by Larry Koger

To my parents and Rhudine Johnson

 Historical research is often stimulated by a provocative question;
such was the case for me. As a bright-eyed undergraduate at the
University of the District of Columbia, I was exasperated by a
multitude of questions resulting from my discovery that free Afro-
Americans owned slaves. Who were these black masters, and why did
they acquire slaves? Under the guidance of Dr. David Lewis, I
attempted to unravel the mystery. It was in Professor Lewis' seminar
course that my first inquiries were made and subsequently answered in
the paper, "Free Blacks as Slaveowners in America, 1650-1850."
Without the initial inspiration provided by Dr. Lewis, this book would
have been impossible.

Indeed, the seminar taught by Professor Lewis prompted an

investigation which lasted five years. It was at Howard University that I
improved my methods and asked more sophisticated questions. I am
deeply indebted to Professor Thomas J. Davis, who read my graduate
papers on the black slaveowners of South Carolina, and Martha S.
Putney, who read the chapter "No More Black Massa." Their insights
were extremely beneficial. In addition, a word of thanks must go to
Walter Hill, a graduate student at Maryland University. Walter led me
to make the connection linking the African-born slavers in Guinea and
Sierra Leone with the free black masters of South Carolina.

I am also appreciative of the assistance and cooperation provided

by the staffs of the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division; the
Na t i ona l Archives, Genealogy and Manuscript Divisions; the
Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina; the
South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina; the South
Carolina Historical Society, Charleston; Robert Small Library, College
of Charleston; and the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, Howard
University.

Finally, I am especially grateful to my aunt, Rhudine Johnson,

who provided me with lodging and conversation during three summers
o f research in Columbia, South Carolina. Without her support, my
investigation would have been intolerable.

Larry Koger

Washington, D. C.

August 31, 1985

Acknowledgments vii

List of Tables xi

Foreword xiii

Introduction 1

Chapter One. Free Black Slaveholding and the Federal Census 5

Ch a p t e r Two. The Numbers and Distribution of Black

Slaveholding 18

Chapter Three. From Slavery to Freedom to Slaveownership 31

Chapter Four. "Buying My Chidrum from Ole Massa" 45

Chapter Five. Neither a Slave Nor a Free Person 69

Chapter Six. The Woodson Thesis: Fact or Fiction? 80

Chapter Seven. White Rice, White Cotton, Brown Planters, Black

Slaves 102

Chapter Eight. Free Black Artisans: A Need for Labor 140

Chapter Nine. The Denmark Vesey Conspiracy: Brown Masters

vs. Black Slaves 160

Chapter Ten. No More Black Massa 187

Appendix A. Tables for Chapter One 201

Appendix B. Table for Chapter Two 209

Appendix C. Tables for Chapter Six 231

Notes 235

Index 275
1.1. Percentage of Free Black Slaveowners and Slaveholding
Heads of Family Recorded on the Federal Censuses with State
and Local Records Demonstrating Slaveownership in
Charleston City, South Carolina, 1830-1860 9

2.1. Number of Free Black Slaveowners and Slaveholding Heads of

Family in South Carolina, 1790-1860 20

2.2. Number of Slaves Held by Free Black Slaveowners and

Slaveholding Heads of Family in South Carolina, 1790-1860 21

2.3. Percentage of South Carolina Free Black Slaveowners and

Slaveholding Heads of Household Residing in Charleston City,
1790-1860 22

2.4. Percentage of Female Black Slaveowners and Heads of

Slaveholding Households in Charleston City, South Carolina,
1820-1864 24

2.5. Age and Sex Distribution of the Slaves Held by Free Blacks in
Charleston City, South Carolina, 1850 26

2.6. Age and Sex Distribution of Slaves Held by Free Blacks in the
Rural Counties of South Carolina, 1850 28

7.1. Profits, Losses, and Returns for the Santee Plantation in

Georgetown County, South Carolina, 1849 123

7.2. Profits, Losses, and Returns for Robert Michael Collins' Plantation
in Georgetown County, South Carolina, 1859 125
7.3. Production Figures for the Ellison Plantation in Sumter County,
South Carolina, 1849-1861 137
 In South Carolina, free Negro masters were similar to white
slaveowners. Both exploited the labor of slaves with the desire for
profits. Quite often, the colored artisans bought slaves who were
employed in their trades. Others bought slaves to be hired out and then
kept the wages of their bondsmen. They also established a master-slave
relationship which demanded subservience from their slaves. The
documents I have examined showed Negro masters selling rebellious
slaves or placing disobedient bondsmen in the local jail or the
workhouse.

Yet black slaveholding had a benevolent side. Black folk labored

for years to purchase the freedom of family members who were slaves
to white masters. Still others acquired the freedom of beloved friends.

The survey of the local documents could not demonstrate the

dominance of the benevolent or kinship aspect of black slaveowning.
Indeed, the census of 1850 demonstrated that 83.1 percent of the Negro
masters were mulattoes, while nearly 90 percent of their slaves were of
dark skin. Where was the kinship? Since mulattoes primarily married
mulattoes, the black folk owned by light-skinned Afro-Americans were
seldom kin and were overwhelmingly held as laborers. By and large,
Negro slaveowners were darker copies of their white counterparts.
 Black slaveholding is a historical phenomenon which has not been
fully explored by scholars. Graduate students of history are often
surprised to learn that some free blacks owned slaves. Even historians
are frequently skeptical until they discover the number of black masters
and the number of slaves owned by them. To many readers, slavery was
an institution exclusively utilized by white slaveowners. The fact that
free blacks owned slaves has been lost in the annals of history.

Yet at one time or another, free black slaveowners resided in

every Southern state which countenanced slavery and even in Northern
states. In Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia, free
blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves, according to the federal census
of 1830.'

Many of the black masters in the lower South were large planters
who owned scores of slaves and planted large quantities of cotton, rice,
and sugar cane. In 1860, for example, Auguste Donatto, a free colored
planter of St. Landry Parish in Louisiana, owned 70 slaves who worked
500 acres of land and produced 100 bales of cotton. About 600 miles to
the east of Louisiana in the county of Sumter, South Carolina, William
Ellison, a free colored planter, used the labor of 70 slaves to cultivate
100 bales of cotton in 1861. In South Carolina, Robert Michael Collins
and Margaret Mitchell Harris used their slaves to till the soil of Santee
Plantation and grew 240,000 pounds of rice in 1849. But the majority of
the large colored planters lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane.2
In 1860, Madame Ciprien Ricard and her son Pierre Ricard, free
mulattoes of Ibeville Parish, owned 168 slaves. The joint operation of
mother and son used the labor of slaves to produce 515 hogsheads of
sugar in 1859. Yet not all of the black masters were planters or from
the South. In fact, the city of New York had eight black slaveowners
who owned 17 slaves in 1830.3 In short, the institution of black
slaveowning was widespread, stretching as far north as New York and
as far south as Florida, extending westward into Kentucky, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Missouri.

One may ask, where did these free black masters come from?
Many of them were former slaves who were manumitted because of
their kinship ties to whites, while others were emancipated for
meritorious military duty, faithful service, or saving a life, as well as
other reasons. But the majority of the black masters never knew the
dehumanization of slavery because they had been born of free black
parents. However, the ranks of the slave masters included not only free
blacks but also nominal slaves. In many instances, blacks who were not
legally emancipated assimilated into the free black community and
later became slaveowners. By and large, the community of black
masters came from a diverse background which included persons of
free and slave status.4

Once freed, the black masters obtained slaves by various methods.

Many of the colored slaveowners inherited slaves from black relatives
a s well as white kinsfolk. A few black masters owned slaves in West
Africa and transported their slaves to the New World. But the majority
of the black slaveholders used their own industry and worked as
artisans, entrepreneurs, and even as unskilled laborers to obtain the
capital to buy slaves.'

The acquisition of slaves by Afro-Americans was the result of

various factors. Many free blacks bought relatives who were slaves to
white masters. Quite often, when marriages occurred between free
blacks and slaves, the free spouse attempted to buy the freedom of the
s l a v e spouse and the children. Also, marriages between slaves
occasionally saw one spouse emancipated while the other remained in
bondage. Consequently, the former slave tried to obtain the liberty of
loved ones in servitude.

Some of the slave purchases were caused not by the bond of

kinship but by humanitarianism. Free blacks of benevolent persuasion
sometimes used their own money to purchase slaves with the intent of
emancipating them. However, many black masters did not intend to
manumit their slaves and viewed the institution of slavery as a source
of labor to be exploited for their own benefit. Indeed, free blacks not
only used the labor of slaves to till the soil of their farms and
plantations but also purchased slaves to work in their businesses as
skilled and unskilled laborers. Others bought slaves to be hired out.
These black masters hired out their slaves to non-slaveowners and
appropriated the proceeds from the labor of slaves to help support
themselves. Whatever the reasons may have been to stimulate free
blacks to acquire slave property, the system of American slavery was a
universal institution in which even Afro-Americans became
slaveowners and occasionally ascended to the ranks of large
slaveowning planters.6

Because the history of black slaveholding has been almost ignored

by scholars, the literature on the slaveholding of free blacks is lacking
i n quantity. Most of the studies examining black slaveowning are
written in the form of articles, although numerous other works mention
the existence of black masters. So far as the author is aware, the subject
of black slaveholding has not been explored on a general or a statewide
level in a monograph. Such studies are needed, and it is hoped that this
book will, so far as South Carolina is concerned, supply this need.

Although South Carolina may not have been the typical Southern
state where free blacks owned slaves, it provided the unique setting of
being the bridge between the Upper and the Deep South, thus
embracing elements of both societies. In the Palmetto State, there were
blacks who owned scores of slaves and large tracts of land like the
black slaveowners of Louisiana. Primarily, however, South Carolina's
black masters were small slaveholders who owned one or two slaves,
like the black slaveowners of Maryland and Virginia. Many of these
small slaveholders owned family members who could not be
emancipated because the state legislatures prohibited private
manumission unless the freed slave left the state.

This book is a study of black slaveholders who were diverse in

background and character. Many of the black slaveowners of South
Carolina were former slaves who rose from the shackles of bondage to
the ranks of slave masters. Still others were one or two generations
removed from slavery, and their parents and grandparents were slave
masters who passed their human chattel from parent to child. Yet the
ranks of the colored masters were not all from the elite class of black
society. In the Palmetto State, free blacks who worked as draymen,
stable keepers, and washerwomen acquired the money to purchase
slaves. Within the community of slaveholders, there were free blacks
who bought slaves for humanitarian reasons and broke the laws of
South Carolina to maintain the freedom they granted their slaves. Yet
black slaveholding in South Carolina was primarily a commercial
venture, and the attitudes and actions of colored masters appeared to be
similar to those of the white slaveowners. In essence, free black
masters embraced many of the attitudes of the white community even
while they remained on the fringe of the society.
 One of the most important sources which can be used to examine
free black slaveholding is the federal census. The federal enumeration
gives not only the number of free black slaveholders but also the
number of slaves held by the black masters. Yet despite the historical
usefulness of the census, such documents present the historian with
many problems, particularly when the phenomenon of black
slaveowning is explored. Since the early federal enumerations were no
more than crude censuses, an accurate depiction of the size or
significance of free black slaveowning cannot be obtained without
supplementing the original census returns with other documents. Only
then can a realistic view be obtained.

The enumerations from 1790 to 1810 recorded only free black

heads of household, the number of free members, and the number of
slaves living in the residence. For the historian, the federal censuses
from 1790 to 1810 provide only such basic information as the names of
free black heads of household and the number of free persons and
slaves.'

By 1820 the federal censuses were refined and inquiries were

added, although the procedures were not drastically altered. As well as
recording the number of free members and slaves in the household of
free blacks, the 1820 census also listed in various columns the sex and
age groupings of the free inhabitants and slaves. Four columns listed
age groups of under 15, 15-26, 26-45, and over 45 years of age. By
1830 the federal census was increased from four age categories to six.
Yet the censuses from 1820 to 1840 provided only rudimentary
information such as the names of heads of household, the number of
free colored persons, and the number of slaves, along with their sex and
age groupings.'

However, the format of the enumeration went through a dramatic

change in 1850. The seventh enumeration was divided into six
schedules which incorporated a very elaborate system of inquiry. The
schedule of free inhabitants, for example, recorded the names of
individual family members and other occupants of the household as
well as their race, sex, and age. But the census enumerators were also
required to record more detailed information. For instance, the first
schedule of 1850 listed the occupation of male and female dwellers as
well as the value of real estate that they owned. Perhaps more
importantly, the seventh enumeration recorded individual slaveowners.
According to the instructions given to the federal census marshals and
their assistants, the names of slaveowners were to be listed in the slave
schedule along with the number of slaves, their sex, complexion, and
age. If there were several owners to a slave or slaves, the name of just
one of the owners would be entered on the schedule. When the slaves
were owned by a corporation or trust estate, the name of the
corporation or trustee was to be recorded. In addition to the free
inhabitant and slave schedules, there were four other schedules:
mortality, agriculture, industry, and social statistics.' In general, the
federal enumerations provide an array of statistical information to be
compiled and analyzed, but the information can be misleading.

For example, statistics on the number of free black heads of

household owning slaves can be deceiving when compiled from the
federal enumerations from 1790 through 1840. The problem stems
from the fact that slaves recorded in family dwellings were
occasionally held by more than one member of the free household. As a
result, the number of slaveowners might have been greater, while the
average number of slaves held would have been smaller. Such
numerical statistics, then, must be stated with much caution.

