ECONOMIC MOBILITY INTO THE PLANTER CLASS IN TEXAS, 1846-1860

Robert Nicholas Nelson

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

December 2011

APPROVED:

Richard McCaslin, Major Professor and Chair of the Department of History Randolph Campbell, Committee Member Harland Hagler, Committee Member Guy Chet, Committee Member John R. Todd, Committee Member James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Nelson, Robert Nicholas. Economic Mobility into the Planter Class in Texas, 1846-

1860. Doctor of Philosophy (History), December 2011, 222 pp., 47 tables, bibliography,

54 titles.

This study examines upward economic mobility into the planter class in Texas during the antebellum statehood period, 1846-1860. Using quantitative methods to analyze data from census and tax records, this study addresses several questions regarding the property owning experience of Texas planters. Did any of the 1860 planters, men or women, rise to that status from another class? If so, how many rose from small slaveholder or small planter origins, and how many advanced from plain folk origins? In what ways did the amount and nature of wealth of these individuals change in the period studied? In what ways do these findings provide insights into the debate over planter dominance versus ‘plain folk’ inclusive herrenvolk democracy and the relationship between the planters and the other classes? Did the experiences of female planters differ from that of male planters? Did female planter experiences in Texas differ from female planters in other parts of the Old South? The results of these questions demonstrate that economic class mobility into the richest class was significant but limited and that women’s experiences were closely tied to those of male kin.

Copyright 2011

by

Robert Nicholas Nelson

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ...... iv

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER II METHOLODOGY ...... 20

CHAPTER III HARRISON COUNTY ...... 29

CHAPTER IV BRAZORIA COUNTY ...... 40

CHAPTER V COLORADO COUNTY ...... 52

CHAPTER VI MCLENNAN COUNTY ...... 61

CHAPTER VII WOMEN PLANTERS ...... 70

CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION ...... 79

APPENDIX A METHODOLOGY DATA ...... 84

APPENDIX B HARRISON COUNTY DATA ...... 86

APPENDIX C BRAZORIA COUNTY DATA ...... 148

APPENDIX D COLORADO COUNTY DATA ...... 180

APPENDIX E MCLENNAN COUNTY DATA ...... 202

APPENDIX F WOMEN PLANTERS DATA ...... 214

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 217

iii LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table B.1 1860 Census Data vs Tax Record Data- Harrison County ...... 87

Table B.2 Census Data for final Population Group- Harrison County...... 91

Table B.3 Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Harrison County ...... 94

Table B.4 Annual Rates of Change in Slaves Owned- Harrison County ...... 100

Table B.5 Value of Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Harrison County ...... 100

Table B.6 Value of Slaves Owned, Adjusted- Harrison County ...... 104

Table B.7 Annual Rates of Change in Adjusted Value of Slaves- Harrison County ...... 107

Table B.8 Value of Acreage- Harrison County ...... 110

Table B.9 Annual Rates of Change in Value of Acreage- Harrison County ...... 114

Table B.10 Ratio of Slave Values to Acreage Values- Harrison County ...... 117

Table B.11 Annual Rates of Change in Ratio- Harrison County ...... 126

Table C.1 1860 Census Data vs Tax Record Data- Brazoria County ...... 136

Table C.2 Census Data for final Population Group- Brazoria County ...... 137

Table C.3 Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Brazoria County ...... 140

Table C.4 Annual Rates of Change in Slaves Owned- Brazoria County ...... 143

Table C.5 Value of Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Brazoria County ...... 146

Table C.6 Value of Slaves Owned, Adjusted- Brazoria County ...... 149

Table C.7 Annual Rates of Change in Adjusted Value of Slaves- Brazoria County ...... 152

Table C.8 Value of Acreage- Brazoria County ...... 155

Table C.9 Annual Rates of Change in Value of Acreage- Brazoria County ...... 158

Table C.10 Ratio of Slave Values to Acreage Values- Brazoria County ...... 161

Table C.11 Annual Rates of Change in Ratio- Brazoria County ...... 164

iv Table D.1 1860 Census data vs Tax Record Data- Colorado County ...... 168

Table D.2 Census Data for Final Population Group- Colorado County ...... 170

Table D.3 Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Colorado County ...... 184

Table D.4 Annual Rates of Change in Slaves Owned- Colorado County ...... 186

Table D.5 Value of Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Colorado County ...... 188

Table D.6 Adjusted Value of Slaves Owned- Colorado County ...... 190

Table D.7 Annual Rates of Change in Adjusted Value of Slaves- Colorado County ..... 192

Table D.8 Value of Acreage- Colorado County ...... 194

Table D.9 Annual Rates of Change in Value of Acreage- Colorado County ...... 196

Table D.10 Ratio of Slave Values to Acreage Values- Colorado County...... 198

Table D.11 Annual Rates of Change in Ratio- Colorado County ...... 187

Table E.1 1860 Census Data vs Tax Record Data- McLennan County ...... 190

Table E.2 Census Data for Final Population Group- McLennan County ...... 191

Table E.3 Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- McLennan County ...... 192

Table E.4 Annual Rates of Change in Slaves Owned- McLennan County ...... 193

Table E.5 Value of Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- McLennan County ...... 194

Table E.6 Adjusted Value of Slaves Owned- McLennan County ...... 195

Table E.7 Annual Rates of Change in Adjusted Value of Slaves- McLennan County .... 196

Table E.8 Value of Acreage- McLennan County ...... 197

Table E.9 Annual Rates of Change in Value of Acreage- McLennan County ...... 198

Table E.10 Ratio of Slave Values to Acreage Values- McLennan County ...... 199

Table E.11 Annual Rates of Change in Ratio- McLennan County ...... 200

Table F.1 Female Planters by County ...... 202

Table F.2 Widows ...... 203

v CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Historians of the antebellum South have given much attention to the social structure of the region. The discussion on this subject has concentrated on the composition of the society, its division into economic and social classes, and the significance these had on support for slavery, secession, and the Confederacy. The debate over social and economic class has generally focused on the white population and to what degree each class of whites exercised power within the society. Thus far, interpretations of class influence and power fall generally into two groups: planter dominance or plain folk democracy. No historian has yet specifically examined class mobility and its role in the power dynamic. A better knowledge of mobility into the planter class is revelatory of the complexity of antebellum southern society and provides a fuller understanding of how and to what degree the planter class may have dominated.

The model of a planter-dominated society in the Old South is one in which the men of the planter class, usually defined as those who owned twenty or more slaves, held not only more slaves than other whites, but more and better land as well as most or all of the positions of political power and influence. Thus they controlled politics by exercising economic power far out of proportion with their numbers. Southern society, in this model, operated essentially as an oligarchy. This interpretation owes a great deal to the depiction of the South in the romantic literary legacy, as well as to the accounts of the South left by Frederick Law Olmsted when he traveled the region in the 1850s.

1 The image of a planter-dominated southern society in historical writing goes at

least as far back as the works of Ulrich B. Phillips. Phillips’s early interpretation of the

society of the Old South divided the white population into the planter class and the poor

whites, as in the romantic vision of the antebellum era. In this analysis, the lower class

is entirely marginalized and the planters’ domination of society is complete. By the time

Phillips published his final book in 1929, Life and Labor in the Old South, he was

perfectly cognizant of the existence of a significant number of small slaveholders and

non-slaveholders, as he demonstrated in his use of census records, but he seemed to

consider their roles in southern society relatively unimportant. He described the white

population of the South in terms of ‘gentry’, those who had enough slaves to run a

plantation, and ‘plain people’, who included the “po’ white trash” that comprised “only a

very small part of the non-slaveholding population.” Phillips’s description of the plain

people focused on their daily attempts to make ends meet, and he indicated that

anything more ‘refined’ was left to the gentry. Phillips in his later work confirmed the

planter dominance model, even though he suggested rather than explicitly defined the

relationship between gentry (or planter) and plain people as one in which the planters

made the political decisions and drove the regional economy with the implicit consent of

the larger white population.1

The planter-dominance school of thought was also supported by William E. Dodd

in his 1920 book, The Cotton Kingdom: A Chronicle of the Old South. Lewis Cecil Gray’s

highly detailed work on southern agriculture prior to the Civil War, published in 1933,

1 Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Life and Labor in the Old South (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1929, reprint edition 1963).

2 also supported this interpretation. The planter-dominance idea remained the standard

interpretation through the 1930s, with many maintaining the romantic conception of

non-planters as “poor white trash” despite Phillips’s tentative use of census data to the

contrary.2

In the 1940s, Frank Owsley and his students challenged the planter-dominance

interpretation. Owsley and his students focused on a large group of non-slaveholding

‘yeoman’ farmers, primarily in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee, drawing

on data from manuscript census returns to show that they owned a significant quantity

of good quality land. Furthermore, the Owsley group used their data to show that these

yeomen prospered, many of them sufficiently to be considered middle class and far

from ‘poor white trash.’ The yeomen achieved this in part by the diversified nature of

their economy, in which cash products were of secondary importance to subsistence

farming and livestock herding. This, according to Owsley, provided the yeomen with

economic independence and made the plain folk an integral part of the southern

economy rather than simply “supernumeraries” to the planters, especially during the

Civil War and Reconstruction.3

Neither were the plain folk marginalized politically, according to Owsley. They

participated in the elective process, and Owsley found no evidence of widespread

corruption or coercion. In fact, he considered such a thing impossible as it was not in

2 William E. Dodd, The Cotton Kingdom: A Chronicle of the Old South (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1920); Lewis Cecil Gray, History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 (2 vols.; Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1933). 3 Frank Owsley, Plain Folk of the Old South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1949), 136-38.

3 keeping with the character of either the plain folk or planter classes, both of whom

valued honor and honesty above all. Owsley, therefore, considered any influence

exercised by the planter class to be personal and local. Any influence the planters

exercised outside their localities was, in Owsley’s view, based on persuasion. The

South’s plain folk, according to Owsley, were democrats of the Jacksonian mold.4

Owsley also suggested that social mobility was common outside of the seaboard states of the Old South. He stated, without going into detail, that in some areas a majority had risen from relative poverty into the planter class. In addition, more men than rose into the planter class were able to advance into the middle class by joining the professions. The key to joining the professions lay in achieving an education, which

Owsley, unlike Phillips, found to be readily available to any who desired one. Though

Owsley suggested likely paths into the professions, he did not discuss the paths to planter status in any detail or provide any quantitative evidence on the number of people able to do so.5

Eugene Genovese argued in the late 1960s for a Marxist, and thus class-based,

interpretation of antebellum southern society. Genovese delineated three classes:

slaveholders, non-slaveholding whites, and slaves. Genovese made no distinction

between small slaveholders and great planters in terms of class, instead attributing to

all slaveholders a universal paternalistic ideology. This paternalism allowed the great

planters to dominate because they acted as the paternal caretakers of all those people

whose position in society was lower than their own, including the lesser slaveholders.

4 Owsley, Plain Folk, 138-142. 5 Owsley, Plain Folk, 142-149.

4 These great planters also cared for the interest of the middle classes, such as

merchants, who were so dependent on the slaveholders’ economic interests that they

“either became planters themselves or assumed a servile attitude toward the planters.”

Genovese has little else to say about social mobility, but he played an important role in

the debate over the social structure of the Old South, reshaping the apparent economic

independence of the middle classes into an important component of planter

dominance.6

In the 1970s, two economists made important arguments against Genovese’s delineation of only two classes of whites. James D. Foust demonstrated that small farmers played an important role in settling the cotton frontier. Furthermore, these farmers were able to produce more than enough foodstuffs and use a portion of their lands to grow cotton, and were less likely to be displaced (and thus marginalized) by

migrating planters than they were to remain settled and prosper in the new community.

Gavin Wright argued along a similar line, basing his interpretation on self-sufficiency as

a deliberate economic choice. Plain folk who focused on growing enough foodstuffs and

then growing cotton were operating on a “safety first” plan. Furthermore, Wright

stressed that there was a continuum of cotton-to-corn production across southern agricultural producers from large to smaller farms. This suggests that the class structure of the South was not an economic diametric, as Genovese’s interpretation essentially made it, but a broad and varied spectrum. Thus Foust and Wright were arguing that Genovese overemphasized the influence that planters’ economic interests

6 Eugene Genovese, The World the Slaveholders Made: Two Essays in Interpretation (New York: Pantheon Books, 1969), 101.

5 had over the economic interests over the middle class, and underemphasizing the

economic independence of the lower classes.7

Historian James Oakes primarily concerned himself with describing the ‘typical’

slaveholder, in terms of describing quantifiable traits that the majority of slaveholders shared, and creating an image of the slaveholding class as a whole. In doing so, he also identified a number of difficulties in delineating clear class lines. The most significant challenge was his idea of social fluidity, specifically “a substantial mobility into and out of the planter class,” which meant individuals frequently crossed any of the distinctions arbitrarily designed by modern scholars. Oakes interpreted the increase in the number of slaveowners as a sign of widespread social and economic mobility. To Oakes,

“slavery created wealthy whites, not poor whites” with masters commonly rising from the yeomanry and freely crossing from one level of slaveholder status to another.

Furthermore, Oakes argued that social mobility was the norm, as demonstrated by an increase in the slaveholding class that did not result in a greater concentration of wealth among the slaveholders.8

Historical examinations of the social structure of the Old South thus generally

focus on the division of the people into classes and the role played by those classes in

the economy and politics. Authors such as Owsley and later Oakes suggested a high

rate of upward mobility, but none examined it in any detail. The works on slavery and

7 James D. Foust, The Yeoman Farmer and Westward Expansion of U. S. Cotton Production (New York: Arno Press, 1975); Gavin Wright, The Political Economy of the Cotton South: Household, Markets, and Wealth in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Norton Press, 1975). 8 James Oakes, The Ruling Race: A History of American Slaveholders (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), 67, 39, 10, 52, 67.

6 slave society in Texas share much the same focus, and neither do they deal explicitly

with economic or social mobility.

The primary work on slavery in Texas, Randolph B. Campbell’s An Empire for

Slavery, sets the stage for any discussion of slavery and slave society in the Lone Star

State. Campbell demonstrated the degree to which Texas became a slave society by

discussing the economy of slavery, the increase of the slave population, dispersal of the

slave population among the counties, and a number of other factors regarding the

institution. Campbell’s book clearly showed how thoroughly Texas had become an Old

South slave society. Furthermore, though he did not examine class mobility, Campbell

stated that the planter class dominated the economy and political office-holding in

Texas, but made it clear that this ‘domination’ was not done by oppressing or

suppressing of opposition by non-slaveholders, as such did not exist in antebellum

Texas.9

Campbell’s earlier work included a great deal of quantitative analysis, especially

regarding property holding. This included an article examining Harrison County, Texas,

as a study in microcosm for an examination of the planter-dominance versus yeoman- democracy debate in a southern slave-cotton economy. Campbell used the manuscript census to demonstrate a stable slaveholding majority among farmers in Harrison

County from 1850-1860. At the same time, he noted an increase in the number of

9 Randolph B. Campbell, An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989).

7 farmers holding land over the period, which seems on the surface to support an argument for economic mobility.10

Campbell did not interpret the holdings of individuals on any basis of class. What divisions he did make were based on their property holdings. For example, he noted that owners of 1 to 99 acres remained a fairly steady percentage of the farm operators in Harrison County, but the portion of the county’s improved acreage held by them decreased from 22.5 to 11.9 percent. Additionally, the number of farmers owning more than 500 acres increased from 1.5 to 7.3 percent of farmers appearing in the census, and their improved acreage swelled from 14.2 to 35.8 percent of the total. Further, his data demonstrate a correlation between cash value of farms and amount of improved acreage. Contrary to Oakes, this shift identified by Campbell suggests an increasing concentration of wealth among the most wealthy farmers, but also a possible upward mobility within the county.11

Campbell also found data for Harrison County in this period that indicated an increasing concentration of slave property and of cotton production (by value). The percentage of farmers owning more than fifty slaves almost tripled during the 1850s, and the percentage of Harrison County’s slaves owned by these individuals more than doubled. The smallest slaveholders in the county, owning one to four slaves, decreased slightly as a percentage of the county’s total farmers. Additionally, their percentage of the county’s slave population dropped sharply from 6.1 to 4 percent. As a group, all

10 Randolph B. Campbell, “Planters and Plain Folk: Harrison County, Texas, as a Test Case, 1850- 1860” The Journal of Southern History 40 (August 1974), 374-78. 11 Campbell, “Planters and Plain Folk: Harrison County, Texas,” 375.

8 slaveholders in Harrison County produced the vast majority of cotton in the county,

though more farmers than ever were growing this cash crop. The concentration of

wealth in this area is remarkable, with producers of 100 or more bales increasing from

0.1 to 3.0 percent of the total number of farmers and their portion of the cotton

produced rising from 6.7 to 42.1 percent. Campbell’s early research thus suggests the

possibility of social mobility, by demonstrating that the landholding class grew to a

larger percentage of the population over these ten years, as did the slaveholding class

and the class of the largest slaveholders. On the other hand, those on the highest end

of the wealth scale increasingly controlled a greater portion of that wealth, suggesting

that all of these changes reflected an increase in the value of assets and production

across all classes rather than mobility up the economic scale.12

Campbell and Richard Lowe produced two further studies using similar

quantitative methods for Texas statewide. In the first collaboration, Wealth and Power in Antebellum Texas, they took a sample of 5,000 heads of families in the state from

the censuses of 1850 and 1860. Their research revealed that forms of wealth such as

real and personal property, slaves and total wealth were heavily concentrated in the

hands of a minority of Texans, who represented less than 10 percent of the total

population of the state. Even when slaves were not counted in the total wealth of

slaveholders, these people maintained their dominance in the concentration of wealth.

Additionally, the wealthiest class was highly overrepresented among holders of public

office. Furthermore, this richest class was made up mostly of men who owned sufficient

12 Campbell, “Planters and Plainfolk: Harrison County, Texas,” 380.

9 slaves to be considered of the planter class. This concentration of wealth and power in

the hands of planters did not differ markedly from older settlements in the Old South.

Whether defining power as the holding of public office or in terms of the amount of

wealth controlled, Campbell and Lowe found that the richest class, the planters, tended

to dominate. All of these findings held true whether the investigation considered the

entire population or simply those involved directly in agriculture. From this primarily

quantitative examination, the authors concluded that the Owsely school asked too few

questions of the data they examined, and that the planter-dominance theory was better

supported, though antebellum Texas politics were certainly a mixture of democratic and

aristocratic.13

Campbell & Lowe’s second collaboration, Planters & Plain Folk: Agriculture in

Antebellum Texas, is a complement to Wealth and Power in which they expanded on

the earlier data and examined it to answer questions about the state’s major crops and

the relative positions of planters, yeomen, and poor whites. Lowe and Campbell found

that though there existed a marked concentration in wealth, Texas farmers overall were

thriving and farmers at all wealth levels improved their property and productivity

through the 1850s. Thus, the authors suggested that though the society was dominated

by planters in terms of wealth and political office, the conditions were not overall

13 Randolph B. Campbell and Richard G. Lowe, Wealth and Power in Antebellum Texas (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1977).

10 favorable for class conflict to be a significant factor in the coming of secession and civil war.14

Campbell also directly challenged Oakes’s assertion that more than a 25 percent minority of southerners were directly involved in slaveholding. Oakes argued that slave property was treated as capital to be both bought and sold regularly, thus making small slaveholders part of an ‘erratic’ slaveholding class whose membership changed rapidly.

In a quantitative analysis of slave ownership by small slaveholders and non-slaveholder in sixteen Texas counties, Campbell found only a very small percentage of individuals who held slaves intermittently. By demonstrating that intermittent slave ownership was not common, Campbell effectively debunked Oakes’s attempt to hand-wave away slave- ownership as a component of economic class and re-established that questions of class are important to understanding the antebellum South.15

The research of Campbell and Lowe demonstrates that, in quantitative terms,

Texas looked much like the other states of the Old South in terms of the distribution of property and wealth concentration. All classes from the economic bottom to the top experienced an increase in wealth and property holding from 1850 to 1860. The upper economic classes, as divided by property holding and value, also increased as a proportion of the population and came to control an increasingly large portion of the measurable wealth. The growth of this segment of the population in both real numbers and as a percentage of the population suggests a degree of social mobility. Yet, the lack

14 Richard G. Lowe and Randolph B. Campbell, Planters & Plain Folk: Agriculture in Antebellum Texas (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1987). 15 Randolph B. Campbell, “Intermittent Slave Ownership: Texas as a Test Case” in The Journal of Southern History 41 (February 1985), 15-23.

11 of an examination of mobility into this upper economic class in Texas prevents a full understanding of the divergence or convergence of economic, and political, interests between this upper class and the lower economic classes in Texan or southern society.

In the Old South, there certainly were people who increased their wealth and fortune and rose into the planter class. The degree to which this happened, however, remains largely unexplored. The question is important, as Campbell suggests in his historiographical essay “Planters and Plain Folks: The Social Structure of the Antebellum

South,” because of the implications it has for the debate regarding planter dominance and yeoman democracy. If there existed a significant degree of upward mobility, it would certainly support the argument of some that the planters maintained an easy connection with the middle and lower classes because of their roots in those classes.

Additionally, it suggests that many below the planter class may have seen the social order as potentially beneficial to them (or their children) in the long term. A closer examination of social mobility as a factor in the antebellum South might also bear other fruit, such as insights into the political dynamic of the region on the eve of secession, and so it is certainly a worthwhile avenue of continued study for the reasons outlined above.16

The most efficient means of researching class mobility in the antebellum South is the use of local and state-level histories. The process to address the question will require many such studies to gain a full characterization of even a single state.

16 Randolph B. Campbell, “Planters and Plainfolks: the Social Structure of the Antebellum South” in John B. Boles and Evelyn Thomas Nolen, eds., Interpreting Southern History: Historiographical Essays in Honor of Sanford W. Higginbotham (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987), 73-75.

12 Executing such a study will require analysis of a limited group of individuals in relation

to well-defined class boundaries. The historiography of the South provides one

generally accepted, clear-cut class boundary, that of the planter class. To qualify as part

of the planter class, that is to own a sufficient number of slaves for running a farming

operation on a plantation scale, it has been reasoned that one needed to own at least

twenty slaves. While any such cut-off is somewhat arbitrary, such distinctions provide a

useful means of limiting a study. Aside from Campbell, other historians to define the

planter class in this way include Oakes, Kenneth M. Stampp, Peter Kolchin, Carl H.

Moneyhon, John B. Boles, and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. There are, of course, other definitions. Owsley defined planters as owners of up to one thousand acres and forty slaves, small planters as those with five hundred acres and ten to fifteen slaves, and great planters as those with thousands of acres and hundreds of slaves. Historian J.

William Harris records four categories of slaveholder, those owning one to five slaves, those with six to nineteen, those with twenty to forty-nine, and those with fifty or more.

Like many historians in last two decades, Harris never clearly defines planter, though he

uses the word. For this study ownership of twenty or more slaves is accepted as the

criterion for inclusion in the planter class.17

17 Randolph B. Campbell, “Planters and Plainfolks: the Social,” 48-77; Oakes, Ruling Race, x; Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South (New York: Vintage Books, 1956), 30; Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619-1877 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), xiii; Carl H. Moneyhon, "The Impact of the Civil War in Arkansas: The Mississippi River Plantation Counties." Arkansas Historical Quarterly 51 (1992), 105–18; John B. Boles, The South Through Time: A History of an American Region (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995), 203; Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Within the Plantation Household: Black & White Women of the Old South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 32; Owsley, Plain Folk, 7; J. William Harris, Plain Folk and Gentry in a Slave Society: White Liberty and Black Slavery in Augusta’s Hinterlands (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1985), 40.

13 This study uses the standard of owning twenty slaves to examine mobility into

the planter class in the South’s last frontier state, Texas. Texas is useful for

examinations of questions about the Old South because its counties were in different

stages of development, from frontier to full-fledged slave-cotton plantation economy.

For example, Campbell’s work on Harrison County has demonstrated that a well entrenched cotton-slave economy operated there by the 1850s. On the other hand,

Angela Boswell has argued that Colorado County transitioned much later from a frontier county to a plantation county, beginning with a population boom in 1852-1853.18

Boswell’s book, Her Act and Deed: Women’s Lives in a Rural Southern County,

1837-1873, raises another issue by examining the roles and property rights of women

in Colorado County, Texas. This book provides an excellent background for discussing

women planters in Texas. Boswell traces changes in legal and social norms regarding

women as Colorado County transitioned through four periods: frontier, antebellum, Civil

War, and Reconstruction. In each of these periods, Boswell argues that women sought

to live within the ideals of the established gender roles they brought with them,

predominantly from other states of the South. Boswell demonstrates that Texas laws

certainly drew from the Spanish law legacy of the state in protecting a married woman’s

individual, separately held property and her claims to community property. However, in

keeping with the southern common-law based tradition, these laws also maintained the

18 Randolph B. Campbell, A Southern Community in Crisis: Harrison County, Texas, 1850-1880 (Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1983). Campbell has written several works about or including Harrison County; for a brief description of the county, see his Grassroots Reconstruction in Texas, 1865- 1880 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1997). Angela Boswell, Her Act and Deed: Women’s Lives in a Rural Southern Community County, 1837-1873 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2001).

14 male head of the household, usually the husband, as the public face for all business

regarding such property. During the shift from the frontier period to the antebellum,

Boswell argues that the farm economy of the county grew beyond subsistence level,

which allowed the division of men’s and women’s public and domestic roles into more

traditional southern modes.19

Though Boswell does not specifically examine the nature of wealth or the

economic mobility of women, she provides insight into the exercise of women’s property

rights in Texas. Understanding this issue and its relation to practices in other parts of

the South is necessary as a foundation for examining questions regarding wealth,

property, and mobility for women planters in Texas. To fill out this foundation, several

other books are helpful, including Jean Stuntz’s Hers, His, and Theirs: Community

Property Law in Spain & Early Texas, Catherine Clinton’s The Plantation Mistress:

Woman’s World in the Old South, Jane Turner Censer’s North Carolina Planters and

Their Children, 1800-1860, and Kirsten E. Wood’s Masterful Women: Slaveholding

Widows from the American Revolution to the Civil War.

Stuntz’s book on the influence of Spanish law on the property rights of women

in Texas elucidates the greater legal rights of women in Texas compared to other parts

of the Old South. An important aspect of such laws in Texas was the legal ability of

women to hold separate property in their own right while married. Additionally, the

wife’s interest in community property prevented the sale of community property by the

husband, unless the wife agreed to the sale in a separate interview. At the same time,

19 Boswell, Her Act and Deed.

15 however, Texas law recognized the preeminence of a husband in the management of all

property, whether community or separate, as was standard practice under the English

law practiced by other southern states.20

The role of planter class women in the Old South was the focus of Clinton’s

study, The Plantation Mistress: Woman’s World in the Old South. Though the book is plagued by an ahistorical interpretive framework and frequent use of broad generalizations with no evidentiary support, it remains an important book, partially due to its being the first to focus on planter class women and partially because of what it reveals about the duties of those women. Clinton does not, however, discuss women who owned property in their own right. She does briefly mention widows, who would be the most likely candidates to own property as women, but the comments are vague and generalized. According to Clinton, widowhood was very difficult on women “for a variety of legal and social reasons,” about which Clinton is non-specific. She also states that

“no woman could transact business without a male surrogate for court and legal

proceedings,” without citing any court documents, period legal references, or secondary

sources on the practice of law in the Old South. Clinton does, however, state that “a

variety of sources suggest that plantation mistresses were familiar with all facets of

farm management,” pointing up the ability of a widow to continue to manage a

plantation, and thus to be subject to economic and social mobility.21

20 Jean A. Stuntz, Hers, His, & Theirs: Community Property Law in Spain & Early Texas (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 2005). 21 Catherine Clinton, The Plantation Mistress: Woman’s World in the Old South (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982), 76, 78, 30.

16 Censer demonstrates a much greater understanding of property law and the

family in North Carolina Planters and Their Children, 1800-1860. In this study of the

relationship between parents, particularly fathers, and their children within the

wealthiest planter families in North Carolina, one of Censer’s most important findings

regards inheritance practices. These planters divided their property relatively equally

between all of their children, sons and daughters. Also, though most of these planters

left both land and slaves to both sons and daughters, gifts before the patriarch’s death

were more likely to be land for sons and slaves for daughters. Additionally, Censer

points out that under common law, a widow had a right to lifetime possession of the

home and one-third of the land in her husband’s name at the time of his death. Any gifts or inheritances to daughters would, by law, become the property of their husbands when they married or if they were already married. Planters wanting to protect gifts or legacies to their daughters from indebted husbands used two common methods to do so. The most common was to place the property into a trust in which the property was to be managed for the benefit of the daughter, and in some cases the trustee was the daughter’s husband. The less frequently used method was a deed of gift in which the daughter would have only a life interest and eventual title would devolve to her children. Thus, even under the common law, there were methods to hold a woman’s property separate from her husband’s.22

The ability of a widow to continue operating a farm, including managing slave

labor, has been amply demonstrated by Wood. In Masterful Women: Slaveholding

22 Jane Turner Censer. North Carolina Planters and Their Children, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984).

17 Widows from the American Revolution to the Civil War, Wood examined how widows

managed their own property in a patriarchal society. These women engaged in almost

every aspect of managing their farms, including business transactions and

correspondence. They also often employed overseers to assist with everyday field

operations, especially the physical disciplining of slaves. Additionally, these widows

could call upon male relatives or associates of their late husbands for assistance. Wood

stresses that while such calls for assistance may have been phrased in terms of gender

roles, these women were the primary agents of their own economic well-being. Their

use of surrogates served to minimize the widow’s interactions with strangers, thus

preserving her ‘lady’ status. Additionally, Wood argues that the establishment of

mastery, a typically male role, by widows did not threaten gender roles but rather reinforced mastery for all slaveholders. The mastery of these slaveholding widows was a product of race and class.23

This study will investigate to what degree upward economic mobility was

experienced by planter men and women in Texas from 1846 to 1860, through an

examination of the census returns and tax rolls from four Texas counties: Harrison and

Colorado, which were initially explored by Campbell and Boswell respectively, as well as

Brazoria and McLennan. The data from the chosen counties will be used to address

several questions: Did any of the 1860 planters, men or women, rise to that status from

another class? If so, how many rose from small slaveholder or small planter origins, and

how many advanced from plain folk origins? In what ways did the amount and nature

23 Kirsten E. Wood, Masterful Women: Slaveholding Women from the American Revolution Through the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).

18 of wealth of these individuals change in the period studied? In what ways do these

findings provide insights into the debate over planter dominance versus ‘plain folk’

inclusive herrenvolk democracy and the relationship between the planters and the other

classes? Did the experiences of female planters differ from that of male planters? Did

female planter experiences in Texas differ from female planters in other parts of the Old

South?24

The data for these four Texas counties will reveal that the majority of the 1860

planters evaluated did not experience economic mobility into that class in this period.

Furthermore, of those who did experience such mobility, the majority already owned

ten or more slaves at their initial appearance in the tax records, and only one possessed

no slaves initially. Thus mobility into the planter class was very limited. Additionally, a

woman taking full, independent administration for her property was rare, especially

when a husband or adult male relative was nearby to do so in her stead. Finally, no

significant difference is evident between the changes in wealth between women’s and

men’s property. Antebellum Texas, although it was a rapidly developing frontier with

many opportunities for economic advancement, apparently provided limited chances for

rapid economic mobility into the richest class.

24 Herrenvolk is a German word meaning ‘master race.’ The concept of herrenvolk democracy existing in the Old South refers to a society in which egalitarianism and representative government for white Southerners is supported by and contingent upon the subjugation and exclusion of black Southerners, primarily through the institution of slavery.

19 CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

This study examines the economic history of individuals who fell within the

planter class in 1860 as determined by the census returns and tax rolls from that year

in four Texas counties: Harrison, McLennan, Colorado, and Brazoria. This selection of

counties draws one county from each of the four regions of antebellum Texas defined

by Campbell and Lowe in Wealth and Power in Antebellum Texas and in Planters &

Plainfolk: Agriculture in Antebellum Texas. These four counties certainly should not be

considered ‘typical’ of their regions, as each has some of the highest 1860 slave

populations of all counties in its respective region, and Brazoria and Harrison have the

highest in their regions. But a closer inspection of economic and social mobility within

their borders provides some insight into all levels of development in Texas. 25

The United States census, performed every ten years, provides basic

demographic data on residents of the nation. This study begins with data from the 1850

and 1860 censuses, and in particular data from Schedule 1 in each of those years and

Schedule 2 in 1860. Schedule 1, Free Inhabitants, records the free people resident in a

county on a household basis and includes information on their age, place of birth,

profession (or occupation), sex, race, and more. Schedule 2, Slave Inhabitants, lists the

slaves belonging to an individual owner, giving the age, sex, and color of the individual

25 Randolph B. Campbell, An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989), 264-267; Randolph B. Campbell and Richard G. Lowe, Wealth and Power in Antebellum Texas (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1977); Richard G. Lowe & Randolph B. Campbell, Planters & Plain Folk: Agriculture in Antebellum Texas (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1987).

20 slaves. In general, the values of property and number of slaves owned by individuals has been considered to have been reported with significant accuracy, yet there are many instances in which the individual who reported these values was not the actual owner, as will be discussed below.26

The annual state property tax records provide the major data source for this study. These returns were compiled each January by the county tax assessor with information self-reported by each individual taxpayer. Though some differences exist year to year, the information reported included acreage, including value of the acreage and the name of the original grantee, town lots and value, number of slaves and value, number and value of various types of livestock, and value of miscellaneous property.

All of this information can be invaluable for assessing economic mobility, into the planter class.

The data from the tax rolls have been limited to the years 1846 to 1860, except in the case of McLennan County. Limiting this study to the statehood period is beneficial in several ways. First, it makes for a manageable sized dataset. It also covers all of the pre-secession statehood period, when slavery "came of age" in Texas, growing rapidly and turning Texas into one of the leading states in the Cotton Kingdom. Finally, the tax records from the early statehood period differ from those of the Republic of Texas in that they are more uniform and they remained largely intact at the time of microfilming.

McLennan County was not organized until August 1850, thus 1851 was the first year of tax records for this county. County tax records prior to 1851 for Navarro, Milam, and

26 For a discussion of the general reliability of property reporting in the census, see Campbell and Lowe, Wealth and Power, 22-24, and also Lowe and Campbell, Planters & Plain Folk, 195-196.

21 Robertson counties (from which McLennan County was formed) were searched for

records of individuals in the McLennan County group, but none of the individuals in the group were found in these records.

The population for this study has been determined through an examination of the 1860 census returns and 1860 county tax rolls. Initial selection to the population requires that the individual reported twenty or more slaves in Schedule 2 of the 1860 census. The group was then refined by referencing the county tax record for the same year. This step was necessary because the census was not necessarily concerned with ownership of the slaves so much as counting them. The tax county record provides greater detail regarding ownership. There are a variety of reasons why someone might appear to be a planter in the census but not the tax rolls. For example, he might have been the executor of an estate, or an overseer, or an administrator, or an agent, or a minor’s guardian responsible for reporting the slaves to the census official. Through this double filtering, or comparing of the census data to tax roll data, the population has been reduced to only those who actually owned sufficient slaves in 1860 to be considered members of the planter class.

Filtering the initial population group through the tax records was not as simple as removing anyone who did not own twenty or more slaves. In some cases a guardian or agent owned less than twenty slaves, but he or she was responsible for the property of another member of their own household, such as a spouse or child. In such cases, the household as a whole has typically been treated as one economic unit under the control of that person. In others, the agent reported the slaves of another individual who was

22 in fact a planter, in which case the planter’s name would be substituted into the group

in place of the agent. Others, who were confirmed as slave owners in the tax record,

show very slight differences between their census and tax reports. There could be a

variety of reasons for this, and it must be borne in mind that tax assessments began on

1 January and the census was not begun until 1 June. In six months, deaths, gifts,

sales, and purchases are all possibilities to account for minor differences. In the case of

individuals who owned twenty or more according to the census but had fewer than

twenty in the tax rolls, those reporting eighteen or nineteen in the tax record have been

maintained in the population group, thus reducing the impact of slight variations that

may well have been only temporary.

There are a number of cases in which an individual would be removed from or substituted into the group, based upon a comparison between the census and tax rolls.

In some cases the slaves listed in the census were the separate properties of the individual named and of another person for whom he was an agent or guardian. If neither owned enough to be a planter, neither was maintained in the final population.

However, if the person listed in the census was an agent for another individual who did own enough to qualify as a planter themselves, then the latter person has been added to the group in place of his agent. For example, William B. Bohannon of Brazoria County reported thirty-two slaves to in 1860 census, but on examination of the tax record for the same year, he reported twenty-eight as agent for Emily Quarles and none for himself. Thus, Bohannon has been removed from the Brazoria county data set and

Quarles included instead. For cases in which two or more people jointly owned slaves

23 but were not members of the same family and household, these partners were omitted

from the population. Furthermore, because this study is concerned with changes in

wealth over time, an individual must have tax data for four or more consecutive years

to be included in the group.

Due to the size of the datasets and the resulting tables, the tables for each

county appear in separate appendices: Appendix B for Harrison County, Appendix C for

Brazoria County, Appendix D for Colorado County, and Appendix E for McLennan

County. The first table for each county shows the initial population group taken from

the 1860 census and the related data from the county tax rolls for 1860. The second

table for each county shows the final population, based on the comparison of the

census and tax rolls, and the personal data from Schedule 1 of the census for those

individuals. Once the final group was determined, property information for each

individual was recorded from the county tax rolls for 1860. Then the same data were

then recorded for each year a studied individual appears in those records between 1846

and 1860 (1851 and 1860 in McLennan County). Relevant portions of this information

are presented in tables in the appropriate appendix for each county, including slaves

owned in the third table of each county appendix, value of slaves owned in the fifth

table of each county appendix, adjusted value of slaves owned in the sixth table of each

county appendix, value of acreage owned in the eighth table of each county appendix.

These data have been analyzed in a number of ways to examine the amount and nature of wealth of these individuals. The first category of analysis is slave ownership.

Changes in an individual’s slaveholdings have been tracked over the period, both in real

24 terms and in terms of value of the slaves owned. Because the average value of slaves

certainly increased over the period examined, as Campbell demonstrated, an adjusted

value for slaveholdings has also been created and analyzed. By removing increase in

values due to market demand for slaves in this way, the data demonstrate more clearly changes within the individuals’ actual slaveholdings that affected value.27

The adjustment for increase in slave prices has been made based on the average

value of slaves, regardless of age or gender, in Texas for the early statehood period.

Because the market for slaves was regional, the same modifier for each year has been

applied in all counties when adjusting the average value of slaves. These modifiers

were determined year by year based on the tax returns for the three counties examined

here that reported taxes over the entire period, Brazoria, Colorado, and Harrison. By

first determining the average value in each county for a given year and then averaging

the three values for the three counties, a regional average value was determined. For

the years 1847 to 1860, these values were then divided by the value for 1846 to

determine the factor by which the average increased. For two years, the factor of

increase was determined slightly differently due to flaws in the microfilming of the

Colorado County tax rolls. The 1847 tax record for Colorado County is unusable for

information on slaveholding because the pages were folded over during photography,

obscuring the columns for slaves regarding slave property. Also in the Colorado County

record for 1848, the last page was photographed while half covered by another sheet of

paper. Fortunately, the tax assessor that year kept running totals at the bottom of

27 Campbell, An Empire for Slavery, 73.

25 every page. The running totals from the next-to-last page plus the visible on the last page were used to determine the average values of a slave in Colorado County for

1848.

The results of this process can be seen in Appendix A. Dividing the total value of a slaveowner’s slave property by the factor for the corresponding year renders a value that accurately reflects what his slaveholdings would have been worth in the 1846 market. This allows an examination of actual change in his slaveholdings, rather than changes in prices due to market forces.28

To aid further in examining degrees of change achieved by the individuals studied, it proves useful to divide the population group into four categories based on

Randolph B. Campbell’s historiographical essay “Planters and Plainfolks: the Social

Structure of the Antebellum South.” These four categories are based upon the number of slaves that an individual owned at his first appearance in the data. Those who owned no slaves at their first appearance in the data are defined as the initial small non- slaveholder category. Persons who owned one to ten are grouped as the initial small slaveholder category, and those with eleven to nineteen as the initial small planter class. The initial planter category comprises those who owned twenty or more from their first listing in the data. Each of the tables in the county appendices (B, C, D, and

28 Over the period examined, this method shows an increase in average value of slaves, regardless of age or gender, of 111%. Campbell demonstrated an increase over roughly the same period of 122% using probate records (see Campbell, An Empire for Slavery, 73).

26 E) will use these categories in their organization and as a basis for comparative analysis

between classes.29

Real estate data for the populations have also been examined. Real property, not including town lots, was analyzed primarily on a total value of acreage basis. These values were not adjusted over time, because investment in land could be either improvement or additional acquisition and improvement of land was the major factor in increased value of land statewide in this period. Therefore, adjusting these values would not serve to achieve any additional insight.

One of the most important means of analyzing changes in property held is the calculation of rates of change and average annual rates of change. These calculated values directly address questions of how wealth changed over time. For a data set in which the first value is zero, rates of change and averages were determined only from the first reported datum which is not zero. Additionally, in cases in which data for a year is missing, the following year’s calculations will be determined as the average change over the years for which data were available. For example, the 1854 tax record

for Harrison County was never completed, and what little exists has been ignored for

consistency across the population groups. Thus, when calculating the annual change of

a value for 1855, it has been calculated as the average annual change from 1853 to

29 Randolph B. Campbell, “Planters and Plainfolks: the Social Structure of the Antebellum South,” in John B. Boles and Evelyn Thomas Nolen, Interpreting Southern History: Historiographical Essays in Honor of Sanford W. Higginbotham (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987), 75. Not all individuals who owned twenty or more slaves necessarily operated a plantation. Though they all claimed twenty or more slaves, it does not necessarily follow that they used their slaves as labor for plantation agriculture. That aside, this study is concerned primarily with slave ownership rather than the manner in which slaves’ labor was employed.

27 1855. Where data have been examined across a category, only the average has been used unless the average and mean differ significantly from one another.

The information provided by the census and county tax records can be used to generate a better understanding of the economic classes of the antebellum South and mobility between the classes. The flaws in these documents require careful consideration in any analysis. The methods employed in this study draw on this data to reveal the limited economic mobility into the planter class in Texas, the last frontier state of the slave South.

28 CHAPTER III

HARRISON COUNTY

Harrison County serves as a good location to begin investigations of issues regarding slavery in Texas. By 1860, Harrison had the largest slave population of all the counties of Texas. The county has also been the subject of significant historical inquiry regarding the southern character of its economy and society, much of which was conducted by Randolph B. Campbell, whose research culminated in A Southern

Community in Crisis: Harrison County, Texas, 1850-1880. Campbell points out that by

1860 more Harrison County residents owned real estate than in 1850 and more of them

owned slaves than in 1850. At the same time, the county’s free population grew almost

11 percent, the slave population grew about 41 percent, and the concentration of

wealth in the county remained significantly lower than in the state as a whole.

Additionally, planter class households accounted for only 8.6 percent of all Harrison

County households listed in the 1850 census and 14.2 percent in the 1860 census.

Taken together, this indicates that upward economic mobility within the county must

have existed and that mobility into the planter class likely existed. What remains

unclear is how many of the 1860 planters had experienced mobility and what degree of

this mobility was across the class lines defined in Chapter 2.30

Harrison County comprises 894 square miles in East Texas on the border with

Louisiana. In 1860, the county ranked first in the state in slave population, corn

production, and improved acreage. It also ranked second in total cotton production and

30 Randolph B. Campbell, A Southern Community In Crisis: Harrison County, Texas, 1850-1880 (Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1983), 20-31.

29 third in total population. More than 90 percent of the heads of households in the county

were natives of the South, and 60.8 percent of these households owned one or more

slaves, compared to 27.3 percent statewide. Owners of 20 or more slaves constituted

145 of the slaveholders listed in Schedule 2 of the 1860 census. The slave portion of

the population in 1860 comprised 8,784 bondsmen, which accounted for 59 percent of

the total county population as compared to 30.2 percent slave population portion

statewide. When the referendum on secession came, Harrison County voters favored

breaking with the Union by an overwhelming margin of 866 to 44.31

Harrison County is valuable for microcosmic studies of issues in the Old South.

Not only does it share the quintessential characteristics that define the Old South in

historical terms, such as cotton production and slavery, but the body of research on the

politics, society, and economy of the county by Campbell provides a framework into

which insights on mobility might be integrated. In “Planters and Plainfolk: Harrison

County, Texas, as a Test Case, 1850-1860,” Campbell noted the increase in the number

of farmers holding land over the period from 1850-1860, which seems on the surface to

support an argument for upward mobility at the county level. He also noted that while

the owners of 1 to 99 acres remained a fairly steady percentage of the farm operators

in the county, the portion of the county’s improved acreage held by them decreased

from 22.5 to 11.9 percent. Additionally, the number of farmers owning more than 500

31 Randolph B. Campbell, "HARRISON COUNTY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hch08), accessed January 17, 2011; Campbell, A Southern Community In Crisis, 20-21, 24, 27; Randolph B. Campbell, “Planters and Plain Folk: Harrison County, Texas, as a Test Case, 1850-1860” The Journal of Southern History 40 (August 1974), 373; Randolph B. Campbell, An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989), 68, 56.

30 acres increased from 1.5 to 7.3 percent of the farmers who appeared in the census, and their improved acreage increased from 14.2 to 35.8 percent of the total. Campbell’s research suggests the possibility of mobility by demonstrating that the number of owners with large land holdings grew to a larger percentage of the population over the ten years, as did the slaveholding class as a whole and the number of persons who could be classified as planters. On the other hand, while those on the highest end of the economic scale increasingly controlled a greater portion of the county’s wealth, these increases might still reflect an increase in the value of assets and production across all classes rather than mobility up the economic-social scale.32

Of the 145 slaveholders the 1860 census identifies as owning 20 or more slaves in Harrison County, 111 are confirmed by comparison with the county tax rolls and provide sufficient data for analysis in the tax records. Nine of those cut did not report enough slaves in the tax record for confirmation as planters, and the remainder did not provide tax data for a sufficient number of years for an effective analysis. Three slaveholdings that are included in the population group were in estates in 1860 and another was a minor who does not appear on Schedule 1, and so these four provide no data for age, occupation, or place of birth for the person to whom they had belonged.33

32 Campbell, “Planters and Plain Folk: Harrison County,” 374-78. 33 See Table B.1 and Table B.2. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1860 Census, Schedule 1); Records of the Comptroller of Public Accounts, Ad Valorem Tax Division, County Real and Personal Property Tax Rolls, 1850-1880, Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as Harrison County Tax Rolls).

31 At first glance, these 111 large slaveholdings display a remarkable degree of economic mobility. Six (5.41 percent) of the population fall into the initial non- slaveholder category, nineteen (17.11 percent) into the initial small slaveholder category, thirty-six (32.43 percent) into the initial small planter category, and fifty

(45.05 percent) into the initial planter category. However, compelling reasons exist to re-categorize those in the initial non-slaveholder category. First, each of these six individuals show a large increase in the number of slaves owned in the second or third year they appear in the records. This suggests two likely scenarios: that these individuals had recently migrated to Harrison County and the bulk of the slave property they already owned followed in a later year, or they inherited or were given a number of slaves soon after establishing their own household, which reveals ties to a category above what their initial status indicates. Secondly, in four of the six cases, the average percentage change in number of slaves owned for these individuals, as calculated from the year of the large increase to 1860, closely matches the category average of the average percentage changes for the category into which they would be moved. To phrase this in another way, by assigning these individuals to the initial class that would be appropriate after the large increase in slave property, they more closely fit the wealth increase profile of the rest of that category. Reassigning those six individuals accordingly yields 20 (18.01 percent) in the small initial slaveholder category, 40 (36.04 percent) in the initial small planter category, and still just 51 (45.95 percent) in the initial planter category.34

34 See Table B.2. 1860 Census, Schedule 1; Harrison County Tax Rolls.

32 The birthplaces of Harrison County’s 111 planters in 1860 reveal a distinctly

southern character. An overwhelming majority were born in the South: twenty (18.5

percent) in the Upper South and eighty-five (76.6 percent) in the Lower South. The

remaining two include one (.9 percent) born in the North and one (.9 percent) born in

Ireland. Three did not provide places of birth. When compared to the overall nativity of

heads of households in Harrison County as a whole in 1860, 47 percent Lower South

and 43 percent Upper South, individuals originally from the Lower South states appear

to have been disproportionately likely to amass large slaveholdings.35

Harrison County’s largest slaveholders mostly (82.4 percent) declared their profession as farmer. Notably, three of these claimed both doctor and farmer as their profession, and another reported “Farmer & Minister of Christ.” Additional professions include three doctors, two attorneys, one hotel keeper, one merchant, one ‘Proprietors,’ one proprietor of a farm, one manager of a farm, and nine with no reported profession.

