|
The following information was taken from
The National Archives, Publications,
Prologue Magazine, 2005, Spring, Freedmen's
Bureau Marriage Records, Spring 2005, Vol.
37, No. 1 issue of Prologue Magazine at
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/freedman-marriage-recs.html
* * *
Sealing the Sacred Bonds of Holy
Matrimony
Freedmen's Bureau Marriage Records
By Reginald Washington
The marriage certificate of Benjamin
Manson and Sarah White shows their formal
marriage date as April 19, 1866, and also the
names and ages of their children. (Records of
the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned
Lands, RG 105)
On April 19, 1866, former slaves Benjamin
Berry Manson and Sarah Ann Benton White
received an official marriage certificate from
the Freedmen's Bureau, officially known as the
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned
Lands.
The Wilson County, Tennessee, couple had
lived as slave man and wife since October 28,
1843, and for the first time in more than two
decades their marriage had finally received
legal recognition. The Freedmen's
Bureau—established in the War Department by an
act of Congress on March 3, 1865—was
responsible for "the supervision and management
of all matters relating to the refugees and
freedmen and lands abandoned or seized during
the Civil War." With duties resembling those of
a modern-day social services agency, the bureau
provided freedpeople with food and clothing,
medical attention, employment, support for
education, help with military claims, and a
host of other socially related
services—including assisting ex-slave couples
in formalizing marriages they had entered into
during slavery.
For the Mansons—who had lived intermittently
on separate farms—the marriage certificate
issued by the Freedmen's Bureau was more than a
document "legally" sealing the sacred bonds of
holy matrimony. Listing the names and ages of 9
of their 16 children, it was for them a symbol
of freedom and the long-held hope that they and
their children would one day live free as a
family in the same household. Two Manson sons,
John and Martin, had fought for freedom during
the Civil War with the 14th Regiment of the
United States Colored Troops. A third son,
William, would later serve several tours in the
Regular Army defending the American West with
the famed all-black regiments of the 24th and
25th Infantry.
Benjamin and Sarah Manson were not alone in
their quest to put their slave marriage on a
legal footing. When freedom came, tens of
thousands of former slave men and women—some
seeking to marry for the first time and others
attempting to solemnize long-standing
relationships—sought help from Union Army
clergy, provost marshals, northern
missionaries, and the Freedmen's Bureau.
In his pension file deposition,
Benjamin Manson described his marriage ceremony
(1843, not 1844, was the actual date). (Records
of the Department of Veterans Affairs, RG
15)
Scattered among the aging volumes and paper
files of the Freedmen's Bureau at the National
Archives in Washington, D.C., are an impressive
number of marriage licenses, certificates,
registers, and reports documenting the federal
government's efforts to aid in the legalization
of marriages of former slave couples.
While there are other valued federal, state,
private, and published sources that help
document ex-slave marriages, the Freedmen's
Bureau's marriage records are arguably some of
the most important records available for the
study of black family marital relations before
and after the Civil War. For the increasing
number of African American genealogists and
family historians, this unique body of marriage
records may hold the only formal proof of a
slave ancestor's marriage.
Slave Marriages
Slave marriages had neither legal standing
nor protection from the abuses and restrictions
imposed on them by slaveowners. Slave husbands
and wives, without legal recourse, could be
separated or sold at their master's will.
Couples who resided on different plantations
were allowed to visit only with the consent of
their owners. Slaves often married without the
benefit of clergy, and as historian John
Blassingame states, "the marriage ceremony in
most cases consisted of the slaves simply
getting the master's permission and moving into
a cabin together."
Benjamin and Sarah Manson's marriage,
however, had been graced with a formal
ceremony. Benjamin, who was brought to
Tennessee from Virginia as a young boy by his
then-owner, Nancy Manson, later described the
event in a pension application he filed as the
dependent of his deceased son John: "We were
married on Dr. L. W. White's farm 5 miles from
Lebanon [Tennessee]. . . . Rev Ben White [a
black preacher] said the marriage ceremony."
The "wedding ceremony," he continued, "took
place on the porch of the owner of Sarah [Dr.
White]. . . . It was with the knowledge and
consent of my master [Mr. Joseph L. Manson, son
of Nancy Manson] and Sarah's master that we
were married." Shortly after their marriage,
Sarah's owner purchased Benjamin. "He [Dr.
White] had me for a number of years," Benjamin
explained, "then Mr. Manson bought me back and
owned me till I was emancipated."