The free black heads of household who were reported with slaves
on the 1790 through 1840 censuses should not be referred to as
individual slaveowners unless added data has been acquired to suggest
ownership of slaves. In several instances, the black heads of household
listed as having slaves in their dwellings were not the actual owners,
but merely the heads of household, while other free black residents
were the legal slaveowners. In 1840, for example, Anthony Weston a
free black of Charleston Neck, was reported as the head of a household
which included eight slaves; however, the legal owner of the slaves was
not Anthony Weston, but his wife, Maria Weston, who recorded six
bills of sale for nine slaves between 1833 and 1840.' One can see that to
infer slaveownership solely from a single census return and without
added evidence can be quite misleading.

Leonard P. Curry, author of The Free Black in Urban America

1800-1850, observes the possibility "that some or all of the slaves
residing in a free black family were held by white owners but were
permitted to make their own living arrangements and boarded with free
Negro families."' If his observation is correct, it would diminish the
number of black households which held slaves and the number of
slaves living in the free black dwellings as well as further reducing the
reliability of the census. According to Curry, the federal census
marshals did not make the distinction between slaveowning and slave-
boarding free blacks; therefore, what apparently suggests
slaveownership may not be accurate.

Leonard P. Curry's concerns about the procedures with which the

federal census marshals recorded the census returns must be examined
more closely. Instructions given to the enumerators required them to
record the number of slaves living in a family dwelling as well as to
report slaveownership. However, the instructions conferred to the
federal census marshals were not always precisely followed, so it
seems conceivable that several of the slaves held by free black
households were boarding with them and not owned by free blacks. But
the Act of 1806 stipulated that slaves living outside of their master's
household must have tickets or written permission from their owners.
The statute also made it illegal to rent directly to a slave any lot, house,
or enclosure.6 It seems unlikely that the white community of
Charleston City, which was fearful of a possible slave rebellion and
associated slave discontent with free blacks, would have permitted so
many free black heads of household-more than two out of three-to have
a total of more than 1,000 slave boarders, just eight years after the
Denmark Vesey slave plot, which was organized by a free black man.
In addition, during the secession crisis, when the loyalty of free blacks
was being questioned, only 16 free black families had slave boarders,
according to Claudia Dale Goldin's analysis of the Charleston City
Census of 1861.' The small number of slave boarders implies that the
trend away from boarding was established much earlier, perhaps as a
result of the Denmark Vesey slave plot. Consequently, slave boarding
was not a major factor in the free black community and cannot account
f o r the majority of recorded slaveholding among free blacks in
Charleston City. On the whole, the paranoia of the white community
did not allow the vast majority of free black heads of household to have
many slave boarders for fear of collaboration which would have led to a
possible slave rebellion.

Interestingly, black slaveownership did not represent a threat to

t h e safety of the white community. Edwin C. Holland, a leading
Charleston literary figure during the 1820s, remarked that most of the
mulattoes of Charleston City owned "slaves themselves and are,
therefore, so far interested in this species of property, as to keep them
on watch and induce them to disclose any plans that may be injurious to
our peace."' Holland's belief that free black slave masters served a
useful purpose to the white community was shared by other white
citizens. In 1835, the editor of the Charleston Courier defended the
right of the free black to own slaves on the grounds that "his right to
hold slaves gives him a stake in the institution of slavery and makes it
his interest as well as his duty to uphold it. It identifies his interests and
his feelings in this particular with those of the white population ...... 9

Furthermore, free blacks who held family members as slaves

could not afford to become involved in any slave uprising or any overt
opposition to the institution of slavery for fear that if they were
discovered their slave relations could be confiscated and sold. By and
large, whether free blacks owned slaves as laborers or as family
members, they did not pose an immediate threat to the institution of
slavery. Nevertheless, the white community probably prevented most
free blacks from taking slave boarders.

If slave boarding cannot be considered a valid explanation for free

black heads of household with slaves, the opposite is true for slave
hiring. A few scholars have suggested that the federal census did not
distinguish between slaveowning and slave hiring. According to a small
group of historians, the census returns of 1850 and 1860 cannot be used
to determine slaveownership because of the prevalence of slave hiring
in Charleston City. One scholar chooses to refer to the slaveholders
recorded on the slave schedules as "slave users and owners. "10 It is
true that several free blacks used the labor of hired slaves as well as
hiring out their own slaves to prospective users. For example, Nancy
Emanuel, a free black of Charleston City, hired a slave woman named
Diana for $2.50 per month in September 1825. In 1826, Helen Inglis, a
free mulatto woman, hired a slave named Mosley to work in her
business on Ellery Street for $3.50 per month. In 1841, Jacob Weston, a
free mulatto and a tailor of Charleston City, used the labor of a slave
named Henry Devand in his tailor shop on Queen Street. Weston later
purchased the slave in January 1842 for $700.11 However, the dilemma
confronted is not whether free blacks hired slaves but whether the
federal census marshals distinguished between slaveowners and slave
hirers.

An effective method to determine the reliability of the federal

census in regard to slaveownership is that of cross-checking the
enumeration returns with local records. Among the state and local
records which are best suited to determine slaveownership are tax
returns. But the tax lists do not span a long period of time and can be
used only in certain counties. The tax list of 1824 provides information
on the ownership of human chattel; however, it does not include a
complete record of Charleston City. Nevertheless, other state and local
records can be used to determine slaveownership. Among these records
are bills of sale, church directories, guardian and trustee returns,
inventories, newspapers, and wills. Such documents stipulated
slaveownership, and in most cases the races of the slaveowners were
revealed. However, these records were not intended to record all of the
slaveowners as were the tax lists. With the exception of the tax
documents, the state and local records mentioned provide only a partial
listing of the free black slaveowners because most of the slave masters
did not report their slave transactions.

A cross-check made with the aforementioned records will

determine what percentage of free black slaveowners recorded on the
federal census had documents which proved their ownership of slaves.
Since the majority of free black masters lived in Charleston City, the
cross-check shown in Table 1.1 has been made in that city.

As previously stated, the tax records are by far the most precise
source to determine slaveownership. Table 1.1 reflects the accuracy of
the tax lists and the federal census in proving the ownership of slaves
by free blacks. When the cross-check was made using the tax records of
1859 and 1860, only four black slaveowners listed by the federal census
marshals as slave master did not appear on the tax lists. Without the
benefit of the tax lists, the cross-checks between 1830 and 1850
demonstrated that an average of 24.5 percent of the free black
slaveholders listed by the federal census marshals had documents to
prove their ownership of slaves. But the high accuracy exhibited by the
federal enumeration of 1860 strongly suggests that the earlier census
returns were just as accurate. Consequently, the census of Charleston
City can be used to demonstrate slaveownership rather than slave
boarding or slave hiring.

Yet the federal census is plagued by one major problem, which is

an undercount of the residents. As with all censuses, the federal
enumeration of 1860 failed to report the presence of all its people.
Furthermore, the problem of undercounting appears to be more
prevalent among free persons of color rather than among the white
citizens of Charleston City, and the under-representation of
Charleston's free black community was common to all its social and
economic groups. For that reason, the census returns cannot be
considered a complete account of free coloreds or free colored
slaveowners.

A comparison of the eighth federal census with the tax list of 1860
clearly shows that the number of free black slaveowners reported by the
federal census marshals was vastly underestimated. For example, 79
(62.2 percent) of the black slaveowners reported on the tax list of 1860
appeared on the eighth federal census. Of the 79 slaveowners recorded
on the tax list and the federal enumeration, only 46 (58.2 percent) of
the slaveowners reported to the federal census marshals that they were
slave masters, while 33 (41.8 percent) chose not to inform the federal
enumerators that they were slaveowners.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of
the United States, 1830, 1840, 1850, 1860: Schedule I do 11, South
Carolina; List of the Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for 1859,
1860; Bills of Sale 1825-1863 (Secretary of State); Inventories 1820-
1863 (Charleston County); Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records
(Charleston County); Record of Wills 1825-1865 (Charleston County).

One reason for blacks' not reporting their ownership of slaves was
their kinship ties to their human chattel. For example, John Morris, a
free black and a wheelwright of Charleston City, purchased his two
daughters, Rosana and Carolina, from Josiah A. Payne for $300 in
1849. After Morris bought his two girls, he purchased his wife, Grace,
and their son Joseph from William Bee for $500 in 1851. Rather than
tell the census taker that his wife and children were slaves, he simply
stated that his loved ones were free blacks. According to the eighth
federal enumeration, Morris' household consisted of his wife, Grace
Morris, and their four children, Rosana, Carolina, Joseph, and Peter
Morris. Although he reported his family as free persons of color, he
still paid the city taxes for five slaves. Like John Morris, some other
free blacks refused to consider or refer to their family members as
slaves. As a result, few of these colored slaveholders told the federal
census marshals that their kinsfolk were slaves.' 2

If the under-representation of 1860 was typical, then the early

census returns may have excluded as many as one half of the free black
slaveowners in Charleston City. By and large, while the federal
enumerations can serve as an excellent source to demonstrate
slaveownership, they do not adequately calculate the number of free
black slaveowners and their slaves in Charleston City.

As we leave the confines of Charleston City and enter into the

rural areas of South Carolina, the census returns become difficult to
interpret. In the back country, free blacks occasionally resided on
plantations and farms which had white owners. It was not unusual for
free blacks to work on plantations and farms as slave drivers and
overseers. Consequently, when the white owners left their estates
during the summer season to escape the dreaded fever, or when they
were simply absentee planters, their free black slave drivers and
overseers were left in charge of the estates. Also there were free black
artisans, tenant farmers, and former slaves living on the estates owned
by white planters and farmers without any white presence on the
premises. So when the federal census marshals reported the returns for
plantations and farms where only free blacks and slaves lived, they did
not always record the white owners among the current tenants.
However, the federal census takers recorded the names of the white
owners as the heads of household. Even though the white owners were
thus reported, the census returns implied that the free black tenants
were not only the heads of household but slaveowners. Since the
households had a combination of free blacks and slaves, the logical
deduction would be to consider the free black occupants as
slaveowners.

An example of another sort of confusion is found in the 1840

census, which reported that Elias Collins and Frederick Rutledge were
heads of household, with free colored persons and slaves living in the
dwelling. The information reported by the enumerators implied that
both men were free blacks and slaveowners, but that was true only for
Elias Collins. According to the tax list of 1824, he was a free black and
the owner of 37 slaves. Furthermore, he stated in his last will and
testament that he was a free person of color living in Georgetown
County. Frederick Rutledge, however, was of Caucasian descent. Both
of his parents, Frederick Rutledge and Harriet Pinckney Horry, were of
English heritage. The 1860 census reported that Rutledge was a white
planter of St. James Santee Parish." In short, a man who appears in the
records to be a free black slaveowner was in fact a white absentee
slaveowner whose estate was devoid of any white presence. The
dilemma of distinguishing between white absentee slaveowners and
free black slaveowners was a major problem outside of Charleston
City. Many of the large slaveowners who appeared to be free blacks
were actually white absentee slaveowners and planters like Frederick
Rutledge.

Another problem occurred when colored slaveowners hired white

overseers or had other whites residing on their estates. The federal
census marshals recorded the names of the heads of household, but
when a combination of free blacks and whites lived on the plantations,
the natural inference would be to classify the owner of the estate as
white, assigning the free black resident to the role of tenant. For
instance, Elias Collins was reported to be the owner of 34 slaves by the
federal enumerator of the fourth census. His household had a
combination of free blacks, slaves, and a white male over 45 years
old.14 After a careful examination of the census return for Elias
Collins, the logical deduction would be that Collins was the white male
living in the household, the head of the family and a slaveowner.
However, that observation is erroneous. In a cross-check of the census
return with state and local documents, the deduction that Elias Collins
was a white planter cannot be substantiated; rather, the crosscheck
firmly demonstrates that he was a free person of color and a
slaveowner.

Occasionally the estate was owned by a free black absentee

slaveowner. For example, Daniel Eady, a colored farmer of St. John's
Berkeley, was reported as the head of a household that included only
white females and slaves in 1810." Once again the census returns could
be interpreted to suggest that Daniel Eady was white. But in his last
will and testament, he declared that he was "a free coloured man of St.
Johns Berkeley...."16 Clearly, the census returns which report a sole
white male or his family residing on a plantation with slaves do not
always prove that the owner was white. By and large, the federal census
returns from 1790 to 1840 outside of Charleston City must be cross-
checked with state and local documents to ensure an accurate inference.

Carter G. Woodson, in "Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the

United States in 1830" clearly misinterpreted the federal census of
1830. Although Woodson and his associates accurately recorded
individual households which had free blacks and slaves living in the
dwellings, he mistakenly concluded that the heads of household were
free blacks and slaveholders.

Woodson's conclusions eliminated the possibility that some of the

dwellings had white absentee heads of household, yet such was
sometimes the case. For example, in 1830, Thomas F. Caper of St.
Thomas & St. Dennis Parish was reported by the federal census
marshal as the head of a household which included free blacks and
slaves. Based on that report, Woodson concluded that Caper was a free
black and a slaveowner. Yet the local records demonstrate that Thomas
F. Caper was a white planter of Charleston City. In the Directory of
Charleston City for 1830, he was listed as a resident of the city living
on 44 Meeting Street. Also, in 1850, he was reported as a white person
and a broker living in Ward Two. In many instances, the planters of
Charleston District lived in the city while they hired overseers to
manage their estates and occasionally their overseers happened to be
free blacks." In summary, Woodson's analysis of the federal census of
1830 failed to distinguish between free black slaveowners and white
absentee planters, and several of the slaveowners that Woodson
classified as free blacks were, in fact, white absentee slaveowners."

