Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 1 of 12

FindArticles > Southern Quarterly > Winter 2006 > Article > Print friendly

Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners

Koger, Larry

To comprehend why black masters are the misunderstood slaveowners by scholars, the historiography or literature of black
slaveholding must be examined. In 1916, John H. Russell looked at the subject of black slave masters in an article, "Colored
Freemen as Slave Owners in Virginia." Russell concluded that ownership of slaves by free blacks was truly a benevolent form of
slavery. By 1924, Carter G. Woodson examined the subject of black slaveowners in the book, Free Negro Owners of Slaves in
the United States in 1830. Woodson's study compiled a list of the free black and absentee slaveowners derived from the 1830
Census. With that composite of slaveholders, he theorized that free black masters were a benevolent or philanthropic group of
individuals owning only family members or friends, thereby relieving them from the worst elements of chattel slavery.
Woodson was the chief architect of the benevolent interpretation of black slaveholding and many scholars have held his
thesis.1

The benevolent interpretation was based on data collected from the federal census of 1830. According to Woodson, the census
provides ample proof of free Negroes owning family members. He wrote (in 1924) that:

The census records show that [a] majority of Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of philanthropy. In many
instances the husband purchased his wife or vice versa. The slave belonging to such families were few compared with the large
numbers [of slaves] found among the whites on well-developed plantations. Slaves of Negroes [were] in some cases the
children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands
failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the enumerators . . . Benevolent Negroes often
purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it
out on liberal terms.2

A small group of scholars has questioned the benevolent premises of Woodson's thesis. In 1942, Luther P. Jackson reiterated
the Woodson thesis that free black masters were primarily benevolent. Yet he also asserted that after 1850, the institution
became more commercial, with free blacks beginning to purchase more and more slaves as capital investments. According to
Jackson, black entrepreneurs purchased slaves to work in their businesses as barbers, carpenters, and as farm laborers.
Recognizing that slaves could be used to produce more wealth, these entrepreneurs used slaves as commercial assets and
purchased them and sold them to make a profit.3

More current scholarship has begun to examine the Woodson thesis, and generally support it. In 1994, Sherrill D. Wilson's
study on the Afro-American slaveowners of New York demonstrated that the majority of black slaveowners primarily held
family members as slaves and few were commercial slave masters. In 2001, the M.A. thesis of Darin Waters examined the
premises of Woodson in North Carolina and compared the 1830 Census with primary sources and reached the same conclusion
as Dr. Wilson that most free blacks purchased family members. Similar findings were found in the dissertation of Guocun
Yang, which explored the Afro-American community in Connecticut.4

Yet, the benevolent thesis was not the dominant pattern in South Carolina. From the colonial period, the commercial aspect of
the free black slaveowners was quite apparent. Many of these black entrepreneurs were the sons and daughters of white
slaveowners who provided them with the slaves or the means to acquire slaves. In 1735, Joseph Pendarvis, a white planter of
Colleton County, South Carolina, wrote a will, which provided his children by a Negro woman named Parthena with the means
to become one of the largest free black slaveowners in South Carolina. They had seven mulatto children (James, Brand,

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 2 of 12

William, John, Thomas, Mary, and Elizabeth Pendarvis). James Pendarvis, born around 1718, was the oldest child and
appeared to inherit most of his father's estate. Between 1785 and 1787, he owned taxable property, which consisted of 3,500
acres of land and 113 slaves in St Paul's Parish, Colleton County in Charleston District. By 1792, Pendarvis owned 4,710 acres of
land and 123 slaves. When he died about 1797, his estate comprised 4,709 acres of land and 151 slaves. With such wealth and
status, the Pendarvis family married into the white planter class and merged into the white community.5

Other colonial entrepreneurs of African heritage followed the example of James Pendarvis. During the 1760s, Elizabeth
Clevland Hardcastle, the Euro-African daughter of William Clevland, a slave trader from the coast of West Africa and his
African mistress, arrived in Charleston, South Carolina not as a slave but a free woman of color born in what is now Sierra
Leone. She came to America with a dream and money to acquire a plantation for her brother, John Clevland, who was a Euro-
African slave trader. By 1790, she owned an estate, which consisted of 26 slaves and plantations in St John & Berkeley Parish
and St. Stephen's Parish in Charleston District. When Catherine died in December 1808, she owned two plantations, Raccoon
Hill which consisted of 700 acres and Tucker Plantation, which had about 700 - 900 acres of land. In her inventory, she
reportedly owned 33 slaves. Like the Pendarvis family, Catherine married into the white aristocratic class but she conceived no
children to blend into white society.6

The experience of the Pendarvis and Hardcastle families were not limited to the rural communities in the low country of South
Carolina where only 23 of 59 or 39 percent of free black slaveholders lived in 1790. The first federal census reported that the
majority (36 of 59 or 61 percent) of the black slaveholding families lived in Charleston City. In that year Lydia Watson was the
head of a free black family, which consisted of 5 slaves. Even though Lydia held a small number of slaves, she was not a
benevolent slave master who held family members. Lydia Watson was part of the black elite who held slaves to exploit their
labor. According to her will recorded in 1829, she was the owner of a slave woman named Lucy. Her slave was recorded in
Lydia's will and inventory and given to her freeborn daughter Abigail Webley Beale as chattel.

