Mortality Schedules - slaves, extra name in Parentheses
HI all.
I am working on the latest mortality schedules project and I just encountered a batch where the names of Black slaves have an extra name after the full name in parentheses. What is it and which is the correct name I should use?
Here is the batch:
https://www.familysearch.org/indexing/batch/a233cf60-2c61-4ee5-9495-6905afd3b4b0
Answers
-
I would think that the name in parentheses is the slave's name and the full name is the owner. I can't believe the instructions don't address this since the second example is the same form with the free/slave column. There have been other projects with this situation. I'm sure a moderator with access to the folks at Family Search will see this and help.
1 -
Yeah the more I do it the more batches I am finding containing these situations, either with a comma, parentheses or just an extra name at the end.
The only thing is that if the first name was the owners name wouldn't there be a lot more of the same name in each batch? I haven't found that.
0 -
Hello! A slave would not have had a surname - only a first name, and possibly a middle and/or a baptized name. I see what you are looking at in this batch, and I agree with others that the full name has to be the owner and therefore that name is not recorded. As far as having more of the same owner's names … shrug; we'd be guessing on that point.
I think when these censuses and mortality schedules were taken, nobody back then ever thought that 174 years later a group of people from all over the world and for many different reasons would be so interested in their recording of persons living and deceased.
0 -
So, in your opinion, should I just record the first names?
1 -
Kathryn, in other projects we did index the owners' names. But that was detailed in the instructions. I would contact Family Search. https://www.familysearch.org/en/fieldops/familysearch-support-contact-us
0 -
I got a response!
Dear Kathryn,
Thank you for contacting FamilySearch Support about 4 indexing batches which show slave owners and then given names of slaves - the slaves are the deceased.
Here's an example from line 6 in your second batch. US—Mortality Schedules, 1850–1880 [Part C] [MQN7-Y5F]
Note the apostrophe. This is used to show ownership. Henry Ruckers' Laura. Henry Ruckers is the slave owner and the slave named Laura is the deceased. You see apostrophes on the deceased whose race is "B". Some of the writing is sloppy but this pattern is used repeatedly. The 3rd batch also has apostrophes. The 4th batch does also, but also has a few markings like the first batch.
On your first batch, the marking looks more like a sloppy "(" but the pattern is the same. The "B" deceased have the owner listed first, then the name of the deceased.
Line 1: the deceased is "Frank".
Hope this helps everyone!
1 -
Yes, we know who the deceased is, but in other projects we indexed the owners because it won't be possible to identify the slaves in a Family Search search without a surname, and in other projects that slave could be identified by the owner's name. But come to think of it, I think there was another field for the owners. It's unfortunate that they didn't account for this in this project.
0 -
I asked them this question, but they said according to their contract with the owner of the documents, that is all they are going to index.
1