Formal marriage ceremonies for slave couples
like Benjamin and Sarah were generally reserved
for house servants. In such cases, slaveowners
would have a white minister or a black
plantation preacher perform the ceremony, and a
large feast and dance in the "quarters" would
follow honoring the slave couple. The ceremony
could include the slave marriage ritual of
"jumping the broom," which required slave
couples to jump over a broomstick. The custom
of jumping the broom could vary from plantation
to plantation. On some farms, the slave bride
and groom would place separate brooms on the
floor in front of each other. The couple would
then step across the brooms at the same time
joining hands to signal that they were truly
married. On other farms, each slave partner was
required to jump backward over a broom held a
foot from the ground. If either partner failed
to clear the broom successfully, the other
partner would be declared the one who would
rule or boss the household. If both partners
cleared the broom without touching it, then
there would be no "bossin."
While historians and scholars differ on the
origin, exact meaning, and the frequency of the
"irregular" marriage ritual, most agree that
the act of "jumping the broom" was a "binding
force" in the slave couple's relationship and
made them feel "more married."
The marriage arrangement of couples who
resided on different plantations ("broad"
marriages) was often the cause of great concern
for most slaveowners. Fearing that slave
marriages between plantations could potentially
contribute to lost time from work and increase
the risk of slaves developing attitudes of
independence, owners encouraged their slaves to
marry on the plantation where they lived. When
this was not possible, wealthy owners would in
some cases buy the spouse of his slave.
Generally, slave men would receive passes to
visit their wives on weekends, and those slave
husbands, like Benjamin, who lived on a farm
that neighbored their wife could visit nightly.
Children of "broad" marriages were the property
of the slave woman's owner, and the owner of a
slave man had no legal right to their services.
Between 1865 and 1867, most southern states in
some form or another legalized former slave
marriages and recognized the children of such
marriages as legitimate.
Military Officials Take
Action
Early efforts by the federal government to
regularize freedmen marriages began with
military officers and civilians who supervised
"contraband" camps where freedmen sought refuge
during the Civil War. For example, the
Department of Tennessee and Arkansas in March
1864 issued orders directing Union army clergy
to "solemnize the rite of marriage among
Freedmen." The department produced marriage
licenses and certificates, and chaplains and
missionaries were given detailed instructions
on when and how they should be used. The
department maintained registers of freedmen
marriages in part as a means to assist in
identifying couples, resolve future questions
involving inheritance, and to settle claims
against the federal government, especially
those concerning deceased black soldiers. Many
of the "pre-Bureau" marriage registers, along
with other marriage records created by wartime
superintendents, were later turned over to the
Freedmen's Bureau when it was formed.
The Freedmen's Bureau Issues
Marriage Orders
On May 30, 1865, Maj. Gen. Oliver Otis
Howard, who was appointed by President Andrew
Johnson as commissioner of newly formed
Freedmen's Bureau, issued orders to his
assistant commissioners—who were responsible
for the daily operations of the bureau in the
former Confederate states, Border States, and
the District of Columbia—on the conditions for
solemnizing former slave marriages. Continuing
the practice started by military and civilian
officials at government camps, Howard told his
subordinates, "In places where the local
statutes make no provisions for the marriage of
persons of color, the assistant commissioners
are authorized to designate officers who shall
keep a record of marriages, which may be
solemnized by any ordained minister of the
gospel." Howard's orders also required
ministers to report on marriages they
performed, including "such items as may be
required for registration at places designated
by assistant commissioners." Marriages that had
been already recorded by military officers were
to be preserved.
Assistant Commissioners Respond to
Howard's Orders
Although Commissioner Howard's marriage
orders provided important guidance for
solemnizing ex-slave marriages, his
instructions and the several ways in which
assistant commissioners responded to them led
to variations in the kind of data collected
about freedmen couples. Because of these
variations, the quantity of bureau marriage
records differs for each state, and for some
states there are no marriage records. In such
instances, researchers will need to search in
state and county sources for information
regarding ex-slave unions.
Alabama
In response to Howard's marriages orders, the
Alabama assistant commissioner issued a
circular on September 7, 1865, suggesting a
general remarriage of "all persons [freedmen]
married without licenses, or living together
without marriage," and that it might be
necessary to keep "separate book records" of
such remarriages. Probate judges, who acted as
bureau agents, were told to suspend the
marriage bond requirements and in certain
situations to reduce marriage fees. Couples who
had not properly resolved previous
relationships were ineligible to receive
licenses. When the Alabama State Convention
adopted a measure on September 29, 1865,
legalizing former slave unions, the assistant
commissioner's office simply informed
freedpeople of the law but offered no
additional guidance nor attempted to register
or issue licenses and certificates in the
state.