The entries with no reported profession are all minors or single women (mostly widows), and the ‘Proprietors’, the proprietor of a farm, and the manager of a farm are all single women. In five of the cases of women reported as the primary slave owner, the eldest adult male in the household has a recorded profession of farmer or farm

manager and in one case as an attorney. The ‘Proprietors’ (Sarah, Rebecca, and Mary

Shaw) have another family in their household, one of whom is ‘Manager of the Miss

Shaws.’ These women planters will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7.36

35 See Table B.1. 1860 Census, Schedule 1; Campbell, A Southern Community in Crisis, 24. 36 See Table B.2. 1860 Census, Schedule 1.

33 The ages in 1860 of the group range from 16 to 75, or 25 to 75 if the minors are not included. The average age is 47 and median age is 48, which demonstrates that the average is a sufficient value for describing the group norm. Average ages by initial category were 45.9 for initial small slaveholders, 47.4 for initial small planters, and 47.5 for initial planters. The closeness of these values across the categories suggests age is not a strong factor in the acquisition of large slaveholdings.37

The average annual percentage increase in the number of slaves owned reveals

changes in the sizes of individuals’ workforces. In order to compare the three initial

classes, a category average annual change has been calculated by taking the average

of the average annual change values for all of the individuals in the class. The average

yearly increase in the number of slaves owned was 12.58 percent for the initial small

slaveholders, 7.90 percent for the initial small planters, and 3.56 percent for the initial

planters. This demonstrates two important points. First, those who were planters

initially did not typically increase the number of slaves owned by very much or very

rapidly. When examined in real numbers, this trend is borne out as the typical initial

planter only increased his number of slaves by a number equal to or less than the

typical initial small slaveholders and initial small planters. Second, those in the initial

small planter class increased the number of slaves they owned at slightly more than

twice the rate of the initial planters, and the initial small slaveholders over three times

faster than the initial planters. While this may seem strange, this population group

includes only members of the initial small planter and initial small slaveholder classes

37 1860 Census, Schedule 1.

34 who experienced mobility in the planter class, but the initial planter class includes all

members of that class who met selection requirements regardless of any personal drive

to increase their wealth.38

A similar comparison of the change in adjusted value of slaveholdings yields similar results. Initial small slaveholders increased the value of their slaveholdings by an annual average of 12.27 percent, the initial small planters by 6.86 percent, and the initial planters by 2.91 percent. Thus, by comparing the category average annual percentage changes for number of slaves to that for adjusted value of slaves, it appears that real numbers of slaves increased for each group at a slightly higher rate than adjusted value, and this was more pronounced for the categories with larger initial slaveholdings. This is to be expected, because the value of an individual slave was largely tied to expected productivity, and those expanding their slaveholdings through purchase were most likely to buy with an express interest in productivity. Again, those with the drive to rapidly increase their wealth seem the more eager to expand their means of production.39

The category averages of annual rates of change in the value of real estate

demonstrate significant reinvestment by all three categories. The average rates were

15.46 percent for initial small slaveholders, 15.89 percent for initial small planters, and

10.32 percent for initial planters. The initial small slaveholder and initial small planter

categories demonstrate very similar patterns in amounts invested in the improvement

or acquisition of land, while the initial planter class re-invested at a slower but still

38 See Table B.4. Harrison County Tax Rolls. 39 See Table B.7. Harrison County Tax Rolls.

35 significant rate in real property. This divergence is not simply because the initial

planters owned greater values of property from the start. Rather, initial real estate

values varied widely within each class, though the initial planters were more likely to

have held greater initial wealth in real property. Keeping in mind that the initial small

slaveholders and initial small planters increased their slaveholdings more rapidly, both

in terms of real numbers and in terms of value (which is tied to productivity), a

correlation can be drawn between the number of acres that can be effectively worked

by a given number of hands. Thus those who were increasing their labor force most

rapidly were also increasing the other major component of production, the land, the

most rapidly.40

Comparison of the rates of change in the ratio of adjusted slaveholding values to real estate values in Harrison County is somewhat more complicated to analyze. In most cases, for most years, the ratio for each of the 111 individuals in the group was

higher than one, indicating that the adjusted total value of their slaves was more than

the total value of their acreage. Additionally, the individual average annual rates of

change of this ratio, and the category averages of these, are predominantly negative.

This indicates that the acquisition of slave property for most of these planters preceded

their investment in real property, but at some point their investment in real property

began to exceed their additional investment in slaves. However, this is not as clear as it

sounds, because improvement of acreage through slave labor likely accounts for a

40 See Table B.9. Harrison County Tax Rolls. Note that the average annual increase for S. R. Perry was calculated through 1859 to better understand his typical pattern, rather than through 1860, which would have shown a -100 percent change.

36 significant portion of ‘investment’ in real property and thus to some extent investment

in slave property is actually future investment in real estate property.41

When considering to what degree these individuals were capitalists who

essentially viewed their properties as capital to be both bought and sold as needed, two

sets of data need to be examined. First, the number of slaves belonging to an individual

in real numbers is the most important in examining this assertion by historian James

Oakes. The rates of change in this case are overwhelming positive for this group of planters in Harrison County. There are individuals who exhibit a negative rate for some years, indicating fewer slaves than the year before, but these are generally low percentage changes and far lower than the positive rates in other years. Second, the rates of change in the values of each slaveholding demonstrate the degree of change in a different way. Low percentage changes in value coinciding with a low percentage change in real numbers suggest the sale or loss of a less productive slave (perhaps a child or elderly person). Higher percentage changes in value indicate the likely sale of a more productive slave. Significant negative changes in total slaveholding values are much more common than significant percentage changes in real numbers. This suggests that some selling of slaves did occur, but not enough to thwart the general upward trends of these slaveholdings or to make a division into economic classes particularly difficult. Additionally, if a similar examination is done of the value of real estate property, significant negative changes in value are even more common than in slave values. This demonstrates that real property was more likely to be sold than

41 See Table B.11. Harrison County Tax Rolls.

37 slaves, indicating that slaves were perceived as the rarer, more difficult to acquire

component in the means of production for large scale agriculture.42

Of the 111 planters in this group, ten (9 percent) were women. With the exception of the slaveholdings owned by Sarah, Mary, & Rebecca Shaw, all of these plantations were owned by widows, only three of whom had remarried by 1860. The distribution across the initial categories for women is very similar to the population

group as a whole: one (10 percent) was in the initial small slaveholder category, four

(40 percent) were small planters, and five (50 percent) were initially planters. As a

group, these women’s property holding experiences were remarkably similar to that of

their respective initial categories as a whole between 1846 and 1860, with the

exception of Martha Adams, the only one in the initial small slaveholder category. For

example, the rates of change in the number of slaves owned are very similar: 24.91

percent for the initial small slaveholder woman, 6.81 percent for the small planter

women, and 3.06 for the planter women versus 12.58 percent for all of the initial small

slaveholders , 7.9 percent for the small planters, and 2.91 for the planters. The vast

difference in the initial small planter woman and her overall category is simply

explained. First, there is only one, Chesley M. Adams’s widow Martha Adams, and this

estate had experienced the single largest growth of any other in that category between

1846 and 1860. Furthermore, Chesley died in 1859 and his estate, under Martha’s

control, had not been divided in probate at the beginning of 1860. In spite of this single

exception, the changes in wealth experienced by the woman planters in Harrison

42 See Table B.4, Table B.7, and Table B.9. Harrison County Tax Rolls.

38 County was very much the same as that of the planter population in the county as a whole.43

This picture of Harrison County’s planters through the antebellum statehood period clearly shows a high degree of economic mobility for those who became planters by the end of the period. However, none of Harrison’s County’s planters could be clearly identified as non-slaveholders at their entry into the dataset. This suggests that the economic interests of lesser slaveowners were very much the same as those of the planter class, but does not offer any clear conclusion on the possible intersection of interests of non-slaveholders and planters. Additionally, occasional decreases in property values suggest that while these slaveowners did consider their property as capital to be both bought and sold, they were more likely to part with a significant portion of their real estate than with their slaves. Furthermore, the overall pattern seems to be a greater early investment in slave property than in real estate, with the additional acquisition and improvement of real estate contributing to a greater increase in real property value later. Finally, the data demonstrate little difference along gender lines.

43 See Table F.1 and Table F.2; Table B.4; Harrison County Tax Rolls; Probate Papers, County Clerk’s Office, Harrison County Courthouse, Marshall, Texas.

39 CHAPTER IV

BRAZORIA COUNTY

Brazoria County was one of the first places that American slavery entered Texas.

The area that became Brazoria County in 1836 was part of Stephen F. Austin’s first

colony, where settlement began in 1821. By 1860, Brazoria was the wealthiest county

in Texas and, unlike most other Texas counties, slaves made up a majority (71.5

percent) of the population. Also by 1860, the Houston Tap and Brazoria Railway ran

from East Columbia to Pierce Junction, in Harris County, where it connected to the

Buffalo Bayou, Brazos, and Colorado Railroad, which continued to Houston, providing a

ready access to markets for commodities such as cotton. Brazoria County thus

possessed a highly developed plantation economy by the end of the antebellum period,

making it an important venue for examining slave ownership in Texas.44

Brazoria , one of the original twenty-three counties of Texas, encompasses 1,407

square miles on the Texas coast at the mouth of the Brazos River. In 1860, the county’s

population was 7,143, including 5,110 slaves and 6 free blacks. Of the free population,

229 owned slaves, with 68 owning twenty or more and 10 owning one hundred or

more. The plantation- based economy of the county made it the wealthiest county in

Texas in 1859. The importance of slavery to this economy was clearly demonstrated by

the vote on secession, which passed 527 to 2. 45

44 Diana J. Kleiner, "BRAZORIA COUNTY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcb12), accessed January 17, 2011. 45 Kleiner, "BRAZORIA COUNTY," Handbook of Texas Online; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, Schedule 2 (Slave Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1860 Census, Schedule 2). The Handbook of Texas Online

40 Of the sixty-eight planter-class slaveholdings in Brazoria County identified in

Schedule 2 of the 1860 census, fifty-two meet the criteria for inclusion in the group.

Four of these fifty-two slaveholders do not appear on Schedule 1 of the 1860 census,

and so they cannot be further identified. Of the other forty-eight, three (6.25 percent)

were born in the North and the remainder (93.75 percent) in the South, including

twenty-seven natives of the Lower South (56.25 percent) and eighteen (37.5 percent) who were born in states of the Upper South. Planter was the most common profession, reported by forty-three individuals (89.6 percent) in the population group. One of these

planters claimed to be a “Lawyer & Planter” and another was a “Doctor & Planter.”

Additionally, there was one merchant (2 percent), and four for whom no profession

was reported. All of those with no profession were women, but two of these women

had sons in their household who were recorded as planters.46

The ages of this group of fifty-two planters in 1860 ranged from 22 to 67. The

average age is 43.4 and median age is 45, suggesting age was not a strong

determining factor for inclusion in the planter class. The average age by initial category

were 36.4 years for initial non-slaveholders, 42.1 for initial small slaveholders, 43 for

initial small planters, and 45.9 for initial planters. The relatively close average ages for

the initial small slaveholder, initial small planter, and initial planter categories suggest

article claims that there were 234 slaveowners in Brazoria County in 1860, 73 of whom owned 20 or more slaves. This is because the census marshal listed the three plantations of Abner Jackson, the two plantations of William Kennedy, and the three plantations of Robert & David G. Mills separately. Listing these properties by owner yields the correct number of slaveowners. 46 See Table C.1 and Table C.2. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1860 Census, Schedule 1).

41 again that age was not a strong factor in slaveowners attaining planter status, but the

significantly lower average for the initial non-slaveholder class suggests there is some

correlation between age and the initial acquisition of wealth in the form of slaves.47

Brazoria County demonstrates some mobility into the planter class over the

period examined. Of the fifty-two planters in the population group, thirty-two (61.5

percent) belong to the initial planter category. The initial small planter category includes

six individuals (11.5 percent), while the initial small slaveholder group includes nine

(17.3 percent). Only five (9.6 percent) fall into the initial non-slaveholder class. Most

important, the majority of 1860 planter-class slaveholdings were of that class at their

first appearances in the tax record. A significant minority (38.5 percent) of the Brazoria

County planters examined could be considered truly class mobile during Texas’ early

statehood period.48

The ways in which the different categories typically increased their slaveholdings can be examined through an examination of the category average annual change in the number of slaves owned for each group. These values are 15.7 percent for the initial non-slaveholder category, 15.32 percent for the initial small slaveholder category, 5.82 percent for the initial small planter category, and 6.08 percent for the initial planter category. These indicate a significant difference in the apparent investment in slave

47 See Table C.2. 1860 Census, Schedule 1. 48 See Table C.3. Records of the Comptroller of Public Accounts, Ad Valorem Tax Division, County Real and Personal Property Tax Rolls, 1850-1880, Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as Brazoria County Tax Records). The data for Sarah Black and A. Morris shows each as having no slaves at their earliest appearance in the tax record, but they are in the planter class in the second year. These individuals have been included in the initial planter category, and statistics on their property only calculated from the second year they appear in the data.

42 property between the upper two categories and the lower two categories. Examination

of the changes in the adjusted value of slaves owned shows similar findings among the

categories. On average, the initial non-slaveholder class experienced an average yearly increase of 16.75 percent and the initial small slaveholder class an increase of 10.39 percent compared to 8.3 percent for the initial small planter class and 4.71 percent for the initial planter class. Correlating the increase in the number of slaves owned with the

increase in adjusted values suggests that overall the initial non-slaveholder class slightly

increased the average productivity of their slaves, as did the initial small planter class.

On the other hand, the initial small slaveholder and initial planter categories seem to

have seen a decrease in average productivity per slave, which suggests that a

significant portion of their actual increase was in less valuable slaves, such as children

or elderly bondsmen.49

The rates of change in the value of acreage for each category reveal that

increases in value were the norm for all. The category averages for annual percentage change are similar across the categories: 20.08 percent for the initial non-slaveowners,

21.53 percent for the initial small slaveowners, 14.62 percent for the initial small

planters, and 20.31 percent for the initial planters. This suggests that reinvestment in

land was similar across all of the categories, and that few who experienced mobility into

the planter class would ever ‘catch up’ in terms of value of acreage to those who

preceded them in joining the planter class.50

49 See Table C.4 and Table C.7. Brazoria County Tax Records. 50 See Table C.9. Brazoria County Tax Records.

43 The ratio of adjusted value of slaves to the value of acreage reveals how the nature of wealth changed for the group. Over the period, values for this ratio greater than one and values less than one occur very nearly equally, but by 1860, this ratio is less than one for the majority of these individuals. Additionally, the average annual percent change and the aggregate change for all but two of the fifty-two members of the population group was negative. This means that the cash value of acreage increased more than that of slaves for the majority of the group. This seems to indicate that investment in slaves occurred early followed by significant investment in land that exceeded investment in additional slaves. However, this is not as clear as it sounds because the improvement of acreage through slave labor likely accounts for a significant portion of ‘investment’ in real property. Therefore to some extent initial investments in personal property, or slaves, were in themselves future investment in real property, or land.51

There is very little support in the Brazoria County planters for James Oakes’s contention that slave-owners bought and sold slaves and thus would have regularly crossed over definable class boundaries. Though some of the members of this group of fifty-two planters do show declines in the number of slaves owned, none do so frequently, nor is it common within the group. Charles Stringfellow first appears in the tax record in 1846 with three slaves. In 1849, he reported no slaves, but in 1850 his slaveholding was up to seven bondsmen. Additionally, Winston Fountain reported eighteen slaves in both 1853 and 1854, only one in 1855, but sixteen again in 1856.

51 See Table C.7 and Table C.8. Brazoria County Tax Records.

44 The slaveholdings of Sarah Black and her children decline sharply in 1859, but this was likely the result of probating her husband’s estate. Most important, for the majority of these individuals, the number of slaves owned generally increased over the period. For acreage values, increase is also generally the rule, though there are noticeable and significant decreases for several individuals at various points in the record. Yet only

Irene Burney demonstrated an overall negative change in acreage value, selling all of her acreage by 1860.52

Of the fifty-two planters in this group, six (11.5 percent) were women. All of these were widows. One (16.7 percent) of these women was in the initial small planter category, while the other five (83.3 percent) were initially planters. As a group, these women’s property holding experience was notably different from that of their respective initial categories as a whole between 1846 and 1860. For example, the rates of change in number of slaves owned were very different: -0.77 percent for the small planter woman and .6 for the planter women versus 5.82 percent for the initial small planters and 6.08 for the planters. The vast difference between the rates of change for the women and their categories as a whole is largely explained by the division of their husbands’ estates in probate and children taking control of their property from the estate as they came of age. Though the initial planter class women, as a group, experienced a decline in both the number and value of slaves they owned over the period, the group still increased the value of real estate owned, though only at about half the rate of the initial planter category as a whole. The experience of women

52 See Table C.3 and Table C.4. Brazoria County Tax Records.

45 planters in Brazoria County was markedly different from that of the men in the county and defined by the fact that their experiences derived from widowhood. The difference in women’s experiences in Harrison and Brazoria counties can be attributed to age. The average age of widows of Brazoria County was about eight years older than in Harrison

County, and the Brazoria women had more adult children who would have claimed a share of their father’s estates.53

The overall picture of the Brazoria County population group is one of increasing wealth over the period, both in terms of acreage and slave property. All categories increased the value of acreage at similar rates, and two patterns of increase in value of slaves are evident, one for the initial non-slaveholders and the initial small slaveholder categories and a second, much slower rate of increase, for the initial small planter and initial planter categories. Furthermore, this county’s planter class demonstrates considerable mobility as over half the group was not of the initial planter category, including 9.6 percent that began as initial non-slaveholders.

The Brazoria County group must also be analyzed in light of its multigenerational component. Family connections are well understood in early Brazoria County, largely due to scholarly and lay interest in the early settlers of Texas. Taking these family connections into account significantly changes the understanding of economic class mobility in the county. Seven of the individuals who demonstrate class mobility can be reclassified as non-mobile when family connections are considered.

53 See Table F.1 and Table F.2; Table C.4, Table C.7, and Table C.9; Brazoria County Tax Rolls; Probate Papers, County Clerk’s Office, Brazoria County Real Property Records Office, Angleton, Texas.

46 The Winston siblings provide one excellent example of non-mobility when family

connections are considered for this study. Fountain and Lafayette Winston were the

brothers of Anthony Winston. The family began moving to Brazoria County in 1851.

Anthony arrived early enough to be in the tax record for 1852, in which he reported

twenty-two slaves. By the beginning of 1853, Fountain had arrived with eighteen slaves of his own, as had their brother-in-law Stephen P. Winston, who owned twenty-five slaves. At the beginning of 1855, Lafayette’s property, including fifteen slaves, appears in the tax record, reported by his guardian Susan Winston, mother of the Winston brothers, who also reported fifteen slaves of her own. The Winstons came from Greene

County, Alabama, where Susan and her three sons had shared a single household in

1850. Their father, John Jones Winston, had died in 1850 and his will was probated the same year in Greene County. The will listed six slaves left to his wife, Susan, and seven to his daughter from his previous marriage, Elizabeth Whiting. John then left the remainder of his property “real, personal, and mixed” to Susan’s keeping for the use of their three sons, Anthony, Fountain, and Lafayette. It is not clear how many slaves were in the estate, but Schedule 2 of the 1850 census lists seventy-seven slaves under the estate of John J. Winston. Clearly, the Winstons were a planter family by the time they migrated to Brazoria County, and a strong argument exists for placing Fountain and Lafayette in the initial planter category. Though Fountain and Lafayette did not report more than twenty slaves at their first appearance in the data, they had been members of a planter class household as children, had planter class relatives living nearby, and each stood to inherit sufficient slaves from their mother to elevate them to

47 planter class. Clearly, Fountain and Lafayette are examples of generational maintenance

of class rather than of class mobility.54

Similarly, the Sweeny brothers--John Jr., Jordan W., Thomas Jefferson, and

Samuel P.--were the sons of John Sweeny, Sr. John Sr. was a noted planter in Brazoria

County before his death in 1855, and was said to have been “able to provide each of his children with a plantation.” With the support of their father, each of the brothers steadily increased their slaveholdings even before their father’s death, though only John

Jr. owned any acreage. In the tax record for the year following John Sr.’s death, each of the brothers reported a significant increase in the number of slaves owned, and all but John Jr. reported a substantial increase of values of acreage owned. Again, from a multi-generational perspective, none of these four men were truly class mobile. They in fact inherited their planter status, and many of their slaves, from their father.55

Girard B. Munson and Mordello Stephen Munson possessed a similar planter

pedigree. Their father, Henry William Munson, left behind a large plantation on his

death from cholera in 1833. His friend, James P. Caldwell, continued operating the

54 Also in 1853, the tax record includes a William Winston who may have been their uncle and owned sixty-one slaves. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850, Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1850 Census, Schedule 1). For the marriage of Stephen P. Winston to Ann C. Winston, see “Greene County, Alabama, Marriages 1823-1860” webpage on the Greene County, Alabama Genweb site (http://magnolia.cyriv.com/greenealgenweb/history/marriages/w.asp), accessed May 6, 2011. See also the genealogical data and “Transcript of the Will of John J. Winston” on the Greene County, Alabama, GenWeb site (http://magnolia.cyriv.com/ greenealgenweb/documents/wills/WinstonJohnJonesWill.asp), accessed May 6, 2011. The original can be found in Will Book C, page 223, Greene County, Alabama. See Seventh Census of the United States, 1850, Schedule 2 (Slave Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1850 Census, Schedule 2). 55 Diana J. Kleiner, "SWEENY, JOHN, SR.," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fswmq), accessed May 6, 2011; Brazoria County Tax Records. See Table C.3 and Table C.8.

48 plantation for the boys and their mother, Ann. Ann and Caldwell soon married. Henry

William Munson’s estate was split in 1848, the majority falling to Ann. Most of the

property that remained in the Caldwell household was managed by Girard for most of

the period and was actually owned by him by 1860. Thus, the data for Girard Munson

includes the Caldwell property through the period, and he has been classified as an

initial planter. Mordello did not hold much of his father’s property initially. Yet the family

connection to a large, nearby plantation meant Mordello could expect assistance in

improving his own means. Having come from a planter family to become a planter in

one’s own right is not truly economic class mobility.56

William Joel Bryan and Stephen Samuel Perry also belonged to a planter class

family. The sons of Emily Austin Bryan Perry, and thus the nephews of Stephen F.

Austin, they were still children when James F. Perry led the family and nine slaves to

Texas in the summer of 1831. By the end of 1834, the Perry family owned at least

twenty-four slaves. Though Emily died in 1851 and James Perry in 1853, James’s property remained in estate in 1860, indicating that neither of the two half-brothers

inherited the bulk of the family property. However, the family property certainly helped

them make their own way. For example, James transferred to his son Stephen 29,899

acres worth $7,472 in 1848. Additionally, William and Stephen both show a large

56 Diana J. Kleiner, "MUNSON, HENRY WILLIAM," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fmu34), accessed May 7, 2011; Stephanie P. Niemeyer, "MUNSON, MORDELLO STEPHEN," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fmu42), accessed May 7, 2011; Diana J. Kleiner, "CALDWELL, JAMES PECKHAM," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fcada), accessed May 02, 2011; Probate Papers, County Clerk’s Office, Brazoria County Real Property Records Office, Angleton, Texas.

49 increase in acreage values from 1851 to 1852, representing the bulk of the property

that was in Emily’s name at her death. Clearly the financial standing of the previous

generation factored significantly in the wealth accumulated by the half-brothers, and

thus they serve better as examples of generational maintenance of economic status

rather than of individual mobility.57

Recategorizing these nine individuals based on family connections transforms the

perceived mobility of the group. In this modified categorization, forty-one (78.8 percent) fall into the initial planter category. The initial small planter category includes four individuals (7.7 percent), and the initial small slaveholder includes six (11.5 percent). Only one (1.9 percent) of the group falls into the initial non-slaveholder class.

Thus a vast majority of those who had planter-class slaveholdings in Brazoria County in

1860 were planter class at their first appearances in the tax record of that county in the antebellum statehood period. Though the degree of economic mobility for Brazoria

County in this period is significant, especially for the one initial non-slaveholder who rose to planter status, there is obviously less economic mobility in Brazoria County for this period than in Harrison County.58

The differences in mobility in Harrison and Brazoria counties seem largely to be

determined by the fact that Harrison County was younger and more densely populated.

57 Lillian Childress, "BRYAN, WILLIAM JOEL," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fbrat), accessed May 7, 2011; Marie Beth Jones, "PERRY, EMILY MARGARET AUSTIN," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fpe39), accessed May 7, 2011; Winnie Allen, "PERRY, JAMES FRANKLIN," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fpe44), accessed May 07, 2011; Light Townsend Cummins, Emily Austin of Texas, 1795-1851 (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 2009), 85, 99, 119. 58 See Table C.3. Brazoria County Tax Records.

50 Both counties had reliable waterborne outlets to the major markets at New Orleans,

Harrison via Lake Caddo and the Red River and Brazoria via the Gulf of Mexico. Both

counties had a local railroad operating before the Civil War that served to improve their

connection to these markets. In 1860, slaves made up the majority of the population in

both counties, and the majority of each county’s wealth was tied up in plantation

agriculture. Brazoria, however, was a decade older in terms of Anglo settlement and the

introduction of slavery, was suitable to sugar production, had a much lower population

density, and had much larger plantations, especially in terms of number of slaves

individual planters owned. Furthermore, the differences in women planters’ experience

in Harrison and Brazoria counties over this period were largely determined by the

difference in the ages of the women themselves, as well as their children, between the

two counties. The differences between these two counties demonstrate differences between a growing county that was actively developing and one in which development had essentially plateaued.

51 CHAPTER V

COLORADO COUNTY

Colorado County, one of the oldest counties in Texas, was named for the

Colorado River, which bisects the county on a northwest to southeast axis. The 964 square mile area that would become Colorado County was first settled in 1821 as part of Stephen F. Austin’s original colony. Under the Republic of Texas government,

Colorado was one of the original twenty-three counties formed in 1836. During the early statehood period and in particular the 1850s, Colorado County experienced rapid growth, becoming a distinctly southern society reliant on plantation agriculture. By

1860, the county had a higher proportion of both slaveowners and slaves than the state

as a whole. Such rapid growth suggests the likelihood of upward economic mobility,

though this examination will demonstrate that there was little mobility into the planter

class.59

According to the 1860 census, the population of Colorado County had reached

7,885, of which 3,559 (45 percent) were slaves. This demonstrated tremendous growth

since 1850, when the population had been 2,257, including 644 slaves. The county’s

cotton crop in 1860 was the fifth largest of all Texas counties, though cattle and sheep

ranching remained important. Also by 1860, the Buffalo Bayou, Brazos, and Colorado

Railway (BBB&C) had reached Alleyton, which lay just east of the county seat,

Columbus. The BBB&C connected the residents of Colorado County to Harrisburg on

59 Mark Odintz, "COLORADO COUNTY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcc18), accessed January 19, 2011; Randolph B. Campbell, Grass-roots Reconstruction in Texas: 1865-1880 (Baton Rouge: University of Louisiana Press, 1997), 27-30.

52 Buffalo Bayou, and thus improved their access to markets at Houston and the port at

Galveston. When the vote on secession came, the county favored disunion by a

majority of 584 to 330. The votes against secession are attributed primarily to the

significant German population in the north and northeastern portions of the county.

German immigrants and their descendants accounted for roughly 20 to 25 percent of

the county’s total population by 1860.60

According to the 1860 census, 306 slaveholders accounted for 39 percent of all families in Colorado County. The county boasted fifty-five planter-class slaveholdings according to the 1860 census, including four who claimed ownership of more than one hundred slaves. Only thirty-four of these fifty-five meet the criteria for inclusion in the population group when examined in the county tax rolls.

Of the thirty-four Colorado County planters examined, twenty-two (64.7 percent) fall into the initial planter category. The initial small planter category includes six individuals (17.6 percent), and the initial small slaveholder also includes six (17.6 percent). None of the 1860 planters fell into the initial non-slaveholder class. The majority of 1860 planter-class slaveholdings were already at that level at their first appearances in the tax record. Furthermore, of the six that were included in the initial small planter category, only two experienced a total growth of more than 50 percent over the period, and only one of those reported a growth of over 100 percent. In other

60 Odintz, "COLORADO COUNTY;" George C. Werner, "BUFFALO BAYOU, BRAZOS AND COLORADO RAILWAY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eqb16), accessed June 11, 2011; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, Schedule 2 (Slave Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1860 Census, Schedule 2); Campbell, Grass- roots Reconstruction in Texas, 27-30.

53 words, four of the initial small planter category owned a number of slaves very near to

the cut-off for inclusion in the planter category and experienced only moderate

increases in their slaveholdings. Thus, mobility in the group during the antebellum

statehood period was clearly minimal.61

A closer examination of the group from Colorado County reveals no more

evidence of mobility into the planter class between 1846-1860. Though initially John G.

Montgomery seems to have risen from owning no slaves into the planter class, his dramatic rise from owning no slaves to owning thirty-four in one year was actually the result of an 1853 marriage to Ann Elizabeth Stockton, heir to the plantation of Benjamin

Stockton . Furthermore, John was the son of James Montgomery, the owner of one of the largest slaveholdings in the county throughout this period. Thus John G.

Montgomery has been classified in the initial planter category and the data for the

Stockton plantation used prior to 1853. Additionally, James Wright first appeared in the county tax records in 1855 with only three slaves, but the next year had forty. Wright,

in fact, seems to have moved into the county with only a portion of his slaves and the

rest followed later in 1855. Therefore, he has been included in the initial planter

category as well, and statistics on his property have only been calculated from 1856.62

61 See Table D.3. Colorado County Tax Rolls. 62 Records of the Comptroller of Public Accounts, Ad Valorem Tax Division, County Real and Personal Property Tax Rolls, 1850-1880 (Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin, Texas [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries]), hereafter cited as Colorado County Tax Rolls; Bill Stein, "Consider the Lily: The Ungilded History of Colorado County, Texas, Part 5," Nesbitt Memorial Library Journal 7 (January 1997), 7; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850, Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries].

54 The personal data from Schedule 1 of the 1860 census demonstrate a completely

southern background for the Colorado County planters. Two of these thirty-four

slaveholders do not appear on Schedule 1 of the 1860 census. All of the others in the

population group were born in the South, including twelve (37.5 percent) who were

born in states of the Upper South and twenty (62.5 percent) who were born in the

Lower South. Farmer was the most common profession, reported by twenty-eight individuals (87.5 percent) in the group. Additionally, there was one each (3 percent) of the following in the group: ‘Chief Justice,’ ‘Attorney at Law’ (though the slaves were technically his wife’s property), merchant, and no profession (this head of household was a widow).63

The ages of the 1860 planters from Colorado County ranged from 35 to 72. The

average age was 49 and median age was 46, suggesting once again that age was not a

strong determining factor for inclusion in the planter class. The average ages by initial

category were 41.3 years for initial small slaveholders, 46.8 for initial small planters,

and 52.3 for initial planters. The significantly higher average ages between each class

suggests there was some correlation between age and more significant wealth.64

The ways in which the different categories typically increased their slaveholdings

can be made clear by examining the category average annual change in the number of slaves owned for each group during the early statehood period, or from 1846 to 1860.

These values of 15.4 percent for the initial small slaveholder category, 6.25 percent for

63 Odintz, "COLORADO COUNTY;" Eighth Census of the United States, 1860. Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants); National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1860 Census, Schedule 1). See Table D.1 and Table D.2. 64 See Table D.2. 1860 Census, Schedule 1.

55 the initial small planter category, and 3.25 percent for the initial planter category

demonstrate a significant difference in the reinvestment of those who experienced

mobility compared to the established planters. If C. W. Tait and J. L. Taylor, the two

initial small planters who experienced a large change in number of slaves owned, are

excluded, the class average drops to 3.99 percent which is very similar to that of the

initial planter class. This indicates that the majority of those who would be planters by

1860 engaged in only very modest investment in slaves over the period of this study.

This is confirmed by an examination of the adjusted value of slaves owned. On average, the initial small slaveholder class experienced an average annual increase of 13.91 percent compared to 6.29 percent for the initial small planter class and 3.92 percent for the initial planter class. The close correlation between the increase in the number of slaves owned and the increase in adjusted values indicates that these thirty-four

owners maintained a consistent balance between more and less productive slaves. This

suggests that average productivity per slave remained generally the same and overall

productivity increased as the number of slaves increased.65

Rates of change in the value of acreage reveal that increases in value were the norm. Fannie A. Darden and David Tooke, both from the initial small planter category, had sold or transferred away all of their acreage by 1860. Excluding these, the category average annual percentage change from 1846-1860 is similar across the categories:

24.33 percent for the initial small slaveowner category, 17.46 percent for the initial small planter category, and 21.60 percent for the initial planter category. Though the

65 See Table D.4 and Table D.6. Colorado County Tax Rolls.

56 initial planter class did not engage in the acquisition of slaves to the same degree as

the other groups, they were just as active in increasing their wealth in the form of real

property.66

The ratio of adjusted value of slaves to value of acreage reveals how the nature

of wealth changed for the group. Throughout the antebellum statehood period, values

for this ratio greater than one and values less than one occur very nearly equally, but

by 1860, this ratio is less than one for the majority of these individuals. Additionally, the

average annual percent change and the aggregate change for all but five of these individuals is negative. Two of the five exceptions are those previously mentioned as having parted with all of their acreage by 1860. The other three, John Crisp, John

Matthews, and James Montgomery, are all members of the initial planter class. Crisp and Matthews were the largest slaveowners in 1860, with 140 each, and had increased their slaveholdings at rates about 6 times faster than other initial planters. James

Montgomery parted with a large portion of his acreage between 1857 and 1860, thus quickly reversing what would have otherwise been an overall negative change in this ratio. 67

The decline in the ratio of adjusted slave values to acreage values means that

the value of acreage was greater than or equal to the value of slaves for the group as a

whole for much of the period, and the cash value of acreage was distinctly greater than

that of slaves for this population by 1860. This seems to indicate that re-investment in

land significantly exceeded investment in additional slaves. Again, this is not as clear as

66 See Table D.8. Colorado County Tax Rolls. 67 See Table D.7 and Table D.8. Colorado County Tax Rolls.

57 it sounds, because improvement of acreage through slave labor likely accounts for a

significant portion of the ‘investment’ in real property. Thus to some extent investment

in slave property is again future investment in real estate property.68

James Oake’s contention that the slave-owners bought and sold slaves and regularly crossed over definable class boundaries finds some support in the Colorado

County group. George L. Perry first appeared in the tax record in 1848 with four slaves.

He then appeared in 1849 with no slaves, which seems to have remained the case until

1854, when he reported twelve. Additionally, Thomas T. Williamson sold one of his two plantations in 1848, reducing his reported number of slaves from fifty in 1848 to thirty in 1849. Though, this does not cross a class distinction for the purposes of this study, some would argue this moves Williamson from the ranks of “large planter” to simply

“planter.” However, for the majority of these individuals, the number of slaves owned generally increased over the period. For acreage values, increase was also generally the rule, though there are noticeable and significant decreases for several individuals at various points in the record. Yet only three individuals demonstrated an overall negative change, two of them parting with all their acreage by 1860 for unknown reasons yet remaining planter class slaveholders.69

Of the thirty-four planters in this population group, five (14.7 percent) were women. Three of these plantations owners were widows. Two (40 percent) of the women planters were in the initial small planter category, and the other three (60

68 See Table D.7 and Table D.8. Colorado County Tax Rolls. 69 See Table D.3 and Table D.4. Colorado County Tax Rolls. Stein, "Consider the Lily . . . Part 5," 43.

58 percent) were initially planters. As a group, these women’s property-holding experience seems notably different from that of their respective initial categories as a whole between 1846 and 1860. However, a small, disparate group such as this is hard to typify. For example, the rates of change in value of slaves owned are very different between the female members within each category. One of the two initial small planter women showed a -1.78 percent average annual rate of change in value of slaves owned, while the other had a 5.01 percent rate of change, which is similar to the 6.29 percent rate for the category as a whole. The three small planter women demonstrate two very dissimilar rates (-1.11 percent and -0.77 percent) and one similar (2.41 percent) rate to that of the category as a whole (3.92 percent). On the other hand, all of these women’s experiences included increased values of acreage owned. Notably, all three women whose slaveholdings declined in value were the widows of the county, suggesting that this can be explained by the division of their husbands’ estates in probate. The experience of the five women planters in Colorado County demonstrates two distinct variations. On the one hand were the two women who inherited their property and had husbands who administered it, and whose property demonstrated growth similar to their respective categories as a whole. On the other were the three widows whose experiences were markedly different from that of the men in the county and perhaps defined by the fact that their experiences derived from widowhood.70

The Colorado County planters of 1860 clearly demonstrate only a very moderate degree of economic mobility in the antebellum statehood period. None of Colorado

70 See Table F.1 and Table F.2; Table D.7 and Table D.9; Colorado County Tax Rolls.

59 County’s planters could be clearly identified as non-slaveholders at their entry into the

dataset. Similar to Harrison and Brazoria counties, the overall pattern of wealth increase

seems to be a greater initial investment in slave property than in real estate, with the

additional acquisition and improvement of real estate contributing to a greater increase in real property value later. This may have been enhanced because, like Harrison and

Brazoria, Colorado County had rail service by 1860 that improved its connection to regional markets.

On the other hand, Colorado County was distinct in several ways. Settlement

there had begun at the same time as in Brazoria County and a plantation society quickly

arose, but population and economic growth had been much slower in Colorado County

until a boom began in the 1850s. This boom dramatically changed the county, including

increasing the population by 249 percent. More telling, however, is how the population

changed. The free population grew 168 percent and the slave population grew 453

percent, increasing from 28 percent of the total county population to 45 percent. After

almost three decades of moderate growth from the first Anglo settlement in the 1820s,

Colorado County found itself catapulted from being what might be called a ‘society with

plantations’ into a ‘plantation society’ by the rapid growth of the 1850s. More important,

in spite of the different trajectories of economic and population change, the degree of

mobility into the planter class was similar between Colorado, Harrison, and Brazoria

counties.

60 CHAPTER VI

MCLENNAN COUNTY

McLennan County provides an interesting venue for examination because it lay

near the frontier in 1860, and yet it contained twenty-seven individuals who owned

twenty or more slaves in that year’s census. Six of these twenty-seven planters claimed

ownership of more than fifty slaves. Slave-owners comprised 41 percent of all heads of

households in this frontier county, and the slaves themselves made up 39 percent of

the county’s population. This exceeded the statewide figures of 30 percent of all heads

of households holding slaves and slaves comprising 30 percent of the population, which

seems to contradict the standard image of the frontier in the antebellum South. Indeed,

McLennan County is not ‘typical’ of the frontier region of counties, as defined by

Campbell and Lowe, but it does demonstrate how rapidly slavery was spreading

alongside settlement in Texas in the 1850s.71

The 1,031 square miles of McLennan County lie entirely within the Brazos River

basin. The county seat, Waco, lies on the Brazos River about one hundred miles north

of Austin. The soil and climate are well suited to cotton agriculture, and although the

71 Eighth Census of the United States, 1860. Schedule 2 (Slave Inhabitants). National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1860 Census, Schedule 2); Randolph B. Campbell, Grass-Roots Reconstruction in Texas, 1865-1880 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1997), 165; Randolph B. Campbell and Richard G. Lowe, Wealth and Power in Antebellum Texas (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1977), passim; Richard G. Lowe and Randolph B. Campbell, Planters & Plain Folk: Agriculture in Antebellum Texas (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1987). An excellent example of the standard picture of development of the southern frontier can be found in Christopher Morris, Becoming Southern: The Evolution of a Way of Life, Warren County and Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1770-1860 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). Morris traces the development of Warren County through three distinct stages. The first stage was dominated by the influx of homesteaders, who practiced slash and burn agriculture and minimal participation in markets. The second phase, up to about 1810, was dominated by large cattle herds, which the herders sold in a regional market for significant profits. Finally, the third phase, up to 1860, saw the beginnings and growth of the cotton economy, and a lifestyle that was quintessentially Southern.

61 Brazos River was not navigable that far north, it could be used seasonally to float products downstream, including marketable commodities such as cotton. The agricultural production for the county’s 379 farms according to the 1860 census included 2,300 bales of cotton, indicating a solid degree of involvement in the market agriculture of antebellum Texas.72

The importance of slavery and cotton led the voters of McLennan County to support John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election over John Bell by a vote of 524 to 202. The county’s delegate to the Secession Convention, Richard Coke, voted in favor of secession, and his constituents overwhelmingly supported his choice in the following election, 586 to 191. During the Civil War, McLennan County was home to

Camp Bosque, a training camp for Confederate troops. Approximately 1,500 men from the county served in the Confederate forces, including several prominent generals such as Lawrence Sullivan Ross and Hiram Bronson Granbury.73

The 1860 census identifies twenty-seven planter-class level slaveholdings in

McLennan County, nineteen of which meet the criteria for inclusion in this study based on comparison with the county tax rolls. One of these slaveholdings was in probate and thus does not provide birthplace and occupation data in Schedule 1 of the 1860 census.

All of the other eighteen planters were born in the South, seven (38.9 percent) in states of the Upper South and eleven (61.1 percent) in the Lower South. Farmer was the most common profession, reported by twelve individuals (66.7 percent) in the group, or

72 Vivian Elizabeth Smyrl, "MCLENNAN COUNTY," Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcm08), accessed April 02, 2011. 73 Smyrl, "MCLENNAN COUNTY," Handbook of Texas Online.

62 thirteen (72.2 percent) if the husband of the one woman in the group is included. The

woman, Frances Henrietta Holder Decherd, reported no profession herself. Additionally,

the remaining five (27.8 percent) in this group all reported their occupation as ‘Planter,’

though David R. Tinsley, future father-in-law of Lawrence Sullivan Ross, declared

himself as both a planter and a medical doctor.74

The ages of the 1860 planters ranged from 33 to 78. The average age was 50.8 and the median age was 51, suggesting age was not a strong determining factor for

inclusion in the planter class. The average ages by initial category were 49.7 years for

small slaveholders, 41.5 for small planters, and 54.5 for planters. There were no initial

non-slaveholders. The significantly higher average age for the initial small slaveholder

category compared to the initial small planter category suggests age was not a strong

factor in the acquisition of slaves, but the significantly higher average for the initial

planter class suggests there is some correlation between age and more substantial

wealth.75

McLennan County demonstrated little mobility into the planter class over the

antebellum statehood period. Though initially Frances Decherd seems to have risen

from owning no slaves into the planter class, closer examination reveals that her

dramatic rise from owning no slaves to owning seventy in one year was the result of a transfer of slave property from her father’s estate (executed by her husband) into her name. Additionally, George W. Prather appeared in the county tax records first in 1854

74 See Table E.1 and Table E.2. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860. Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries], (hereafter cited as 1860 Census, Schedule 1). 75 See Table E.2. 1860 Census, Schedule 1.

63 with only one slave, but the next year he had thirty-three. Similarly, Thomas B.

Clements showed an increase from four to thirty-seven over the same period. Prather and Clements each seem to have moved into the county with only a portion of their slaves, with the rest following later. Therefore, Prather and Clements have been included in the initial planter category as well, and statistics on their property have only been calculated from 1855. Also, Joseph W. Speight seems at first look to have jumped from 5 to 56 slaves in a single year, from 1855 to 1856. However, Speight’s father-in-

law, Mark Pruitt was already in residence by the beginning of 1854 with 54 slaves.

Pruitt died in 1855, leaving the bulk of his property, including his approximately fifty slaves, to his daughter Josephine S. Pruitt Speight. The Speights are included in the initial planter category for this reason, and their data for 1855 include her father’s property, which Josephine inherited later that year. Additionally, planter David R.

Tinsley’s data include the property of J. W. Tinsley, who was a minor dependent in

David Tinsley’s household throughout this period.76

Sorting these nineteen McLennan County planters into initial categories to

examine class mobility demonstrates the limited mobility into the planter class within

the county to 1860. Thirteen (68.4 percent) of the group fell into the initial planter

category. The initial small planter category includes four individuals (21.1 percent), and

76 Records of the Comptroller of Public Accounts, Ad Valorem Tax Division, County Real and Personal Property Tax Rolls, 1850-1880 (Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin, Texas [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries]), hereafter cited as McLennan County Tax Rolls. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850. Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries]; Probate Papers, County Clerk’s Office, McLennan County Records Building, Waco, Texas (hereafter cited as McLennan County Probate Records). J. W. Tinsley was a minor in David R. Tinsley’s household, but seems to have been a nephew of David and not one of his children. It is unclear what share either Tinsley had in the property attributed to both of them in the tax records, but they are clearly one household.

64 the initial small slaveholder includes two (10.5 percent). Again, none fell into the initial non-slaveholder class. The clear majority of 1860 planter-class slaveholdings were already in that class at their first appearances in the tax record of McLennan County.

Thus, mobility in the group for McLennan County during this period was clearly limited, the majority of the county’s planters having brought their slaves with them to the frontier.77

The ways in which the different categories typically increased their slaveholdings can be made clear by examining each category's average annual change in the number of slaves owned from 1851 to 1860. These values of 12.14 percent for the initial small slaveholder category, 12.76 percent for the initial small planter category, and 0.80 percent for the initial planter category, demonstrate a significant difference in the investment of those who experienced mobility compared to the established planters.

This indicates that those in the initial small slaveholder and initial small planter classes increased their slaveholdings at very similar rates, whereas the typical initial planter barely increased his number of slaves at all, an observation which is also borne out by an examination of the real numbers of slaves owned. An examination of the category average annual change of the adjusted value of slaves owned is even more revealing.