Ruth Cole was part of the elite blacks in colonial South Carolina. She was the wife of Thomas Cole, the mulatto son of a white
plantation owner, and a slaveowner for profit. In the will of Ruth Cole, she provided her freeborn daughter Barbara Maria
Bampfield with a slave girl.7

George Gardiner, who was reported on the 1790 census, was a bricklayer by trade and a commercial slave. When he died in
1797, George was listed as the former owner of the following slaves: Frank, a laborer; Jack, a laborer; Paul, a laborer; Bob, a
bricklayer; Betty, a house servant; Clarissa and her child, Mary. Those slaves were given to his daughter, Elizabeth Gardiner.8
During the late 1790s, many, if not the majority of free black slaveholding families held slaves to exploit their labor.

The 1850 census provided data which indicated that the ownership of slave property by free blacks was not based on kinship.
Analyzing the 1850 census demonstrated that 83.1 percent of Afro-American slave masters were of mixed racial heritage while
comprising only 48.7 percent of the free black community in South Carolina. Furthermore, the majority of the slaves held by
racially mixed slave masters were overwhelmingly of unmixed heritage. According to the living patterns of free mulattoes
recorded on the 1850 census, they lived in households dominated by mixed racial family members. If the slave masters of
mixed racial origins married within their caste, their slaveholding should have showed a large number of mulatto slaves. The
census reported the opposite. Their slaves were primarily unmixed Afro-Americans. Where was the kinship? The slaves held by
mulatto masters were mostly reported as unmixed and acquired as laborers or used to produce more wealth by their masters.9

When the tax list of 1859 for Charleston City is compared with local and state records, the commercial element of free black
masters is strongly demonstrated. The tax list for Charleston City reported that 108 free blacks owned slaves in the port city. A
review of state and local records revealed that 53 of 108 or 49 percent of the black masters had documents, which showed
added evidence of slave ownership. Within that group, there were 36 or 67.9 percent of black slaveowners who used slaves as
commercial assets. They represented 33 percent of black slave masters reported on the 1859 tax list. These statistics combined

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 3 of 12

with the consistent pattern of mixed slave masters owning slaves of unmixed heritage minimizes the kinship factor within the
slaveholding of Afro-Americans.10

The phenomenon of black slaveowning goes beyond the issue of benevolent versus commercial. It is a story about individuals
who existed in a hostile environment where they endured to acquire wealth, and preserved their freedom as well as the quasi
freedom of their loved ones, who carried stigma of chattel property. Who were these men and women? How did they acquire
slaves and what measures were used to protect their slave family members and how did they exist in the harsh political
environment of antebellum South Carolina?

The community of Afro-Americans who owned slaves came from a diverse background. Many were one or two generations
removed from slavery. Their fathers and mothers never knew the yoke of bondage. Their freedom could be traced back to the
colonial period when their parents worked as skilled artisans and acquired chattel property, which was then conveyed to their
children and grand children. This laid the foundation for some of the black elite of Charleston, South Carolina.

William Raper, a free black and a bricklayer of Charleston City provided the economic tools which helped to establish one of
the largest slaveowning families in St. Paul's Parish in Colleton County. Raper was born in the mid 1700s either freeborn or an
emancipated slave (the records are somewhat ambiguous). By 1787, he was the owner of 10 slaves who were acquired as
laborers. Three of his slaves were trained as bricklayers while the others were laborers or domestics. Raper requested that his
daughter Ruth Gardiner should have the slave, John (the son of his slave, Tamer) after the death of his wife. He also provided
his granddaughter Susan Elizabeth Gardiner with Tom, a skilled bricklayer, Tamer, and Bella.11

When Susan Elizabeth Gardiner married John Garden, an alleged free Indian in 1807, she provided her husband with at least
three slaves. With this small gift, John Garden proceeded to amass an estate, which by 1847 consisted of 382 acres of land and
60 slaves. John Garden referred to his estate as the Hermitage Plantation where at least 100 acres of prime rice land was
cultivated. He died at the age of 75 and his slaves were sold for $13,179 and the Hermitage Plantation netted $8,000 in 1848.12