Arkansas and Missouri
On
June 24, 1865, the Arkansas field office, which
had jurisdiction over both Missouri and
Arkansas, instructed its officers "to keep and
preserve a record of marriages of freed people,
and by whom the ceremony was performed." The
Arkansas General Assembly later legalized
ex-slave marriages and required that a record
of such marriages be kept by county clerks. In
Missouri, because Howard believed "good laws
[had been] passed protecting the rights of
freedmen," Freedmen's Bureau operations by
mid-October 1865, with the exception of matters
concerning freedmen education and the
processing of military claims, were largely
withdrawn.
However, less than a month after the
Arkansas office issued its initial orders,
officers there began forwarding monthly reports
of marriages for parts of Missouri and various
subdistricts in Arkansas to Howard's office.
Missouri reports include lists of marriages
performed at Cape Girardeau (July and August),
Pilot-Knob, and one marriage at St. Louis
(August 1865). The marriages performed at Cape
Girardeau were compiled from a register
maintained by the Freedmen's Bureau's
disbursing officer stationed there. They
contain such information as the names and ages
of the couples, dates of marriage, where
married and by whom, and the number of male and
female children born to couples.
Reports for Arkansas sent to the
commissioner's office document freedmen
marriages performed during the period of July
1865–September 1866 in the subdistricts of
Arkadelphia, DeVall's Bluff, Hamburg, and
Helena. The reports contain more information
about freedmen couples than those for Missouri.
There is, for example, such additional
information as the couple's color and place of
residence, the color of the their parents, the
number of years the couple lived with another
person, how they were separated, the number of
children by a previous relationship, and the
names of witnesses and the minister or official
who performed the marriage. The Arkansas
subdistrict field offices also maintained
registers and or issued marriage certificates
in the subdistricts at Arkadelphia (1865–1867),
Dardancelle (1866), Fort Smith (1865–1867),
Hamburg (1866), Jacksonport (1865–1868),
Lewisburg (1866), Little Rock )1864–1866),
Madison (1867), Napoleon (1866–1867), Osceola
(1866–1867), Paraclifta (1865), Pine Bluff
(1864–1867), and Washington (1865–1867).
Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia,
and the District of Columbia
The District of Columbia field office
established an office of the superintendent of
marriages. The superintendent's office advised
freedmen of the act of Congress of July 25,
1866 (14 Stat. 236), which stipulated that "all
color persons" in the District who recognized
each other as man and wife prior to the law
were now legally married and their children
legitimate. At various times, Maryland,
Delaware, and several counties in West Virginia
and Virginia (transferred to the Virginia
Bureau in September 1866) were under the
jurisdiction of the bureau's field office in
the District of Columbia. In early spring 1866,
an office of the assistant commissioner for
Maryland was established, and by 1867 Delaware
and West Virginia were placed under its
control. On March 22, 1867, the Maryland
General Assembly legalized freedmen marriages
and required couples to file their marriages
with local court officials.
Most of the registrants recorded in a
District of Columbia register (November
1866–July 1867) had moved there from
neighboring Maryland and Virginia, and many had
lived in long-standing relationships. Nearly
half of the registrants had been married as
slaves without the benefit of a formal marriage
ceremony. Bureau officers recorded the name of
the couple who were issued the marriage
certificate, the date and name of the minister
who issued the certificate, the former
residence of the ex-slave couple, the year in
which the slave marriage had taken place, the
name of the minister who performed the
marriage, the number of children born to the
couple, and in some instances, comments from
the minister about the couple he registered.
The marriage superintendent also issued
marriage licenses and certificates and
forwarded copies of them along with marriage
reports (1866–1868), including reports of
couples who were living together but not yet
married, to Howard's office.
Marriage records found in the files of the
Office of the Commissioner relating to Delaware
all appear to concern proof of marriage in
military claims filed with the claims division
of the Freedmen's Bureau. One affidavit among
the Delaware files concerns a marriage that was
performed in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
There is no evidence in Maryland bureau files
that suggest that officials there registered or
issued marriage licenses and certificates in
Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware.
