The 'master's name' question -- and a call to action

Since first posting “The myth of the 'master’s name',” I have had occasion to discuss the subject of how freed slaves chose their surnames with several other researchers, including David Paterson, whose comments to my original article provoked my first response.

My good friend Robyn Smith, a professional genealogist who also writes the blog “Reclaiming Kin,” also disagreed with my conclusions. She wrote me,

Some slaves took the most recent slaveowner's last name, there is certainly no doubt about that. Out of 4 discovered slaveowners in my line, 3 took the name of the last slaveowner. You are correct that many in this area teach that as a strategy, but I disagree with your conclusion that that does not stand up to scrutiny---it does. As a beginning strategy, it's perfectly valid and will lead some to the slaveowner. It's worked for many, including myself. Think about it: you've got to start somewhere. If that doesn't work, you can move on to other strategies, but the reality is, you might not discover it at all because of a plethora of reasons. Maybe they picked their name outta the clear blue sky. Maybe they chose "Freeman" for obvious reasons. Maybe they moved out of the area (most didn't), but obviously some did. Maybe the records burned or never existed. Like anything else. I have been using those Slave Statistics for my Montgomery Cty folks and the first thing I realized was that 1) many were missing and 2) many slaves didn't take the last name of their most recent slaveowner.

I think something you mentioned in your response to David was a key point--some slaves took the name of a previous slaveowner, simply because that was their mother's or father's name. But I dont think that point was clearly made in your article. When I teach, I don't use words like "most" or any words other than SOME. The diversity of slavery over time and place and area is much too wide, I believe, to ever factually be able to draw that kinda conclusion. I think you maybe could talk about the practice in a very small sample area, if you had info representative of at least 90-95% of the enslaved population. I would think that's the most you could do. Of course, in my mind, it only speaks to the vicously of slavery itself, the prevalence of tearing families apart when I see so many surnames all over the place.

I have concluded, with my own very informal experience, that many slaves HAD last names that they themselves were known by, that the white community did not respect and did not record. So I like to tell students to think about that as they read lists of first names only....surnames were probably there. Especially where you read the slave narratives, you get a really good sense of that. Also, another good reference for data on this is Freedmen's Bureau labor contracts--they are rife with enslaved surnames , and they are usually closer in time, 1866, 1867.

Robyn and David have both made good points. There is another essay, recently posted at the AfriGeneas Blog, that also examines this issue, “Finding Slave Ancestors,” by Barnetta McGhee White. Dr. White’s conclusion seems to agree with my own, though hers was perhaps better stated. I recommend that all of my readers also read the AfriGeneas Blog – the articles are always informative and well-written, from a variety of researchers.

Just to clarify my original point: I do believe that there is genealogical value in the surname of the freedman, just as there is genealogical value in the surname of any other man, of any race or nationality. However, I believe that the value of the surname in identifying the last slaveowner is extremely limited, because my experience has shown that very few slaves used the surname of their last slaveowner.

Why is it important to identify the last slaveowner, as opposed to a previous owner? The most important reason is so that we have all of the information. Remember, the first step of the Genealogical Proof Standard is to conduct a “reasonably exhaustive” search for available, relevant records. The last slaveowner may have freed his slaves prior to the emancipation, or may have kept detailed account books or a diary, or may have inherited the slaves from his in-laws, or created any number of other records that relate to this particular ancestor. Each of these records may hold another valuable clue into the life of your ancestor. Perhaps a previous slaveowner noted your ancestor’s mother, but the last one noted her father. That is an entire line of your family that would have gone unknown. Not to mention the fact that, as Dr. White mentioned in her article, the previous owner with whom the slaves did share a surname, may have been generations prior to the life of the slave of interest.

Also, the last owner will generally be the easiest one to locate. Slavery was abolished in 1865, but the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves of the south in 1863. The owner in the 1860 federal census slave schedule was, in most cases, the last owner. From the beginning of the Civil War, especially as emancipation approached, slavery as an institution was on tenuous ground, even with its supporters; slaves became difficult to sell. In fact, the 1863 estate inventory of Charles Carroll of Doughoregan Manor in Howard Co., Maryland, grandson of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, valued each of his slaves (and he owned over one hundred) at only $5. The appraisers stated that this was the case because, in talking with area slave traders, no one was willing to buy slaves for any more than that. An 1864 estate inventory in Prince George’s Co., Maryland, refused to assign any value at all to the slaves. In general, sales of slaves greatly declined during the War.