In 1791, a freeborn family of Euro-African descent entered the state of South Carolina and settled in St. Thomas & St. Dennis
Parish, Charleston District. John and Samuel Holman as well as their sisters were the children of John Holman, Sr., and his
African woman called Elizabeth. In present day Guinea (West Africa), John Holman, Sr., and his mulatto sons were slave
traders who sold their human cargo to the merchants of Charleston City. During the colonial period, John Holman, Sr., had a
vibrant business trafficking in human flesh with merchants of Charleston City. In 1770, he received a letter from Henry
Laurens, the merchant and revolutionary statesman of South Carolina, which discussed a shipment of slaves destined for
Charleston. Laurens cautioned Holman not to send children or ordinary slaves because "it is exceedingly difficult to dispose of
them at any rate."13 By 1790, the Holman family left West Africa with a cargo of slaves and established the largest slaveowners
of African heritage in St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish and Georgetown County.

In 1790, John Holman, Sr., arrived in South Carolina but the political climate had changed in regards to the importation of
African slaves. The state assembly had prohibited the importation of African slaves and barred Holman from entering the
state. He was forced to travel to Georgia and establish a temporary residence while his business associates petitioned the state
legislature to grant them the right to settle in South Carolina with a cargo of African-born slaves. The legislation that allowed
him to enter the state was not passed until February 19, 1792. By July, he was living on his plantation called Blessing in St.
Thomas & St. Dennis Parish.14

On July 24, 1792, John Holman, Sr., died with an estate consisting of the Blessing Plantation and about 70 slaves. After the
death of the elder Holman, his two sons (John and Samuel) as well as Henry Laurens, Jr., son of the elder Laurens, managed
the estate of the deceased slave trader. In fact, John and Samuel Holman had been groomed by their father to succeed him.
While in Africa, John, Jr., and Samuel were trained as slave traders and brought their own slaves with them when they arrived

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 4 of 12

in South Carolina. The brothers had 62 slaves separate from the estate of their father.15

Between January 1798 and August 1803, John Holman, Jr., rented a plantation in Georgetown County from George Parker and
cultivated rice with the slaves of his father's estate and his own. After the lease expired on August 3, 1803, he signed a contract
to purchase the rented plantation and used his slaves as collateral to ensure the payments would be made. The payment plan
between Holman and Parker called for the first installment of $10,000 payable on August 16, 1804 and the final payment of
$5,000 on August 16, 1806. With the agreement established John Holman, Jr., gave George Parker power of attorney and
boarded a vessel in Charleston bound for Rio Pongo, West Africa. He did not return to Charleston until January 1805 and four
months later Holman revisited his homeland and never came back to South Carolina. Before his voyage to Africa, he placed his
brother Samuel Holman in charge of his estate. John Holman, Jr., was probably the first and only African-born entrepreneur
who resided in Africa as an absentee planter in the New World.16

The estate which he attempted to build in South Carolina did not last long. In 1806, George Parker seized the plantation and all
of the slaves because Samuel Holman did not fulfill the final payment stipulated by the contract between his brother and
Parker. Court records showed that 128 slaves were confiscated. Yet all of the slaves were not sold at public auction. The only
slaves sold were those owned by John Holman, Jr. Sold were 20 slaves owned separate from his father and 37 slaves inherited
from the estate of his father. Of the remaining 71 slaves, Samuel Holman owned 38 slaves while his sisters, Esther, Elizabeth,
and Margaret each owned 11 slaves. By 1823, John Holman, Jr. died on the coast of West Africa and his brother Samuel
Holman lost most if not all of his slaves through bad investments.17

The descendants of the African woman Elizabeth and John Holman, Sr., did not disappear from the annals of slaveowning
planters. The sisters of John, Jr., and Samuel Holman used their slaves to cultivate rice and one of them, Elizabeth Holman
Collins, laid the foundation of another slaveowning destiny. After Elizabeth Holman married Elias Collins, she provided her
husband with 11 slaves and he contributed the financial skill to amass a plantation called Northampton in St. Thomas & St.
Dennis Parish (3,500 acres) and 1,200 acres of land in Georgetown County as well as 44 slaves when he died in January 1843.
The majority of his property was given to his daughter, Margaret Mitchell Harris, who could trace her lineage back to the
African woman Elizabeth (her grandmother). Margaret Mitchell Harris was the last large planter descended from the Holman
line. In 1850, she managed a rice plantation which consisted of 30 slaves. By 1860, Margaret, now 60 years old, grew weary of
rice planting and decided to sell 44 of her slaves and invested the proceeds in stocks and/or other securities. Margaret made
$25,300 from the sale and retired to Columbia, South Carolina.18