On average, the initial small slaveholder class during the 1850s experienced an average annual increase of 9.15 percent compared to 5.87 percent for the initial small planter class. The category average for the initial planter class shows a decrease of 3.02 percent during the same time period. The significant differences between the increase

77 See Table E.3. McLennan County Tax Records.

65 in the number of slaves owned and the increase in adjusted values indicates that initial

small slaveholder and initial small planter categories growth was primarily through the

acquisition of less valuable, and therefore likely less productive, slaves, whereas the

initial planter group increased the average productivity of their slaveholdings.78

Rates of change during the 1850s for the value of acreage reveal that increases

in value were the norm. The category averages for average annual percentage change

are: 13.55 percent for the initial small slaveholder category, 31.57 percent for the initial

small planter category, and 14.36 percent for the initial planter category. These figures

seem to indicate a much more aggressive investment in improving or acquiring acreage

by the initial small planters than by the other two categories. However, the category average rate for the initial small planter category was heavily influenced by one atypical

individual, David Blankenship, who rapidly increased the value of his acreage from

$3,311 in 1857 to $11,000 in 1860. Thus the average values are a poor measure of

comparison in this case, and it is useful to also look at the category median for annual

rates of change of value of acreage. These values are 13.55 percent for the initial small

slaveholder category, 22.00 percent for the initial small planter category, and 12.36 percent for the initial planter category. This may have been a function of the economic youth of McLennan County, as Harrison, the next youngest county, is the only of the other three in which the initial planter class had the lowest and the initial small planter

the highest category average annual change in value of acreage.79

78 See Table F.4 and Table E.7. McLennan County Tax Records. 79 See Table E.9. McLennan County Tax Records.

66 The ratio of adjusted value of slaves to value of acreage reveals how the nature

of these individual’s wealth changed. Over the period, the values for this ratio greater than one are far more numerous than values below one. Additionally, the average annual percent change for all but four of these individuals is negative, as is the aggregate change for all but four. This means that the value of acreage was less than the value of slaves for the population group as a whole for much of the period, and the

value of acreage rose more rapidly than the adjusted values of slaveholdings. This

seems to indicate that re-investment in land significantly exceeded investment in

additional slaves. However, this is not as clear as it sounds. Improvement of acreage

through slave labor likely accounts for a significant portion of ‘investment’ in real

property and thus to some extent investment in slave property is future investment in

real estate property.80

Of the nineteen planters in this group, two (10.5 percent) were women. Both of

these women planters had inherited from their fathers and were in the initial small

planter category. In each of these cases, the woman’s husband seems to have handled

management of all property (see Chapter 7). As a group, these women’s property-

holding experiences were not remarkably different from those of their respective initial

categories as a whole between 1851 and 1860. They were two of the four initial

planters whose number of slaveholdings decreased during the period, and they notably

suffered the largest decreases. They also experienced a decrease in value of slaves

owned, as did nine other of the thirteen initial planters. However, they also experienced

80 See Table E.7 and Table E.8. McLennan County Tax Records.

67 the second and fourth highest increase in value of acreage owned among the county’s

initial planters. In sum, the experience of these two women planters in McLennan

County was not notably different from all of the other planters who moved into this

frontier county. They were prosperous and their households were prominent in the

community throughout this period.81

James Oake’s contention that the slave-owners bought and sold slaves and

regularly crossed over definable class boundaries again finds very little support in the

McLennan County population group. B. D. Arnold reported twenty-seven slaves in 1858,

nineteen in 1859, and twenty-eight in 1860. Notably, 1859 is also the year he reported

no real estate, though by 1860 his fortunes had obviously rebounded. Additionally,

Frances Dechard reported seventy-five slaves in 1857 but only fifty-four in 1858, 1859,

and 1860. The Speights also showed a marked one year decreases in slaves owned,

falling from fifty-seven in 1858 to thirty-two in 1859. Dechard and Speight were the only two slaveholders to show a significant decrease in number of slaves in 1860 compared to the year in which their slaveholdings entered the record. For the majority of the individuals in this study the number of slaves owned generally increased over the period. For acreage values, increase is also generally the rule, though there are noticeable and significant decreases for several individuals at various points in the

81 See Table F.1, Table F.2, Table E.4, Table E.7, and Table E.9; McLennan County Tax Rolls; Probate Papers, County Clerk’s Office, McLennan County Records Building, Waco, Texas; Edith Smith & Vivian Lehman, “No Land . . . Only Slaves !”, Vol. 9: Abstracts from the Deed Books of Smith County & McLennan County, Texas (Balch Springs, Texas: Edith Smith & Vivian Lehman, 2004), 61-62.

68 record. Yet only one individual demonstrated an overall negative change in value of

acreage by 1860.82

The McLennan County planters in this group demonstrated little economic

mobility from the founding of the county to 1860. None of them could be clearly

identified as non-slaveholders at their entry into the dataset. Similar to the previously

examined counties, the overall pattern of wealth increase seems to be a greater

investment in slave property than in real estate early with an additional acquisition and

improvement of real estate contributing to a greater increase in real property value

later. Though McLennan showed the least degree of economic mobility, the ‘youth’ of the county, both in terms of the founding date of the county and the recentness of settlement, suggests the mobility rate may have climbed somewhat over the years following the period examined, if pre-secession conditions had remained stable.

82 See Table E.3 and Table E.4. McLennan County Tax Records.

69 CHAPTER VII

FEMALE PLANTERS

Women accounted for approximately 10 percent of all of the planter class slaveholdings examined in 1860. There were slightly more female planters in Brazoria

County and Colorado County, and somewhat fewer in Harrison County, while McLennan

County fell right at the average. The twenty-three slaveholdings controlled by women in

1860 raise some questions about the experiences of female planters in Texas. How many of these women were widows and had inherited these large slaveholdings from their late husbands? How many had male kin nearby to assist them in business? Were any of these women independent from reliance on male kin in acquiring or managing slaves? And finally, how likely were independent women planters to experience economic mobility into the planter class?83

The most striking feature of these women as a group is that eighteen (78.3

percent) were definitely widows in 1860. Six of the widows had lost their husbands

within the past year. Of the other thirteen widows, only two had remarried by 1860:

Octavia Jones Adair Mills and Martha Jane Lary Waskom of Harrison County. Of the five

non-widows who qualify as planters in the 1860 Texas census, four were married and

had inherited their property. Only one female-controlled planter class slaveholding

belonged to women who seem to have never been married, that of the Shaws.84

83 See Table E.5. Exempted from this enumeration are married women who may have held property in their own right, but the tax rolls and other records are not clear on the separation of their property from their husband’s. 84 See Table E.5.

70 Sarah, Mary, and Rebecca Shaw shared a household in Harrison County in both the 1850 census and the 1860 census. These seemingly ageless women (their reported ages in the 1850 census were 56, 50, and 45 and in the 1860 census 56, 52, and 50) were the proprietors of a sizable farm. Sarah, the eldest, is always listed first and most of the tax record entries appear solely under her name, where it is almost always prefaced by “Miss.” This is a strong indicator that Sarah was never married, as widows or wives with their own property are almost always preceded by the “Mrs.” prefix in the tax rolls. These women first arrived in Harrison County in 1845 with nineteen slaves, according to the tax records. They probably followed male relatives, as a number of other Shaws appear in the tax record by 1845, though they had not in 1843. Among these, Dushee Shaw was almost certainly related to the Shaw women. Dushee was born in North Carolina about 1792 and Sarah in North Carolina about 1794 (according to her age claim in the 1850 census). Furthermore, Dushee Shaw seems to be the namesake of Dushee McKay, an overseer who lived next door to the Shaw women in

1850 and the “manager for the Misses Shaws” who lived in their household in 1860.

Almost certainly, these women had male kin in close proximity on whom they could rely for assistance managing in their property and business interests.85

85 Seventh Census of the United States, 1850. Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants) and Schedule 2 (Slave Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1850 Census, Schedule 1, and 1850 Census, Schedule 2); Eighth Census of the United States, 1860. Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants) and Schedule 2 (Slave Inhabitants), National Archives, Washington, D. C. [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as 1860 Census, Schedule 1, and 1860 Census, Schedule 2); Records of the Comptroller of Public Accounts, Ad Valorem Tax Division, County Real and Personal Property Tax Rolls, 1850-1880, Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin, Texas [microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries] (hereafter cited as ‘County Name’ Tax Rolls).

71 The four married women, two from Colorado County and two from McLennan

County, who definitely owned separate slave property in their own right in 1860 had each inherited their human chattels. While three inherited from their fathers, Fannie

Amelia Dickson Baker Darden, a noted writer of antebellum Texas, had inherited from her grandfather, which seems to have prompted her and her husband to move to

Colorado County. Ann Elizabeth Stockton Montgomery had been the sole heir of her father, one of the wealthiest planters in Colorado County, and his property remained in estate until her marriage to John G. Montgomery, son of another Colorado planter.

Josephine Speight and Frances Henrietta Holder Decherd of McLennan County both inherited slave property after their marriages. All evidence suggests these women allowed their husbands to manage their inherited property.86

Both of the women slaveholders from McLennan County experienced the probating of their fathers’ estates across state lines. Josephine Speight and her husband migrated to Texas after her father Mark Pruitt had settled in McLennan County. Pruitt had previously completed a will in Monroe County, Mississippi, but he brought his slave property with him when he migrated to Texas. Joseph Speight, a lawyer, handled the business of probate for his wife Josephine. The original will left real estate and slave property to her with a condition that it be “free” from the interests of her husband.

Pruitt seems to have been protecting his daughter’s inheritance from any debts of his son-in-law, much as the North Carolina planters studied by Jane Censer had done.

Josephine seems to have allowed Joseph to manage all the property. In the 1860

86 Bill Stein, "Consider the Lily: The Ungilded History of Colorado County, Texas, Part 5," Nesbitt Memorial Library Journal 7 (January 1997), 8.

72 census, Joseph reported his profession as planter rather than lawyer, although public

memory in McLennan County remembers him primarily for being a Free Mason, who

helped build up the organization in Texas.87

Frances Decherd also received slave property from her father’s estate. John

Walton Holder had died in 1841 in Franklin County, Tennessee, but much of his

property remained in probate until at least 1857. Frances’s husband, Peter S. Decherd,

served as executor of his father-in-law's estate, and many of the slaves whom Frances

would inherit were brought to McLennan County in 1855. Title to these slaves was

officially confirmed in the deed records of McLennan County in 1857. Again, this

property was managed by her husband, first as executor of the estate and then as the

head of their household once the inheritance was finalized. Though each of these

women could and did own property in their own right under Texas law, again each of

the married heiresses allowed their husbands to manage that property, much as was

done elsewhere in the antebellum South.88

Most of the widows, if they had not re-married, had nearby adult male kin. Of

the sixteen widows who had not remarried by 1860, nine very clearly had male relatives

in close proximity. For example, Harriet B. Burford and Rebecca C. Grace of Colorado

87 McLennan County Tax Rolls; Probate Papers, County Clerk’s Office, McLennan County Records Building, Waco, Texas; Jane Turner Censer, North Carolina Planters and Their Children, 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), passim; W. R. “Bob” Poage, McLennan County – Before 1980 (Waco: Texian Press for Baylor University, 1981), 53; Dayton Kelley, ed., The Handbook of Waco and McLennan County, Texas (Waco: Texian Press, 1972, 250; Dayton Kelley, ed., Waco & McLennan County, Texas, 1876 (Waco: Texian Press, 1966), 42-44. 88 McLennan County Tax Rolls; Edith Smith & Vivian Lehman, “No Land . . . Only Slaves !”, Vol 9: Abstracts from the Deed Books of Smith County & McLennan County, Texas (Balch Springs, Texas: Edith Smith & Vivian Lehman, 2004), 61-62. The name Decherd has various spellings in the records including Deckard and Duchard.

73 County could both call on Francis Marion “Dick” Burford, the step-son of Harriet and

brother of Rebecca. Emily Quarles’s maiden name was Bohannon, and in 1860, her

agent W. B. Bohannon lived in her household in Brazoria County. Also in Brazoria

County, Sarah Mims had two adult sons living in the same county: Joseph, who still

lived in her house, and Lumbert, who lived nearby. Similarly, Mary D. Blocker of

Harrison County had an adult son in her household in 1860. These women certainly could rely on the assistance of male relatives, as historians Angela Boswell and Kirsten

Woods suggested was common practice.89

Martha Stephens Adams of Harrison County had one male relative in her

household and may have had other nearby kin. Rhodes Stephens, a sixteen-year-old

male, lived in the Adams’ house in 1860, and he was most likely a younger brother or

nephew to her. There were also a number of other Stephens in Harrison County and neighboring Caddo Parish, Louisiana. The marriage of Martha and Chesley Adams

occurred in Harrison County, indicating that she probably migrated there with her

family. Similarly, Patience Mary Rose of Harrison County, widow of Ripley R. Rose,

employed her next door neighbor, Joseph M. Taylor, as her administrator. Strong

evidence exists of a kinship link between these two, as Taylor was Mrs. Rose’s maiden

surname.90

89 John Francis White, A History of Texas and Texans, ed. Eugene C. Barker and Ernest William Winkler, 5 vols. (Chicago: American Historical Society, 1914),vol. 3: 1,556-57; “Emily Ann Bohannon,” Ancestry.com (http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/ 7028739/person/1164733448), accessed May 18, 2011; Sallie McNeill, The Uncompromising Diary of Sallie McNeill, 1858-1867, ed. Ginny McNeill Raska and Mary Lynne Gasaway Hill (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2009), 20; 1860 Census, Schedule 1. 90 1860 Census, Schedule 1. “Martha Stephens Adams,” Ancestry.com (http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/25210336/person/1621743677), accessed May 18, 2011; Marriage Records, County Clerk’s Office, Harrison County Courthouse, Marshall, Texas.

74 Family was not the only source of male assistance, of course. The estate of

Robert M. Yerby of Brazoria County was managed by Ammon Underwood in 1860 for the widow Jane and her children, even though Joseph W. Yerby, the adult son of

Robert and Jane, was working as a bookkeeper in the same county. Letty Whitfield of

Harrison County employed a live-in overseer, though that title suggests that his responsibilities were limited to management of the everyday farm activities. She may have also had male relatives among the numerous Scotts in Harrison County, as that was her maiden name.91

The remaining five widows managed their own affairs with less reliance on male

assistance. These women do not seem to have employed agents or administrators, nor

do they seem to have had adult male relatives nearby according to the census returns

and tax records. Each of these female planters prospered between 1846 and 1860,

increasing the number of slaves and value of acreage they owned. Certainly these

women were not removed from the male-dominated southern society of antebellum

Texas, but rather used their associations with local men to conduct business without

turning control of their business over to men.92

Perhaps the most independent of these women was Rebecca Hagerty. W. R.

Tagart reported the Harrison County property controlled by Hagerty to the tax assessor

and census marshal in 1860. This property, known as Phoenix Plantation, was from the

91 1860 Census, Schedule 1. Brazoria County Tax Rolls. 92 1860 Census, Schedule 1; Brazoria County Tax Rolls; Colorado County Tax Rolls; Harrison County Tax Rolls. Lucy Steger of Harrison County is included in this group, although she died in 1859. She had been a widow since before 1846, and in 1860 her estate remained in probate. Steger’s acreage value does show a dip in 1860, after her death, but before her death the value had trended toward increase.

75 estate of Hagerty’s second husband. Half of it belonged to Rebecca and half to her children Frances and Spire M. Hagerty. Tagart owned no property of his own, but he claimed to be a farmer in the census, suggesting that he might be more accurately described as an overseer on the Hagerty property. An overseer for Phoenix Plantation would likely have been necessary; the Hagertys actually resided in Marion County at

Refuge Plantation, which belonged to Rebecca’s daughters from her first marriage,

Louisa and Anna.93

Rebecca certainly took a personal hand in managing the Harrison County property. Simply to secure the portion of it belonging to her son Spire Jr., she fought a lengthy legal battle challenging the will of her last husband. Spire Sr. and Rebecca had separated before the birth of their son, causing Spire Sr. to claim in his will that he did not believe Spire Jr. to be his son as “near ten months elapsed after her separation from my side before the birth of said child.” Rebecca hired a law firm in Shreveport,

Louisiana, to represent her son’s interest in the case in July 1850. An intense legal battle ended in 1854 when the Texas Supreme Court struck down the will, securing

Spire Jr.’s property. Rebecca remained personally active in the management of the property in both Harrison and Marion counties, even travelling to Louisiana and

Arkansas to collect movable property belonging to Fannie and Spire Jr. As historian

Judith McArthur points out, the property controlled by Rebecca Hagerty in Harrison and

Marion counties, amounting to over $115,000 in real and personal property according

93 Though her name is spelled Haggerty in the tax records, the secondary literature indicates the family preferred the spelling with a single g used in the census returns. See 1860 Census, Schedule 1; Harrison County Tax Rolls; Judith N. McArthur, “Myth, Reality, and Anomaly: The Complex World of Rebecca Hagerty” East Texas Historical Journal, 24 (Fall 1986), 18-29.

76 the 1860 census, made her one of the richest individuals and absolutely the richest

woman in Texas in 1860.94

Hagerty and her children were certainly very wealthy in 1860. However, the

downward trend of the value of the Hagerty property in Harrison county not only

demonstrates that this was a slaveholding that did not experience mobility into the

planter class. Furthermore, this case also highlights a trend among the women who had

been widows for several years, that though they were still prosperous, their wealth in

property tended to decline. This is more pronounced in cases in which children came of

age and claimed their portion of the property in their own right.

Summarizing the property-holding experience of these twenty-four planter women within the framework of this chapter’s initial questions demonstrates two basic types of experience. The great majority of these women were widows who inherited their slaveholdings from their late husbands. Those few who were married allowed their husbands, as head of the household, to manage their property, as Jean Stuntz and

Angela Boswell point out was traditional. Widows fully managing their property and business seem to be the exception at only about 25 percent of all of the widows in the

1860 population group. Only one case might be called extreme independence, that of

the litigious Rebecca Hagerty.

Furthermore, comparisons of the change in wealth of the women planters to the

population group as a whole more clearly define the different experiences. One group,

which includes most of the widows, tended to experience declines in the number and

94 Probate Papers, County Clerk’s Office, Harrison County Courthouse, Marshall, Texas; McArthur, “Myth, Reality, and Anomaly,” 25, 26.

77 value of slaves owned as a result of the probating of their late husbands’ estates. This group existed in all but McLennan County and made up all the women planters in

Brazoria County. These women, however, were still prosperous, owning enough slaves to be planters in 1860 and most increasing the value of acreage owned up to 1860. The other group, composed primarily of women who inherited property including slaves from their maiden family and which their husbands managed experienced changes in propertied wealth in much the same way as the male planters.

Thus, these women generally represent a society in which women had greater property rights but still largely conformed to southern norms. The two different experiences demonstrate how these norms operated in the unique legal system of

Texas both during marriage and after the death of the male partner. Finally, the women planters who did experience mobility into the planter class were most likely to be widows whose late husbands had guided the household up the economic ladder.

78 CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSION

This examination of the economic history of planter-class slaveholders in four

Texas counties reveals a great deal about economic mobility. The data from the chosen counties provide insight into the answers for the questions asked in Chapter One. These initial questions included: Did any of the 1860 planters rise to that status from another class? If so, how many rose from small slaveholder or small planter origins, and how many advanced from plain folk origins? In what ways did the amount and nature of wealth of these individuals change in the period studied? In what ways do these findings provide insights into the debate over planter dominance versus ‘plain folk’ inclusive herrenvolk democracy, as well as the relationship between the planters and the other classes?

About 41 percent of these 1860 planters were not planters when they first appeared in the county tax record during this period. Brazoria County, one of the first areas of the state to be settled, had the least mobility, with only 21 percent not among the initial planter category. Harrison County, one of the state’s most populous counties and the county with the largest slave population in the state by 1860, demonstrated the highest rate of mobility into the planter class, with 54 percent of its 1860 planters not among the initial planter category. Of the 216 individuals examined, 34 (15.7 percent) were in the initial small slaveholder category and only 1 (0.5 percent) in the initial non- slaveholder category. Most of those who did experience mobility into the planter class

79 were already owners of ten or more slaves when they first entered the county tax

record.

Historian Edward Pessen examined economic and social mobility in his study of

wealth and class in four major antebellum northeastern cities, Riches, Class, and Power

Before the Civil War. Pessen found that among the richest individuals, over 90 percent came from “rich and/or eminent” backgrounds, only about 2 percent from “poor or humble” backgrounds and the remainder from the “middling” classes. Though the analogy is imperfect, a rough comparison can be achieved by viewing these Texas counties in similar terms, treating the initial planter categories as rich, the initial small planter class as emiment, the initial small slaveholder as middling, and the initial non- slaveholder as the poor. Thus, 83.8 percent of the population group would correspond to Pessen’s rich and eminent classes, 0.5 percent to his poor class, and 15.7 percent to his middling class. Thus mobility into Texas’s economic elite can be said to have occurred at a generally higher rate than among the very rich in Pessen’s cities.

Additionally, Pessen’s results for Brooklyn were very similar to these results of planters in Texas. Pessen attributed this higher rate of mobility in Brooklyn to the fact that it was a younger, developing city compared to others in his study. Texas during the antebellum statehood period was also certainly still developing economically.95

In general, the 1860 planters increased their wealth, both in slave property and

acreage, throughout this period. The typical pattern of increase demonstrated a greater

investment of slaves early, and the increase of acreage values accelerating later. This

95 Edward Pessen, Riches, Class, and Power Before the Civil War (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1973), 84-87.

80 suggests that much of the increase in acreage values occurred via improvement of land with slave labor.

The origins of the 1860 planter class in Texas suggest that the

Phillips/Dodd/Gray model of planter dominance does not reflect the reality of plantation society, leaving out too many free Southerners and implying an inherent superiority- inferiority relationship among the white population. Owsley, also, focused too narrowly on one economic class, though more excusably so. Still, his suggestion that yeomen could rise from relatively poverty seems distinctly limited, in light of only a single case in this study of a non-slaveholder rising into the ranks of the planter class. Oakes’ assertion that slaveholders freely and frequently crossed any class boundaries historians can define also finds no support in these results; rather the majority of these individuals who experienced mobility steadily increased their slaveholdings and those who were initial planters remained stably above the defining minimum number of slaves.

Genovese’s model, dividing the population into the three categories of slaves, non-slaveholding whites, and slaveholders, seems then stronger than the previous models in light of this study. However, the weakness of this model is there does remain a distinction between planters and smaller-scale slaveholders, in economies of scale, in wealth, and in control of political office. This suggests then that Foust’s and Wright’s criticisms of Genovese are, to at least some degree, correct. Rather than a broad spectrum, however, the social structure of the Old South may be better seen as a gradient, and at certain points (such as the break between planters and small

81 slaveowners or the divide between slaveholders and non-slaveholders) the grade is steeper.

This southern society certainly extended into Texas. Aside from the extension of slavery and plantation agriculture, customary patterns of family and gender were also carried over into Texas. In spite of the greater legal property rights of women in Texas as explained by Jean Stuntz, the planter class women of Texas conformed to customary southern practices as Angela Boswell demonstrated for Colorado County women in general. The majority of these women planters were widows and their reliance on the assistance of male kin to manage their property was much the same as the described by Kirsten E. Wood for older states of the South.

Finally, the degree of economic mobility into the planter class provides no major challenge to Randolph Campbell and Richard Lowe’s assertion that the planter- dominance model is well supported in Texas. The planter class controlled a large portion of the state’s wealth and public offices. Yet the degree of mobility into the planter class is not insignificant, nor is the fact that these mobile individuals were already slaveholders in all but one case. A significant portion of the planter class in

Texas certainly understood what it meant to be a smaller slaveholder from personal experience. Whether or not small slaveholders viewed their economically mobile neighbors as examples to be emulated, all slaveholders shared an interest in protecting the economic institution that accounted for most of the South’s wealth. This is not to suggest that scholars should go so far as to adopt a slaveholder-dominance model, but

82 they should recognize the broader slaveholder support for planter dominance as those who rose to be planters undoubtedly did.

83 APPENDIX A

CALCULATING ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FOR VALUE OF SLAVES

84 Average value of slaves, regardless of age or gender 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Brazoria 313.80 319.24 315.77 314.36 378.64 410.49 430.21 Colorado 336.01 363.65 340.44 360.75 439.22 433.76 Harrison 347.37 350.90 336.83 364.50 378.30 447.02 407.69 Average 332.39 335.07 338.75 339.77 372.56 432.24 423.89 Factor 1 1.00806 1.01913 1.02219 1.12087 1.30041 1.27527

Total number of slaves according to annual tax records 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Brazoria 2520 2634 2917 3053 3161 3256 3514 Colorado 527 480 617 644 860 1113 Harrison 2625 3285 3349 4207 4839 5481 5634

Total value of slave property according to annual tax records 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Brazoria 790775 840870 921107 959755 1196890 1336570 1511751 Colorado 177075 174550 210050 232320 377725 482773 Harrison 911845 1152720 1128045 1533431 1830617 2450110 2296941

Average value of slaves, regardles s of age or gender 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Brazoria 481.27 471.93 484.53 518.94 503.21 563.73 651.06 Colorado 572.63 547.19 579.81 534.94 532.39 562.76 749.96 Harrison 529.97 518.04 514.24 581.08 581.40 639.20 703.79 Average 527.96 512.39 526.20 544.99 539.00 588.56 701.60 Factor 1.58837 1.54152 1.58307 1.6396 1.62159 1.7707 2.11078

Total number of slaves according to annual tax records 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Brazoria 3962 4292 4029 4188 4319 4440 4782 Colorado 1415 1580 1808 2154 2435 2631 3189 Harrison 6703 7013 7203 7475 7749 8095 8101

Total value of slave property according to annual tax records 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Brazoria 1906787 2025520 1952180 2173300 2173381 2502974 3113360 Colorado 810275 864560 1048300 1152260 1296365 1480615 2391635 Harrison 3552410 3633000 3704100 4343600 4505285 5174300 5701385

85 APPENDIX B

HARRISON COUNTY DATA

86

Table B.1

1860 Census Data vs Tax Record Data-Harrison County Census Records Slaves Related Records in Tax Rolls Slaves Abney Z 55 Abney, Zachariah 40 Adams Dr J 75 Adams, Jonathan 80 Adams Mrs M 48 Adams, Martha ext est CM Adams 45 Adams, Martha gdn for RB Stephens 1 Adkins GB 21 Adkins, G B 16 Adkins, GB agt for John, Geo, Wm, Tim & Virigina Adkins 6 Akins Alex 23 Akin, Alexander 21 Alford LP 43 Alford, LP 28 Alford, LP agt for wife 12 Alston SF 25 Alston, SF 21 Andrews CK, proprietor 27 Andrews, CK 30 Austin HC & HG 29 Scott, Wm T gdn for HC & HG Austin 29 Baldwin Wm F 20 Baldwin, Wm F 17 Batte JH, guard for Danl Batt 27 Batte, Jas H guardian for Danl E Batte 25 Bell AJ 22 Bell, AJ 17 Black Thomas 29 Black, Thos S 29 Blalock EB 38 Blalock, EB 31 Blocker Mrs MD & 3 heirs 37 Blocker, Mary D adm est of Wm J Blocker 35 Brazeale C 21 Brazeale, H (in 1859 taxes) 27 Bridges RJ & 1 other 32 Bridges, RJ 24 Brunham M 24 Burnham, AM 1 Burnham, AM adm est WD Petteway 18 Caile Wm 24 Coyle, Wm 25 Calaway GH 21 Callaway, JH 22 Cavan? D 29 none Clark Wm 60 Clark, Wm 64 Coal J 24 Cole, Jas 25 Cole Rubin 37 Cole, Reuben 34 Collins TY 26 Collier, Jas Y 26 Cook A 37 Cook, AA by JN Coleman 28 Craig Eli T 28 Craig, Eli T 27 Craves LT 21 Craver, LT 19 Culberson DR 23 Culberson, DB 21 Dial Wm H, prop 31 Dial, Wm H 35 Dial, Wm H adm est of H Dial 3 Driskel WF 26 Driskel, WF 27 Ellitt C 21 Ellitt, K Mrs by Thos W Winston 17 Evans WM 39 Evans, Wm Dr 38 Ewell GW 31 Ewell, GW 31 Fitzpatrick Rene 55 Fitzpatrick, Rene Sr trustee for wife and children 54 Foscue AW 42 Foscue, AW 0 Foscue, AW gdn for heirs of Benj Foscue 36 Foster John B 24 Foster, JB 18

87 Census Records Slaves Related Records in Tax Rolls Slaves Garmon J 27 Gorman, Jas 27 Garrett RC 29 Garrett, RC 25 Garrett RC, adm for estate of L Steger 28 Garrett, RC adm est of Lucy Steger 27 Granberry SW 44 Granberry, SW 43 Green R 34 Green, Roland 32 Greer Dr RA 25 Greer, RA agt for wife 24 Hall HY 44 Hall, Hugh Y 42 Hall MG 34 Hall, MJ 31 Hammel C 21 Hamill, Chas 20 Hammilton Wm 30 Hamilton, Wm 28 Harkins J 28 Harkins, Jas 27 Harris John C 78 Harris, John A 77 Harris Dr WR 24 Harris, WR Dr 25 Haywood Dr 22 Haywood, Saml K 18 Haywood, Saml K gdn MH Haywood 4 Hill THos 46 Hill, TE 45 Hill WB 27 Hill, WB 24 Hilliard JA 41 Hilliard, Jerrimy 40 Hilliard, Jerrimy gdn for W Hilliard 1 Hinton WR 33 Hinton, Wm R 29 Hood HM 49 Hood, HM Sr 46 Hope R 43 Hope, Rebecca adm est O Hope 40 Hyatt T & one heir 29 James DH 20 James, DH 18 Johnson JM 27 Johnson, Isaac W 27 Johnson WmM 21 Johnston, Wm M 19 Kennedy JJ & 3 minors 21 Kennedy, JJ 9 Kennedy, JJ exr est CC Crain 5 Kennedy, JJ exr est RT Crain 7 Kennedy JJ, exr est Wm A Fields 4 Lain J 26 Lane, Iverson 24 Lain R 23 Lane, Richd 25 Lain GHM & ST Scott 20 Langley LS 23 Langley, LS 20 Langley Thos 23 Langley, Thos S 23 Lee JH 26 Lee, John H 21 Lewis Dr H 30 Lewis, Howell 32 Lewis Charles 22 Lewis, Chas A 23 Lister LE 41 Lister, LE 40 Long Benjamin 49 Long, Benj 50 Long EB 21 Lang, EB 21 Love James 23 Love, Jas C 16 Love, Jas C agt D Harwell 10 Marshall Jo 60 Marshall, Josiah 54 Mason J 22 Mason, Joseph by Wm H Mason 25 McClure Cary 40 McClure, Cary 35 McCoy RG 27 McCoy, BG 21 McGaughy WC 21 McGaughy, WC 20 Miller WmE 31 Miller, Wm E 29 Mills JT 59 Mills, Olivia J by John T Mills 27 Mills, John T gdn for heirs of Wm Adare 21 Motley ZMP 31 Motley, ZMP 25 Motley Robt 52 Motley, RH 46

88 Census Records Slaves Related Records in Tax Rolls Slaves Munden J 24 Mundon, John 21 Murril E 28 Murrel, Edmund 30 Nesbitt RG & N 34 Nesbitt, RJ & N 33 Nesbitt Wm 20 Nesbitt, Wm W 19 Parker Dr A 24 Parker, A 23 Parry SR & 2 heirs 34 Perry, SR 25 Perry, SR adm est SJ Arnott 15 Peete R 37 Peete, Richd 35 Perry Dr HP 73 Perry, HP Dr 72 Perry * J 29 Perry, JD 31 Perry, Joshua 35 Poland Thomas 35 Poland, Thos 34 Pope A 24 Pope, Alexander 25 Powell John 49 Powell, John S 28 Powell DS 29 Robberts D 23 Roberts, Danl 22 Roggers ZV? JV? 25 Rogers, JV Sr 19 Rosborough JL 45 Roseborough, JF 43 Rose Mrs P, proprietor 41 Taylor, Jos M adm est of RR Rose 49 Rudd Jo 55 Rudd, Joseph 52 Sanders Wm 21 Sanders, Wm S 22 Sandige AJ 39 Sandidge, AJ 37 Scoggins ?G 30 Scogins, AG 18 Scott WT 104 Scott, Wm T 102 Scott BH 39 Scott, BH 40 Scott JD 22 Scott, Jas D 22 Shaw Dushe? 31 Shaw, Dushee 35 Shaw Miss Mary, Sarah, & Rebecca 44 Shaw, Sarah by D McKay 43 Sherrod Lucinda 57 Sherrod, Lucinda by LL Sherrod 23 Sherrod, LL ext est JL Sherrod 38 Sherrald SW 40 Sherrell, SW 39 Slone Wm L 54 Sloan, Wm & son 18 Smalley B 51 Smalley, Billington 51 Smith Jas, agent for 3 heirs 50 none Smith N 50 Smith, Nathan 50 Smith DK 30 Smith, DK 25 Snoarden LH 29 Snowdon, LH 28 Stewart JJ 26 Stewart, SJ 26 Stone HB 57 Stone, AB Sr 57 Swanson Dr WC 72 Swanson, Wm C 76 Swanson A 24 Swanson, Amelia & Thos F 35 Tagart WR 97 Tagart, WR 0 Haggerty, Rebecca gdn F & SM Haggerty by WR Tagart 80 Taylor JM 54 Taylor, Jos M 47 Taylor Dr J 47 Taylor, Jos Dr 28 Taylor, Jos Dr agt for AF Taylor 3 Taylor, Jos Dr agt for Mrs E Jones 13 Taylor JBE 46 Taylor, JBE 28 Taylor JF 30 Taylor, Jas F 30 Taylor Dr J? G? 20 Taylor, NE ext est SJ Taylor 20 Thompson AE & 2 minors 42 Thompson, EA 41 Thompson, EA gdn Lary Thompson 8 Thompson, EA gdn Josephine Thompson 9

89 Census Records Slaves Related Records in Tax Rolls Slaves Thompson Ormund? 31 Thompson, Oliver 25 Thompson A 27 Thompson, AT 23 Tutle Wm A 50 Tutle, Wm A 45 Tutte Pinkney 22 Tutle, P 22 Walker RW 23 Walker, RW 3 Walker, RW agt for wife 7 Walton TW 24 Walton, TW 23 Ward WRD 22 Ward, WRD 17 Ward J 20 Ward, John 19 Ware Henry 28 Ware, Henry 57 Wascomb Dr MJ, guard for ME Lary 80 Waskom, JM agt for MJ Waskom 32 Waskom, JM & Martha gdn for ME Lary 42 Webb JW 54 Webb, John W 39 Webster JB 75 Webster, JB 77 Whaley TG? TJ? 20 Whaley, Thos J 20 Whaley FL 20 Whaley, FL 15 Wheas WmL 21 Wheat, Wm L 18 Wheeler GE 42 Wheeler, Green E 14 Whitfield & Scott L & D 25 Whitfield, Letty adm est DB Whitfield 3 Whitfield, Letty 19 Winston JW 30 Winston, Thos W 31 Wright AR 35 Wright, AB 33

90 Table B.2

Census Data for final Population Group- Harrison County Name (last, first) Age Birth Place Occupation Abney Zachariah 30 SC Farmer Adair Olivia Adair Mills and children 31 AL - Adams Jonathan 56 GA Dr & Farmer Adams Martha, est of CM 31 AL Manager of Farm Adkins GB 49 VA Hotel Keeper Akin Alexander 50 AL Farmer Alford LP and wife 48 GA Farmer Alston SF 48 SC Farmer Andrews CK 49 TN Farmer Austin HC & HG 16, 19 TX, TX none Batte Danl E - - - Black Thomas S 43 VA Farmer Blalock EB 46 NC Farmer Blocker Mary D (est of Wm J) 48 VA (son as Farmer) Brazeale C (widow of Henry) 56 SC - Calaway JH 32 GA Merchant Clark Wm 60 GA Farmer Cole Jas 60 NC Farmer Cole Reuben 52 NC Farmer Collier Jas Y 51 NC Farmer Cook Abner A 49 GA Farmer Craig Eli T 47 TN Farmer Craver LT 48 NC Farmer Culberson DB 66 SC Farmer Dial Wm H 40 SC Dr Evans WM 60 TN Dr Ewell GW 38 VA Farmer Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee for wife & children 66 GA Farmer Foscue AW, for the estate of Benj Foscue 25 FL Farmer Garrett RC 33 TN Farmer Gorman Jas 50 GA Farmer Granberry SW 58 NC Farmer Green Roland 55 NC Farmer Haggerty F & SM - - - Hall Hugh Y 50 SC Farmer Hall MJ 41 TN Atty at Law Hamill Chas 74 Ireland Farmer Harkins Jas 56 SC Farmer Harris John A 38 GA Farmer Harris Dr WR 60 NY Farmer Haywood Saml K (incl Mary H Haywood) 53 NC Farmer Hill Thos 46 SC Farmer Hill Rev WB 45 GA Farmer & Minister of Christ Hilliard Jeremy A 56 NC Farmer Hood HM Sr 60 SC Farmer Hope Rebecca (est Oscar) 45 AL (son as Farm Manger) James DH 36 GA Farmer Johnson Issac W 39 AL Farmer Johnston Wm M 31 GA Farmer

91 Name (last, first) Age Birth Place Occupation Langley LS 53 VA Farmer Langley Thos S 49 VA Farmer Lee John H 51 AL Farmer Lewis Howell 44 GA Dr & Farmer Lister LE 41 AL Farmer Long Benj 55 NC Farmer Marshall Josiah 41 VA Atty at Law Mason Joseph 62 VA Farmer McClure Cary 56 SC Farmer McCoy BG 53 GA Farmer Miller WM E 47 GA Farmer Motley Robt H 39 AL Farmer Motley ZMP 42 GA Farmer Munden John 59 SC Farmer Murrel Edmund 50 VA Farmer Nesbitt Wm 27 TN Farmer Parker A 53 GA Farmer Peete P 45 VA Farmer Perry Dr HP 55 NC Dr & Farmer Perry JD 63 NC Farmer Perry Joshua 39 NC Farmer Perry SR 41 NC Farmer Poland Thomas 43 AL Farmer Powell John S 45 LA Farmer Roberts Danl 27 GA Farmer Rogers JV Sr 50 NC Farmer Rose Mrs P (est of RR) 29 AL none Roseborough JF 57 SC Farmer Sanders Wm S 51 TN Farmer Scoggins AG 49 SC Farmer Scott Jas D 48 NC Farmer Scott Wm T 49 MS Farmer Shaw Dushee 68 NC Farmer Shaw Miss Sarah, Mary, & Rebecca 56, 52, 50 NC Proprietors Sherrod Lucinda & John L. 48, 22 MS Proprietor of Farm, Farmer Smalley Billington 56 GA Farmer Smith DK 30 AL Farmer Smith Nathaniel 75 VA Farmer Snowden LH 70 NC Farmer Steger Mrs Lucy, estate by RC Garrett - - - Stewart SJ 27 MS Farmer Stone AB Sr 57 GA Farmer Swanson Amelia & Thos 73, 29 NC, TN none, Farmer Swanson Wm C 48 TN Farmer Taylor JBE 47 SC Farmer Taylor James F 48 MS Farmer Taylor Jos Dr 45 SC Dr Taylor Jos M 60 SC Farmer Taylor SJ (this was an estate) - - - Thompson AT 44 SC Farmer Thompson Oliver 59 GA Farmer Tutle Pink 25 MS Farmer Tutle Wm A 35 MS Farmer

92 Name (last, first) Age Birth Place Occupation Ware Henry 47 GA Farmer Waskom Martha Jane (Lary) and Mary E Lary 47, 16 SC, AL - Webb John W 50 GA Farmer Webster JB 37 AL Farmer Whaley Thos J 27 GA Farmer Wheat Wm L 35 GA Farmer Whitfield Letty 36 MS none Winston Thos W 31 AL Farmer Wright AB 61 VA Farmer

93 Table B.3

Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Harrison County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Adams est of CM 2 2 5 9 10 12 12 24 Adkins GB 3 3 6 7 8 11 14 15 Akin Alexander 5 5 6 6 6 7 9 Alford LP and wife 9 9 8 20 23 22 22 31 Andrews CK 2 2 5 14 14 17 23 23 Brazeale Henry 10 12 15 15 19 23 21 Cole Reuben 10 11 11 14 15 17 18 21 Dial Wm H 3 3 4 4 6 6

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 5 7 6 6 7 7 8 10 Harkins Jas 9 10 8 10 11 12 15 15

James David H 10 10 12 14 14 Johnston Wm M 6 6 Parker Dr A 10 9 6 10 19 16 18 Perry SR 3 3 6 7 9 10 12 Sanders Wm S 8 8 9 10 11 11 13 15

Taylor Sam'l J 0 9 9 9 9 10 8 9 Thompson AT 9 11 11 15 16 18 21 23 Ware Henry 6 9 12 16 17 22 29 Wheat Wm L 2 5 6 4 12 11 11

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Adams est of CM 28 32 32 43 45

Adkins GB 17 18 19 19 18 22 Akin Alexander 12 11 11 15 17 21 Alford LP and wife 18 26 31 35 40 Andrews CK 27 27 30 28 29 30 Brazeale Henry 21 21 20 24 27 Cole Reuben 23 24 26 28 30 34 Dial Wm H 4 4 29 34 34 35

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 16 20 23 23 20 27 Harkins Jas 16 15 14 17 21 27 James David H 17 17 17 19 19 18 Johnston Wm M 13 13 15 16 18 19 Parker Dr A 22 21 24 24 25 23 Perry SR 18 21 29 31 31 32 Sanders Wm S 13 17 16 17 21 22

Taylor Sam'l J 9 9 9 10 20 20 Thompson AT 22 21 22 24 23 Ware Henry 34 45 45 52 57 57 Wheat Wm L 14 15 14 15 18 18

94 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Alston SF 15 17 20 21 21 21 23 22 Blocker (est of Wm J) 13 12 12 18 21 21 23 26

Calaway JH Cole Jas 15 15 16 17 17 19 20 20 Craig Eli T 14 18 18 18 22 24 25 Craver Lewis T Evans Wm 17 18 25 25 25 27 30 31 Garrett RC 0 1 14 15 15 17

InitialSmall Planters Granberry SW 17 19 26 28 Hamill Chas 13 Harris Dr Wm R 16 15 14 13 Haywood Saml & Mary 18 Hill WB Langley Leonard S Langley Thos S 18 18 18 Lee John H 11 11 11 12 15 15 17 Mason Joseph 11 11 12 12 12 13 14 Murrel Edmund 17 26 20 29 30 31 Nesbitt Wm

Poland Thomas 0 18 19 17 Powell John S 13 13 15 21 22 23 26 Roberts Danl 13 13 15 16 16 17 Rogers JV Sr 11 Rose est of RR 18 31 22 22 Scott Jas D 17 18 18 19 21 20 Shaw Miss Sarah 19 28 29 29 30 32 Smalley Billington 13 41 40 38 40 Snowden LH 11 12 14 15 15 15 15 16 Stewart SJ Swanson Amelia & Thos 17 Taylor JBE 18 18 17 Taylor James F 17 17 20 20 22 22 Taylor Jos Dr 17 18 20 21 22 22 Thompson Oliver 17 20 21 21 23 23 Tutle Pinkney Webb John W 12 12 15 15 20 21 21 24 Webster JB 12 15 15 41 Whaley Thos J Whitfield Letty & DB 15 18 18 Winston Thos W 12 13 16 16

Wright AB 0 16 16 17 21 23

95 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Alston SF 24 27 23 26 27 25 Blocker (est of Wm J) 28 30 31 32 35 35

Calaway JH 14 14 14 20 20 22 Cole Jas 19 18 22 23 26 25 Craig Eli T 22 22 22 25 28 27 Craver Lewis T 0 19 18 18 18 19 Evans Wm 35 34 55 35 36 38 Garrett RC 18 23 23 25 25 25

InitialSmall Planters Granberry SW 31 35 42 41 43 43 Hamill Chas 15 15 16 15 19 20 Harris Dr Wm R 17 18 18 20 25 Haywood Saml & Mary 23 21 23 19 22 Hill WB 12 15 17 22 24 24 Langley Leonard S 19 22 21 22 20 20 Langley Thos S 18 18 20 20 22 23 Lee John H 18 18 17 21 22 21 Mason Joseph 16 19 21 21 23 25 Murrel Edmund 32 32 33 36 30 30 Nesbitt Wm 17 15 16 18 19 19

Poland Thomas 20 21 22 22 27 34 Powell John S 33 34 27 29 26 28 Roberts Danl 19 21 21 21 23 22 Rogers JV Sr 16 19 17 18 23 19 Rose est of RR 21 23 18 25 45 49 Scott Jas D 22 20 22 23 22 Shaw Miss Sarah 30 36 38 41 41 43 Smalley Billington 45 5 47 50 30 51 Snowden LH 21 23 27 28 25 28 Stewart SJ 11 10 10 15 26 Swanson Amelia & Thos 30 31 34 47 35 35 Taylor JBE 19 21 24 24 27 28 Taylor James F 26 24 26 27 30 30 Taylor Jos Dr 28 28 24 24 27 28 Thompson Oliver 28 28 24 26 22 25 Tutle Pinkney 12 15 21 19 22 Webb John W 23 23 36 32 37 39 Webster JB 45 46 57 57 63 77 Whaley Thos J 13 17 17 18 19 20 Whitfield Letty & DB 18 20 21 32 22 22 Winston Thos W 15 19 22 24 27 31

Wright AB 26 27 27 27 34 33

96 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Abney Zachariah Adair Olivia & children 25 26 29 27 Adams Jonathan 31 64 10 Austin HC & HG Batte Danl E 24 23 23 26 9 27 30 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S

Blalock EB 20 21

Clark Wm

Collier Jas Y 21 22 24 22 19 20 29

Cook Abner A Culberson DB Ewell GW Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 41 40 40 40 40 43 48 48 Foscue est of Benjamin Green Roland Haggerty F & SM 117 118 106 77 83 61 67 Hall Hugh Y 34 35 35 36 Hall MJ Harris John A Hill Thos Hilliard Jeremy A 22 22 24 26 29 Hood HM Sr 67 61 63 65 Hope Rebecca 34 32 30 33 37 35 Johnson Issac W 26 27 26 26 Lary Martha & Mary 20 21 23 24 28 37 37 40 Lewis Howell 21 Lister Lawrence E 28 28 30 32 18 20 33 Long Benjamin 22 23 23 25 32 31 30 32 Marshall Josiah 27 25 McClure Cary McCoy BG 20 19 18 26 25 Miller WM E Motley Robt H 21 21 Motley ZMP 21 Munden John 22 24 24 24 Peete Richd 35 35 Perry Dr HP 25 25 27 28 35 32 41 Perry Joshua 26 25 27 46 29 Perry JD 21 23 25 26 38 40 42 41 Roseborough JF 24 25 26 28 21 33 36 39 Scoggins AG Scott Wm T 35 58 93 110 104 93 93 117

97 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Abney Zachariah 22 22 26 31 35 40 Adair Olivia & children 34 47 47 48 48 48

Adams Jonathan 70 75 77 88 80 80 Austin HC & HG 26 26 26 29 Batte Danl E 29 29 28 28 27 25 Black Thomas S 21 21 22 24 26 29 Blalock EB 23 23 28 30 28 31 InitialPlanters Clark Wm 49 51 55 64 54 64 Collier Jas Y 25 23 25 23 26 26 Cook Abner A 26 24 27 29 30 28 Culberson DB 27 30 28 21 Ewell GW 26 24 28 30 28 31 Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 37 52 52 54 54 54 Foscue est of Benjamin 35 36 32 37 37 36 Green Roland 28 28 31 29 31 32 Haggerty F & SM 68 76 77 80 80 Hall Hugh Y 37 40 39 38 38 42 Hall MJ 24 24 24 24 24 31 Harris John A 65 66 70 73 77 Hill Thos 39 40 41 42 42 45 Hilliard Jeremy A 31 33 22 34 38 40 Hood HM Sr 64 70 63 76 62 46 Hope Rebecca 39 40 40 40 43 40 Johnson Issac W 25 25 25 25 27 27 Lary Martha & Mary 54 59 68 69 71 74 Lewis Howell 24 24 27 26 29 32 Lister Lawrence E 36 37 40 37 36 40 Long Benjamin 47 43 40 43 47 50 Marshall Josiah 35 37 39 50 49 54 McClure Cary 26 30 31 31 32 35 McCoy BG 20 19 17 17 19 21 Miller WM E 26 27 39 29 27 29 Motley Robt H 25 24 29 30 48 46 Motley ZMP 22 21 24 25 25 25 Munden John 32 31 20 25 23 21 Peete Richd 32 34 25 37 37 35 Perry Dr HP 50 58 63 66 72 72 Perry Joshua 27 26 25 27 27 35 Perry JD 48 42 42 48 47 37 Roseborough JF 38 39 41 41 41 43 Scoggins AG 24 22 22 18 Scott Wm T 116 122 131 138 129 102

98 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Shaw Dushee 23 24 26 28 29 28 30 Sherrod Lucinda & John 22 21 23 24 26 31 37 34 Smith Daniel K Smith Nathaniel 0 31 40 42

Steger Mrs Lucy 26 26 27 29 33 26 26 27 Stone AB Sr 34 36 39 41 40 Swanson Wm C 35 39 38 40 33 Taylor Jos M 22 20 25 33 31 45 Tutle Wm A 21 23 21

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Shaw Dushee 29 25 28 36 32 35 Sherrod Lucinda & John 45 48 53 57 58 61 Smith Daniel K 33 28 26 25 28 25 Smith Nathaniel 43 48 43 44 46 50

