Household #53: Dukes, Eli
Back to the 1900 Census & Household Index
In the 1900 Barney census, Eli Dukes headed a 2-person household. The table below preserves the exact names, relationships, ages, birthplaces, and occupations recorded for the household.
Household Snapshot
Eli Dukes headed a 2-person household in the 1900 Barney census with 1 spouse or marital partner.
Eli Dukes's listed occupation was Farmer.
All listed household members were reported as born in Georgia.
1900 Census Household
| Name | Relation | Age | Birthplace | Occupation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eli Dukes | Head | 75 | Georgia | Farmer |
| Hulda Dukes | Wife | 60 | Georgia | — |
Children and Later Trails
No child-tracking items are open for this page because the 1900 table lists no children in the household.
Family Narrative
In the 1900 census, Eli Dukes appears in Barney, Brooks County, as a seventy-five-year-old Black farmer living with his wife Hulda. The census states that he owned his farm free of mortgage. That is the strongest household-level evidence now in hand and establishes both the residence and his status as a landholding farmer at the time of the census.
The 1890 Brooks County property tax digest also places Eli Dukes in Morven District and shows him taxed on 30 acres in Land Lot 278 of the 12th Land District, along with taxable personal property. Taken together with the 1900 census, that digest supports a cautious conclusion that Eli Dukes was a Black landholder in Brooks County before the 1900 enumeration. At present, however, the available evidence does not support broader claims about a long multi-decade employment network, unusual economic strategy, or a fuller reconstructed life history.
The tax and census entries are a probable continuity lead, not a completed identity or deed chain. The original tax row assesses the 30 acres at $150. That is a tax assessment, not a purchase price.
Original-record checks: tax year and separate probate families
The tax-volume opening leaf is printed “1890”. In the same Brooks > 1890 viewer sequence, printed page 36, image 209 of 225, places Eli Dukes between John W. Sharp and Hattie Roberts in Morven militia district 660. His row reads 30 acres, lot 278, land district 12. The opening leaf supplies the year; the viewer sequence supplies the Brooks County context. These two images do not establish when he acquired the land, a conveyance to Hulda, or the relation of other same-name tax entries to this household.
A surname match in probate is not enough. A September 4, 1865 guardianship bond, page 53, appoints John W. Dukes guardian of Taylor, Henry C., Millard T., Florence C. and William Dukes, explicitly called the orphan children of E. C. Dukes, deceased. John W. is the guardian, not their stated father. Separate letters on page 30 appoint John W. administrator de bonis non of E. C.’s estate. No relationship to Eli or Hulda is established by either instrument.
Earlier minor-heirs accounts beginning on page 57 identify Nancy Dukes as guardian. A tuition voucher on page 67 uses “Est. Edmund Dukes” and names Taylor, Henry and Millard as tuition recipients. The closing oath and filing are dated May 30, 1861; recording occurred February 19, 1863. These records help distinguish the E. C./Edmund estate group. They do not link that group to this household or to lot 278, and Nancy’s guardian role alone does not establish maternity.
An 1880 candidate household and farm: age conflict remains
An 1880 population schedule, Brooks enumeration district 4, printed page 84, dwelling 762/family 778, lists Eli Dukes, 35, a Black farmer, and Mahulda Dukes, 39, his wife. The index reads her name “Mahalda.” Both are recorded as born in Georgia, with Georgia-born parents. The original page heading says Morven; the index labels the place Quitman. There are no children in that numbered household, but that does not establish that the couple never had children.
The July 8, 1880 agricultural schedule, page 36, row 5, records Eli Dukes as an owner, with 5 tilled acres and 25 acres of woodland or forest. It values the farm, including land, fences and buildings, at $100; implements at $10; livestock at $60; and estimated 1879 farm production at $100. These are schedule categories, not a land purchase price. Several neighboring names occur in the same order in the population schedule, supporting a link between the two 1880 records.
The name pair, Brooks location, farming occupation and 30-acre total make this a useful candidate for the later tax and census household. The age discrepancy remains substantial: the 1900 original clearly gives Eli January 1825 and age 75, not the birth year about 1845 implied by the 1880 age. It gives Hulda April 1840 and age 60, with 35 years married. Neither original reading is silently changed to make the records agree. The 1880 farm has no lot number, so its 30 acres alone do not identify it as lot 278.
Two automated suggestions were screened out of this identity chain: an 1867 voter return is from Pike County, and an 1865 Brooks marriage joins Elijah Dukes and Mary E. Glenn, not Hulda. No migration, alias or earlier marriage is inferred from those suggestions.
Open Research Questions
- Parentage audit: Keep head-of-household and spouse parentage as unresolved unless a cited direct record names the parents or the entry explains the census chain supporting the identification.
- Obtain the deed or other conveyance behind the verified 1890 tax entry. Keep lot 278 distinct from later or disputed lot readings until the instruments connect them.
- The relationship between the Morven District land entry and the 1900 Barney household should be treated as probable continuity within Brooks County, not as proved identity across every possible Eli Dukes reference, until additional records are found.
- Resolve the 1880 Eli/Mahulda candidate against the 1900 household, especially Eli’s twenty-year birth-year discrepancy. The inspected 1870 name-search result pages did not establish a matching pair; they were not an exhaustive county image search.
- No death, burial, deed or probate instrument has yet been securely attributed to this Eli and Hulda household. The separate E. C./Edmund Dukes probate records above do not fill that gap.
- The current evidence does not support the earlier inflated claims about a nine-employer labor network or other broad economic interpretation.
Research Status
Evidence-supported, but narrow. The household is anchored by the 1900 census and a probable 1890 tax continuity lead. An 1880 population/agricultural pair is now documented as a candidate, with Eli’s age conflict unresolved. Land acquisition, death, burial and estate identity remain open.
Sources
- 1900 U.S. census, Barney District, Brooks County, Georgia, ED 9, sheet 3A, lines 37–38, dwelling 53, family 53, Eli Dukes household. Original census image.
- Brooks County, Georgia, 1890 property tax digest, printed p. 36, Morven district 660, Eli Dukes row; Ancestry collection 1729, image 32306_1220705227_0017-00215, with original year leaf 32306_1220705227_0017-00004.
- Brooks probate originals linked above were inspected as separate candidate families. This is a bounded comparison, not a claim that the county has no Eli Dukes estate or deed records.
Share Additional Information
If you have photographs, family records, oral history, corrections, or additional information about this family, please contact the project with the details.