Re: [St.H.Fam.Hist.] Slave names
- Thanks Colin. My ancestor was listed as a carpenter. Family lore says he was employed to repair/maintain Longwood and had some contact with Napolean. Of course, family lore is often liberally embelished so the actual facts may be quite different.Leonard----- Original Message -----From: foxhomeSent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:36 PMSubject: RE: [St.H.Fam.Hist.] Slave names
Leonard, I have not seen or heard of any separate list. Although the bulk of the slaves were emancipated between 1832-1836, slaves were being emancipated all the time. There were 890 slaves in 1827 but by 1832, the numbers had dropped to around 600. Some of course will have died in the meantime but most will have come to some private arrangement with their owners and would not have needed a Company loan to purchase their freedom. It is not clear in the records but I am sure that many owners would have given their slaves their freedom. It seems that by this time it was an embarrassment for some owners to even have to admit they owned slaves – such was the growing revulsion against slavery.
All the governors at this time – particularly Lowe and Walker – and the Directors in London were very much for abolition and it would not surprise me to hear that they took all necessary steps to rid the Company of slaves although I haven’t seen anything in the records to say this. The records do show that there were 99 Company slaves in 1818 but only 65 in 1821 so something along these lines was happening. However, you have aroused my interest as I feel there ought to be something in the record about this.
Hope this helps a little!
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Leonard Meek
Sent: 13 January 2013 18:23
Subject: Re: [St.H.Fam.Hist.] Slave names
Colin, THE EAST INDIA COMPANY RECORDS: 30TH DECEMBER 1819 lists my ancestors, Benjamin and Margaret Maggott, (Magnett) as
THE HONOURABLE COMPANY SLAVES , but they're not on the list of slaves for 1827. Were the "Honourable Company " slaves in a separate category from other slaves?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 10:16 AM
Subject: RE: [St.H.Fam.Hist.] Slave names
Folks, I am informed that this problem is now fixed. If members come across any other issues please let me know.
Dave, Just checked and had the same problem. Will contact our web master and see what is wrong.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I just logged in and found that the only page in the finding slave ancestors section was the first page - linking to PDF files including (I paraphrase):
...by family connection
...by reference no
All are currently 404 (not found). Have they perhaps been moved?
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Jan 2013, at 15:52, "foxhome" <colin@...> wrote:
I little while back I transcribed a valuation list of slaves on St Helena that was made in 1827 prior to the emancipation that took place a few years later. There are 43 slaves listed with surname ‘George’. One of my reasons for doing this was to encourage interested persons to join the Friends of St Helena, a charity set up to support disseminate information about the island’s heritage. Subscription to the Society is a modest amount and apart from being sent a copy of our Journal, and 2 newsletters (St Helena Connection) you get on-line access to my transcription and all back issues of both Journal and newsletter plus recordings of talks given to the society at the meetings held twice a year on different aspects of St Helena history, geology, fauna and flora etc and a lot more information.
For more info see our web pages at http://sthelena.uk.net/index.php?id=1&StHelena=1
Does anyone have information or sources I could read online about "slavery" on the island, I'm looking for my ancestors, who's last name is George...not a common name for slaves in the US either. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Keith, Having carried out quite a lot of research into the slaves on St Helena, I would say that it was pretty uncommon for slaves to be named after their owners. Generally, first generation slaves were give a single name that could be the name of the ship they arrived on (Cumberland) or the port from which it sailed (Pompey, London), or classical names (Hercules) or months of the year (March, January). If they married or co-habited and had children the children often took the first name of their father as a last name – so we get David London etc. Many female slaves married/cohabited with men from the garrison and they would adopt the soldiers last name. The name ‘Bagley’ is a bit unusual so I wouldn’t rule out a slave being named after the family. Of course It was not unknown for a female slave to have a child by her owner despite it being against the laws on the island and the child may have been given the fathers name. A child’s status was governed by that of the mother so would still have been classed as a slave even if it looked as ‘white’ as the father. Alternatively it could just as well have been by happenstance the name of the Captain of the ship who brought them to the island.
Incidently, quite a lot of slaves were brought to the island from India and the East Indies (Sumatra) and not just Madagascar – very few would have come from West Africa. The ships calling at the island followed the SE trade wind from the Cape and would have started their return voyage from places on the rim of the Indian Ocean.
I'm not very well informed on such matters, but I do believe it was usual for slaves to adopt their master's surname. Perhaps someone else in the forum can add something to this theory?
From my limited research on St Helena at that time it seems it was "normal" to have slaves, but I also think that they were better treated than at most other countries/locations and we should consider them more as servants, albeit with less free income and rights. I have many other lines traced in England and domestic service features strongly, especially in London. From what I can see they would have been better off in St Helena!
On 6 Jan 2013, at 07:47, "Alison" <alisoncalderwood@...> wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I'd hate to think they had slaves, but I guess that is likely...I'm guessing you're suggesting the slaves took in the surnames of their 'owners'?
--- In mailto:st-helena-genealogy%40yahoogroups.com, "keith" wrote:
> My wife is descended from an Ann Bagley, b1791 St Helena, daughter of John Bagley.
> He was a slave, but by 1828 Ann was free when she married a Richard Phillips.
> I'm assuming our Bagleys were at some time slaves of your Bagleys!
> --- In mailto:st-helena-genealogy%40yahoogroups.com, "Alison" wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > I live in Australia. My gg grandfather was Thomas Gabriel Bagley who was apparently born on St Helena around the 1820's. His father was Richard Orlando Bagley we think.... We don't know how Thomas came to Australia, but he came around 1852, and was described as a mining engineer. He married 10 years later, and his children's names seem to reflect those of relatives or others on St Helena: William Orlando, Edward, George Carol, Jane Elizabeth, Thomas Gabriel Alexander ,Robert Otto, Mary Ann Amelia, Matilda Amada, Frederick Doveton.
> > Would love to know if anyone has any further information on this family on St Helena, or even a comment to make about this information.
> > thanks!
> > Alison
> > Australia
- Hi Kevin. I have been looking for information on my Great Great Grandfather Thomas Clark who was born on St Helena in Jan 1813 and baptized in St James Church in Mar 1813, I have been unable to find any information on his parents; His record of his baptism should show their names. I do not know where to get the information on St James and noticed that you have information St James records. Would you possibly have a web site or other information which I could research the information?
Thank YouDon Nelson
Arizona USA-----Original Message-----
From: kevin.autopilot@... [st-helena-genealogy] <email@example.com>
To: st-helena-genealogy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tue, Nov 4, 2014 4:40 am
Subject: Re: [St.H.Fam.Hist.] Bagley of St Helena [1 Attachment]