Steger Mrs Lucy 17 27 26 27 27 Stone AB Sr 45 50 53 58 58 57 Swanson Wm C 56 53 38 66 76 Taylor Jos M 42 45 52 67 44 47 Tutle Wm A 25 27 29 37 43 45

99 Table B.4

Annual Rates of Change in Slaves Owned (as a percentage)- Harrison County Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Adams est of CM 0 150 80 11.11 20 0 100 Adkins GB 0 100 16.7 14.29 37.5 27.3 7.14 Akin Alexander 0 20 0 0 16.7 28.57 Alford LP and wife 0 -11.1 150 15 -4.3 0 40.91 Andrews CK 150 180 0 21.4 35.3 0 Brazeale Henry 20 25 0 12.5 21.1 -8.7 Cole Reuben 10 0 27.3 7.14 13.3 5.88 16.67 Dial Wm H 0 33.3 0 50 0

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 40 -14.3 0 16.67 0 14.3 25 Harkins Jas 11.11 -20 25 10 9.09 25 0 James David H 0 20 16.7 0 Johnston Wm M 0 Parker Dr A -10 -33.3 66.7 37.8 -15.8 12.5 Perry SR 0 41.4 16.67 28.6 11.1 20 Sanders Wm S 0 12.5 11.1 10 0 18.2 15.38

Taylor Sam'l J 0 0 0 11.1 -20 12.5 Thompson AT 22.22 0 36.4 6.67 12.5 16.7 9.52 Ware Henry 50 33.3 33.33 6.25 29.4 31.82 Wheat Wm L 150 20 -33.3 200 -8.33 0

Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Adams est of CM 5.27 14.3 0 34.4 4.65 24.91

Adkins GB 6.46 5.88 5.56 0 -5.3 22.2 15.29 Akin Alexander 15.47 -8.33 0 36.36 13.3 23.5 11.67 Alford LP and wife -23.8 44.4 19.2 12.9 6.9 11.24 Andrews CK 8.35 0 11.1 -6.67 3.57 3.45 23.16 Brazeale Henry 0 0 -4.76 20 12.5 7.94 Cole Reuben 4.65 4.35 8.33 7.69 7.14 13.3 9.14 Dial Wm H -18.35 0 625 17.24 0 2.94 20.8

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 26.49 25 15 0 -13 35 12.8 Harkins Jas 3.28 -6.25 -6.67 21.43 23.5 28.6 8.16 James David H 10.19 0 0 11.76 0 -5.26 5.49 Johnston Wm M 47.2 0 15.4 6.67 12.5 5.56 15.5 Parker Dr A 10.55 -4.55 14.3 0 4.17 -8 6.13 Perry SR 22.47 16.7 38.1 6.897 0 3.23 18.42 Sanders Wm S -6.91 30.8 -5.88 6.25 23.5 4.76 7.49

Taylor Sam'l J 0 0 0 11.11 100 0 6.33 Thompson AT -2.20 -4.55 4.76 9.09 -2.11 6.93 Ware Henry 8.28 32.4 0 15.56 9.62 0 18.91 Wheat Wm L 12.82 7.14 -6.67 7.14 20 0 18.41

100 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Alston SF 13.33 17.6 5 0 0 9.52 -4.35 Blocker (est of Wm J) -7.69 0 50 16.67 0 9.52 13.04

Calaway JH Cole Jas 0 6.67 6.25 0 11.8 5.26 0 Craig Eli T 28.6 0 0 22.2 9.09 4.17 Craver Lewis T Evans Wm 5.88 38.9 0 0 8 11.1 3.33 Garrett RC 1300 7.14 0 13.33

InitialSmall Planters Granberry SW 11.8 36.8 7.69 Hamill Chas Harris Dr Wm R -6.3 -6.67 -7.14 Haywood Saml & Mary Hill WB Langley Leonard S Langley Thos S 0 0 Lee John H 0 0 9.09 11.8 0 13.33 Mason Joseph 0 9.09 0 0 8.33 7.692 Murrel Edmund 52.9 -23.1 45 3.45 3.33 Nesbitt Wm

Poland Thomas 5.56 -5.41 Powell John S 0 7.42 40 4.76 4.55 13.04 Roberts Danl 0 15.38 6.67 0 6.25 Rogers JV Sr Rose est of RR 72.22 -29 0 Scott Jas D 5.88 0 5.56 10.5 -4.76 Shaw Miss Sarah 47.4 3.57 0 1.71 6.67 Smalley Billington 215.4 -2.4 -5 5.26 Snowden LH 9.09 16.7 7.14 0 0 0 6.67 Stewart SJ Swanson Amelia & Thos Taylor JBE 0 -2.82 Taylor James F 0 17.6 0 3.23 0 Taylor Jos Dr 5.88 11.11 5 4.76 0 Thompson Oliver 17.6 5 0 9.52 0 Tutle Pinkney Webb John W 0 25 0 33.33 5 0 14.29 Webster JB 25 0 173.3 Whaley Thos J Whitfield Letty & DB 9.54 0 Winston Thos W 8.33 23.1 0

Wright AB 0 6.25 23.5 9.524

101 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Alston SF 4.45 12.5 -14.8 13.04 3.85 -7.41 3.72 Blocker (est of Wm J) 3.78 7.14 3.33 3.23 9.38 0 7.33

Calaway JH 0 0 42.86 0 10 9.46 Cole Jas -2.53 -5.26 22.2 4.55 13 -3.85 3.72 Craig Eli T -6.19 0 0 13.64 12 -3.57 5.18 Craver Lewis T -5.26 0 0 5.56 0 Evans Wm 6.26 -2.86 61.8 -36.4 2.86 5.56 5.91 Garrett RC 2.90 27.8 0 8.70 0 0 33.99

InitialSmall Planters Granberry SW 5.22 12.9 20 -2.38 4.88 0 9.72 Hamill Chas 7.42 0 6.67 -6.25 26.7 5.26 6.35 Harris Dr Wm R 14.35 2.9 0 11.1 25 4.56 Haywood Saml & Mary 6.32 -4.45 9.52 -17 15.8 2.91 Hill WB 25 13.3 29.41 9.09 0 14.87 Langley Leonard S 15.8 -4.55 4.76 -9.1 0 1.03 Langley Thos S 0 0 11.1 0 10 4.55 2.76 Lee John H 2.90 0 -5.56 23.53 4.76 -4.55 4.73 Mason Joseph 6.90 18.8 10.5 0 9.52 8.7 6.52 Murrel Edmund 1.6 0 3.13 9.09 -17 0 4.85 Nesbitt Wm -11.8 6.67 12.5 5.56 0 2.25

Poland Thomas 8.47 5 4.76 0 22.7 25.9 6.57 Powell John S 12.66 3.03 -20.6 7.41 -10 7.69 5.63 Roberts Danl 5.72 10.5 0 0 9.52 -4.35 4.13 Rogers JV Sr 20.6 18.8 -10.5 5.88 27.8 -17.4 8.12 Rose est of RR -1.54 9.52 -21.7 38.89 80 8.89 9.53 Scott Jas D 3.23 -4.65 10 4.55 -4.35 2.00 Shaw Miss Sarah -3.18 20 5.56 7.90 0 4.88 6.48 Smalley Billington 6.07 -88.9 840 6.38 -40 70 13.23 Snowden LH 14.56 9.52 17.4 3.70 -11 12 6.90 Stewart SJ -9.09 0 50 73.3 23.99 Swanson Amelia & Thos 32.84 3.33 9.68 38.24 -26 0 10.87 Taylor JBE 5.72 10.5 14.3 0 12.5 3.7 4.52 Taylor James F 8.71 -7.69 8.33 3.85 11.1 0 4.14 Taylor Jos Dr 12.82 0 -14.3 0 12.5 3.7 4.25 Thompson Oliver 10.34 0 -14.3 8.33 -15 13.6 3.27 Tutle Pinkney 25 40 -9.5 15.8 16.36 Webb John W -2.11 0 56.5 -11.1 15.6 5.41 8.79 Webster JB 4.77 2.22 23.9 0 10.5 22.2 20.43 Whaley Thos J 30.8 0 5.88 5.56 5.26 9.0 Whitfield Letty & DB 0 11.1 5 52.38 -31 0 3.90 Winston Thos W -3.18 26.7 15.8 9.09 12.5 14.8 9.96

Wright AB 6.32 3.85 0 0 25.9 -2.94 6.80

102 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Abney Zachariah Adair Olivia & children 4 11.5 -6.9 Adams Jonathan 106 -84.4 Austin HC & HG Batte Danl E -4.17 0 13 -41 200 11.11 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S

Blalock EB 5

Clark Wm

Collier Jas Y 4.76 9.09 -8.33 -13.6 5.26 20.42

Cook Abner A Culberson DB Ewell GW Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee -2.44 0 0 0 7.5 11.6 0 Foscue est of Benjamin Green Roland Haggerty F & SM 0.86 -10.2 -27.4 7.79 -14.3 9.84 Hall Hugh Y 2.94 0 2.86 Hall MJ Harris John A Hill Thos Hilliard Jeremy A 0 9.09 8.33 11.54 Hood HM Sr -9 3.28 3.18 Hope Rebecca -5.88 -6.25 10 5.89 -2.74 Johnson Issac W 3.85 -3.7 0 Lary Martha & Mary 5 9.52 4.35 16.67 32.1 0 8.11 Lewis Howell Lister Lawrence E 0 7.14 6.67 -44 11.1 65 Long Benjamin 4.55 0 8.7 28 -3.1 -3.23 6.67 Marshall Josiah -7.41 McClure Cary McCoy BG -5 -5.3 44.4 -3.85 Miller WM E Motley Robt H 0 Motley ZMP Munden John -5.84 4.45 0 0 Peete Richd 0 Perry Dr HP 0 8 1.84 25 -8.57 28.13 Perry Joshua -3.85 8 70.4 -37 Perry JD 9.52 8.7 4 46.15 5.26 5 -2.38 Roseborough JF 4.17 4 7.69 -25 57.1 9.09 8.33 Scoggins AG Scott Wm T 65.71 60.3 18.3 -5.45 -11 0 25.81

103 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Abney Zachariah 0 18.2 19.23 12.9 14.3 12.7 Adair Olivia & children 12.22 38.2 0 2.128 0 0 6.741

Adams Jonathan 164.6 7.14 2.67 14.29 -9.1 0 11.11 Austin HC & HG 0 0 11.5 3.707 Batte Danl E -1.68 0 -3.45 0 -3.6 -7.41 0.29 Black Thomas S 0 4.76 9.09 8.33 11.5 6.67 Blalock EB 4.65 0 21.7 7.14 -6.7 10.7 5.63 InitialPlanters Clark Wm 4.08 7.84 16.36 -16 18.5 5.49 Collier Jas Y -7.15 -8 8.7 -8 13 0 1.54 Cook Abner A -7.69 12.5 7.41 3.45 -6.67 1.49 Culberson DB 11.11 -6.7 -25 -8.04 Ewell GW -7.69 16.7 7.14 -6.7 10.7 3.58 Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee -12.2 40.5 0 3.85 0 0 1.99 Foscue est of Benjamin 2.86 -11.1 15.63 0 -2.7 0.57 Green Roland 0 10.7 -6.45 6.9 3.23 2.71 Haggerty F & SM 0.74 5.72 1.32 3.9 0 -2.68 Hall Hugh Y 1.38 8.11 -2.5 -2.56 0 10.5 2.14 Hall MJ 0 0 0 0 29.2 5.25 Harris John A 1.54 6.06 4.29 5.48 4.33 Hill Thos 2.56 2.5 2.44 0 7.14 2.90 Hilliard Jeremy A 3.39 6.45 -33.3 54.55 11.8 5.26 5.59 Hood HM Sr -0.77 9.38 -10 20.63 -18 -25.8 -3.69 Hope Rebecca 5.56 2.56 0 0 7.5 -6.98 1.17 Johnson Issac W -1.94 0 0 0 8 0 0.38 Lary Martha & Mary 16.19 9.26 15.3 1.47 2.9 4.23 9.80 Lewis Howell 6.90 0 12.5 -3.7 11.5 10.3 6.20 Lister Lawrence E 4.45 2.78 8.11 -7.5 -2.7 11.1 2.78 Long Benjamin 21.19 -8.51 -6.98 7.5 9.3 6.38 6.04 Marshall Josiah 18.32 5.71 5.41 28.21 -2 10.2 9.05 McClure Cary 15.4 3.33 0 3.23 9.38 6.13 McCoy BG -10.56 -5 -10.5 0 11.8 10.5 0.45 Miller WM E 3.85 44.4 -25.6 -6.9 7.41 2.21 Motley Robt H 9.11 -4 20.8 3.45 60 -4.17 10.3 Motley ZMP 2.35 -4.55 14.3 4.17 0 0 2.52 Munden John 15.47 -3.13 -35.5 25 -8 -8.7 -0.42 Peete Richd -2.94 6.25 -26.5 48 0 -5.41 0 Perry Dr HP 10.43 16 8.62 4.76 9.09 0 7.85 Perry Joshua -3.51 -3.7 -3.85 8 0 29.6 2.74 Perry JD 8.2 -12.5 0 14.29 -2.1 -21.3 4.13 Roseborough JF -1.29 2.63 5.13 0 0 4.88 4.25 Scoggins AG -8.33 0 -18.2 -9.14 Scott Wm T -0.43 5.17 7.38 5.34 -6.5 -20.9 7.94

104 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Shaw Dushee 4.35 8.33 7.69 1.77 -3.45 7.14 Sherrod Lucinda & John -4.55 9.52 4.35 8.33 19.2 19.4 -8.11 Smith Daniel K Smith Nathaniel -1.2 13.6 5

Steger Mrs Lucy 0 3.85 7.41 13.79 -21 0 3.85 Stone AB Sr 5.88 8.33 5.13 -2.44 Swanson Wm C 11.43 -2.6 5.26 -17.5 Taylor Jos M -9.09 25 32 -6.1 20.48 Tutle Wm A 9.52 -8.7

Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Shaw Dushee -1.68 -13.8 12 28.57 -11 9.38 3.04 Sherrod Lucinda & John 15.04 6.67 10.4 7.55 1.75 5.17 7.56 Smith Daniel K -15.2 -7.14 -3.85 12 -10.7 -5.4 Smith Nathaniel 1.18 11.6 -10.4 2.33 4.55 8.7 4.90

Steger Mrs Lucy -20.65 26 -3.7 3.85 0 0.27 Stone AB Sr 6.07 11.1 6 9.43 0 -1.72 4.81 Swanson Wm C 30.27 -5.36 -15.3 73.7 15.2 7.30 Taylor Jos M -3.39 7.14 15.6 28.85 -34 6.82 6.01 Tutle Wm A 9.109 8 7.41 27.59 16.2 4.65 8.84

105 Table B.5

Value of Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Harrison County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Adams est of CM 600 700 1500 3000 4500 6000 6700 Adkins GB 1000 1200 2200 2900 3300 5325 6450 Akin Alexander 700 1200 1800 1800 2300 2000 Alford LP and wife 2700 2400 2400 8400 7000 10900 8800 Andrews CK 800 800 2500 5600 5600 6700 9500 Brazeale Henry 5000 3600 4500 4500 6650 6900 Cole Reuben 3250 3350 3500 5225 5725 6000 7200 Dial Wm H 1000 1200 1200 1200 3000

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 1800 2500 2000 2100 3000 2000 4000 Harkins Jas 3850 3950 3300 4000 4750 5000 8000 James David H 3600 3600 4200 4050 Johnston Wm M 3100 Parker Dr Ashley 3350 3250 1400 3000 7600 7500 Perry SR 1200 1400 3000 3500 4650 5100 Sanders Wm S 2600 2600 2600 2700 4000 4000 4700 Taylor Sam'l J 0 3500 3500 4500 4500 5000 4000

Thompson AT 3000 3200 3000 5400 5500 7350 7400 Ware Henry 3000 4400 5100 7100 7700 9100 Wheat Wm L 600 1700 2700 2250 6250 5400

Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Adams est of CM 14000 14000 17500 19200 39450 39650

Adkins GB 7000 12200 15000 16900 17000 20000 27000 Akin Alexander 4500 8050 5500 6600 9600 15800 20500 Alford LP and wife 15000 10500 13000 18600 21000 37600 Andrews CK 9500 11600 11600 12000 12000 17400 18000 Brazeale Henry 6370 7350 6300 6000 7200 8100 Cole Reuben 10000 11500 12000 15600 16800 20000 20400 Dial Wm H 3000 2000 2000 17400 30400 20400 26200

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 5000 8000 10000 13800 13800 13500 12200 Harkins Jas 8500 9000 7500 8400 8600 16800 21600 James David H 5850 7650 7650 8500 10000 11400 11800 Johnston Wm M 3400 8900 8800 10000 10000 11400 12950 Parker Dr Ashley 8000 13600 13600 14400 14400 15000 20000 Perry SR 7600 9000 10000 16200 16000 22200 24000 Sanders Wm S 6500 6500 7700 8000 8500 14800 8800 Taylor Sam'l J 4500 7000 7100 7000 8000 14000 14000

Thompson AT 9500 10800 10500 11000 10000 13800 Ware Henry 13000 17000 22500 27000 31200 54600 57000 Wheat Wm L 5250 7550 7500 8400 9000 9000 17200

106 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852

Alston SF 6000 5100 5400 6300 6300 8400 9200 Blocker (est of Wm J) 5000 4600 4200 6421 6721 8400 10350 Calaway JH Cole Jas 4595 4595 4800 4900 4900 7600 7600 Craig Eli T 5650 6200 6200 6500 7800 7800 Craver Lewis T Evans Wm 5700 6350 7500 7500 7500 10000 10000 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 0 400 5600 9000 5400 Granberry SW 8900 12450 12550

Hamill Chas

Harris Dr Wm R 5700 7150 6500

Haywood Saml & Mary 8550 Hill WB

Langley Leonard S Langley Thos S 10150 11200 Lee John H 4800 4800 4800 4800 5500 7000 Mason Joseph 4200 4200 4800 4500 5500 5500 Murrel Edmund 5000 6650 6950 8800 7550 Nesbitt Wm Poland Thomas 0 1700 8050

Powell John S 3900 3900 6050 8650 8800 9200 Roberts Danl 7500 7500 8500 10000 10300 Rogers JV Sr Rose est of RR 8800 17800 13750 13750 Scott Jas D 5400 5500 6715 6800 8250 7860 Shaw Miss Sarah 7800 10300 10200 10200 10350 Smalley Billington 5570 15100 15700 15500 Snowden LH 4300 4400 4200 4300 4300 7500 7000 Stewart SJ Swanson Amelia & Thos Taylor JBE 7200 5550 Taylor James F 6500 6500 6100 6100 9900 Taylor Joseph Dr 5500 5900 7000 9850 9850 Thompson Oliver 5400 5400 6450 6450 9300 Tutle Pinkney Webb John W 4900 5350 5500 5500 7000 10400 10400 Webster JB 4200 8500 6700 Whaley Thos J Whitfield Letty & DB 6500 7200 Winston Thos W 4600 6250 7100 Wright AB 0 6550 6550 7000 8400

107 Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Alston SF 11000 12000 15500 12500 13000 13500 12500

Blocker (est of Wm J) 12737 12000 12200 17050 17150 20000 20000 Calaway JH 7000 7000 9600 12000 14000 15400 Cole Jas 7700 11650 11034 13000 13800 15600 15000 Craig Eli T 8200 8860 11000 11000 12500 10000 19850 Craver Lewis T 0 9500 9000 9000 9000 9500 Evans Wm 10500 17500 17000 31000 21000 23000 24000 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 6800 9000 11500 13800 12500 15000 16250 Granberry SW 14640 13250 17500 25200 24600 12900 25900

Hamill Chas 6250 6750 6750 8000 10500 12400 12800

Harris Dr Wm R 6900 10150 10800 16200 14850 19300

Haywood Saml & Mary 11500 12600 13500 12000 12900 Hill WB 6000 7500 10200 11000 16600 22500

Langley Leonard S 10450 12000 10500 13200 12000 16100 Langley Thos S 11200 13150 13150 14000 14000 16500 23900 Lee John H 8300 10700 9000 10200 12000 13200 14700 Mason Joseph 6500 9000 9500 11000 11000 13800 14000 Murrel Edmund 13000 14250 14250 14000 15150 15000 15000 Nesbitt Wm 10200 9000 9600 12600 14250 15200 Poland Thomas 8500 10000 10500 11000 12000 13500 17000

Powell John S 13000 13200 17000 13500 17400 15600 19600 Roberts Danl 11800 12800 14200 16800 13950 20000 19000 Rogers JV Sr 3325 6000 8000 10200 9000 18000 11300 Rose est of RR 10500 11500 10800 15000 27000 29400 Scott Jas D 12914 12000 15200 12650 12050 Shaw Miss Sarah 17100 14950 15450 18600 20500 20500 27900 Smalley Billington 20000 24950 4400 28200 25000 30000 30600 Snowden LH 8000 11550 12800 16200 14400 17000 22400 Stewart SJ 6000 6000 6000 9000 18400 Swanson Amelia & Thos 9500 14900 15500 20400 28200 31000 31000 Taylor JBE 8500 8550 10500 14400 10400 16400 19600 Taylor James F 11350 11000 12000 15000 16200 18000 18000 Taylor Joseph Dr 11000 20000 20000 14400 20300 21600 21600 Thompson Oliver 9200 11100 11100 10800 11000 13200 10700 Tutle Pinkney 9600 13400 16800 18100 18400 Webb John W 12950 15970 15970 21600 19200 25900 27300 Webster JB 8000 22650 23000 34200 34200 37800 48570 Whaley Thos J 6500 8500 10200 10000 11400 12000 Whitfield Letty & DB 9000 9000 10000 12600 11000 13200 12500 Winston Thos W 7200 6750 9500 13200 13200 18900 24800 Wright AB 10500 12000 12460 13500 14800 20400 20000

108 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852

Abney Zachariah Adair Olivia & children 10000 13000 13000 Adams Jonathan 18600 24450 Austin HC & HG Batte Danl E 7200 7200 7000 8000 5250 11550 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S Blalock EB 10000

Clark Wm

Collier Jas Y 8000 8500 8700 7500 7000 10200

Cook Abner A

Culberson DB

Ewell GW

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 11920 11520 11520 11520 11520 12000 26350 Foscue est of Benjamin Green Roland Haggerty F & SM 40950 41300 34800 26950 46070 18900 Hall Hugh Y 11900 12000 12000 Hall MJ Harris John A Hill Thos Hilliard Jeremy A 8200 8200 10000 9000 Hood HM Sr 20100 24400 18900 Hope Rebecca 10200 9600 9000 12490 12956 Johnson Issac W 8000 8000 12300 Lary Martha & Mary 8575 10300 6900 10150 11150 16875 16875 Lewis Howell Lister Lawrence E 10220 9100 9300 11200 7725 8000 Long Benjamin 9850 9950 10850 12450 14800 14200 12000 Marshall Josiah 12150 McClure Cary McCoy BG 6000 5800 7200 9600 Miller WM E Motley Robt H 9050 Motley ZMP Munden John 7625 8600 8300 Peete Richd 10500 10500 Perry Dr HP 11400 11400 11500 11600 17350 16400 Perry Joshua 10400 10400 15000 13800 Perry JD 6700 7100 6900 7800 14425 17600 15800 Roseborough JF 7400 7400 7400 8400 8700 9560 9860 Scoggins AG Scott Wm T 18450 23200 37200 43600 44200 50350 37200

109 Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Abney Zachariah 9600 12000 15600 15600 21000 32000 Adair Olivia & children 13400 13400 25500 28200 33000 17450 35450 Adams Jonathan 3200 35000 37500 46200 52800 56000 64000 Austin HC & HG 15600 14300 15600 20300 Batte Danl E 15000 17400 17400 14000 16500 16200 15000 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S 10500 10500 11000 14400 20000 24000 Blalock EB 10500 11500 11500 14800 15000 15800 21700

Clark Wm 19600 20400 27500 32000 27000 32000

Collier Jas Y 11700 13800 11500 15000 10500 20800 20800

Cook Abner A 14900 12000 16200 14500 18000 16800

Culberson DB 13500 19250 11200 10500

Ewell GW 11000 12000 16800 18000 17000 18600

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 24350 32050 32150 32150 48800 48800 48800 Foscue est of Benjamin 13200 14400 16000 16500 20400 20400 Green Roland 11200 11200 15500 17400 32400 23200 Haggerty F & SM 32600 34000 45000 46000 48000 48000 Hall Hugh Y 14400 11200 16000 23000 22800 25000 29000 Hall MJ 14650 14650 15650 17400 17400 17400 Harris John A 33500 33000 35000 48800 48800 Hill Thos 19500 19600 24600 25200 30400 31500 Hilliard Jeremy A 13900 15400 16500 16800 20400 22800 24000 Hood HM Sr 26000 30000 31500 37500 45600 37200 32600 Hope Rebecca 19300 15000 16000 20000 12000 17200 20000 Johnson Issac W 12300 12500 12500 12500 15000 18900 18900 Lary Martha & Mary 22875 31180 33750 40800 40200 40500 41500 Lewis Howell 7300 9600 10700 13500 13000 14500 16000 Lister Lawrence E 16500 18000 18500 24000 22200 21600 28000 Long Benjamin 13000 23000 21500 24000 25800 28200 32500 Marshall Josiah 14000 21000 19000 22000 30000 30000 32400 McClure Cary 13000 15000 18600 18600 19200 28000 McCoy BG 12500 8000 8000 10200 8500 9500 10500 Miller WM E 14200 14300 17000 14500 13500 17400 Motley Robt H 11500 13200 12000 17400 18000 28800 27600 Motley ZMP 11850 12050 10500 13800 15000 17500 23200 Munden John 10000 10766 10366 12800 12500 12900 11450 Peete Richd 17000 17000 21000 22200 21000 20000 Perry Dr HP 23600 30800 29500 34550 31500 38000 43200 Perry Joshua 11600 15500 15000 15600 16000 16000 28000 Perry JD 20000 21000 21000 24100 24500 34000 35000 Roseborough JF 15650 19000 19500 20500 20500 24600 28000 Scoggins AG 15606 10200 13200 19400 Scott Wm T 58850 58000 61000 78600 75900 77400 71400

110 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Shaw Dushee 6250 6250 7600 7800 9950 10350 Sherrod Lucinda & John 6050 6525 6250 6550 8500 13000 11000 Smith Daniel K Smith Nathaniel 0 10000 11100

Steger Mrs Lucy 9300 9300 9300 13100 14000 16950 9800 Stone AB Sr 11400 11600 15230 15375 Swanson Wm C 15950 16950 16950 17400 Taylor Jos M 8600 7200 9450 10700 9900 Tutle Wm A 10500 9200

Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Shaw Dushee 10900 12300 18250 14000 15300 17100 25750 Sherrod Lucinda & John 13000 21000 24000 29100 36700 34800 53700 Smith Daniel K 19000 11175 13000 12500 11200 12500 Smith Nathaniel 15000 15000 21000 25800 22000 22000 30000

Steger Mrs Lucy 13500 7300 18500 15500 21700 21700 Stone AB Sr 16000 22500 25000 26500 29000 40600 40000 Swanson Wm C 21200 28000 29150 34800 45500 59200 Taylor Jos M 18000 21500 22500 31200 40200 26400 28200 Tutle Wm A 12600 12500 13500 17400 22200 29100 27000

111 Table B.6

Value of Slaves Owned, Adjusted- Harrison County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Adams est of CM 600 694.4 1472 2935 4015 4614 5254

Adkins GB 1000 1190 2159 2837 2944 4095 5058 Akin Alexander 694.4 1177 1761 1606 1769 1568 Alford LP and wife 2700 2381 2355 8218 6245 8382 6901 Andrews CK 793.6 2453 5478 4996 5152 7449 Brazeale Henry 5000 3571 4416 4402 5114 5411 Cole Reuben 3250 3323 3434 5112 5108 4614 5646 Dial Wm H 992 1177 1174 1071 2307

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 1800 2480 1962 2054 2677 1538 3137 Harkins Jas 3850 3918 3238 3913 4238 3845 6273 James David H 3522 3212 3230 3176 Johnston Wm M 2431 Parker Dr Ashley 3350 3224 1374 2935 5844 5881 Perry SR 1200 1389 2935 3123 3576 3999 Sanders Wm S 2600 2579 2551 2641 3569 3076 3685

Taylor Sam'l J 0 3472 3434 4402 4015 3845 3137 Thompson AT 3000 3174 2944 5283 4907 5652 5803 Ware Henry 2976 4317 4989 6334 5921 7136 Wheat Wm L 595.2 1668 2641 2007 4806 4234

Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Adams est of CM 9649 8844 10673 11840 22279 18784

Adkins GB 4825 7914 9475 10307 10484 11295 12791 Akin Alexander 3102 5222 3474 4025 5920 8923 9712 Alford LP and wife 10339 6811 8212 11344 12950 17813 Andrews CK 6548 7525 7328 7319 7400 9827 8528 Brazeale Henry 4391 4768 3980 3659 4440 4574 Cole Reuben 6892 7460 7580 9515 10360 11295 9665 Dial Wm H 2068 1297 1263 10612 18747 11521 12412

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 3446 5190 6317 8417 8510 7624 5780 Harkins Jas 5859 5838 4738 5123 5303 9488 10233 James David H 4032 4963 4832 5184 6167 6438 5590 Johnston Wm M 2343 5774 5559 6099 6167 6438 6135 Parker Dr Ashley 5514 8822 8591 8783 8880 8471 9475 Perry SR 5238 5838 6317 9880 9867 12537 11370 Sanders Wm S 4480 4217 4864 4879 5242 8358 4169

Taylor Sam'l J 3102 4541 4485 4269 4933 7906 6633 Thompson AT 6548 7006 6633 6709 6167 6538 Ware Henry 8960 11028 14213 16467 19240 30835 27004 Wheat Wm L 3619 4898 4738 5123 5550 5083 8149

112 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Alston SF 6000 5059 5299 6163 5621 6460 7214

Blocker (est of Wm J) 5000 4563 4121 6282 5996 6460 8116 Calaway JH Cole Jas 4595 4558 4710 4794 4372 5844 5960 Craig Eli T 5605 6084 6065 5799 5998 6116 Craver Lewis T Evans Wm 5700 6299 7359 7337 6691 7690 7841 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 0 391.3 4996 6921 4234 Granberry SW 7940 9574 9841

Hamill Chas

Harris Dr Wm R 5085 5498 5097

Haywood Saml & Mary 6575 Hill WB

Langley Leonard S Langley Thos S 7805 8782 Lee John H 4800 4762 4710 4696 4229 5489 Mason Joseph 4166 4121 4696 4015 4229 4313 Murrel Edmund 4906 6506 6201 6767 5920 Nesbitt Wm Poland Thomas 0 1517 6190

Powell John S 3900 3869 5919 7717 6767 7214 Roberts Danl 7440 7337 7583 7690 8077 Rogers JV Sr Rose est of RR 8609 15881 10574 10782 Scott Jas D 5357 5397 6569 6067 6344 6163 Shaw Miss Sarah 7738 10107 9979 9100 8116 Smalley Billington 5449 13472 12073 12154 Snowden LH 4300 4365 4121 4207 3836 5767 5489 Stewart SJ Swanson Amelia & Thos Taylor JBE 6424 4268 Taylor James F 6500 6448 5985 5968 7763 Taylor Joseph Dr 5397 5772 6245 7575 7724 Thompson Oliver 5299 5283 5754 4960 7293 Tutle Pinkney Webb John W 4900 5307 5397 5381 6245 7997 8155 Webster JB 3747 6536 5254 Whaley Thos J Whitfield Letty & DB 5799 5646 Winston Thos W 4104 4806 5567 Wright AB 0 6408 5844 5383 6587

113 Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Alston SF 7582 7785 9791 7624 8017 7624 5922

Blocker (est of Wm J) 8779 7785 7707 10399 10576 11295 9475 Calaway JH 4541 4422 5855 7400 7906 7296 Cole Jas 5307 7557 6970 7929 8510 8810 7106 Craig Eli T 5652 5748 6949 6709 7708 5647 9404 Craver Lewis T 0 6001 5489 5550 5083 4501 Evans Wm 7237 11352 10739 18907 12950 12989 11370 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 4687 5838 7264 8417 7708 8471 7699 Granberry SW 10091 8595 11054 15370 15170 7285 12270

Hamill Chas 4308 4379 4264 4879 6475 7003 6064

Harris Dr Wm R 4756 6584 6587 9990 8387 9144

Haywood Saml & Mary 7460 7685 8325 6777 6111 Hill WB 3892 4738 6221 6783 9375 10660

Langley Leonard S 6779 7580 6404 8140 6777 7627 Langley Thos S 7720 8531 8307 8539 8633 9318 11323 Lee John H 5721 6941 5685 6221 7400 7455 6964 Mason Joseph 4480 5838 6001 6709 6783 7794 6633 Murrel Edmund 8960 9244 9002 8539 9343 8471 7106 Nesbitt Wm 6617 5685 5855 7770 8048 7201 Poland Thomas 5859 6487 6633 6709 7400 7624 8054

Powell John S 8960 8563 10739 8234 10730 8810 9286 Roberts Danl 8133 8303 8970 10246 8603 11295 9001 Rogers JV Sr 2292 3892 5053 6221 5550 10165 5353 Rose est of RR 6811 7264 6587 9250 15248 13928 Scott Jas D 8377 7319 9373 7144 5709 Shaw Miss Sarah 11786 9698 9760 11344 12642 11577 13218 Smalley Billington 13785 16185 2779 17199 15417 16942 14497 Snowden LH 5514 7493 8086 9880 8880 9601 10612 Stewart SJ 3790 3659 3700 5083 8717 Swanson Amelia & Thos 6548 9666 9791 12442 17390 17507 14686 Taylor JBE 5859 5546 6633 8783 6413 9262 9286 Taylor James F 7823 7136 7580 9149 9990 10165 8528 Taylor Joseph Dr 7582 12974 12634 8783 12519 12199 10233 Thompson Oliver 6341 7201 7012 6587 6783 7455 5069 Tutle Pinkney 6064 8173 10360 10222 8717 Webb John W 8926 10360 10088 13174 11840 14627 12934 Webster JB 5514 14693 14529 20859 21090 21348 23010 Whaley Thos J 4217 5369 6221 6167 6438 5685 Whitfield Letty & DB 6203 5838 6317 7685 6783 7455 5922 Winston Thos W 4963 4379 6001 8051 8140 10674 11749 Wright AB 7237 7785 7871 8234 9127 11521 9475

114 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852

Abney Zachariah Adair Olivia & children 8922 9997 10194 Adams Jonathan 14303 19172 Austin HC & HG Batte Danl E 7200 7142 6869 7826 4037 9057 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S Blalock EB 7841

Clark Wm

Collier Jas Y 8000 8432 8537 7337 6245 7844

Cook Abner A

Culberson DB

Ewell GW

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 11920 11428 11304 11270 10278 9228 20662 Foscue est of Benjamin Green Roland Haggerty F & SM 40950 40970 34147 26365 41102 14820 Hall Hugh Y 10617 9228 9410 Hall MJ Harris John A Hill Thos Hilliard Jeremy A 8022 7316 7690 7057 Hood HM Sr 17933 18763 14820 Hope Rebecca 10200 9523 8831 12219 9963 Johnson Issac W 7137 6152 9645 Lary Martha & Mary 8575 10218 6770 9930 9948 12977 13233 Lewis Howell Lister Lawrence E 10138 8929 9098 9992 5940 6273 Long Benjamin 9850 9870 10646 12180 13204 10920 9410 Marshall Josiah 9527 McClure Cary McCoy BG 5870 5175 5537 7528 Miller WM E Motley Robt H 7097 Motley ZMP Munden John 7459 6613 6508 Peete Richd 8074 8234 Perry Dr HP 11400 11309 11284 10349 13342 12860 Perry Joshua 10174 9279 11535 10821 Perry JD 6700 7043 6770 7631 12870 13534 12390 Roseborough JF 7400 7341 7261 8218 7762 7352 7732 Scoggins AG Scott Wm T 18450 23014 36502 42654 39434 38719 29170

115 Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Abney Zachariah 6228 7580 9515 9620 11860 15160 Adair Olivia & children 9236 8693 16108 17199 20350 9855 16795 Adams Jonathan 2206 22705 23688 28178 32561 31626 30320 Austin HC & HG 9515 8818 8810 9617 Batte Danl E 10339 11288 10991 8539 10175 9149 7106 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S 6811 6633 6709 8880 11295 11370 Blalock EB 7237 7460 7264 9027 9250 8923 10281

Clark Wm 12715 12886 16772 19734 15248 15160

Collier Jas Y 8064 8952 7264 9149 6475 11747 9854

Cook Abner A 9666 7580 9880 8942 10165 7959

Culberson DB 8234 11871 6325 4974

Ewell GW 7136 7580 10246 11100 9601 8812

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 16783 20791 20309 19608 30094 27560 23119 Foscue est of Benjamin 8563 9096 9758 10175 11521 9665 Green Roland 7266 7075 9454 10730 18298 10991 Haggerty F & SM 22469 22056 27446 28367 27108 22740 Hall Hugh Y 9925 7266 10107 14028 14060 14119 13739 Hall MJ 9504 9254 9545 10730 9827 8243 Harris John A 21161 20127 21584 27560 23119 Hill Thos 12650 12381 15004 15540 17168 14923 Hilliard Jeremy A 9581 9990 10423 10246 12580 12876 11370 Hood HM Sr 17920 19461 19898 22871 28120 21009 15445 Hope Rebecca 13302 9731 10107 12198 7400 9714 9475 Johnson Issac W 8478 8109 7896 7624 9250 10674 8954 Lary Martha & Mary 15767 20227 21319 24884 24790 22872 19661 Lewis Howell 5032 6228 6759 8234 8017 8189 7580 Lister Lawrence E 11373 11677 11686 14638 13690 12199 13265 Long Benjamin 8960 14920 13581 14638 15910 15926 15397 Marshall Josiah 9649 13623 12002 13418 18500 16942 15350 McClure Cary 8433 9475 11344 11470 10843 13265 McCoy BG 8616 5190 5053 6221 5242 5365 4974 Miller WM E 9212 9033 10368 8942 7624 8243 Motley Robt H 7926 8563 7580 10612 11100 16265 13076 Motley ZMP 8168 7817 6633 8417 9250 9883 10991 Munden John 6892 6984 6548 7807 7708 7285 5425 Peete Richd 11028 10739 12808 13690 11860 9475 Perry Dr HP 16266 19980 18635 21072 19425 21460 20466 Perry Joshua 7995 10055 9475 9515 9867 9036 13265 Perry JD 13785 13623 13265 14699 15109 19201 16582 Roseborough JF 10787 12326 12318 12503 12642 13893 13265 Scoggins AG 9518 6290 7455 9191 Scott Wm T 40562 37625 38533 47939 46806 43712 33826

116 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Shaw Dushee 6250 6200 7457 7631 7651 8116 Sherrod Lucinda & John 6050 6473 6133 6408 7583 9997 8626 Smith Daniel K Smith Nathaniel 0 8922 8704

Steger Mrs Lucy 9300 9226 9125 12816 12490 13034 7685 Stone AB Sr 11153 10349 11712 12056 Swanson Wm C 15604 15122 13034 13644 Taylor Jos M 8531 7065 9245 9546 7613 Tutle Wm A 8074 7214

Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Shaw Dushee 7513 7979 11528 8539 9435 9657 12199 Sherrod Lucinda & John 8960 13623 15160 17748 22632 19653 25441 Smith Daniel K 12326 7059 7929 7708 6325 5922 Smith Nathaniel 10339 9731 13265 15736 13567 12424 14213

Steger Mrs Lucy 9305 4736 11283 9559 12255 10281 Stone AB Sr 11028 14596 15792 16162 17884 22929 18950 Swanson Wm C 14612 18164 18414 21460 25696 28046 Taylor Jos M 12406 13947 14213 19029 24790 14909 13360 Tutle Wm A 8685 8109 8528 10612 13690 16434 12791

117 Table B.7

Annual Rates of Change in Adjusted Value of Slaves- Harrison County Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Adams est of CM 15.73 112 99.4 36.8 14.9 13.9 83.67

Adkins GB 19.04 81.3 31.4 3.78 39.1 23.5 -4.61 Akin Alexander 69.6 49.6 -8.8 10.1 -11 97.77 Alford LP and wife -11.8 -1.1 249 -24 34.2 -18 49.83 Andrews CK 209 123 -8.8 3.12 44.6 -12.1 Brazeale Henry -28.6 23.6 -0.3 7.78 5.8 -18.9 Cole Reuben 2.252 3.34 48.8 -0.1 -9.7 22.4 22.08 Dial Wm H 18.7 -0.3 -8.8 115 -5.33

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 37.78 -21 4.69 30.3 -43 104 9.872 Harkins Jas 1.777 -17 20.8 8.3 -9.3 63.2 -6.61 James David H -8.8 0.56 -1.7 26.96 Johnston Wm M -3.6 Parker Dr Ashley -3.76 -57 114 41.1 0.63 -6.24 Perry SR 15.73 45.4 6.4 14.5 11.8 30.98 Sanders Wm S -0.8 -1.1 3.54 35.1 -14 19.8 21.56

Taylor Sam'l J -1.1 28.2 -8.8 -4.2 -18 -1.12 Thompson AT 5.813 -7.3 79.5 -7.1 15.2 2.67 12.84 Ware Henry 45.1 15.6 27 -6.5 20.5 25.57 Wheat Wm L 180 58.3 -24 139 -12 -14.5

Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Adams est of CM -2.87 20.7 10.9 88.2 -16 27.89

Adkins GB 28.08 19.7 8.78 1.71 7.74 13.2 19.97 Akin Alexander 29.76 -33 15.9 47.1 50.7 8.84 22.50 Alford LP and wife -18.83 20.6 38.1 14.2 17.3 14.43 Andrews CK 7.20 -2.6 -0.1 1.11 32.8 -13 20.04 Brazeale Henry 4.21 -17 -8 21.3 3.03 -0.68 Cole Reuben 4.04 1.61 25.5 8.89 9.02 -14 8.10 Dial Wm H -20.79 -2.6 740 76.7 -39 7.74 21.45

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 22.72 21.7 33.2 1.11 -10 -24 8.69 Harkins Jas -0.17 -19 8.14 3.52 78.9 7.86 7.23 James David H 10.94 -2.6 7.28 19 4.4 -13 4.29 Johnston Wm M 56.96 -3.7 9.72 1.11 4.4 -4.7 12.27 Parker Dr Ashley 26.49 -2.6 2.23 1.11 -4.6 11.9 7.71 Perry SR 5.57 8.19 56.4 -0.1 27.1 -9.3 17.42 Sanders Wm S -2.99 15.4 0.31 7.43 59.5 -50 3.43

Taylor Sam'l J 21.00 -1.2 -4.8 15.6 60.3 -16 5.11 Thompson AT 3.44 -5.3 1.15 -8.1 2.96 5.72 Ware Henry 10.94 28.9 15.9 16.8 60.3 -12 18.49 Wheat Wm L 16.34 -3.3 8.14 8.33 -8.4 60.3 22.30

118 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Alston SF -15.7 4.73 16.3 -8.8 14.9 11.7 5.10

Blocker (est of Wm J) -8.74 -9.7 52.4 -4.5 7.73 25.6 8.17 Calaway JH Cole Jas -0.8 3.33 1.78 -8.8 33.7 1.97 -10.9 Craig Eli T 8.54 -0.3 -4.4 3.43 1.97 -7.59 Craver Lewis T Evans Wm 10.51 16.8 -0.3 -8.8 14.9 1.97 -7.71 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 1177 38.5 -39 10.69 Granberry SW 20.6 2.79 2.54

Hamill Chas

Harris Dr Wm R 8.12 -7.3 -6.69

Haywood Saml & Mary Hill WB

Langley Leonard S Langley Thos S 12.5 -12.1 Lee John H -0.8 -1.1 -0.3 -5.1 29.8 4.22 Mason Joseph -1.1 13.9 -15 5.35 1.97 3.88 Murrel Edmund 32.6 -4.7 9.14 -13 51.35 Nesbitt Wm Poland Thomas 308 -2.72

Powell John S -0.8 23.7 30.4 -12 6.61 24.2 Roberts Danl -0.7 3.36 1.4 5.03 0.70 Rogers JV Sr Rose est of RR 84.5 -33 1.97 Scott Jas D 0.75 21.7 -7.6 4.57 -2.8 Shaw Miss Sarah 30.6 -1.3 -8.8 -5.6 45.22 Smalley Billington 147 -10 0.67 13.42 Snowden LH 1.51 -5.6 2.07 -8.8 50.3 -4.8 0.45 Stewart SJ Swanson Amelia & Thos Taylor JBE -34 17.16 Taylor James F -0.8 -7.2 -0.3 9.16 0.77 Taylor Joseph Dr 6.95 8.2 21.3 1.97 -1.84 Thompson Oliver -0.3 8.93 -14 47 -13 Tutle Pinkney Webb John W 8.31 1.69 -0.3 16.1 28.1 1.97 9.45 Webster JB 74.4 -20 4.952 Whaley Thos J Whitfield Letty & DB -1.3 9.87 Winston Thos W 17.1 15.8 -10.9 Wright AB -8.8 -7.9 22.4 9.87

119 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Alston SF 1.33 25.8 -22 5.15 -4.9 -22 -0.09

Blocker (est of Wm J) -5.83 -1 34.9 1.7 6.8 -16 4.67 Calaway JH -2.6 32.4 26.4 6.84 -7.7 9.95 Cole Jas 19.33 -7.8 13.8 7.33 3.52 -19 3.16 Craig Eli T 0.84 20.9 -3.4 14.9 -27 66.5 4.06 Craver Lewis T -8.5 1.11 -8.4 -11 -6.94 Evans Wm 25.25 -5.4 76.1 -32 0.3 -12 5.06 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 11.61 24.4 15.9 -8.4 9.9 -9.1 31.11 Granberry SW -7.71 28.6 39 -1.3 -52 68.4 4.45

Hamill Chas 0.82 -2.6 14.4 32.7 8.15 -13 5.01

Harris Dr Wm R 17.66 0.02 51.7 -16 9.03 6.04

Haywood Saml & Mary 3.21 1.49 8.33 -19 -9.8 -1.04 Hill WB 21.7 31.3 9.04 38.2 13.7 22.32

Langley Leonard S 11.8 -16 27.1 -17 12.6 2.39 Langley Thos S 5.12 -2.6 2.79 1.11 7.93 21.5 4.22 Lee John H 10.15 -18 9.43 19 0.74 -6.6 2.69 Mason Joseph 14.16 2.79 11.8 1.11 14.9 -15 3.64 Murrel Edmund 1.57 -2.6 -5.1 9.42 -9.3 -16 3.14 Nesbitt Wm -14 2.99 32.7 3.57 -11 1.71 Poland Thomas 5.23 2.24 1.15 10.3 3.03 5.64 18.17

Powell John S -2.24 25.4 -23 30.3 -18 5.4 6.39 Roberts Danl 1.04 8.03 14.2 -16 31.3 -20 1.48 Rogers JV Sr 30.32 29.8 23.1 -11 83.2 -47 12.89 Rose est of RR -14.2 6.65 -9.3 40.4 64.8 -8.7 4.471 Scott Jas D 10.77 -6.5 28.1 -24 -20 0.49 Shaw Miss Sarah -9.29 0.63 16.2 11.4 -8.4 14.2 4.21 Smalley Billington 8.36 -83 519 -10 9.9 -14 9.30 Snowden LH 16.57 7.91 22.2 -10 8.11 10.5 6.67 Stewart SJ -3.4 1.11 37.4 71.5 23.15 Swanson Amelia & Thos 21.5 1.3 27.1 39.8 0.67 -16 12.23 Taylor JBE -2.7 19.6 32.4 -27 44.4 0.26 3.75 Taylor James F -4.49 6.23 20.7 9.2 1.75 -16 1.958 Taylor Joseph Dr 30.81 -2.6 -30 42.5 -2.6 -16 5.48 Thompson Oliver 6.56 -2.6 -6.1 2.98 9.9 -32 -0.37 Tutle Pinkney 34.8 26.8 -1.3 -15 9.50 Webb John W 7.74 -2.6 30.6 -10 23.5 -12 7.18 Webster JB 63.24 -1.1 43.6 1.11 1.22 7.79 19.9 Whaley Thos J 27.3 15.9 -0.9 4.4 -12 6.16 Whitfield Letty & DB -2.99 8.19 21.7 -12 9.9 -21 0.21 Winston Thos W -6.07 37 34.2 1.11 31.1 10.1 11.09 Wright AB 3.71 1.11 4.61 10.8 26.2 -18 3.62

