tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-47507036299688567692024-02-08T07:49:48.696-05:00Free Blacks in Antebellum North CarolinaThis blog is dedicated to the history and genealogy of my research of free Blacks in antebellum North Carolina. Please read the introduction to get an idea of what you can find here. If you leave a comment, be sure to check back in a few days as I generally reply to comments in the comment section.
NOTE: all posts in this blog are copyrighted. Do not post or publish elsewhere without my permission. Thank you :)Erinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09747662199492089159noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-47160055415802959902011-03-25T16:36:00.004-05:002011-12-05T08:54:03.045-05:00Correction on a 1861 law I posted about beforeHi all! This past week I was contacted by a student who is doing research on free blacks who petitioned to become slaves in the late 1850s and early 1860s. I wanted to let you know I made an error on something that was actually never a law. I had stated in an earlier post that there was a law passed in 1861 that allowed free blacks to petition the court to become slaves and choose their masters. When I was a graduate student, I was taking a legal history course back in 2004, which is when I did all the research. At the time, I did not know all the details about how a bill became law in North Carolina, but after I was contacted by the student, I wanted to refresh my memory about this supposed law and with my better understanding of the legislative process as well as contacts at the legislative library onf North Carolina, I discovered this was never a law in the first place. Let me tell you about about this Senate Bill No. 8, 1860-1861.<br /><br />First off, there were many free blacks in North Carolina who petitioned to become slaves during the late 1850s and early 1860s. It appears there was some sort of law regarding this, due to the wording of the petitions I have copies of at home, but I have not found one. As Dr. Franklin says in his book <span style="font-style: italic;">Free Negro in North Carolina, 1790-1860</span>, the courts were not always following the wishes of those who petitioned to becomes slaves. In 1860, a "Mr. Humphrey" of Onslow County introduced a bill - Senate Bill 8, Session 1860-'61 - that would have allowed and guaranteed that free blacks could petition the courts to enter slavery and choose their own master. I read this bill online at UNC-CH Docsouth website (<a href="http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/bill8/bill8.html">http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/bill8/bill8.html</a>). I also read the Senate Journal 1860-1861 at the State Library of North Carolina, which states that "Mr. Humphrey" read a bill concerning "free negroes" which was passed. Back in 2004, I thought this meant that the bill has passed and became law. Turns out I was wrong. I found out from my contact at the legislative library that the bill, which Dr. Franklin referred to as the "Humphrey Bill", died in the senate after the first reading and passage. In order to become law, a bill must be read and passed 3 times in both the house and senate, but the Humphrey Bill was only read and passed once and there is no evidence that it was ever read again. Also, if the bill had passed, it would have appeared in the Public Laws of North Carolina for the year it passed, but I cannot find any reference to the bill becoming law.<br /><br />By the way, the State Library of North Carolina is working on digitizing and making the <a href="http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=exact&CISOFIELD1=relatig&CISOBOX1=North+Carolina+Digital+State+Documents&CISOOP2=exact&CISOFIELD2=agency&CISOBOX2=General+Assembly&CISOOP3=all&CISORESTMP=results.php&CISOVIEWTMP=item_viewer.php&CISOMODE=grid&CISOGRID=thumbnail%2CA%2C1%3Btitle%2CA%2C1%3Bdescri%2C200%2C0%3Bdate%2CA%2C0%3Bnone%2CA%2C0%3B20%3Brelevancy%2Cnone%2Cnone%2Cnone%2Cnone&CISOBIB=title%2CA%2C1%2CN%3Btitlea%2CA%2C0%2CN%3Bcreata%2C200%2C0%2CN%3Bnone%2CA%2C0%2CN%3Bnone%2CA%2C0%2CN%3B20%3Brelevancy%2Cnone%2Cnone%2Cnone%2Cnone&CISOTHUMB=20+%284x5%29%3Btitle%2Cnone%2Cnone%2Cnone%2Cnone&CISOTITLE=20%3Btitle%2Cnone%2Cnone%2Cnone%2Cnone&CISOHIERA=20%3Btitlea%2Ctitle%2Cnone%2Cnone%2Cnone&CISOSUPPRESS=1&CISOBOX3=public+laws&CISOROOT=all&CISOFIELD3=title"><span style="font-style: italic;">Public Laws of North Carolina</span></a> available online. This is a continual work in progress and currently only those laws of the late 1850s-early 1870s are online.<br /><br />Hopefully soon I will be transcribing and putting online 2 petitions I have found back in 2004 for a Jenette Wright and John Phillips from Guilford County in 1861. They both petitioned the court to become slaves and both petitions were granted.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Erinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09747662199492089159noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-84500437403533843382011-01-30T00:46:00.002-05:002011-01-30T00:49:22.685-05:00The Tale of 2 Edmunds (Pettiford)<pre><span class="body">I get asked a lot about Edmund Pettiford in Guilford County who his parents were by researchers that<br />are trying to tie him into George Pettiford, the Revolutionary War Vet in order to join DAR. I am<br />sorry to inform you that there were actually 2 Edmund's and that the Edmund from Guilford County is<br />likely not directly descended from George.<br /><br />First, let's look at the facts about Edmund Pettiford from Guilford County and died in Grant Co., IN:<br /><br />1795 - born August 8th (source: obituary)<br />1816 - married Sarah Carter December 13th in Chatham County (Source: Marriage Bond)<br />1820 - I have not found him in the census - yet<br />1830 - Wake County, NC census Little River Township, pg. 473 line 16<br />1840 - Guilford County, NC census page 229<br />1850 - Guilford County, NC census, Southern Division with wife Sarah, p. 272a<br />1860 - Grant County, IN census, Liberty township, p. 309<br /><br /><br />Now, let's look at the Edmund in Granville County records:<br />1800 - born (Source: age 50 in 1850 census)<br />1820 - I have not found him in the census<br />1830 - I have not found him in the census<br />1832 - married Rebecca Johnson March 19th Granville County, George Anderson bondsman<br /> (source: marriage bond)<br />1840 - Granville County, NC census pg. 149<br />1850 - Granville County, NC census, Oxford District, dwelling/family 53, pg. 103a<br />1860 - I have not definitely identified him yet, but there is an Ed Pettiford age 60 in<br /> Cedar Creek, Granville County, NC, dwelling/family 1199, pg. 304b<br /><br />As you can see, there are two separate Edmunds.<br /><br />Now, let's take a look at George who served in the Revolutionary War:<br />1757 - Paul Heinegg estimates his birth year as this<br />1771 - inherited a bed from George Anderson (Oh! wait, wasn't a George Anderson bondsman for<br /> Edmund Pettiford's marriage to Rebecca Johnson?)<br />1785 - Tax list for Granville County<br />1786 - State census for Granville County, NC<br />1790 - Granville County, NC census<br />1800 - Granville County, NC census, Hillsborough District<br />1810 - cannot find him in the census yet<br />1820 - Granville County, NC census<br />1830 - Granville County, NC census; North Regiment, pg. 19<br />1837 - married to Tabitha Johnson May 1st, Granville County, **Edmund Pettiford as bondsman<br /><br />So let's look at this. The question here is which Edmund was the bondsman? This is where it starts<br />to get interesting and starts to fall in place, but it is also important to note that at this point<br />it is speculation, an educated guess if you will, as there is not been any definite proof to show<br />either way. The first piece to fall into place is the marriage of George and Edmund - Edmund<br />married a Rebecca Johnson in 1832 and now George married a Tabitha Johnson in 1837. Let's continue<br />with the time line for George:<br /><br />1840 - Granville County, NC census pg. 149 (**note: he is living near and listed on the same<br /> page as Edmund)<br />1850 - Granville County, NC census, Oxford District dwelling/family 52 page 103a (**note: Now he is<br />living next to Edmund)<br />1860 - I cannot find him in the census and he may have died by now (**note - the Ed Pettiford I<br />found in Granville County is sharing his household with a Tabby Pettiford - this is interesting.<br />Unfortunately the 1860 census does not list relationships so they may be husband and wife or they<br />may be widowed in laws sharing a house)<br /><br /><br />Although it is possible that the Edmund in Guilford County could have come to Granville to be the<br />bondsman of George's wedding and then returned, it is more likely that it was Edmund of Granville<br />County. Another piece to fall into place - the 1830 census. Edmund of Granville County was not<br />found, but in the 1850 census he is listed as 50 years old. In the 1840 census, he is listed as<br />being between age 34-55 and was likely about 40 years old. In the 1830 census, he is not found, but<br />looking at the ages from 1850 and 1840, he is probably about 30 years old and single (as his<br />marriage to Rebecca was 2 years later). George just happens to have a man between the ages of<br />24-36, so it is possible that a 30 year old bachelor Edmund was living with his father George, but<br />again, this is just speculation.<br /></span></pre><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Erinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09747662199492089159noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-26041307388870580562010-11-09T23:05:00.003-05:002010-11-09T23:27:34.165-05:00my absenceHi folks! I'm sorry I've been away from the blog (and sister website) for so long. I'm still pretty involved in my research of the Pettifords, trying to find some untapped resources. Be sure to keep your eye on the database (<a href="http://freeaainnc.tribalpages.com/">http://freeaainnc.tribalpages.com/</a>) as I am constantly updating information there, mostly for Pettiford, but any other free blacks in antebellum NC are added there as I find new information. For instance, today in the database, I added information on Judy Artis who married Reuben Pettiford and resided in Washington County and also her son Alfred Artis Pettiford, both of which filed claims with the Southern Claims Commission (SCC).<br /><br />Actually, this is one of the untapped resources I've recently discovered! The records for the SCC have been indexed and the records available on <a href="http://search.ancestry.com/search/CardCatalog.aspx#ccat=hc%3D25%26dbSort%3D2%26title%3D%26keyword%3Dsouthern%20claims%20commission%26">ancestry.com </a>(click the link to go directly to the database - you need to be a paying member to access the information though) and also in book format (Gary B. Mills. <i>Southern Loyalists in the Civil War: The Southern Claims Commission</i>. Baltimore, MD, USA: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2004.) If you don't have a subscription to Ancestry, then check your local public library to see if you can get this through Interlibrary Loan and a plug for the State Library of North Carolina, if you are someone who visits the State Library of North Carolina, this book is available in the Genealogical reading room.<br /><br />What is the SCC? From my understanding, The Southern Claims Commission was created for pro-Union Southerners could apply for reimbursement to any damage and losses to their property as a result of the Civil War. The one potential problem with this source is that it does not identify anyone by race. It may take a bit of research to figure out if a person who filed a claim was African-American or white (from what I saw today, most of the claims took place after the Civil War was over, so I say "African-American" instead of "free Black" because at that time they most likely were all free - there could be some that were dated earlier that I did not see today, so that is why I say "could have been", sorry for any confusion)<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Erinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09747662199492089159noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-89861863141005802202010-05-06T13:12:00.004-05:002010-05-06T13:42:43.453-05:00My Pettiford Research and the FreeAAinNC database is online!Hi Folks,<div><br /></div><div>It's been a long time since I last posted anything to this blog and I apologize for that. I have not posted much to the <a href="http://www.freeaainnc.com">website</a>, but there are a few new things. </div><div><br /></div><div>I apologize to everyone for all the spam in the comments sections of the blog. Last thing I posted in September had 33 comments, 20 of which were spam that I deleted, and a few that are left I'm not sure if they are legitimate or not. I may change the way folks can leave comments so they have to be approved by me first in order to keep spammers off. </div><div><br /></div><div>Well, I'm sure some of you are wondering what I've been doing with the research. I have spent the past year doing indepth research specifically on the Pettiford family in NC. The Pettiford family is a prolific group! I have traced over 500 Pettifords who all descend from 3 Pettifords (George, Lawrence, and Lewis) who were first recorded in Granville County in the 1740s and 1750s. George, Lawrence, and Lewis are all likely brothers, but so far I have found nothing that ties the three of them together. The descendants of these 3 men are found primarily in NC before the Civil War, but many began to move out of the state in the 1800s. Other states Pettifords moved to in the antebellum period are Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. There is also a line of Pettifords in Kentucky that I have not yet been able to tie them into the North Carolina lines, but I believe they are a branch. They seem to be descended from a Fanny Pettiford who was listed in the 1790 census in Kentucky, a free black woman, and I have not been able to connect her to anyone yet, but then again my focus is on North Carolina and I have not spent much time on Fanny and her descendants.</div><div><br /></div><div>One of the things I have been doing with the Pettiford group is tracking them in the census records. I have pulled all Pettifords (and variant spellings) from the census for 1790-1900 and I plan to do 1910-1930 still. One of the things I discovered while pulling the census information is that many of the Pettifords born in the antebellum period were still alive in the 1900s. That is why I'm pulling census information post-Civil War.