Using 'clusters' to identify slave owners

Previous posts in this column demonstrated the use of family clusters and neighborhood clusters to identify families in the U. S. federal census. In this post, we will use these same techniques to identify the last owners of a family freed after the abolition of slavery.

 

The following shows the family group of one George Diggs in the 1880 U. S. census, living in the Third District of Prince George’s County, Maryland, which was also called the Marlboro District:

 

 

Please note here the neighbor immediately preceding George, one Henry Diggs. The shared surname and common names among the children indicate a possible relationship.

 

This same family also appears in the 1870 U. S. census, and we are able to determine their identity using the technique demonstrated in “Using 'clusters' to track your ancestors through multiple census years (part one).”

 

 

The chart below shows a side-by-side comparison of the families in the two years.

 

1870	1880
George Digs, age 31	George Diggs, age 48
Sharlotte [Digs], age 30	Caroline Diggs, age 42, wife
Henry [Digs], age 13	Henry Diggs, age 20, son
	George Diggs, age 18, son
Robert [Digs], age 8	Robert V. Diggs, age 15, son
Charles [Digs], age 7	Charles Diggs, age 14, son
Edward [Digs], age 5	Edward Diggs, age 12, son
Ignatius [Digs], age 3	Ignatius Diggs, age 10, son
Mary [Digs], age 1	Mary P. Diggs, age 9, daughter
	Enoch Diggs, age 7, son
	Gabriel Diggs, age 5, son
	Patrick Diggs, age 2, son

 

Two observations about this family, as detailed in the above federal census records, must be made. First, it is apparent that the ages are not accurate in at least one, and possibly both, of the enumerations. Nonetheless, the names and birth order of the children confirm that this is surely the same family. Second, the name of George’s wife is different between 1870 and 1880: was this the same woman, given an erroneous name in one of the enumerations, or was George married twice? These census records do not have the answers to these questions, and additional research would need to be conducted to find the answers.

 

After the state constitution abolishing slavery was enacted in November 1864, a new government office was instituted within the state of Maryland—the Commissioner of Slave Statistics. Commissioners were appointed for each county, and in 1867 the Commissioner of Slave Statistics for Prince George’s County was one Robert Bowie of Walter, himself a former slave owner. Between 1867 and 1869, the Commissioners of each county compiled a list of the slaves owned by each person at the time of the adoption of the new constitution, in most cases providing the surnames of the slaves.

 

A slave named George “Digges” appeared on the list of slaves owned by Mrs. Sarah M. Bowie, as reported by one John W. Bowie and attested to by one Samuel L. Brooke on 6 June 1867. This George was reported as being 24 years old, reflecting his age in November 1864. This is approximately the correct age to be the George Diggs in the census records provided. (Remember that we already determined that the ages reported in those records were inaccurate, so it is necessary to simply estimate and look for further evidence to support the claim.)

 

 

Corroborating, though indirect, evidence that this is the same George can be seen by the name listed above him: Gabriel. George named a son Gabriel, possibly after this apparent brother. More direct evidence, however, is provided when you take a look at one of the other former slaves listed in this document: Gassaway Maynard. In the 1870 census, the household of “Gasway Manyard” appears just two dwelling away from “George Digs.” This is certainly the same individual.

 

 

Sarah M. Bowie was the widow of one Charles Bowie, who died in Prince George’s County in the spring of 1849. Charles names Sarah as his wife within his will, as seen below:

 

 

A list of the slaves owned by Charles Bowie at the time of his death appears in his estate inventory, dated 21 June 1849:

 

 

First, the slaves appear to be listed in family groups, with the children immediately following the mother, as was typical at this time. Though no surnames are provided in the document, there is but one George. Listed above him are a slave named Gabriel, who appears as Gabriel Diggs in the 1867 Slave Statistics document, and a slave named Henry, likely the same Henry Diggs who is recorded adjacent to George in the 1880 census.   Another slave, named Gassaway, also appears in the list, though not adjacent to the "Diggs" family; this is probably the Gassaway Maynard who appears in the Slave Statistics and in the 1870 census near George Diggs.

 

The ages, once again, are inconsistent throughout the multiple records, but slave owners often did not take pains to accurately record slaves’ ages. This fact, combined with the general reliability issues inherent in federal census records, explain these inconsistencies.

 

As shown here, especially when pre-emancipation records do not provide surnames for the slaves listed, it is extremely important to use “cluster” techniques to determine the identities of freedmen, and to identify the owners of these formerly enslaved ancestors.

 

 

SOURCES USED: