in 1860, the census-takers said NOBODY lived on the west bank of the Trinity River. the muddy Trinity was out of it's banks during the census & there were NO bridges to the west bank.
can you say DALLAS & FT WORTH, children? sure you can.
may i suggest you go check the TAX records for the number of black freeholders in dixie for the years 1840-1860???? the number of freemen/freewomen was FAR greater than the census numbers.
also, go take a look at the BOOK i mentioned;professor Blackerby was THE EXPERT on black Confederates. his seminal work was PEER-reviewed and found to be ACCURATE, even by northern professors of history.
free dixie,sw
Everybody knows that there are small percentages missed in the censuses, but they are overall consistant and valid. But your example of Dallas and Fort Worth is meaningless. Both Tarrent and Dallas Counties reported data, and even if half of the people were missed, you are only talking about 10,000 to 15,000 people. You can quadruple the number of colored freemen in the state of Texas from the 1860 census and still have fewer than 1,000. The major settlements of those counties were only founded in the 1840's. Most of the missing Texas County data from the 1860 census is from the west and southwest parts of the state. More or less the same areas that the Texas Secession referendum failed have vote in February 1861 - too remote and too unpopulated.
As for the rest of the soon-to-be Confederate state, only 3 counties outside of Texas failed to report or have data missing.
There was no reason to hide the numbers of slaves and "colored" freemen in the census. The issue of miscegenation was very important too, especially in the south. In some places you did not count as "white" unless you were lily white. None of this 1/16ths stuff.
Compare the almost universal acceptance of census data with the spotty CSA records. Of those that survived the war, you will find conflicting data on the records, especially with blacks in "the service" of the South. Interesting items such as the word "soldier" crossed out and the word "servant" inserted. And look at the data on the number of black collecting pensions for their service in the armies of the CSA - very few. (Example: Tennessee had 12, total)
Searching tax record might provide some useful data. I'll be glad to take up your sugestion. But you suggestion that there were more freemen in the last 20 years than are shown in the US Census records, doesn't help with you observation that chattel slavery was dying out, and would be gone in "five years." With exponential growth over 70 years worth of census data, and nearly 4,000,000 slaves, 98% of which were in the southern states, you really can't stand by your earlier statement.
Slavery was not on its way out in the south, particularly in the deep south where the cotton-based agriculture depended on it.
Speaking of the book by Hubert C. Blackerby. This work must have been his opus magnum, because I can't find any other mention of him for any other work or in any journal or magazine. Did "Professor" Blackerby write anything else? The reason I ask, having had several published, peer-reviewed papers myself, as well as having edited an important volume concering regional geology, is that university professors of need to "publish or perish." I can usually get a good feeling for an author's credentials by his publications list. Hubert seems not to have one. Explanation?