</div><div><br /></div><div>For all you Pettiford researchers out there, be sure to check the surname index of the website out as there are 11 Pettifords listed. I have a whole lot more at home, just haven't had the time to transcribe them. Hopefully this summer I can get to that.</div><div><br /></div><div>I will continue to work on the Pettiford family through the end of 2010, but beginning 2011, i need to move on and plan to start working on the Mayo family. Why Mayo? It's actually the first family I started working on all those years ago in the fall of 2000! </div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, I have my database online! The address to my database is <a href="http://freeaainnc.tribalpages.com">http://freeaainnc.tribalpages.com</a> According to the statistics for that site, there are 1640 names in the database with the top surnames being Pettiford, Carter, and Chavis. I actually have more people to add in the future. Some of the people listed in the database are listed only because of marriage bonds I found for them and nothing else. </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Erinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09747662199492089159noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-1921340739157767082008-09-21T21:13:00.002-05:002008-09-21T21:21:50.501-05:00Website revised and index by surname upHi folks!<br /><br />I've been playing around with the website lately and have made some changes. Almost all the information on the main page has been removed and used to create an "About Us" type of page, divided into sections "About the Project", "About the Website", and "About the Transcriptions", and I'll probably add and "About Me" and "Announcements" section later. Please feel free to take a look at the new main page and leave comments here if you think it's good or how it can be improved for functionality. I like the top part of the page the best, links to the blog, dictionary of terms, surname index, and "about us" right at top so you don't have to go searching for that. I really detest websites that make you search for information like that which should be right at your fingertips. <br /><br />The other news is that I now have a surname index up! The index includes ALL names (white and black) that are mentioned in all transcribed documents. The index is alphabetical by surname, then given name, and then county. I've been trying to figure out the best way to do the index and the way it is now seems to work. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement. I'll take all suggestions into consideration, but if it's more work than the way it is now to enter new names, I'll probably pass because the index is <span style="font-style: italic;">very</span> time consuming.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Erinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09747662199492089159noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-85549453980466370212008-08-24T15:10:00.002-05:002008-08-24T15:15:17.951-05:00Website is up!Hi folks,<br /><br />I've been working on a website for the past 6 months or so. It's been very slow going due to a somewhat hectic life, but I finally have it up and running and the first 18 documents ready. The address is http://www.freeaainnc.com/. What this site is, is transcriptions of documents I've come across during my research of FPOC in antebellum N.C. I started transcribing these about 5 years ago, so they all appear a little bit different (source info located at the top or bottom of the page, etc.), but they all include the source information so you can request copies from the State Archives of North Carolina (which is where these all come from). <br /><br />So far, I have over 100 documents to transcribe (and more keep coming), but it's slow progress and I hope to get at least 1 document a week added to the website. Right now, the first page you go to has information about the website and at the bottom, you can click to enter a temporary index. As I work on the site, eventually all of the information on the main page will be used for an "About this site" page and the information of the temporary index will be moved to the main page in a more user friendly format (please feel free to give feedback on how I can make it more user friendly). Soon, I hope to create a surname index that will include all names mentioned in the records, whether the record is concerning them or not. I will also be adding a dictionary of terms to help explain different terms used throughout the records. **note, be sure to bookmark the main page, not the temporary index because once I move the data, that page will be gone**<br /><br />Initially, I planned to add all the transcriptions to this blog, but I decided I would create a separate website. My plan is put the transcriptions on the website and now use the blog to talk about the history of FPOC in antebellum NC and possibly highlight transcriptions that I think are valuable to understanding the life and times of FPOC in antebellum NC.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Erinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09747662199492089159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-52673962832941440862008-07-23T13:47:00.005-05:002008-08-29T10:07:16.633-05:00request, a new chart, and an announcementHi folks,<br /><br />I have 3 things for this entry.<br /><br />First of all, I just discovered I had a bunch of replies that I did not realize were there. Some of the requests were for personal assistance, but not email address was left. Please, if you would like me to repond, leave your email address if the following format (so you don't get increased spam) userid (at) whatever.huh such as freeaainnc (at) ncalhn.org (which is my email address. This will hopefully help keep you from getting more spam and also make it so I can respond to you 1 on 1 and work with you that way. You can also email me directly if you still don't feel comfortable with posting your email address.<br /><br />Now for my news! <br />I recently got into a debate with a person about the south having more free blacks from the 1790-1860 census. I created a chart to help prove my point and you all are available to use this, just be aware that it is copyrighted (the format, not the actual content because the data itself is not copyrightable for anyone). It is available online at: <a href="http://www.ncalhn.org/fpoccensusstats1790-1860.pdf">http://www.ncalhn.org/fpoccensusstats1790-1860.pdf</a>. It turns out that the main problem the person has with this is that the research is done using census data, which is admittedly not very reliable, at least when it comes to names and age, but I also believe it to be the best source we have on population data for the entire country during the time given. The census is not perfect, but until a time machine is invented and we can go back and count every single person for ourselves, it's the best source we have for population statistical data.<br /><br />Finally, I am WAAAAAYYYYYYY behind on the new website. I'm pushing back the date to September 2nd, 2008 when it will be available (day after labor day). Hopefully I can meet that at least. My goal is to have 50 transcribe documents on the site before I open it up.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-28910396487154677232008-01-09T07:35:00.000-05:002008-01-09T07:39:49.854-05:00AnnouncementsHi Folks!<br /><br />I know I haven't posted anything in a LONG time, I apologize, I've just been so stressed out with school. I have 2 announcements concerning this blog:<br /><br />First off, I don't plan to post anything new here until I graduate in May. I apologize for that, but with school, I'm just spread too thin.<br /><br />Secondly, I made a decision to start a new website (and not just blog) that will tie into this blog. I'll post the website address once I get it up, but look for it Summer 2008 (probably July). My plan is to use the website itself for transcribed documents and the blog for insights into the research project itself (insights into specific documents, historical events, etc.).<br /><br />That's it for now. Thanks all for checking out my blog and your support!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-17339666431244562302007-11-11T10:57:00.000-05:002007-11-11T11:51:14.267-05:00Mariages Bonds of Free Persons of Color<style type="text/css"><br /><!-- tr, td, th {border: inset 1pt; text-align: left; border-color: black; vertical-align: middle; border-width: 1px; padding: 2px; border-style: solid ; } --><br /></style><br /><br /><p>Hi folks, here are some marriage bonds I copied from books of marriage bonds at the State Archives of North Carolina. This are arranged by County. I do not have all the counties, only a few, and these are only for marriages before 1866. For the last one in Orange County, they were not marked as (col.) as the others, but they are included because I know they were free persons of color. I've kept the text of the actual entry as it was listed in the books, but the format is off because of the limitations of blogspot. Page number refers to the page number in that particular county's book. The name of the book is in italics and the archives do no use call number for their books.</p><br /><br /><table><tbody><caption><span style="font-style: italic;">Caswell County Marriage Bonds</span></caption><br /><tr><th><u>Groom</u></th><th><u>Bride</u></th><th><u>Date</u></th><th><u>Bondsman and Witnesses</u></th><th><u>page</u></th></tr><br /><tr><td>Stevens, William x (col.)</td><td>Rosetta Hughes (col.)</td><td>11 June 1859</td><td>Johns (x) Freeman<br />md. 11 June 1859 by<br />N. M. Lewis, J.P.</td><td> 295</td></tr><br /></tbody><br /></table><br /><br /><table><tbody><caption><span style="font-style: italic;">Nash County Marriage Bonds</span></caption><br /><tr><th><u>Groom</u></th><th><u>Bride</u></th><th><u>Date</u></th><th><u>Bondsman and Witnesses</u></th><th><u>page</u></th></tr><br /><tr><td>Boon, Nathan</td><td>Frances Scott</td><td>31 Jan. 1859</td><td>Ira W. Futrell<br />(w) Isaac Peele C.C.C.</td><td>19</td></tr><br /><tr><td>Boon, William</td><td>Eliza Francis Boon</td><td>22 Dec. 1852</td><td>Shadrach -x- Boon<br />(w) Wm. H. Hughes D.O.</td><td>20</td></tr><br /></tbody><br /></table><br /><br /><table><tbody><caption><span style="font-style: italic;">Orange County Marriage Bonds</span></caption><br /><tr><th><u>Groom</u></th><th><u>Bride</u></th><th><u>Date</u></th><th><u>Bondsman and Witnesses</u></th><th><u>page</u></th></tr><br /><tr><td>Stewart, Ruffin</td><td>Elizabeth Bibby</td><td>30 Aug. 1838</td><td>Robert x Mitchell<br />(w) J. Taylor</td><td>379</td></tr><br /></tbody><br /></table><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-5322810265448836732007-11-11T10:28:00.000-05:002007-11-11T10:42:52.469-05:00Petition From the Inhabitants of Granville County, 1771 - The Source<p>Hi folks,</p><br /><br /><p>It's been brought to my attention that I didn't list the source for this petition posted on June 4, 2007. I'm really sorry, that was just a big oversight on my part. Here is the source citation:</p><br /><br /><p><b>Location: North Carolina State Archives<br />Collection: General Assembly Session Records<br />Novemer-December, 1771, Box #5<br />Lower House Papers<br />Petitions Rejected or not Acted on<br />Petition from the inhabitants of Granville<br />1771, Entd.</b></p><br /><br /><p>I believe I originally found the transcription of the petition in either the <span style="font-style: italic;">Colonial Records of North Carolina</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">The State Records of North Carolina</span> by Walter Clark and William L. Saunder. They are both considered the same series of 26 volumes, I believe Saunders did the <span style="font-style: italic;">Colonial Records of North Carolina</span> part of the series, which was then continued by Clark as the <span style="font-style: italic;">State Records of North Carolina</span>. Unfortunately, this was one of the very first documents I found and I didn't record where it was in those books. I will try to look that up this week and add that information. There were actually quite a few petitions either about free Blacks or that free Blacks signed and I found the originals to them all in Clark and Saunders series.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-33633846259501754612007-10-06T12:43:00.000-05:002007-10-06T12:44:57.011-05:00Sorry I haven't posted anything new...Hi Folks,<br /><br />I just wanted to apologize for being MIA lately. School is really taking its toll on me this semester so I doubt I'll be able to post anything new on here until December.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-10947809113408686392007-08-20T20:13:00.002-05:002007-08-20T20:44:49.840-05:00Manumission Records from Granville County, part 1Ok, you might be wondering what happened to the Carter family of Craven County. Sorry, I am still working on that.<br /><br />I want to talk a bit about manumission. This is how I started on this project was writing a paper on the manumission practices of antebellum North Carolina. I believe I explained in a previous post about the word choice "manumission" vs. "emancipation". To my understanding, the terms are interchangeable. If you look them up in a dictionary, you're most likely going to come up with the same definition. In records, "manumission" was usually used during the 1700s and early 1800s. Around 1820 or so, records are generally called "emancipation" records. My person preference, in referring to the freeing of slaves before the Emancipation Proclamation is to use the term "manumission." I like to have consistency in the things I do and it causes too much confusion to go back and forth between the terms, so my own personal definitions are as follows:<br /><br />Manumission: The voluntary freeing of ones slaves<br /><br />Emancipation: The forced (or involuntary) freeing of ones slaves<br /><br />So, here we go with some transcriptions for you (as always, wording and spelling is preserved). I do have to apologize for the lack of call number (archival call numbers, I guess you could say). When I copied these manumission records, I was new to this and neglected to record them, but I'll put what I can under "Source:" in case anyone wants to view the originals for themselves.