What about the fathers?

All of these family trees trace individuals' ancestry only through their mothers and there's a simple answer to the question this raises, which is that fathers' names were not recorded in the 1817 slave register or in any of the later returns of 'increases' and 'decreases' on these estates.

This was entirely normal in these documents -- mothers were sometimes named, but fathers never were. This may have reflected a degree of matriarchy in how the enslaved people lived, but it could instead result from the absence of paternal rights. At this time British fathers exercised considerable authority over their children, deciding what professions they should follow and sometimes dictating who they could marry. They were expected to impose restrictions on their children's movements and, where required, physical punishment. These rights and responsibilities did not belong to enslaved fathers -- they belonged to the slave-owner -- and it may have seemed strange to record as a father someone who was unable, by law, to behave in the ways that fathers behaved. 

It is sometimes tempting to speculate about who a child's father was. When a baby boy is called by a distinctive name and there is an adult male of the same name who is about the same age as his mother, it is tempting to assume that that man was the father. Why, after all, would a woman take the risk of naming her child after someone else? However, this assumption would be based on the shaky foundation that enslaved people formed their relationships only within the boundaries of the estate they lived on. Except in unusual cases where additional evidence is available (e.g. colour descriptions or last names), I haven't mentioned these possibilities in the family tree posts.  

However, I will publish an index with all the names and links to family trees on an estate by estate basis, and this will enable you to make your own assumptions. The index of first names will be followed, in time, by an index of last names.