That male slaves were possibly absent or couples sometimes lived apart, etc. 
should statistically level out in a large population.  Possibly an omission 
of male slaves (or females of working age) was sometimes intentional in 
order to minimize the value of an estate for tax purposes as one census 
research source cautions -- or maybe an enumerated slave was actually 22, 
not 2 as listed, for example.

The type and amount of personal data to be included in the 1850 and 1860 
slave census was also strongly argued between Northern and Southern members 
of US Congress from what I read, but finalized or limited each time to 
basically age, sex and color.  Possibly something can be derived from this 
about some slave-owners' intent to minimize the degree of public 
information?  Likely not.

Neil McDonald

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phebe" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:06 AM
> In looking at the 1850 and 1860 slave census I noticed that several owners 
> did not list the men.  Rather they just listed young children male and 
> female and older women.

> Thoughts please..............
>
> Phebe Morgan

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html