<br /><br />To the Honb the Court of Granville<br /><br />We your petitioners (who are the only proprietors) do here humbly state to the Court that Jacob Fain, This his Honest industry has procured Money suficient to our Satisfaction to purchase his freedom, which together with his faithfulness as a servant, induces us to petition your Worships that he may have his freedom and to humbly desire that the worshipfull Court of Granville would emancipate the said Jacob and your petitioning will ever be in duty bound to pray[?] bu[rest is faded]<br /><br />[faded]th May 1805<br /><div style="text-align: right;"> Elizabeth Bullock<br /> Frances Boyd<br /> William Boyd<br /> James Marlin* <br />Eliza Marlin*<br /> Wm Bullock<br /></div><br />[on the reverse]<br />Worshipful County of Granville<br /><br />*= not sure if that is an "r" or a "c", it's either Marlin or Maclin<br /><br />Source: Granville County. Misc. Slaves [box name]. "Emancipation of Jacob Fain" [folder name].<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-15127468749118080182007-08-20T20:13:00.001-05:002007-08-20T20:41:03.703-05:00Manumission Records from Granville County, part 1Ok, you might be wondering what happened to the Carter family of Craven County. Sorry, I am still working on that.<br /><br />I want to talk a bit about manumission. This is how I started on this project was writing a paper on the manumission practices of antebellum North Carolina. I believe I explained in a previous post about the word choice "manumission" vs. "emancipation". To my understanding, the terms are interchangeable. If you look them up in a dictionary, you're most likely going to come up with the same definition. In records, "manumission" was usually used during the 1700s and early 1800s. Around 1820 or so, records are generally called "emancipation" records. My person preference, in referring to the freeing of slaves before the Emancipation Proclamation is to use the term "manumission." I like to have consistency in the things I do and it causes too much confusion to go back and forth between the terms, so my own personal definitions are as follows:<br /><br />Manumission: The voluntary freeing of ones slaves<br /><br />Emancipation: The forced (or involuntary) freeing of ones slaves<br /><br />So, here we go with some transcriptions for you (as always, wording and spelling is preserved). I do have to apologize for the lack of call number (archival call numbers, I guess you could say). When I copied these manumission records, I was new to this and neglected to record them, but I'll put what I can under "Source:" in case anyone wants to view the originals for themselves.<br /><br />To the Honb the Court of Granville<br /><br /> We your petitioners (who are the only proprietors) do here humbly state to the Court that Jacob Fain, This his Honest industry has procured Money suficient to our Satisfaction to purchase his freedom, which together with his faithfulness as a servant, induces us to petition your Worships that he may have his freedom and to humbly desire that the worshipfull Court of Granville would emancipate the said Jacob and your petitioning will ever be in duty bound to pray[?] bu[rest is faded]<br /><div style="text-align: right;"> Elizabeth Bullock<br /> Frances Boyd<br /> William Boyd<br /><div style="text-align: center;"> [faded]th May 1805 James Marlin*<br /></div> Eliza Marlin*<br /> Wm Bullock<br /></div><br />[on the reverse]<br />Worshipful County of Granville<br /><br />*= not sure if that is an "r" or a "c", it's either Marlin or Maclin<br /><br />Source: Granville County. Misc. Slaves [box name]. "Emancipation of Jacob Fain" [folder name].<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-59701795321283184462007-08-20T20:13:00.000-05:002007-08-20T20:38:56.694-05:00Manumission Records from Granville County, part 1Ok, you might be wondering what happened to the Carter family of Craven County. Sorry, I am still working on that. <br /><br />I want to talk a bit about manumission. This is how I started on this project was writing a paper on the manumission practices of antebellum North Carolina. I believe I explained in a previous post about the word choice "manumission" vs. "emancipation". To my understanding, the terms are interchangeable. If you look them up in a dictionary, you're most likely going to come up with the same definition. In records, "manumission" was usually used during the 1700s and early 1800s. Around 1820 or so, records are generally called "emancipation" records. My person preference, in referring to the freeing of slaves before the Emancipation Proclamation is to use the term "manumission." I like to have consistency in the things I do and it causes too much confusion to go back and forth between the terms, so my own personal definitions are as follows:<br /><br />Manumission: The voluntary freeing of ones slaves<br /><br />Emancipation: The forced (or involuntary) freeing of ones slaves<br /><br />So, here we go with some transcriptions for you (as always, wording and spelling is preserved). I do have to apologize for the lack of call number (archival call numbers, I guess you could say). When I copied these manumission records, I was new to this and neglected to record them, but I'll put what I can under "Source:" in case anyone wants to view the originals for themselves.<br /><br />To the Honb the Court of Granville<br /><br /> We your petitioners (who are the only proprietors) do here humbly state to the Court that Jacob Fain, This his Honest industry has procured Money suficient to our Satisfaction to purchase his freedom, which together with his faithfulness as a servant, induces us to petition your Worships that he may have his freedom and to humbly desire that the worshipfull Court of Granville would emancipate the said Jacob and your petitioning will ever be in duty bound to pray[?] bu[rest is faded]<br /> Elizabeth Bullock<br /> Frances Boyd<br /> William Boyd<br /> [faded]th May 1805 James Marlin*<br /> Eliza Marlin*<br /> Wm Bullock<br /><br />[on the reverse]<br />Worshipful County of Granville<br /><br />*= not sure if that is an "r" or a "c", it's either Marlin or Maclin<br /><br />Source: Granville County. Misc. Slaves [box name]. "Emancipation of Jacob Fain" [folder name].<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-49194492267865655702007-08-18T16:02:00.000-05:002007-08-18T16:03:32.744-05:00Sorry for the delayHi folks!<br /><br />Sorry for the delay in getting a new post up. I've been on vacation but I'm back now and working on getting a new post up about the Carter family of Craven County.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-5864873957837290632007-07-24T13:05:00.000-05:002007-07-24T13:26:31.754-05:00Apprenticeship bond of Lydia Spellman, Craven County, April 7, 1762<p>Although no last name is given in this apprenticeship paper, research in the county court records for Craven County show that this is Lydia Spellman, daughter of Sarah Spellman, as she was the only "Lydia" to be apprenticed to Anna Bryan during the months of March-April of 1762. Her siblings Aaron, Asa, and David Spellman</p>The ƒ character signifies the "f" used in colonial text, usually in cases of a double "s" where the first "s" looks like an "f" (ex: "witnefseth" instead of "witnesseth"), but it some cases, all "s" looks like an "f" (ex: "witneffeth"), in which case there will be double "ƒƒ"<br /><br /><p>This form was type-set with blanks for writing in names and dates. I have tried to duplicate that, but not all computers will show it as it depends on the fonts your computer has on it. If the script doesn't show up on your computer, the text size should be larger at least where it should appear, since I had to make the script text larger in order to be legible. Same goes for the signatures at the end.</p><br /><br /><p>This Indenture, made the <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Seventh</span> Day of <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">apri</span>l</span> in the Year of our Lord One Thousdand Seven Hundred <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Sixty Two</span> Witneƒƒeth, That <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Jacob Blount Thomas Pollock and Christopher Dawson</span> Eƒqrs. Juƒtices of <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Craven</span> County Court have put and placed <span style="font-weight: bold;" class="script"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Lydia</span></span> </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >a free Negroe Girl</span> <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">an orphan of deceased</span>, aged <span class="script"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Thirtee</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">n</span></span> <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Years</span></span></span> an Apprentice to <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >M<sup>rs</sup>. Anna Bryan</span> of the ƒaid County, with him to dwell, reƒide, and ƒerve until <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >she</span> the ƒsaid Apprentice ƒhall arrive at the Age of <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Eighteen</span> Years, according to the Act of Aƒƒembly in that Caƒe made and provided ; during all which Time the ƒaid Apprentice h<span class="script">is</span> ƒaid M<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">aƒter</span> [replaced with "Mrs"] ƒhall faithfully ƒerve in all lawful Buƒineƒs, and orderly and obediently in all things behave <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">h</span></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >er</span>ƒelf towards <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">h</span></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >er</span> ƒaid M<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">aƒter</span> [replaced with Mrs.], for and during the ƒaid Term, as an Apprentice ought to do. And the ƒaid <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Anna Bryan</span> doth covenant, promiƒise and agree, to and with the ƒaid Juƒ;tices, and their Succeƒƒors, that he the ƒ <span class="script">Anna Bryan</span> will provide and allow h<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">im</span> [replaced with "her"] ƒaid Apprectice convenient and ƒufficent Meat, Drink, Lodging, and Appearrel, and uƒe h<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">is</span> [replaced with "her"] beƒt Endeavours to inƒtruct h<span class="script">er</span> in the <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">Art and Calling of a</span> <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >House and Plantation Buƒsineƒs</span> <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">and alƒo teach him to read and write before the Expiration of h Apprenticeƒhip.</span> IN WITNESS whereof, the ƒaid Juƒtices by the Clerk of their County Court, and the ƒaid <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" > Anna Bryan</span> hereunto Interchangeably ƒet their Heands and Seals, the Day and Year ƒirƒt above written.</p><pre> Signed, Sealed, and Delivered,<br /> in the Preƒence of<br /></pre><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Jacob Blount<br />Lom Lane</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>(? hard to read, very fancy script which means it illegible, surname could be "Land")</span><br /></span><span class="script"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Thom</span><sup style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">s</sup><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">. Pollock</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Stephen York</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Chris</span><sup style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">t</sup><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">. Dawson</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Anna Bryan</span></span><br /></span><br /></blockquote>Source Citation: (use this information to request a photocopy from the <a href="http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/archives/">State Archives of North Carolina</a>)<br /><ul><li>Call number at the State Archives of North Carolina: C.R. 028.101.1</li><li>Series: Craven County</li><li>Box: Apprentice Bonds</li><li>Folder: Apprentice Bonds and Records 1748, 1754, 1757, 1759, 1761-65, 1768-69</li><li>Document: Lydia, April 7, 1762</li></ul><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-42856944768978533872007-07-07T23:52:00.000-05:002007-07-09T19:55:32.811-05:00Apprenticeship bond of David Spellman Craven County, April 7, 1762<div id="intro">This is the Apprenticeship papers of David Spellman, brother to Asa and Aaron Spellman, which were already put up on the blog last week. I have one more to include, which is for their sister Lydia, and I will try to get that up within the next few days. I do have more records on this family, but unfortunately they are buried under stacks and stacks of document copies that I have here in my home office and I'm tied up with school to go searching for them. I have a short break in August and will try to hunt down the documents, as well as finding other jewels to add. I do believe one of the documents I have, which really ties this family together, is a court order for Anne/Anna Bryan to show just cause why she is keeping these 4 past age 21, and the document I believe names their mother, named Sarah. Also, according to my database (family tree maker), I have copies of 2 court cases listing listing 2 other sons of Sarah: Jacob and Toney. I will try hard to find these!<br /><br /><p>Although no last name is given and no month is given in this apprenticeship paper, research in the county court records for Craven County show that this is David Spellman, son of Sarah Spellman, as he was the only "David" to be apprenticed to Anna Bryan during the months of March-April of 1762. His siblings Aaron, Asa, and Lydia were bound out the same day.</p> <p><span class="note">Note:</span> the ƒ character signifies the "f" used in colonial text, usually in cases of a double "s" where the first "s" looks like an "f" (ex: "witnefseth" instead of "witnesseth"), but it some cases, all "s" looks like an "f" (ex: "witneffeth"), in which case there will be double "ƒƒ"</p> <p><span class="note"></span><span class="note">Note:</span> This form was type-set with blanks for writing in names and dates. I have tried to duplicate that by putting the hand written text in <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >larger font italics</span> since the ƒ is already in a type of italic.