Only a few within the black community who were born of free parents ascended to the rank of planters. Most were artisans
who purchased only a few slaves to work in their businesses. Elizabeth Seymour, the daughter of the emancipated slave Sally
Martin alias Sarah Seymour, was born after her mother was freed from slavery. Elizabeth never knew what it was to be a slave.
Yet she benefited from the institution of bondage. In March 1823, her mother, Sarah Seymour, gave Elizabeth two slaves (Flora
and her child George). Elizabeth was trained as a pastry cook by her mother and used her slaves in that line of business. In
1823, Elizabeth married John Lee and established a profitable business catering to the white aristocrats of Charleston. They
not only acquired slaves for their business but trained slaves in the art of cooking. In 1841, Nathaniel Heyward provided John
and Elizabeth Lee with a slave boy named Robert, to be trained in the art of cooking. By 1847, they acquired the Jones Inn, one
of the renowned eateries and boarding houses in Charleston City. With the use of slave labor, they established a profitable
business which allowed them to acquire 17 slaves and real estate valued at $15,000.19

Many black masters were emancipated slaves. They knew what it was to be a slave of another man or woman. Yet their desire
to excel and prosper overrode the moral dilemma of slavery. William Ellison, an emancipated slave, was freed by his master in
1816. Ellison was trained as a cotton gin maker and pursued his expertise in Sumter County, South Carolina. He found an eager
market for his trade. By 1830, Ellison had acquired four slaves who assisted him in his business. As his business grew, so did
his wealth and desire to produce more wealth. By 1840, Ellison owned 12 slaves and sought to diversify his investment. Ellison

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 5 of 12

began to acquire land and more slaves. By 1850, he was the owner of 386 acres of land and 37 slaves who produced 35 bales of
cotton. In 1864, William Ellison died with an estate appraised at $43,500 and consisting of 70 slaves. Even though Ellison
experienced a relatively benign form of slavery and probably was the offspring of a white slave master, his desire to pursue
wealth overrode any moral concerns about the 'peculiar institution.' Many of the black elite viewed slavery as a legal institution
and used it to further their dreams of economic security.20

Lamb Stevens, an emancipated slave, was not of mixed racial heritage. He was a man described as nearly coal black in
complexion. Without the patronage of white or black family members of wealth, he amassed a 500-acre plantation called
Cherry Hill and 35 slaves in 1850. Several of his slaves were family members but most were acquired as laborers used to till the
soil of his plantation. In Charleston City, Bersheba Cattle, the former slave of J.H. Stevens, invested in chattel property. In
1818, she purchased a servant woman named Nanny, who was about 38 years old, for $550. Cattle hired out her slave to
prospective users. In her will, she requested that her executors should receive the wages of Nanny.21 During the antebellum
period, many Afro-Americans of free status acquired slaves as commercial assets to be used in their businesses, or hired-out or
purchased as investments to be sold at a higher price.

The desire for profit was not the only reason free Afro-Americans purchased slaves. Many sought to acquire the freedom of a
loved one who was still in bondage. Through industry and great sacrifice, they labored for years to purchase their kinfolk or
friends and later either emancipated them or allowed them a greater degree of freedom. Morris Brown, one of the leaders with
the African Methodist Episcopal Church, purchased slaves for humanitarian reasons and later manumitted them. The first
slaves he purchased were family members. In 1810, Brown purchased his mulatto wife Bella and their children Malcolm,
Charlotte, Mary, Samuel, and Sarah for £650 sterling. According to the Act of 1800, he could not manumit his minor children
but had to wait until they were of age. After he acquired his family, Morris Brown continued to purchase slaves with the desire
to free them from bondage. On November 18, 1813, he bought a slave named London and a day later manumitted him. Four
years later he acquired a mulatto man named Maurice, who was trained as a carpenter, for $650. In 1819, Sam, a skilled tailor,
was purchased by Brown for $1,000. With the passing of the Act of 1820, manumission was taken away from individual
slaveowners and became a function of the state legislature, which rarely liberated slaves.22

The statute of 1820 forced Afro-American slave masters who acquired slave relatives or friends to hold their loved one as mere
chattel. These owners of slave loved ones seldom considered their slaves as property and allowed them a greater degree of
freedom. Even though they owned their loved ones, many did not treat them as slaves. These nominal slaves of Afro-Americans
were rarely reported in the wills, inventories or federal census as property but as freed persons. William Tardiff, a boat builder
of Charleston, purchased his slave relatives. Like most free blacks who held family members, he did not treat or consider them
as mere chattel to be bought or sold. In his will, Tardiff requested the free members of his family to treat their slave loved ones
(Katy and her children) as he had. When the inventory of Tardiff was recorded, neither Katy nor her children were listed in his
inventory as chattel. The only slaves listed were those acquired as laborers, a male boat builder as well as Betty and her
children. They were appraised at $1,600 and considered as property. In 1839, Katy and her children were listed in the Free
Negro Capitulation Tax Book but reported as slaves.23

