Fourth Generation Inclusive

Historical Documents of Genealogical Interest to Researchers of North Carolina's Free People of Color
October 21, 2012

Where are they now? No. 5.

B.J. was born in the mid-1970s in New York.  She is descended from:

(1) Robert Aldridge [1819-1899, Duplin/Wayne County] via Amelia Aldridge [1855-1895, Wayne County]

(2) Mary Eliza Balkcum [1829-1924, Duplin/Wayne County]

(3) Hannah Brewington [1775-1850, Sampson County] via Raiford Brewington [1812-1896, Sampson/Wayne County] via Joshua Brewington [1847-??, Sampson/Wayne County]

(4) Abraham Hardin [??-??, Sampson County] via Sion Hardin [??-??, Sampson County] via Zilpha Hardin [1794-1860, Sampson County]

(5) Ephraim Manuel [1730-??, Sampson County] via Nicholas Manuel [1752-1835, Sampson County] via Shadrach Manuel [1775-1870, Sampson County] via Bathsheba Manuel [1818-??, Sampson/Wayne County]

1 Comment
October 21, 2012

Children born to free mulatress.

These are names of slaves born to free mulatress ages of the children of Eliza Hall

William Henry Hall was born Feb the 11th 1844

Patrick Hall was born October the 6th 1845

Margaret Ann Hall was born Feb the 12th 1847

Louiser Hall was born April the 9th 1849

Balam Hall was born Feb 7th 1851

These entries (the first sentence in a different hand) were inscribed in the Bible of Lewis Ellis (1794-1854) of Wilson County.  Ellis’ good friend, James Bullock Woodard (1793-1863), was the father of Eliza Hall’s five children.  (Who were, of course, as free as their mother.)  The 1850 census of Edgecombe County lists Eliza Hall, age 26, with her children Wm. (6), Patrick (4), Martha [sic] (3), and “girl” (1).  In 1860, they are in Saratoga district, Wilson County.  The Bible remains in the Ellis family.  

4 Comments
October 21, 2012

Rachel’s remand.

State v. Rachel Freeman, 49 NC 5 (1856).

Rachel Freeman, a free colored woman and an indentured servant to Abraham Whitfield, was indicted for burning his dwelling-house in Cumberland County.  There was no direct evidence, but the lower court admitted circumstantial evidence, including the fact that Rachel had been a servant during two earlier arson attempts.  The Supreme Court noted that this evidence no more fingered Rachel than another servant and held that she was entitled to a trial with a new jury as she had been convicted on the basis of irrelevant testimony and circumstantial evidence.

Rachel Freeman appears in neither the 1850 nor 1860 censuses of North Carolina.

1 Comment