</p> </div> <div align="center"> <img src="http://www.gendepository.com/images/line14.gif" alt="seperation of notes from document text" height="25" width="365" /> </div> <div id="record"> <p>This Indenture, made the <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Seventh</span> Day of <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >april</span> in the Year of our Lord One Thousdand Seven Hundred <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Sixty Two</span> Witneƒƒeth, That <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Jacob Blount Thomas Pollock and Christopher Dawson</span> Eƒqrs. Juƒtices of <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Craven</span> County Court have put and placed <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >David a free Negroe Boy</span> <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">an orphan of deceased</span>, aged <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" > seven Years</span> an Apprentice to <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >M<sup>rs</sup>. Anna Bryan</span> of the ƒaid County, with him to dwell, reƒide, and ƒerve until <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >he</span> the ƒsaid Apprentice ƒhall arrive at the Age of <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Twentyone</span> Years, according to the Act of Aƒƒembly in that Caƒe made and provided ; during all which Time the ƒaid Apprentice h<span class="script">is</span> ƒaid M<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">aƒter</span> [replaced with "Mrs"] ƒhall faithfully ƒerve in all lawful Buƒineƒs, and orderly and obediently in all things behave h<span class="script">im</span>ƒelf towards his ƒaid M<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">aƒter</span> [replaced with Mrs.], for and during the ƒaid Term, as an Apprentice ought to do. And the ƒaid <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Anna Bryan</span> doth covenant, promiƒise and agree, to and with the ƒaid Juƒ;tices, and their Succeƒƒors, that (s)he the ƒaid <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Anna Bryan</span> will provide and allow h<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">im</span> [replaced with "her"] ƒaid Apprectice convenient and ƒufficent Meat, Drink, Lodging, and Appearrel, and uƒe his beƒt Endeavours to inƒtruct h<span class="script">im</span> in the <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">Art and</span> Calling of <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Plantation Buƒsineƒs</span> <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">and alƒo teach him to read and write before the Expiration of h App</span>renticeƒhip. IN WITNESS whereof, the ƒaid Juƒtices by the Clerk of their County Court, and the ƒaid <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" > Anna Bryan</span> hereunto Interchangeably ƒet their Heands and Seals, the Day and Year ƒirƒt above written.</p> <pre> Signed, Sealed, and Delivered,<br /> in the Preƒence of</pre> <blockquote> <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" > Jacob Blount<br />Lom Lane</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> (? hard to read, very fancy script which means it illegible, surname could be "Land")</span><br /></span><span class="script"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> Thom</span><sup style="font-style: italic;">s</sup><span style="font-style: italic;">. Pollock</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Stephen York</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Chris</span><sup style="font-style: italic;">t</sup><span style="font-style: italic;">. Dawson</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Anna Bryan</span></span><br /></span> </blockquote> <p>Source Citation: (use this information to request a photocopy from the <a href="http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/archives/">State Archives of North Carolina</a>)</p> <ul><li>Call number at the State Archives of North Carolina: C.R. 028.101.1</li><li>Series: Craven County</li><li>Box: Apprentice Bonds</li><li>Folder: Apprentice Bonds and Records 1748, 1754, 1757, 1759, 1761-65, 1768-69</li><li>Document: David, April 7, 1762</li></ul> </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-44447329790892436232007-06-29T13:55:00.000-05:002007-06-29T14:03:12.248-05:00Apprenticeship Bond of Asa "Acy" Spellman, Craven County, 1762<h3 style="text-align: center;">Craven County, April 7, 1762</h3> <div id="intro"> <p>My notes: Although no last name is given and no month is given in this apprenticeship paper, research in the county court records for Craven County show that this is Aaron Spellman, son of Sarah Spellman, as he was the only "Aaron" to be apprenticed to Anna Bryan during the months of March-April of 1762. His siblings Asa, David, and Lydia were bound out the same day.</p> <p><span class="note">Note:</span> the ƒ character signifies the "f" used in colonial text, usually in cases of a double "s" where the first "s" looks like an "f" (ex: "witnefseth" instead of "witnesseth"), but it some cases, all "s" looks like an "f" (ex: "witneffeth"), in which case there will be double "ƒƒ"</p> <p><span class="note">Note:</span> This form was type-set with blanks for writing in names and dates. I have tried to duplicate that by putting the hand written text in <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; font-size: 130%;">larger font italics</span> since the ƒ is already in a type of italic.<br /></p> </div> <div align="center"> <img src="http://www.gendepository.com/images/line14.gif" alt="seperation of notes from document text" height="25" width="365" /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="record" id="record"> <p>This Indenture, made the <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">Seventh</span></span> Day of <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script"> april</span></span> in the Year of our Lord One Thousdand Seven Hundred <span class="script">Sixty Two</span> Witneƒƒeth, That <span class="script">J<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">acob Blount Thomas Pollock and Christopher Dawson</span></span></span> Eƒqrs. Juƒtices of <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">Craven</span></span> County Court have put and placed <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">Acy a free Negroe Boy</span></span> <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">an orphan of deceased</span>, aged <span class="script"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Eleven</span></span> <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Years</span></span></span> an Apprentice to <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">M<sup>rs</sup>. Anna Bryan</span></span> of the ƒaid County, with him to dwell, reƒide, and ƒerve until <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">he</span></span> the ƒsaid Apprentice ƒhall arrive at the Age of <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">Twentyone</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> Years</span></span>, according to the Act of Aƒƒembly in that Caƒe made and provided ; during all which Time the ƒaid Apprentice h<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">is</span></span> ƒaid M<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">aƒter</span> [replaced with "Mrs"] ƒhall faithfully ƒerve in all lawful Buƒineƒs, and orderly and obediently in all things behave h<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">im</span></span>ƒelf towards h<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">is</span></span> ƒaid M<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">aƒter</span> [replaced with Mrs.], for and during the ƒaid Term, as an Apprentice ought to do. And the ƒaid <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">Anna Bryan</span></span> doth covenant, promiƒise and agree, to and with the ƒaid Juƒ;tices, and their Succeƒƒors, that (s)he the ƒ <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">Anna Bryan</span></span> will provide and allow h<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">im</span> [replaced with "her"] ƒaid Apprectice convenient and ƒufficent Meat, Drink, Lodging, and Appearrel, and uƒe his beƒt Endeavours to inƒtruct h<span class="script"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">im</span></span> </span> in the <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">Art and</span> Calling of <span class="script"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Plantation Buƒsineƒs</span></span> </span> <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">and alƒo teach him to read and write before the Expiration of h App</span>renticeƒhip. IN WITNESS whereof, the ƒaid Juƒtices by the Clerk of their County Court, and the ƒaid <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script">Anna Bryan</span></span> hereunto Interchangeably ƒet their Heands and Seals, the Day and Year ƒirƒt above written.</p> <pre> Signed, Sealed, and Delivered,<br /> in the Preƒence of</pre> <blockquote> <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;" class="script"> Jacob Blount<br />Lom Lane</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> (? hard to read, very fancy script which means it illegible, surname could be "Land")</span><br /></span> <span class="script"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> Thom</span><sup style="font-style: italic;">s</sup><span style="font-style: italic;">. Pollock</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Stephen York</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Chris</span><sup style="font-style: italic;">t</sup><span style="font-style: italic;">. Dawson</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Anna Bryan</span></span><br /></span> </blockquote> <p>Source Citation: (use this information to request a photocopy from the <a href="http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/archives/">State Archives of North Carolina</a>)</p> <ul><li>Call number at the State Archives of North Carolina: C.R. 028.101.1</li><li>Series: Craven County</li><li>Box: Apprentice Bonds</li><li>Folder: Apprentice Bonds and Records 1748, 1754, 1757, 1759, 1761-65, 1768-69</li><li>Document: Asa, April 7, 1762</li></ul> </div></div> </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-32079679771560343212007-06-27T20:24:00.000-05:002007-06-28T12:23:56.711-05:00Apprenticeship Bond of Aaron Spellman, Craven County, 1762Sorry folks for the delay. I have already transcribed 4 of the apprenticeship records on the Spellman/Spelman family of Craven County. I'll try to post 1 a day or every other day for the next week. These 4 are siblings. We'll do it alphabetically, so today is Aaron:<br /><br /><h3 style="text-align: center;">Craven County, April 7, 1762</h3> <div id="intro"> <p>My notes: Although no last name is given and no month is given in this apprenticeship paper, research in the county court records for Craven County show that this is Aaron Spellman, son of Sarah Spellman, as he was the only "Aaron" to be apprenticed to Anna Bryan during the months of March-April of 1762. His siblings Asa, David, and Lydia were bound out the same day.</p> <p><span class="note">Note:</span> the ƒ character signifies the "f" used in colonial text, usually in cases of a double "s" where the first "s" looks like an "f" (ex: "witnefseth" instead of "witnesseth"), but it some cases, all "s" looks like an "f" (ex: "witneffeth"), in which case there will be double "ƒƒ"</p> <p><span class="note">Note:</span> This form was type-set with blanks for writing in names and dates. I have tried to duplicate that by putting the hand written text in <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >larger font italics</span> since the ƒ is already in a type of italic.<br /></p> </div> <div align="center"> <img src="http://www.gendepository.com/images/line14.gif" alt="seperation of notes from document text" height="25" width="365" /> </div> <div id="record"> <p>This Indenture, made the <span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-family:script;" >Seventh</span></span> Day of [*] in the Year of our Lord One Thousdand Seven Hundred <span class="script" style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">sixty Two</span></span> Witneƒƒeth, That <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Jacob Blount Thomas Pollock and Christopher Dawson</span> Eƒqrs. Juƒtices of <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Craven</span> County Court have put and placed <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Aaron a free negroe Boy</span> <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">an orphan of deceased</span>, aged <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Nine Years</span> an Apprentice to <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >M<sup>rs</sup>. Anna Bryan</span> of the ƒaid County, with <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">him</span> [replaced with "her"] to dwell, reƒide, and ƒerve until <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" class="script">he</span> the ƒaid Apprentice ƒhall arrive at the Age of <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Twentyone</span> Years, according to the Act of Aƒƒembly in that Caƒe made and provided ; during all which Time the ƒaid Apprentice h<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >is</span> ƒaid <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">Maƒter</span> [replaced with "Mrs." ƒhall faithfully ƒerve in all lawful Buƒineƒs, and orderly and obediently in all things behave h<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >im</span>ƒelf towards h<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >is</span><span style="font-size:130%;"> </span>ƒaid M<span style="text-decoration: line-through;">aƒter</span> [replaced with "rs."], for and during the ƒaid Term, as an Apprentice ought to do. And the ƒaid <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Anna Bryan</span> doth covenant, promiƒise and agree, to and with the ƒaid Juƒ;tices, and their Succeƒƒors, that (s)he the ƒaid <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Anna Bryan</span> will provide and allow him ƒaid Apprectice convenient and ƒufficent Meat, Drink, Lodging, and Appearrel, and uƒe his beƒt Endeavours to inƒtruct h<span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" class="script">im</span> in <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">the Art and Calling of</span> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Plantation Business</span> and alƒo teach h to read and write before the Expiration of his Apprenticeƒhip. IN WITNESS whereof, the ƒaid Juƒtices by the Clerk of their County Court, and the ƒaid <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" >Anna Bryan</span> hereunto Interchangeably ƒet their Heands and Seals, the Day and Year ƒirƒt above written.