The stigma of slavery was so repugnant that many AfroAmericans could not or would not list their slave relatives as chattel to
census takers. In 1828, Hannah Morrison, a free woman of unmixed racial heritage, purchased a mulatto man named Martin.
By 1836, Hannah married Martin but never reported her husband as a slave. The census of 1850 and 1860 listed Martin Nelson
as a free mulatto and the owner of an estate valued at $4,350 in 1860. However, he was not the legal owner of any property
because of his status as a slave. Hannah conducted all of the commercial transactions made by the couple. As she continued to
purchase slaves, none were in the name of her husband as well as other property she owned.24

The nominal slaves of Afro-Americans faced many problems associated with their status as slaves. They could not legally own
property and more importantly slave loved ones could be seized to pay debts incurred by their owners. Many free blacks

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 6 of 12

attempted to protect their slave loved ones and created deeds of trust to guarantee the freedom of their nominal slaves. These
deeds of trust were essentially bills of sale which transferred their loved ones to a second party with the express condition that
their loved ones would not be sold for the debts of either party and that their slaves would be free from bondage. These
transactions were for a nominal sum of money usually for one or five dollars with the delineated condition of freedom.25

Between 1820 and 1841 deeds of trust were the instrument used by white and black slaveowners to free their chattel property.
Since the laws of South Carolina prohibited private manumission and the state legislature rarely freed slaves, the only course of
action was a de facto method of freedom. In 1829, Smart Stoll, a free man of color, sold his slave daughter Susannah for the
sum of one dollar. In the deed of trust, he stipulated that the buyer of his daughter would allow her to act as a free person thus
relinquishing all rights to Susannah or her future children. Other free blacks followed the example of Smart Stoll and sold their
loved ones for a nominal sum and/or transferred ownership through their wills with the stipulation of allowing their loved
ones a greater degree of freedom.26

In 1841, the state legislature attempted to end the practice of providing de facto freedom to slaves. The state legislature banned
the deeds of trust system and reiterated the authority of the state to control manumission. However, it did not stop the practice
of de facto freedom through deeds of trust. From 1817 to 1828, Peter Elwig was on a campaign to liberate his family from
bondage. He purchased his wife Amelia and their children Peter, James, Joseph, Hestor and her child Elizabeth, for $1,250. On
August 14, 1819, Elwig freed his wife Amelia but could not liberate his minor children because of the Act of 1800. By 1820 he
could not free any of his children regardless of their age and was forced to own them as nominal slaves. By 1843, Elwig was
concerned about his son Joseph Elwig who was still his slave. He sold his son for the nominal sum of one dollar to Rebecca
Elwig, the wife of his son. Although the bill of sale did not have any special condition as to how Joseph Elwig would be treated,
it fit the pattern of the deeds of trust used before the statute of 1841, which banned such acts.27 The legislative efforts of the
state assembly did not stem the tide of emancipated slaves through extra-legal means. More and more nominal slaves were
blending into the free community of Charleston City and its surrounding parishes where the many free Afro-Americans lived.

Within Charleston City, there were hundreds of individuals who were neither a slave nor a free person. They were truly slaves
without masters. Although they were legally slaves, they interacted as free men and women and even acquired property. The
will of Plowden Weston, a white planter, emancipated his servant woman Lydia in 1827. The statute of 1820 banned such acts
of private manumission and by law Lydia was still legally the slave to the estate of her former master. In spite of the law, she
acted as an emancipated slave and blended into the free black community of Charleston. The 1830 and 1840 censuses listed
her as a free woman with slave property. Her status as a free woman was so accepted that her godmother Seraphine Lacomb
provided her with a female slave in 1844. Furthering her claim of freedom, Lydia Weston paid free Negro capitulation taxes
and was even listed on the 1850 census and the business directory of Charleston City in 1855. The example of Lydia Weston
was a persistent pattern within the community of free Afro-Americans in Charleston City. Many had no documents to attest to
their freedom and could not produce free papers demonstrating their freedom.28

There is no better proof of this state of quasi freedom than the example of Anthony Weston. Weston was the former slave of
Plowden Weston who was illegally emancipated. As a trained millwright he was allowed to pursue his trade as a free man. So
skilled was Anthony that he altered a rice threshing machine by 1,000 bushels a day. Between 1834 and 1845 he and his wife
Maria Weston purchased 20 slaves valued at $9,450. Several of these slaves were skilled artisans who were used in his
business. None of the federal censuses reported Anthony Weston as a slave. He was listed as the head of his family. But being a
nominal slave he could not legally own property; therefore all of their estate was in the name of Maria Weston.29 By 1860
many within the free black community were nominal slaves and allowed to merge into the free community and interacted as
emancipated slaves. Yet the bond between Afro-American masters and their nominal slaves did not transcend through the
black community in South Carolina.