Even when the state or local records acknowledged that a slave

master was a mulatto, the statement of race was not always reflected in
the census. Many of the federal census takers were often confused by
the light complexion of free mulattoes and occasionally classified them
as whites. In 1850, for example, William Clarke and his family were
reported as white by the census taker of Charleston City, but that same
year, the city tax collector listed them as free persons of color.
Furthermore, the rector of St. Michael's Church listed William B.
Clarke and his wife, Frances A. Clarke, as mulattoes when the couple
had their child baptized in 1842.19 Clearly the problem of
distinguishing between mulattoes and whites befuddled many census
enumerators who did not know how to categorize mulattoes. To add to
the dilemma, the authorities of South Carolina refused to establish a
fractional criterion to define the blackness or the whiteness of their
mulattoes. Many prominent whites were fearful that an attempt to
define the term mulatto might push too many persons over the wrong
side of the color line. So there was no legal definition of the term
mulatto by the state legislature, and the problem of distinguishing
between mulattoes and whites became a matter for the courts to
determine.20

In 1831, Judge William Harper delivered the opinion of the Court

of Appeals in a case involving the blackness or whiteness of a mulatto.
Judge Harper declared that "we cannot say what admixture of negro
blood will make a colored person.... The condition of the individual is
not to be determined solely by distinct and visible mixture of negro
blood, but by reputation by his reception into society and his having
commonly exercised the privileges of a white man ... it may be well
and proper, that a man of worth, should have the rank of a white man
while a vagabond of the same degree of blood should be confined to the
inferior cast."" In essence, Judge Harper's decision allowed the white
community to determine who was to be considered as a mulatto or a
white. With the conditions for the elevation of free mulattoes to the
status of white citizens resting upon their wealth, conduct, and more
importantly, their whiteness of skin, the door to the white world was
kept judiciously open for a few mulattoes. And a small number of
mulattoes came through the door and crossed the racial barriers, thus
entering the world of whiteness in South Carolina.

The decision of Judge William Harper merely reflected the

methods by which race was determined in the past. During the colonial
period, the white community did not seem particularly adverse to
absorbing the lightskinned mulattoes of wealth into the white caste. For
example, the children of Gideon Gibson, a free mulatto, passed into the
world of the dominant caste without much ado. Gibson, a carpenter and
a slaveowner, migrated from Virginia to South Carolina in 1731. Once
entering the state, he established himself and several white females in
his family along the Santee River country on the frontier of South
Carolina. By the 1730s, he began to acquire land and later slaves. As
his wealth grew the status of his family began to change. For instance,
his daughter, a product of an interracial union, married an English
settler named George Saunders. After the death of Saunders, she
remarried to one of the wealthiest white men in the area.22

The oldest son of Gideon Gibson was accepted into the white
community. In fact, Gideon Gibson, Jr., became a leader in the
Regulator Movement, which was a spontaneous uprising of vigilante
groups orga nized to suppress the frontier robbers in 1765. Some years
later, as his respect within the white community grew, he was
considered a white man by most of his fellow citizens.23 However, not
all of the white citizens accepted Gibson as a white man. On the floor
of the state assembly, one legislator verbally attacked Gibson and
called for the withdrawal of his rights as a white citizen on the grounds
that he was a Negro. Fortunately for Gibson's sake, Henry Laurens, a
merchant and political leader of Charleston, openly challenged
Gibson's critics to compare the red and white associated with the
Englishness of his face with that of the average member of the
assembly of French Huguenot ancestry. Needless to say, the debate
concerning the ancestry of Gibson came to an abrupt conclusion. The
experience of the Gibson family was not an isolated event, particularly
among the mulatto slaveowners and planters.20

The process of assimilation can be seen in the recollections of

Duke de la Rouchefoucault Liancourt during his travels of 1794. He
recalled that a free Negro man named Pindiam was so successful that
he was able to break the racial barriers. According to the French
traveler, Pindiam was an emancipated slave from St. Paul's Parish in
Charleston District who rose from slavery to freedom and later
acquired a plantation as well as 200 slaves. In spite of his African
blood, Pindiam was so respected in the white community that he
married a white woman and several years later gave his mulatto
daughter in marriage to a white man. Clearly the wealth of Pindiam
appears to be the dominant factor which facilitated his entrance into the
white world. If the duke's accounts were accurate, it appears that money
could have the effect of whitening the skin of wealthy free blacks.25

And in fact, Duke de la Rouchefoucault Liancourt's recollections

were not far from the truth. The individual he referred to as Pindiam
w a s a real person, but his actual name was James Pendarvis.
Furthermore, he was a free person of color and a slaveowner from St.
Paul's Parish in Charleston District as the duke recalled. According to
the 1786 tax list for St. Paul's Parish, he paid taxes on 113 slaves and a
plantation which contained 3,250 acres of land. James Pendarvis was
married to a white woman, Catherine Rumph Pendarvis, who was the
daughter of Peter Rumph, a white planter of St. Bartholomews Parish in
Charleston District. And their daughter, as the duke said, married a
white man. Actually, they had two daughters, both of whom married
into the planter class. Ann Pendarvis was wed to Samuel Perry, and
Elizabeth Mary Pendarvis married a planter named Thomas Smith, Jr.
The reminiscences of Duke de la Rouchefoucault Liancourt were
astoundingly accurate.26

Yet a few aspects of his accounts were slightly overstated. For

example, he overestimated the number of slaves owned by James
Pendarvis. According to the first federal census, Pendarvis owned 123
slaves and not 200 slaves as the duke reported in his book.
Furthermore, the federal enumerator did not refer to James Pendarvis
as a free Negro but as a white man. The federal censuses of 1790 and
1800 as well as the tax lists of 1785 and 1786 reported James Pendarvis
and his family not as free persons of color but as white persons.

When the federal marshals and the tax collectors reported

Pendarvis and his family as white, their observations were inaccurate.
In 1735, Joseph Pendarvis, the father of James Pendarvis and a white
planter of Colleton County, wrote his last will and testament. He
declared that his children, James, Brand, William, John, Thomas, Mary,
and Elizabeth, were the offspring of his Negro woman, Parthena. So
James Pendarvis as well as his brothers and sisters were born of Afro-
Anglo heritage. In other words, they were mulattoes according to
English tradition.27 Indeed, the African features displayed by James
Pendarvis were so apparent that Duke de la Rouchefoucault Liancourt
referred to him as a free Negro and not as a mulatto. Yet in spite of his
noticeable African features, the white community considered him a
white person. As he began to prosper, his African ancestry became less
of a negative factor, thus facilitating his entrance into the white
community.

Judge William Harper's criterion for determining the whiteness of

mulattoes will not suffice for historical research. As with James
Pendarvis, the issue of race must be determined by documents which
specify race. For example, affidavits, church records, city directories,
census returns of 1850 and 1860, tax lists, and wills often provide the
race of the parties involved when they appear on more than one
document over a span of time. When the race of a slaveowner has been
reported as a mulatto, in spite of the fact that another document may
refer to him or her as white during an earlier or later period, he or she
should be considered a free person of color. The reason for considering
apparently white slaveowners as mulattoes when documents conflict in
regard to race is based on the observation that few whites went around
accusing supposed white persons of being Negroes unless there was a
grain of truth to the allegations. Since many free mulattoes sought to
disavow their African ancestry and use their European heritage to pass
into the world of whiteness, there were numerous affidavits recorded in
which supposed white persons were challenged to prove their claims of
unmixed racial descent. In many instances, the alleged white citizens
were mulattoes who chose to cross the racial barriers.

The limitations of being classified as colored caused many

mulattoes to gravitate towards the white community, and often times
they found white persons to attest to their claims of whiteness. In 1810,
Mrs. Martha Hill gave sworn testimony that Mary Ann Ladson was a
bonafide white woman.28 In another example, Mary D. Martin testified
that she was acquainted with Elizabeth Susan Garden for 40 years.
During that period of time, she was a classmate of Mrs. Garden at the
school of Mr. Thomas Parker. Although Mrs. Martin was not
acquainted with the parents of Mrs. Garden, she maintained that
"Elizabeth was received into the School of Mr. Parker as a white person
and has always been so regarded ..."29 Mrs. Martin also swore that
Elizabeth Susan Garden associated with white persons and was
regarded as a white woman by the community. Doctor J.W. Schmidt
declared that he had known both Elizabeth Susan Garden and her sister,
Rachel Gardiner, since the year 1807 and "regarded them as white
persons and entitled to white laws."30

In spite of the affidavits filed by Mary Martin and Doctor

Schmidt, Elizabeth Susan Garden and her sister were of African
descent. In fact, they were descendants of one of the oldest free colored
families in Charleston City. Their lineage can be traced back through at
least two generations of free mulattoes in Charlestown. They were the
children of George and Ruth Raper Gardiner, and the grandchildren of
William and Susanna Cole Raper. Their father, George Gardiner, was
among the few colored artisans in Charlestown during the 1770s, while
their grandfather, William Raper, and their great uncle, Thomas Cole,
the brother of Susanna Cole Raper, were mulattoes and bricklayers in
the port city. The respect that their father and grandfather received as
artisans appears to have been extended to the two colored women." Not
only were Elizabeth and Rachel respected in the community, but they
were regarded as white persons.

Occasionally free mulattoes married the daughters and sons of

white persons and were welcomed into white families. For example, the
mulatto children of Elijah Bass and his white wife, Milbury Eliza Bass,
o f Kershaw District, were accepted into the white society with little
ado. In spite of the African descent of their father, William, John, and
Martha R. Bass were educated as free white persons. Martha R. Bass
eventually married a white man, Thomas White. The husband of the
colored woman was a well-educated and respected Scotsman who
taught in the community school in Kershaw. Like her husband, Martha
White also was highly respected. She enjoyed all the rights and
privileges of a free white woman and was treated as such by her white
neighbors. Furthermore, her brother not only married a white woman
but petitioned the courts to legally declare his children to be white
persons.

The offspring of Elijah Bass and his wife were extremely

fairskinned and appeared to be white. Yet their light complexion was
not the only factor which allowed them to assimilate into the white
community. Their mulatto father, Elijah Bass, was referred to as a dark
quadroon and clearly could not pass for white. However, he was treated
by his white neighbors as a white person. Since Bass was a property
owner as well as a slaveowner, he shared much in common with his
white associates and thus was perceived not as a threat but as an ally by
his peers. For that reason, he was not subjected to the state capitation
tax which was required of all free black adults between 16 and 55 years
old. Furthermore, he broke many of the rules of Southern etiquette
which separated blacks from whites.32 For instance, Elijah Bass
associated with his white peers as equals and even ate at the same table
with his friends.

Such privileges granted to free mulatto slaveowners were not

unusual in the Palmetto State. For example, so respected was Elias
William Garden, a mulatto slaveowner of Charleston City, that the
local officials bestowed unto him the rights and privileges of a white
person in 1843.

I William B. Heriot a Justice of Quorum and Notary of the

Public in the City of Charleston ... certify that ... whereas [Elias
William Garden) is well known and ingood refute ... all persons
with whom he may sojourn and desire to receive his attestation
[should] grant to the said Elias W. Garden, being subject and
obedient to the Law, the benefits of common kindness and the
 rights and privileges of a free white citizen ...33

In spite of the fact that Elias William Garden was accepted by the
white community as a citizen, his racial identity was not altered. In the
federal census of 1850, he was classified as a mulatto planter living in
the household of his mother-in-law, Ann Mitchell. Yet neither Elias W.
Garden nor his wife, Henrietta Mitchell Garden, the daughter of James
Mitchell and the founder of the Brown Fellowship Society, was
required to pay the state capitation taxes demanded from adult free
Negroes."

In general, those persons with conflicting documents which state

their race were usually free persons of color. As a result of their wealth
and fair complexion, they were occasionally accepted as white citizens.
Consequently, when the federal census marshals reported the
composition of their households, they occasionally listed them as white
persons even though the marshals may have been aware of their African
ancestry.

It was not unusual for the descendants of mulatto slaveowners as

well as the descendants of mulattoes who intermarried with Indians to
reject their African ancestry and pass for free Indian. Many mulattoes
claimed to be free Indians to escape the limitations of being classified
as a free black. Once the free mulattoes were accepted as free Indians
by the local authorities, they were exempted from paying the state
capitation taxes imposed on the free black community. They also were
permitted to give sworn testimony in court litigation concerning the
race of their fellow companions who sought to evade the state
capitation taxes by proving themselves to be descendants of free
Indians."

The prevalence of free mulattoes who evaded the state capitation

taxes caused the editor of the Charleston Mercury to complain that
m a n y mulattoes unjustly wriggled out of the free black caste by
asserting that they were of Indian blood on their mother's side and
thereby exempt from the free Negro taxes. In 1821, for example,
Richard and Joseph Dereef were reported to be free mulattoes by the
city tax collector and therefore paid the state capitation taxes. Yet the
two colored brothers refused to accept their status and petitioned the
Court of Common Pleas to regard them as free Indians. On July 11,
1823, they won a court decision which certified them to be the
descendants of a free Indian woman. Consequently, the tax collector
could not demand that they pay the state capitation taxes. In that same
year, John Cain, an alleged free mulatto, was also declared to be a free
Indian by the Court of Common Pleas and thereby exempt from the
state capitation taxes.

