I've just wound up a year and a half making & connecting profiles from cemetery pictures in the northeast US, mostly Connecticut. Along the way, I gave special attention to Nero Hawley, a slave and revolutionary war soldier from Trumbull, CT. In the process, I picked up a book called The Slaves of Central Fairfield County by Daniel Cruson. And so, before moving on to Texas cemeteries (the better half's roots), I figured it would make sense to spend some more time working on Connecticut slaves.
In addition to the Barbour Collection & CT Church Record Abstracts, I'm starting with the book's appendix. The first slaveowner is Nathaniel Brisco. The appendix has a column for last names, but it's blank for most of the entries. Similarly, for slaveowner Nathaniel Brisco, only one slave, Philip, has the last name listed at all.
Generally, a slave's last name at birth is the same as the slaveowner's, not their own parents. It's tough to even get an owner's name, slave's first name, and a birth or death date. Unless it's a birth record associated with the owner, it's only a best guess if you use the last name of the owner.
I'm fascinated by genealogy TV shows. In particular Skip Gates' Finding Your Roots gives significant attention to the challenges of building a tree that includes slaves. After the time I spent on Nero Hawley, I decided I could maybe help a little if I posted as much as I can from the sources I've got in front of me, before I start forgetting or pass away from old age.
I've rambled on too much! Pros and cons for giving all of Nathaniel Brisco's identified slaves the LNAB of Brisco? To be applied to all the other slaves just the same as I work through the records.