</p> <pre> Signed, Sealed, and Delivered,<br />in the Preƒence of</pre> <blockquote> <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" class="script" > Jacob Blount<br />Lom Lane</span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" > (? hard to read, very fancy script which means it illegible, surname could be "Land")</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><span class="script"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" > Thom</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><sup style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">s</sup></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >. Pollock</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >Stephen York</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >Chris</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><sup style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">t</sup></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >. Dawson</span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >Anna Bryan</span><br /></span> </blockquote> <p>*=This was left blank, but from court records, the month was April</p> <p>Source Citation: (use this information to request a photocopy from the <a href="http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/archives/">State Archives of North Carolina</a>)</p> <ul><li>Call number at the State Archives of North Carolina: C.R. 028.101.1</li><li>Series: Craven County</li><li>Box: Apprentice Bonds</li><li>Folder: Apprentice Bonds and Records 1748, 1754, 1757, 1759, 1761-65, 1768-69</li><li>Document: Aaron, April 7, 1762</li></ul> </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-21899976222536236672007-06-04T18:27:00.000-05:002007-06-04T20:41:52.897-05:00Petition From the Inhabitants of Granville County, 1771Hello folks!<br /><br />Today's post is a transcription of a petition that was filed with the General Assembly in 1771. The petition was "rejected or not acted on" and was from citizens in Granville County who opposed a new law that required a tax paid on all wives of free Black citizens (unless the wife was a slave). Many of the signers I know to be free Blacks, but others are either white or unknown to me as of yet. An "*" replaces an unreadable letter and "(x)" is the person's mark<br /><br /><p><b>Petition from the inhabitants of Granville<br /><br />1771, Entd.</b></p><p><b>To the Honble. the Speaker and Gentn. Of the house of Assembly<br />The Petition of the Inhabitants of Granville County Humbly Sheweth that by the Act of Assembly Concerning Tythables it is among other things enacted that all free Negroes & Mulato Women and all wives of free Negroes & Mulatoes are Declar'd Tythables & Chargeable for Defraying the Public country & Parish Leveys of this Province which Your Petitioners Humbly Conceive is highly derogatory of the Rights of Freeborn Subjects.</b></p><p><b>Your Petitioners therefore Pray that An Act may pass Exempting Such free Negroes & Mulatoe Women and all wives other than Slaves of free Negroes & Mulatoes from being Listed as Tythables & from Paying any Public County or Parish Leveys and your Petitions Shall ever Pray &c.</b></p><table style="font-weight: bold; text-align: center;" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" width="90%"><br /><tbody><tr><td width="30%">John Smith</td><td width="30%">John Wilkerson</td><td width="30%">Charles Moore</td></tr><tr><td>James Norris</td><td>Christopher Thims</td><td>Thomas Head</td></tr><tr><td>William *ingson</td><td>John Head</td><td>James Caudill</td></tr><tr><td>Isom Caudill</td><td>Carter Hedge Beth</td><td>Martha Knight</td></tr><tr><td>Frances Davenport</td><td>Nathan Chiles</td><td>Benjamin Hendrick</td></tr><tr><td>Cubird Hudjons</td><td>Willis Roberts</td><td>Isaac Head</td></tr><tr><td>James Williamson</td><td>Joseph Hill</td><td>William Thims</td></tr><tr><td>William Cawthon</td><td>Thos. Loew</td><td>Wm Wallis</td></tr><tr><td>Isham Johnson</td><td>Isac White</td><td>JnoTudor</td></tr><tr><td>Jno Badget</td><td>William Head</td><td>Groves Howard</td></tr><tr><td>George Fagans</td><td>Charles Spaulding</td><td>Henry Spaulding</td></tr><tr><td>Gibea Chavis</td><td>William Matthews</td><td>Benjamin Bass</td></tr><tr><td>James Downey</td><td>Richd Burton</td><td>Benjamin *aze</td></tr><tr><td>John Davis</td><td>Lewis Anderson</td><td>Davie Mircoll Negroe</td></tr><tr><td>William Chavis</td><td>Samuel Huckaby</td><td><b>Lewis Collins</b></td></tr><tr><td>Thomas Butler</td><td>John Gwin</td><td>George Witlock</td></tr><tr><td>Humphrey Davis</td><td>Josiah Stovall</td><td>Ben Bearden</td></tr><tr><td>Lovet Gates</td><td>Shadrach Roberts</td><td>Thomas Wittington*</td></tr><tr><td>William Whorton</td><td>John Harris</td><td>Robert Down</td></tr><tr><td>John Hart</td><td>Edward (X) Bass</td><td>Rubin (X) Bass</td></tr><tr><td>Lawrence (X) Pettiford</td><td>Agula (X) Snele</td><td><br /></td></tr><br /><br /></tbody><br /></table>A few comments on the names:<br /><br />1. The following a free Blacks that I'm currently/actively researching:<br /><ul><li>Gibea Chavis (see the previous post for a land deed of his)</li><li>Benjamin Bass</li><li>Lewis Anderson</li><li>Davie Mircholl (this should be "Mitchell")</li><li>Wiliam Chavis</li><li>Edward Bass</li><li>Rubin Bass (often spelled "Reuben")</li><li>Lawrence Pettiford (sometimes speclled "Laurence" and surnames variations include Petiford, Pettyford, and Petitford)</li></ul>2. The following names are probably free Blacks, but I do not have enough information on them:<br /><ul><li>Thomas, John, and William Head</li><li>James and Ison Caudill</li><li>George Fagan (I've come across this surname many times in connection to free Blacks in NC, but nothing definite one way or another. There was a line of free Blacks surnamed Fagan in VA and George could be a descendant)<br /></li><li>Charles and Henry Spaulding (Spaulding is a surname I see a lot in connection with free Blacks in NC)<br /></li><li>Samuel Huckaby</li><li>John Gwin (this could be John Gowen)</li><li>Humphrey Davis</li><li>John Harris (both Davis and Harris are surnames of whites and free Blacks in Granville County. I don't know about these two individuals)</li><li>Agula Snele (This is actually "Aquila Snell" or "Aquila Snelling". I've seen Aquila [both as Snell and Snelling] mentioned numerous times in connection with free Blacks in Granville County, and Aquila Snelling most likely married into the Chavis family according to research done by <a href="http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/Chavis_family.htm">Paul Heinegg [Chavis, person #15, child v.]</a>)</li></ul><br /><font style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"><font style="font-weight: bold;">NEXT BLOG:</font><font style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> We're gonna move over to Craven County and I'll transcribe some apprenticeship records from the Spelman family.</font></font><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-64278674307958690202007-05-30T07:52:00.001-05:002008-08-29T10:10:03.479-05:00Deed of Gibbea Chavers - 1777, Granville CountyHi all! Well, this is a deed that I've transcribed from the State Archives of North Carolina. This is of Gibbea Chavis (spelled Gibbe Chavers in the deed) giving land to Joseph McDaniel.. This deed was found in deed book L of Granville County on page 382. Although the deed is from 1775, it was not recorded until almost 2 years later. Mentioned in the deed is Hudspeth and I'm very interested in who this person is. They may be another free Black, like Chavis, but I really think they were white even though their name pops up all the time in records concerning free Blacks in Granville County. If anyone has information on the Hudspeth line, I'd love to get in contact with you. Seems to me that Gibbea was doing fairly well for himself to be selling off 300 acres, and it looks like keeping some of the land for himself. <a href="http://www.freeaainnc.com/landdeeds/granvillecogibbeachavis1777.pdf">http://www.freeaainnc.com/landdeeds/granvillecogibbeachavis1777.pdf</a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Deed of Gibbe Chavers to Joseph McDaniel, 1777</span><br /></div><br />To Joseph McDaniel of Granville Co, NC from Gibbe Chavers, planter, of aforesaid, 8 September 1775, for 44 pounds 8 shillings and 10 pence proclamation money of North Carolina which he the said Gibbe Chavers is justly indebted unto the said Joseph McDaniel & honestly desire to secure &amp; pay to him & for & in the further consideration of 5 shillings like money, one tract or parcel of land lying on the North side of Tar River, Beginning at a White Oak in Hudspeth's line, then running West to a corner Pine, thence North to a corner Pine, thence East to a corner Pine, thence Southern to Chaver's line, then along the various courses of Chavers' line to the first station, containing by estimation 300 acres, be the same more or less; also 1 spotted stone horse, 1 grey horse gelding branded with L on the near buttock, 1 spotted mare branded with a stirrup iron on the near shoulder and buttock, & her colt, 1 young spotted sores branded on the near shoulder a& buttock, with a stirrup iron, 1 young Sorrell horse branded on the near shoulder 3 & on the near buttock 8, 5 cows & calves, 2 hefers, & 1 (?), the cattle that are marked are marked with a crop &amp; half crop in the right ear & a half moon in the underside of the left ear.<br />Gibea Chavers<br />Wit: Zacharias Higgs,<br />Jurat: Jonathan Kittrell<br />Granville County August Court 1777.<br />Prov'd by the oath of Zacharias Higgs<br /> Reuben Searcy C.C.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-91351584270460049772007-05-14T14:25:00.013-05:002010-05-06T12:49:21.396-05:00Finding and Using Apprenticeship Records in North Carolina<p>I gave a talk in October of 2005 in an online chat room at the <a href="http://www.genealogyforum.org/">Genealogy Forum</a>, where I host chats on Southern genealogy when I'm not in school. I hope to resume that in June 2008. The talk was about using apprenticeship records in NC for genealogy. The talk was a short one and not a lot of information in the original talk, so what I'm going to do here is post a transcript of the talk and fill in extra information. I hope this information can help someone in their research.</p><br /><br /><p>It is important to remember that even though this information is specifically about apprenticeship records in North Carolina, a lot of the information could easily be true for other states; however, every state had its own laws and laws also changed through the years.</p><br /><br />So let's get to it . . .<br /><br /><p>I'm sure most who are reading this is probably very familiar with researching wills and census records for 1850 and on as a medium for searching for family connections, but what about trying to find those connections when no will exists and before the 1850 census? This is where apprenticeship records come in very handy (along with orphan's court records and bastardy bonds, which I'll discuss in another post).</p><br /><p>A little background into this, before my research on free Blacks in antebellum North Carolina, I knew nothing of apprenticeship records. I've since learned a lot while doing research and I realized how under-utilized the source is. Apprenticeship records have helped me in my research more than perhaps any other type of records in connecting families before 1850.</p><br /><br /><p>If you go to the state archives here in Raleigh, each county has a series for apprenticeship records called “Bonds” and a series for civil court cases located in “Court Records.” Apprenticeship records can be found in both places. In many cases, court orders issued for placing someone into an apprenticeship can be found in the "Bonds" series while the exit from/termination of the apprenticeship will be found in Court Records.</p><br /><br /><p>There were minor differences in ages that apprenticeships lasted over the years, but generally, white males were apprenticed until age 21, white females to age 18, all free people of color until age 21 regardless of gender. In regards to free blacks during the colonial period, it was a common practice to keep the apprentice years after they turned 21 and they would sue for their freedom from their apprenticeship masters. Records of these cases can be found both in the bonds series and with court cases. Even white apprentices sometimes were kept in an indenture against their will past the date of the end of the apprenticeship and also had to sue for freedom.</p><br /><br /><p>Records don't always exist for an exit from an apprenticeship, as most ended outside of court and no reason to go to court in order to terminate it, but if your ancestors were free blacks or poor whites, it wouldn't hurt to check for an exit case. For more detailed look into the particular county you are looking for, go to the following website: <a href="http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/archives/FindingAids/co_guide.pdf">Guide To Research Materials In the North Carolina State Archives</a>. This site is in order by county alphabetically and it shows what type of records are available for each county. The archives also has this in book format, which can be <a href="http://nc-historical-publications.stores.yahoo.net/3420.html">purchased here</a> or can be purchased when you visit the archives in person. I have this book and use both the book and pdf format all the time! Please note that the digital format of the book was last revised in 2002 so the information is not exactly the same as the book format. It’s a great tool to use though when you do not have the book handy.</p><br /><br /><br /><h2><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#660000;">General Summary of Laws Regarding Apprenticeships in Antebellum N.C.</span></span></i></h2><p>In the 1700s, laws required the binding out of all apprentices until the males were age 21 and the females were age 18. The law was slightly changed in the early 1800s so that white males were bound out until age 21 and white females until 18. Free people of color (including in some cases Native Americans) were bound out until age 21 for both male and female. It was also common practice to hold free people of color until age 30, especially the males.