--WebTV-Mail-23261-4608 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit It was Bristol Co. MAss.. Dartmouth. Florence was correct... who ever read the original Census made an error on the Heading titile, 4 was NOT the number of slaves but the number in the household. --WebTV-Mail-23261-4608 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from smtpin-2103.public.lawson.webtv.net (172.16.213.113) by storefull-2134.public.lawson.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:28:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [207.40.200.41]) by smtpin-2103.public.lawson.webtv.net (WebTV_Postfix+sws) with ESMTP id A5F82FE67; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from [email protected]) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) id gBSMPpuG008790; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 15:25:51 -0700 Resent-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 15:25:51 -0700 X-Original-Sender: [email protected] Sat Dec 28 15:25:50 2002 From: "Jim Bullock" <[email protected]> Old-To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [MABRISTO] Slavery in 1810 census Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 15:26:22 -0700 Message-ID: <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 In-reply-to: <[email protected]> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lists5.rootsweb.com id gBSMPom4008767 Resent-Message-ID: <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Resent-From: [email protected] Reply-To: [email protected] X-Mailing-List: <[email protected]> archive/latest/3501 X-Loop: [email protected] Precedence: list Resent-Sender: [email protected] I'm sure that Florence is right, but if one gets a copy of the 1810 U. S. Census form from ancestry.com, it shows two columns after "free white females", the first being "all other free white persons" and the next is "slaves". Those columns don't show up in the actual census records for Dartmouth. As Florence noted, there is only one column after the females columns, that being for the total number of persons in the household. I wondered if Charlie meant Bristol Co. RI (it was on RIGENWEB where slavery was the topic of discussion), but I found only a Rufus Hunter listed there--no Alexander. Jim Bullock Littleton, CO -----Original Message----- From: Florence Gargaro [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 9:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MABRISTO] Slavery in 1810 census At 10:30 AM 12/28/02 -0500, you wrote: >On the R.I. list, Slavery seems to be the topic of the day. This >brought to mind that on the 1810 Bristol Co. Census, my g g g >grandfather Alexander HUNTER was listed as owning 4 slaves. Quite >certain he was not a wealthy person. Is it possible he inherited these >slaves?? If so would this be recorded somewhere as public record??? >Thanks Slavery was abolished in 1783 in MA - and I believe you may have misread the census for 1810. If your Alexander Hunter is the one in Dartmouth, the entry for him shows one male under 10, one male 16 to 25, one male 45 and over, and one female 45 and over. The final column on that census is not slaves, but was used to list the total number of individuals in the household - in this case, four. Similarly, in 1820, if you check the headings for the columns, you will find the section for slaves shown on the standard forms for 1820 do not appear in the Dartmouth MA census - that section was omitted, and the column after persons engaged in manufacture was the first column for free colored males. Not every town has a header, but those that don't have one still had no columns for slaves, since slave ownership was not legal in MA at that time. Florence ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 --WebTV-Mail-23261-4608--