120 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Abney Zachariah Adair Olivia & children 12.1 1.97 -9.4 Adams Jonathan 34 -88.5 Austin HC & HG Batte Danl E -0.8 -3.8 13.9 -28 124 14.15 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S Blalock EB -7.71

Clark Wm

Collier Jas Y 5.4 1.24 -14 -15 25.6 1.40

Cook Abner A

Culberson DB

Ewell GW

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee -4.13 -1.1 -0.3 -8.8 -10 124 -18.8 Foscue est of Benjamin Green Roland Haggerty F & SM 0.05 -17 -23 55.9 -40 51.61 Hall Hugh Y -13 1.97 5.48 Hall MJ Harris John A Hill Thos Hilliard Jeremy A -8.8 5.11 -8.2 35.75 Hood HM Sr 4.63 -21 20.92 Hope Rebecca -6.64 -7.3 38.4 -9.7 15.55 Johnson Issac W -14 56.8 -12.1 Lary Martha & Mary 19.16 -34 46.7 0.18 30.4 1.97 19.15 Lewis Howell Lister Lawrence E -12 1.89 9.83 -41 5.6 81.29 Long Benjamin 0.21 7.86 14.4 8.41 -17 -14 -4.78 Marshall Josiah 1.281 McClure Cary McCoy BG -12 7 36 14.45 Miller WM E Motley Robt H 11.69 Motley ZMP Munden John -5.8 -5.8 -1.6 5.901 Peete Richd 1.97 Perry Dr HP -0.8 -0.2 -4.2 28.9 -3.6 26.49 Perry Joshua -8.8 24.3 -6.2 -26.1 Perry JD 5.12 -3.9 12.7 68.7 5.16 -8.5 11.26 Roseborough JF -0.8 -1.1 13.2 -5.5 -5.3 5.17 39.51 Scoggins AG Scott Wm T 24.74 58.6 16.9 -7.5 -1.8 -25 39.05

121 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C

Abney Zachariah 21.7 25.5 1.11 23.3 27.8 19.47 Adair Olivia & children -2.99 85.3 6.78 18.3 -52 70.4 6.53 Adams Jonathan 220.8 4.33 19 15.6 -2.9 -4.1 8.71 Austin HC & HG -7.3 -0.1 9.16 0.36 Batte Danl E 4.49 -2.6 -22 19.2 -10 -22 -0.09 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S -2.6 1.15 32.4 27.2 0.67 10.79 Blalock EB 1.53 -2.6 24.3 2.48 -3.5 15.2 3.44

Clark Wm 1.35 30.2 17.7 -23 -0.6 3.58

Collier Jas Y 5.36 -19 25.9 -29 81.4 -16 1.5

Cook Abner A -22 30.3 -9.5 13.7 -22 -3.81

Culberson DB 44.2 -47 -21 -15.5

Ewell GW 6.23 35.2 8.33 -14 -8.2 4.31

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 11.3 -2.3 -3.4 53.5 -8.4 -16 4.85 Foscue est of Benjamin 6.23 7.28 4.27 13.2 -16 2.45 Green Roland -2.6 33.6 13.5 70.5 -40 8.63 Haggerty F & SM -0.92 11.6 3.36 -4.4 -16 -4.11 Hall Hugh Y -14.4 39.1 38.8 0.23 0.42 -2.7 2.61 Hall MJ -2.6 3.14 12.4 -8.4 -16 -2.81 Harris John A -4.9 7.24 27.7 -16 2.24 Hill Thos -2.1 21.2 3.58 10.5 -13 3.36 Hilliard Jeremy A 2.12 4.33 -1.7 22.8 2.35 -12 3.22 Hood HM Sr 4.21 2.24 14.9 23 -25 -26 -1.48 Hope Rebecca -14.5 3.87 20.7 -39 31.3 -2.5 -0.53 Johnson Issac W -2.2 -2.6 -3.4 21.3 15.4 -16 2.29 Lary Martha & Mary 13.26 5.4 16.7 -0.4 -7.7 -14 6.11 Lewis Howell 11.25 8.53 21.8 -2.6 2.15 -7.4 6.03 Lister Lawrence E 1.329 0.08 25.3 -6.5 -11 8.74 2.09 Long Benjamin 29.04 -9 7.78 8.69 0.1 -3.3 3.24 Marshall Josiah 18.82 -12 11.8 37.9 -8.4 -9.4 6.14 McClure Cary 12.4 19.7 1.11 -5.5 22.3 9.48 McCoy BG -22.4 -2.6 23.1 -16 2.35 -7.3 -1.49 Miller WM E -1.9 14.8 -14 -15 8.12 -2.2 Motley Robt H 3.938 -11 40 4.6 46.5 -20 7.94 Motley ZMP -2.17 -15 26.9 9.9 6.84 11.2 4.33 Munden John 0.66 -6.2 19.2 -1.3 -5.5 -26 -2.85 Peete Richd 10.23 -2.6 19.3 6.89 -13 -20 1.79 Perry Dr HP 10.83 -6.7 13.1 -7.8 10.5 -4.6 4.27 Perry Joshua 12.14 -5.8 0.41 3.7 -8.4 46.8 2.44 Perry JD -0.59 -2.6 10.8 2.79 27.1 -14 6.69 Roseborough JF 6.90 -0.1 1.5 1.11 9.9 -4.5 4.26 Scoggins AG -34 18.5 23.3 -1.16 Scott Wm T -3.69 2.41 24.4 -2.4 -6.6 -23 4.43

122 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Shaw Dushee -0.8 20.3 2.32 0.14 6.07 -7.43 Sherrod Lucinda & John 6.99 -5.3 4.49 18.3 31.8 -14 3.88 Smith Daniel K Smith Nathaniel -1.2 -1.2 18.78

Steger Mrs Lucy -0.8 -1.1 40.4 -2.5 4.36 -41 21.08 Stone AB Sr -7.2 13.2 2.94 -8.53 Swanson Wm C -3.1 -14 4.68 7.10 Taylor Jos M -17 30.9 3.26 -20 27.66 Tutle Wm A -11 20.38

Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Shaw Dushee 3.06 44.5 -26 10.5 2.35 26.3 4.90 Sherrod Lucinda & John 23.3 11.3 17.1 27.5 -13 29.4 10.8 Smith Daniel K -43 12.3 -2.8 -18 -6.4 -13.6 Smith Nathaniel -2.99 36.3 18.6 -14 -8.4 14.4 4.77

Steger Mrs Lucy -28.7 54.4 -15 28.2 -16 0.72 Stone AB Sr 15.05 8.19 2.35 10.6 28.2 -17 4.94 Swanson Wm C 11.49 1.37 7.96 19.7 9.15 5.48 Taylor Jos M 6.03 1.9 33.9 30.3 -40 -10 3.51 Tutle Wm A -3.37 5.17 24.4 29 20 -22 5.25

123 Table B.8

Value of Acreage- Harrison County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852

Adams est of CM 940 1600 450 800 550 700 4900 Adkins GB 4528 2945 2010 2294 2314 3064 4936 Akin Alexander 0 1100 1509 1509 4115 4115 Alford LP and wife 640 2210 2362 5000 3168 3576 4712 Andrews CK 0 2560 1670 4600 6100 6100 4920 Brazeale Henry 0 0 0 0 0 800 Cole Reuben 615 700 700 1832 1832 2115 2115 Dial Wm H 0 0 0 300 InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 1400 1400 2400 2400 4400 3280 6600 Harkins Jas 1280 1280 1280 1600 1600 1600 2852 James David H 0 0 0 Johnston Wm M 0 Parker Dr Ashley 700 950 1600 1991 3670 4637 Perry SR 1000 800 1280 1280 1200 1280 Sanders Wm S 0 0 1030 1030 2060 2460 1430 Taylor Sam'l J 1282 2150 2150 2064 3064 3602 2860

Thompson AT 600 600 600 1500 1500 2250 2500 Ware Henry 1800 3069 4098 4294 5415 6243 Wheat Wm L 0 1000 1250 1800 2000 2000

Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Adams est of CM 3760 6890 8470 7040 6555 6555 Adkins GB 10276 11856 15100 16760 16360 22600 14592 Akin Alexander 4115 4115 4115 4115 4115 4115 5815 Alford LP and wife 4208 0 11100 5400 8600 5618 Andrews CK 4920 5100 10100 4000 5280 8710 17700 Brazeale Henry 2800 2000 2000 2000 1600 1600 Cole Reuben 2115 3165 3155 3155 3796 3786 3786 Dial Wm H 250 2000 0 2000 7500 9500 12600 InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 6075 5280 5400 6000 6000 10750 13870 Harkins Jas 2852 3245 3565 3565 4970 4760 5210 James David H 0 0 0 1500 0 1800 1800 Johnston Wm M 0 0 0 0 1800 1600 2000 Parker Dr Ashley 4241 3223 3223 3030 2970 2000 3800 Perry SR 1600 4500 4550 6355 7300 8865 0 Sanders Wm S 1650 2039 2450 4075 4075 3775 4175 Taylor Sam'l J 4064 3464 8960 6880 5870 7854 7821

Thompson AT 2000 1500 2000 2000 2500 3000 Ware Henry 7973 9573 13001 14803 23074 23549 26418 Wheat Wm L 2000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4000 4800

124 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Alston SF 0 812.5 812 1200 1200 2000 2000

Blocker (est of Wm J) 5600 5600 1120 3667 4834 5530 6174 Calaway JH Cole Jas 440 0 0 3063 3402 2140 2140 Craig Eli T 0 1188 1588 2224 3336 3337 Craver Lewis T Evans Wm 1650 1650 3423 4430 4912 6200 6022 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 0 0 1440 2880 1960 Granberry SW 2682 5250 4568

Hamill Chas

Harris Dr Wm R 1450 3480 1920

Haywood Saml & Mary 1600 Hill WB

Langley Leonard S Langley Thos S 0 0 Lee John H 2100 2100 2100 0 948 1264 Mason Joseph 3480 4360 5280 6425 8875 9810 Murrel Edmund 2150 2000 1400 2260 1910 Nesbitt Wm Poland Thomas 800 1280 1280

Powell John S 0 0 2560 3950 5708 5708 Roberts Danl 0 740 2000 2532 3000 Rogers JV Sr Rose est of RR 1680 1680 1470 1670 Scott Jas D 888 1350 0 2416 2416 2416 Shaw Miss Sarah 0 0 0 0 2400 Smalley Billington 770 2868 4000 3610 Snowden LH 0 0 320 320 640 0 3080 Stewart SJ Swanson Amelia & Thos Taylor JBE 4940 2860 Taylor James F 1100 1100 1100 1200 2500 Taylor Joseph Dr 1600 2300 2300 4248 4939 Thompson Oliver 1080 1085 1500 1702 1398 Tutle Pinkney Webb John W 0 407 1924 966 2022 3859 4075 Webster JB 1308 2121 3221 Whaley Thos J Whitfield Letty & DB 0 800 Winston Thos W 0 2430 2160 Wright AB 1600 1600 1600 1920 1920

125 Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Alston SF 2125 2100 1688 1680 2240 2320 4440

Blocker (est of Wm J) 6174 5531 5534 9301 9301 9300 9300 Calaway JH 2750 2750 3300 3300 3300 6900 Cole Jas 2340 3800 5050 6440 4530 11930 7110 Craig Eli T 3336 6060 6745 7045 7065 6796 7460 Craver Lewis T 880 1390 2200 2640 3600 6000 Evans Wm 6276 11915 11915 9915 11490 8175 13000 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 2850 3000 3000 3500 3840 3840 6000 Granberry SW 4670 4800 5895 7200 9693 10258 10288

Hamill Chas 1300 1250 1300 1750 1500 1500 1500

Harris Dr Wm R 1920 2100 4288 4408 4428 5670

Haywood Saml & Mary 1600 1000 1600 1600 1600 Hill WB 2516 3025 3331 3000 7435 7450

Langley Leonard S 2500 2500 3200 3840 3840 6192 Langley Thos S 0 3625 3625 3108 4144 3780 6280 Lee John H 1580 3185 3585 4515 5742 5142 4815 Mason Joseph 10750 15450 15450 17050 17050 17590 17590 Murrel Edmund 2960 3660 5260 4717 4560 1440 4698 Nesbitt Wm 0 2130 4350 3890 3890 3862 Poland Thomas 2560 2560 2560 2500 3214 3224 3232

Powell John S 5710 5708 6465 6712 4379 3349 5504 Roberts Danl 3165 3168 3485 4118 3798 4318 4118 Rogers JV Sr 0 1000 1200 1000 990 1800 1620 Rose est of RR 0 0 0 0 0 5400 Scott Jas D 2928 5124 4656 4446 4446 Shaw Miss Sarah 3840 3840 3840 3840 3840 3840 8300 Smalley Billington 4360 7000 0 7000 7200 10806 9439 Snowden LH 2322 3096 3865 4740 3870 6168 6192 Stewart SJ 0 0 0 2300 2300 Swanson Amelia & Thos 9000 5570 7370 7370 17000 9600 12160 Taylor JBE 2476 2546 3146 5210 6300 8000 5135 Taylor James F 2852 3740 3776 4700 7700 9525 4825 Taylor Joseph Dr 5079 5700 5700 5600 13400 16082 16082 Thompson Oliver 1814 1820 1834 2432 4932 5190 4000 Tutle Pinkney 1200 1200 4938 4113 4113 Webb John W 4080 4310 4310 7800 8944 7952 14684 Webster JB 3231 14530 14530 14530 15445 15026 13596 Whaley Thos J 0 1272 2772 2345 2345 3105 Whitfield Letty & DB 800 2290 2748 2748 2758 3206 4662 Winston Thos W 3500 3150 3348 4185 6490 6422 6422 Wright AB 2560 2560 2600 3200 3200 3735 5735

126 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852

Abney Zachariah Adair Olivia & children 4000 4000 5400 Adams Jonathan 4000 4000 Austin HC & HG Batte Danl E 1364 1364 1800 2000 2560 2560 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S Blalock EB 0

Clark Wm

Collier Jas Y 0 0 1800 6000 5550 5817

Cook Abner A

Culberson DB

Ewell GW

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 4000 5000 Foscue est of Benjamin Green Roland Haggerty F & SM 6250 8250 1700 12740 21116 13500 Hall Hugh Y 3000 2935 2361 Hall MJ Harris John A Hill Thos Hilliard Jeremy A 1000 1000 1124 1405 Hood HM Sr 4567 4908 6448 Hope Rebecca 3000 3000 3000 3500 3500 Johnson Issac W 1000 2000 2460 Lary Martha & Mary 0 3080 3080 3400 4120 5510 5510 Lewis Howell Lister Lawrence E 900 900 0 3486 3486 3624 Long Benjamin 0 0 0 0 4435 4435 5895 Marshall Josiah 2000 McClure Cary McCoy BG 2625 2625 3168 4224 Miller WM E Motley Robt H 0 Motley ZMP Munden John 1900 1920 3200 Peete Richd 3400 4150 Perry Dr HP 0 0 400 400 2880 2880 Perry Joshua 1440 1280 1920 2500 Perry JD 2560 3000 3000 5760 6400 8260 8640 Roseborough JF 3000 3000 3150 1600 3000 2000 5000 Scoggins AG Scott Wm T 4000 4000 4160 6100 6100 5460 2200

127 Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Abney Zachariah 1680 2964 4420 4440 4445 4720 Adair Olivia & children 5400 5600 5400 5400 7560 8100 0 Adams Jonathan 4200 28000 14200 17770 17370 14220 19840 Austin HC & HG 4650 4600 4600 5750 Batte Danl E 1920 1280 1280 3200 0 0 0 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S 2000 2000 2000 2400 2540 5000 Blalock EB 2000 3840 4000 4000 4480 5000 5720

Clark Wm 3200 4480 2240 6580 11039 10626

Collier Jas Y 7956 16795 11335 8640 16419 23764 22800

Cook Abner A 0 0 3000 4000 4000 6070

Culberson DB 0 0 0 0

Ewell GW 2500 2300 4240 4280 3880 4722

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 5000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 Foscue est of Benjamin 3000 3600 5000 5000 4000 5000 Green Roland 3710 3700 4750 6040 4470 8280 Haggerty F & SM 13500 6750 6750 7000 7000 7000 Hall Hugh Y 3150 3148 3148 5225 5135 6389 8596 Hall MJ 3825 3825 3565 6782 6782 6782 Harris John A 4700 7000 8162 12462 13422 Hill Thos 5202 5202 5650 6576 6768 7728 Hilliard Jeremy A 2210 3508 3971 3695 10215 5735 4790 Hood HM Sr 5644 6700 5596 7030 7030 8650 8255 Hope Rebecca 5278 5208 2036 5278 3417 2278 4560 Johnson Issac W 2460 2725 2725 3270 3296 3270 3368 Lary Martha & Mary 4230 11760 12360 16803 14800 14503 17280 Lewis Howell 1500 2000 2000 1350 2500 2500 2250 Lister Lawrence E 6040 5800 5800 5800 6960 6960 6960 Long Benjamin 5455 8216 5308 6210 6210 11350 7850 Marshall Josiah 3900 5140 4800 6800 8200 14500 15230 McClure Cary 3600 3600 5400 5880 5652 6792 McCoy BG 5280 4220 4224 5413 5413 5546 5945 Miller WM E 5442 5442 8888 6190 5320 5320 Motley Robt H 0 0 480 3840 4800 8688 12180 Motley ZMP 0 0 4800 3840 4800 4210 5010 Munden John 3080 5840 4840 925 1000 1836 2860 Peete Richd 4826 4956 4939 4500 4867 5760 Perry Dr HP 6400 7620 8610 9270 9270 12148 12000 Perry Joshua 3400 1600 3034 6109 4519 5705 9128 Perry JD 6400 9820 9820 8000 7360 8000 8000 Roseborough JF 5000 5000 5000 6350 6350 4550 4350 Scoggins AG 6175 4880 4880 4880 Scott Wm T 6835 7240 9815 12948 12064 15680 10580

128 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Shaw Dushee 0 0 0 0 240 1740 Sherrod Lucinda & John 0 2274 2267 2767 4000 4800 4300 Smith Daniel K Smith Nathaniel 3840 3730 3180

Steger Mrs Lucy 1500 1500 1500 1920 1920 2550 1600 Stone AB Sr 0 3880 4000 3560 Swanson Wm C 7020 7594 7594 7648 Taylor Jos M 0 643 640 643 640 Tutle Wm A 1920 1920

Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Shaw Dushee 2000 3040 1740 3690 3720 3690 3690 Sherrod Lucinda & John 2933 6712 10269 9047 11455 11193 13812 Smith Daniel K 2400 3520 38020 3690 3526 3520 Smith Nathaniel 4240 6204 10011 8845 7500 7700 9894

Steger Mrs Lucy 2880 0 1840 2500 1724 1080 Stone AB Sr 2560 3760 6000 7040 8800 10720 7680 Swanson Wm C 7668 8928 12248 9775 16098 19800 Taylor Jos M 865 7190 7015 13750 14000 12000 12174 Tutle Wm A 2560 3400 3200 3200 6490 5110 6132

129 Table B.9

Annual Rates of Change in Value of Acreage (as a percentage)- Harrison County Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Adams est of CM 70.21 -71.88 77.78 -31.25 27.27 600 -23.27 Adkins GB -34.95 -31.75 14.13 0.87 32.41 61.10 108.18 Akin Alexander - 37.18 0 172.70 0 0 Alford LP and wife 245.31 6.88 111.69 -36.64 12.88 31.77 -10.70 Andrews CK -34.77 175.45 32.61 0 -19.34 0 Brazeale Henry 0 0 0 0 - 250 Cole Reuben 13.82 0 161.71 0 15.45 0 0 Dial Wm H 0 0 0 - -8.71 InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 0 71.43 0 83.33 -25.45 101.22 -7.95 Harkins Jas 0 0 25 0 0 78.25 0 James David H 0 0 0 Johnston Wm M 0 Parker Dr Ashley 35.71 68.42 24.44 35.77 26.35 -8.54 Perry SR -20 26.49 0 -6.25 6.67 25 Sanders Wm S 0 - 0 100 19.42 -41.87 15.38 Taylor Sam'l J 0 -4.00 48.45 17.56 -20.60 42.10

Thompson AT 0 0 150 0 50 11.11 -20 Ware Henry 70.50 33.53 4.78 26.11 15.29 27.71 Wheat Wm L - 25 44 11.11 0 0

Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C

Adams est of CM 22.37 22.93 -16.88 -6.89 0 14.88 Adkins GB 7.41 27.36 10.99 -2.39 38.14 -35.43 8.72 Akin Alexander 0 0 0 0 0 41.31 14.88 Alford LP and wife -100 - -51.35 59.26 -19.18 16.78 Andrews CK 1.81 98.04 -60.40 32 64.96 103.21 16.04 Brazeale Henry -15.48 0 0 -20 0 10.41 Cole Reuben 22.33 -0.32 0 20.32 -0.26 0 13.86 Dial Wm H 182.84 -100 - 275 26.67 32.63 70.57 InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas -6.77 2.27 11.11 0.00 79.17 29.02 17.80 Harkins Jas 6.67 9.86 0 39.41 -4.23 9.45 10.55 James David H 0 0 - -100 - 0 6.27 Johnston Wm M 0 0 0 - -11.11 25 5.41 Parker Dr Ashley -12.82 0 -5.99 -1.98 -32.66 90 12.84 Perry SR 67.71 1.11 39.67 14.87 21.44 -100 -100 Sanders Wm S 11.16 20.16 66.33 0 -7.36 10.60 12.37 Taylor Sam'l J -7.68 158.66 -23.21 -14.68 33.80 -0.42 10.44

Thompson AT -13.40 33.33 0 25 9.54 12.18 Ware Henry 9.58 35.81 13.86 55.87 2.06 12.18 22.95 Wheat Wm L 41.42 0 0 0 0 20 13.96

130 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Alston SF - -0.06 47.78 0 66.67 0 6.25

Blocker (est of Wm J) 0 -80.00 227.41 31.82 14.40 11.65 0 Calaway JH Cole Jas -100 0 - 11.09 -37.10 0 9.35 Craig Eli T - 33.67 40.05 50 0.03 -0.03 Craver Lewis T Evans Wm 0 107.45 29.42 10.88 26.22 -2.87 4.22 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 0 - 100 -31.94 45.41 Granberry SW 95.75 -12.99 2.23

Hamill Chas

Harris Dr Wm R 140 -44.83 0

Haywood Saml & Mary Hill WB

Langley Leonard S Langley Thos S 0 0 Lee John H 0 0 -100 - 33.33 25.00 Mason Joseph 25.29 21.10 21.69 38.13 10.54 9.58 Murrel Edmund -6.98 -30 61.43 -15.49 54.97 Nesbitt Wm Poland Thomas 0.00 41.42

Powell John S 0 - 54.30 44.51 0 0.04 Roberts Danl - 170.27 26.60 18.48 5.50 Rogers JV Sr Rose est of RR 0 -12.50 13.61 Scott Jas D 52.03 -100 - 0 0 Shaw Miss Sarah 0 0 0 - 60.00 Smalley Billington 272.47 39.47 -9.75 20.78 Snowden LH 0 - 0 100 -100 - -24.61 Stewart SJ Swanson Amelia & Thos Taylor JBE -42.11 -6.96 Taylor James F 0 0 9.09 27.72 14.08 Taylor Joseph Dr 43.75 0 84.70 16.27 2.83 Thompson Oliver 0.46 38.25 13.47 -17.86 29.76 Tutle Pinkney Webb John W - 372.73 -49.79 109.32 90.85 5.60 0.12 Webster JB 62.16 51.86 0.31 Whaley Thos J Whitfield Letty & DB - 0 Winston Thos W - -11.11 62.04 Wright AB 0 20 0 33.33

131 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Alston SF -0.59 -19.62 -0.47 33.33 3.57 91.38 13.96

Blocker (est of Wm J) -5.35 0.05 68.07 0 -0.01 0 3.69 Calaway JH 0 20 0 0 109.09 20.20 Cole Jas 27.43 32.89 27.52 -29.66 163.36 -40.40 21.99 Craig Eli T 34.78 11.30 4.45 0.28 -3.81 9.77 16.54 Craver Lewis T 58.27 20 36.36 66.67 44.14 Evans Wm 37.79 0 -16.79 15.89 -28.85 59.02 15.89 InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 2.60 0 16.67 9.71 0 56.25 15.34 Granberry SW 1.38 22.81 22.14 34.63 5.83 0.29 14.39

Hamill Chas -1.94 4 34.62 -14.29 0 0 2.07

Harris Dr Wm R 4.58 42.90 2.80 0.45 28.05 14.61

Haywood Saml & Mary 0 -20.94 60 0 0 0 Hill WB 20.23 10.12 -9.94 147.83 0.20 24.25

Langley Leonard S 0 28 20 0 61.25 19.89 Langley Thos S - 0 -14.26 33.33 -8.78 66.14 11.62 Lee John H 41.98 12.56 25.94 27.18 -10.45 -6.36 6.11 Mason Joseph 19.88 0 10.36 0 3.17 0 13.27 Murrel Edmund 11.20 43.72 -10.32 -3.33 -68.42 226.25 6.73 Nesbitt Wm - 104.23 -10.57 0 -0.72 16.04 Poland Thomas 0 0 -2.34 28.56 0.31 0.25 9.70

Powell John S -0.02 13.26 3.82 -34.76 -23.52 64.35 7.21 Roberts Danl 0.05 10.01 18.16 -7.77 13.69 -4.63 16.89 Rogers JV Sr - 20 -16.67 -1 81.82 -10 10.13 Rose est of RR -100 0 0 0 0 - 11.20 Scott Jas D 6.62 32.29 -9.13 -4.51 0 13.19 Shaw Miss Sarah 0 0 0 0 0 116.15 16.78 Smalley Billington 26.71 -100 - 2.86 50.08 -12.65 25.59 Snowden LH 15.47 24.84 22.64 -18.35 59.38 0.39 28 Stewart SJ 0 0 - 0 0 Swanson Amelia & Thos -21.33 32.32 0 130.66 -43.53 26.67 4.39 Taylor JBE 1.40 23.57 65.61 20.92 26.98 -35.81 0.39 Taylor James F 14.51 0.96 24.47 63.83 23.70 -49.34 11.14 Taylor Joseph Dr 5.94 0 -1.75 139.29 20.01 0 21.20 Thompson Oliver 0.17 0.77 32.61 102.80 5.23 -22.93 11.53 Tutle Pinkney 0 311.50 -16.71 0 36.06 Webb John W 2.78 0 80.97 98.01 -48.51 84.66 31.76 Webster JB 112.06 0 0 -83.86 540.77 -9.52 26.38 Whaley Thos J - 117.92 -15.40 0 32.41 25 Whitfield Letty & DB 69.19 20 0 0.36 16.24 45.41 24.65 Winston Thos W -5.13 6.29 25 55.08 -1.05 0 11.40 Wright AB 0 1.56 23.08 0 16.72 53.55 12.31

132 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Abney Zachariah Adair Olivia & children 0 35 0 Adams Jonathan 0 5 Austin HC & HG Batte Danl E 0 31.96 11.11 13.14 0 -25 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S Blalock EB -

Clark Wm

Collier Jas Y 0 - 233.33 -7.50 4.81 16.95

Cook Abner A

Culberson DB

Ewell GW

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 0 0 0 0 66.67 25 0 Foscue est of Benjamin Green Roland Haggerty F & SM 32.00 -79.39 649.41 65.75 -20.04 0 Hall Hugh Y -2.17 -19.56 33.42 Hall MJ Harris John A Hill Thos Hilliard Jeremy A 0 12.40 25 57.30 Hood HM Sr 7.47 31.38 -12.47 Hope Rebecca 0 0 16.67 0 22.80 Johnson Issac W 100.00 23 0 Lary Martha & Mary - 0 10.39 21.18 33.74 0 -23.23 Lewis Howell Lister Lawrence 0 -100 - 0 3.96 66.67 Long Benjamin 0 0 0 - 0 32.92 -7.46 Marshall Josiah 95 McClure Cary McCoy BG 0 20.69 33.33 25 Miller WM E Motley Robt H 0 Motley ZMP Munden John -5.84 0.52 66.67 -3.75 Peete Richd 22.06 Perry Dr HP 0 - 0 620 0 122.22 Perry Joshua -11.11 50 30.21 36 Perry JD 17.19 0 92 11.11 29.06 4.60 -25.93 Roseborough JF 0 5 -49.21 87.50 -33.33 150 0 Scoggins AG Scott Wm T 0 4 46.63 0 -10.49 -59.71 210.68

133 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C

Abney Zachariah 76.43 49.12 0.45 0.11 6.19 22.95 Adair Olivia & children 1.84 -3.57 0 40 7.14 -100 -100 Adams Jonathan 158.20 -49.29 25.14 -2.25 -18.13 39.52 19.47 Austin HC & HG -1.08 0 25.00 7.33 Batte Danl E -18.35 0 150 -100 0 0.00 -100 Initial Planters Black Thomas S 0 0 20 5.83 96.85 20.11 Blalock EB 38.56 4.17 0 12 11.61 14.40 16.20

Clark Wm 40 -50 193.75 67.77 -3.74 27.13

Collier Jas Y 45.29 -32.51 -23.78 90.03 44.73 -4.06 23.56

Cook Abner A 0 - 33.33 0 51.75 26.48

Culberson DB 0 0 0 0

Ewell GW -8.00 84.35 0.94 -9.35 21.70 13.56

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 9.54 0 0 0 0 0 6.76 Foscue est of Benjamin 20 38.89 0 -20 25 10.76 Green Roland -0.27 28.38 27.16 -25.99 85.23 17.42 Haggerty F & SM -29.29 0 3.70 0 0 0.81 Hall Hugh Y -0.03 0 65.98 -1.72 24.42 34.54 11.10 Hall MJ 0 -6.80 90.24 0 0 12.14 Harris John A 48.94 16.60 52.68 7.70 30 Hill Thos 0 8.61 16.39 2.92 14.18 8.24 Hilliard Jeremy A 25.99 13.20 -6.95 176.45 -43.86 -16.48 15.31 Hood HM Sr 8.95 -16.48 25.63 0 23.04 -4.57 6.10 Hope Rebecca -0.67 -60.91 159.23 -35.26 -33.33 100.18 3.04 Johnson Issac W 5.25 0 20 0.80 -0.79 2.997 12.91 Lary Martha & Mary 66.74 5.10 35.95 -11.92 -2.01 19.15 14.19 Lewis Howell 15.47 0 -32.50 85.19 0 -10 5.96 Lister Lawrence -2.01 0 0 20 0 0 17.04 Long Benjamin 22.72 -35.39 16.99 0 82.77 -30.84 5.88 Marshall Josiah 14.80 -6.61 41.67 20.59 76.83 5.03 28.89 McClure Cary 0 50 8.89 -3.88 20.17 13.54 McCoy BG -10.60 0.09 28.15 0 2.46 7.19 7.71 Miller WM E 0 63.32 -30.36 -14.05 0 -0.45 Motley Robt H 0 - 700 25 81 40.19 124.44 Motley ZMP 0 - -20 25 -12.29 19 1.08 Munden John 37.70 -17.12 -80.89 8.11 83.60 55.77 3.79 Peete Richd 5.16 2.69 -0.34 -8.89 8.16 18.35 6.03 Perry Dr HP 9.12 12.99 7.67 0 31.05 -1.22 32.77 Perry Joshua -31.40 89.63 101.35 -26.03 26.24 60 18.28 Perry JD 23.87 0 -18.53 -8 8.70 0 8.48 Roseborough JF 0 0 27 0 -28.35 -4.40 2.69 Scoggins AG -20.97 0 0 -7.55 Scott Wm T 2.92 35.57 31.92 -6.827 29.97 -32.53 7.195

134 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Shaw Dushee 0 0 0 - 625 14.94 Sherrod Lucinda & John - -0.31 22.06 44.56 20 -10.42 -31.79 Smith Daniel K Smith Nathaniel -1.23 -7.67 33.33

Steger Mrs Lucy 0 0 28 0 32.81 -37.25 80 Stone AB Sr - 3.09 -11 -28.09 Swanson Wm C 8.18 0 0.71 0.26 Taylor Jos M - -0.47 0.47 -0.47 16.26 Tutle Wm A 0 33.33

Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Shaw Dushee 23.29 -42.76 112.1 0.813 -0.806 0 35.48 Sherrod Lucinda & John 51.28 52.99 -11.9 26.62 -2.287 23.4 14.89 Smith Daniel K 46.67 980.1 -90.29 -4.444 -0.17 7.961 Smith Nathaniel 20.96 61.36 -11.65 -15.21 2.667 28.49 10.25

Steger Mrs Lucy -100 - 35.87 -31.04 -37.35 -2.319 Stone AB Sr 21.19 59.57 17.33 25 21.82 -28.36 7.066 Swanson Wm C 7.904 37.19 -10.66 64.69 23 9.885 Taylor Jos M 188.3 -2.434 96.01 1.818 -14.29 1.45 27.77 Tutle Wm A 15.24 -5.882 0 102.8 -21.26 20 13.77

135 Table B.10

Ratio of Slave Values to Acreage Values (adjusted)- Harrison County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Adams est of CM 0.64 0.43 3.27 3.67 7.30 6.59 1.07

Adkins GB 0.22 0.40 1.07 1.24 1.27 1.34 1.02 Akin Alexander - 1.07 1.17 1.06 0.43 0.38 Alford LP and wife 4.22 1.08 1.00 1.64 1.97 2.34 1.46 Andrews CK - 0.31 1.47 1.19 0.82 0.84 1.51 Brazeale Henry - - - - - 6.76 Cole Reuben 5.28 4.75 4.91 2.79 2.79 2.18 2.67 Dial Wm H - - - 7.69

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 1.29 1.77 0.82 0.86 0.61 0.47 0.48 Harkins Jas 3.01 3.06 2.53 2.45 2.65 2.40 2.20 James David H - - - Johnston Wm M - Parker Dr A 4.79 3.39 0.86 1.47 1.59 1.27 Perry SR 1.20 1.74 2.29 2.44 2.98 3.12 Sanders Wm S - - 2.48 2.56 1.73 1.25 2.58

Taylor Sam'l J 0.00 1.61 1.60 2.13 1.31 1.07 1.10 Thompson AT 5.00 5.29 4.91 3.52 3.27 2.51 2.32 Ware Henry 1.65 1.41 1.22 1.48 1.09 1.14 Wheat Wm L - 1.67 2.11 1.12 2.40 2.12

Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Adams est of CM 2.57 1.28 1.26 1.68 3.4 2.87

Adkins GB 0.47 0.67 0.63 0.62 0.64 0.5 0.88 Akin Alexander 0.75 1.27 0.84 0.98 1.44 2.17 1.67 Alford LP and wife 2.46 - 0.74 2.1 1.51 3.17 Andrews CK 1.33 1.48 0.73 1.83 1.4 1.13 0.48 Slaveholders Brazeale Henry 1.57 2.38 1.99 1.83 2.78 2.86 Cole Reuben 3.26 2.36 2.4 3.02 2.73 2.98 2.55 Dial Wm H 8.27 0.65 - 5.31 2.5 1.21 0.99

InitialSmall Gorman Jas 0.57 0.98 1.17 1.4 1.42 0.71 0.42 Harkins Jas 2.05 1.8 1.33 1.44 1.07 1.99 1.96 James David H - - - 3.46 - 3.58 3.11 Johnston Wm M - - - - 3.43 4.02 3.07 Parker Dr A 1.3 2.74 2.67 2.9 2.99 4.24 2.49 Perry SR 3.27 1.3 1.39 1.55 1.35 1.41 - Sanders Wm S 2.72 2.07 1.99 1.2 1.29 2.21 1

Taylor Sam'l J 0.76 1.31 0.5 0.62 0.84 1.01 0.85 Thompson AT 3.27 4.67 3.32 3.35 2.47 2.18 Ware Henry 1.12 1.15 1.09 1.11 0.83 1.31 1.02 Wheat Wm L 1.81 1.22 1.18 1.28 1.39 1.27 1.7

136 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Alston SF - 6.23 6.53 5.14 4.68 3.23 3.61 Blocker (est of Wm J) 0.89 0.81 3.68 1.71 1.24 1.17 1.31 Calaway JH Cole Jas 10.44 - - 1.57 1.29 2.73 2.78 Craig Eli T - 3.82 2.61 1.80 1.83 Craver Lewis T Evans Wm 3.45 3.82 2.15 1.66 1.36 1.24 1.30

InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC - - 3.47 2.40 2.16 Granberry SW 2.96 1.82 2.15 Hamill Chas

Harris Dr Wm R 3.51 1.58 2.65

Haywood Saml & Mary 4.11 Hill WB

Langley Leonard S Langley Thos S - Lee John H 2.29 2.27 2.24 - 4.46 4.34 Mason Joseph 1.20 0.95 0.89 0.62 0.48 0.44 Murrel Edmund 2.28 3.25 4.43 2.99 3.10 Nesbitt Wm Poland Thomas 0.00 1.18 4.84

Powell John S - - 2.31 1.95 1.19 1.26 Roberts Danl - 9.92 3.79 3.04 2.69 Rogers JV Sr Rose est of RR 5.12 9.45 7.19 6.46 Scott Jas D 6.03 4.00 - 2.51 2.63 2.55 Shaw Miss Sarah - - - - 3.38 Smalley Billington 7.08 4.70 3.02 3.37 Snowden LH - - 12.88 13.15 5.99 - 1.78 Stewart SJ Swanson Amelia & Thos Taylor JBE 1.30 1.49 Taylor James F 5.91 5.86 5.44 4.97 3.11 Taylor Jos Dr 3.37 2.51 2.72 1.78 1.56 Thompson Oliver 4.91 4.87 3.84 2.91 5.22 Tutle Pinkney Webb John W - 13.04 2.80 5.57 3.09 2.07 2.00 Webster JB 2.86 3.08 1.63 Whaley Thos J Whitfield Letty & DB - 7.06 Winston Thos W - 1.98 2.58

Wright AB 0.00 4.00 3.65 2.80 3.43

137 Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Alston SF 3.57 3.71 5.8 4.54 3.58 3.29 1.33 Blocker (est of Wm J) 1.42 1.41 1.39 1.12 1.14 1.21 1.02 Calaway JH 1.65 1.61 1.77 2.24 2.4 1.06 Cole Jas 2.27 1.99 1.38 1.23 1.88 0.74 1 Craig Eli T 1.69 0.95 1.03 0.95 1.09 0.83 1.26 Craver Lewis T 0 4.32 2.5 2.1 1.41 0.75 Evans Wm 1.15 0.95 0.9 1.91 1.13 1.59 0.87

InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 1.64 1.95 2.42 2.4 2.01 2.21 1.28 Granberry SW 2.16 1.79 1.88 2.13 1.57 0.71 1.19 Hamill Chas 3.31 3.5 3.28 2.79 4.32 4.67 4.04

Harris Dr Wm R 2.48 3.14 1.54 2.27 1.89 1.61

Haywood Saml & Mary 4.66 7.68 5.2 4.24 3.82 Hill WB 1.55 1.57 1.87 2.26 1.26 1.43

Langley Leonard S 2.71 3.03 2 2.12 1.76 1.23 Langley Thos S - 2.35 2.29 2.75 2.08 2.47 1.8 Lee John H 3.62 2.18 1.59 1.38 1.29 1.45 1.45 Mason Joseph 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.4 0.44 0.38 Murrel Edmund 3.03 2.53 1.71 1.81 2.05 5.88 1.51 Nesbitt Wm - 2.67 1.35 2 2.07 1.86 Poland Thomas 2.29 2.53 2.59 2.68 2.3 2.36 2.49

Powell John S 1.57 1.5 1.66 1.23 2.45 2.63 1.69 Roberts Danl 2.57 2.62 2.57 2.49 2.27 2.62 2.19 Rogers JV Sr - 3.89 4.21 6.22 5.61 5.65 3.3 Rose est of RR - - - - - 2.58 Scott Jas D 2.86 1.43 2.01 1.61 1.28 Shaw Miss Sarah 3.07 2.53 2.54 2.95 3.29 3.01 1.59 Smalley Billington 3.16 2.31 - 2.46 2.14 1.57 1.54 Snowden LH 2.37 2.42 2.09 2.08 2.29 1.56 1.71 Stewart SJ - - - 2.21 3.79 Swanson Amelia & Thos 0.73 1.74 1.33 1.69 1.02 1.82 1.21 Taylor JBE 2.37 2.18 2.11 1.69 1.02 1.16 1.81 Taylor James F 2.74 1.91 2.01 1.95 1.3 1.07 1.77 Taylor Jos Dr 1.49 2.28 2.22 1.57 0.93 0.76 0.64 Thompson Oliver 3.5 3.96 3.82 2.71 1.38 1.44 1.27 Tutle Pinkney 5.05 6.81 2.1 2.49 2.12 Webb John W 2.19 2.4 2.34 1.69 1.32 1.84 0.88 Webster JB 1.71 1.01 1 1.44 1.37 1.42 1.69 Whaley Thos J - 4.22 2.24 2.63 2.75 1.83 Whitfield Letty & DB 7.75 2.55 2.3 2.8 2.46 2.33 1.27 Winston Thos W 1.42 1.39 1.79 1.92 1.25 1.66 1.83 Wright AB 2.83 3.04 3.03 2.57 2.85 3.08 1.65

138 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852

Abney Zachariah Adair Olivia & children 2.23 2.50 1.89 Adams Jonathan 3.58 4.79 Austin HC & HG Batte Danl E 5.28 5.24 3.82 3.91 1.58 3.54 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S Blalock EB -

Clark Wm

Collier Jas Y - - 4.74 1.22 1.13 1.35

Cook Abner A

Culberson DB

Ewell GW

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 4.97 4.76 4.71 4.70 4.28 2.31 4.13 Foscue est of Benjamin Green Roland Haggerty F & SM 6.55 4.97 20.09 2.07 1.95 1.10 Hall Hugh Y 3.54 3.14 3.99 Hall MJ Harris John A Hill Thos Hilliard Jeremy A 8.02 7.32 6.84 5.02 Hood HM Sr 3.93 3.82 2.30 Hope Rebecca 3.40 3.17 2.94 3.49 2.85 Johnson Issac W 7.14 3.08 3.92 Lary Martha & Mary - 3.32 2.20 2.92 2.41 2.36 2.40 Lewis Howell Lister Lawrence E 11.26 9.92 - 2.87 1.70 1.73 Long Benjamin - - - - 2.98 2.46 1.60 Marshall Josiah 4.76 McClure Cary McCoy BG 2.24 1.97 1.75 1.78 Miller WM E Motley Robt H - Motley ZMP Munden John 3.93 3.44 2.03 Peete Richd 2.37 1.98 Perry Dr HP - - 28.21 25.87 4.63 4.47 Perry Joshua 7.07 7.25 6.01 4.33 Perry JD 2.62 2.35 2.26 1.32 2.01 1.64 1.43 Roseborough JF 2.47 2.45 2.31 5.14 2.59 3.68 1.55 Scoggins AG Scott Wm T 4.61 5.75 8.77 6.99 6.46 7.09 13.26

139 Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Abney Zachariah 3.71 2.56 2.15 2.17 2.67 3.21 Adair Olivia & children 1.71 1.55 2.98 3.19 2.69 1.22 - Adams Jonathan 0.53 0.81 1.67 1.59 1.87 2.22 1.53 Austin HC & HG 2.05 1.92 1.92 1.67 Batte Danl E 5.38 8.82 8.59 2.67 - - - InitialPlanters Black Thomas S 3.41 3.32 3.35 3.7 4.45 2.27 Blalock EB 3.62 1.94 1.82 2.26 2.06 1.78 1.8

Clark Wm 3.97 2.88 7.49 3.00 1.38 1.43

Collier Jas Y 1.01 0.53 0.64 1.06 0.39 0.49 0.43

Cook Abner A - - 3.29 2.24 2.54 1.31

Culberson DB - - - -

Ewell GW 2.85 3.3 2.42 2.59 2.47 1.87

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 3.36 3.47 3.38 3.27 5.02 4.59 3.85 Foscue est of Benjamin 2.85 2.53 1.95 2.04 2.88 1.93 Green Roland 1.96 1.91 1.99 1.78 4.09 1.33 Haggerty F & SM 1.66 3.27 4.07 4.05 3.87 3.25 Hall Hugh Y 3.15 2.31 3.21 2.68 2.74 2.21 1.6 Hall MJ 2.48 2.42 2.68 1.58 1.45 1.22 Harris John A 4.5 2.88 2.64 2.21 1.72 Hill Thos 2.43 2.38 2.66 2.36 2.54 1.93 Hilliard Jeremy A 4.34 2.85 2.62 2.77 1.23 2.25 2.37 Hood HM Sr 3.18 2.9 3.56 3.25 4 2.43 1.87 Hope Rebecca 2.52 1.87 4.96 2.31 2.17 4.26 2.08 Johnson Issac W 3.45 2.98 2.9 2.33 2.81 3.26 2.66 Lary Martha & Mary 3.73 1.72 1.72 1.48 1.68 1.58 1.14 Lewis Howell 3.35 3.11 3.38 6.1 3.21 3.28 3.37 Lister Lawrence E 1.88 2.01 2.01 2.52 1.97 1.75 1.91 Long Benjamin 1.64 1.82 2.56 2.36 2.56 1.4 1.96 Marshall Josiah 2.47 2.65 2.5 1.97 2.26 1.17 1.01 McClure Cary 2.34 2.63 2.1 1.95 1.92 1.95 McCoy BG 1.63 1.23 1.2 1.15 0.97 0.97 0.84 Miller WM E 1.69 1.66 1.17 1.44 1.43 1.55 Motley Robt H - - 15.8 2.76 2.31 1.87 1.07 Motley ZMP - - 1.38 2.19 1.93 2.35 2.19 Munden John 2.24 1.2 1.35 8.44 7.71 3.97 1.9 Peete Richd 2.29 2.17 2.59 3.04 2.44 1.64 Perry Dr HP 2.54 2.62 2.16 2.27 2.1 1.77 1.71 Perry Joshua 2.35 6.28 3.12 1.56 2.18 1.58 1.45 Perry JD 2.15 1.39 1.35 1.84 2.05 2.4 2.07 Roseborough JF 2.16 2.47 2.46 1.97 1.99 3.05 3.05 Scoggins AG 1.54 1.29 1.53 1.88 Scott Wm T 5.93 5.2 3.93 3.7 3.88 2.79 3.2

140 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 Shaw Dushee - - - - 31.88 4.66 Sherrod Lucinda & John - 2.85 2.71 2.32 1.90 2.08 2.01 Smith Daniel K Smith Nathaniel 0.00 2.39 2.74

Steger Mrs Lucy 6.20 6.15 6.08 6.67 6.51 5.11 4.80 Stone AB Sr - 2.67 2.93 3.39 Swanson Wm C 2.22 1.99 1.72 1.78 Taylor Jos M - 10.99 14.45 14.85 11.90 Tutle Wm A 4.21 3.76

Name 1853 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Shaw Dushee 3.76 2.62 6.63 2.31 2.54 2.62 3.31 Sherrod Lucinda & John 3.05 2.03 1.48 1.96 1.98 1.76 1.84 Smith Daniel K 5.14 2.01 0.21 2.09 1.79 1.68 Smith Nathaniel 2.44 1.57 1.33 1.78 1.81 1.61 1.44