</p><br /><br /><p>In the apprenticeship laws of the early 1700s, there was not much said about education being a requirement of apprenticeships, but in the late 1700s to early 1800s, this began to change. Apprentice masters were required to teach their wards to both read and write and in many cases, the court reminded them of this fact by stipulating that the apprenticeship master must teach (or "cause to be taught") their wards to read and write in the court order. Although apprentice masters were to educate their wards, a survey of census records in the latter part of the 19th century shows that not everyone followed this. In my own research with free African Americans in antebellum NC, some of the known apprentices were listed as being illiterate in later census records.</p><br /><br /><br /><h2><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:large;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#660000;">How Can Apprenticeship Records Help My Research?</span></i></span></h2><p>In most cases, apprenticeship records will tell the name of at least one parent, and in some cases both. In a case where only the mother is listed, it is usually because the child was considered an orphan or born out of wedlock and it is definitely worth taking a look through bastardy bonds and orphan court records in the case where only the mother is listed for the apprenticeship record. If they were considered orphans, then usually there will be something in the orphan's court record about binding them out as apprentices.</p><br /><br /><p>If both parents were listed, it might be the case that the family was poor, or maybe it was the only way for a child to receive their education because of where they lived. Children in rural areas did not have many opportunities to receive a formal education, so apprenticeships in North Carolina offered a way for children to receive their education, as well as a skilled trade, from an apprenticeship master. A few cases do exist where no parents are named, or their parents are referred to only as Mr. or Mrs. and a surname. In these cases, an apprenticeship record won't do much in helping you to find the parents, but they might offer one more clue…. If the record only lists a mother (i.e., Mrs. SURNAME), and you know the parents were married from previous research, it can help you narrow down a death date for the father. The same could be true if it only lists a father, but given the fact that women didn't hold much esteem until the 20th century, it could just be that the court didn't feel it necessary to acknowledge the mother.</p><br /><br /><p>Another tidbit to glean from apprenticeship records is who the apprenticeship master was. In cases where only the mother was named as a parent, it is possible the master is actually the child's father. This seems especially true of free blacks before the Civil War. If the apprenticeship only lists the child's mother, it might be worth it to look through the bastardy bonds to find who the father was and you might just discover that the father and apprentice master were one and the same. In other cases, the master may be a relative of some kind, a brother in law (or sister), an uncle, a cousin, etc.</p><br /><br />The trade to be learned can be helpful to know for future reference. It can be interesting to compare apprentices from the mid 1800s with the census records of the later part of the 1800s to see if the trade the learned became their occupation. In some cases it did, but not always.<p></p><br /><br /><p>Apprenticeship records are highly overlooked records in North Carolina. If you had ancestors in North Carolina, it will be worth your while to look for an apprenticeship record for your ancestor.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-4540318981284207022007-04-24T11:50:00.001-05:002007-06-04T20:44:23.997-05:00Laws and Lives of Free Blacks in North Carolina: 1715-1863 (part 2)<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Laws of the 1800s<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">© 2004, 2007 Erin Bradford</span><br /></div><br />This week is a continuation of the laws in North Carolina regarding free people of color. Most are specifically about free Blacks, but some laws are general including tax-paying Native Americans. If you noticed from last week's post, the laws started out fairly lenient, but became more and more strict. This week you'll see the same theme appear. Laws for the 1700s may have become more strict, but apparently they were bearable to the free Blacks who resided within North Carolina as with the exception of a very few, I have been able to follow the families within North Carolina for that century. The 1800s are a different story, and thing really took a turn for the worse for free Blacks after Nat Turner's Revolt in Virginia, 1831. Although the revolt took place in Virginia, it did affect North Carolina. The revolt took place in Southampton County, VA, which is directly above the VA-NC border (<a href="http://www.rootsweb.com/%7Evagenweb/vacnty.gif">see map</a>). A sort of mass hysteria followed the revolt and many Blacks, both slave and free where accused of conspiracy with Nat Turner and executed.<br /><br />So why would this revolt have such an impact on free Blacks in North Carolina? As author <a href="http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/introduction.htm">Paul Heinegg points out</a>, many of the free blacks in North Carolina were manumitted in Virginia and migrated into the borders of North Carolina. Because of this, it is likely that insurrections in Virginia had more of an affect on North Carolinians than those in other states since that is where many of their free black population (or their ancestors) during the colonial and revolutionary period originally came from.<br /><br />Well, let's get on to the topic at hand here:<br /><br />The North Carolina General Assembly passed 3 separate laws between 1801-1833, no doubt brought forth by white Carolinians' fear from Gabriel’s Rebellion and Nat Turner’s revolt. All three laws concerned the act of manumission. The first law, passed in 1801, required a 100 pound bond by the slave owner for each slave manumitted. The General Assembly of the state passed the second law in 1830. This law increased the amount of the bond to one thousand pounds, ten times the amount of the 1801 law. On addition, if any slaveholders desired to manumit a slave, this law required them to file a petition with the county court and give public notice six weeks in advance. Section two of this act stipulated that any manumitted slave must leave North Carolina’s boundaries within ninety days “. . . and will never return within the State afterwards.” A third law passed in 1833 that made no changes to the 1830 law, but rather upheld it.<br /><br />Apparently, none of these three manumission laws were followed completely. For instance, in 1814, a slave named Maria was freed in Cumberland county and the 100 pound bond was not a required condition for her freedom. In 1821, Job Hazell, a free black man, petitioned the court to set free his two slaves, who were actually his wife and daughter. The court complied and no mention of a monetary reimbursement to the court was mentioned in neither the petition nor the decision. In an 1836 case, the court was petitioned to set free four slaves for a monetary reimbursement of only 1200, less than half of what the law required. In 1847, Joshua Carman of Cumberland County set free two of his slaves for a payment of only $500, only a quarter of the requirement. It is possible that the law allowed individual counties to interpret and apply the law in the manner they saw fit. Further examination of emancipations during the 19th century is necessary to come to a more conclusive understanding on how the law was applied statewide.<br /><br />The year 1836 saw the passage of two more laws dealing with apprenticeships, public preaching, and slave insurrections. The first of these laws passed gave power to the many county courts to bind out all illegitimate children born to free people of color and all children of free people of color whose parents were not employed in “honest and industrious work.” As with earlier apprenticeship laws, all children of free people of color bound out were to remain so until of age 21 and apprenticeship masters were required to teach reading and writing. A new stipulation required apprenticeship masters to pay a $500 bond that said they would not remove their wards from the county in which they resided. Numerous court cases before 1836 in the guardians court (more about that on another day) regarded apprentice masters who took their wards either out of the town, county, or even state without permission from the courts or their wards' parents. I believe this law was put in place to prevent that from happening.<br /><br />The second law of 1836 further restricted contact between free blacks and slaves. The first section made it illegal for any slave or free black person to preach in public or to even officiate as a teacher in a meeting that included slaves. Violation of the first section was punishable by thirty-nine lashes. As its second point, if any free black was found involved in any capacity in a slave insurrection, they would be put to death. I personally believe this is a result of slave insurrections, and particular Nat Turner's Revolt of 1831. Smaller insurrections that occurred in the South during the 1800s were sometimes the result of a conspiracy between slaves and free Blacks. Although I have not found any record specifically stating why this law came about, I do believe that this was brought up as a way to prohibit that from happening in North Carolina.<br /><br />It should be noted that around this time, the 1830s, many of North Carolina's free Black population began to leave the state. Many of them settled in Ohio and Indiana, and even a few went further South into Louisiana, particularly New Orleans where another large free Black population existed.<br /><br />The passage of laws regarding free blacks during the last years of the slavery era in North Carolina seemed to be a scramble to hang on to the last threads of an institution. Five laws alone were passed in 1861 and another in 1863 for a total of at least six laws during the Civil War. There may have been others, but were not found as of yet by me. 1861 saw the first passage of laws limiting the rights of property ownership for free blacks in North Carolina, as well a further and final restriction on the practice of manumission and apprenticeships, taxes, and trade and the setting up of a poor house specifically for free people of color.<br /><br />Free blacks in North Carolina owned property just like their white neighbors. Some of them owned a lot, some very little. In North Carolina, free blacks, “. . . enjoyed all the protection in the matter of acquisition, transfer, devise, and descent [of property] that other citizens . . . enjoyed.” The courts ruled strongly against violations of property rights against free blacks. The first two laws of 1861 regarded the rights to bear arms and the ownership of slaves. Until 1861, no laws denied free blacks the right to own a gun, as long as it they held a license issued by a county court. This first act took away that right and prohibited county courts from granting licenses to free blacks. Violation of this law could have resulted in a fine of at least $50. It should be noted here that at least one exception was made. For instance, in 1861, the County Court of Robeson County allowed Jack McPherson, a free black man, to own and carry a gun on his own premises for a year and there appears to be no action taken against the county. The second law prohibited free blacks from owning slaves or purchasing slaves, including the purchase of family members’ freedom. In many cases where free blacks in North Carolina owned slaves, the slaves were family members who had been purchased in order to obtain their freedom. However, their slave spouses and children had to remain slaves because of manumission laws in the mid-1800s made it very difficult to free them. This law made it impossible for free blacks to purchase slaves, even members of their immediate family, for the purpose of manumission. This new law prohibited that. In its entirety, this act stated:<br /><br /><blockquote>That no free negro, or free person of color shall be permitted or allowed to buy, purchase or hire for any length of time, any slave or slaves, or to have any slave or slaves bound as apprentice or apprentices to him, her, or them, or in any other wise to have the control, management or services of any slave or slaves, under a penalty of one hundred dollars for each offense, and shall further be guilty of misdemeanor, and liable to indictment for the same.</blockquote><br />This act does give relief to free Blacks who have already purchased or hired slaves; this law did not apply to them. It did, however, prevent them from purchasing or hiring any more slaves in the future. In a case where a free black man or woman has a spouse or child still a slave because they had not yet saved enough money to purchase them (and hence their freedom), this was indeed a striking blow.<br /><br />Yet another blow to slaves hoping for the chance to gain their freedom and possibly join the rest of their family, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed a law in 1861 that made it illegal to manumit a slave by a person’s last will and testament and in cases where that was attempted became null and void.<br /><br />Perhaps the strangest law passed in North Carolina before and during the Civil War was a law that the General Assembly passed in 1861 allowing all free persons of color to choose their own masters and become slaves. Originally, I thought that perhaps a free Black person in huge debt to another person might enter into a form of slavery as a method to pay off his or her debt; however, under closer examination of the law, it stipulated that there cannot be any outstanding debt with the chosen master. Why a person would choose to become a slave is unfathomable, but it did happen. At least two instances in North Carolina, people chose to become slaves. In Guildford County in 1861, John Phillips and Jenetta Wright both filed petitions to become slaves. It is not clear why these two free blacks chose to become slaves, but a reasonable assumption is that that they were so destitute to that even slavery looked like a good option, since they would at least have food and shelter as slaves. Of all the county papers on slaves and free blacks that I have searched so far, these cases were the only that could be found of a free black person petitioning the court to become a slave.