Although some free mulattoes were declared to be of free Indian

descent by the courts, they seldom separated themselves from the free
mulatto community and often married free mulattoes as well as free
blacks. For instance, John Garden, a free mestizo or free Indian,
married the mulatto daughter of George Gardiner. In another example,
Flora Garden, the mother of John Garden and a free Indian, was wed to
Robert Baldwin, a free black man and a house carpenter of Charleston
City in 1801.36 To the eyes of the federal census takers, there was little
difference between the free Indians and the free mulattoes, and they
often confused the two races. Since most of the free Indian population
of Charleston City aligned themselves with the free mulatto
community, they are here included in the statistics of free colored
slaveowners of South Carolina.37

Perhaps the most difficult problem confronted when examining

f r e e black slaveholding is determining how much African descent
makes a free person of color. In several instances, the descendants of
mulatto slaveowners consistently intermarried with white persons and
subsequently passed for white. After generations of intermarriage,
should the descendants of mulatto slaveowners be classified as free
persons of color or as white persons? In 1733, the legislature of
Jamaica confronted the problem of the demarcation between mulattoes
and whites. According to the legislature, no one would be deemed a
mulatto when three generations removed from his Negro ancestor;
rather he would be classified as a white person. In South Carolina, there
was no law similar to the Jamaican statute. However, in South Carolina,
the courts were empowered to draw the line between the two races, and
it was usually determined that those between one-fourth and one-eighth
Negro ancestry would be considered white persons. For the sake of
categorizing that segment of the slaveholding population, those
slaveowners who were three generations removed from their African
ancestry will be viewed in this book as white persons and not included
among the free black slave masters."

In this volume, the statistics compiled from the federal

enumerations have been adjusted to present a more accurate depiction
of free black slaveholding. Consequently the statistics include the
slaveowners or heads of household who were classified as free persons
of color as well as the mulatto slaveowners who were established as
white citizens or were misinterpreted as white persons, while excluding
those slave masters who were three generations removed from their
Negro ancestry. Furthermore, enumerated persons who appeared to be
free black slaveowners but were actually white absentee slave master
are excluded, while free black absentee slaveowners are included in the
free black slaveholding population. These adjustments have been made
to provide a more accurate representation of black slaveholding in
South Carolina.
 On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the
Emancipation Proclamation, thus initiating the legal process to free the
slaves in the rebelling Southern states and eventually to eliminate
chattel slavery in North America. The ramifications of Lincoln's
proclamation affected not only thousands of white slave masters but
hundreds of black slaveholders. In Charleston City, for example, there
were 91 free black masters who owned 268 slaves when President
Lincoln signed that historic document. Upon the conclusion of the Civil
War, more than 75 black masters in that city were instructed to free
their slaves, who numbered 241 bondsmen.

The number of black slaveowners during the war years was a

fraction of the total slaveholding community of Afro-Americans over
all the slavery years in South Carolina. In 1860, the number of black
slave masters was reported to be 171 persons, who held 766 slaves in
the state. By 1860 the phenomenon of black slaveholding was
declining. In fact, between 1850 and 1860, the number of colored
masters decreased by 42.4 percent while the number of slaves declined
by 40 percent. Yet before the sixth federal census, free black
slaveholding was by no means a diminishing enterprise but a growing
trend which peaked in 1840.'

When the first federal census of 1790 was taken, the number of
free colored slaveholders was quite small, but it gradually grew to a
modest size. In 1790, the community of slaveholding colored persons
stood at 59 slave masters who held 357 bondsmen. Within ten years,
their numbers had declined to 45 slaveowners; however, the number of
slaves held by the colored persons increased to 414. In Charleston City,
the number of colored masters was reported at 36 by the census takers
of 1790. By the next federal enumeration, the number of urban slave
masters had declined to 29. At least part of the decline in slave masters
over the decade can be attributed to the fact that many of the black
masters owned loved ones as nominal slaves and subsequently
emancipated them from the legal bond of slavery; thus the number of
slaveholders gradually decreased. Also, many colored persons, such as
Peter B. Mathews, bought slaves only to emancipate them and asked
nothing in return for their acts of benevolence. In 1790, Mathews, a
butcher by trade, owned a black man named Hercules, who was
acquired for humanitarian reasons and later emancipated by the colored
man.2

By 1820, the number of colored slaveholders began to grow

significantly. Between 1800 and 1820, the number of black masters
increased by 411 percent, or an addition of 186 slaveowners. The
growth of the community of black slaveholders continued for the next
20 years. Between 1820 and 1830, the community of Afro-Americans
who owned slaves increased by 95.6 percent. According to the census
of 1830, there were 450 slave masters of African ancestry. By 1840, the
number of colored masters came to 454.

The rapid growth in the community of black slaveholders can be

attributed to several factors. After 1820, free blacks who purchased
kinsfolk or friends could not emancipate their loved ones without the
approval of the state assembly, which seldom granted such
manumissions. Consequently, the black slaveholders who normally
would have freed their slaves were forced to hold their loved ones as
chattel and report their kinsfolk as slaves to the census takers. Thus the
normal process of decline through manumission was no longer a factor
in the state. Furthermore, the period from 1820 to 1840 witnessed the
economic development of the free black community. Many persons of
color acquired the capital to purchase slaves. These new slaveowners
were not related to their slaves by the bond of kinship; they bought
slaves to be used as laborers. During the 1830s, Elsey Lee, a free black
woman of Charleston Neck, purchased a black family which consisted
of a woman named Kitty and her children, John, Ben, and Diana.
Sometime after the acquisition, the free black woman hired out her
slaves to non-slaveowners and kept the proceeds made by her servants.
With the elimination of private manumission and the rise of
commercial slaveowning, the number of black masters grew
substantially after 1820.3

By 1840, however, the community of black slaveholders was

beginning to suffer a decline. Between 1840 and 1850, the community
of AfroAmerican slaveowners decreased by 34.5 percent. Most of the
reduction occurred in Charleston District, where the majority of the
colored slaveowners lived. The largest losses appeared within the
community of Charleston Neck, where the number of colored
slaveowners decreased by nearly 120 masters, leaving only 58
slaveholders in 1850.

Such dramatic declines were caused by several factors. One reason

was that many free blacks who owned slaves refused to inform the
census takers of their slave property. For example, Peter Desverneys, a
free mulatto of Charleston Neck, did not report his slave, Laviana Cole
Sanders, when the enumerator inquired about the composition of his
household in 1850. Yet the female slave had been in the service of the
colored man since 1837 and remained under his authority until 1861.4

However, the major reasons for the decline of colored slave

masters were the death of several slaveowners and the liquidation of
their slave property as well as the pattern of outward migration. In
1840, Edward Logan, a free black of Charleston Neck, owned a girl
named Bella. Shortly after his death in 1850, the slave girl was sold by
his administrator for $600. Elsewhere in Charleston Neck, Peter H.
Merchant was reported by the census taker of 1840 to be the owner of
two slaves. Within ten years, he sold the slaves and moved to Colleton
District. While some free blacks moved to different parts of the state,
others simply left the state and settled in Northern cities. Shortly after
Thomas Hanscome purchased a slave named James from the estate of
his mother-in-law, Martha Inglis, he left the state and moved to
Philadelphia in 1845. Before his departure, he requested that John G.
Garden should be given the power to manage his slaves and other
investments)
 Between 1850 and 1860, the number of black slaveholders
decreased from 297 to 171, which was a loss of 126 slaveowners or a
decline of 42 percent. As the Union Army was approaching South
Carolina from the state of Georgia, the number of black slaveowners
was fewer than 100, and most of them resided in Charleston City.
 As the number of black slaveowners dwindled, their slaveholding
also declined during the period from 1840 to 1860. In fact, the number
o f slaves held by black slave masters decreased by 45.8 percent
between 1840 and 1850. Ten years later, the slave community had
dwindled from 1,277 in 1850 to 766 in 1860. Although much of the
decline resulted from the diminishing number of colored masters, the
reduced slaveholding of the black masters was a factor. Several colored
masters sold their surplus slaves and kept their most productive
bondsmen. Many urban slaveowners did not require the labor of several
slaves, and so they gradually decreased the number of slaves they held.
In 1848, Louisa R. DaCosta, a free woman of color from Charleston
City, sold 21 slaves to George Thompson for $6,635. By 1850 Mrs.
DaCosta and her husband, William P. DaCosta, retained the services of
ten slaves. Ten years later, the couple held eight slaves, and by 1862
they owned only seven bondsmen. Between 1830 and 1860, the number
of colored slaveowners who owned more than five slaves declined from
96 to 23 masters in Charleston City. During that same period of time,
the average slaveholding decreased from 4.5 persons in 1830 to 3.1
persons in 1860. Within six months before General Robert E. Lee
surrendered at Appomattox, there were at least 500 slaves held by free
blacks and the majority of these bondsmen resided in Charleston City.6

For the most part, black slaveholding was an urban phenomenon

and dominated the city of Charleston. In fact, the majority of the
colored slaveowners lived in the port city from 1850 through 1860.

The prevalence of urban black slaveowners can be attributed to the

economic development of the free black caste in Charleston City.
Clearly the urban setting provided the colored entrepreneurs with the
means to earn a livelihood and prosper. Many free blacks availed
themselves of the economic benefits which could be extracted from
Charleston City and worked as barbers, bricklayers, carpenters, mantua
makers, millwrights, pastry cooks, seamstresses, shoemakers, tailors,
and tin plate makers, thereby earning the capital to invest in slave
property. From 1810 until 1825, William Penceel, a free mulatto and a
tin plate worker from Charleston City, used the proceeds from his trade
to purchase slaves. In 1814, for example, Penceel bought an eight-year-
old named Stephen from E.M. Logan for $180. Nearly seven years
later, he purchased a servant woman named Nancy for $537.50.
William Penceel's acquisition of slaves did not cease with the purchase
of two slaves but continued into 1823. In that year, he bought Sukey
and her children, Thorn and Harriet, for $700. Within nine years, the
profits from his trade permitted him to purchase four slaves for a
combined sum of $1,417.50. As the economy of Charleston City
continued to expand, many free blacks were able to buy slaves and the
port city became the center of black slaveholding in South Carolina.'

Indeed, so widespread was black slaveholding in the city of

Charleston that the majority of free black heads of household owned
slaves from 1820 to 1840. When the first federal census of 1790 was
taken, it revealed that 36 out of 102, or 35.2 percent, of the free black
heads of family held slaves in Charleston City. By 1800 nearly one out
of every three colored heads of household were recorded with slave
property. Between 1820 and 1840, the percentage of slaveholding heads
of family ranged from 72.1 to 77.7 percent. In 1850, however, the
percentage of black heads of household owning slaves was a modest
42.3 percent.

The existence of black slaveholding in Charleston City was so

visible that a Northern visitor to the city commented that "a number are
free [blacks] and own slaves themselves. This may seem strange to
many Northern people especially to that class who cannot understand
nor appreciate that system of labor known as slave labor.""

As the free black community prospered, even marginal blacks

acquired the means to purchase slaves. In 1854, Rebecca Swinton, a 44-
yearold black woman with no reported occupation, somehow obtained
t h e money to purchase a 50-year-old slave named Mary for $100.
Elsewhere in Charleston City, Joseph Maxwell, a black fisherman,
owned two female slaves whose ages were 38 and 6 years old. In 1850,
the only property owned by the majority of the colored masters was
human chattel. For the most part, free blacks of wealth as well as those
of marginal status acquired slaves and thereby contributed to the high
percentage of colored heads of family who owned slaves in Charleston
City.9

It appears that throughout most of the antebellum period, the

majority of the urban black slaveholders were females. In 1820, for
example, free black women represented 68.2 percent of the heads of
family as well as 70.7 percent of the slaveholding heads of colored
dwellings.

In Charleston City, the female heads of black families dominated

the black slaveholding community. In 1850, the number of black
women who owned slaves was reported at 123 by the federal census.
Yet only 68 black men owned slaves in the port city. By 1860 the gap
between female and male slaveowners gradually decreased, and within
four more years the number of male masters surpassed the number of
female masters.

The great preponderance of free black women who owned slaves

can be attributed to several factors. The combined effects of
manumission, inheritance, and personal industry led to the substantial
number of female slaveowners. Since black women were the majority
of the slaves emancipated, they outnumbered their male counterparts
and remained more numerous than free black men during the
nineteenth century. Their superiority in numbers was reflected within
the slaveholding community of free blacks. As the number of
manumissions increased, many new females were added to the free
black community and both indirectly and directly influenced the
number of female slaveowners.