Steger Mrs Lucy 3.23 - 6.13 3.82 7.11 9.52 Stone AB Sr 4.31 3.88 2.63 2.3 2.03 2.14 2.47 Swanson Wm C 1.91 2.03 1.5 2.2 1.6 1.42 Taylor Jos M 14.3 1.94 2.03 1.38 1.77 1.24 1.1 Tutle Wm A 3.39 2.38 2.66 3.32 2.11 3.22 2.09

141 Table B.11

Annual Rates of Change in Ratio of Slave Value to Acreage Value- Harrison County Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Adams est of CM -32.01 653.63 12.16 98.97 -9.70 -83.73 139.35

Adkins GB 83.01 165.70 15.15 2.88 5.04 -23.33 -54.18 Akin Alexander - 9.02 -8.80 -59.61 -11.33 97.77 Alford LP and wife -74.46 -7.45 64.85 19.94 18.90 -37.52 67.77 Andrews CK 373.84 -18.92 -31.23 3.12 79.26 -12.10 Brazeale Henry 0 0 0 0 - -76.82 Cole Reuben -10.16 3.34 -43.13 -0.08 -21.75 22.37 22.08 Dial Wm H 0 0 0 - 3.71

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 37.78 -53.84 4.69 -28.94 -22.92 1.35 19.37 Harkins Jas 1.78 -17.36 -3.32 8.30 -9.27 -8.47 -6.61 James David H 0 0 0 Johnston Wm M 0 Parker Dr A -29.09 -74.70 71.69 3.94 -20.36 2.51 Perry SR 44.67 14.93 6.40 22.15 4.85 4.79 Sanders Wm S 0 - 3.54 -32.45 -27.82 106.12 5.35

Taylor Sam'l J -1.09 33.53 -38.57 -18.53 2.74 -30.41 Thompson AT 5.81 -7.27 -28.22 -7.11 -23.21 -7.60 41.05 Ware Henry -14.91 -13.46 21.16 -25.87 4.53 -1.68 Wheat Wm L - 26.68 -47.22 115.48 -11.90 -14.54

Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Adams est of CM -20.62 -1.82 33.47 102.09 -15.69 11.32

Adkins GB 19.24 -6.00 -1.99 4.20 -22.01 75.40 10.35 Akin Alexander 29.76 -33.47 15.86 47.07 50.72 -22.98 3.78 Alford LP and wife - - 183.96 -28.32 45.11 -2.02 Andrews CK 5.29 -50.83 152.20 -23.40 -19.50 -57.30 3.45 Brazeale Henry 23.30 -16.54 -8.05 51.67 3.03 -11.57 Cole Reuben -14.95 1.93 25.52 -9.50 9.31 -14.43 -5.06 Dial Wm H -71.99 - - -52.89 -51.48 -18.77 -25.44

InitialSmall Slaveholders Gorman Jas 31.63 19.01 19.92 1.11 -50 -41.24 -7.73 Harkins Jas -6.41 -26.14 8.14 -25.75 86.79 -1.46 -2.998 James David H 0 0 - - - -13.17 -3.50 Johnston Wm M 0 0 0 - 17.45 -23.76 -5.38 Parker Dr A 45.10 -2.62 8.74 3.15 41.66 -41.13 -4.55 Perry SR -37.05 7.01 11.99 -13.07 4.63 - 1.27 Sanders Wm S -12.73 -4.00 -39.69 7.43 72.13 -54.90 -7.29

Taylor Sam'l J 31.06 -61.82 23.97 35.44 19.78 -15.76 -4.83 Thompson AT 19.44 -29.00 1.15 -26.47 -6.01 -5.76 Ware Henry 1.25 -5.10 1.76 -25.04 57.03 -21.94 -3.63 Wheat Wm L -17.73 -3.27 8.14 8.33 -8.42 33.60 0.15

142 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Alston SF - 4.80 -21.29 -8.803 -31 11.68 -1.09 Blocker (est of Wm J) -8.74 351.6 -53.45 -27.59 -5.83 12.54 8.17 Calaway JH Cole Jas - 0 - -17.9 112.5 1.97 -18.56 Craig Eli T - - -31.73 -31 1.94 -7.57 Craver Lewis T Evans Wm 10.51 -43.69 -22.96 -17.75 -8.95 4.99 -11.44

InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 0 - -30.7 -10.1 -23.88 Granberry SW -38.4 18.14 0.30 Hamill Chas

Harris Dr Wm R -55 68.02 -6.69

Haywood Saml & Mary Hill WB

Langley Leonard S Langley Thos S 0 0 Lee John H -0.8 -1.09 - - -2.66 -16.62 Mason Joseph -21.05 -5.91 -29.74 -23.7 -7.75 -5.20 Murrel Edmund 42.55 36.16 -32.4 3.52 -2.34 Nesbitt Wm Poland Thomas 308.2 -31.21

Powell John S 0 - -15.5 -39.3 6.61 24.16 Roberts Danl - -61.76 -19.9 -11.35 -4.55 Rogers JV Sr Rose est of RR 84.47 -23.9 -10.24 Scott Jas D -33.73 - - 4.57 -2.85 Shaw Miss Sarah 0 0 0 - -9.24 Smalley Billington -33.62 -35.7 11.55 -6.09 Snowden LH 0 - 2.07 -54.4 - - 33.25 Stewart SJ Swanson Amelia & Thos Taylor JBE 14.76 25.92 Taylor James F -0.8 -7.17 -8.61 -14.53 -11.67 Taylor Jos Dr -25.6 8.20 -34.3 -12.3 -4.55 Thompson Oliver -0.76 -21.21 -24 79 -32.99 Tutle Pinkney Webb John W - -78.49 98.58 -44.55 -32.9 -3.43 9.32 Webster JB 7.57 -47.07 4.63 Whaley Thos J Whitfield Letty & DB - 9.87 Winston Thos W - 30.32 -44.99

Wright AB -8.80 -23.2 22.37 -17.6

143 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Alston SF 1.93 56.48 -21.76 -21.13 -8.18 -59.41 -11.18 Blocker (est of Wm J) -0.51 -1.06 -19.71 1.70 6.81 -16.11 0.95 Calaway JH -2.62 10.35 26.39 6.84 -55.87 -8.53 Cole Jas -6.36 -30.60 -10.80 52.59 -60.69 35.34 -15.43 Craig Eli T -25.18 8.62 -7.56 14.57 -23.84 51.70 -9.59 Craver Lewis T -42.21 -15.74 -32.84 -46.87 -35.44 Evans Wm -9.10 -5.41 111.58 -40.89 40.97 -44.95 -9.35

InitialSmall Planters Garrett RC 8.78 24.42 -0.69 -16.52 9.90 -41.84 -9.47 Granberry SW -8.96 4.72 13.84 -26.68 -54.62 67.94 -8.69 Hamill Chas 2.82 -6.37 -14.99 54.83 8.15 -13.41 2.88

Harris Dr Wm R 12.51 -30.01 47.54 -16.43 -14.86 -7.48

Haywood Saml & Mary 3.21 28.38 -32.29 -18.60 -9.82 -1.04 Hill WB 1.24 19.25 21.07 -44.24 13.47 -1.55

Langley Leonard S 11.82 -34 5.93 -16.75 -30.20 -14.60 Langley Thos S - -2.62 19.89 -24.17 18.33 -26.86 -5.19 Lee John H -22.42 -27.23 -13.11 -6.47 12.49 -0.23 -3.22 Mason Joseph -4.78 2.79 1.31 1.11 11.36 -14.90 -8.50 Murrel Edmund -8.66 -32.24 5.78 13.18 187.13 -74.29 -3.37 Nesbitt Wm - -49.57 48.40 3.57 -9.87 -8.58 Poland Thomas 5.23 2.24 3.58 -14.20 2.71 5.38 7.72

Powell John S -2.22 10.72 -26.15 99.75 7.36 -35.87 -2.82 Roberts Danl 0.99 -1.80 -3.33 -8.97 15.48 -16.44 -12.84 Rogers JV Sr - 8.19 47.72 -9.88 0.74 -41.49 -3.22 Rose est of RR - 0 0 0 0 - -6.05 Scott Jas D 3.90 -29.34 40.95 -20.18 -20.09 -11.22 Shaw Miss Sarah -9.29 0.63 16.24 11.44 -8.42 -47.18 -8.98 Smalley Billington -14.48 - - -12.85 -26.78 -2.04 -12.97 Snowden LH 0.95 -13.56 -0.36 10.08 -32.17 10.11 -15.47 Stewart SJ 0 0 - 71.50 71.50 Swanson Amelia & Thos 54.44 -23.44 27.08 -39.41 78.27 -33.77 7.51 Taylor JBE -4.05 -3.22 -20.04 -39.61 13.73 56.19 3.35 Taylor James F -16.60 5.21 -3.04 -33.35 -17.74 65.60 -8.26 Taylor Jos Dr 23.48 -2.62 -29.24 -40.43 -18.81 -16.11 -12.98 Thompson Oliver 6.39 -3.37 -29.16 -49.22 4.43 -11.77 -10.67 Tutle Pinkney 34.77 -69.19 18.46 -14.72 -19.53 Webb John W 4.82 -2.62 -27.84 -19.15 34.70 -52.12 -18.72 Webster JB -23.02 -1.12 43.57 83.19 -45.98 19.13 -5.13 Whaley Thos J - -46.83 17.18 4.40 -33.31 -18.85 Whitfield Letty & DB -42.66 -9.84 21.66 -12.05 -5.46 -45.37 -19.29 Winston Thos W -0.98 28.94 7.33 -34.80 32.51 10.08 -0.86 Wright AB 3.71 -0.45 -15 10.85 8.15 -46.44 -7.73

144 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Abney Zachariah Adair Olivia & children 12.05 -24.47 -9.40 Adams Jonathan 34.04 -89.04 Austin HC & HG Batte Danl E -0.8 -27.13 2.55 -36.5 124.3 52.2 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S Blalock EB -

Clark Wm

Collier Jas Y 0 - -74.22 -7.98 19.83 -13.3

Cook Abner A

Culberson DB

Ewell GW

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee -4.13 -1.09 -0.30 -8.80 -46.1 79.13 -18.77 Foscue est of Benjamin Green Roland Haggerty F & SM -24.2 304.5 -89.7 -5.94 -24.9 51.61 Hall Hugh Y -11.2 26.76 -20.94 Hall MJ Harris John A Hill Thos Hilliard Jeremy A -8.80 -6.48 -26.58 -13.7 Hood HM Sr -2.64 -39.88 38.14 Hope Rebecca -6.64 -7.27 18.6 -9.7 -5.90 Johnson Issac W -56.9 27.46 -12.1 Lary Martha & Mary - -33.74 32.86 -17.33 -2.46 1.97 55.2 Lewis Howell Lister Lawrence E -11.93 - - -40.5 1.58 8.77 Long Benjamin 0 0 0 - -17.3 -35.17 2.90 Marshall Josiah -48.06 McClure Cary McCoy BG -11.84 -11.3 1.97 -8.44 Miller WM E Motley Robt H 0 Motley ZMP Munden John -5.84 -6.33 -40.95 10.03 Peete Richd -16.46 Perry Dr HP 0 - -4.232 -82.1 -3.61 -43.08 Perry Joshua 2.596 -17.1 -27.95 -45.67 Perry JD -10.3 -3.87 -41.3 51.79 -18.5 -12.48 50.2 Roseborough JF -0.8 -5.80 122.8 -49.62 42.07 -57.93 39.51 Scoggins AG Scott Wm T 24.74 52.5 -20.31 -7.55 9.70 86.98 -55.24

145 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C

Abney Zachariah -31.01 -15.83 0.65 23.14 20.38 -2.83 Adair Olivia & children -4.73 92.17 6.78 -15.49 -54.80 - -6.51 Adams Jonathan 24.26 105.72 -4.95 18.22 18.65 -31.29 -9.01 Austin HC & HG -6.31 -0.10 -12.67 -6.50 Batte Danl E 27.97 -2.62 -68.93 - 0.00 0.00 26.32 InitialPlanters Black Thomas S -2.62 1.15 10.30 20.18 -48.86 -7.76 Blalock EB -26.73 -6.52 24.26 -8.50 -13.57 0.71 -9.51

Clark Wm -27.61 160.31 -59.95 -53.94 3.29 -18.52

Collier Jas Y -27.48 20.23 65.22 -62.76 25.34 -12.56 -18.10

Cook Abner A 0 - -32.13 13.68 -48.40 -26.43

Culberson DB 0 0 0 0

Ewell GW 15.46 -26.67 7.32 -4.59 -24.58 -8.15

Fitzpatrick Rene, trustee 1.60 -2.32 -3.45 53.47 -8.42 -16.11 -1.80 Foscue est of Benjamin -11.48 -22.76 4.27 41.53 -32.89 -7.50 Green Roland -2.36 4.08 -10.74 130.42 -67.57 -7.48 Haggerty F & SM 40.11 11.55 -0.33 -4.44 -16.11 -4.89 Hall Hugh Y -14.41 39.11 -16.38 1.99 -19.29 -27.67 -7.64 Hall MJ -2.62 10.67 -40.91 -8.42 -16.11 -13.32 Harris John A -36.14 -8.03 -16.37 -22.11 -21.35 Hill Thos -2.13 11.57 -11.01 7.34 -23.87 -4.51 Hilliard Jeremy A -18.95 -7.83 5.65 -55.59 82.31 5.72 -10.48 Hood HM Sr -4.35 22.42 -8.50 22.95 -39.28 -22.97 -7.15 Hope Rebecca -13.90 165.69 -53.44 -6.29 96.90 -51.27 -3.46 Johnson Issac W -7.08 -2.62 -19.54 20.38 16.31 -18.55 -9.40 Lary Martha & Mary -32.07 0.28 -14.14 13.11 -5.85 -27.85 -7.90 Lewis Howell -3.65 8.53 80.47 -47.42 2.15 2.85 0.06 Lister Lawrence E 3.40 0.08 25.26 -22.06 -10.90 8.74 -12.77 Long Benjamin 5.15 40.89 -7.88 8.69 -45.23 39.79 -4.09 Marshall Josiah 3.50 -5.66 -21.08 14.34 -48.21 -13.74 -17.65 McClure Cary 12.36 -20.18 -7.14 -1.65 1.80 -3.57 McCoy BG -13.19 -2.72 -3.94 -15.74 -0.10 -13.50 -8.55 Miller WM E -1.94 -29.72 23.83 -0.79 8.12 -1.75 Motley Robt H 0 - -82.50 -16.32 -19.05 -42.66 -48.94 Motley ZMP 0 - 58.62 -12.08 21.82 -6.55 12.25 Munden John -26.90 13.13 523.83 -8.66 -48.52 -52.20 -6.40 Peete Richd 4.82 -5.18 19.68 17.32 -19.90 -32.49 -4.00 Perry Dr HP 1.57 -17.46 5.03 -7.82 -15.70 -3.46 -20.85 Perry Joshua 63.48 -50.30 -50.13 40.19 -27.46 -8.25 -13.39 Perry JD -19.75 -2.62 36.01 11.73 16.92 -13.64 -1.65 Roseborough JF 6.90 -0.06 -20.08 1.11 53.37 -0.13 1.53 Scoggins AG -16.38 18.51 23.29 6.91 Scott Wm T -6.42 -24.46 -5.69 4.79 -28.15 14.69 -2.58

146 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Shaw Dushee 0 0 0 - -85.37 -19.47 Sherrod Lucinda & John - -4.96 -14.39 -18.13 9.854 -3.68 52.29 Smith Daniel K Smith Nathaniel -1.23 6.97 -10.91

Steger Mrs Lucy -0.8 -1.09 9.72 -2.54 -21.4 -6.04 -32.73 Stone AB Sr - 9.771 15.67 27.2 Swanson Wm C -10.41 -13.8 3.939 6.81 Taylor Jos M - 31.47 2.778 -19.9 9.81 Tutle Wm A -10.65 -9.71

Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Shaw Dushee -16.41 152.42 -65.07 9.61 3.19 26.32 -22.26 Sherrod Lucinda & John -18.49 -27.26 32.88 0.71 -11.13 4.90 -3.29 Smith Daniel K -60.95 -89.60 901.72 -14.13 -6.22 -20 Smith Nathaniel -19.80 -15.52 34.26 1.68 -10.80 -10.97 -4.97

Steger Mrs Lucy - - -37.65 85.92 33.91 3.11 Stone AB Sr -5.07 -32.20 -12.77 -11.48 5.25 15.36 -0.78 Swanson Wm C 3.33 -26.10 20.84 -27.29 -11.26 -4.01 Taylor Jos M -63.22 4.45 -31.69 27.95 -29.83 -11.67 -17.47 Tutle Wm A -16.15 11.74 24.45 -36.39 52.46 -35.14 -7.49

147 APPENDIX C

BRAZORIA COUNTY DATA

148 Table C.1

1860 Census Data vs Tax Record Data- Brazoria County Name (last, first) Slaves Related Records in Tax Rolls Slaves Adams R 31 Adams, R 31 Armstrong Geo 37 Armstrong, George 37 Bass HM 233 Bass, H 206 Bates Joseph 32 Bates, Joseph 32 Black SH 53 Black, Mrs SH 20 Black, Mrs SH, guard W & J Black 20 Bohannen Wm B 32 Bohannon, WB agt Mrs Quarles 28 Brown RR 20 Brown, RR 20 Bryan WJ 38 Bryan Wm J 40 Burney Irene 38 Burney D, agt E Burney 34 Campbell James 46 Campbell, James 46 Coffee Aaron 24 Coffee, Aaron 19 Coffee, Estate 133 Coffee, Aaron adm TJ Coffee 48 Coffee, Aaron adm Mrs MG Coffee 77 Collins RM 77 Collins, RM 70 Desel & Pro 29 Desel & Pro 25 Drayton THM 54 Drayton, Thomas HM 56 Durant JA 42 Durant, JA 3 Durant, JA agt W Cooper 38 Gaines WBP 47 Gaines, WBP 46 Gill WF 39 Gill, Mrs WF 36 Harrison E 31 Harrison, Elgey 26 Herndon Jno H 30 Herndon, John H 16 Herndon, John H admst 32 Hill, estate EM 66 Hill, Wm G 66 Jackson Abner (Retnine? Place) 105 Jackson, Abner 175 Jackson Abner (Darrington Place) 96 Jackson Abner (Lake Place) 84 Jones JH 23 Jones, John H 24 Jordan Levi 134 Jordan, Levi 128 Kennedy Wm (Buckfort Place) 42 Kennedy, Wm 120 Kennedy Wm 88 Kyle Ellen 53 Kyle, Wm R 48 Kyle, Terry & Sharpe 75 Kyle, Terry, & Sharp 78 Lewis Ira R 29 Lewis, Ira 10 Lewis, Ira agt Mrs Lewis 20 Maner Estate 35 Brooks, John Revt Maner Estate 34

149 Name (last, first) Slaves Relate Records in Tax Rolls Slaves McGrew John M 24 McGrew 22 McLinn JD 29 Michlin, JD 26 McNeil JG 176 McNeel J Greenville 170 McNeil SH 57 McNeel J Greenville, ext SH McNeel 60 Mills DG (Sowwood Place) 152 Mills, R & DG 305 Mills DG (Bynum Place) 120 Mills DG (Palo Alto Place) 31 Mims Alex 103 Mims, Mrs Sarah 95 Morris A 35 Morris, AT 24 Munson GB 30 Munson, GB 35 Munson MS 28 Munson, MS 24 Norris HC 20 Norris, Mrs HC 16 Norris, John H 5 Patton CF 43 Patton, Charles F 23 Perry SS 63 Perry, Stephen S 24 Perry, Stephen S Extr James F Perry 41 Rose WA 41 Rose, WA 35 Rowe S 39 Rowe, Shadrach 33 Smith Geo A 54 Smith, Geo A 51 Spencer Joel 102 Spencer, Joel 101 Staton JM 20 Staton, James M 20 Stephens E 25 Stephens, E 24 Stringfellow C 25 Stringfellow, C 24 Sweeney John 48 Sweney, John 48 Sweeney JW 26 Sweeney, JW 24 Sweeney SP 34 Sweeney, SP 32 Sweeney Thos J 39 Sweeney, Thomas J 36 Tankersley GG 64 Tankersley, GG 60 Terry AJ 23 Terry, AJ 20 Tillman Frank 23 Tilman, Frank 22 Tinsley IT 31 Tinsley, Isaac T 30 Towns RJ 44 Towns, RJ 46 Underwood A 39 Underwood, A 37 Ward Wm 64 Ward, Wm 62 Weems AO 26 Weems, Mrs AO 3 Westall AE 35 Westall, AE 32 Westall, AE guard AE Westall 5 Westall AE, guard Eliza Westall 3 Wharton Jno A 133 Wharton, John A 133 Wilson JE 31 Wilson, Joseph E 31 Winston Anthony 23 Winston, Anthony 23 Winston Fountain 21 Winston, Fountain 23 Winston Lafayette 66 Winston, LayFayette 26 Yerby Jane 22 Yerby, RM by adm A Underwood 18 Young Overton 44 Young, Overton 27

150 Table C.2

Census Data for final Population Group- Brazoria County Name (last, first) Age Birth Place Profession Armstrong Geo 44 TN Planter Bates Joseph 55 AL Planter Black SH 47 AL Planter Brown Reuben R 45 GA Planter Bryan Wm Joel 45 MO Planter Burney Irene 46 LA Planter Campbell James 60 NC Planter Coffee TJ & MG, estate Collins RM 45 NY Planter Cooper JW Gaines WBP 50 SC Planter Gill WF 59 LA Planter Harrison E 50 KY Planter Hill, estate EM Jackson Abner 50 VA Planter Jones JH 54 SC Planter Jordan Levi 66 GA Planter Kennedy Wm R 22 SC Planter Kyle Ellen 24 MS Planter McNeel JG 58 KY Planter McNeel LH 22 TX Planter Mills DG 46 KY Planter Mims Sarah 55 AL (son, Alex, is Planter Morris AT 40 PN Doctor & Planter Munson Girard B 31 TX Planter Munson MS 35 TX Planter Norris Mrs HC & John 60 GA (son, John, is Planter) Patton CF 36 KY Planter Perry SS 35 MO Planter Perry est of JF Quarles Mrs Emily 37 GA (none) Rowe Shadrach 59 GA Planter Smith Geo A 56 VA Planter Spencer Joel 65 SC Planter Stephens E 50 VA Planter Stringfellow C 42 GA Planter Sweeney John 38 TN Planter Sweeney JW 26 TN Planter Sweeney Samuel P 33 TN Planter Sweeney Thos J 42 TN Planter Tankersley GG 67 GA Planter Terry AJ 31 MS Planter Tinsley Isaac T 60 TN Planter Underwood A 50 MA Merchant Ward Wm 22 AL Planter Westall AE 46 TN Planter Wharton Jno A 29 TN Lawyer & Planter Winston Anthony 37 AL Planter

151 Name (last, first) Age Birth Place Profession Winston Fountain 28 AL Planter Winston Lafayette 25 AL Planter Yerby Jane 45 TN (none) Young Overton 35 GA Planter

152 Table C.3

Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Brazoria County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

- Munson MS 0 7 7 8 8 8 Stephens E 0 2 5 16 16 14 17 Sweeney John 0 7 9 9 12 7 17 17 Sweeney JW 0 6 8 8 8 9 9 10 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 7 7 10 9

Armstrong Geo 7 10 11 11 11 21 21 21 Bryan WJ 7 7 7 7 7 8 14 21 Jones JH 9 Patton CF 2 11 10 13 15 14 12 Perry SS 10 7 8 9 7 Stringfellow C 3 3 3 0 7 8 8 9 Sweeney Thos J 8 7 9 10 10 10 12 Terry AJ

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 2 2 2 2 7 7 8.5 9

Gaines WBP 14 18 18 18 20 36 36 35

Harrison E 11 12 12 12 12 14 15 17 Norris Mrs HC & John 11 10 18 18 17 13 17 20 Winston Fountain 18 Planters Winston Lafayette InitialSmall Yerby Jane (wife of RM) 19

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

- Munson MS 8 16 16 25 24 24 24 Stephens E 19 21 21 21 23 24 Sweeney John 21 22 30 38 40 48 48 Sweeney JW 11 15 21 21 19 23 24 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 9 8 14 19 21 29 32

Armstrong Geo 20 23 23 25 25 38 37 Bryan WJ 22 23 24 25 45 39 40 Jones JH 10 10 12 12 14 14 24 Patton CF 14 16 16 15 19 21 23 Perry SS 9 10 10 12 26 21 24 Stringfellow C 13 15 20 24 24 24 24 Sweeney Thos J 12 13 19 35 35 35 36 Terry AJ 7 7 13 14 18 19 20

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 9 9 22 23 38 38 37

Gaines WBP 36 36 36 38 39 39 46

Harrison E 20 21 23 24 26 26 28 Norris Mrs HC & John 20 19 18 18 19 15 21 Winston Fountain 18 1 16 21 22 22 23 Planters Winston Lafayette 15 20 25 26 26 26 InitialSmall Yerby Jane (wife of RM) 19 18 18 18 18 18 18

153 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Bates Joseph 31 31 Black SH 0 70 70 70 70 70 70 Brown RR 22 22 20 19 20 20 20 20 Burney Irene 35 Campbell James InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 120 Collins RM 20 21 21 21 21 21 23 23

Cooper JW 26 26 30 30 Gill WF 33 36 Hill, estate Wm G 35 36 39 46 47 47 51 51 Jackson Abner 120 172 85 85 85 85 86 Jordan Levi 81 98 98 93 Kennedy Wm Kyle Wm R 26 25 25 25 30 28 27 McNeil JG 58 62 67 70 63 83 93 93 McNeil LH 21 22 22 31 31 50 50 51 Mills DG 155 167 200 225 230 265 256 260 Mims Sarah 65 75 75 75 75 90 90 90 Morris AT 0 Munson GB 28 27 32 33 34 43 43 35 Perry est of JF 34 41 45 40 40 39 39 36 Quarles Mrs 20 15 15 Rowe S 34 31 30 30 30 Smith Geo A Spencer Joel 40 50 48 48 58 74 76 76 Tankersley GG 38 Tinsley IT 29 33 33 33 29 30 30 29 Ward Wm 42 51 Westall AE 20 20 20 24 27 26 26 34 Wharton Jno A 58 58 58 58 58 60 82 82 Winston Anthony 22 34 Young Overton & Ann

154 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Bates Joseph 31 29 29 29 31 32 Black SH 70 70 70 68 68 40 40 Brown RR 20 20 22 20 20 20 Burney Irene 34 34 33 36 31 34 34 Campbell James 2 45 43 42 42 46 InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 117 117 117 105 115 124 125 Collins RM 26 26 26 29 29 70 70

Cooper JW 31 32 31 33 34 35 36 Gill WF 27 27 36 36 36 36 36 Hill, estate Wm G 51 62 65 62 66 66 66 Jackson Abner 88 88 112 147 175 175 175 Jordan Levi 101 105 104 111 115 122 128 Kennedy Wm 66 83 87 74 86 87 120 Kyle Wm R 40 40 45 46 47 48 48 McNeil JG 93 102 99 148 163 170 170 McNeil LH 51 51 51 51 65 60 60 Mills DG 260 268 291 291 294 298 305 Mims Sarah 90 90 94 100 105 91 95 Morris AT 23 24 25 27 27 27 24 Munson GB 36 39 29 31 30 33 35 Perry est of JF 38 38 43 43 44 37 41 Quarles Mrs 18 18 20 21 22 25 28 Rowe S 32 33 32 32 33 34 33 Smith Geo A 40 51 51 51 Spencer Joel 76 95 101 101 101 101 101 Tankersley GG 38 43 41 43 58 62 60 Tinsley IT 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 Ward Wm 50 50 50 51 56 56 62 Westall AE 34 34 35 35 33 33 32 Wharton Jno A 82 110 112 112 130 130 133 Winston Anthony 34 21 12 15 22 22 23 Young Overton & Ann 26 26 25 25 27

155 Table C.4

Annual Rates of Change in Slaves Owned (as a percentage)- Brazoria County Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

- Munson MS - 0 14.3 0 0 Stephens E - 150 220 0 -12.5 21.4 Sweeney John - 28.6 0 33.3 -41.7 143 0 Sweeney JW - 33.3 0 0 12.5 0 11.1 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP - 0 42.9 -10

Armstrong Geo 42.9 10 0 0 90.9 0 0 Bryan WJ 0 0 0 0 14.3 75 50 Jones JH Patton CF 450 -9.09 30 15.4 -6.67 -7.42 Perry SS -30 14.3 12.5 -22.2 Stringfellow C 0 0 -100 - 14.3 0 12.5 Sweeney Thos J -12.5 28.6 5.41 0 0 20 Terry AJ

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 0 0 0 250 0 21.4 5.88

Gaines WBP 28.6 0 0 11.1 80 0 -2.78

Harrison E 9.09 0 0 0 16.7 7.14 13.3 Norris Mrs HC & John -9.09 80 0 -5.56 -23.5 30.8 17.6 Winston Fountain Planters Winston Lafayette InitialSmall Yerby Jane (wife of RM)

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

- Munson MS 0 41.42 56.3 -4 0 0 Stephens E 11.8 5.13 0 0 9.52 4.35 Sweeney John 23.5 4.76 36.4 26.7 5.26 20 0 Sweeney JW 10 36.4 40 0 -9.52 21.1 4.35 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 -11.1 75 35.7 10.5 38.1 10.3

Armstrong Geo -4.76 15 0 8.7 0 52 -2.63 Bryan WJ 4.76 4.55 4.35 4.17 80 -13.3 2.56 Jones JH 11.1 0 20 0 16.7 0 71.4 Patton CF 16.7 14.3 0 -6.25 26.7 10.5 9.52 Perry SS 28.6 11.1 0 20 117 -19.2 14.3 Stringfellow C 44.4 15.4 33.3 20 0 0 0 Sweeney Thos J 0 8.33 46.2 84.2 0 0 2.86 Terry AJ 0 85.7 7.69 28.6 5.56 5.26

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 0 0 144 4.55 65.2 0 -2.63

Gaines WBP 2.86 0 0 5.56 2.63 0 17.9

Harrison E 17.6 5 9.52 4.35 8.33 0 7.69 Norris Mrs HC & John 0 -5 -5.26 0 5.56 -21.1 40 Winston Fountain 0 -94.4 1500 31.3 4.76 0 4.55 Planters Winston Lafayette 33.3 25 4 0 0 InitialSmall Yerby Jane (wife of RM) 0 -5.26 0 0 0 0 0

156 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Bates Joseph 0 Black SH - 0 0 0.00 0 0 Brown RR 0 -9.09 -5 5.26 0 0 0 Burney Irene Campbell James InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.8 Collins RM 5 0 0 0 0 9.52 0

Cooper JW 0 15.4 0 Gill WF 9.09 Hill, estate Wm G 2.86 8.33 17.9 2.17 0 8.51 0 Jackson Abner 43.3 -50.6 0 0 0 1.18 Jordan Levi 21 0 -5.1 Kennedy Wm Kyle Wm R -3.85 0 0 20 -6.67 -3.57 McNeil JG 6.9 8.06 4.48 -10 31.7 12 0 McNeil LH 4.76 0 40.9 0 61.3 0 2 Mills DG 7.74 19.8 12.5 2.22 15.2 -3.4 1.56 Mims Sarah 15.4 0 0 0 20 0 0 Morris AT Munson GB -3.57 18.5 3.13 3.03 26.5 0 -18.6 Perry est of JF 20.6 9.76 -11.1 0 -2.5 0 -7.69 Quarles Mrs -25 0 Rowe S -8.82 -3.23 0 0 Smith Geo A Spencer Joel 25 -4 0 20.8 27.6 2.7 0 Tankersley GG Tinsley IT 13.8 0 0 -12.1 3.45 0 -3.33 Ward Wm 21.4 Westall AE 0 0 20 12.5 -3.7 0 30.8 Wharton Jno A 0 0 0 0 3.45 36.7 0 Winston Anthony 54.5 Young Overton & Ann

157 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Bates Joseph 0 -6.45 0 0 6.9 1.60 Black SH 0 0 0 -2.86 0 -41.2 0 Brown RR 0 0 4.88 -9.09 0 0 Burney Irene -2.86 0 -2.94 9.09 -13.9 9.68 0 Campbell James 2150 -4.44 -2.33 0 9.52 InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG -2.5 0 0 -10.3 9.52 7.83 0.81 Collins RM 13 0 0 11.5 0 141 0 Cooper JW 3.33 3.23 -3.13 6.45 3.03 2.94 2.86 Gill WF -25 0 33.3 0 0 0 0 Hill, estate Wm G 0 21.6 4.84 -4.62 6.45 0 0 Jackson Abner 1.16 0 27.3 31.3 19 0 0 Jordan Levi 8.6 3.96 -0.95 6.73 3.6 6.09 4.92 Kennedy Wm 25.8 4.82 -14.9 16.2 1.16 37.9 Kyle Wm R 21.72 0 12.5 2.22 2.17 2.13 0 McNeil JG 0 9.68 -2.94 49.5 10.1 4.29 0 McNeil LH 0 0 0 0 27.5 -7.69 0 Mills DG 0 3.08 8.58 0 1.03 1.36 2.35 Mims Sarah 0 0 4.44 6.38 5 -13.3 4.4 Morris AT - 4.35 4.17 8 0 0 -11.1 Munson GB 2.86 8.33 -25.6 6.9 -3.23 10 6.06 Perry est of JF 5.56 0 13.2 0 2.33 -15.9 10.8 Quarles Mrs 20 0 11.1 5 4.76 13.6 12 Rowe S 6.67 3.13 -3.03 0 3.13 3.03 -2.94 Smith Geo A 27.5 0 0 Spencer Joel 0 25 6.32 0 0 0 0 Tankersley GG 0 13.2 -4.65 4.88 34.9 6.9 -3.23 Tinsley IT 0 0 0 0 3.45 0 0 Ward Wm -1.96 0 0 2 9.8 0 10.7 Westall AE 0 0 2.94 0 -5.71 0 -3.03 Wharton Jno A 0 34.1 1.82 0 16.1 0 2.31 Winston Anthony 0 -38.2 -42.9 25 46.7 0 4.55 Young Overton & Ann 0 -3.85 0 8

158 Table C.5

Value of Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Brazoria County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

- Munson MS 0 210 3100 4000 4000 4500 Stephens E 0 800 1500 5400 5400 5600 6875 Sweeney John 0 2800 2800 2800 5800 10200 10200 11900 Sweeney JW 0 2400 2450 2450 3540 3600 3600 5500 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 3800 3800 5000 6300

Armstrong Geo 1900 2700 3400 3400 4400 9000 9000 10300 Bryan WJ 2100 2100 2500 2500 2800 3200 7000 12000 Jones JH 7200 Patton CF 1000 3500 3500 3700 7200 7000 7500 Perry SS 2400 3100 3400 4300 4500 Stringfellow C 500 500 500 0 1850 1800 3000 3600 Sweeney Thos J 3200 3180 3750 4600 5250 4600 8000 Terry AJ

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 700 700 1000 1000 3600 3600 4000 5200

Gaines WBP 4000 5400 5100 5100 8400 17000 17000 20000

Harrison E 3300 3600 3600 3600 4800 5600 8000 9600 Norris HC & John 3350 3150 5700 5700 6900 9000 6800 11800 Winston Fountain 9000 Planters Winston Lafayette InitialSmall Yerby Jane 7600

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

- Munson MS 4500 6400 12500 12000 12000 12000 Stephens E 7600 10500 10500 10500 12000 14400 Sweeney John 10500 11000 13200 19000 21000 28400 28400 Sweeney JW 5500 6000 8400 8400 5700 10000 10100 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 4500 4000 5600 8550 8900 19200 19200

Armstrong Geo 10000 11000 11000 12500 13500 22800 22800 Bryan WJ 15000 13800 14400 73000 22500 23400 32000 Jones JH 7300 8350 7400 7400 7600 7600 19200 Patton CF 7000 7850 6400 7000 7600 8600 13800 Perry SS 4500 6000 6000 6900 13000 13000 14400 Stringfellow C 5200 6000 8000 10000 9600 9600 14400 Sweeney Thos J 8000 8000 1100 17600 17600 17500 21600 Terry AJ 40000 4000 6500 7000 9000 15200 15000

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 5000 5200 11000 11500 15000 15000 22200

Gaines WBP 20000 20000 20000 21000 21000 21000 34400

Harrison E 9600 14700 16100 16200 11400 11400 18200 Norris HC & John 11100 9100 11750 9750 14700 9000 16000 Winston Fountain 9000 1000 8000 10000 10000 18000 18000 Planters Winston Lafayette 8000 10000 12500 13000 18000 28000 InitialSmall Yerby Jane 7600 9275 9525 9525 9525 9525 11700

159 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Bates Joseph 12410 15000 Black SH 0 23000 23000 23000 28000 29300 42300 Brown RR 7800 7800 6000 5700 9200 9200 9200 1000 Burney Irene 17300 Campbell James InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 37300 37300 37300 37300 35600 35600 35600 66000 Collins RM 6000 6300 6300 6300 6300 6300 6800 11500

Cooper JW 10400 10950 12000 15000 Gill WF 13200 22400 Hill, estate Wm G 10500 10800 11700 14800 18800 18800 19300 20000 Jackson Abner 36000 52600 25500 25500 34000 34000 34400 Jordan Levi 30375 36775 36775 36775 Kennedy Wm Kyle Wm R 7800 7500 7500 7500 10500 11700 10800 McNeil JG 18500 20000 21500 31200 25200 33200 38200 41850 McNeil LH 9425 10000 10000 12000 12400 20000 20000 28000 Mills DG 46500 119100 60000 67500 92000 98000 102400 117000 Mims Sarah 15000 18000 19000 19000 26250 34000 34000 36000 Morris AT 0 Munson GB 8200 8100 9600 9650 13600 17200 17200 17500 Perry est of JF 10400 12300 12300 12000 14000 15600 15600 14400 Quarles Mrs 12000 4500 9500 Rowe S 11500 12200 12000 12000 13000 Smith Geo A Spencer Joel 12100 12000 14400 14400 20300 29600 30400 34200 Tankersley GG 26600 Tinsley IT 8700 9900 9900 9900 17400 17500 17500 20300 Ward Wm 16800 28400 Westall AE 7650 7650 7650 9650 10800 10400 10400 17000 Wharton Jno A 15000 15000 17400 17400 23200 24000 32800 32000 Winston Anthony 8800 17000 Young Overton & Ann

160 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Bates Joseph 15000 14500 14500 14500 14700 19200 Black SH 35000 35000 35000 34000 34000 38000 38000 Brown RR 10000 10000 10500 10000 10000 12000 Burney Irene 16000 16000 14550 17500 15500 17000 20400 Campbell James 1300 22500 21500 22000 22000 27600 InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 40000 50000 62000 50000 69000 86800 83600 Collins RM 11500 11000 12000 13000 14000 32000 42000

Cooper JW 15000 16000 14500 15500 15000 16500 21600 Gill WF 22400 13500 15000 15000 15000 15000 21600 Hill, estate Wm G 20000 31000 31500 31000 33000 33000 39600 Jackson Abner 39600 39600 56000 78500 87500 87500 105000 Jordan Levi 36775 38000 37500 55500 57500 60000 76800 Kennedy Wm 39600 47100 49400 46000 51600 52600 78000 Kyle Wm R 16000 20000 20000 20000 20000 22000 28800 McNeil JG 41850 45900 49500 74000 83666 85000 102000 McNeil LH 28000 28000 21000 26000 31000 31000 36000 Mills DG 117000 108000 121500 145000 147000 164000 183000 Mims Sarah 36000 40000 41776 50000 52500 45500 57500 Morris AT 10000 10000 10000 13500 13500 16000 16200 Munson GB 18400 19500 14500 15500 15000 16500 19200 Perry est of JF 15200 15200 17200 20500 18000 18500 24600 Quarles Mrs 9500 9500 10000 11000 11000 12500 16800 Rowe S 13000 14000 14000 14000 14100 14100 19800 Smith Geo A 20000 25500 26000 30600 Spencer Joel 34200 45000 46500 50000 50000 50000 60600 Tankersley GG 26600 21500 20500 21500 29000 37000 48000 Tinsley IT 20300 20300 20300 20000 21000 21000 21000 Ward Wm 25000 25000 25000 25500 22400 28000 37200 Westall AE 17000 17000 17200 17200 17000 19000 19200 Wharton Jno A 32000 36300 44800 44850 48000 65000 79800 Winston Anthony 17000 14000 8400 8000 9000 14200 16000 Young Overton & Ann 13000 13000 12500 13750 20000

161 Table C.6

Value of Slaves Owned, Adjusted- Brazoria County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

- Munson MS 0 205.4 2766 3076 3137 3102 Stephens E 0 785 1467 4818 4153 4391 4739 Sweeney John 0 2778 2747 2739 5175 7844 7998 8202 Sweeney JW 0 2381 2404 2397 3158 2768 2823 3791 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 3390 2922 3921 4342

Armstrong Geo 1900 2678 3336 3326 3926 6921 7057 7099 Bryan WJ 2100 2083 2453 2446 2498 2461 5489 8271 Jones JH 4963 Patton CF 1000 3472 3434 3620 6424 5383 5169 Perry SS 2348 2766 2615 3372 3102 Stringfellow C 500 496 490.6 0 1651 1384 2352 2481 Sweeney Thos J 3200 3155 3680 4104 4037 3607 5514 Terry AJ

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 700 694.4 981.2 978.3 3212 2768 3137 3584

Gaines WBP 4000 5357 5004 4989 7494 13073 13331 13785

Harrison E 3300 3571 3532 3522 4282 4306 6273 6617 Norris HC & John 3350 3125 5593 5576 6156 6921 5332 8133 Winston Fountain 6203 Planters Winston Lafayette InitialSmall Yerby Jane 5238

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

- Munson MS 2833 4043 7624 7400 6777 5685 Stephens E 4785 6633 6404 6475 6777 6822 Sweeney John 6611 7136 8338 11588 12950 16039 13455 Sweeney JW 3463 3892 5306 5123 3515 5647 4785 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 2833 2595 3537 5215 5488 10843 9096

Armstrong Geo 6296 7136 6949 7624 8325 12876 10802 Bryan WJ 9444 8952 9096 44523 13875 13215 15160 Jones JH 4596 5417 4674 4513 4687 4292 9096 Patton CF 4407 5092 4043 4269 4687 4857 6538 Perry SS 2833 3892 3790 4208 8017 7342 6822 Stringfellow C 3274 3892 5053 6099 5920 5422 6822 Sweeney Thos J 5037 5190 694.9 10734 10854 9883 10233 Terry AJ 25183 2595 4106 4269 5550 8584 7106

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 3148 3373 6949 7014 9250 8471 10517

Gaines WBP 12592 12974 12634 12808 12950 11860 16297

Harrison E 6044 9536 10170 9880 7030 6438 8622 Norris HC & John 6988 5903 7422 5947 9065 5083 7580 Winston Fountain 5666 648.7 5053 6099 6167 10165 8528 Planters Winston Lafayette 5190 6317 7624 8017 10165 13265 InitialSmall Yerby Jane 4785 6017 6017 5809 5874 5379 5543

162 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Bates Joseph 9731 10339 Black SH 0 22816 22568 22501 21532 22976 29155 Brown RR 7800 7738 5887 5576 8208 7075 7214 689.2 Burney Irene 11924 Campbell James InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 37300 37002 36600 36490 31761 27376 27916 45490 Collins RM 6000 6250 6182 6163 5621 4845 5332 7926

Cooper JW 9279 8420 9410 10339 Gill WF 10351 15439 Hill, estate Wm G 10500 10714 11480 14479 16773 14457 15134 13785 Jackson Abner 36000 52179 25021 24946 30334 26146 26975 Jordan Levi 27100 28280 28837 25347 Kennedy Wm Kyle Wm R 7800 7440 7359 7337 9368 8997 8469 McNeil JG 18500 19840 21096 30523 22483 25530 29954 28845 McNeil LH 9425 9920 9812 11739 11063 15380 15683 19299 Mills DG 46500 1E+05 58874 66035 82079 75361 80297 80642 Mims Sarah 15000 17856 18643 18588 23419 26146 26661 24813 Morris AT 0 Munson GB 8200 8035 9420 9441 12133 13227 13487 12062 Perry est of JF 10400 12202 12069 11739 12490 11996 12233 9925 Quarles Mrs 9228 3529 6548 Rowe S 11250 10884 9228 9410 8960 Smith Geo A Spencer Joel 12100 11904 14130 14087 18111 22762 23838 23572 Tankersley GG 18334 Tinsley IT 8700 9821 9714 9685 15524 13457 13723 13992 Ward Wm 13174 19575 Westall AE 7650 7589 7506 9441 9635 7997 8155 11717 Wharton Jno A 15000 14880 17073 17022 20698 18456 25720 22056 Winston Anthony 6901 11717 Young Overton

163 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Bates Joseph 9444 9406 9159 8844 9065 9096 Black SH 22035 22705 22109 20737 20967 21460 18003 Brown RR 6296 6487 6404 6167 5647 5685 Burney Irene 10073 10379 9191 10673 9559 9601 9665 Campbell James 843.3 14213 13113 13567 12424 13076 InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 25183 32436 39164 30495 42551 49020 39606 Collins RM 7240 7136 7580 7929 8633 18072 19898

Cooper JW 9444 10379 9159 9454 9250 9318 10233 Gill WF 14103 8758 9475 9149 9250 8471 10233 Hill, estate Wm G 12592 20110 19898 18907 20350 18637 18761 Jackson Abner 24931 25689 35374 47878 53959 49416 49745 Jordan Levi 23153 24651 23688 33850 35459 33885 36385 Kennedy Wm 24931 30554 31205 28056 31821 29706 36953 Kyle Wm R 10073 12974 12634 12198 12334 12424 13644 McNeil JG 26348 29776 31268 45133 51595 48004 48323 McNeil LH 17628 18164 13265 15858 19117 17507 17055 Mills DG 73660 70061 76750 88436 90652 92619 86698 Mims Sarah 22665 25948 26389 30495 32376 25696 27241 Morris AT 6296 6487 6317 8234 8325 9036 7675 Munson GB 11584 12650 9159 9454 9250 9318 9096 Perry est of JF 9570 9860 10865 12503 11100 10448 11654 Quarles Mrs 5981 6163 6317 6709 6783 7059 7959 Rowe S 8184 9082 8844 8539 8695 7963 9380 Smith Geo A 12198 15725 14683 14497 Spencer Joel 21532 29192 29373 30495 30834 28237 28710 Tankersley GG 16747 13947 12950 13113 17884 20896 22740 Tinsley IT 12780 13169 12823 12198 12950 11860 9949 Ward Wm 15739 16218 15792 15553 13814 15813 17624 Westall AE 10703 11028 10865 10490 10484 10730 9096 Wharton Jno A 20146 23548 28299 27354 29601 36709 37806 Winston Anthony 10703 9082 5306 4879 5550 8019 7580 Young Overton 8212 7929 7708 7765 9475

164 Table C.7

Annual Rates of Change in Adjusted Value of Slaves Owned- Brazoria County Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

- Munson MS - 1246 11.2 1.97 -1.12 Stephens E - 86.9 228 -13.8 5.75 7.91 Sweeney John - -1.09 -0.3 88.9 51.6 1.97 2.55 Sweeney JW - 0.97 -0.3 31.8 -12.3 1.97 34.3 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP - -13.8 34.2 10.8

Armstrong Geo 41 24.6 -0.3 18 76.3 1.97 0.59 Bryan WJ -0.8 17.8 -0.3 2.14 -1.49 123 50.7 Jones JH Patton CF 247 -1.09 5.4 77.5 -16.2 -2.00 Perry SS 17.8 -5.47 29 -8.01 Stringfellow C -0.8 -1.09 -100 - -16.1 70 5.48 Sweeney Thos J -1.42 16.6 5.61 -1.63 -10.7 52.9 Terry AJ

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A -0.8 41.3 -0.3 228 -13.8 13.3 14.3