The Freedmen's Bureau Marriage Rules
for South Carolina. (Records of the Bureau of
Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, RG
105)
Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina
From June to
September 1865, both Florida and Georgia were
under the jurisdiction of the Freedmen's Bureau
in South Carolina. In late summer 1865, the
assistant commissioner for South Carolina
issued an elaborate set of "marriage rules" for
all three states. The marriage rules outlined
the duties of former slave couples and who was
eligible to marry and remarry, who could grant
permits and solemnize marriages, the
responsibilities of husbands to former wives,
and the rights of wives and children. Each
state passed legislation legalizing freedmen
marriages that contained basically the same
provisions as the marriage rules issued by the
assistant commissioner for South Carolina.
There is a report of marriages and marriage
licenses/certificates for Jacksonville,
Florida, in the records of the Office of the
Commissioner (1864–1865) that was issued by the
provost marshal for the District of Florida
when the state was under martial law. Also in
those records is a single marriage certificate
(probably submitted as proof for a military
claim) for South Carolina, and in the files of
the South Carolina office of the assistant
commissioner is a set of the marriage rules.
There is no evidence, however, that the bureau
registered or issued marriage licenses and
certificates in Florida, Georgia, or South
Carolina.
Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and
Mississippi
Bureau officials in
Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi
provided guidance and issued marriage licenses
and certificates and registered freedmen
marriages. None of these states had laws
pertaining to the unions of ex-slave couples as
of May 1865, but Tennessee and Mississippi
enacted laws by 1867 requiring former slave
couples to register their marriages with local
county officials. In Tennessee, if local
officials refused to issue licenses, qualified
Freedmen's Bureau officers were authorized to
perform marriage ceremonies and issue licenses
and certificates. Mississippi law prohibited
marriages between blacks and whites, and any
persons who intermarried were guilty of a
felony and subject to fines and life in prison.
In addition, under Mississippi law persons were
deemed black who were of "pure negro blood, and
those descended from a negro to the third
generation inclusive, though one ancestor of
each generation may have been a white person."
Similar laws defining race and prohibiting
interracial marriages existed for many of the
southern states.
For Kentucky, there is a single marriage
license and a certificate in the records of the
Office of the Commissioner. However, in the
records of the Kentucky subdistrict field
offices there are marriage licenses and
certificates and registers for the subdistricts
of Augusta (1866 and 1867), Bowling Green
(1865–1867), Columbus (1866–1867), Cynthiana
(1866), Mount Sterling (1866), Owensboro
(1866–1868), Paducah (1865–1866), and
Winchester (1866).
The marriage certificate of John and
Emily Pointer lists their children and their
ages. (Records of the Bureau of Refugees,
Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, RG
105)
The records of the Office of the
Commissioner contain a relatively large
quantity of marriage certificates for Louisiana
(1864–1867), Tennessee (1863–1866), and
Mississippi (1864–1866) that include similar
data about freedmen marriages. The records
provide the names and ages of couples, their
color and the color of their parents, the
number of years both the husband and wife lived
with another person, the reason for separation,
the number of children together and from
previous marriage, and other marriage-related
data. In the Louisiana subdistrict field office
there are registers of marriages for the
subdistricts at the Bragg Home Colony (1865),
Donaldsonville (1866), Mansfield (1865), and
Shreveport (1865–1866). In records of the
Tennessee assistant commissioner is a single
marriage license (1865), and for the Tennessee
subdistrict field office there are marriage
registers for the subdistricts at Lebanon
(1865), Memphis (1863–1866), and Trenton
(1865–1866).
Four marriage registers maintained by the
Mississippi assistant commissioner (1864–1866)
are basically registers that were started by
the Mississippi Freedmen's Department, and many
of the marriage certificates that were
forwarded to the commissioner's office for
Mississippi relate to the registrants. The
registers for Davis Bend, Vicksburg, and
Natchez, Mississippi, document the registration
of more than 4,000 freedmen from Mississippi
and northern Louisiana. More than half of the
soldiers registering marriages for Natchez were
members of the Sixth Mississippi Heavy
Artillery of the U.S. Colored Troops. Nearly
all of the soldiers registering marriages for
Davis Bend served with the 64th Colored
Infantry. The Mississippi subdistrict field
offices also registered freedmen marriages and
issued licenses and certificates in the
subdistricts of Brookhaven (1865), Columbus
(1865), Davis Bend (1865), Goodman (1865),
Grenada (1865), Jackson (1865), and Pass
Christian (1866).
