Color & The Census

Copyright 1999, Barry Archer, barcher@republic.net

With the recent effort to index the 1870 and 1880 censuses for Obion County, Tennessee, questions were raised about "black" and "white" people in the same household with the same surname.  Since my family has both "white" and "black" elements, I volunteered to look into the subject.

As the following excerpt notes, it was not unusual for former slaves to take the surname of their owner.

"The free Negro had of course adopted surnames mostly of northern European origin. And it should be noted the free Negro were in America during the colonial times.

However prior to the Civil War, almost all slaves had no surnames. It is said that during the war, when the U.S. Army conscripted the Negro, surnames were applied and those names were often the names of their former owners. These surnames are today often referred to as "slave names." But a word of caution here. Not all names that were adopted were the names of the former owners. Sometimes the name came from a friend, even a Negro friend. Negro men were known to have changed their post-Civil War names to one more of  their liking.

 The given names that were familiar to the slaves were the names from the plantations. A friend writes; "… I have just noticed that about 1870, there are many folks who take the name of their previous owner … even down to naming their children the same names as children of previous masters and of course, lots of kids named after presidents …" Another word of caution here. The white families recycled given names. It would be possible to find two white brothers, each with children of the same names, and each brother owning a slave named "Bob".

Prior to the Civil War, free persons with less than one-eight or one-sixteenth Negro ancestry were classified as white. When doing genealogy, it is wise to consider that the only absolute is: there is absolutely nothing sure. Question everything!"

http://www.tngenweb.usit.com/tncolor/colornam.htm

Also as I have found out it is not uncommon for a family’s "color" to change in the federal census over the course of time. There are many factors involved such as lack of suitable mates of the same race (intermarriage) and changing definitions of what "white," "black" and especially "mulatto" meant.

The lack of suitable mates of the same race was not much of an issue for our early ancestors. They had come to conquer a wild frontier not to procreate their past.   Many "white" men married (or had children with) "Indian" or "black" women.  In the same manner many "black" men married (or had children with) "white" or "Indian" women.  As race became more significant (during the 1800s) to the community, people with similar heritage tended to settle together.  As such these people of "mixed" heritage usually married someone also of "mixed" heritage.

Many times a person’s "color" was based on the interpretation of the census taker. I have found members of the same family, once they had redistributed themselves in different counties, be classified as "white," "black" and "mulatto."  The classification of race in the federal census also was modified over the course of time.

Probably the most significant change was the removal of a classification (Mulatto) in 1900 as the following excerpt indicates.

"Few people realize how large a proportion of the so-called Negro race in this country is not really Negro at all, but Mulatto or mixed blood, either half white, or quadroon, or octoroon, or some other combination. In the last census (1900) the government gave up the attempt in discouragement of trying to enumerate the Mulattos at all, and counted all persons as Negroes who were so classed in the communities where they resided…"

http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/history/courses/hist563/baker/baker3.htm

I hope this helps those who have interest in our diverse heritage.
Barry Archer