The community of free Afro-Americans was a society divided along class lines. There were divisions between rich and poor,

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 7 of 12

racially mixed and unmixed as well as slave-master and slave. By 1820, these class distinctions were firmly established. Elite
Afro-Americans attempted to distance themselves from those who were not in their class. They sought to align themselves with
the white aristocracy of South Carolina. Many within the white aristocracy viewed the elite community of Afro-Americans as a
safe class of people who understood the virtue of slavery and protected the southern system of labor. The opinion of
aristocratic Charleston was not far from the truth in regards to the black elite. They owned slaves as property and did not have
a philosophical or political abhorrence to slavery. Many were the eyes and ears of the dominant society and helped to preserve
slavery. No better example of this fact is the life of William Pinceel. He was a free man of mixed racial heritage and a slave
master for profit. In 1822, Pinceel was informed by the slave Peter of the impending slave insurrection of Denmark Vesey.
Pinceel did not have any second thoughts as to what to do. He told the slave to inform his master what he had heard. The
advice of William Pinceel not only caused a breech between the communities of wealthy Afro-Americans and slaves but showed
the white aristocrats where elite free blacks stood. They were perceived by the white aristocracy as the middle ground to be
used to thwart slave insurrections.30

Many within the elite community of Afro-Americans were racially mixed. Aligning themselves with the aristocracy of the
dominant society allowed them a degree of privilege. They received the patronage of aristocratic whites who purchased their
services and merchandise. This special bond allowed many within the racially mixed community to prosper. Few Afro-
Americans of a darker hue were afforded such special patronage. Statistics derived from state and local records demonstrated
the gap in wealth. Only one Afro-American of unmixed heritage held 30 or more slaves while several mixed slave masters were
included in that rank. By 1850 dark skinned slave masters comprised only 14.6 percent of Afro-American slave masters while
85.4 percent were classified as racially mixed. Furthermore, the slaves held by mulatto slaveowners were overwhelmingly of
unmixed racial heritage. The Afro-American community within South Carolina was a fragmented community where lines were
drawn between wealth, color, status, free person and slave.31

The bond between elite Afro-Americans and white aristocrats was not shared by all of the dominant community. Poor and
working class whites competed with free people of color and slaves to earn a livelihood. There was open hostility to the free
black community by working class whites. They wanted the free community of AfroAmericans banished from South Carolina
or forced into bondage. They viewed the community of free people of color as a monolithic society who were firmly bound to
the slave populous thereby fostering servile insurrections.32

The community of elite Afro-Americans was more aligned with the white aristocrats of South Carolina. They were people of
property and exploited the labor of slaves. As the Civil War approached, elite Afro-Americans pledged their support to the
southern cause. A group of elite Afro-Americans issued a call to arms for the southern cause. The Charleston Courier reported
the following declaration: "in our veins flows the blood of the white race, in some half, in others much more than half . . . our
attachments are with you, our hopes and safety and protection from . . . our allegiance is due to South Carolina and in her
defense, we will offer up our lives, and all that is dear to us."34

With the political climate in South Carolina growing more hostile to free blacks, many slave masters of African ancestry began
to rethink their commitment to owning property in South Carolina. It appeared no longer safe to maintain property in the state
and others began to question their investment in chattel property. After 1840 the number of black masters and the slaves they
owned began to decline. In 1840, there were 454 slave masters of African heritage who held 2,357 slaves. By 1850, the number
of slave masters was 297 or a decline of 34.5 percent and their slaves decreased to 1,277. In 1860, the number of black masters
and their slaves continued to decrease. Throughout the state of South Carolina, there were only 171 slaveowners who held 766
slaves. Between 1850 and 1860, many Afro-American masters decided to liquidate their slave property. Others chose to
provide only a small number of slaves to family members or sold them upon death. In 1860, Margaret Mitchell Harris sold 44
slaves thus leaving her only two slaves. John Garden requested that his estate be liquidated and 60 slaves were sold in 1847.
Other free blacks followed the pattern set by Harris and Garden, thereby causing a sharp decline in the number of Afro-
American masters and the slaves they held.35

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 8 of 12

Even though Afro-American slave masters never reached the numbers of their white counterparts or held a significant percent
of the slaves in South Carolina, they were truly an enigma. These Afro-Americans were not simply 'slaves without masters.'
They asserted their limited rights in southern society and created a niche where they established wealth and some reached the
plateau of planters. But most were artisans and entrepreneurs who saw the key to prosperity in the exploitation of slave labor.
Others viewed slavery as an oppressive institution and only sought to attain the freedom of loved ones and friends who were
slaves and either emancipated them or made their lot easier. The southern experience of slavery was a diverse system not
exclusively exploited by white Americans. Afro-American slaveowners also played a minor role in the saga of American Slavery.