North
Carolina
In recognition of a
March 10, 1866, measure enacted by the North
Carolina legislature that legalized ex-slave
marriages, the office of the bureau's assistant
commissioner for North Carolina issued a
circular outlining the provisions of the law
and instructed subordinate officers to make all
freedmen in their districts aware of the new
rules and the urgency for complying with them.
Once informed of the law, tens of thousands of
North Carolina freedmen couples reported their
marriages to county courts. It appears that
even before the North Carolina statute was
enacted, some freedpeople were already applying
for marriage licenses in the state. In the
records of the Freedmen's Bureau's North
Carolina office of the assistant commissioner
at Raleigh, there is an October 10, 1865,
report of 20 couples who received marriage
licenses from the county clerk's office at
Charlotte (Mecklenburg County) during
July–September 1865. There are, however, no
other series of marriage records for North
Carolina among bureau files.
Texas
There
were no specific laws in Texas governing
ex-slave marital relations when Commissioner
Howard issued his orders on the subject. When
Texas became a republic in 1836, slaves were
prohibited from marrying even with the consent
of their owners, and free blacks could not live
in the state. The bureau's assistant
commissioner for Texas issued a circular in
March 1866 containing marriage rules and
encouraged the Texas legislature to recognize
the marriages of former slave couples who lived
in accordance with the state's common law
marriage practices. The question concerning
marriages of "persons of color" was eventually
addressed by the Texas constitution of 1869,
and an act of the state legislature on August
15, 1870, legalized the marriages of persons
"formerly held in bondage" and declared their
children legitimate. By this time, however,
Freedmen's Bureau activities in Texas, with the
exception of matters relating to freedmen
education, had been withdrawn from the state.
There is no evidence in Texas bureau records
that the field offices registered or issued
marriage licenses and certificates.
Virginia
In a
circular dated March 19, 1866, the assistant
commissioner for Virginia, Col. Orlando Brown,
ordered his subordinates to register the names
of freedmen who were "cohabiting together as
man and wife" and to "take pains to explain to
colored persons . . . that they [were] firmly
married by the operation of the law." As the
basis for his order, Brown cited two February
27, 1866, acts of the Virginia General Assembly
that made provisions for issuing marriage
licenses and the registration and legalization
of marriage relations entered into by former
slaves. Brown forwarded to Howard's office
reports of marriages that contained the names
and ages of couples, their place of residence
and birth, names of parents, and occupation.
Most of the couples named in the reports were
either born or resided in Gloucester County. In
response to Brown's orders, officers in 1866 in
the Virginia subdistrict field offices
registered marriages for the subdistricts of
Goochland, Lexington, Louisa Courthouse, and
Lovington. The information found in the files
for these subdistricts, for the most part,
reveals that a significant number of the
registrants were farm laborers and field hands
and many had lived in long-standing
marriages.
* * *
While solemnizing freedmen marriages
represented a small fraction of the Freedmen's
Bureau's efforts to assist freedpeople, the
bureau's surviving marriage records are of
incalculable value for black family research.
Although incomplete, the records provide an
important glimpse into the lives and marital
relations of the tens of thousands of ex-slave
couples like Benjamin and Sarah Manson who, in
spite of their condition, managed to maintain a
sense of family and sustain long-lasting
relations.
The National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) has produced on microfilm
Marriage Records of the Office of the
Commissioner, Washington Headquarters of the
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned
Lands, 1861–1869 (M1875). This microfilm
publication is part of a multiyear project to
preserve and increase the accessibility of
Freedmen's Bureau field office records, where
many of the extant bureau marriage records and
the vast majority of genealogy-related records
are found.
To date, NARA has microfilmed the field
office records for Alabama, Arkansas, District
of Columbia, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland/Delaware, Mississippi Freedmen's
Department ("Pre-Bureau Records"), Mississippi,
Missouri, and North Carolina. Through a
cooperative arrangement with the University of
Florida at Gainesville, NARA has microfilmed
the Freedmen's Bureau field office records for
Florida. When the Freedmen's Bureau
Preservation Project is completed, all of the
field office records for the remaining states
of South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and
Virginia will be available on microfilm at the
National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.,
and at each of NARA's regional facilities. The
microfilm will also be offered through the
National Archives Microfilm Rental Program.
For access and inquires about the use of the
records, researchers should visit or write
(e-mail)
the Old Military and Civil Branch, 700
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20408.