Without the increasing number of female slaves being

emancipated, the community of women slaveholders could not have
developed into a dominant force. Yet mere freedom did not guarantee
that the freed slaves would be capable of buying human chattel. In
many instances, rural emancipators facilitated not only the growth of
the free black population but also the number of colored slaveowners
because they provided their former servants with slave property. In
1810, John Warren, a white planter from St. Thomas & St. Dennis
Parish of Charleston District, emancipated his female slave, Judah
Warren. Shortly before his death, he requested that Judah Warren
should have six slaves, whose names were Jacob, Dick, Isaac, Patty,
Pleasant, and Stephen. Usually such conveyances were the result of
sexual liaisons which occurred during slavery and continued after the
women were freed from bondage. Undoubtedly many of the
slaveowning black women owed their freedom and human chattel to
white emancipators.10

However, the majority of black women who owned slaves

received their property from the inheritance provided by relatives and
spouses. In the will of Ruth Cole, she bequeathed the servant girl
named Amey to her daughter, Barbara Maria Bampfield. Elsewhere in
Charleston City, Richard Moore requested that "the following Negro
slaves ... Maria and her two children named Amelia and George and
Hestor also all the Household and Kitchen Furniture belonging to me at
the time of my death, In trust Nevertheless to and for the Sole and
Separate use ... of my Daughter Ann Forrest formerly Ann Moore." In
the same will, he gave his second daughter, Mary Brown, three slaves
named Silva, Rachel, and Andrew. Many colored slaveowners
bequeathed slaves to their children so that their offspring could have a
means of supporting themselves by hiring out the slaves to non-
slaveowners.I I

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of

the United States, 1820, 1830, 1840, 1850: Schedule !& 1!, Charleston
City, South Carolina; J.R. Honour, List of the Tax Payers of the City of
Charleston for 1860 (Charleston: Walker & Evans, 1861), pp.315-334;
Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1862, 1863, 1864 (Charleston).
 Many black women inherited their slaves from the belongings of
their husbands. When Jacob Kochler, a colored butcher of Charleston
City, died in the possession of six slaves (Sella, Lizzy, Mary, Jacob,
Selina, and Mary), his wife, Mary Kochler, who was the closest heir,
appropriated the slave property, which was valued at $2,530.12 Since
the mortality rate among black men appeared to be somewhat greater
than within the female population, many black women inherited slaves
from their husbands. The federal census recorded many black women
who were without spouses but who owned slave property which may
have been inherited from their spouses and was used to support
themselves. In May of 1852, for example, the husband of Charlotte
Carmand died at the age of 31 years and left her with two small
children. Upon the death of her husband, the 27-year-old colored widow
inherited a servant girl named Rebecca, who was hired out. In another
example, Elias W. Garden, a mulatto planter of Charleston City, died
after a long illness at the age of 37 years. He also left a wife, Henrietta
R. Garden, and five children. Yet Elias W. Garden provided his wife
with at least eight slaves, three of whom were sold to support the
family. By and large, the slave property inherited by free black women
attributed to the growth of black slaveholding within the female
population of Charleston City."

Not all of the slaveowning black females acquired slaves upon the
death of a spouse. Many colored women purchased slaves by their own
industry. These black women worked as pastry cooks, seamstresses,
and even as washerwomen. For instance, Rebecca Jackson washed the
clothing of many citizens from Charleston City and saved enough
money to buy slaves. In 1818, the colored woman purchased a black
girl who probably was used to help in the washing of her clients'
laundry." Upon her death, Rebecca Jackson was reported as the owner
of three slaves, Rose, Molly, and Martha, who were appraised at
$1,900.
 Throughout the antebellum period, free black women purchased
slaves in South Carolina. In 1824, Margaret Kelly bought a black man
named John for $1,200. Nearly ten years later, Jane Wightman bought a
black male who was trained as a locksmith for $625. A few months
before the raid on Harpers Ferry by John Brown, a colored woman
purchased five slaves from Peter Manigualt for $1,200. During the
early part of the nineteenth century, many of the slave purchases made
by black women were of their offspring who were owned by white
masters. In 1818, for example, Louise Florence purchased her daughter,
Manite, from her "old massa" for $230. As the number of colored
women who owned slaves steadily increased, they dominated the
slaveholding within the free black community of Charleston."

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of

the United States, 1850: Schedule I & II, Charleston City, South
Carolina.

During the nineteenth century, free black women were the owners
of a considerable portion of the slaves held by free persons of color in
the urban communities of South Carolina. In 1840, for example, half of
the slaves held by free blacks of Georgetown and Richland City were
owned by free black women. The colored women of Charleston City
held 478 out of 755, or 63.3 percent, of the slaves belonging to free
blacks in 1850. Within ten years, the portion of slaves held by free
black women declined to 43.1 percent of the slaves owned by free
blacks in the city of Charleston. In 1860, black women owned 166 of
the 385 slaves owned by free blacks. And, in 1863, they owned 129 out
of 268, or nearly half, of the slaves belonging to the free blacks of
Charleston City. By and large, the black slaveholding was an urban
phenomenon which was dominated by colored women.' 6

Even the majority of the slaves held by the free blacks of

Charleston City were females. In fact, out of 755 slaves owned by free
blacks, there were 452 females in 1850.

Perhaps the most striking fact about the statistics compiled from
the federal census is that 41.9 percent of the slaves held by free blacks
were females between 10 and 54 years old. The substantial percentage
of female slaves held by colored persons was not unusually high
because it reflected the slaveholding within the white community. For
instance, 38.6 percent of the slaves belonging to white citizens of
Charleston City were females between 10 and 54 years old. So the
distribution of female slaves owned by free blacks almost mirrored the
slaveholding of white masters.

Clearly the great preponderance of female slaves resulted from the

economic structure of Charleston City. Since the port city did not
develop an industrial base, the majority of the slaves worked in the
households of white citizens. In fact, the Charleston City Census of
1848 reported that 71.7 percent of slaves working in the city were used
as house servants and 46 percent of the laboring slaves were female
domestics. Surely the large number of domestic slaves indicates that
there was a great demand for such services in Charleston City."

Undoubtedly much of the slaveholding of free blacks centered

upon the hiring out of domestic slaves to white persons. Since the
slaveholding of free blacks was a statistical copy of white slaveowning,
t he large number of female slaves suggest that the colored masters
hired out their slaves for profit. In September 1852, for example, Ruth
C. Garden, a free mulatto of Charleston City, collected the wages of her
deceased mother's slaves, which amounted to $64.00."

Outside the urban centers, the slaveholding of free blacks was not
dominated by either female slaveowners or female slaves. In 1850, the
rural slaveholders of African heritage were overwhelmingly male.
Indeed, out of 38 colored masters, there were 31 male slaveowners in
the countryside. Unlike the cities and towns, male heads of household
were quite common within the community of rural free blacks. Clearly
the large number of male slaveholders reflected the prevailing trend in
the countryside of male heads of dwelling. By 1860 the number of rural
slaveholders who were black men remained at 31 slave masters while
the number of female slaveowners grew to 12. Even though the number
of black men who owned slaves remained the same, they still
represented the majority of the slave masters in the rural communities
of South Carolina.

The large proportion of male slaveholders can be attributed to

several factors. First of all, the managing of farms and plantations
usually was the function of males throughout the South because most
women did not have the desire or the economic resources to become
planters. Within the rural communities of free blacks, the situation was
quite similar to that in the white society. Many well-to-do black men
purchased farming land in South Carolina. In 1858, for example, Lamb
Stevens, a free black of St. James & Goose Creek Parish, bought 800
acres of land from A. V. Dawson for $3,500. Surely the cost of
commercial farming limited the number of free black women who
could have purchased such estates. Even the wealthy colored women
who were capable of buying plantations chose the comforts and
security of urban slaveholding. Furthermore, when free black women
inherited slaves and land, they often decided to sell their human chattel
rather than use their slaves in commercial planting. In 1855, for
example, Becky Glencamp, the wife of Isaac Glencamp, sold all of the
slaves, plantation provisions, and livestock belonging to her deceased
husband. By and large, free black men were the majority of the colored
slaveowners in the countryside of South Carolina.19

Throughout the rural communities of South Carolina, the use of

male slaves was quite prevalent among the colored slaveowners. In
fact, the major difference between rural and urban black slaveholding
was the balance of the sexes of the slaves held. Unlike the urban form
of slavery, female slaves did not dominate the slaveholding of rural
black masters. In 1850, for example, 159 out of 303, or 52.4 percent, of
the slaves held by free blacks in the countryside were male slaves.

Many of the colored planters tried to maintain a balance between

male and female slaves. In St. Stephen's Parish, for example, James
Peagler, a free mulatto and a rice planter, owned seven males and six
females in 1850. In another example, Margaret Mitchell Harris used the
labor of eleven males and eleven females to work her rice plantation in
Georgetown District in 1849.20
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Census of
the United States, 1850: Schedule I & II, South Carolina.

For the most part, free black planters relied on the labor of males
to till the soil of their farms and plantations. So the percentage of male
slaves was greater than in the slaveholding of the black urbanites of
Charleston City. For instance, male slaves between 10 and 54 years old
consisted of 30.6 percent of the slaveholding among the black planters
i n the rural localities, while the same age group of males represented
27.9 percent of the slaves held by black urbanities. Also, the total
population of male slaves surpassed 50 percent of the slaveholding of
the rural black masters. Yet the proportion of male slaves held by black
Charlestonians barely exceeded 40 percent. Undoubtedly the
differences of the two economies resulted in the disparities between the
slaveholding of rural and urban free blacks. Clearly the rural system of
slavery was predicated upon agricultural enterprise, which demanded
the labor of both male and female slaves and attempted to maintain an
equilibrium between the sexes. The urban form of slavery, on the other
hand, developed into a service economy, which was dominated by
female slaves who primarily worked as domestic servants.

The most apparent similarity between rural and urban

slaveholding within the free black society was the dominance of
mulatto slaveowners. Even though the free mulatto community
consisted of 48.7 percent of the free black population, they comprised
83.1 percent of the Afro-American slaveholders from South Carolina in
1850. Clearly the over-representation of free mulattoes was a reflection
of their privileged origins. Many of the mulatto slaveowners were the
offspring of white planters and merchants who provided them with
slaves. For instance, Thomas Hanscome, a white planter of St. James &
Goose Creek, provided the mulatto children of Nancy Randall, a free
black woman, with six slaves as well as stocks and bonds valued at
$150,000. Quite often the children from the illicit affairs of free black
women and white men were provided for by their fathers. In 1823, the
mulatto children of Henry Glencamp, the superintendent of the Santee
Canal, and Jenny Wilson, a free black woman, inherited 18 slaves as
well as the plantation called Pine Hill in Stephens Parish of Charleston
District.21 By and large, the ties of kinship between free mulattoes and
whites facilitated the ascent of many mulattoes into the class of
slaveowners.

Although many free mulattoes received their slaves from white

benefactors, most did not depend upon the gifts of white relatives. The
majority of the free mulattoes earned the money to purchase slaves by
t hei r own industry. Many mulattoes were trained as artisans and
provided services for their communities. With their skills and a
clientele, they soon prospered and subsequently purchased slaves. In
1849, for example, John B. Mathews, a free mulatto and a tailor, used
the proceeds from his business and bought a 30-year-old black man
named Jack from James C. Wilson and Jacob Weston for $350. In
Charleston City, Amelia L. Cornwell, a mulatto seamstress, used her
skills to purchase slaves.22 In 1858, the mulatto woman accumulated
$1,200, which was used to buy a black slave family.23 Throughout the
antebellum period, free mulattoes thus used their own industry to earn
the capital to be invested in slave property.

For the most part, the mulatto slaveowners used their bondsmen
as commodities. In 1846, for example, Robert Mishaw, a free mulatto
of Charleston City, was given a 25-year-old black slave named Joe by
his grandmother. Within one year, he sold the male slave to Peter Cain
for $650. While some mulattoes sold their slaves for profit, others used
the labor of slaves in their trades and businesses. In 1850, Frederick
Campbell, a free mulatto of Charleston City, utilized the services of a
21-year-old black male in his barber shop. In another example, Daniel
Peagler of St. Stephens Parish applied the labor of his slaves to work
the Upton Plantation and produced corn, peas, rice, and sweet potatoes
on a commercial scale. 24

As the free mulattoes began to exploit the labor of slaves, the gap
between blacks and mulattoes continued to widen. Since the majority of
the colored masters were mulattoes and their slaves were
overwhelmingly of black skin, a division developed between the two
classes which embraced both a racial and a class conflict. Within the
free black community of Charleston City, many mulattoes separated
themselves from the darkskinned segment of the free society. For
instance, they banned darkskinned people from their social clubs and
seldom married unmixed blacks. Many of the mulatto slaveowners
aligned themselves with the white society and helped to preserve the
system of slavery.25

The conflict between blacks and mulattoes was a class struggle

which can be vividly seen in the events causing the failure of the
De n m a r k Vesey conspiracy. As the slaves of Charleston and
Georgetown were preparing to break their shackles of bondage and take
their freedom, they were betrayed by a mulatto slave and a mulatto
slaveowner. In 1822, Peter Desverneys, the mulatto slave of J.C.
Prioleau, learned of the proposed rebellion. After seeking the advice of
William Penceel, a free mulatto slaveowner of Charleston City, who
urged him to tell his master of the slave plot, the slave told his owner
what he had discovered. Once the white slaveowners learned of the
rebellion, they arrested the rebels and prevented the revolt. When
William Penceel urged Peter Desverneys to betray the slave rebels, he
was protecting his slave property. In May of 1822, Penceel owned two
slaves and did not intend to free them.

Many of the mulatto slaveowners were commercial masters and

aligned themselves with the white community to preserve the system of
slavery. These mulattoes were aware that if the rebellion succeeded
they would lose their slaves and perhaps even their lives. So they sided
with the white society, serving as the eyes and ears of the white
slaveowners.

Although the proportion of colored slaveowners was quite small

when compared to the number of white slave masters, they owned a
modest percentage of the slaves in South Carolina. The black masters
of the Palmetto State owned nearly one percent of the slaves in 1830.
Within the city of Charleston, the proportion of slaves held by free
blacks was much larger than the statewide figure. In 1830, the colored
masters owned 7.7 percent of the slaves in the port city. By 1860 the
proportion of slaves held by black masters declined to 2.2 percent. Yet
at the height of black slaveholding, the presence of colored masters
could be seen throughout the city of Charleston.
 In antebellum South Carolina, it was not unusual for freed slaves
to purchase human chattel once manumitted. For many black
slaveowners, freedom had to be acquired before they could obtain the
capital to buy slaves.

From the early eighteenth century until the prohibition of private

manumission in 1820, the pattern of interracial intimacy appears to
h a v e been the most common means of gaining liberty in South
Carolina. It was quite common for female slaves and mulatto children
to be freed by white masters. Furthermore, the offspring of slave
women and their white owners often received not only their freedom
and a small endowment but slaves.