Gaines WBP 33.9 -6.58 -0.3 50.2 74.4 1.97 3.41

Harrison E 8.22 -1.09 -0.3 21.6 0.56 45.7 5.48 Norris HC & John -6.72 79 -0.3 10.4 12.4 -23 52.5 Winston Fountain Planters Winston Lafayette InitialSmall Yerby Jane

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

- Munson MS -8.66 19.46 88.6 -2.93 -8.42 -16.1 Stephens E 0.98 17.74 -3.45 1.11 4.66 0.67 Sweeney John -19.4 7.95 16.9 39 11.8 23.9 -16.1 Sweeney JW -8.66 12.4 36.3 -3.45 -31.4 60.7 -15.3 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP -34.8 -8.41 36.3 47.4 5.25 97.6 -16.1

Armstrong Geo -11.3 13.3 -2.62 9.72 9.2 54.7 -16.1 Bryan WJ 14.2 -5.2 1.61 389 -68.8 -4.76 14.7 Jones JH -7.39 17.9 -13.7 -3.45 3.84 -8.42 112 Patton CF -14.7 15.6 -20.6 5.6 9.78 3.63 34.6 Perry SS -8.66 37.4 -2.62 11 90.5 -8.42 -7.08 Stringfellow C 31.9 18.9 29.8 20.7 -2.93 -8.42 25.8 Sweeney Thos J -8.66 3.04 -86.6 1445 1.11 -8.94 3.54 Terry AJ -89.7 58.2 3.98 30 54.7 -17.2

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A -12.2 7.16 106 0.94 31.9 -8.42 24.2

Gaines WBP -8.66 3.04 -2.62 1.38 1.11 -8.42 37.4

Harrison E -8.66 57.8 6.65 -2.85 -28.8 -8.42 33.9 Norris HC & John -14.1 -15.5 25.7 -19.9 52.4 -43.9 49.1 Winston Fountain -8.66 -88.6 679 20.7 1.11 64.8 -16.1 Planters Winston Lafayette 21.7 20.7 5.15 26.8 30.5 InitialSmall Yerby Jane -8.66 25.7 0 -3.45 1.11 -8.42 3.04

165 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Bates Joseph 6.24 Black SH - -1.09 -0.3 -2.18 6.71 26.9 Brown RR -0.8 -23.9 -5.28 47.2 -13.8 1.97 -90.4 Burney Irene Campbell James InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG -0.8 -1.09 -0.3 -13 -13.8 1.97 63 Collins RM 4.16 -1.09 -0.3 -8.8 -13.8 10.1 48.7

Cooper JW -9.25 11.7 9.87 Gill WF 49.2 Hill, estate Wm G 2.03 7.16 26.1 15.8 -13.8 4.68 -8.91 Jackson Abner 44.9 -52 -0.3 21.6 -13.8 3.17 Jordan Levi 4.35 1.97 -12.1 Kennedy Wm Kyle Wm R -4.62 -1.09 -0.3 27.7 -3.96 -5.87 McNeil JG 7.24 6.33 44.7 -26.3 13.6 17.3 -3.7 McNeil LH 5.25 -1.09 19.6 -5.76 39 1.97 23.1 Mills DG 154 -50.2 12.2 24.3 -8.19 6.55 0.43 Mims Sarah 19 4.41 -0.3 26 11.6 1.97 -6.93 Morris AT Munson GB -2.01 17.2 0.22 28.5 9.01 1.97 -10.6 Perry est of JF 17.3 -1.09 -2.73 6.4 -3.96 1.97 -18.9 Quarles Mrs -61.8 85.6 Rowe S -3.25 -15.2 1.97 -4.78 Smith Geo A Spencer Joel -1.62 18.7 -0.3 28.6 25.7 4.73 -1.12 Tankersley GG Tinsley IT 12.9 -1.09 -0.3 60.3 -13.3 1.97 1.96 Ward Wm 48.6 Westall AE -0.8 -1.09 25.8 2.06 -17 1.97 43.7 Wharton Jno A -0.8 14.7 -0.3 21.6 -10.8 39.4 -14.2 Winston Anthony 69.8 Young Overton

166 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Bates Joseph -8.66 -0.4 -2.62 -3.45 2.5 0.17 Black SH -24.4 3.04 -2.62 -6.21 1.11 2.35 -16.1 Brown RR 813 3.04 -0.64 -3.7 -8.42 0.67 Burney Irene -15.5 3.04 -11.4 16.1 -10.4 0.44 0.67 Campbell James 1585 -7.74 3.46 -8.42 5.24 InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG -44.6 28.8 20.7 -22.1 39.5 15.2 -19.2 Collins RM -8.66 -1.44 6.23 4.6 8.89 109 10.1

Cooper JW -8.66 9.91 -11.8 3.21 -2.15 0.74 9.82 Gill WF -8.66 -37.9 8.19 -3.45 1.11 -8.42 20.8 Hill, estate Wm G -8.66 59.7 -1.05 -4.98 7.63 -8.42 0.67 Jackson Abner -3.86 3.04 37.7 35.3 12.7 -8.42 0.67 Jordan Levi -8.66 6.47 -3.91 42.9 4.75 -4.44 7.38 Kennedy Wm 22.6 2.13 -10.1 13.4 -6.65 24.4 Kyle Wm R 9.06 28.8 -2.62 -3.45 1.11 0.74 9.82 McNeil JG -8.66 13 5.01 44.3 14.3 -6.96 0.67 McNeil LH -8.66 3.04 -27 19.5 20.6 -8.42 -2.58 Mills DG -8.66 -4.89 9.55 15.2 2.5 2.17 -6.39 Mims Sarah -8.66 14.5 1.7 15.6 6.17 -20.6 6.01 Morris AT - 3.04 -2.62 30.3 1.11 8.54 -15.1 Munson GB -3.96 9.2 -27.6 3.21 -2.15 0.74 -2.38 Perry est of JF -3.58 3.04 10.2 15.1 -11.2 -5.88 11.5 Quarles Mrs -8.66 3.04 2.5 6.21 1.11 4.07 12.7 Rowe S -8.66 11 -2.62 -3.45 1.83 -8.42 17.8 Smith Geo A 28.9 -6.63 -1.27 Spencer Joel -8.66 35.6 0.62 3.82 1.11 -8.42 1.67 Tankersley GG -8.66 -16.7 -7.15 1.26 36.4 16.8 8.83 Tinsley IT -8.66 3.04 -2.62 -4.87 6.17 -8.42 -16.1 Ward Wm -19.6 3.04 -2.62 -1.52 -11.2 14.5 11.5 Westall AE -8.66 3.04 -1.48 -3.45 -0.07 2.35 -15.2 Wharton Jno A -8.66 16.9 20.2 -3.34 8.21 24 2.99 Winston Anthony -8.66 -15.1 -41.6 -8.05 13.7 44.5 -5.48 Young Overton -3.45 -2.78 0.74 22

167 Table C.8

Value of Acreage- Brazoria County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

- Munson MS 4000 4000 2900 1200 3200 3200 Stephens E 0 400 400 1500 1500 3372 3372 Sweeney John 6000 6900 6900 6900 6900 6900 6900 6900 Sweeney JW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 0 0 0 0

Armstrong Geo 1600 1280 1600 0 1600 3200 3200 4350 Bryan WJ 0 8000 6000 6000 6000 6400 17000 17000 Jones JH 2280 Patton CF 0 0 0 0 0 2000 3750 Perry SS 7572 7472 10300 22306 22306 Stringfellow C 0 0 0 0 0 0 3000 3000 Sweeney Thos J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terry AJ

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 2107 4321 5184 2601 4077 4087 7668 7880

Gaines WBP 7000 10000 7000 7000 7000 8112 8112 6445

Harrison E 4232 8463 8463 8463 8460 8463 8433 8433 Norris HC & John 2000 2000 3000 8000 8000 5000 4000 4000 Winston Fountain 3000 Planters Winston Lafayette InitialSmall Yerby Jane 0

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

- Munson MS 3200 3200 3200 3346 3340 11500 Stephens E 3372 3372 3379 3372 4000 11240 Sweeney John 6900 8256 8256 11070 12070 17712 30000 Sweeney JW 0 0 5061 4753 3734 3734 9195 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 0 6019 5959 6269 7032 17772

Armstrong Geo 4350 5100 5100 5100 5100 6960 11000 Bryan WJ 17400 28680 25863 25263 26060 36347 80695 Jones JH 5610 6718 6718 6718 6718 7100 17200 Patton CF 3750 4500 4480 4480 6000 0 0 Perry SS 22307 25907 19129 18160 18160 25566 40095 Stringfellow C 4000 3300 4000 5500 5000 5000 5000 Sweeney Thos J 0 0 5057 9077 8984 8981 26027 Terry AJ 9000 9000 9000 9000 8000 30000 50000

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 7380 8180 8394 9054 9954 7964 25420

Gaines WBP 11460 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 30000

Harrison E 8433 7828 7828 8000 8000 8000 20000 Norris HC & John 4000 4000 4000 4000 8000 0 6000 Winston Fountain 3000 0 3330 7001 7000 15000 15000 Planters Winston Lafayette 0 0 6665 6665 15000 15000 InitialSmall Yerby Jane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

168 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Bates Joseph 10000 11300 Black SH 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5190 12000 Brown RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burney Irene 7000 Campbell James InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 0 0 0 0 5000 9736 8675 9670 Collins RM 3000 3000 3000 4350 1600 1600 1600 3600

Cooper JW 3634 3630 3634 4008 Gill WF 0 10000 Hill, estate Wm G 15486 16845 13264 20032 31012 31012 27732 26074 Jackson Abner 30292 30292 11925 11025 12000 18000 19000 Jordan Levi 11105 12005 11105 11105 Kennedy Wm Kyle Wm R 7200 7200 9670 9270 4800 4800 2000 McNeil JG 31070 14070 20265 19708 19253 20553 34573 49673 McNeil LH 30310 12810 16810 17310 18573 18570 32493 42490 Mills DG 54156 56406 65187 63937 73527 76500 94000 111700 Mims Sarah 8112 11184 12184 10852 10000 24248 24248 24248 Morris AT 3000 Munson GB 15135 13217 18484 14240 16560 16560 16560 40716 Perry est of JF 19922 35242 32872 25432 25531 35901 28365 28365 Quarles Mrs 0 2200 4480 Rowe S 3570 3570 3575 3375 11440 Smith Geo A Spencer Joel 4618 4613 5920 5920 12600 14100 15650 14800 Tankersley GG 8000 Tinsley IT 12437 11500 11500 11500 13387 16387 13380 13387 Ward Wm 0 0 Westall AE 6713 6713 6713 6506 6813 6939 14990 40454 Wharton Jno A 14875 13107 14875 12000 12000 12688 20672 1892 Winston Anthony 9080 9080 Young Overton

169 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Bates Joseph 11300 17000 17000 17000 17000 17000 Black SH 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 10000 10000 Brown RR 0 0 881 881 881 3540 Burney Irene 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campbell James 600 7865 20000 20000 20000 30000 InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 5200 16000 16000 25640 25640 52000 52000 Collins RM 4400 4600 4600 4600 4600 10600 35600

Cooper JW 4000 4033 4033 4550 4350 5300 16000 Gill WF 10000 10000 8000 8000 8000 10000 20000 Hill, estate Wm G 23486 31171 31050 31030 32747 32842 67182 Jackson Abner 26260 31000 31000 94200 102300 102300 167100 Jordan Levi 21105 30000 30000 40000 40000 40000 40000 Kennedy Wm 11808 11808 11808 11000 12000 15000 68620 Kyle Wm R 0 0 7000 7500 7500 10000 15000 McNeil JG 56743 32852 26019 43723 46968 46998 79730 McNeil LH 32485 36308 36683 39733 28176 39177 40617 Mills DG 112096 113450 128600 132035 113710 146710 228777 Mims Sarah 24248 24248 27137 40376 40376 38400 46656 Morris AT 6000 6000 6600 5700 5700 10000 16000 Munson GB 40716 40716 40716 40716 40716 40716 56937 Perry est of JF 28365 42974 40999 43074 37280 50442 82190 Quarles Mrs 4480 4480 4000 4000 4000 6720 11200 Rowe S 11440 15000 15000 15000 15000 15000 28600 Smith Geo A 18642 18642 24856 60000 Spencer Joel 14800 15800 15000 15000 15000 16000 27000 Tankersley GG 8000 8000 8000 10000 10000 12000 15000 Tinsley IT 13613 13613 13613 13613 17384 17384 34400 Ward Wm 0 0 0 0 15000 15000 42440 Westall AE 40454 30454 39327 39327 39327 39327 42227 Wharton Jno A 12692 35692 40704 40704 40704 52304 63704 Winston Anthony 9080 15080 18000 6000 6000 6000 15000 Young Overton 0 0 0 0 20000

170 Table C.9

Annual Rates of Change in Value of Acreage (as a percentage)- Brazoria County Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

- Munson MS 0 -27.5 -58.6 167 0 Stephens E - 0 275 0 125 0 Sweeney John 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweeney JW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 0 0 0

Armstrong Geo -20 25 -100 - 100 0 35.9 Bryan WJ - -25 0 0 6.67 166 0 Jones JH Patton CF 0 0 0 0 - 36.93 Perry SS -1.32 37.8 117 0 Stringfellow C 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 Sweeney Thos J 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terry AJ

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 105 20 -49.8 56.7 0.25 87.6 2.76

Gaines WBP 42.9 -30 0 0 15.9 0 -20.5

Harrison E 100 0 0 -0.04 0.04 -0.35 0 Norris HC & John 0 50 167 0 -37.5 -20 0 Winston Fountain Planters Winston Lafayette InitialSmall Yerby Jane

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

- Munson MS 0 0.00 0 4.56 -0.18 244 Stephens E 0 0.00 0.21 -0.21 18.6 181 Sweeney John 0 19.7 0 34.1 9.03 46.7 69.4 Sweeney JW 0 0 - -6.09 -21.4 0 146 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 0 - -1 5.2 12.2 153

Armstrong Geo 0 17.2 0 0 0 36.5 58 Bryan WJ 2.35 64.8 -9.82 -2.32 3.15 39.5 122 Jones JH 146 19.8 0 0 0 5.69 142 Patton CF 0 20 -0.44 0 33.9 -100 0 Perry SS 0 16.1 -26.2 -5.07 0 40.8 56.8 Stringfellow C 33.3 -17.5 21.2 37.5 -9.09 0 0 Sweeney Thos J 0 0 0 79.5 -1.02 -0.03 190 Terry AJ 0 0 0 -11.1 275 66.7

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A -6.35 10.8 2.62 7.86 9.94 -20 219

Gaines WBP 77.8 4.71 0 0 0 0 150

Harrison E 0 -7.17 0 2.2 0 0 150 Norris HC & John 0 0 0 0 100 -100 - Winston Fountain 0 -100 - 110 -0.01 114 0 Planters Winston Lafayette 0 - 0 125 0 InitialSmall Yerby Jane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

171 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Bates Joseph 13 Black SH 0 0 0 0 3.8 131 Brown RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burney Irene Campbell James InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 0 0 0 - 94.7 -10.9 11.5 Collins RM 0 0 45 -63.2 0 0 125

Cooper JW -0.11 0.11 10.3 Gill WF - Hill, estate Wm G 8.78 -21.3 51 54.8 0 -10.6 -5.98 Jackson Abner 0 -60.6 -7.55 8.84 50 5.56 Jordan Levi 8.1 -7.5 0 Kennedy Wm Kyle Wm R 0 34.3 -4.14 -48.2 0 -58.3 McNeil JG -54.7 44 -2.75 -2.31 6.75 8825 -97.3 McNeil LH -57.7 31.2 2.97 7.3 -0.02 75 30.8 Mills DG 4.15 15.6 -1.92 15 4.04 22.9 18.8 Mims Sarah 37.9 8.94 -10.9 -7.85 142 0 0 Morris AT Munson GB -12.7 39.9 -23 16.3 0 0 146 Perry est of JF 76.9 -6.72 -22.6 0.39 40.6 -21 0 Quarles Mrs - 104 Rowe S 0 0.14 -5.59 239 Smith Geo A Spencer Joel -0.11 28.3 0 113 11.9 11 -5.43 Tankersley GG Tinsley IT -7.53 0 0 16.4 22.4 -18.3 0.05 Ward Wm 0 Westall AE 0 0 -3.08 4.72 1.85 116 170 Wharton Jno A -11.9 13.5 -19.3 0 5.73 62.9 -90.8 Winston Anthony 0 Young Overton

172 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Bates Joseph 0 50.4 0 0 0 0.00 Black SH 0 0 0 0 0 -16.7 0 Brown RR 0 0 - 0 0 302 Burney Irene -100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campbell James 1211 154 0 0 50 InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG -46.2 208 0 60.3 0 103 0 Collins RM 22.2 4.55 0 0 0 130 236

Cooper JW -0.2 0.83 0 12.8 -4.4 21.8 202 Gill WF 0 0 -20 0 0 25 100 Hill, estate Wm G -9.93 32.7 -0.39 -0.06 5.53 0.29 105 Jackson Abner 17.56 18.1 0 204 8.6 0 63.3 Jordan Levi 90 42.1 0 33.3 0 0 0 Kennedy Wm 0 0 -6.84 9.09 25 357 Kyle Wm R -100 0 - 7.14 0 33.3 50 McNeil JG 14.2 -42.1 -20.8 68 7.42 0.06 69.6 McNeil LH -23.5 11.8 1.03 8.31 -29.1 39 3.68 Mills DG 0.35 1.21 13.4 2.67 -13.9 29 55.9 Mims Sarah 0 0 11.9 48.8 0 -4.89 21.5 Morris AT - 0 10 -13.6 0 75.4 60 Munson GB 0 0 0 0 0 0 39.8 Perry est of JF 0 51.5 -4.6 5.06 -13.5 35.3 62.9 Quarles Mrs 0 0 -10.7 0 0 68 66.7 Rowe S 0 31.1 0 0 0 0 90.7 Smith Geo A 0 33.3 141 Spencer Joel 0 6.76 -5.06 0 0 6.67 68.8 Tankersley GG 0 0 0 25 0 20 25 Tinsley IT 1.69 0 0 0 27.7 0 97.9 Ward Wm 0 0 0 0 - 0 183 Westall AE 0 -24.7 29.1 0 0 0 7.37 Wharton Jno A 571 181 14 0 0 28.5 21.8 Winston Anthony 0 66.1 19.4 -66.7 0 0 150 Young Overton 0 0 0 -

173 Table C.10

Ratio of Slave Values to Acreage Values- Brazoria County Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

- Munson MS 0 0.05 0.95 2.56 0.98 0.97 Stephens E - 1.96 3.67 3.21 2.77 1.3 1.41 Sweeney John 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.75 1.14 1.16 1.19 Sweeney JW ------InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP - - - - -

Armstrong Geo 1.19 2.09 2.09 - 2.45 2.16 2.21 1.63 Bryan WJ - 0.26 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.38 0.32 0.49 Jones JH 2.18 Patton CF - - - - - 2.69 1.38 Perry SS 0.31 0.37 0.25 0.15 0.14 Stringfellow C ------0.78 0.83 Sweeney Thos J ------Terry AJ

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 0.33 0.16 0.19 0.38 0.79 0.68 0.41 0.45

Gaines WBP 0.57 0.54 0.71 0.71 1.07 1.61 1.64 2.14

Harrison E 0.78 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.51 0.51 0.74 0.78 Norris HC & John 1.68 1.56 1.86 0.7 0.77 1.38 1.33 2.03 Winston Fountain 2.07 Planters Winston Lafayette InitialSmall Yerby Jane -

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

- Munson MS 0.89 1.26 2.38 2.21 2.03 0.49 Stephens E 1.42 1.97 1.9 1.92 1.69 0.61 Sweeney John 0.96 0.86 1.01 1.05 1.07 0.91 0.45 Sweeney JW - - 1.05 1.08 0.94 1.51 0.52 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP - - 0.59 0.88 0.88 1.54 0.51

Armstrong Geo 1.45 1.4 1.36 1.49 1.63 1.85 0.98 Bryan WJ 0.54 0.31 0.35 1.76 0.53 0.36 0.19 Jones JH 0.82 0.81 0.7 0.67 0.7 0.6 0.53 Patton CF 1.18 1.13 0.9 0.95 0.78 - - Perry SS 0.13 0.15 0.2 0.23 0.44 0.29 0.17 Stringfellow C 0.82 1.18 1.26 1.11 1.18 1.08 1.36 Sweeney Thos J - - 0.14 1.18 1.21 1.1 0.39 Terry AJ 2.8 0.29 0.46 0.47 0.69 0.29 0.14

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A 0.43 0.41 0.83 0.77 0.93 1.06 0.41

Gaines WBP 1.1 1.08 1.05 1.07 1.08 0.99 0.54

Harrison E 0.72 1.22 1.3 1.24 0.88 0.8 0.43 Norris HC & John 1.75 1.48 1.86 1.49 1.13 - 1.26 Winston Fountain 1.89 - 1.52 0.87 0.88 0.68 0.57 Planters Winston Lafayette - - 1.14 1.2 0.68 0.88 InitialSmall Yerby Jane ------

174 Name 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Bates Joseph 0.97 0.91 Black SH 0 4.56 4.51 4.5 4.31 4.43 2.43 Brown RR ------Burney Irene 1.7 Campbell James InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG - - - - 6.35 2.81 3.22 4.7 Collins RM 2 2.08 2.06 1.42 3.51 3.03 3.33 2.2

Cooper JW 2.55 2.32 2.59 2.58 Gill WF - 1.54 Hill, estate Wm G 0.68 0.64 0.87 0.72 0.54 0.47 0.55 0.53 Jackson Abner 1.19 1.72 2.1 2.26 2.53 1.45 1.42 Jordan Levi 2.44 2.36 2.6 2.28 Kennedy Wm Kyle Wm R 1.08 1.03 0.76 0.79 1.95 1.87 4.23 McNeil JG 0.6 1.41 1.04 1.55 1.17 1.24 0.02 0.58 McNeil LH 0.31 0.77 0.58 0.68 0.6 0.83 0.48 0.45 Mills DG 0.86 2.09 0.9 1.03 1.12 0.99 0.85 0.72 Mims Sarah 1.85 1.6 1.53 1.71 2.34 1.08 1.1 1.02 Morris AT 0 Munson GB 0.54 0.61 0.51 0.66 0.73 0.8 0.81 0.3 Perry est of JF 0.52 0.35 0.37 0.46 0.49 0.33 0.43 0.35 Quarles Mrs - 1.6 1.46 Rowe S 3.15 3.05 2.58 2.79 0.78 Smith Geo A Spencer Joel 2.62 2.58 2.39 2.38 1.44 1.61 1.52 1.59 Tankersley GG 2.29 Tinsley IT 0.7 0.85 0.84 0.84 1.16 0.82 1.03 1.05 Ward Wm - - Westall AE 1.14 1.13 1.12 1.45 1.41 1.15 0.54 0.29 Wharton Jno A 1.01 1.14 1.15 1.42 1.72 1.45 1.24 11.7 Winston Anthony 0.76 1.29 Young Overton

175 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Bates Joseph 0.84 0.55 0.54 0.52 0.53 0.54 Black SH 1.84 1.89 1.84 1.73 1.75 2.15 1.8 Brown RR - - 7.27 7 6.41 1.61 Burney Irene ------Campbell James 1.41 1.81 0.66 0.68 0.62 0.44 InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 4.84 2.03 2.45 1.19 1.66 0.94 0.76 Collins RM 1.65 1.55 1.65 1.72 1.88 1.7 0.56

Cooper JW 2.36 2.57 2.27 2.08 2.13 1.76 0.64 Gill WF 1.41 0.88 1.18 1.14 1.16 0.85 0.51 Hill, estate Wm G 0.54 0.65 0.64 0.61 0.62 0.57 0.28 Jackson Abner 0.95 0.83 1.14 0.51 0.53 0.48 0.3 Jordan Levi 1.1 0.82 0.79 0.85 0.89 0.85 0.91 Kennedy Wm 2.11 2.59 2.64 2.55 2.65 1.98 0.54 Kyle Wm R - - 1.8 1.63 1.64 1.24 0.91 McNeil JG 0.46 0.91 1.2 1.03 1.1 1.02 0.61 McNeil LH 0.54 0.5 0.36 0.4 0.68 0.45 0.42 Mills DG 0.66 0.62 0.6 0.67 0.8 0.63 0.38 Mims Sarah 0.93 1.07 0.97 0.76 0.8 0.67 0.58 Morris AT 1.05 1.08 0.96 1.44 1.46 0.9 0.48 Munson GB 0.28 0.31 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.16 Perry est of JF 0.34 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.3 0.21 0.14 Quarles Mrs 1.34 1.38 1.58 1.68 1.7 1.05 0.71 Rowe S 0.72 0.61 0.59 0.57 0.58 0.53 0.33 Smith Geo A 0.65 0.84 0.59 0.24 Spencer Joel 1.45 1.85 1.96 2.03 2.06 1.76 1.06 Tankersley GG 2.09 1.74 1.62 1.31 1.79 1.74 1.52 Tinsley IT 0.94 0.97 0.94 0.9 0.74 0.68 0.29 Ward Wm - - - - 0.92 1.05 0.42 Westall AE 0.26 0.36 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.22 Wharton Jno A 1.59 0.66 0.7 0.67 0.73 0.7 0.59 Winston Anthony 1.18 0.6 0.29 0.81 0.93 1.34 0.51 Young Overton - - - - 0.47

176 Table C.11

Annual Rates of Change in Ratio of Slave Value to Acreage Value- Brazoria County Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

- Munson MS - 1757 169 -61.8 -1.12 Stephens E - 86.9 -12.5 -13.8 -53 7.91 Sweeney John - -1.09 -0.3 88.9 51.6 1.97 2.547 Sweeney JW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 0 0 0

Armstrong Geo 76.2 -0.35 - - -11.8 1.97 -26 Bryan WJ - 57 -0.3 2.14 -7.65 -16 50.68 Jones JH Patton CF 0 0 0 0 - -28.43

Slaveholders Perry SS 19.4 -31.4 -40.4 -8.01 Stringfellow C 0 0 0 0 0 - 5.477 Sweeney Thos J 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terry AJ

InitialSmall Underwood A -51.6 17.8 98.7 109 -14 -39.6 11.19

Gaines WBP -6.26 33.5 -0.3 50.2 50.5 1.97 30.16

Harrison E -45.9 -1.09 -0.3 21.6 0.52 46.2 5.477 Norris HC & John -6.72 19.3 -62.6 10.4 79.9 -3.69 52.53 Winston Fountain Planters Winston Lafayette InitialSmall Yerby Jane

Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

- Munson MS -8.66 19.46 88.6 -7.17 -8.26 -75.6 Stephens E 0.98 17.74 -3.65 1.32 -11.8 -64.2 Sweeney John -19.4 -9.78 16.9 3.65 2.49 -15.6 -50.5 Sweeney JW 0 0 - 2.81 -12.7 60.7 -65.6 InitialNon slaveholders Sweeney SP 0 0 - 48.9 0.04 76.1 -66.8

Armstrong Geo -11.3 -3.32 -2.62 9.72 9.2 13.3 -46.9 Bryan WJ 11.6 -42.5 12.7 401 -69.8 -31.7 -48.3 Jones JH -62.4 -1.58 -13.7 -3.45 3.84 -13.3 -12.5 Patton CF -14.7 -3.71 -20.3 5.6 -18 - 0 Perry SS -8.66 18.3 31.9 17 90.5 -34.9 -40.7 Stringfellow C -1.05 44.1 7.11 -12.2 6.77 -8.42 25.83 Sweeney Thos J 0 0 0 761 2.16 -8.91 -64.3 Terry AJ -89.7 58.2 3.98 46.2 -58.8 -50.3

InitialSmall Slaveholders Underwood A -6.22 -3.32 101 -6.42 20 14.5 -61.1

Gaines WBP -48.6 -1.6 -2.62 1.38 1.11 -8.42 -45

Harrison E -8.66 70 6.65 -4.94 -28.8 -8.42 -46.4 Norris HC & John -14.1 -15.5 25.7 -19.9 -23.8 - - Winston Fountain -8.66 - - -42.6 1.12 -23.1 -16.1 Planters Winston Lafayette 0 - 5.15 -43.7 30.49 InitialSmall Yerby Jane 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

177 Name 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Bates Joseph -5.98 Black SH 0 -1.09 -0.3 -2.18 2.8 -45.1 Brown RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burney Irene Campbell James InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 0 0 0 - -55.7 14.4 46.19 Collins RM 4.16 -1.09 -31.2 148 -13.8 10.1 -33.9

Cooper JW -9.15 11.6 -0.38 Gill WF - Hill, estate Wm G -6.2 36.1 -16.5 -25.2 -13.8 17.1 -3.12 Jackson Abner 44.9 21.8 7.84 11.7 -42.5 -2.26 Jordan Levi -3.47 10.2 -12.1 Kennedy Wm Kyle Wm R -4.62 -26.4 4 147 -3.96 126 McNeil JG 137 -26.2 48.8 -24.6 6.37 -98.7 3456 McNeil LH 149 -24.6 16.2 -12.2 39 -41.7 -5.9 Mills DG 144 -56.9 14.4 8.09 -11.8 -13.3 -15.5 Mims Sarah -13.7 -4.16 11.9 36.7 -54 1.97 -6.93 Morris AT Munson GB 12.2 -16.2 30.1 10.5 9.01 1.97 -63.6 Perry est of JF -33.7 6.05 25.7 5.98 -31.7 29.1 -18.9 Quarles Mrs - -8.88 Rowe S -3.25 -15.3 8.01 -71.9 Smith Geo A Spencer Joel -1.51 -7.51 -0.3 -39.6 12.3 -5.64 4.564 Tankersley GG Tinsley IT 22.1 -1.09 -0.3 37.7 -29.2 24.9 1.908 Ward Wm 0 Westall AE -0.8 -1.09 29.8 -2.53 -18.5 -52.8 -46.8 Wharton Jno A 12.6 1.1 23.6 21.6 -15.7 -14.5 836.9 Winston Anthony 69.8 Young Overton

178 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Bates Joseph -8.66 -33.8 -2.62 -3.45 2.5 0.17 Black SH -24.4 3.04 -2.62 -6.21 1.11 22.8 -16.1 Brown RR 0 0 - -3.7 -8.42 -74.9 Burney Irene - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Campbell James 28.6 -63.7 3.46 -8.42 -29.8 InitialPlanters Coffee TJ & MG 2.95 -58.1 20.7 -51.4 39.5 -43.2 -19.2 Collins RM -25.3 -5.73 6.23 4.6 8.89 -9.16 -67.2

Cooper JW -8.47 9.01 -11.8 -8.52 2.35 -17.3 -63.6 Gill WF -8.66 -37.9 35.2 -3.45 1.11 -26.7 -39.6 Hill, estate Wm G 1.41 20.3 -0.67 -4.92 1.99 -8.69 -50.8 Jackson Abner -18.22 -12.7 37.7 -55.5 3.78 -8.42 -38.4 Jordan Levi -51.9 -25.1 -3.91 7.17 4.75 -4.44 7.377 Kennedy Wm 22.6 2.13 -3.49 3.97 -25.3 -72.8 Kyle Wm R - 0 - -9.88 1.11 -24.4 -26.8 McNeil JG -20 95.2 32.6 -14.1 6.42 -7.02 -40.7 McNeil LH 19.5 -7.81 -27.7 10.4 70 -34.1 -6.04 Mills DG -8.98 -6.02 -3.36 12.2 19 -20.8 -40 Mims Sarah -8.66 14.5 -9.13 -22.3 6.17 -16.5 -12.7 Morris AT - 3.04 -11.5 50.9 1.11 -38.1 -46.9 Munson GB -3.96 9.2 -27.6 3.21 -2.15 0.74 -30.2 Perry est of JF -3.58 -32 15.5 9.53 2.58 -30.4 -31.5 Quarles Mrs -8.66 3.04 14.8 6.21 1.11 -38.1 -32.4 Rowe S -8.66 -15.4 -2.62 -3.45 1.83 -8.42 -38.2 Smith Geo A 28.9 -30 -59.1 Spencer Joel -8.66 27 5.99 3.82 1.11 -14.1 -39.7 Tankersley GG -8.66 -16.7 -7.15 -19 36.4 -2.63 -12.9 Tinsley IT -10.2 3.04 -2.62 -4.87 -16.9 -8.42 -57.6 Ward Wm 0 0 0 0 - 14.5 -60.6 Westall AE -8.66 36.9 -23.7 -3.45 -0.07 2.35 -21.1 Wharton Jno A -86.4 -58.4 5.38 -3.34 8.21 -3.49 -15.4 Winston Anthony -8.66 -48.9 -51.1 176 13.7 44.5 -62.2 Young Overton 0 0 0 -

179 APPENDIX D

COLORADO COUNTY DATA

180 Table D.1

1860 Census data vs Tax Record Data- Colorado County Name (last, first) Slaves Related Records in Tax Rolls Slaves Adkins WL 81 Adkins, WL 76 Balfour & 2 others CC 29 Burford FM 28 Burford, FM 28 Burford HB 21 Burford, HB 21 Campbell AM 44 Campbell, AM 44 Carlton James 23 Carlton, James 23 Carson James M 23 Carson, JH 17 Crenshaw OB 21 Crenshaw, OB 20 Crisp John 146 Crisp, JH 140 Crisp & 1 other David H 54 Crisp, DH 24 Cryer (in trust for 2 minors) Andrew 21 Cryer, A 3 Cryer, A agt heirs J Cryer 14 Darden WJ 22 Darden, WJ for wife 21 Dunivant & Gordon 46 Dunivant & Gordon 44 Eason OA? 22 Eason, CA 24 Floyd NB 21 Floyd, NB 21 Foote RH 44 Foote, RH 41 Fowlkes EB 61 Fowlkes, EB 38 Fowlks, EB agt for wife 24 Frazer Isaae J 20 *see Wicks* Garner Thomas H 27 Garner, TH 25 Garrett PH 35 Garrett, PM 33 Grace & 4 minors RC 23 Grace, Rebecca 13 Grace, Rebecca gdn heirs A Grace 8 Harbert Wm 123 Harbert, William 121 Haynes Calvin 20 Haynes, Calvin 16 Herbert CC 48 Herbert, CC 50 Herbert Wm J 29 Herbert, WJ 25 Insall Thomas N 37 Insall, TN 32 Ivey TE 21 Matthews John 140 Matthews, Jno 140 Matthews MB 23 Matthews, MB agt wife 21 McNeill & Anderson 43 Anderson, TS agt Anderson WM & HC McNeill 44 Mercer &1 other Levi 21 Mercer, Levi 18 Miller &2 minors Lucinda 24 Miller, L adm Miller JF 22 Montgomery James 87 Montgomery, JS 80 Montgomery John G 36 Montgomery, JG 28 Montgomery & 2 minors LL 25 Payne Z 24 Payne, JF agt Z Payne 25 Pearsall JE 42 Pearsall, JE 39 Perry GL 38 Perry, GL 23 Perry, GL agt for wife 11 Pinchback John 85 Pinchback, Jno 67 Pinchback, Jno agt heirs J Pinchback 1

181 Name (last, first) Slaves Related Records in Tax Rolls Slaves Pinchback Wm 47 Pinchback, Wm 45 Rhodes HD 103 Rhodes, HD 101 Shropshire JL 62 Shropshire, JT & CF 61 Tait CW 63 Tait, CW & LM 60 Tanner John O 30 Tanner, JO 26 Taylor JL 33 Taylor, JL 33 Thatcher Geo W 35 Thatcher, GW 36 Tooke David 21 Tooke, David 20 Tooke Isam 31 Tooke, Isam 25 Turner G 23 Turner, GS 15 Waddell PE 23 Waddell, PE 24 Washington LA 26 Washington, LA 22 Wicks John W 28 Wicks & Frazer 52 Williamson TT 31 Williamson, TT Sr 30 Wright James 56 Wright, James 40 Wright Wm J 30 Wright, WJ 29

182 Table D.2

Census Data for Final Population Group- Colorado County Birth Name (last, first) Age Place Occupation Adkins WL 44 GA Farmer Burford FM 35 AL Farmer Burford HB 57 NC Farmer Campbell AM 47 NC Chief Justice Carlton James 63 VA Farmer Crenshaw OB 38 TN Farmer Crisp John 63 NC Farmer Darden Fannie A 35 VA (husband is Attorney at Law) Foote RH - - - Fowlkes EB 44 VA Farmer Garner Thomas H 63 NC Farmer Grace Rebecca C 40 TN Farmer Harbert Wm 65 VA Farmer Herbert CC 46 VA Farmer Herbert Wm J 37 AL Farmer Insall Thomas N 47 LA Farmer Matthews John 63 VA Farmer Miller Lucinda 50 MS (none) Montgomery James 72 TN Farmer Montgomery John G - - - Pearsall JE 35 NC Farmer Perry GL 35 NC Farmer Pinchback John 45 SC Farmer Tait CW 45 GA Farmer Tanner John O 66 VA Farmer Taylor JL 45 NC Farmer Thatcher Geo W 52 VA Farmer Tooke David 40 GA Merchant Tooke Isam 43 GA Farmer Waddell PE 35 NC Farmer Washington LA 46 VA Farmer Williamson TT 60 SC Farmer Wright James 64 NC Farmer Wright Wm J 54 NC Farmer

183 Table D.3

Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Colorado County Name 1846 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Burford FM 8 16 Crenshaw OB 4 7 8 7 7 8 8 Perry GL 4 0 0 0 Pinchback John 8 8 7 24 28 28 29 Thatcher Geo W 10 15 14 16 16 16 19 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 1 2 2 2 4 3 2

Darden WJ & Fannie A

Miller Lucinda 15 14 14 15 16 17 17 Tait CW 14 14 27 38 32 53 Tanner John O 19 19 Planters Taylor JL 17 18 InitialSmall Tooke David

Adkins WL 26 20 20 Burford Harriet B 24 22 Campbell AM 25 46 Carlton James 20 19 Crisp John InitialPlanters Foote Richard H 25 25 25 20 20 20 Fowlkes EB & wife Garner Thomas H Grace Rebecca C 25 25 Harbert Wm Herbert CC 30 28 30 30 35 31 Herbert Wm J Insall Thomas N Matthews John 21 27 30 30 50 52 63 Montgomery James 58 59 69 73 70 66 67 Montgomery John G 22 28 28 31 32 34 Pearsall JE Waddell PE Washington LA 26 22 22 Williamson TT

Wright James Wright Wm J 26 25

184 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Burford FM 12 16 14 16 15 13 28 Crenshaw OB 9 14 16 15 18 20 Perry GL 12 12 13 14 12 34 23 Pinchback John 29 33 36 36 43 50 67 Thatcher Geo W 21 21 19 17 17 17 36 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 4 3 10 21 15 23 25

Darden WJ & Fannie A 16 20 20 19 20 21 21

Miller Lucinda 17 20 19 18 21 21 22 Tait CW 34 36 37 51 61 68 60 Tanner John O 19 19 19 20 22 28 26 Planters Taylor JL 19 20 21 22 26 31 33 InitialSmall Tooke David 16 12 16 15 18 20

Adkins WL 29 31 31 31 43 77 76 Burford Harriet B 24 22 23 23 23 17 21 Campbell AM 20 21 26 34 38 44 44 Carlton James 17 17 18 18 19 22 20 Crisp John 80 108 113 120 140 InitialPlanters Foote Richard H 22 32 24 25 36 31 41 Fowlkes EB & wife 40 35 35 56 58 62 Garner Thomas H 31 34 18 20 25 Grace Rebecca C 24 28 29 30 27 27 21 Harbert Wm 75 76 96 115 121 Herbert CC 29 29 29 37 40 43 50 Herbert Wm J 23 23 25 25 25 25 Insall Thomas N 28 28 31 28 30 32 32 Matthews John 63 80 81 87 119 120 140 Montgomery James 70 75 78 78 73 75 80 Montgomery John G 35 37 32 32 27 27 28 Pearsall JE 40 40 39 42 39 Waddell PE 20 20 23 24 Washington LA 22 22 20 19 21 21 22 Williamson TT 50 50 50 30 30 Wright James 40 40 40 40 40

Wright Wm J 23 26 26 25 26 26 29

185 Table D.4

Annual Rates of Change in Slaves Owned (as a percentage)- Colorado County Name 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854

Burford FM 100 -25 Crenshaw OB 32.29 14.3 -12.5 0 14.3 0 12.5 Perry GL -100 0 0 * Pinchback John 0.00 -12.5 243 16.7 0 3.57 0 Thatcher Geo W 22.47 -6.67 14.3 0 0 18.8 10.53 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 41.42 0 0 100 -25 -33.3 100

Darden WJ & Fannie A

Miller Lucinda -3.39 0 7.14 6.67 6.25 0 0 Tait CW 0 92.9 40.7 -15.8 65.6 -35.8 Tanner John O 0 0 Planters Taylor JL 5.88 5.556 InitialSmall Tooke David

Adkins WL -23.1 0 45 Burford HB -8.33 9.091 Campbell AM 84 -56.5 Carlton James -5 -10.5 Crisp John InitialPlanters Foote RH 0 0 -20 0 0 10 Fowlkes EB Garner Thomas H Grace Rebecca C 0 -4 Harbert Wm Herbert CC -3.39 7.14 0 8.01 -11.4 -6.45 Herbert Wm J Insall Thomas N Matthews John 13.39 11.1 0 66.7 4 21.2 0 Montgomery James 0.86 16.9 5.8 -4.11 -5.71 1.52 4.48 Montgomery John G 8.37 0 10.7 3.23 6.25 2.941 Pearsall JE Waddell PE Washington LA -15.4 0 0 Williamson TT

Wright James Wright Wm J -3.85 -8

186 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C

Burford FM 33.3 -12.5 14.3 -6.25 -13.3 115 16.95 Crenshaw OB 55.6 14.3 -6.25 20 5.41 12.18 Perry GL 0 8.33 7.69 -14.3 183 -32.4 11.45 Pinchback John 13.8 9.09 0 19.4 16.3 34 16.39 Thatcher Geo W 0 -9.52 -10.5 0 0 112 9.58 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam -25 233 110 -28.6 53.3 8.7 25.85

Darden WJ & Fannie A 0 -5 5.26 5 0 4.64

Miller Lucinda 17.6 -5 -5.26 16.7 0 4.76 2.77 Tait CW 5.88 2.78 37.8 19.6 11.5 -11.8 12.89 Tanner John O 0 0 5.26 10 27.3 -7.14 4.00 Planters Taylor JL 5.26 5 4.76 18.2 19.2 6.45 8.64 InitialSmall Tooke David -25 33.3 -6.25 20 11.1 4.56

Adkins WL 6.9 0 0 38.7 79.1 -1.3 12.66 Burford Harriet B -8.33 4.55 0 0 -26.1 23.5 -1.66 Campbell AM 5 23.8 30.8 11.8 15.8 0 7.32 Carlton James 0 5.88 0 5.56 15.8 -9.09 0.00 Crisp John 35 4.63 6.19 16.7 15.02 InitialPlanters Foote Richard H 45.5 -25 4.17 44 -13.9 32.3 4.21 Fowlkes EB & wife -12.5 0 60 3.57 6.9 9.16 Garner Thomas H 9.68 -47.1 11.1 25 -5.24 Grace Rebecca C 16.7 3.57 3.45 -10 0 -22.2 -2.16 Harbert Wm 1.33 26.3 19.8 5.22 12.70 Herbert CC 0 0 27.6 8.11 7.5 16.3 3.72 Herbert Wm J 0 8.7 0 0 0 1.68 Insall Thomas N 10.7 -9.68 7.14 6.67 0 2.25 Matthews John 27 1.25 7.41 36.8 0.84 16.7 14.51 Montgomery James 7.14 4 0 -6.41 2.74 6.67 2.32 Montgomery John G 5.71 -13.5 0 -15.6 0 3.7 1.74 Pearsall JE 0 -2.5 7.69 -7.14 -0.63 Waddell PE 0 15 4.35 6.27 Washington LA 0 -9.09 -5 10.5 0 4.76 -1.84 Williamson TT 0 0 -40 0 -11.99 Wright James 0 0 0 0 0

Wright Wm J 13 0 -3.85 4 0 11.5 1.37

187 Table D.5

Value of Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- Colorado County Name 1846 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Burford FM 3000 8500 Crenshaw OB 1900 2850 3300 2800 3800 3350 4000 Perry GL 2000 0 0 0 Pinchback John 3650 3200 3500 9600 14000 12000 14500 Thatcher Geo W 3000 4500 6300 6400 6400 6400 9500 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 650 700 700 900 3500 2600 1500

Darden WJ & Fannie A

Miller Lucinda 4300 4200 4200 4500 6000 5000 6800 Tait CW 5600 5600 10800 19000 12800 13200 Tanner John O 8700 9500 Planters Taylor JL 7300 9000 InitialSmall Tooke David

Adkins WL 8000 8000 8000 Burford HB 9700 8800 Campbell AM 11300 12000 Carlton James 10000 9500 Crisp John InitialPlanters Foote RH 6300 6300 6300 10250 10000 10000 Fowlkes EB Garner Thomas H Grace Rebecca C 9800 9800 Harbert Wm Herbert CC 15000 14000 9000 11000 13000 15500 Herbert Wm J Insall Thomas N Matthews John 6300 8500 8500 8500 17500 17500 31500 Montgomery James 21000 22000 22400 23400 30000 28248 33500 Montgomery John G 6650 8400 8400 14000 11600 17000 Pearsall JE Waddell PE Washington LA 6500 8800 8800 Williamson TT

Wright James Wright Wm J 13000 12500

188 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Burford FM 7500 8250 8500 8500 10500 6500 18200 Crenshaw OB 5000 7500 8700 10700 10900 13500 Perry GL 7000 7000 7000 7000 6000 19300 16100 Pinchback John 17400 16500 19000 19000 21500 25000 46900 Thatcher Geo W 12600 10500 10000 8000 8000 8800 25200 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 3000 1700 9000 14100 10000 11500 25000

Darden WJ & Fannie A 8800 10000 10000 9000 10000 10500 10500

Miller Lucinda 8500 10000 9500 9000 10500 12600 18000 Tait CW 17000 17100 17000 25500 30500 34000 44100 Tanner John O 10500 10000 10000 10000 11000 14000 19600 Planters Taylor JL 10000 10000 10500 11000 13000 18600 26000 InitialSmall Tooke David 6600 9600 7200 9600 9600 10800 20000

Adkins WL 13600 15000 14500 15500 25000 47700 55350 Burford HB 15000 13000 13000 13000 12500 10200 14700 Campbell AM 15400 12600 15000 20000 24000 26000 30800 Carlton James 11200 10200 10200 10200 12400 12800 16100 Crisp John 32000 45200 45200 48000 84000 InitialPlanters Foote RH 13200 13200 13500 13500 13000 15500 28700 Fowlkes EB 20000 18000 18000 32000 31000 42700 Garner Thomas H 14000 16000 9000 10000 17500 Grace Rebecca C 16000 14800 14500 18500 13500 13500 15250 Harbert Wm 45000 44750 48000 57500 84700 Herbert CC 15000 15000 15000 20000 26000 25800 40000 Herbert Wm J 13000 13000 13000 13000 14000 20000 Insall Thomas N 15000 14000 15500 14200 15000 16000 20000 Matthews John 38650 44000 45000 48200 52000 71200 98000 Montgomery James 42000 42000 43000 43000 36500 45000 56500 Montgomery John G 21000 20000 18000 18000 13500 12500 19600 Pearsall JE 20000 20000 19500 25200 27300 Waddell PE 12500 12500 13800 19320 Washington LA 11000 11000 10000 9500 10500 10500 17600 Williamson TT 25000 25000 25000 18000 18000 Wright James 20000 20000 20000 20000 28000

Wright Wm J 11500 13000 13000 12500 13000 13000 20300

189 Table D.6

Adjusted Value of Slaves Owned- Colorado County Name 1846 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Burford FM 2352 5859 Crenshaw OB 1900 2796 3228 2498 2922 2627 2757 Perry GL 1962 0 0 0 Pinchback John 3650 3140 3424 8565 10766 9410 9994 Thatcher Geo W 3000 4416 6163 5710 4922 5019 6548 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 650 686.9 684.8 803 2691 2039 1034

