thank you for taking on this important topic. Knowing even a little about what influenced the choice of surnames in different geographies and circumstances will at least give researchers a good idea of where to start looking.

Permalink Reply by Rodney Williams on November 21, 2009 at 4:36pm

Okay, so I did a little refresher reading while on my vacation, and I'm pretty sure I have found the text that prompted my first post. However, the wording of my original post may have been too strong based on what I just read. Chapter 6 of 'The Black Family in S;avery and Freedom' ('Somebody Knew My Name') deals with this topic extensively, and is based primarily on Gutman's own study of pre- and post-slavery documents. Gutman sets out to show the following in this chapter (and I think does so convincincly):

1. That slaves had surnames prior to emancipation, used primarily amongst themselves and not acknowledged by white society.
2. These surnames were more often than not different from their current owners' surnames.
3. That even when slaves' surnames were the same as their owners', the connection for the slave was with his/her ancestors and not with the slave owner.
4. That slave surnames were, for the most part, the same surname as a previous owner (of the slave or the slave's ancestor).
5. In most cases, surnames were taken from the paternal line; and
6. Slaves tried to go back as far as possible along the paternal line in adopting surnames.

You would get to the assertion I made in my original post only if slaves regularly knew their paternal line all the way back to Africa, and that there were not a lot of other extenuating regional and other circumstances. But at least these 6 assertions tell us what 'intent' the African-American community had in assigning surnames.

On another note, I wonder what paternal DNA testing brings to the table that was not available to previous researches. My paternal DNA, like 1/5 to 1/4 of African-American males, is R1b (Western European), and my closest DNA matches eventually began to cluster around a single surname (one that otherwise has no relation to my own surname, and that does not show up anywhere in my paternal line research). This has led to major breakthroughs in my paternal line research that I would otherwise never have been likely to discover. Perhaps a study of the surnames of DNA-tested males with non-African haplogroups, the surnames of their closest matches, and the surnames of known slaveholding families across regions and time periods would yield some interesting insights. Just a thought.