For the location of previously filmed and
future Freedmen's Bureau microfilm
publications, researchers should contact the
nearest regional
archives or visit the NARA
online microfilm catalog.
Note on Sources
Benjamin and Sarah Manson's marriage
certificate is found in the Tennessee marriage
records, Records of the Office of the
Commissioner, Washington Headquarters of the
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned
Lands, Record Group 105, at the National
Archives Building in Washington, D.C. The
records have been reproduced on microfilm as
Marriage Records of the Office of the
Commissioner, Washington Headquarters of the
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned
Lands, 1861–1869 (National Archives
Microfilm Publication M1875, roll 4). Although
the type and quantity varies with each state,
the marriage records sent to the Washington,
D.C., headquarters that are reproduced on this
microfilm publication are from Alabama (one
document), Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
South Carolina, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia. For other records relating to
freedmen marriages reproduced for the
Freedmen's Bureau field offices, see microfilm
publications M1901 (Arkansas), M1902 (District
of Columbia), M1904 (Kentucky), M1905
(Louisiana), M1826 and 1907 (Mississippi),
M1908 (Missouri), M843 (North Carolina), and
M869 (South Carolina).
Compiled military service records for John
White (also known as John Manson
[private/corporal, Company I, 14th USCT]) and
Martin Clark (also known as Martin Clark Manson
[corporal, Company G, 14th USCT]) are found in
Compiled Military Service Records of
Volunteer Union Soldiers Who Served with the
United States Colored Troops, Infantry
Organizations (National Archives Microfilm
Publication M1822, roll 16), Records of the
Adjutant General's Office, Record Group 94. The
original enlistment papers for William D.
Manson (private, January 3, 1872, and January
23, 1883, Company H, 24th Infantry Regiment;
private, April 23, 1890, Company F, 25th
Regiment) are also located in Record Group 94.
Pension files for John (WC699089) and Martin
(WC591325) can be found in Records of the
Veterans Administration, Record Group 15.
Background information on slave marriages
was obtained primarily from three secondary
sources: John W. Blassingame, The Slave
Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum
South (Oxford University Press, 1979);
Albert J. Raboteau, Slave Religion: The
"Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum
South (Oxford University Press, 1980); and
Eugene D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Roll: The
World the Slaves Made (Vintage Books,
1976).
Records relating to the U.S. military's
involvement in formalizing freedmen marriages
can be found in Records of the Adjutant
General's Office (Record Group 94) and the
Records of the U.S. Army Continental Commands
(Record Group 393, Part I). The Report of
the General Superintendent of Freedmen,
Department of the Tennessee and State of
Arkansas for 1864 (Memphis, Tennessee,
1865) is also extremely helpful in
understanding the U.S. military's marriage
efforts.
For information concerning laws enacted by
southern states, see Laws of Southern States,
In relation to freedmen, 1865–1866, Entry 49,
Miscellaneous Records 1865–1871, Records of the
Office of the Commissioner, Washington
Headquarters of the Bureau of Refugees,
Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, Record Group
105; see also United States Senate, Laws in
Relation to Freedmen, Senate Ex. Doc. 6,
39th Cong., 2nd sess., serial vol. 1276; and
Branetta McGhee White, Somebody Knows My
Name: Marriages of Freed People in North
Carolina County by County, 3 vols.
(Iberian Publishing Company, 1995).
Other secondary sources used in writing the
article include Black Family Research: Records
of Post–Civil War Federal Agencies at the
National Archives, Reference Information Paper
108 (National Archives and Records
Administration, 2004); George Bentley, A
History of the Freedmen's Bureau (Octagon
Books, 1974); Benjamin Quarles, The Negro
in the Civil War (Da Capo Press, Inc.,
1989); Christopher A. Nordmann, "Jumping Over
the Broomstick: Resources for Documenting Slave
Marriages," NGS Quarterly 91
(September 2003); Herbert G. Gutman, The
Black Family in Slavery and Freedom,
1750–1925 (Vintage Books, 1976); and
Elaine C. Everly, "
Marriage Registers of Freedmen,"
Prologue: Journal of the National
Archives (Fall 1973).
Author
Reginald Washington is the African American
genealogy specialist at the National Archives
and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.
He is the author of
Black Family Research: Records of Post–Civil
War Federal Agencies at the National
Archives, Reference Information Paper
108 (National Archives and Records
Administration, 2004).
Back
to Top
|