<br /><br />The final and longest law of 1861 had eleven points to it, covering four separate topics. The first section of this law was an act to set up a poor house in each county specifically for free people of color. Furthermore, each county was to summon before its court every free person of color within its boundaries and note their name, age, economic status, and whether if willing and able to support their family. If they are found willing and able, then nothing further was needed; however, if they were not willing nor able to support their families, then either the family was sent to the poor house or the children under age 10 were to be bound out. Along with this law, if the court found a person willing and able to support their family, any of their children age 16-21 were considered taxable and the county courts received the power to assess taxes on these households based on the value of labor. If the court bound out any child, the parents retained the right to file a plea that would prevent the county court from further binding out and for the court to reassess the economic status. Lastly, all previous laws regarding the trading between whites and slaves now applied to trade between whites and free people of color. This meant that whites could no longer buy products or trade with free people of color without the written consent of their employer or the justice of the peace for that county in which they resided. In essence, this act cut off all sources of livelihood of free people of color and relegated status of free blacks to that of slaves. Because they were free, they were not allowed to trade or do business with slaves, but now because they are Black, they can no longer trade or do business with whites.<br /><br />The last law passed by North Carolina concerning that of free Blacks before the end of the Civil War was that of 1863. This law regarded punishment for felonies and for manslaughter. This law stated that if any free person of color was found guilty of manslaughter or any felonies, punishment should be public whipping, not to exceed 39 lashes.<br /><br />Of all the laws restricting the freedoms of the free black population passed between 1715 and 1863, the great majority of those laws were passed out of fear held by the white population. There are two parts to this fear. First and foremost, a fear that came from events that took place outside North Carolina borders, particularly Gabriel’s Rebellion and the Nat Turner Revolt in Virginia and the Denmark Vessey Revolt in South Carolina. These events took place in the 1800’s and for the most part, soon after the events transpired, North Carolina’s General Assembly passed stricter laws.<br /><br />Secondly, their fear came from a steadily growing population of free blacks, which grew from 4,975 in the 1790 census to 30,463 in the 1860 census. For the most part, these laws passed during this time were not reactionary to events that transpired within their own borders, but to events in neighboring states, especially Virginia.<br /><br />Here is a bibliography of sources I used to write this paper in 2004. Links to the Deed of Gibbea Chavis and also the petition go back to my personal website, where I have transcribed those records verbatim, back in 2004. The HTML coding is a bit off, so some places have weird writing in the place of " and '. The link for Table 48 at the Census Bureau is a spreadsheet that will automatically load (or at least should) in whatever spreadsheet software you use on your computer. It shows the population by race from 1790 to 1990 and it an excellent source. Note that the total number of "free" differs slightly than the totals I have given, but overall, it's the same. It seems to depend mostly on what your source is.<br /><br />Bibliography<br />Byrd, William L., III. <span style="font-style: italic;">In Full Force and Virtue: North Carolina Emancipation Records 1713-1860</span>. Bowie, MD: Heritage books, 1999.<br /><br />Clark, Walter L. <span style="font-style: italic;">The State Records of North Carolina</span>. Goldsboro, NC: Nash Brothers Book and Job Printers, 1906.<br /><br />Cumberland County. Miscellaneous Papers. Slave Records. “Freedom Papers and Writs of Emancipation, 1801-1855.” (C.R.029.928.9)<br /><br />Franklin, John Hope. <span style="font-style: italic;">The Free Negro in North Carolina 1790-1860</span>. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991.<br /><br />Emancipation papers of Betty Beebee<br /><br />Granville County. Denied Petitions. <a href="http://granville.ncalhn.org/petitions/tythables1771.html">Petition of Inhabitants of Granville County, 1771</a>.<br /><br />Granville County. Election Records. 1861, (C.R.044.912.2).<br /><br />Granville County. Election Records. 1862, (C.R.044.912.3).<br /><br />Granville County. Will Book L. <a href="http://granville.ncalhn.org/deeds/gibbeachaver1777.html">Deed of Gibbea Chavis to Joseph McDaniel</a>.<br /><br />Guilford County. Miscellaneous Papers. Petition of John Phillips to Become a Slave.” 1861, (C.R.046.928.2).<br /><br />Guilford County. Miscellaneous Papers. Petition of Jenette Wright to become a slave,” 1861, (C.R.046.928.2).<br /><br />NC Senate Bill No. 27, Session 1860-1861. A Bill to Regulate the Free Negro Population Within this State. General Assembly, 1861.<br /><br />PBS. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/natturner/nat.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property</span></a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Public Laws of the State of North Carolina Passed by the General Assembly at its Session of 1860-’61. </span>Raleigh: John Spelman, 1861.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Revised Statutes of the State of North Carolina Passed by the General Assembly at the Session of 1836-37</span>. Raleigh: Turner and Hughes, 1837.<br /><br />Rowan County, Miscellaneous Papers, “Civil Actions against slaves and free persons of Color”, (C.R.085.928.5).<br /><br />Saunders, William L. <span style="font-style: italic;">The Colonial Records of North Carolina</span>. Goldsboro, NC: Nash Brothers Book and Job Printers, 1906.<br /><br />U.S. Census Bureau. <a href="http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0056/tab48.xls">Table 48. North Carolina - Race and Hispanic Origin: 1790 to 1990</a>.<br /><br />Warren County, Miscellaneous Papers, “Civil Actions against slaves and free persons of Color”, (C.R.100.928.2).<br /><br />1790 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.<br /><br />1800 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.<br /><br />1810 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.<br /><br />1820 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.<br /><br />1830 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.<br /><br />1840 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.<br /><br />1850 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.<br /><br />1860 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-51273210168959669572007-04-23T23:15:00.000-05:002007-04-23T23:22:25.170-05:00Update on familylink.comThese guys seem to be great at responding to feedback. It may take a couple of days, but when I emailed them the problem with the dates on Wednesday the 18th, I received a response within about 48 hours, and it wasn't one of those automated responses you get from sites "thanks for your feedback, it is very important to us and customer satisfaction is number 1 blah blah blah." Anyway, the point is, they fixed the dates and they now go back to 500 AD. <br /><br />Now I'm having a new problem and I've contacted them again tonight, I created an ancestor page on Wednesday before they fixed the dates, so tonight I went back to change the dates, but whenever I tried, it just sent me back to my main profile, I'll see what they say, but as I said before, I see a LOT of potential with this site.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4750703629968856769.post-2005756829809335772007-04-19T10:22:00.003-05:002010-05-03T16:14:26.565-05:00Laws and Lives of Free Blacks in North Carolina: 1715-1863<style type="text/css"><!-- table {border: outset 1pt; width: 85%; border-width: 1px; border-color: black; border-spacing: 0px; border-style: solid; border-collapse: collapse; text-align:center; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; } tr, td, th {border: inset 1pt; text-align: center; border-color: black; vertical-align: middle; border-width: 0px; padding: 2px; border-style: solid; } td, th { border: inset 1pt; } --></style><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">© Erin Bradford, 2004-2007</div><br /><p style="text-align: left;">Hi folks! Today's post is going to be the first of a 2 part series on the laws in North Carolina regarding free Blacks. Today will be about the laws of the 1700s. First is a bit of an introduction about the laws over the period of 1715-1863 and what might have led to their creation. Then will look at the laws specifically from the 1700s. I'll also be posting all my sources for both parts in next week's post. This will be sort of long, so let's dig in!</p><br /><br /><p style="text-align: left;">NOTE: Links to the state constitution go to a page at the State Library of North Carolina. The other 2 links to actual free Black documents are transcriptions by me at my website.</p><br /><p></p><br /><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Introduction</span></p><p style="text-align: left;">Between the years of 1715 and 1863, the state of North Carolina passed numerous laws that gradually restricted the rights of free blacks within its borders. These laws focused on restricting the rights on how slaves could gain freedom, whether or not free Blacks could vote, rules for paying taxes, movement in and out of the state as well as movement within the state, regulation of apprenticeships, property ownership, marriage and cohabitation, and involvement of free Blacks with slaves. Despite these restrictions, the free Black population in North Carolina continued to grow from 4,975 in the 1790 census to 30,463 in the 1860 census. In looking at court cases and county records in North Carolina, not all the laws, especially those in the 1800s, were created as results of current problems facing the state, but rather as reactions to problems facing neighboring state, particularly Virginia. Many of the laws of the 1800s were reactions to events such as Gabriel's Rebellion in Virginia during 1800, the Revolt led by Denmark Vesey in South Carolina during 1822, and the Nat Turn Revolt also in Virginia during 1831. The state of North Carolina also passed many laws in 1861 in reaction to the Civil War. Also, the growth of the free Black population in North Carolina borders likely played a role in the laws that were passed by the North Carolina General Assembly.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">The majority of the free Black population in North Carolina consistently resided within eight counties during the seventy year period from 1790-1860: Bertie, Craven, Granville, Halifax, Hertford, Northampton, Robeson, and Wake. In these eight counties, the free Black population grew rapidly between 1790 and 1820, but very slow growth from 1820-1840, likely signifying the exodus of many of North Carolina's free Blacks moving out of state, particular to Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana. It wasn't until 1850 that the free Black population again saw a sharp increase (see table 1). On the county level, comparison of the free Black population in 1790 with that of 1860 shows that only Bertie County decreased in number, while Granville and Wake continually rose every census year. However, the other eight counties fluctuated in number each decade (see table 1). Overall, the population of free Blacks in North Carolina increased for all counties. These numbers are important because they reflect two things: how the rise in the free Black population could have prompted the General Assembly to pass laws that restricted their rights, and how the laws that the General Assembly passed affected the movement out of the state or to different counties within the state.<br /></p><br /><br /><table> <tbody><tr> <td style="text-align: left;"><br /></td> <td><center><b>1790</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1800</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1810</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1820</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1830</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1840</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1850</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1860</b></center></td> </tr> <tr> <td><center><b>Bertie</b></center></td> <td><center><b>348</b></center></td> <td><center><b>195</b></center></td> <td><center><b>214</b></center></td> <td><center><b>250</b></center></td> <td><center><b>250</b></center></td> <td><center><b>303</b></center></td> <td><center><b>323</b></center></td> <td><center><b>319</b></center></td> </tr> <tr> <td><center><b>Craven</b></center></td> <td><center><b>337</b></center></td> <td><center><b>328</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,125</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1724</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,744</b></center></td> <td><center><b>950</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,538</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,332</b></center></td> </tr> <tr> <td><center><b>Granville</b></center></td> <td><center><b>315</b></center></td> <td><center><b>329</b></center></td> <td><center><b>467</b></center></td> <td><center><b>521</b></center></td> <td><center><b>531</b></center></td> <td><center><b>674</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,090</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,123</b></center></td> </tr> <tr> <td><center><b>Halifax</b></center></td> <td><center><b>443</b></center></td> <td><center><b>635</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,236</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1541</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,551</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1528</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,870</b></center></td> <td><center><b>2,452</b></center></td> </tr> <tr> <td><center><b>Hertford</b></center></td> <td><center><b>216</b></center></td> <td><center><b>430</b></center></td> <td><center><b>304</b></center></td> <td><center><b>788</b></center></td> <td><center><b>788</b></center></td> <td><center><b>665</b></center></td> <td><center><b>873</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,112</b></center></td> </tr> <tr> <td><center><b>Northampton</b></center></td> <td><center><b>462</b></center></td> <td><center><b>538</b></center></td> <td><center><b>580</b></center></td> <td><center><b>730</b></center></td> <td><center><b>725</b></center></td> <td><center><b>650</b></center></td> <td><center><b>830</b></center></td> <td><center><b>650</b></center></td> </tr> <tr> <td><center><b>Robeson</b></center></td> <td><center><b>277</b></center></td> <td><center><b>341</b></center></td> <td><center><b>417</b></center></td> <td><center><b>437</b></center></td> <td><center><b>428</b></center></td> <td><center><b>982</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,230</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,452</b></center></td> </tr> <tr> <td><center><b>Wake</b></center></td> <td><center><b>180</b></center></td> <td><center><b>324</b></center></td> <td><center><b>519</b></center></td> <td><center><b>734</b></center></td> <td><center><b>734</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1056</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,306</b></center></td> <td><center><b>1,446</b></center></td> </tr> <tr> <td><center><b>Total</b></center></td> <td><center><b>2,578</b></center></td> <td><center><b>3,120</b></center></td> <td><center><b>4,862</b></center></td> <td><center><b>6,725</b></center></td> <td><center><b>6,751</b></center></td> <td><center><b>6,808</b></center></td> <td><center><b>9,060</b></center></td> <td><center><b>9,886</b></center></td> </tr> </tbody></table><br /><b><span style="">Table 1. Total number of free people of color enumerated in Bertie, Craven, Granville, Halifax, Hertford, Northampton, Robeson, and Wake Counties<br />1790-1860 census.