However, for other former slaves, the road to freedom was an

uphill journey. These ex-slaves earned their freedom by duties rendered
i n the Revolutionary War, or they worked in their spare time and
eventually saved enough money to buy their freedom. Still others were
granted their liberty because of faithful service given to their masters.
Once the ex-slaves broke their shackels of bondage and began to
prosper, they considered the acquisition of their own slaves. In fact,
many former slaves actually purchased slaves after they became firmly
established in the free community.

The sentiments of many freed slaves who became slave masters

were very ambiguous towards slavery. In spite of spending years in
bondage, the freed slaves habored no ill feelings toward their former
masters and showed no signs of a deep hatred for the institution that
enslaved them. The ex-slaves who owned human chattel regarded
slavery not as an oppressive institution but as an economic necessity
upon which their livelihood depended.

As slavery became an established institution in South Carolina,

emancipation was generally received upon the deathbed of slave
masters. For many slaves, freedom was obtained through the last will
and testament of their masters. The slaves thus receiving their freedom
were primarily females and mulatto children. In 1720, for example, a
mulatto woman named Ruth and her three children were manumitted by
James Gilbertson. In another example, Billy, the mulatto child of a
black slave woman, was emancipated by the will of a Berkeley County
widow in 1737. Eight years later, a mulatto child named Rachel
received not only her freedom but also an endowment of 100 pounds
upon the death of her mistress.' John Duncan wrote in 1972 that "the
miscegenous nature of South Carolina society is nowhere better
revealed than by the fact that one-third of all the recorded colonial
manumissions were mulatto children and three-fourth of all adult
manumissions were females."2

After the colonial era, female slaves and mulatto children

continued to be manumitted by their owners. In 1798, Nancy and her
daughter Mary were emancipated by the will of a Chyhaw planter.
Elsewhere in the state, Peggy, an African slave, and her mulatto child
were declared free upon the death of James Irving in 1800.'

In many instances, the female slaves and their mulatto offspring

were manumitted because of their kinship ties to their owners. Hetty
Marshal and her mulatto children were acknowledged as the offspring
of William Doughty when he freed his colored family in 1812. While
several masters recognized their mulatto offspring as their legitimate
heirs, other owners refused to publicly admit that the slave women and
mulatto children being freed in their wills were more than mere chattel.
Yet the provisions made by the slave masters for their female slaves
and mulatto children suggest, more than a humanitarian urge, the
responsibility of guilt-stricken masters. In 1779, Betty, the slave of
Deodotus Bradshaw, received her freedom as well as the entire estate of
her master. Usually, in cases where female slaves were given large
endowments from their owners, interracial intimacy had occurred.
Furthermore, the emancipation and bestowal of property to the mulatto
children by their owners suggest kinship ties between the slaves and
their masters. Carolina Harrison, a spinster of St. Bartholomew's
Parish, freed her mulatto slave, James Harrison, in her will. In addition
to his freedom, the mulatto child was given the proceeds from the sale
of his owner's slaves and a plantation on the high hills of the Santee as
well as three slaves.' By and large, the colonial trend of freeing female
slaves and mulatto children continued to be a major source of
manumissions in the early part of the nineteenth century.

In spite of the persistence of interracial intimacy, such

relationships did not always guarantee the freedom of the slave women
or their children. In 1792, the mulatto mistress of Isaac Broughton
Dwight was not freed. Yet Dwight directed his executors to sell his
estate and purchase the freedom of his daughters and the unborn child
of his colored mistress. Then he requested that his children were to be
educated and maintained during their lives from the interest of his
estate. Undoubtedly, many slave mistresses and their children were not
manumitted and continued to serve as slaves.5

However, other slaves did not have to depend upon the prayers
t h a t their masters would issue deathbed manumissions. In many
instances, the female slaves and their children received their freedom
by deeds of manumission rather than upon the death of their owners. In
Charleston City, Diana and her four children were freed from slavery
when her master issued a deed of manumission in November 1793.
Seven years later, Lucretia Clarke of Charleston City also recorded a
deed of manumission. She emancipated her black servant, Rose, and the
slave woman's children, Elizabeth and Mary, on August 6, 1800. In that
same year, the mulatto daughter of a black woman named Charlotte
was freed by John Gardiner Thorne, a sail maker of Charleston City.6
During the postrevolutionary era, many of the slaves freed by deeds of
manumission were female slaves and their mulatto children.

The pattern of emancipating slave mistresses and their children

was quite apparent in the deeds of emancipation. On March 26, 1811,
for example, Rebecca Thorne and her son were emancipated by a deed
of manumission from their owner, John S. Thorne. Once emancipated,
Rebecca and her son continued to live in the household of their former
master. However, her relationship with Thorne was not a servant-
master interaction but that of a husband and wife. In fact, while
Rebecca Thorne was a free woman, she gave birth to six mulatto
children by John S. Thorne. Furthermore, she inherited the estate of her
common-law husband. After his death, she received a house on
Boundary Street in Charleston Neck and four slaves. Like Rebecca
Thorne, many black women received their freedom because of intimate
relations with their white masters.'

Yet not all of the freed slaves owed their liberty to such intimate
relations. In many instances, slaves earned their freedom by
meritorious deeds in South Carolina. During the Revolutionary War,
the heroic deeds of slaves occasionally prompted the state assembly or
their masters to emancipate them. Even though slaves were prohibited
from bearing arms and fighting for colonial South Carolina, they
provided other services. Usually the slaves performed whatever non-
combat services were required of them. However, the lines between
non-military and military duties were often crossed. For instance, the
slave named Antigua was requested to go behind the British lines and
procure information concerning the movement and designs of enemy
troops. Antigua often performed his assignments at great risk to his
life. For his services to the state, he was granted the only reasonable
reward for his deeds. In 1783, the state assembly manumitted Antigua
as well as his wife and their children.'

While some slaves occasionally performed quasi-military duties,

others were assigned as servants to colonial officers. Mose Irvine, for
example, was required by his master to attend the needs of General
Francis Marion. While conducting his duties, he was captured by the
British and taken into the upper part of the state. But he somehow
escaped from the British and returned to his master. As a result of his
loyalty, he was manumitted by his master.9

The emancipations mentioned above were the exceptions rather

than the usual reasons for manumitting slaves in the state. Yet there
w e r e many ex-slaves who owed their freedom to the rising
revolutionary spirit of liberty and justice, which touched the hearts of
their former masters and influenced their manumissions. In 1797,
Joseph Wigfall, planter of Charleston District, provided for the
freedom of nine slaves. 10 Also, Sarah Chapman of St. Andrews Parish
requested that her slaves should be manumitted as well as given several
acres of land in 1799.11 The revolutionary rhetoric of freedom prodded
the conscience of slave masters, and some the guilt-stricken owners
freed their slaves.

During the postrevolutionary period, it was not unusual for slaves

to buy their freedom. Generally the slaves received the permission of
their masters to work outside of their environment to facilitate the
purchase. The hired-out slaves were primarily artisans who were
permitted to keep a small percentage of the fees given to their masters
for services rendered by them. Other slaves simply worked in their
spare time and accumulated enough capital to purchase their liberty. In
1782, Stephney, the slave of Robert Biddolph of Charleston District,
purchased his freedom from Biddolph for 80 guineas. After the
exchange of money, the slave was manumitted by his master.

The price of liberty for several slaves amounted to a considerable

sum of money. For example, the slave named Summer bought his
freedom from Thomas Jackson of St. Thomas Parish for 100 pounds
sterling in 1784. In that same year, Charles, the servant of John Bee
Holmes, was liberated from servitude for the sum of 200 guineas. Yet
for others, the price of freedom was a nominal sum. Emie, the house
servant of Peter Buyck, was manumitted from slavery when she gave
her master just ten pounds sterling in 1790.12 In Charleston District,
the number of contracts between slaves and masters for the freedom of
the bondsmen was quite significant, but the transaction was by no
means typical.

Throughout the state, the virtue and dedication of faithful servants

were occasionally rewarded by freeing the trusted slaves. In Charleston
District, Bess nursed a white infant named Benjamin Guerand as if the
child were her own. Once Guerand reached maturity, he recalled Bess'
faithfulness when he was a child. He declared his gratitude for the
services and rewarded the slave woman with her freedom in 1784.13 In
St. Bartholomew's Parish, Pender, the servant of Alexander Wilson,
was manumitted by her master for faithful services that she provided
her owner and given 100 pounds sterling in 1796. Elsewhere in the
state, Hagar was emancipated upon the death of her mistress, Mary
Holman, for faithful and meritorious services in 1798." By and large,
the faithfulness of many slaves resulted from their desire to prompt
their masters to manumit them for their diligent services.

During the postrevolutionary era, the free black population began

to grow by substantial numbers as manumission became more
widespread in the state. In 1790, the number of free blacks stood at
1,801 in South Carolina. By 1800 there were 3,185 free persons of color
living in the state. Between 1790 and 1800, the free black community
increased by 76.8 percent. But after 1800 the free black community
grew at moderate levels. The community grew from 3,185 in 1800 to
4,554 in 1810, which was an increase of 1,369 colored persons, or a rate
of increase of 42.9 percent. After 1820, the rate of increase was at a
much smaller level than in the period between 1800 and 1810. For
example, between 1820 and 1830, the population only grew by 16.2
percent; between 1830 and 1840, by 12 percent. The major reason for
the small rate of increase was the fact that manumission became a
legislative function in 1820. As the prerogative of the state assembly,
t h e number of emancipations never surpassed the number of
manumissions issued by the slave masters. Therefore, the rate of
increase declined after emancipation was no longer the prerogative of
the slaveholders."

As early as 1800, the state legislature attempted to control

manumission. In that same year, private manumission was regulated, if
not restricted, by the state assembly. Before 1800, personal
manumissions were similar to the traditions of the pre-revolutionary
era and issued by individual masters. In essence, a contract was
established between the slave master and the slave. Since no official
sanction was required by the law, a certificate of freedom was not
always given to the freed slave. But according to the Act of 1800,
manumission was legal only when a court of magistrates and
freeholders completed an investigation of the capacity of the slave to
function as a free person and then endorsed the deed of manumission.
In 1805, a slave woman named Rose of Marion County was
emancipated by her master after a court of magistrates and freeholders
investigated the capacity of the slave woman to support herself. After
the emancipation inquiry, her certificate of freedom stated:

Before me Robert Hodges ... we hereby certify upon the

 Emancipation on Oath of James Martin the Owner of a certain
Slave named Rose a black woman about 19 or 20 years old and
satisfactory proof has been given to us that the said Slave is of
a good character and is able and capable of gaining a
livelihood."

The statute of 1800 was used primarily to regulate the number of

slaves freed who could not support themselves because of illness or old
age. Undoubtedly, during the period before the legislation was passed,
several masters freed their old, infirm slaves who could no longer be
used as laborers, thereby ridding themselves of an added expense. Yet
the slaves who were without any economic resources to maintain
themselves found it difficult to function as free persons. So they
became an economic burden to the state and prompted the legislators to
regulate the emancipations of slaves."

However, the statute of 1800 not only regulated manumission but

restricted the growth of the free black community. According to the
l a w, manumission would be granted to slaves who could be self-
supportive. The law, therefore, made it difficult to manumit slave
children because they were too young to be capable of supporting
themselves. Before the measure was passed, the free black population
increased by 76.8 percent between 1790 and 1800. Once the law was
implemented, the rate of increase never surpassed that level.

In 1820 the state legislature passed a statute which banned

personal manumission in South Carolina. According to the Act of 1820,
slaveowners could not legally manumit their slaves without the consent
of both houses of the state assembly. In order to obtain the permission
of the legislature, the slave masters petitioned the state assembly to
issue a proclamation of emancipation which would free their faithful
servants. Yet obtaining the permission of the legislature was a difficult
task because most of the assemblymen believed that there were far too
many freed slaves and descendants of freed slaves in the state. As a
consequence, few slaves were manumitted by the state legislature.

In spite of the restrictions on personal manumission, many

faithful servants were illegally emancipated by their owners. In 1826,
Toney Weston, alias Anthony Weston, was freed by his master for
faithful services. The will of Plowden Weston, a wealthy planter of
Charleston District, requested that his executors should emancipate his
mulatto servant." In the will, he wrote:

In consideration of the good conduct and faithful valuable

service of my mulatto man Toney by trade a millwright I have
for some years past given him to himself of his time say from
the middle of May to the middle of November every year. I do
direct that the same indulegence be given to him for six years
from the time of my death during which time he may instruct
other servants in his Profession ... and at the expiration of six
years from the time of my death I will and direct that his whole
time be given up to him ... after the expiration of six years he
may be emancipated and set free or allowed to depart from the
State ... 19

Unfortunately for Anthony Weston, when his emancipation was

declared, the state legislature had banned private manumission.
Consequently, his emancipation was illegal unless the declaration was
approved by the state assembly. But there was no indication that the
legislature consented to the quasi-emancipation. The manumissions
granted by the state were restricted to slaves who performed herculean
tasks, thereby reducing the number of legal emancipations to a handful.
Even though Anthony Weston could not be legally freed by his master,
the executors of his owner allowed him to blend into the free black
community. Far example, the federal census marshals of the 1840 and
1860 censuses reported that Weston was a free colored person.
Furthermore, he paid free Negro capitation taxes in 1827, 1832, 1836,
1840, and 1846. The capitation taxes were required of all free black
men between 16 and 60 years old as well as free black women between
14 and 55 years old.20 By and large, Anthony Weston conducted
himself as if he were a free person of color in spite of the fact that he
received no official document from the state to prove his freedom.