NOTES

1 John H. Russell, "Colored Freemen As Slave Owners in Virginia," Journal of Negro History (1916), 233-243; Carter G.
Woodson, Free Negroes Owners of Slaves in the Unites States in 1830 (1924), v-viii.

2 Woodson, Free Negroes Owners of Slaves, v.

3 John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom (1974), 173; Ira Berlin, Slaves Without Masters (1974), 273; Ira Berlin,
Generations of Captivity (2003), 139; Franklin and Berlin maintained that most free black slaveholders were a benevolent
group purchasing family members. Luther P. Jackson, Free Negro Labor and Property Holding in Virginia (1942), 224-225; R.
Halliburton, Jr., "Free Black Owners of Slaves: A Reappraisal of the Woodson Thesis," South Carolina Historical Magazine
(1976), 129-135; David Rankin, "The Forgotten People: Free People of Color in New Orleans 1850-1870," (Ph.D. diss., 1976),
155-156.

4 Sherrill D. Wilson, New York City's African Slaveowners (1994), 75; Darin J. Waters, "Black Slaveowners in North Carolina in
1830" (MA thesis, 2001); Guocun Yang, "From Slavery to Emancipation" (Ph.D. diss., 1999).

5 Paul Heinegg, Free African Americans of North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina, II (2001), 695-696; Larry Koger,
Black Slaveowners (1995), 13-14, 108-110.

6 E. Louise, Elizabeth Clevland Hardcastle 1714-1808 (2001), 57-104.

7 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 209-210, 78, 97, 24, 166.

8 Ibid., 141-142.

9 Ibid., 29.

10 Ibid., 101, 233, 234.

11 Record of Wills vol. 22 1786-1793 (Charleston County) pp. 194-196 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina); Inventories vol. B 1787-1793 (Charleston County) p. 15 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina).

12 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 14-15, 129, 141, 168.

13 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 110-113; George C. Rogers, Jr. and David R. Chestnutt, eds., The Papers of Henry Laurens vol. 7
(1979), 344.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 9 of 12

14 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 113-114.

15 Ibid., 113-115.

16 Ibid., 116.

17 Ibid., 117-119

18 Ibid., 119-127

19 Ibid., 38-39, 154-155, 168, 177.

20 Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roark, Black Masters (1984), 15; Koger, Black Slaveowners, 37-38, 132, 136, 144-145;
Inventories & Sales 1858-1868 (Sumter County) pp. 216-217 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

21 Henry A. M. Smith, "Goose Creek," South Carolina Historical & Genealogical Magazine (1928), 179-180; Seventh Census of
the United States: Schedule I, St. James & Goose Creek Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, 427; Ibid., Schedule II,
407; Ibid., Schedule IV, 353-354; Koger, Black Slaveowners, 39.

22 Bills of Sale vol. 4D 1810-1811 (Secretary of State) p. 5 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Ibid.,
vol. 4M 1816-1818, p. 290; Ibid., vol. 4S 1819-1820, p. 11; Marina Wikramanyake, A World in Shadow (1973), 74; Koger, Black
Slaveowners, 53-54.

23 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 83-84.

24 Bills of Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829 (Secretary of State) p. 313; Free Negro Capitulation Tax Book 1836 (Department of Archives
& History, Columbia, South Carolina); Seventh Census of the United States: Schedule I, Charleston, Charleston County, South
Carolina; Eighth Census of the United States; Schedule I, Charleston City, Charleston, South Carolina, p. 506; J. R. Honour,
List of Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for 1860 (1861), 328; Frederick A. Ford, Census of the City of Charleston South for
the Year 1861 (1861); Bills of Sale vol. 6D 1853-1857 (Secretary of State) pp. 251, 288; Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol.
E 1857-1860 (Charleston County), p. 4.

25 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 69-79.

26 Miscellaneous Records vol. 5L 1829-1831 (Secretary of State), pp. 129-130 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia,
South Carolina); Record of Wills vol. 44 1845-1851 (Charleston County), pp. 109-110.

27 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 69-70.

28 Ibid., 74.

29 Record of Wills vol. 3 7 1826-1834 (Charleston County), p. 184; Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 486;
Ibid., vol. 5T 1836-1839, pp. 134, 340, 359, 400, 420, 498; Ibid., vol. 5W 1839-1843, p. 2; Ibid., vol. 6A 1843-1846, pp. 183 &
393; Sixth Census of the United States 1840; Schedule I, Charleston Neck, Charleston, South Carolina, 100: Eighth Census of
the United States 1860; Schedule I, Charleston City, Charleston, South Carolina, 376: Ibid., Schedule II, 461; Martin Robinson
Delany, The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States (1852), 108.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 10 of 12

30 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 179-186.

