Return to Home Page
Slavery in the Southern Family of
Stokes County, N.C.: The Slaves of William Southern II
Only one Southern household
in North Carolina ever held slaves. Beginning
with the 1783 Surry County tax list,
William Southern II (1758/59-ca. 1835) is seen
with one slave, and he is consistently shown as
a slaveholder thereafter until his death in the
mid-1830s. Records before 1810 indicate only one
slave in his household, but the census returns of
1810, 1820, and 1830 each show three slaves. This
group of three appears to have been a small family
including a bondswoman born between 1776 and 1794,
and her two sons born between 1805 and 1810.
(See review of evidence below.)
William II had
served in the Revolution, which ended in
1781 when he was 22 or 23 (see Revolutionary
War Service of William Southern II).
How
he came to own a slave when he was a young man is
a mystery. William
would have been only 24 or 25 in 1783 when the
record first shows him owning a slave. He was not a wealthy
man, with his holdings about average for his
family and neighbors. He entered a state grant for
100 acres on Snow Creek in 1782, a
few miles north of most Southern family
members who lived on Hewins Creek.
By 1793 he had expanded his holdings to
200 acres, and
he remained on his Snow Creek farm until the end
of his life.
William probably married about the same time as he
received his first land grant in 1782. It is
possible he acquired the slave though his
marriage, perhaps as a gift from his wife's
parents. But there is no record of his marriage,
and thus far no document has been found that gives
his wife's name.
Census records before 1820 do not show the sex or
the age range of slaves. Tax lists rarely
show more than a simple count of "Black Poles,"
and often not even that figure. The 1820 and 1830
census for William both show a bondswoman in the
age range that places her birth between 1776 and
1794. Thus it is possible she was the same person
seen in William's 1783 tax listing counted in the
"Negroes 1-7, 50-60" column, and was at the time a
girl about age 7.
If we are seeing the same woman in all records
between 1783 and 1830, she remained with the
family for five decades, until William's death
about 1835. She would have been in her early
30s when she gave birth to the two sons born
1805-1810. But without more information, we
cannot be certain that the woman appearing from
1810 to 1830 is the same person seen in earlier
records.
What became of the mother and her two sons after
William's death about 1835 is not known. William did not
leave a will, and no estate records are known. His wife
predeceased him, and no son is shown in any
census. He had two or three daughters who may have
survived him. The slaves may have gone to a household of
one or two daughters, but their names are not
known.
William II's death about 1835 came 30 years before
emancipation. Since his slaves did not go to another
Southern household, it may seem unlikely that the slave
woman or her sons, if still living in 1865, would have
taken the Southern surname after emancipation. However,
an interesting mystery appears in the 1870 census.
The Mystery of Anna Southern
Only one black person named Southern appears after
emancipation in any Stokes County census from 1870 to
1940 (the last year available online). In the 1870
Stokes census, Snow Creek district, we see Anna
Southern, age 57 (born about 1813), with her
birthplace given as North Carolina. She is a mulatto
living with the mulatto family of a "waggoner" named Sandor
P. Hickman, age 50 (born about 1820) and also born
in North Carolina. Hickman appears to be a widower with
six children aged 7 to 21. Anna Southern is a "farm
laborer" in the household. There is no suggestion that
she is Hickman's consort; she appears at the end of the
household list, after another black laborer named David
Amos, 20. This suggests she was an acquaintance -- and
perhaps a sister or other close relative of Sandor
Hickman -- without a family of her own, and given a
place to live in return for her assistance on the
farm.
Who was Anna Southern? There is no young female
in the counts of slaves in William Southern's
households in 1820 and 1830. She may have been a
daughter born about 1813 and placed elsewhere by 1820,
and thus missing from the record. But given her age,
it is possible she may have been a wife of one of the
two Southern bondsmen born 1805-1810, who had died
before 1870. If so, she does not appear to have had
any children who kept the name Southern, at least who
remained in North Carolina. Could she have been
a sister of Sandor Hickman?
At the time of Southern's acquisition of his
original Snow Creek grant in 1782, one of the
adjoining landowners was named William Hickman.
Further research may reveal if William Southern had
Hickman neighbors after 1800, or if any Hickmans in
Stokes County owned slaves. The
presence of Anna Southern in the household of a former
slave named Hickman, in the Snow Creek district where
William Southern had lived for over 50 years, and where
a white Hickman family had also lived, is
intriguing.
Notes on the
evidence:
The 1783 Surry County tax list
numbers one slave in the "Negroes 1-7, 50-60"
column for William Southern II's listing. It is not
known whether that person was a child 7 or under, or
an older person 50 to 60, though in view of the later
records, the former seems more likely.
The North Carolina state census of
1784-1787 also shows William II with one
slave, here in the "under 12 or over 50" column,
which keeps us guessing whether she or he was a child
or an older person. But whether a child or elderly,
she or he is likely the same person seen in the 1783
tax list. William's household otherwise included only
himself and one white female, presumably his wife,
with no children.
The 1790 federal census
shows William II again with one slave (age
range or sex not given), and three white females, most
likely his wife and two daughters.
Other Surry and Stokes
county tax lists of the late 18th century (Stokes was
formed from Surry in 1789) are inconsistent in
including a column for slave holdings, but the 1795 and 1798 Stokes lists
show William with "1 Black Poll." A detailed
county-wide property valuation made in 1799
shows William with one slave "Under Age 50
Subject to Taxation."
The 1800 federal census
also shows William (about 42 this year) with wife
26-44, an apparent daughter under 9 years of age, and
one slave (age range
and sex not given). The daughter born after
1790 can't be either of the two seen in 1790. By
this year the older two may have been in their
mid-teens and married, or either or both may have
died.
The 1810 federal census
again shows William (about 52 this year) with wife
26-44, and daughter 10-15, thus likely the same
daughter seen in 1800. This year William owns three
slaves. Again, the sex and age ranges are not
given, but the 1820 and 1830 enumerations show they
are likely to have been a woman between 16 and 34 this
year, and two young sons, both children under 4. If
the mother was at the older end of the possible age
range, she could have been born as early as 1776, and
the same slave held by William and his wife since
1783.
The 1820 federal census
again shows William (about 62 this year) and wife
(over 45) with no children at home; their daughter
likely having married or died. The three slaves
this year are a woman 26-44, and two boys under 14.
They are likely to be the same two seen in 1810,
implying both were born 1806-1810. The little family
is likely to be the same group of three shown in 1810.
The 1830 federal census
was William's last. He is living alone, with his wife
likely having died by this year. The three slaves
remain in his household. The woman is aged 36-54, and
her sons are 10-23. Again, if the woman's age was at
the older end of the range, she may have been the
"Negro 1-7" in the 1783 Surry tax list, who may have
remained with William and his wife for five decades,
from 1783 to the early 1830s.
Return
to Home Page