Also, because one owner of Hampton, Charles Carnan Ridgely, manumitted reportedly a few hundred slaves in the years following his death (1829), we believed that study of these manumittees might reveal clues in the free black population.  Long-time scholar of the Hampton compound, Dr. Kent Lancaster was kind enough to share research notes and insights concerning the black populations connected to the plantation.  He expressed doubt that many of the freed blacks would have gone to Baltimore City.  He suspicion may yet bare out.  We conducted a search of the Baltimore City Directories for 1831 (58 possible), 1835 (36 possible), 1840 (67 possible), 1845 (69 possible).  With such suspect returns from the directory search, a census stripping for 1830 and 1840 was determined unnecessary.  Unless the freed people were head of household, non-specific enumeration was likely. 

The information from each ad or notice was stripped into a Microsoft Access database environment.  Data fields were developed to reflect types of characteristics: fugitive name, owner name, date of escape, date of ad, point of departure, suspected destination, fugitive aliases, known acquaintances and familial ties, etc.  As with the work on the records of the slave jails, much may be gleaned from these documents concerning the environment for flight.  Furthermore, since many of the advertised fugitives are likely to be found secondary literature, such as William Still’s UGRR, we know that their escapes were success, and their significance as case studies all the more impressive.

In the best-case scenario, a transcription of the six census schedules involved (population schedules for 1830 – 1860, slave schedules for 1850 - 1860) would have been conducted, and analysis toward the desired information extracted.  Conceptually, this threatened to consume a majority of the projects allotted man-hours.  Thus, an alternative approach was sought.  With a goal of bringing into consideration of the study at least fifty percent of the enslaved population of Baltimore County, specifically, samplings were done in which slave-holders of twenty or more, twelve or more, and six or more, were stripped from the schedule.   Initially, to meet our percentage quota, holders of six or more were settled upon.  Our final approach, however, was to strip for heads of households under whom six blacks, slave or free, were enumerated.  Going into the actual work, we were cautiously optimistic that this would render an adequate sampling of the population for the study’s purposes.  Each decennial population census from 1830 through 1860, and also the slave schedules for 1850 and 1860, from both Baltimore City and Baltimore County, were stripped for heads of household under whom six blacks, slave and/or free was enumerated.  With this approach, we believed we would capture a representative sampling of those jurisdictions black populations.   The results of stripping activities were placed in a Microsoft Access database.

In the end, however, it seems that our approach to the census aspect by and large may prove experientially useful yet less than satisfactory for the immediate purposes.  The major shortcoming stems from a lack of uniformity born of uncertainty at the start.  For Baltimore County, population schedules for 1830, 1840, 1850, and 1860 [?] have been stripped according the finalized criteria (extracting heads of holds underwhom 6 blacks, slave and/or free, are enumerated).  Slave schedules for 1850 and 1860, Baltimore County, were stripped according to the generic categories approach (“slave owner,” “number of male slaves,” “number of female slaves,” “total slaves,” rather that extracting as listed in the schedules, each slave by age and name of owner).  Rather than seeking a representative sampling, the approach should have been to fully strip the census for the black population and those connected to them.  This would have indeed been a daunting task for Baltimore City.  However, Baltimore City is singular in that way; no other jurisdiction in the state had as many blacks (slave and free) or slave holders (though each holder for Baltimore City held slightly more than one slave).  The experience of addressing these matters this summer suggests that problems of this type will be avoided in future phases of the larger study.