In the same will of Plowden Weston, another faithful servant

named Lydia, alias Lydia Weston, was freed. In the will, he recalled
that

My Servant Lydia a colored woman with the greatest care and

tenderness waited upon me day and night during my severe
illness about two years ago and has ever since with unwearied
diligence devoted herself to my comfort attending to all my
wants and infirmities in consideration thereof her faithful
services I direct that she be permitted to act for herself in such
way as she may think will promote her own well being ... and I
give and bequeath to the said woman Lydia an annuity of sixty
dollars yearly ...31

Fortunately for Lydia Weston, the executors of her master allowed

her to act as a free person of color. Like Anthony Weston, she was
reported on the federal censuses as a free black. She, too, paid free
Negro capitation taxes in 1846.22 In short, Anthony and Lydia Weston,
like other black servants, obtained their freedom illegally because of
their faithful services rendered to their masters.

Once freed, the former slaves were usually prepared to embark

upon their new lives as free persons. As a result of the statute of 1800,
slaves were required to be able to function economically in the society
before emancipation would be granted. In other words, the freed slaves
must have a means of supporting themselves. Consequently, the slaves
who received their freedom were primarily semi-skilled and skilled
workers. In fact, the training that the former slaves received began at an
early age while they were in bondage. For instance, a slave named
Hagar was apprenticed to a seamstress when she was between six and
ten years old. When Hagar became sixteen years old, her apprenticeship
concluded with her emancipation. Other slaves were sent by their
masters to be instructed in the handicrafts by skilled artisans. In
Fairfield County, a slave named April Ellison was sent by his master to
Captain McCreighton to be apprenticed. Under the watchful eyes of his
teacher, the slave soon learned the trade of repairing and making cotton
gins. Once April had been sufficiently trained, he was manumitted by
his master. After the freed slaves finished their training, emancipation
was just a formality because of the preparation received as slaves.23

Former slaves began to enter into numerous trades. It was not

unusual for them to work as barbers, carpenters, cotton gin makers,
pastry cooks, shoemakers, and tailors. After George Mathews, a freed
slave, was released from bondage by his owner, Mrs. Martha Ann
Mathews, he applied his training as a carpenter to serve the citizens of
Charleston City.24 Like Mathews, many of the freed slaves directed
their skills toward the consumers of the urban cities and towns. As a
consequence, the freed slave artisans primarily served white clients
who were generally situated along the coast of South Carolina.

In the agrarian society of the Palmetto State, there was a constant

demand for skilled artisans on plantations as well as in the towns and
t he cities. The scarcity of artisans meant that the services of freed
slaves were in great demand. The need for artisans allowed former
slaves to provide their services to planters. Anthony Weston,
mentioned above, worked for Col. Benjamin Franklin Hunt as an
artisan. Weston used his training as a millwright to improve a thrashing
machine on the rice plantation of Col. Hunt. When Anthony Weston
finished the improvements, the thrashing machine produced 1,000
bushels of rice per day.

In Charleston City, there also existed a demand for skilled

laborers. In fact, ex-slaves who were artisans instructed the servants of
slaveowners in the skills of their trades in order to meet the demand for
trained workers. For instance, Sally Seymour, a former slave and a
pastry cook, taught a slave woman named Lydia in the art of cooking."
Elsewhere in the state, freed artisans worked in the smaller markets in
Beaufort, Georgetown, and Richland Counties.

Several former slaves acquired small shops to house their growing

businesses. In 1822, Mose Irvine owned a small shoe store on 11 Logan
Street in Charleston City. A short distance from his business was a
pastry store operated by a freed slave. On 80 Tradd Street, Sally
Seymour owned and managed a pastry establishment. Elsewhere in the
state, an ex-slave acquired a cotton gin shop. William Ellison of
Stateburg, Sumter County, operated a successful business repairing and
making cotton gins in the 1820s, and he continued the trade until his
death in 1861.26

Although several ex-slaves were able to purchase their own stores,

others were not so lucky. These former slaves simply rented vacant
buildings to practice their trades. Still other freed slaves used their own
homes to conduct their businesses. As the demand for their services
increased, they sought permanent lodging for their expanding
businesses. The increased volume of business forced the colored
entrepreneurs to seek not only new lodging, but laborers as well.

Many ex-slaves making their way up in the world of business

considered the acquisition of slaves to fulfill their demands for
workers. As the volume of their businesses increased, many ex-slaves
could not meet the growing demands for their services solely by
themselves. Due to the increased demands for the skills of colored
entrepreneurs, they were compelled to acquire laborers. In the
antebellum South, there existed two sources of labor to be exploited by
the colored artisans. The first supply was free labor. But the availability
of free labor was primarily restricted to free blacks because most
southern white workers found it difficult to work for black persons. The
black entrepreneurs, therefore, sought the services of free black
workers, but the supply of colored laborers was also limited. As a result
of the demand for skilled and unskilled workers, there was a constant
need for free black artisans as well as laborers. Furthermore, the desire
among the free black laborers to work for themselves contributed to the
shortage of workers. So the supply of free black laborers could not be
always utilized by the freed slaves. In short, the ex-slaves often sought
the services of the most available supply of labor present, which was
slave power.

In Charleston City, it was quite common for freed slaves to use

t he labor of slaves in their businesses. In 1795, for instance, Sally
Martin, otherwise known as Sally Seymour, was manumitted by
Thomas Martin. Once freed, she worked as a pastry cook to support
herself and her mulatto children. As the demand for her trade increased,
she could not provide her services by herself. Clearly, Sally Seymour
was compelled by the need for laborers and so she acquired slave
workers. Just seven years after Seymour was freed, she purchased a
black female named Chloe from James Bulgin for $400. The aid of the
slave woman was sufficient to meet much of the demands required by
her business. However, years later she began searching the market
place for another laborer. On August 6, 1814, she bought a black male
named Felix, who was about 21 years old, from James Mackie for $800.
Under the instruction of Sally Seymour, the slave was trained in the art
of cooking. For nearly ten years, Felix worked as a cook in his owner's
pastry shop."
 Needless to say, Sally Seymour saw the utility of slave labor. Her
need for workers undoubtedly stimulated her to buy and use the labor
of slaves for her own benefit. Consequently, she used slave labor with
little remorse or guilt. In fact, her ownership of human chattel spanned
more than 22 years, and during that period of time, she used the labor
of at least four slaves. When Sally Seymour died in 1824, she left
behind an estate that was valued at $1,645.75 and consisted of two
slaves, her cook Felix, and a servant woman named Jenny, who was
assessed at $100. So acceptable were the benefits of slavery to Sally
Seymour that she even provided her daughter with two slaves shortly
before her death. On March 12, 1823, she sold two slaves named Flora
and George to her daughter, Eliza Seymour Lee, for the nominal sum of
five dollars.2e

Philida Turner, an emancipated slave of Charleston Neck, was

another former slave who was aware of the utility of slavery. Six years
after Turner was manumitted, she bought a female slave named Celia
a n d the mulatto child of the slave woman from Samuel Barnett, a
planter of St. James Santee, for $500 in 1810. Clearly her occupation as
a seamstress influenced the acquisition of slaves. Philida Turner
continued to use the services of Celia until 1825, when she sold her
servant woman to Augustus F. Gaillard for $300.29

In Charleston City, Bersheba Cattle, the former slave of J.H.

Stevens, invested in slaves. In 1818 Cattle purchased a servant woman
named Nanny, who was about 38 years old, from Mrs. Motta for
$550.30 Rather than employing the slave in her business, she hired the
woman out to prospective users. In the will of Bersheba Cattle, she
requested that "my said Executors shall receive the wages of the said
wench Nanny ..."31 Prior to Bersheba Cattle's purchase of Nanny, she
bought a slave named Rose from Susan Fenwick, a colored woman, for
$400. In 1813, she probably utilized the services of Rose, who was a
seamstress, by hiring out the slave woman. After less than one year of
using the labor of Rose, she became displeased by the conduct of her
servant and sold the slave to Dr. Robert Magwood for $400.32

In short, the economic benefits of slavery stimulated ex-slaves to

buy slaves to be utilized as laborers in their businesses or hired out to
nonslaveowners for fees. In a society where slavery was an accepted
form of labor, it was not surprising that former slaves exploited the
vast reservoir of slave labor.

The ex-slaves who acquired slaves for their own benefit often
assimilated into the culture of white slaveowners. They viewed slavery
as a viable and legitimate institution which was to be exploited for
profit. For example, Hannibal, the former slave of Thomas Dearington
and a slave driver, requested that his executors invest the proceeds
from his estate into the purchase of "as many young Negro Woman (as
the different sums con- solodated will buy) and ... to be put on shares or
hired out ..."33 Also like the white slave masters, the ex-slaves who
rose from bondage to slaveownership used their human chattel as
collateral to secure loans. In 1794, Sabinah, a free black woman of
Charleston City, used her slaves named Myretetta, Charlotte, and
Cornelia as security to procure a loan from James Hamilton Thomas for
239 pounds sterling and 12 shillings." In South Carolina, a high degree
of acculturation can be observed in virtually every facet of the lives of
the ex-slaves who acquired human chattel for profit.

For many former slaves, the process of acculturation can be

partially explained by their experience as slaves. E. Horace Fitchett
noted in 1940 that "in a very real sense ... these persons were not slaves.
They were in some instances recognized as the offspring of the upper
caste member; they were allowed freedom of action and movement;
and they were accorded special privileges. Thus they were not treated
as slaves nor did they conceive of themselves as slaves."" Fitchett's
observations are quite correct. The mulatto offspring of slave women
and white slaveowners, in many instances, were treated not as slaves
but legitimate heirs. According to their wills, white slaveowners often
manumitted their slave children as well as providing for them
economically. For example, the slave offspring of George Galphin, a
white merchant of the Silver Bluff, were not only freed from the legal
restrictions of slavery but educated while in servitude. Although the
slave children of Galphin were technically his property because they
were born to slave women owned by him, he did not treat them as his
chattel. According to the accounts of Bernard Elliotts, a recruiter
during the Revolutionary War, the slave children of Galphin were
educated. Also, Elliotts never mentioned that the offspring of the slave
master were slaves.

In fact, the relationship between Galphin and his offspring went

far beyond the exchange between master and slave to an interaction
between father and child. So it was that in his will, he requested that his
children should be emancipated and given a portion of his estate. He
requested that his mulatto daughter, Rachel, should be granted her
freedom as well as four African slaves from the first ship that arrived
in the state.36

In many instances, mulatto children were offspring of white

slaveowners and slave women who lived together as husband and wife.
For example, John Walker, a white slaveowner of Charleston City,
fathered eight mulatto children by his slave woman named Ann Jones
Walker. Although the couple was not legally married, the relationship
was primarily that of husband and wife. Yet the mulatto children of
John Walker were unable to exercise their freedom legally. Even
though their father petitioned the state assembly to emancipate them,
the request was denied in 1825. Nevertheless, the mulatto children of
Walker acted as though they had been legally freed and even owned
slaves for their benefit. According to the will of John Walker, his
colored family was given the wages of the slaves owned by him. After
his death, Ann Jones Walker and her children received the wages of
John, Stephen, Catherine, Flora, Mary, Lewis, and Peter, which
amounted to $76.50 for the month of March 1840. As well as receiving
the wages of the slaves held in trust for the colored family by Edward
North, they eventually acquired the ownership of the slaves bequeathed
to them. But none of the family members chose to emancipate their
slaves, and so they continued to exploit the labor of slaves for their own
benefit like their father.37

The mulatto children of slave masters, who were accepted as

legitimate heirs held a position in the household of their fathers which
placed them in a superior status over the other slaves. These children
w e r e accustomed to the master-slave relationship; however, they
conceived of themselves not as slaves but slave masters. In spite of the
fact that they were of African descent, the white blood that ran through
their veins separated them from their fellow black slaves on the estates
of their fathers. For example, the children of Michael Fowler, a white
planter of Christ Church Parish, and his black companion named Sibb
were raised in an environment which condoned slavery. According to
Calvin D. Wilson, in 1912, "there was a rich planter in Charleston
named Fowler who took a woman of African descent and established
her in his home.... There was a daughter born, who was called Isabella;
the planter insisted that she should be known as Miss Fowler. 1138
Clearly Michael Fowler expected his slaves to serve and regard his
mulatto children as though they were white. So the offspring of Fowler
were treated as little masters and mistresses by the slaves of their
father.

In fact, the process of cultural assimilation was so complete that

the children of Michael Fowler, once reaching maturity and inheriting
their father's plantation and slaves, chose to align themselves with the
values of white slaveowners rather than embracing the spirit of
freedom and liberty espoused by the abolitionists. 39 In 1810, the estate
of the deceased Michael Fowler was divided among his mulatto
children, John Fowler, Jacob Fowler, Stanhope Fowler, Nelly Fowler
Collins, Becky Fowler, and Isabella Fowler Dereef. When the
descendants of Michael Fowler received their slaves, manumission was
still the privilege of the slaveowners; however, none of the heirs chose
to emancipate their slaves. In March 1817, Jacob Fowler sold a slave
named Flora, who was inherited from the estate of Michael Fowler, to
his brother Stanhope Fowler for $560. Also, Stanhope Fowler, Nelly
Fowler Collins, and Isabella Fowler Dereef continued to own slaves
until the surrender of South Carolina during the Civil War.4°
Undoubtedly, the children of Michael Fowler considered slavery a
viable labor system and chose to hold their slaves in bondage.

