Regarding slave ownership in the NY branch... the most I have found is Solomon DuBois who owned 7 in 1755. However this is the only "slave census" I have access to... I think most at the time owned 2 or 3. Jim Miller -----Original Message----- From: ELIZABETH RUSSO <elizabethrusso@home.com> To: DuBose-L@rootsweb.com <DuBose-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, January 02, 1999 10:08 AM Subject: DUBOIS and DUBOSE and slave-owning tendencies >Every six months or so, I thought I'd trot out my DUBOSE/DUBOIS theories >for discussion purposes. When first researching my DuBOIS lines, I was >struck by the thought that frequently people from the south (USA) would >assume I was talking about DUBOSE. But this virtually never happened in >the north. Rather, the discussion in the north seems to be whether my >family pronounces it as doo-BOYZ, doo-BWAH, or doo-BOY (Answer: all >three.) > >Once I started researching, I soon was struck by the notion that the >DuBOIS and the DUBOSE families do not appear to be related at all. Many >hundreds, or thousands, of documents later, I am still of this opinion. > >Yes, there are occasional clerical errors. But when examining documents >as a whole, you can usually figure out which spelling is meant. The >folks who live in the gray areas are the DUBOISE families. And then, >there are the DuBoyce famillies, etc. > >In collecting census and military records for SC, AL, and GA for the >19th century, I've come to the following conclusions: > >The DUBOSEs, for the most part, descended from a line by the name of >DUBOSC/DuBosq that initially came to SC and due to either clerical error >or choice, the name was changed to DuBose. They produced many >descendants who migrated throughout the southeast. You will rarely find >the DuBose name above the Mason-Dixon line prior to 1800. > >The DUBOIS, on the other hand, have fairly consistently spelled their >name this way for at least 400 years. In the US before 1800, they >settled mostly in the New York/New England/Canada areas. But my branch >came to Charleston at least by 1696, and it is from this line that the >few southern (except for Louisiana, where the DuBois were French >Catholics) DUBOIS families sprang. > >Both DUBOSE and DUBOIS families that settled in SC by 1700 were >initially French Huguenots and fairly adamantly protestant from at least >1680 to the early 1900s. > >In the Southeast, the DUBOSEs probably outnumber the DUBOIS' at least 10 >to 1. > >They produced more sons and many DuBoses owned slaves numbering in the >tens and hundreds. The DuBOIS' owned similar amounts of land, but tended >to not have more than one or two families of slaves, if at all, and >their slaves probably came into their families via intermarriage with >non-DUBOIS surnamed people. > >I am less familiar with the northeastern DUBOIS and leave it to those >researchers to chime in with their slave info, etc. One theory I've >read is that the northern Huguenots with Dutch ties were more likely to >own slaves than their southern cousins with English ties. And in the >south, Huguenots coming directly to the US who attended French-speaking >Huguenot churches were more likely to be slaveowners than those coming >through England who were Anglican. > >In my own family, it appears that they were Anglican and later Methodist >from the earliest dates of the colonies. Their churches emphasized >"mission work to the Africans" by teaching them to read and write and by >providing places and opportunities for worship. Their early efforts >were met sometimes with violence. This, along with their close ties >with their friends and neighbors, probably kept them from being outright >abolitionist. But their faith dictates appear to have kept a lid on >slave acquisition. > >In looking at 1860 census indexes for the southern states, it was >striking to note that in that year there were NO DuBois' listed for the >state of Georgia, but many DUBOSE. The DUBOIS for Louisiana were mostly >French catholic immigrants, but those who came to that state from AL or >SC prior to 1850 were probably from the Huguenot lines. > >In examining Autauga and Hale county, AL census record for 1870, I found >no black DuBOIS families, but several DUBOSE. In looking at Confederate >military records at NARA for Alabama, again the DUBOSEs outnumbered the >DUBOIS. These facts are not surprising statistically, given that there >were far more DUBOSE families than DUBOIS in Alabama. > >I would love to hear from others about these theories. What have you >found? > >I search the truth, and not political correctness. > >Elizabeth DuBois Russo > > >==== DuBose Mailing List ==== >******* Happy New Year! ******* >Send comments about the Forum to: >Steven J. Coker, Forum Manager >P.O. Box 359, Charleston, SC 29402 >DuBose@GeoCities.com >http://www.dubose.org/ > >