Don, excellent point and I too was surprised to see a savvy research like Robert Grant overlook this important detail. I reminds me a recent post on "The Legal Genealogist" about the importance of reading the INSTRUCTIONS to the census takers on the various censuses (or is that "censi?"). In her example, it had to with Native American ancestry and codes that the people in Washington, D. C. assigned to them after they were returned. But the lesson remains the same. Good post, Don. On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Wilson, Donald L wrote: > There seem to be a number of researchers who have misinterpreted early > Virginia birth records in the way Mr. Grant has. A few published > abstracts have done that. I would say unless he has additional > evidence to the contrary, the record is only showing that Richard Jordan > Wright is the owner of those slaves, NOT their father. > > The headings for the Virginia birth registers (beginning in 1853) are > (with an example from Prince William): > Date of birth: June 1853. > Name of child: Louisa, > White / Colored: If colored whether Free or Slave: S[lave] > Male or Female: Female. > Born alive or dead: A[live] > Place of birth: Prince William County. > Father's name (if child be free and born in wedlock) or name of owner > (if child be born a slave): Wm. J. Weir. > Father's occupation: [blank] > Father's residence: [blank] > Mother: Lucy Fields (slave). [Note: Since the mother has a surname, > her status is included so there is no doubt she is a slave] > How many at a birth? 1. > Informant: Wm. J. Weir, owner. > > Notice that the register does not ask for the father's name if the child > is a slave or is born out of wedlock. >

Don and Craig, Thank you very much for those comments and insights. Don may well be right that I have misinterpreted the records. I double checked the Rockbridge birth registers that I have for 1853 and 1857 and the column heading reads as Don listed it, but in different ways on different pages and years: "Father's name in full if child be born free or owner's name if slave" "Father's name in full, if child be born in wedlock" "Father's name in full if child free and born in wedlock or name of owner if child be born a slave" Whatever way the headings are listed, the labeling indicates that Don may be correct that the birth listings were of Richard Jordan Wright as owner of a slave and not as the father of the slave. But I do not have copies of the birth registers for the Richard Jordan Wright slave births and so have ordered them from the Library to check them out and be sure how they read. My source for this record includes _Rockbridge County, Births, 1853-1877,_ abstracted by Dorthie and Edwin Kirkpatrick, Iberian Publishing Company, 1988, which listed the births as follows: "Wright, William* Mar 1853 [SMA] Rockbridge Co.; Vina* & Richard J. Wright (-, Rockbridge Co.) reported by Richard J. Wright, owner . . . . Wright, Simon* Oct 1853 [SMA] Rockbridge Co.; Casander* & Richard J. Wright (-, Rockbridge Co.) reported by Richard J. Wright/ owner . . . . [and similarly for the others]" This may be the abstract Don was referring to and this listing might also be a misreading of the birth register of Richard J. Wright as the father rather than the owner. So thank you for bringing this to my attention and I will report back when I get the original documents. And thanks for the kind description of "savvy researcher", but perhaps not so savvy if I got this wrong. :-) Best wishes, Bob Grant On 10/27/2012 9:42 AM, Craig Kilby wrote: > Don, excellent point and I too was surprised to see a savvy research like Robert Grant overlook this important detail. I reminds me a recent post on "The Legal Genealogist" about the importance of reading the INSTRUCTIONS to the census takers on the various censuses (or is that "censi?"). In her example, it had to with Native American ancestry and codes that the people in Washington, D. C. assigned to them after they were returned. But the lesson remains the same. > > Good post, Don. > On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Wilson, Donald L wrote: > >> There seem to be a number of researchers who have misinterpreted early >> Virginia birth records in the way Mr. Grant has. A few published >> abstracts have done that. I would say unless he has additional >> evidence to the contrary, the record is only showing that Richard Jordan >> Wright is the owner of those slaves, NOT their father. >> >> The headings for the Virginia birth registers (beginning in 1853) are >> (with an example from Prince William): >> Date of birth: June 1853. >> Name of child: Louisa, >> White / Colored: If colored whether Free or Slave: S[lave] >> Male or Female: Female. >> Born alive or dead: A[live] >> Place of birth: Prince William County. >> Father's name (if child be free and born in wedlock) or name of owner >> (if child be born a slave): Wm. J. Weir. >> Father's occupation: [blank] >> Father's residence: [blank] >> Mother: Lucy Fields (slave). [Note: Since the mother has a surname, >> her status is included so there is no doubt she is a slave] >> How many at a birth? 1. >> Informant: Wm. J. Weir, owner. >> >> Notice that the register does not ask for the father's name if the child >> is a slave or is born out of wedlock. >> > > > >