By Prentiss Findlay

Eugene Frazier and Thomas Johnson surveyed a forest of graves at a hidden cemetery on James Island where they said more than 200 people are laid to rest. Most of the deceased are in unmarked graves. Many of them were Africans brought here as slaves, they said.

Frazier and Johnson have known about the graveyard for years. They told stories of how the property has changed hands over time. They talked about how they want to clean, document and preserve the final resting place of ancestors brought here in chains.

“This is not just unique to James Island. It is throughout the state really that you have this problem with burial sites,” Johnson said.

Johnson, founder of the Committee to Preserve African-American Cemeteries on James Island, said plantation slave cemeteries are as important as a history lesson. “I want my folks’ story to be told,” he said.

He smoked a cigarette as he pondered a few moldy tombstones worn smooth by time. The ground had a slight rise and fall in many places. Johnson said those “indentations” are unmarked graves.

“You almost have a feeling of connection. Your mind drifts back to what it must have been like. You can almost visualize what it must have been like,” he said.

Frazier is the author of “James Island, Stories From Slave Descendants,” published by The History Press. In his book, he identifies the location as the Old Slave Cemetery for Seabrook Plantation. The Seabrook family owned 195 slaves between 1850 and 1860, according to records that Frazier researched for his book. Prince White, a slave who was the plantation overseer, is thought to be buried in the plot, but there is no grave marker for him. There is a tombstone for his son, Prince Jr.

“It gives me a feeling that I’m standing on something holy,” Frazier said.

Johnson said the burial site is thought to date to the early 1800s. It is located in a patch of woods on Secessionville Road surrounded by neatly manicured suburban homes. Recently, SCE&G cleared a utility line right-of-way fronting the road. As a result, some of the remaining tombstones are visible from the road, and the spot has become a local curiosity.

James Island historian Doug Bostick said it wasn’t the cultural practice of the day to use tombstones to identify who was buried in a slave grave. Instead, graves were marked by something the deceased used in their last days or a favored object such as a shell. Bostick said there is a map of the area dating to the early 1800s that shows a cluster of small buildings presumed to be slave quarters next to the cemetery. The Seabrook Plantation was the largest on the island, he said.

In 1860, James Island had 21 plantations, so theoretically it also had that many African-American cemeteries. Bostick said he knows of only seven black cemeteries left on the island. “Lots of the slave cemeteries have simply been built on top of. You’ve got to figure we’ve lost 12 to 14 slave cemeteries,” he said.

Frazier and Johnson think they are in a race against time to map out the Seabrook Plantation cemetery before the collective memory of the community fades with the death of those who would know some of the history of unmarked graves. They have tried but failed to determine who owns the cemetery property to ask permission to clear it and do their historical work.

“The biggest thing is to preserve these sites to pay these individuals respect. That is our whole purpose. When you visit these sites, it’s an emotional thing,” Frazier said.

Source: The Post and Courier

Bennett Greenspan pulling up Dad's test results on FamilyTreeDNA

Bennett Greenspan, President and CEO of Family Tree DNA, gave an illuminating talk on DNA and broke it down so that just about anyone could understand. Even for someone like me who’s done every test available, I learned something new (about mutations). Caught up with Greenspan afterward at the AfricanDNA table and went over my latest 67-marker test results. Hey, people, I had my results analyzed by Bennett Greenspan! How special is that! Anyway, will let y’all in on my findings at another time and on another forum. Watch for my post on the AfriGeneas DNA Research Forum.

David fielding questions between sessions.

David Paterson’s presentation was next. Same place. Didn’t even have to move from my seat. The theater held several hundred and the room was pretty well filled. David ran over but attendees told him to keep going. What I liked most was that he illustrated the various naming options chosen by former slaves with actual cases. How many times have you been researching a family in the census record and their surname seemed to change between census years and you wondered wha’ happened? David explained what happened in that instance and answered many more perplexing questions. Great talk, David!

Most African Americans can diagram or outline a rather complete genealogy using 20th and 21st century public records. Going further back in time to discover those ancestors who were born and died in the late 19th century becomes more problematical and to uncover those who were enslaved prior to 1865 can be daunting indeed because they were identified in the records by enumeration or by first name only.

There have been many opinions as to the origin of the surnames used in the 1870 Census yet if one looks carefully and deeply into the research that has been done on the origin of surnames one is hard pressed to find a definitive answer that fits all situations. Strongly held beliefs are difficult to dislodge and the reasons behind the adoption of one surname or the other varies from one locale to another. Misunderstanding is generated by not being aware of the difference between slaves adopting the surname of the “last” slaveholder rather than a “former or prior” slaveholder. A last slaveholder is a former slaveholder, but a former or prior slaveholder is not necessarily the last, but rather could be one dating back to the 16th and 15th century.

African names were stripped from a people when they reached these shores. It is logical to begin the search for African American ancestors who were enslaved by using the surname given in the 1870 Census as a beginning point to reach further back in time. What follows is a sample based upon my 30 years of researching this topic and is best expressed by this quote, author unknown: “Responsible genealogy does not form a thesis first and then find evidence to support it – - – it looks at the evidence and forms a conclusion based on facts.”

Fact #1: My grandmother, Rose (1852-1943), told me that her maiden name was”NORMAN” and her death certificate of 1943 also showed that maiden name.

Fact #2: Many decades later I discovered an original document evidencing a division of slaves into lots from an estate when she, less than one year old, went to a person named Richard TAYLOR.

Fact #3: She said that her master was named Armistead BURWELL and she was on his plantation when the Yankees came to town.(Last slaveholder?)

Fact #4 Rose’s marriage license of 1871 named her mother, “Lucinda NORMAN” (1827-1915), and Lucinda’s death certificate named Creasy NORMAN as her mother.

Fact #5. Rose said her grandmother was named “Creasy NORMAN’ (1795-1879)and she was listed on the Mortality Schedule of 1879 with that same surname. That same Mortality Schedule listed Creasy’s birthplace as VA as well as the birthplace of her mother and her father.

Fact #6 Both Lucinda and Creasy were alive for the 1870 census and both were listed with the surname”NORMAN’

Final Fact – Much, much later, and after many more hours of research I found the slaveholder, THOMAS NORMAN, who had migrated down to NC from VA in the early 1800s with many slaves among whom was the 5 year old Creasy. Most of the supporting documentation was found in his estate papers housed in the NC State Archives.

Was the LAST slaveholder’ surname the one used by Rose ? Certainly (fact) the court document showed her last legal slaveholder was Richard TAYOR, and possibly Armistead BURWELL, but certainly a NORMAN was a prior, or former, slaveholder of this family. Did these two men (Taylor and Burwell) lay claim to Rose? Further research showed that they had each married a daughter of THOMAS NORMAN, and this fact certainly supports the idea that it is necessary to plot the genealogy of the slaveholder to learn all of the various surnames that were in the slaveholder’s genealogy. There is no doubt that after the war when slaves had to provide surnames for the records many, if not most, used the surname of a former slaveholder or his relatives. It is also possible that some made up a surname, but I believe that was rare.