It took awhile longer than I thought to get back to this . . . oh, well! But now I present the promised feature.

From Scotland to Georgia

The surname “Manson” probably originated in Scotland (or, perhaps, it has occurred to me, in Sweden. Scotland is really a Scandinavian country, if you think about it). It probably is a form of “Magnus’ s son.” In any event, those bearing the name Manson belong to a sept of the Clan Gunn.

In Scotland, the Mansons seem to have been concentrated around Ayrshire, Caithness, Orkney, and Shetland. In England, there are Mansons in Cornwall–about as far away from Scotland as you get on that great British isle.

The Mansons came to America in the 17th century and landed in two principal places: New England and Virginia. In New England, the Mansons settled first around Kittery in what is now Maine. In Virginia, the Mansons settled first in York County. The earliest Manson in Virginia that I find is Peter Manson, born in 1635. The Mansons thrived in Virginia, prospering in York, Dinwiddie, Prince George, and Henrico counties, among others. Sometime shortly after 1800, James Manson (1774-1829) moved from Virginia to Wilkinson County, Georgia.

The Mansons were extremely successful in Georgia. James Manson’s descendants established a large plantation at Turkey Creek in Wilkinson County and owned land in Jefferson, Henry, and Houston counties. They owned a large number of slaves. Eventually, the Mansons migrated into nearly every region of Georgia.

In the 1850 federal census of Georgia, there appears a “mulatto” woman named Jane Manson with her children Matilda and Mary, living in Talbot County in western Georgia. It is not entirely clear how she is related to the Mansons who came from Virginia. As for Matilda, she later moved with her son Otis to Texas (see She’s Spanish posted here).

My current challenges are (1) to definitively connect Peter Manson (1675-1721) to his family of origin in Scotland; (2) to ascertain the origins of Jane Manson; and (3) to figure out why Matilda went to Milam County, Texas.

So Who Are Your People?

Lot happening on the day job . . . . Anyway, thought it would be right to describe these American families and what is known [what I know] about them.

The Descendants of Richard William Gines

There is quite a lot written about the origins of the surname “Gines.” Variations are said to include Gaines, Goins, Joynes, Jones, Garnes, and others. That makes research a challenge to say the least. My research shows that there are at least four distinct Gines family groups in America today.

The LDS Gines Families



Probably the largest Gines family group in America, the Mormon Gines families are concentrated today in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and other western states. I believe they moved west mainly from the Midwest.

The Asian-Pacific Islander Gines Families

These families come from the Philippines for the most part, and may have been related to the Latino Gines families.

The Latino Gines Families

The Spanish “Gines” and the English “Gines” are not homonyms. But on paper, that’s hard to tell. The Latino Gines families are likely the second-largest Gines group in the USA. They actually consist of two sub-groups: the Puerto Rican Gines and the Chicano Gines.

The African-American Gines

The African-American Gines families today live throughout the South and the Midwest, with large concentrations in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Missouri. Their migration pattern seems to have been VA–>SC–>MS–>LA–>TX. Some, however, may have gone west from Virginia.

Richard William Gines was born in Louisiana in about 1860. In the early 20th century, his children were among the blacks from Louisiana who headed north to Kansas City to become part of the growing and thriving black communities there. This is the family I’m researching.

Coming Next . . . The Mansons of Scotland, Virginia, and Georgia

Back in the USA . . .

My day job took me to Southeast Asia for about ten days or so, and genealogical research or blogging were both made impossible by the intensity of the work I was doing. In Bangkok, however, I did look in the phone book for Bowies, Gineses, Sanfords, Mansons, Brayboys, and LeJays. Well, it was just an idea . . . . On the 25-hour flight back to Northern Virginia, I of course had to fill out a customs declaration form and, nearly crazy from lack of sleep, I almost wrote one of my ancestral names in the line where it says “Family Name.” Then I remembered that that’s not the name on my passport and imagined trying to explain the discrepancy to the customs and immigration officials. So I wrote my “real” name, i.e., my passport name, my official name, the name by which the government prefers to know me. But then I got just a tad indignant. The form says “Family Name.” LeJay, Bryant, Bowie, Brayboy, McCray, Johnson, Long, Gines, Manson, Sanford, Mirabeau, Pottinger, Mulliken, Calvert, Prather . . . these are all my “family names.” Why should I not be able to use any of them as I choose?

The Thing About Names

Here’s the thing about names–your name is what you say it is. As the Supreme Court of Minnesota pointed out in 1979,

. . . [C]ustom has universally decreed that a man shall be known by the name of his father. But in England and the United States, at least, this custom is not legally binding; there is no law preventing a man from taking whatever name he has a fancy for, nor are there any particular formalities required to be observed on adopting a fresh surname . . . .

Application of Dengler (Minn. 1979)

287 N.W.2d 637, 639

This is the law everywhere in the United States. The Attorney General of California, for example, opined recently:

. . . one has the freedom to change one?s name and to use whatever name he or she chooses, qualified only by the proviso that the purpose not be dishonest. To change one?s name by the common law method is to exercise the freedom to unbind oneself from the given name or surname acquired through birth or prior assumption, and to identify oneself anew. . . .

Opinion of the Attorney General of California, No. 00-25, 9 June 2000.

So one’s name may be anything one wants it to be. There is a catch, here, though.

. . . if a man has been known for a considerable time by the name of his father, or by a name of repute, and he changes it for another, he cannot compel others to address him or designate him by the new one.

Application of Dengler, ibid. And in plainer language, the California Attorney General says that the freedom choose one’s name “is not to unilaterally impose recognition or acceptance of the newly chosen name as an obligation incumbent upon others.”

There’s the difference in the answers to What’s your name? and Como se llame usted?