Hayes Lowe
Census data
Fri Jun 1 08:58:24 2001


>>> ...but then I never really looked that closely at the 1860 Census data before. It would be better if we could match up the age groups of free white males with the number of slaveholders and the amount of acreage they owned. There are also many things the data doesn't tell us: how many of the slaves were owned by free blacks; how many multiple families lived under one roof; how many single or widowed women owned slaves, etc...

The 1860 *does* tell us all this (at least when the census taker recorded all the information that he was supposed to record). You may have to look at more than one schedule, though, to coordinate it. The basic 1860 household census shows *all* free people, and designates their race. However, I suspect that in some Alabama counties, either only free whites were counted or the census taker failed to note other races of people.

In Alabama, I've only worked with the Pickens County census, in depth. It shows NO freemen of color. Does that mean there were none, or that the recorder did not include them, or that they are shown but race is not identified? I don't know.

But, I've also done research in Noxubee County, Miss. It would be worth the time for anyone interested in this subject to take a look at the 1860 general population census for that county (it is online). It is absolutely full of freemen of the "Black" race. Many (if not most) are living in the household of "White" freemen. Note that Noxubee adjoins Pickens, and many of the same people lived in both counties at one time or the other.

Here's an example: Major/Dr. William D. Lyles (one of my first cousins, a few generations removed) moved to Pickens County from S.C. around 1840. His wife died in Pickens County in 1841. I think that he first moved to Greene or Sumter County, but by 1860 he is shown living in Noxubee Co., Miss. He has three free blacks in his household...one is a physician, one is a medical student, and if I recall correctly, the third is a child. They are under the same roof...which brings me back to a point that you made.

It is simple to know how many different families were in the same house. If the census taker followed his instructions, each house was given a number (first column of the census). The second column reflects the family number. So, if there were multiple families within the same house, then there would be one house number, and a family number in the second column for each family grouping.

The other categories are fairly easily determined, too, but in some cases, you'd have to do some cross referencing between schedule. There was a slave owner schedule detailing slave ownership for each slaveholder (including freeblacks and single women), and an agricultural schedule which gave acreage (and number of each kind of farm animal) for each farmer.

>>> What I found interesting is that the largest single category of slave ownership was in the last category: one slave...5,607 slaveowners owned just one slave. Why would so many people have just one slave?

I can give some answers for this. First, city (and local artisans) slaveowners usually had one slave that acted much as an apprentice. That's all that they needed for their purposes.

Secondly, *many* slaveowners in Alabama came from families (mostly from N.C., S.C., and Ga.) that had many slaves. Generally, each child got one slave in the will of the father (with any excess number being freed, sold, or going to the widow). Many of those children moved to Alabama with their one slave.