Darden WJ & Fannie A

Miller Lucinda 4300 4121 4109 4015 4614 3921 4687 Tait CW 5495 5478 9635 14611 10037 9098 Tanner John O 6822 6548 Planters Taylor JL 5724 6203 Initial Small Tooke David

Adkins WL 6152 6273 5514 Burford HB 7606 6065 Campbell AM 8861 8271 Carlton James 7841 6548 Crisp John InitialPlanters Foote RH 6182 6163 5621 7882 7841 6892 Fowlkes EB Garner Thomas H Grace Rebecca C 7685 6755 Harbert Wm Herbert CC 15000 13737 8805 9814 10194 10683 Herbert Wm J Insall Thomas N Matthews John 6300 8340 8315 7583 13457 13723 21711 Montgomery James 21000 21587 21914 20877 23070 22151 23090 Montgomery John G 6650 0 8218 7494 10766 9096 11717 Pearsall JE Waddell PE Washington LA 4998 6901 6065 Williamson TT

Wright James Wright Wm J 10194 8616

190 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Burford FM 4722 5352 5369 5184 6475 3671 8622 Crenshaw OB 3148 4865 5496 6526 6722 6396 Perry GL 4407 4541 4422 4269 3700 10900 7627 Pinchback John 10955 10704 12002 11588 13259 14119 22219 Thatcher Geo W 7933 6811 6317 4879 4933 4970 11939 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 1889 1103 5685 8600 6167 6495 11844

Darden WJ & Fannie A 5540 6487 6317 5489 6167 5930 4974

Miller Lucinda 5351 6487 6001 5489 6475 7116 8528 Tait CW 10703 11093 10739 15553 18809 19201 20893 Tanner John O 6611 6487 6317 6099 6783 7906 9286 Planters Taylor JL 6296 6487 6633 6709 8017 10504 12318 InitialSmall Tooke David 4155 6228 4548 5855 5920 6099 9475

Adkins WL 8562 9731 9159 9454 15417 26939 26222 Burford HB 9444 8433 8212 7929 7708 5760 6964 Campbell AM 9695 8174 9475 12198 14800 14683 14592 Carlton James 7051 6617 6443 6221 7647 7229 7627 Crisp John 20214 27568 27874 27108 39796 InitialPlanters Foote RH 8310 8563 8528 8234 8017 8754 13597 Fowlkes EB 12974 11370 10978 19734 17507 20229 Garner Thomas H 8844 9758 5550 5647 8291 Grace Rebecca C 10073 9601 9159 11283 8325 7624 7225 Harbert Wm 28426 27293 29601 32473 40127 Herbert CC 9444 9731 9475 12198 16034 14571 18950 Herbert Wm J 0 8433 8212 7929 8017 7906 9475 Insall Thomas N 9444 9082 9791 8661 9250 9036 9475 Matthews John 24333 28543 28426 29397 32067 40210 46428 Montgomery James 26442 27246 27162 26226 22509 25414 26767 Montgomery John G 13221 12974 11370 10978 8325 7059 9286 Pearsall JE 12634 12198 12025 14232 12934 Waddell PE 7624 7708 7794 9153 Washington LA 6925 7136 6317 5794 6475 5930 8338 Williamson TT 15792 15248 15417 10165 8528 Wright James 12634 12198 12334 11295 13265

Wright Wm J 7240 8433 8212 7624 8017 7342 9617

191 Table D.7

Annual Rates of Change in Adjusted Value of Slaves Owned (as a percentage)- Colorado County Name 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854

Burford FM 149 -19.4 Crenshaw OB 21.32 15.4 -22.6 17 -10.1 4.95 14.18 Perry GL -100 0 0 * Pinchback John -7.25 9.05 150 25.7 -12.6 6.21 9.611 Thatcher Geo W 21.32 39.6 -7.36 -13.8 1.97 30.5 21.15 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 2.80 -0.3 17.3 235 -24.2 -49.3 82.69

Darden WJ & Fannie A

Miller Lucinda -2.10 -0.3 -2.29 14.9 -15 19.5 14.18 Tait CW -0.3 75.9 51.6 -31.3 -9.36 17.64 Tanner John O -4.02 0.958 Planters Taylor JL 8.37 1.492 InitialSmall Tooke David

Adkins WL 1.97 -12.1 55.28 Burford HB -20.3 55.7 Campbell AM -6.66 17.22 Carlton James -16.5 7.688 Crisp John InitialPlanters Foote RH -0.3 -8.8 40.2 -0.52 -12.1 20.57 Fowlkes EB Garner Thomas H Grace Rebecca C -12.1 49.13 Harbert Wm Herbert CC -4.30 -35.9 11.5 1.92 4.8 -11.6 Herbert Wm J Insall Thomas N Matthews John 15.06 -0.3 -8.8 77.5 1.97 58.2 12.08 Montgomery James 1.39 1.51 -4.73 10.5 -3.98 4.24 14.52 Montgomery John G 7.31 -8.8 43.7 -15.5 28.8 12.83 Pearsall JE Waddell PE Washington LA 38.1 -12.1 14.18 Williamson TT

Wright James Wright Wm J -15.5 -15.96

192 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C

Burford FM 13.3 0.33 -3.45 24.9 -43.3 135 17.63 Crenshaw OB 54.6 13 18.7 3 -100 -2.46 9.06 Perry GL 3.04 -2.62 -3.45 -13.3 195 -30 9.57 Pinchback John -2.29 12.1 -3.45 14.4 6.49 57.4 13.77 Thatcher Geo W -14.1 -7.26 -22.8 1.11 0.74 140 10.37 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam -41.6 416 51.3 -28.3 5.32 82.4 23.04

Darden WJ & Fannie A -2.62 -13.1 12.3 -3.84 -16.1 -1.78

Miller Lucinda 21.2 -7.49 -8.53 18 9.9 19.8 5.01 Tait CW 3.65 -3.19 44.8 20.9 2.09 8.81 11.77 Tanner John O -1.87 -2.62 -3.45 11.2 16.6 17.4 3.93 Planters Taylor JL 3.04 2.24 1.15 19.5 31 17.3 10.05 InitialSmall Tooke David -27 28.7 1.11 3.03 55.3 8.76

Adkins WL 13.6 -5.87 3.21 63.1 74.7 -2.66 17.48 Burford HB -10.7 -2.62 -3.45 -2.78 -25.3 20.9 -1.10 Campbell AM -15.7 15.9 28.7 21.3 -0.79 -0.62 6.43 Carlton James -6.16 -2.62 -3.45 22.9 -5.47 5.52 -0.35 Crisp John 36.4 1.11 -2.75 46.8 18.45 InitialPlanters Foote RH 3.04 -0.41 -3.45 -2.63 9.19 55.3 6.79 Fowlkes EB -12.4 -3.45 79.8 -11.3 15.5 9.29 Garner Thomas H 10.3 -43.1 1.75 46.8 -1.60 Grace Rebecca C -4.69 -4.6 23.2 -26.2 -8.42 -5.24 -0.77 Harbert Wm -3.98 8.45 9.7 23.6 9.00 Herbert CC 3.04 -2.62 28.7 31.4 -9.13 30.1 1.68 Herbert Wm J -2.62 -3.45 1.11 -1.38 19.8 2.36 Insall Thomas N 7.81 -11.5 6.81 -2.32 4.86 0.06 Matthews John 17.3 -0.41 3.42 9.08 25.4 15.5 15.33 Montgomery James 3.04 -0.31 -3.45 -14.2 12.9 5.33 1.75 Montgomery John G -1.87 -12.4 -3.45 -24.2 -15.2 31.5 2.41 Pearsall JE -3.45 -1.42 18.3 -9.12 0.59 Waddell PE 1.11 1.1 17.4 6.28 Washington LA 3.04 -11.5 -8.28 11.8 -8.42 40.6 5.85 Williamson TT -3.45 1.11 -34.1 -16.1 -14.28

Wright James -3.45 1.11 -8.42 17.4 1.23 Wright Wm J 16.5 -2.62 -7.16 5.15 -8.42 31 -0.73

193 Table D.8

Value of Acreage- Colorado County Name 1846 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Burford FM 0 2500 Crenshaw OB 438 427 684 684 684 1020 1710 Perry GL 0 0 0 0 Pinchback John 2947 5074 5074 2898 5222 5295 10660 Thatcher Geo W 5908 3062 4471 2520 4200 9795 10375 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 0 0 0 0 0 260 1846

Name 1846 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 Darden WJ & Fannie

Miller Lucinda 5167 5011 4910 4412 4412 4120 3890 Tait CW 5721 5321 5700 5720 9615 11185 Tanner John O 0 0 Planters Taylor JL 1300 2874 InitialSmall Tooke David

Adkins WL 1800 4000 4000 Burford HB 2000 2000 Campbell AM 6000 6000 Carlton James 4650 5580 Crisp John InitialPlanters Foote RH 6084 6084 6084 11310 15800 15800 Fowlkes EB &wife Garner Thomas H Grace Rebecca C 4006 3550 Harbert Wm Herbert CC 6383 9383 13584 5062 37530 37725 Herbert Wm J Insall Thomas N Matthews John 7000 7000 4444 4444 11110 15500 15500 Montgomery James 15000 15000 15000 22870 18175 12000 12000 Montgomery John G 5450 7870 9444 7870 12098 Pearsall JE Waddell PE Washington LA 12750 15750 9275 Williamson TT Wright James

Wright Wm J 5000 6800

194 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Burford FM 2500 3000 3000 3180 3180 4240 7550 Crenshaw OB 1710 3000 3420 3420 3420 5250 Perry GL 6360 6360 6360 6360 6360 11250 9780 Pinchback John 17020 13010 15410 15410 15470 15470 19287 Thatcher Geo W 11682 15576 15576 15376 15576 19470 38940 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 1640 0 7250 8000 8500 8500 21100

Name Darden WJ & Fannie 0 1800 1800 0 0 0

Miller Lucinda 3890 10490 8816 8790 8590 9325 7790 Tait CW 11472 18472 19706 27628 28539 31351 50596 Tanner John O 6190 6190 6190 6190 6000 6000 12000 Planters Taylor JL 4800 5566 6060 6060 6185 6185 12575 Initial Small Tooke David 3720 7120 2050 3900 3900 4050 0

Adkins WL 7000 15000 8000 8000 8000 13865 35780 Burford HB 5000 3000 3000 6000 7000 7000 12000 Campbell AM 8000 8000 12000 12000 12000 12000 26355 Carlton James 7440 9600 12700 12700 12370 12370 24740 Crisp John 11830 14830 14830 14830 17800 InitialPlanters Foote RH 18096 18096 18104 18104 18104 22620 45240 Fowlkes EB &wife 6928 6128 6128 12116 6170 21140 Garner Thomas H 9000 9000 9000 9000 22596 Grace Rebecca C 4940 5160 6840 10357 10037 10027 7380 Harbert Wm 33424 34427 27020 29448 61320 Herbert CC 36131 33170 32970 33170 57064 55407 147215 Herbert Wm J 4800 4800 4800 4800 4000 16000 Insall Thomas N 1580 2180 2270 2650 2600 2470 4509 Matthews John 17775 17776 17776 17776 17776 22220 44440 Montgomery James 19200 19200 25600 32000 4000 4000 8000 Montgomery John G 12168 12168 15210 15210 25740 25602 51480 Pearsall JE 3000 6000 6000 12000 24000 Waddell PE 5070 5260 5260 10520 Washington LA 9375 13158 13633 16078 16475 16475 57534 Williamson TT 8600 8600 8600 0 9000

Wright James 9000 10185 10188 11320 22640 Wright Wm J 6800 10080 11520 11520 11520 13400 26800

195 Table D.9

Annual Rates of Change in Value of Acreage (as a percentage)- Colorado County Name 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854

Burford FM * 0 Crenshaw OB -1.26 60.2 0 0 49.12 67.6 0 Perry GL -100 0.00 0 * Pinchback John 31.22 0 -42.9 80.2 1.40 101 59.7 Thatcher Geo W -28.01 46 -43.6 66.7 133.21 5.92 12.6 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 0 0 0 0 * 610 -11.2

Darden WJ & Fannie

Miller Lucinda - 1.52 -2.02 -10.1 0 -6.62 -5.58 0 Tait CW -6.99 7.12 0.35 68.09 16.3 2.57 Tanner John O * Planters Taylor JL 121 67 InitialSmall Tooke David

Adkins WL 122.22 0 75 Burford HB 0 150 Campbell AM 0 33.3 Carlton James 20 33.3 Crisp John InitialPlanters Foote RH 0 0 85.9 39.70 0 14.5 Fowlkes EB Garner Thomas H Grace Rebecca C -11.4 39.2 Harbert Wm Herbert CC 21.24 44.8 -62.7 172.29 0.52 -4.23 Herbert Wm J Insall Thomas N Matthews John 0.00 -36.5 0 150 39.51 0 14.7 Montgomery James 0.00 0 52.5 -20.5 -33.98 0 60 Montgomery John G 13.03 9.54 -16.67 53.7 0.58 Pearsall JE Waddell PE Washington LA 23.53 -41.1 1.08 Williamson TT Wright James

Wright Wm J 36 0

196 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C

Burford FM 20 0 6 0 33.33 78.1 17.1 Crenshaw OB 75.44 14 0 0 23.9 19.4 Perry GL 0 0 0 0 76.89 -13.1 7.44 Pinchback John -23.6 18.4 0 0.39 0.00 24.7 14.4 Thatcher Geo W 33.33 0 -1.28 1.3 25 100 14.4 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam -100 110 10.3 6.25 0 148 73.2

Darden WJ & Fannie * 0 -100 0 0 -100

Miller Lucinda 169.7 -16 -0.29 -2.28 8.56 -16.5 2.98 Tait CW 61.02 6.68 40.2 3.3 9.85 61.4 19.9 Tanner John O 0 0 0 -3.07 0 100 14.2 Planters Taylor JL 15.96 8.88 0 2.06 0 103 32.8 InitialSmall Tooke David -71.2 90.2 0 3.85 -100 -100

Adkins WL 114.3 -46.7 0 0 73.31 158 39.4 Burford HB -40 0 100 16.7 0 71.4 25.1 Campbell AM 0 50 0 0 0 120 20.3 Carlton James 29.03 32.3 0 -2.6 0 100 23.2 Crisp John 25.4 0 0 20 10.8 InitialPlanters Foote RH 0 0.04 0 0 24.94 100 18.2 Fowlkes EB &wife -11.5 0 97.7 -49.08 243 25 Garner Thomas H 0 0 0 151 25.9 Grace Rebecca C 4.453 32.6 51.4 -3.09 -0.1 -26.4 7.94 Harbert Wm 3 -21.5 8.99 108 16.4 Herbert CC -8.2 -0.6 0.61 72 -2.90 166 25.1 Herbert Wm J 0 0 0 -16.67 300 27.2 Insall Thomas N 4.13 16.7 -1.89 -5 82.6 19.1 Matthews John 0.006 0 0 0 25 100 14.1 Montgomery James 0 33.3 25 -87.5 0 100 -4.39 Montgomery John G 0 25 0 69.2 -0.54 101 17.4 Pearsall JE 100 0 100 100 68.2 Waddell PE 3.75 0 100 27.5 Washington LA 40.35 3.61 17.9 2.47 0 249 18.2 Williamson TT 0 0 -100 2.3 1.14 Wright James 13.2 0.03 11.11 100 25.9

Wright Wm J 48.24 14.3 0 0 16.32 100 23.4

197 Table D.10

Ratio of Slave Values to Acreage Values- Colorado County Name 1846 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853

Burford FM * 2.34 Crenshaw OB 4.34 6.55 4.72 3.65 4.27 2.58 1.61 Perry GL * 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pinchback John 1.24 0.62 0.67 2.96 2.06 1.78 0.94 Thatcher Geo W 0.51 1.44 1.38 2.27 1.17 0.51 0.63 Initial Small Slaveholders Tooke Isam * * * * * 7.84 0.56

Darden WJ & Fannie A

Miller Lucinda 0.83 0.82 0.84 0.91 1.05 0.95 1.20 Tait CW 0.96 1.03 1.69 2.55 1.04 0.81 Tanner John O * * Planters Taylor JL 4.40 2.16 InitialSmall Tooke David

Adkins WL 3.42 1.57 1.38 Burford HB 3.80 3.03 Campbell AM 1.48 1.38 Carlton James 1.69 1.17 Crisp John Initial Planters Foote RH 1.02 1.01 0.92 0.70 0.50 0.44 Fowlkes EB Garner Thomas H Grace Rebecca C 1.92 1.90 Harbert Wm Herbert CC 2.35 1.46 0.65 1.94 0.27 0.28 Herbert Wm J Insall Thomas N Matthews John 0.90 1.19 1.87 1.71 1.21 0.89 1.40 Montgomery James 1.40 1.44 1.46 0.91 1.27 1.85 1.92 Montgomery John G 1.22 1.04 1.14 1.16 0.97 Pearsall JE Waddell PE Washington LA 0.39 0.44 0.65 Williamson TT

Wright James Wright Wm J 2.04 1.27

198 Name 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860

Burford FM 1.89 1.78 1.79 1.63 2.04 0.87 1.14 Crenshaw OB 1.84 1.62 1.61 1.91 1.97 * 1.22 Perry GL 0.69 0.71 0.7 0.67 0.58 0.97 0.78 Pinchback John 0.64 0.82 0.78 0.75 0.86 0.91 1.15 Thatcher Geo W 0.68 0.44 0.41 0.32 0.32 0.26 0.31 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 1.15 * 0.78 1.07 0.73 0.76 0.56

Darden WJ & Fannie A * 3.51 3.05 * * *

Miller Lucinda 1.38 0.62 0.68 0.62 0.75 0.76 1.09 Tait CW 0.93 0.6 0.54 0.56 0.66 0.61 0.41 Tanner John O 1.07 1.05 1.02 0.99 1.13 1.32 0.77 Planters Taylor JL 1.31 1.17 1.09 1.11 1.3 1.7 0.98 InitialSmall Tooke David 1.12 0.87 2.22 1.5 1.52 1.51 *

Adkins WL 1.22 0.65 1.14 1.18 1.93 1.94 0.73 Burford HB 1.89 2.81 2.74 1.32 1.1 0.82 0.58 Campbell AM 1.21 1.02 0.79 1.02 1.23 1.22 0.55 Carlton James 0.95 0.69 0.51 0.49 0.62 0.58 0.31 Crisp John 1.71 1.86 1.88 1.83 2.24 Initial Planters Foote RH 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.39 0.3 Fowlkes EB &wife 1.87 1.86 1.79 1.63 2.84 0.96 Garner Thomas H 0.98 1.08 0.62 0.63 0.37 Grace Rebecca C 2.04 1.86 1.34 1.09 0.83 0.76 0.98 Harbert Wm 0.85 0.79 1.1 1.1 0.65 Herbert CC 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.37 0.28 0.26 0.13 Herbert Wm J 1.76 1.71 1.65 1.67 1.98 0.59 Insall Thomas N 5.98 4.17 4.31 3.27 3.56 3.66 2.1 Matthews John 1.37 1.61 1.6 1.65 1.8 1.81 1.04 Montgomery James 1.38 1.42 1.06 0.82 5.63 6.35 3.35 Montgomery John G 1.09 1.07 0.75 0.72 0.32 0.28 0.18 Pearsall JE 4.21 2.03 2 1.19 0.54 Waddell PE 1.5 1.47 1.48 0.87 Washington LA 0.74 0.54 0.46 0.36 0.39 0.36 0.14 Williamson TT 1.84 1.77 1.79 * 0.95 Wright James 1.4 1.2 1.21 1 0.59

Wright Wm J 1.06 0.84 0.71 0.66 0.7 0.55 0.36

199 Table D.11

Annual Rates of Change in Ratio of Slave Value to Acreage Value (as a percentage)- Colorado County Name 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854

Burford FM * -19.4 Crenshaw OB 22.87 -27.9 -22.6 17 -39.7 -37.4 14.2 Perry GL * 0 0 -30.7 Pinchback John -29.31 9.05 338 -30.2 -13.8 -47.2 -31.3 Thatcher Geo W 68.52 -4.41 64.4 -48.3 -56.3 23.2 7.59 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam 0 0 0 0 * -92.9 106

Darden WJ & Fannie A

Miller Lucinda -0.59 1.75 8.74 14.9 -9 26.6 14.2 Tait CW 7.2 64.2 51.1 -59.1 -22.1 14.7 Tanner John O * Planters Taylor JL -51 -39.2 InitialSmall Tooke David

Adkins WL -54.1 -12.1 -11.3 Burford HB -20.3 -37.7 Campbell AM -6.66 -12.1 Carlton James -30.4 -19.2 Crisp John InitialPlanters Foote RH -0.3 -8.8 -24.6 -28.8 -12.1 5.27 Fowlkes EB Garner Thomas H Grace Rebecca C -0.81 7.17 Harbert Wm Herbert CC -21.07 -55.7 199 -62.57 4.26 -7.7 Herbert Wm J Insall Thomas N Matthews John 15.06 57 -8.8 -29 -26.9 58.2 -2.27 Montgomery James 1.39 1.51 -37.5 39 45.42 4.24 -28.4 Montgomery John G -5.06 4.49 1.389 -16.2 12.2 Pearsall JE Waddell PE Washington LA 11.76 49.3 13 Williamson TT

Wright James Wright Wm J -37.9 -16

200 Name 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C

Burford FM -5.55 0.33 -8.91 24.9 -57.5 31.9 -9.76 Crenshaw OB -11.9 -0.92 18.7 3 -21.3 -8.67 Perry GL 3.039 -2.62 -3.45 -13.3 66.54 -19.5 -2.23 Pinchback John 27.83 -5.33 -3.45 14 6.488 26.2 -0.52 Thatcher Geo W -35.6 -7.26 -21.8 -0.19 -19.4 20.1 -3.54 InitialSmall Slaveholders Tooke Isam -17.5 37.1 -32.5 5.316 -26.5 -28.1

Darden WJ & Fannie A - * -13.1 * 0 0 *

Miller Lucinda - 55 10.1 -8.26 20.7 1.233 43.5 1.98 Tait CW -35.6 -9.26 3.3 17.1 -7.07 -32.6 -6.79 Tanner John O -1.87 -2.62 -3.45 14.7 16.56 -41.3 -5.89 Planters Taylor JL -11.1 -6.09 1.15 17.1 31.03 -42.3 -17.1 InitialSmall Tooke David 154 -32.3 1.11 -0.79 6.16

Adkins WL -47 76.5 3.21 63.1 0.82 -62.3 -15.7 Burford HB 48.83 -2.62 -51.7 -16.7 -25.3 -29.5 -20.9 Campbell AM -15.7 -22.7 28.7 21.3 -0.79 -54.8 -11.5 Carlton James -27.3 -26.4 -3.45 26.2 -5.47 -47.2 -19.1 Crisp John 8.79 1.11 -2.75 22.3 6.95 InitialPlanters Foote RH 3.039 -0.46 -3.45 -2.63 -12.6 -22.3 -9.65 Fowlkes EB &wife -0.92 -3.45 -9.09 74.21 -66.3 -12.6 Garner Thomas H 10.3 -43.1 1.755 -41.5 -21.8 Grace Rebecca C -8.75 -28 -18.6 -23.9 -8.33 28.8 -8.06 Harbert Wm -6.78 38.2 0.659 -40.7 -6.34 Herbert CC 12.24 -2.03 28 -23.6 -6.41 -51 -18.7 Herbert Wm J -2.62 -3.45 1.11 18.35 -70 -19.5 Insall Thomas N 3.53 -24.2 8.86 2.826 -42.6 -16 Matthews John 17.3 -0.41 3.42 9.08 0.315 -42.3 1.07 Montgomery James 3.039 -25.2 -22.8 587 12.91 -47.3 6.42 Montgomery John G -1.87 -29.9 -3.45 -55.2 -14.7 -34.6 -12.8 Pearsall JE -51.7 -1.42 -40.8 -54.6 -40.2 Waddell PE -2.54 1.104 -41.3 -16.7 Washington LA -26.6 -14.6 -22.2 9.06 -8.42 -59.7 -10.5 Williamson TT -3.45 1.11 -27.3 -15.2 Wright James -14.7 1.08 -17.6 -41.3 -19.6

Wright Wm J -21.4 -14.8 -7.16 5.15 -21.3 -34.5 -19.5

201 APPENDIX E

MCLENNAN COUNTY DATA

202 Table E.1

1860 Census Data vs Tax Record Data- McLennan County

Name (last, first) Slaves Related Records in Tax Rolls Slaves Arnold BD 29 Arnold, BD 28 Blankenship P 25 Blankenship, JJ adm David Blankenship Est 25 Clements Thos B 49 Clements, Thos B 49 Cobbs JA 20 Cobbs, JA 18 Davis Lee R 25 Davis, Lee R 26 Decherd PS 60 Deckerd, FH 54 Downs WW 72 Downs, WW 70 Dunklin WA 46 Dunklin, WA 47 Earle EA 61 Earle, JB agt for EA Earle 66 Evans W 24 Evans, Wm 23 Gurley Davis 51 Gurley, Davis 44 Horne JL 35 Horn, Jas S 34 Hood, Jr HM 30 Hood Jr, HM 28 Hunter JH 21 Hunter, JH 20 Kellum Ed 23 Kellum, Edward 23 Lawdermilk GW 40 Laudermilk, GW 39 Loughridge TL 34 Loughridge, TL 31 Masters Henry 21 no entry Prather Geo W 40 Prather, GW 37 Rogers guard for minors H 23 Rogers, Harriet E 9 Rogers, Harriet E grdn heirs of CH Whittaker 12 Rose AT 22 Rose, AT 22 Speight JW 32 Speight, JW 33 Thompson BJ 72 Thompson, Burwell J 72 Thompson WA 30 Thompson, WA 23 Tinsley DR & JW 46 Tinsley, DR 32 Tinsley, JW 10 Whartey RBO 69 Whatley, BO 46 Wilson RB 20 Wilson, RB 19

203 Table E.2

Census Data for Final Population Group- McLennan County Birth Name (last, first) Age Place Profession Arnold BD 53 SC Farmer Blankenship David, estate Clements Thos B 44 AL Farmer Cobbs JA 55 VA Farmer Davis Lee R 50 TN Farmer Decherd FH 53 VA (male head of household is Farmer) Downs WW 38 NC Planter Evans Wm 78 VA Farmer Gurley Davis 68 NC Farmer Horne Jas S 51 GA Planter Kellum Edward 72 VA Farmer Loughridge TL 55 GA Farmer Prather Geo W 33 TN Farmer Rose AT 35 GA Farmer Speight JW 35 NC Planter Thompson Burwell J 68 SC Planter Thompson WA 51 GA Farmer Tinsley DR 42 SC Planter, MD Wilson RB 34 TN Farmer

204 Table E.3

Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- McLennan County Name 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Cobbs JA 10 12 13 14 15 18 ISS Davis Lee R 8 12 12 14 19 19 20 22 26 26

Blankenship David 18 19 20 20 25 ISP Loughridge TL 11 11 12 13 14 31

Rose AT 15 18 19 20 21 18 22

Wilson RB 11 14 13 20 19

Arnold BD 25 26 26 24 24 27 27 19 28 Clements Thos B 4 37 32 34 55 49 Decherd FH 0 70 75 54 54 54 Downs WW 68 66 67 70 70 70 Evans Wm 21 20 21 19 21 23 23 InitialPlanters Gurley Davis 28 38 37 40 40 37 44

Horne Jas S 38 36 35 36 36 36 36 36 34 Kellum Edward 21 20 18 21 23 23 Prather Geo W 1 33 35 33 35 35 37 Speight JW 54 56 56 57 32 33 Thompson Burwell J 50 61 62 64 68 72 Thompson WA 24 28 25 23

Tinsley DR 48 43 48 48 51

205 Table E.4

Annual Rates of Change in Slaves Owned (as a percentage)- McLennan County Name 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Cobbs JA 9.54 8.33 7.69 7.14 20 10.29 ISS Davis Lee R 50 0 16.7 35.7 0 5.26 10 18.2 0 13.99

Blankenship David 5.56 5.26 0 11.8 6.79 ISP Loughridge TL 0 9.09 8.33 7.69 121.4 23.03

Rose RT 20 5.56 5.26 5 -14 22.22 6.59

Wilson RB 27.3 -7.1 53.8 -5 14.64

Arnold BD 4 0 -7.7 0 12.5 0 -30 47.37 1.43 Clements Thos B -14 6.25 61.8 -10.9 7.28 Decherd FH 7.14 -28 0 0 -6.28 Downs WW -2.9 1.52 4.48 0 0 0.58 Evans Wm -4.8 5 -9.5 10.5 9.52 0 1.53 InitialPlanters Gurley Davis 35.7 -2.6 8.11 0 -7.5 18.92 7.82 Horne Jas S -5.3 -2.8 2.86 0 0 0 0 -5.56 -1.38 Kellum Edward -4.8 -10 16.7 9.52 0 1.84 Prather Geo W 6.06 -5.7 6.06 0 5.714 2.31 Speight JW 3.7 0 1.79 -44 3.125 -12.38 Thompson Burwell J 22 1.64 3.23 6.25 5.882 7.57 Thompson WA 16.7 -11 -8 -1.41

Tinsley DR -10 11.6 0 6.25 1.53

206 Table E.5

Value of Slaves Owned, Sorted by Initial Category- McLennan County Name 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Cobbs JA 4900 5000 5150 5250 5250 8000 ISS Davis Lee R 1600 1800 2500 5600 7600 7700 8000 8400 9000 9000

Blankenship David 7700 6100 6200 6200 17000 ISP Loughridge TL 4300 4300 7550 7000 7500 9300

Rose RT 7000 7200 9450 8000 9750 9100 11700

Wilson RB 4500 7000 6000 8000 6000

Arnold BD 12000 12400 12500 12000 12000 12500 12500 12000 16500 Clements Thos B 3600 22500 20400 17000 27500 29400 Decherd FH 0 32800 38000 27000 27000 32400 Downs WW 27200 21500 32000 33000 32000 32000 Evans Wm 10000 9000 9100 7000 10300 12100 12100 InitialPlanters Gurley Davis 19000 15200 18500 18500 18500 17000 23000

Horne Jas S 12000 12600 15750 18000 18000 16300 16300 16300 14900 Kellum Edward 14000 10000 8000 9000 10000 10000 Prather Geo W 700 13000 13200 12000 12250 12250 12000 Speight JW 25300 30000 25000 25000 17000 17000 Thompson Burwell J 20000 25500 3700 37300 38100 43200 Thompson WA 11700 21000 19300 20000

Tinsley DR 32750 26900 27900 27950 34000

207 Table E.6

Adjusted Value of Slaves Owned- McLennan County Name 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Cobbs JA 3085 3158 3141 3238 2965 3790 ISS Davis Lee R 1230 1411 1723 3526 4930 4864 4879 5180 5083 4264

Blankenship David 4995 3853 3781 3823 8054 ISP Loughridge TL 2789 2716 4605 4317 4236 4406

Rose RT 4407 4671 5969 4879 6013 5139 5543

Wilson RB 2843 4269 3700 4518 2843

Arnold BD 9410 8547 7870 7785 7580 7624 7708 6777 7817 Clements Thos B 2335 14213 12442 10484 15531 13928 Decherd FH 0 20719 23176 16650 15248 15350 Downs WW 17645 13581 19517 20350 18072 15160 Evans Wm 6296 5838 5748 4269 6352 6833 5732 InitialPlanters Gurley Davis 11962 9860 11686 11283 11409 9601 10896

Horne Jas S 9410 8685 9916 11677 11370 9941 10052 9205 7059 Kellum Edward 9082 6317 4879 5550 5647 4738 Prather Geo W 440.7 8433 8338 7319 7554 6918 5685 Speight JW 16412 18951 15248 15417 9601 8054 Thompson Burwell J 12974 16108 2257 23002 21517 20466 Thompson WA 7136 12950 10900 9475

Tinsley DR 20688 16406 17205 15785 16108

208 Table E.7

Annual Rates of Change in Adjusted Value of Slaves Owned (as a percentage)- McLennan County Name 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Cobbs JA 1.18 -0.6 3.07 -8.4 27.8 3.49 ISS Davis Lee R 14.7 22.1 105 39.8 -1.3 0.31 6.17 -1.9 -16 14.81

Blankenship David -23 -1.9 1.11 45.1 10.03 ISP Loughridge TL -2.6 69.5 -6.3 -1.9 4.02 9.57

Rose RT 5.98 27.8 -18 23.2 -15 7.86 3.90

Wilson RB 50.2 -13 22.1 -37 0.00

Arnold BD -9.2 -7.9 -1.1 -2.6 0.58 1.11 -12 15.3 -2.29 Clements Thos B -12 -16 48.1 -10 -0.50 Decherd FH 11.9 -28 -8.4 0.67 -7.22 Downs WW -23 43.7 4.27 -11 -16 -2.99 Evans Wm -7.3 -1.5 -26 48.8 7.58 -16 -1.55 InitialPlanters Gurley Davis -18 18.5 -3.4 1.11 -16 13.5 -1.54

Horne Jas S -7.7 14.2 17.8 -2.6 -13 1.11 -8.4 -23 -3.53 Kellum Edward -30 -23 13.7 1.75 -16 -12.20 Prather Geo W -1.1 -12 3.22 -8.4 -18 -7.58 Speight JW 15.5 -20 1.11 -38 -16 -13.27 Thompson Burwell J 24.2 -86 919 -6.5 -4.9 9.54 Thompson WA 81.5 -16 -13 9.91

Tinsley DR -21 4.87 -8.3 2.05 -6.06

209 Table E.8

Value of Acreage- McLennan County Name 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Cobbs JA 5367 2840 2640 3280 8590 10320 ISS Davis Lee R 3896 3666 4720 8357 5842 5192 9336 10798 11214 14356

Blankenship David 0 0 0 3311 11000

ISP Loughridge TL 1668 3600 11424 4424 4424 5530

Rose RT 1415 1415 2107 3010 3010 3010 3612

Wilson RB 0 0 3000 3000 3000

Arnold BD 0 1600 3042 7857 7857 8707 6000 0 5000 Clements Thos B 7020 11700 11700 11700 16080 12570 Decherd FH 3321 3327 7820 7850 7820 7820 Downs WW 11000 30400 31400 23560 13079 40510 Evans Wm 0 3000 3000 3360 4400 3470 4720 InitialPlanters Gurley Davis 3488 12800 17000 17500 17500 17500 23000 Horne Jas S 0 2000 5340 11900 11000 11000 11000 12000 3000

Kellum Edward 0 0 5000 4800 4000 4000 Prather Geo W 8000 8000 8000 8000 10000 12000 Speight JW 4000 8250 11400 12750 22730 15530 Thompson Burwell J 0 8856 17418 15500 15498 15498 Thompson WA 0 10000 10000 10000 Tinsley DR 21300 21300 22600 23100 24100

210 Table E.9

Annual Rates of Change in Value of Acreage (as a percentage)- McLennan County Name 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Cobbs JA -27 -7 24.2 162 20.1 11.51 ISS Davis Lee R -5.9 28.8 77.1 -30 -11 79.8 15.7 3.85 28 15.59

Blankenship David 0 0 * 82.3 82.27

ISP Loughridge TL 116 217 -61 0 25 27.09

Rose RT 0 48.9 42.9 0 0 20 16.90

Wilson RB 0 * 0 0 0.00

Arnold BD * 90.1 158 0 10.8 -31 -100 * 17.68 Clements Thos B 66.7 0 0 37.4 -22 12.36 Decherd FH 135 0.38 -0.4 0 23.82 Downs WW 176 3.29 -25 -44 210 29.79 Evans Wm * 0 12 31 -21 36 9.49 InitialPlanters Gurley Davis 267 32.8 2.94 0 0 31.4 36.94 Horne Jas S * 167 123 -7.6 0 0 9.09 -75 5.96

Kellum Edward 0 * -4 -17 0 -7.17 Prather Geo W 0 0 0 25 20 8.45 Speight JW 106 38.2 11.8 78.3 -32 31.17 Thompson Burwell J * 96.7 -11 -0 0 15.02 Thompson WA * 0 0 0.00 Tinsley DR 0 6.1 2.21 4.33 3.14

211 Table E.10

Ratio of Slave Values to Acreage Values- McLennan County Name 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 Cobbs JA 0.91 1.76 1.95 1.6 0.61 0.78 ISS Davis Lee R 0.41 0.49 0.53 0.67 1.3 1.48 0.86 0.78 0.8 0.63

Blankenship David * * * 1.87 1.55 ISP Loughridge TL 2.58 1.19 0.66 1.58 1.7 1.68

Rose RT 4.95 5.09 4.49 2.66 3.24 3.02 3.24

Wilson RB * * 2 2.67 2

Arnold BD * 7.75 4.11 1.53 1.53 1.44 2.08 * 3.3 Clements Thos B 0.51 1.92 1.74 1.45 1.71 2.34 Decherd FH 0 9.86 4.86 3.44 3.45 4.14 Downs WW 2.47 0.71 1.02 1.4 2.45 0.79 Evans Wm * 3 3.03 2.08 2.34 3.49 2.56 InitialPlanters Gurley Davis 5.45 1.19 1.09 1.06 1.06 0.97 1

Horne Jas S * 6.3 2.95 1.51 1.64 1.48 1.48 1.36 4.97 Kellum Edward * * 1.6 1.88 2.5 2.5 Prather Geo W * 1.63 1.65 1.5 1.53 1.23 1 Speight JW 6.33 3.64 2.19 1.96 0.75 1.09 Thompson Burwell J * 2.88 0.21 2.41 2.46 2.79 Thompson WA * 2.1 1.93 2

Tinsley DR 1.54 1.26 1.23 1.21 1.41

212 Table E.11

Annual Rates of Change in Ratio of Slave Value to Acreage Value (as a percentage)- McLennan County Name 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 AA%C Cobbs JA 38.9 10.8 -18 -62 26.8 -2.69 Iss Davis Lee R 19.6 7.87 26.5 94.1 14 -42 -9.2 3.17 -22 4.81

Blankenship David 0 0 * -9.2 -9.15 ISP Loughridge TL -54 -45 139 7.14 -0.8 -8.19

Rose RT 2.86 -12 -41 21.9 -6.7 7.14 -6.81

Wilson RB 0 * 33.3 -25 0.00

Arnold BD * -47 -63 0 -6 45.1 -100 25.86 -11.48 Clements Thos B 275 -9.3 -17 17.7 36.8 35.46 Decherd FH -51 -29 0.38 20 -19.48 Downs WW -71 44.1 37.4 74.7 -68 -20.41 Evans Wm * 1.11 -31 12.4 49 -26 -3.10 InitialPlanters Gurley Davis -78 -8.4 -2.9 0 -8.1 2.94 -24.61

Horne Jas S * -53 -49 8.18 -9.4 0 -8.3 266 -3.34 Kellum Edward 0 * 17.2 33.3 0 16.04 Prather Geo W 1.54 -9.1 2.08 -20 -18 -9.25 Speight JW -43 -40 -11 -62 46.4 -29.59 Thompson Burwell J * -93 1033 2.16 13.4 -0.81 Thompson WA * -8.1 3.63 0.00

Tinsley DR -18 -2.2 -2 16.6 -2.13

213 APPENDIX F

FEMALE PLANTERS DATA

214 Table F.1

Female Planters by County Age In Harrison County 1860 Martha Adams widow of C. M. Adams 31 Octavia Adair Mills widow of Wm. Adair, remarried to John F. Mills 31 Mary Blocker widow of Wm. J. Blocker 48 Rebecca Haggerty widow of Spire M. Haggerty 45 Rebecca Hope widow of Oscar Hope 45 Patience Mary Rose widow of R. R. Rose 29 Sarah, Mary, & Rebecca Shaw single, unknown if ever married 56, 52, 50 Mrs Lucy Steger widow of John B. Steger 56 Martha Jane Lary Waskom widow of Wm. C. Lary, remarried to J. M. Wascomb 47 Letty Whitfield widow of D. B. Whitfield 36

Brazoria County Sarah H. Black widow of James E. Black 47 Irene Burney widow of David Burney 46 Winifred F. Gill widow 59 Sarah Mims widow 55 Mrs Emily Quarles widow of D. W. Quarles 37 Jane Yerby widow of Robert Yerby 45

Colorado County Harriet B. Burford widow of Jonathan Burford 57 Fannie Darden married to Wm John Darden 30 Rebecca C. Grace widow of Abel Grace 40 Lucinda Miller widow of John F. Miller 50 Ann Elizabeth Stockton Montgomery married to John G. Montgomery 27

McLennan County Frances H. Holder Decherd married to Philip Decherd 53 Josephine Pruitt Speight married to Joseph Warren Speight 35

215 Table F.2

Widows Year Widowed Harrison County Martha Adams 1859 Mary Blocker 1859 Rebecca Haggerty 1849 (though separated earlier) Rebecca Hope 1848 Patience Mary Rose 1853 Mrs Lucy Steger before 1846 Letty Whitfield 1859

Brazoria County Sarah H. Black 1857 Irene Burney 1859 Winifred F. Gill ? Sarah Mims 1844 Mrs Emily Quarles 1851 Jane Yerby 1853

Colorado County Harriet B. Burford before 1852 Rebecca C. Grace 1859 Lucinda Miller 1853

216 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Materials

Deed Records. County Clerk’s Office, Brazoria County Real Property Records

Office, Angleton, Texas.

Eighth Census of the United States, 1860. Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants) and

Schedule 2 (Slave Inhabitants). National Archives, Washington, D. C. microfilm copy,

University of North Texas Libraries.

Seventh Census of the United States, 1850. Schedule 1 (Free Inhabitants) and

Schedule 2 (Slave Inhabitants). National Archives, Washington, D. C. microfilm copy,

University of North Texas Libraries.

Records of the Comptroller of Public Accounts, Ad Valorem Tax Division, County

Real and Personal Property Tax Rolls, 1850-1880. Archives Division, Texas State

Library, Austin, Texas. Microfilm copy, University of North Texas Libraries.

Probate Papers. County Clerk’s Office, Brazoria County Real Property Records

Office, Angleton, Texas.

Probate Papers. County Clerk’s Office, Harrison County Courthouse, Marshall,

Texas.

Probate Papers. County Clerk’s Office, McLennan County Records Building, Waco,

Texas.

Marriage Records. County Clerk’s Office, Harrison County Courthouse, Marshall,

Texas.

217 Secondary Materials

Boles, John B. The South Through Time: A History of an American Region

(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1995).

Boswell, Angela. Her Act and Deed: Women’s Lives in a Rural Southern

Community County, 1837-1873 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2001).

Campbell, Randolph B. A Southern Community in Crisis: Harrison County, Texas,

1850-1880 (Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1983).

______. An Empire for Slavery: The Peculiar Institution in Texas, 1821-1865

(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989).

______. Grass-Roots Reconstruction in Texas, 1865-1880 (Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University Press, 1997).

______. “Intermittent Slave Ownership: Texas as a Test Case” in The Journal

of Southern History, vol LI, no 1 (February 1985), 15-23.

______. , “Planters and Plain Folk: Harrison County, Texas, as a Test Case,

1850-1860” in The Journal of Southern History, vol XL, no 3 (August 1974), 374-78.

______. “Planters and Plain Folks: the Social Structure of the Antebellum

South,” in John B. Boles and Evelyn Thomas Nolen, Interpreting Southern History:

Historiographical Essays in Honor of Sanford W. Higginbotham (Baton Rouge: Louisiana

State University Press, 1987), 48-77.

______and Richard G. Lowe. Wealth and Power in Antebellum Texas (College

Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1977).

218 Censer, Jane Turner. North Carolina Planters and Their Children, 1800-1860

(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984).

Clinton, Catherine. The Plantation Mistress: Woman’s World in the Old South

(New York: Pantheon Books, 1982).

Creighton, James A. A Narrative History of Brazoria County, Texas (Waco: Texian

Press of the Brazoria County Historical Commission, 1975; fourth printing 1999).

Colorado County Historical Commission. Colorado County Chronicles, From the

Beginning to 1923, Vol. I (Austin: Nortex Press, 1986).

Cummins, Light Townsend. Emily Austin of Texas, 1795-1851 (Fort Worth: Texas

Christian University Press, 2009).

Dodd, William E. The Cotton Kingdom: A Chronicle of the Old South (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1920).

Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth. Within the Plantation Household: Black & White

Women of the Old South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988).

Foust, James D. The Yeoman Farmer and Westward Expansion of U. S. Cotton

Production (New York: Arno Press, 1975).

Genovese, Eugene. The World the Slaveholders Made: Two Essays in

Interpretation (New York: Pantheon Books, 1969).

Gray, Lewis Cecil. History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 (2

vols. Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1933).

Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online).

Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

219 Harris, J. William. Plain Folk and Gentry in a Slave Society: White Liberty and

Black Slavery in Augusta’s Hinterlands (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press,

1985).

Kelley, Dayton (editor). The Handbook of Waco and McLennan County, Texas

(Waco: Texian Press, 1972).

Kelley, Dayton (editor). Waco & McLennan County, Texas, 1876 (Waco: Texian

Press, 1966).

Kelley, Sean M. Los Brazos de Dios: A Plantation Society in the Texas

Borderlands, 1821-1865 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2010).

______. ”Plantation Frontiers: Race, Ethnicity, & Family Along the Brazos River

of Texas, 1821-1886.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 2000.

Kolchin, Peter. American Slavery, 1619-1877 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993).

Lowe, Richard G. and Randolph B. Campbell. Planters & Plain Folk: Agriculture in

Antebellum Texas (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1987).

McArthur, Judith N. “Myth, Reality, and Anomaly: The Complex World of Rebecca

Hagerty” East Texas Historical Journal, Vol. XXIV, No. 2, (1986), 18-29.

McNeill, Sallie. The Uncompromising Diary of Sallie McNeill, 1858-1867, edited by

Ginny McNeill Raska and Mary Lynne Gasaway Hill (College Station: Texas A&M

University Press, 2009).

Moneyhon, Carl H. "The Impact of the Civil War in Arkansas: The Mississippi

River Plantation Counties." Arkansas Historical Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, (1992), 105–18.

220 Morris, Christopher. Becoming Southern: The Evolution of a Way of Life, Warren

County and Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1770-1860 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Oakes, James. The Ruling Race: A History of American Slaveholders (New York,

Alfred A. Knopf, 1982).

Owsley, Frank. Plain Folk of the Old South (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

University Press, 1949).

Pessen, Edward. Riches, Class, and Power Before the Civil War (Lexington,

Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1973).

Phillips, Ulrich Bonnel. Life and Labor in the Old South. (Boston: Little, Brown

and Company, 1929, reprint edition 1963).

Poage, W. R. “Bob”. McLennan County – Before 1980 (Waco: Texian Press for

Baylor University, 1981).

Silverthorne, Elizabeth. Ashbel Smith of Texas: Pioneer, Patriot, Statesman,

1805-1886 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1982).

______. Plantation Life In Texas (College Station: Texas A&M University Press,

1986).

Smith, Edith & Vivian Lehman. “No Land . . . Only Slaves !”, Vol 9: Abstracts from the Deed Books of Smith County & McLennan County, Texas (Balch Springs,

Texas: Edith Smith & Vivian Lehman, 2004).

Stampp, Kenneth M. The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South

(New York: Vintage Books, 1956).

221 Stein, Bill. "Consider the Lily: The Ungilded History of Colorado County, Texas,

Part 5," in Nesbitt Memorial Library Journal 7 (January 1997).

Strobel, Abner J. “The Old Plantations and Their Owners of Brazoria County,

Texas,” (Houston, 1926; reprint, 1956).

Stuntz, Jean A. Hers, His, & Theirs: Community Property Law in Spain & Early

Texas (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 2005).

White, John Francis. A History of Texas and Texans, Edited and brought to date

by Eugene C. Barker with the assistance of Ernest William Winkler, 5 vols. (Chicago:

American Historical Society, 1914).

Wood, Kirsten E. Masterful Women: Slaveholding Women from the American

Revolution Through the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004).

Wright, Gavin. The Political Economy of the Cotton South: Household, Markets,

and Wealth in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Norton Press, 1975).

222