As I mentioned in my original post, searching for the owner by using the slave’s surname is the method taught by most African-American genealogy courses. I posted links to two online examples in my response to David. This procedure is one way to go, but I have had very little success with the method.

My experience as a professional genealogist and writer has given me two different perspectives on this matter. My original post described the conclusions that I have reached in the course of a broad study on slaves in Prince George’s County, Maryland. This experience involved using a record set – in this case the county Slave Statistics – and following slaves both to earlier owners (where possible) and out of slavery into freedom in the 1870 and 1880 federal census records. My study in this matter is ongoing, as I examine many different record groups to locate information on – so far – over six thousand slaves.

My other perspective is as a professional genealogist conducting "pedigree" research for clients. This perspective is the one that most of you will relate to, as the search for one’s ancestors is what draws most of us to genealogy. Over the years, I have located quite a few slaveowners, using a variety of records:

plantation account books
slaveowner estate records (wills, inventories, etc.)
a slaveowner’s diary, published by a local historical society
a newspaper account of the Civil War draft
obituaries
Slave Statistics
deeds of manumission
certificates of freedom
Civil War service records and pension files

In none of these cases did the former slave bear the same surname as the discovered owner. In fact, when attempting to locate the owners of former slaves for whom none of the above records existed, I have attempted to use the surname to locate an owner. I have been able to accomplish this in one or two cases, but in many cases, I have either discovered that (1) the surname used by the slave was far too common among whites in the geographic area to be of any help in identifying a specific owner, or (2) the surname used by the slave was completely unknown among whites in the area during the lifetime of that slave. To me, this does not prove to be a reliable method, and should be used as a “last resort” if no other records can be found.

In addition to the record groups noted above, the names of slaveowners can also be found in other record groups, notably:

“slave narratives,” such as those produced by the WPA in the 1930’s, available free online at the Library of Congress website
Freedman’s Bank deposit slips, available free at the FamilySearch Pilot website, or by subscription on Ancestry.com
Freedmen’s Bureau records, including work contracts, marriages, “outrages,” etc.
church records, which sometimes include births, marriages, and deaths of slaves in the back of the register or in a separate register
runaway slave ads, as I discussed in another previous column

These are by no means the only available records to help you identify the last owner of your slave ancestor; there are certainly many more, which may vary based on locale. However, my opinion is that you should check these other records first. At least in my experience, your freedman ancestor has about the same chance of appearing in any one of these record groups as he does in sharing the surname of his last owner, perhaps an even greater chance of appearing in some record groups, like the Freedman’s Bureau, depending on the location.

On the other hand, I have noticed, in my discussions with David and other researchers, and diving into published literature on the topic, that there may have been any number of factors that attributed to the choice of surname. There may have been regional differences between different states, differences in the size of the owner’s holdings (e.g. large plantation vs. small farm), or any number of other differences. My research centers in Maryland, though I have some experience in other states, and perhaps its position as a "border state" produced different tendencies in this regard than, say, Alabama or Georgia.

I would like to take this time to issue a “call to action” to other African-American researchers, including personal family historians, professional genealogists, and historians who have conducted larger studies on slave populations/communities. I have put together two surveys in which I would ask that you share your experiences.

Please respond to either or both of the below surveys, if they apply to your research. You can respond multiple times, once for each family you have researched, or combine all of your research into one survey.

Please respond to these surveys in full. The purpose of the surveys is not to prove one idea or another, but to collect the experiences of African-American genealogical specialists as a whole community, and thus learn from each other and gain valuable insight into one of the greatest genealogical “brickwalls” of any American community. The more information we have, the more valuable this study will be. I will periodically post the results of the surveys (though without the respondent's identifying information), so that we can all learn.

The first survey is for “pedigree” researchers, that is, those genealogists researching either their own ancestry or that of clients.

Slave Surname Survey – Personal Research: Click Here to take survey

The second survey is for genealogists and historians who have conducted broad surveys of a specific slave community/population, based on geography, heritage, or any other common factor.

Slave Surname Survey – Community Research: Click Here to take survey

Please forward a link to this column to any relevant forums or mailing lists, or directly to any African-American researchers that you know. I would like to try to collect as broad a range of experiences as possible, from around the country. Hopefully, the discussion provoked by this topic, and the results of these surveys, will produce a greater understanding of how surnames were chosen by freedmen. This is a subject that not only holds great value to genealogy, but also to the study of African-American history as a whole.

If you would like to discuss this topic with me in detail, please feel free to email me at: michael.hait@hotmail.com.