31 Ibid., 161-173.

32 Jason Poole, "On Borrowed Ground: Free African-American Life in Charleston, South Carolina 1810-1861," Essays in
History (1994).

33 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 188-190; Charleston Courier, December 16, 1859.

34 Koger, Black Slaveowners, 18-30.

35 Number of slave masters and slaves in South Carolina, see Koger, Black Slaveowners, 20.

36 Total number of slaves, see Clayton E. Cramer, Black Demographic Data, 17901860 (1997), 127.

37 United States Census Reports, 1790-1860, The Statistics of Populations of the United States (Washington, DC)

38 Jason Poole, "On Borrowed Ground," 4

WORKS CITED

Berlin, Ira. 2003. Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.

____. 1974. Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South. New York: Vintage Books.

Charleston Courier, December 16, 1859.

Cramer, Clayton E. 1997. Black Demographic Data, 1790-1860. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Delany, Martin Robinson. 1852. The Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States.
Philadelphia: Author.

Eighth Census of the United States 1860; Schedule I, Charleston City, Charleston, South Carolina

Eighth Census of the United States 1860; Schedule H, Charleston City, Charleston, South Carolina

Ford, Frederick A. 1861. Census of the City of Charleston South for the Year 1861. Charleston: Evans & Cogswell.

Franklin, John Hope. 1974. From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Free Negro Capitulation Tax Book 1836. Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina.

Halliburton, R., Jr. 1976. "Free Black Owners of Slaves: A Reappraisal of the Woodson Thesis." South Carolina Historical
Magazine 76: 129-135.

Heinegg, Paul. 2001. Free African Americans of North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina: From the Colonial Period to

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 11 of 12

About 1820 vol. II. Baltimore, Md.: Clearfield Company.

Honour, J. R. 1871. List of Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for 1860. Charleston: Walker & Evans.

Inventories. Vol. B 1787-1793 (Charleston County) Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina.

Inventories & Sales 1858-1868 (Sumter County). Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina.

Jackson, Luther P. 1942. Free Negro Labor and Property Holding in Virginia, 1830-1860. New York: Russell & Russell.

Johnson, Michael P. and James L. Roark. 1984. Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.

Koger, Larry. 1995. Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860. Columbia, South Carolina:
University of South Carolina Press.

Louise, E. 2001. Elizabeth Clevland Hardcastle 1714-1808: A Lady of Color in the South Carolina Low Country. South Carolina:
Phoenix Publishers.

Poole, Jason. 1994. "On Borrowed Ground: Free African-American Life in Charleston, South Carolina 1810-1861." Essays in
History 36: 1-33.

Rankin, David. 1976. "The Forgotten People: Free People of Color in New Orleans 1850-1870." Ph.D. dissertation, John
Hopkins University.

Record of Wills Vol. 22 1786-1793 (Charleston County). Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina.

Rogers, George C., Jr. and David R. Chestnutt, eds. 1979. The Papers of Henry Laurens, vol. 7. Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press.

Russell, John H. 1916. "Colored Freemen as Slave Owners in Virginia." Journal of Negro History 1: 233-243.

Seventh Census of the United States: Schedule I, St. James & Goose Creek Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina

Seventh Census of the United States: Schedule II, St. James & Goose Creek Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina

Seventh Census of the United States: Schedule IV, St. James & Goose Creek Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina

Sixth Census of the United States 1840; Schedule I, Charleston Neck, Charleston, South Carolina

Smith, Henry A. M. 1928. "Goose Creek." South Carolina Historical & Genealogical Magazine 23: 179-180.

United States Census Reports, 1790-1860. The Statistics of Populations of the United States. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.

Waters, Darin J. 2001. "Black Slaveowners in North Carolina in 1830: Testing the Woodson Thesis." MA thesis, North Carolina
State University.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008
Southern Quarterly: Black Masters: The Misunderstood Slaveowners Page 12 of 12

Wikramanyake, Marina. 1973. A World in Shadow: The Free Black in Antebellum South Carolina. Columbia: University of
South Carolina Press.

Wilson, Sherrill D. 1994. New York City s African Slaveowners: A Social and Material Culture History. New York: Garland
Publishing.

Woodson, Carter G. 1924. Free Negroes Owners of Slaves in the Unites States in 1830 Together with Absentee Ownership of
Slaves in the United States in 1830. New York: Negro Universities Press.

Yang, Guocun. 1999. "From Slavery to Emancipation: The African Americans of Connecticut, 1650s-1820s." Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Connecticut.

Larry Koger is the author of Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 and a senior analyst
with the Department of Homeland security, Largo, Maryland.

Copyright Southern Quarterly Winter 2006

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4074/is_200601/ai_n17180356/print?tag=artBody;... 11/28/2008