</span></b><br /><br /><p style="text-align: center;"><big><big>Laws of the 1700s</big></big></p><br /><p>Between the years of 1715 and 1799, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed a total of eleven different laws restricting the rights of manumitting slaves and the rights of free blacks. These eleven laws concerned the right to manumit slaves, voting rights of free blacks, who counted as tithables for paying taxes, migration into and out of the state, the practice of apprenticeships, registration of free blacks within certain towns, marriage rights, and an act designed to prevent the selling of stolen goods by slaves and free blacks.</p><br /><br /><p>In 1715, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed “An Act Concerning Servants and Slaves.” This act contained twenty-one sections, five of which pertained to free blacks. Sections one through thirteen, as well as section nineteen, all specified laws regulating slaves and indentured servants, especially women, while sections fourteen through eighteen aimed to regulate free persons of color (including Native Americans). Sections fourteen through seventeen were the first laws of the state to outlaw miscegenation. Section fourteen stated that if any white woman, whether servant or free, had a child by any person of color, she would be required by law to pay to the church warden six pounds or be sold into 2 years of servitude. Furthermore, section fifteen empowered church wardens to bind out any children born from a union between a white woman and colored man, until they become of age 31. It is important to note that only these children were to be bound to age 31, while other children, including legitimate children of color, were to be bound until only age 21. Section sixteen stated, “. . . Be It Further Enacted By the Authority aforesaid that no White man or woman shall intermarry with any Negro, Mulatto, or Indyan Man or Woman under the penalty of Fifty Pounds for each white man or woman.” Finally, section seventeen fined any members of the clergy who performed a marriage between a white person and person of color. Section eighteen was the first act passed by the General Assembly regulating the right of slave owners to set their slaves free. According to this section, owners could not grant manumission to slaves who previously attempted to runaway. Furthermore, the law stipulated that manumission would only be granted for “honest and faithful” service and that freed slaves must leave North Carolina within six months or face being sold back for an additional five years.</p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p>In 1715, the General Assembly passed another act, this time making it illegal for free people of color (including Native Americans) to vote. This act came about in part from a petition launched in 1705 which complained about servants, free people of color, Jews, and “aliens” voting in the previous election of the General Assembly for the state of North Carolina. In 1776, the <a href="http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/stgovt/preconst.htm">state constitution of North Carolina</a> gave back the right to vote to free blacks until a new constitution was written in <a href="http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/stgovt/preconst.htm">1835</a>.</p> <p><b><br /></b></p><p>1723 saw the passage of one act regarding both taxables and migration in and out of the state. The act first deemed any free person of color age 12 or over taxable and also that any white person who married a free person of color became liable under the same law. <a href="http://www.freeaainnc.com/petitions/granvillecotythablespetition1771.pdf">A petition was filed in the Granville County Court</a> to complain against this law, signed by both free black and white men, including Gibbea Chavis, a free black man, who <a href="http://www.freeaainnc.com/landdeeds/granvillecogibbeachavis1777.pdf">owned 300 acres of land</a> at one time. , The second part of the law stipulated that if a freed slave, after leaving the state within the required 6 months later returned, they could be apprehended and sold back into slavery for 7 years.</p> <p><br /></p><p>An act passed in 1733 regarding the practice of apprenticeship offered the only form of relief to free blacks during this time. Before 1733, free blacks could be taken and forced into an apprenticeship against their will. In July 1733, many complaints and petitions came forward concerning free blacks who were either forced into an apprenticeship or forced to remain past the legal age of 21, many forced to stay as long as age 31. As a response to these unethical apprenticeships, Moseley Vail, of the North Carolina House, wrote to the General Assembly that, “. . . these practices are well known . . ..” and further wrote, "It is therefore humbly recommended by the said Committee that a vote pass this House declaring the illegality of such a practice and that all such Persons so taken from their Parents or Guardians be returned . . ." Later the same year, the General Assembly agreed with Vail and made such practices illegal.</p> <p><br /></p><p>An act passed by the state legislature of North Carolina in 1741 repealed the manumission act of 1715. Three major points comprised the act of 1741. First, slaves could only be emancipated as a reward for meritorious service. No longer could slaveholders free their slaves as they desired for whatever reason they desired. As its second point, this act required manumitted slaves to leave the state within six months in the same manner as the act of 1715. Finally, if the newly freed slave did not leave the state by the end of the six-month period, they could be sold back into slavery. Unlike the act of 1715, this new act did not limit the length of time for them to serve.</p> <p><br /></p><p>In 1762, the General Assembly passed two separate laws, only one of which proved beneficial to free blacks, concerning the practice of apprenticeship. It is worth noting that the laws regarding apprenticeship during the 18th century applied to both white and free black children, unless otherwise noted. The first of the apprenticeship acts required apprentice masters or mistresses to “. . . provide for him or her Diet, Clothes, Lodging, Accommodations, fit and necessary; and shall teach or cause him or her to be taught, to read and Write . . ..” This is a big step for free black children because without this stipulation, many free black children would not receive an education before reconstruction. The second apprenticeship law passed in 1762 upheld previous laws while adding three more stipulations. First, the second law gave county courts the power to bind orphan children with little to no inheritance. Second, and the only difference in the treatment of white and black children, is that all male children were bound to age 21, all black females bound to age 21, and all white females bound to age 18. The third stipulation is that all apprenticeships are now to be treated as indentures. Although free black children in an apprenticeship were taught to read and write, in essence, these apprenticeships could become a virtual form of slavery for the first 21 years of their lives.</p> <p><br /></p><p>The General Assembly passed laws that further restricted manumission in 1777 and 1778. Both laws upheld earlier laws, but added further restrictions. In 1777, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an act, which in effect upheld the 1741 act. One of the major differences between the two acts is that the 1777 act called the practice of manumitting slaves “evil and pernicious” and that it “ought at this alarming and critical Time to be guarded against by every friend and Wellwisher to his country.” No doubt, that “critical time” in the law refers to the Revolutionary War. The 1777 law made it so that any free white person could apprehend a freed slave who reentered the state. After apprehension, these freed slaves who reentered the state could then be sold to the highest bidder, with one-fifth of the proceeds given to those who captured the slave. In effect, this gave a reward to the capturers and led to opportune-seeking individuals to capture legal free black citizens, as well as those illegally in the state, in order to make money. Once sold, the new owner could not allow the apprehended slave to hire themselves out. If their new owner allowed them to hire themselves out contrary to the law, the they could again be apprehended and forced to work twenty days of hard labor. Threats posed by the act of 1777, particularly that of apprehension and re-sale, did not constitute mere words. A group of Quakers in the state of North Carolina kept a log of manumitted slaves who fell victim to the act of 1777 from Pasquotank, Perquimans, and Chowan counties. Luckily, the General Assembly later released many of these manumitted slaves on the log.</p> <p><br /></p><p>In 1778, the General Assembly saw the error of the earlier law and passed a new law that stipulated that only the Sheriff could apprehend a freed slave who illegally reentered the state. The stipulation of 1778 remained in force as long as slavery existed in the state of North Carolina.</p> <p><br /></p><p> North Carolina’s first attempt at registering free people of color came in 1785. Apparently, the cities of Edenton, Fayetteville, Washington, and Wilmington had a problem with slaves attempting to pass as free. As a result, the General Assembly of North Carolina passed an act requiring the registration of free people of color who resided in the towns of previously stated, as well as free blacks who were visiting these four cities for three days or more. As well as registration, free people of color in the four towns were required to wear a patch on their shoulder that said “FREE.” It is important to note that this act applied only to Edenton, Fayetteville, Washington, and Wilmington and not to the entire state. Also of notice is that all four towns bordered a major body of water. Fayetteville is on the banks of the Cape Fear River, while Edenton, Washington, and Wilmington are all on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. A strong possibility exists that slaves in these four towns attempted to escape via these waterways by passing as free. Further evidence of this hypothesis can be seen from a law passed in 1787.</p> <p><br /></p><p>A law in 1787, entitled “An Act to Prevent Thefts and Robberies by Slaves, Free Negroes and Mulattoes,” had five major stipulations concerning two different things, but with a similar purpose: a start in preventing contact between slaves and free blacks. The first two sections concern the “entertainment” of slaves and free blacks. First, no slave or free black can be entertained on boats from sundown to sunrise from Monday to Saturday and not at any time at all on Sunday. If any are found, perhaps during a raid or while on patrol, it will be assumed that the slave or free black person is trying to sell stolen goods and the commander of the boat will be fined. Two exceptions existed for the first section: that the slave has a pass from their master allowing them to be there or that the slave or free black person be employed on the ship. The second section states that free blacks cannot entertain slaves during the said times stated above. The difference in the two sections is how much a white commander will be fined versus a free black. There is no amount stated in the first section, but a free black person will be fined 20 shillings for the first offense and 40 shillings thereafter. The third section to the law made it illegal for a slave and free person of color to marry or cohabitate unless they have the written consent of the slaves master. If the master did not give consent, the free person of color could become a slave for one year. It becomes very clear that the intention of this law is not to prevent theft, but rather to prohibit contact between slaves and free blacks.</p><p><b><br /></b></p><h2 style="text-align: center; font-weight: normal;">Concluding thoughts</h2><p>I'm sure you'll come away from part 1 with one of two reactions: either you won't be surprised at the laws, meaning that you expected as much, or you're going to be pretty surprised--either that the laws are more lenient than expected or more harsh. I was not too surprised with the 1700s laws, but if anything, they were more lenient that what I would have expected. I would have been surprised if there were no miscegenation laws. I was most surprised about the 1787 laws that began to limit contact between slaves and free Blacks (and you'll see this again in the 1800s!) I guess I always assumed that free Blacks and slaves would always be able to keep in contact, but apparently not!</p><p style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></p><span>So, what do you find surprising or otherwise in this section? I'd love to hear your feedback!<br /><br /></span><p>There are a few surprises with the laws of the 1800s, and that's coming up next week, so stay tuned.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://freeaainnc.blogspot.com">
<img src="http://static.bloglines.com/images/lang/default/sub_modern2.gif" border="0" alt="Subscribe with Bloglines" />
</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2