Mulatto children were not always acknowledged as the offspring

o f white slaveholders. However, upon the death of their owners, they
occasionally were manumitted and provided for once freed. These
children probably were unaware of the bond of kinship to their owners.
Yet that bond allowed them to receive preferential treatment from their
slave masters. The unknowing mulatto offspring of white slaveowners
often were trained as house servants or artisans. Although they were not
acknowledged as the children of slave masters, their encounter with the
culture of their masters influenced them to become slaveowners.

In fact, the slaves of both mixed and unmixed racial heritage who
served as house servants or artisans accepted certain aspects of the
culture of white slaveowners. Regrettably, the close interaction with the
Southern culture influenced many slaves to identify with their owners.
For the house slaves, the contact with their masters and mistresses
perpetuated the difference between themselves and the majority of the
slaves who tilled the soil. The house servants were taught to consider
themselves superior to the common field hands. Furthermore, the house
slaves' conception of superiority was reinforced by their dress, food,
and housing, which was slightly better than that given to the field
hands. So it was that they separated themselves from the field slaves
and occasionally accepted the values of their slaveowners and looked
upon slavery as a justified institution. As a consequence, they envied
the life of splendor that their owners enjoyed and viewed slavery as a
means of obtaining the luxuries possessed by their masters. For
example, Mary Smith, the servant of Frederick Kohn, was manumitted
by her master in 1807. Several years after Mrs. Smith was freed, she
acquired a slave woman named Polly to work as her personal servant."

Perhaps the most extreme form of cultural assimilation occurred

in the case of Peter Desverneys. In 1822, as the house servant of Col.
J.C. Prioleau, he was the principal informer in the Denmark Vesey
Slave Conspiracy. On May 25, 1822, he encountered the slave named
William Paul, who told him that the slaves of the Charleston vicinity
were preparing to shake off their shackles and revolt. Upon hearing the
declaration of the slave, he later recalled, "I was so astonished and
horror struck at this information, that it was a moment or two before I
could collect myself sufficient to tell him I would have nothing to do
with this business ..."42 Peter Desverneys went on to tell the slave rebel
that "I was satisfied with my condition, that I was grateful to my master
for his kindness and wished no change."43 Shortly after his encounter
with William Paul, he told William Pencil, a free mulatto, who urged
him to tell his master of the slave plot. Desverneys took that advice and
informed his master of the slave conspiracy on May 30, 1822. As a
result of the information provided by him, the slave plot was crushed
before it could be started. For his loyalty, he was freed by the state
assembly in 1822.44
 Clearly, Peter Desverneys accepted his position as a slave, but
most importantly, he adhered to the doctrine of slavery. By 1840 he
was the owner of two slaves named Alfred Sanders and Lavinia Cole
Sanders. He used his male slave to assist him in his occupation as a
drayman. Lavinia Cole Sanders was hired out by Desverneys. Indeed,
Peter Desverneys' use and conception of slavery was no different from
that of the white slaveowner. To Desverneys, slaves were property to be
purchased, sold, and exploited. In 1847, for example, he sold George, a
nine-year-old boy, to E. Poincignon for $325." He also requested that
"my servant Lavinia with her issue and increase unto my wife Sarah
Ann Desverneys ... immediately after the death of my said Wife I order
and direct my Executor to sell the said Slave with her issue and
increase at public auction ...^46 After the death of Peter Desverneys,
his widow continued to use the labor of the servant woman as well as
the wages of the slave, which amounted to $40 in 1862." By and large,
many servants of slave masters seemed to have accepted their role as
slaves and even believed that slavery was a permissible institution. So
when these slaves were freed, they occasionally purchased and used the
labor of slaves for their own benefit. Once they acquired slaves as
investments, there were few differences between them and white
slaveowners beyond the color of their skin.

The majority of the slaves seldom accepted their enslavement as

legitimate. Since the overwhelming majority of slaves worked in the
fields, they were less accessible to the culture of the slaveowners.
Furthermore, the field hands saw slavery in a very different light than
the house servants. For example, the field slaves were forced to till the
soil from sunup until sundown, working themselves to a state of
exhaustion. Also life in the fields could be quite hellish because the
slaves were under close supervision from their overseers or slave
drivers and thus subject to beatings." And the slaves who worked on
rice plantations were subjected to the hazards associated with the
diseases of the swamp. Many slaves lost their lives during the fever
season. In short, the field slaves saw slavery as an oppressive system
and when manumitted they seldom bought slaves for their own benefit.

The artisan slaves, like the house slaves, were in close contact
with whites, and they occasionally absorbed the Southern culture of the
slaveowners. The somewhat independent nature of the artisan slaves,
particularly in the city of Charleston, allowed them a greater degree of
movement than the house servants or the field hands. In fact, many
artisans lived outside of the household of their masters and were hired
out to potential clients. As they served their employers, they observed
that the urban institution of slavery was a slightly better system than
the rural form of bondage. For several artisan slaves, their experience
in bondage was a step towards freedom. For example, they could keep a
small portion of their earnings and eventually buy their freedom. Once
the artisan slaves procured their freedom, they occasionally purchased
slaves, thus aligning themselves with their former masters by accepting
certain aspects of the slaveowning culture.

In Charleston City, the black artisans who were freed from

bondage occasionally viewed slavery as a means of obtaining financial
security. Because of their experience as slaves, they were aware of the
benefits of the peculiar institution and used their skills to purchase
slaves. For instance, Anthony Weston, a de facto free black of
Charleston City, was trained as a millwright. As the slave of Plowden
Weston, he was hired out to several white employers as well as working
for his master. In 1826, his master declared him to be a free man. Once
he was freed, his skills as a millwright enabled him to prosper, thereby
providing the necessary capital to invest in numerous slaves. Since he
was technically a slave, he could not own slaves in his name. So all of
his slaves were purchased by his wife, Maria Weston, and held for his
use. On Feb. 22, 1839, she bought a slave named Harry, who was
trained as a millwright, from Joseph Williams for $1,000.49 Between
1834 and 1845, she purchased a total of 20 slaves, investing $8,950.
Several of the slaves purchased by Mrs. Weston were artisans who
worked in her husband's millwright business. By using the labor of
slaves, Anthony Weston became one of the wealthiest colored persons
in the city. In 1860, for example, his estate was valued at $48,075 by
t h e city officials.50 To Anthony Weston, slavery represented the
Southern dream of wealth and success, and so he invested in that form
of property.

Yet Anthony Weston's benign experience as a slave probably

influenced him to treat his workers with some compassion. For
example, he did not direct his wife to sell any of their slaves.
Furthermore, it is likely that he knew several of the slaves purchased by
his wife. For that reason, he was aware of their character and allowed
them the same liberties which he had had as the slave of Plowden
Weston. So he may have permitted his workers to live apart from him
as well as giving them a portion of their earnings. Consequently, the
slave workers may have been contented with their situation because
they were aware that their employer knew what slavery could do to the
soul of the slaves. Weston may indeed have attempted to ease the pain
of slavery even while he used the labor of his slaves.

Although this chapter has focused on the former slaves who

purchased bondsmen to work in their businesses, it should not be
concluded that all of the freed slaves purchased black men and women
for their labor. In many instances, the former slaves bought family
members who were bondsmen to white masters. After the freed slaves
purchased their kinsfolk, they manumitted their loved ones; however,
when the state assembly banned private emancipations in 1820, the
colored slaveholders had to find another means to ensure the safety of
their relatives. The dilemma confronted by free blacks who purchased
kinsfolk will be examined more closely in chapters four and five.
 The purchasing of slave relatives and friends was a persisent
current in free black slaveholding in South Carolina. From the middle
part of the eighteenth century until the Civil War, free blacks often
sacrificed and struggled to free their families and friends from the
chains of slavery. For many, the task of liberating a loved one from
bondage involved years of hard work and saving just to buy a single
slave child. Once purchased, the nominal slaves were usually
manumitted by their black holders. But after 1820, free blacks could
not emancipate their loved ones without the approval of both houses of
the state assembly. So free blacks not only struggled to purchase their
slave relations and friends but strove to provide freedom for those
purchased.

Among the slave families, the bond of kinship was a strong and
vibrant force in the antebellum South. Once freed, the members of a
slave family often attempted to obtain that nectar of sweetness called
freedom for their kinsfolk who were still slaves. In many instances, the
freed slaves labored from four to twenty years to unite their families. In
the Office of the Secretary of State in South Carolina, numerous
accounts of black men and women who purchased their fruits of love
were recorded. For example, John Mitchell, a free colored man of
Georgetown District, bought his daughter, Nanny, from Sarah Wright,
the wife of Governor James Wright of Georgia, for 400 pounds sterling.
After Mitchell purchased his daughter, he manumitted the child in
1763.1

As the number of emancipations increased during the period from

1780 to 1820, more ex-slaves were allowed to purchase the freedom of
their offspring. For instance, Betty, a free black woman of Charleston
City, was manumitted by her master; however, her children remained
the property of her former master, subject to being sold and separated
from their mother at any time. So compelling was the situation which
confronted her that she undoubtedly sacrificed much to unite her
family. Fortunately, Betty was able to raise the money necessary to buy
her babies. So on November 9, 1818, she bought her three sons, Josiah,
Thomas, and Richard, from Thomas Young Smith for $400.2

In many instances, freed slaves like Betty acquired their freedom

only to see other members of their families still slaves. When
marriages occurred between slaves held by different masters, it was not
unusual for one spouse to receive his or her freedom while the other
spouse remained in bondage. Even when slave families lived together
as a complete unit, it was quite likely that one adult member of the
family would be freed while the other remained a slave.

In the early 1800s, many of the slaves manumitted had spouses

who were in bondage. So the difficult task of purchasing slave children
became the responsibility of the free parents. However, the spouses
remaining in slavery occasionally provided what limited money they
earned from extra work to help purchase their offspring. But for many
black parents, as long as their spouses remained slaves, the bulk of the
money needed to purchase the freedom of their offspring came from
the free parents. For example, Maurice Brown, a free colored of
Charleston City, worked as a shoemaker to purchase his family. Since
his wife, Bella Brown, was a slave, she could not provide much
assistance in the buying of their children. So most of the labor and
money needed to acquire their children came from Maurice Brown.
After several years of hard work and much determination, he finally
acquired the money to purchase his loved ones. On August 16, 1810, he
bought his wife and their children, Malcolm, Charlotte, Mary, Samuel,
and Sarah Brown, from Hannah Lesense for 650 pounds sterling.3

Clearly the parental concerns of free black parents compelled

them to labor for many years to free their offspring from the burdens of
slavery. This commitment can be seen in the example of Titus
Gregorie. Between 1800 and 1815, he worked as a carpenter with the
supreme goal of freeing his children and wife from slavery. On
December 23, 1803, one part of his goal became a reality when he
purchased his son Aberdeen, who was three years old, from Martha
Gadsden of Charleston City for $90.4 Four years later, Titus Gregorie
saved enough money to buy another child from Martha Gadsden. In
September 1807, he purchased his three-year-old daughter, Elizabeth,
for $100. For the next eight years, he worked to free his remaining two
children and his wife from servitude to Martha Gadsden. On May 18,
1815, he made his last recorded slave purchase and acquired his
remaining children, Titus and Eleanor, as well as his wife, Nelly, for
$450. After fifteen years of strenuous work and much determination, he
had bought his loved ones for a combined sum of $640. Once he
acquired his family, the next step was to remove the stigma of chattel
from his loved ones. Some years later, he saw to it that his family was
freed from the legal bond of slavery.'

Peter Elwig, a free black man of Charleston City, also dedicated

much of his life to freeing his family from slavery. For more than ten
years, he labored as a carpenter with the sole prayer that one day he
would be able to buy the freedom of his beloved wife and children. A
small part of his prayer was answered when he bought his wife, Amelia,
from James Richardson of Charleston City for $400. When Elwig
purchased his wife, he had at least three children still in servitude to the
Richardson family. However, the acquisition of Amelia Elwig ensured
that any subsequent children born by her would not be the slaves of
James Richardson. Furthermore, because he manumitted his wife on
August 14, 1819, any children born after the emancipation were
declared free from slavery. Yet, while the couple enjoyed the privileges
of their freedom, they could not rest until their children born prior to
the purchase and emancipation of Amelia Elwig were liberated from
servitude.6 For six years, the couple sacrificed much and saved what
money they earned to buy their offspring. Their prayers were finally
answered in October 1823. In that month, Peter and Amelia Elwig
purchased their three sons, Peter, James, and Joseph, from Ann
Richardson, the wife of the deceased James Richardson, for $550.

But the struggle of the couple to free their loved ones did not end
in 1823.' On the contrary, Peter and Amelia Elwig had other kinsfolk in
slavery who had to be purchased. So the couple worked five more years
to acquire two relatives. In May 1828, they purchased a woman named
Hestor and her child, Elizabeth, from James Richardson, Jr., for $300.
Although the bill of sale did not acknowledge the ties of kinship to
Peter or Amelia Elwig, it is quite likely that the slaves were related to
them because the slaves were purchased from the same family that held
Amelia Elwig and her children as property. Hestor, therefore, was
probably the sister of Amelia Elwig. By 1828 Peter Elwig had
purchased six slaves over a period of eleven years at the total cost of
$1,250.'

The perseverance exhibited by Titus Gregorie and Peter Elwig was

not unusual. Many free blacks dedicated much of their lives and money
to secure the freedom of their beloved families.

A few black parents were fortunate enough to purchase their

children for a nominal sum of money. Usually a sympathetic master
sold their children to them for a price well below the current market
value. For instance, David Yonge, a free colored of St. Paul's Parish,
bought his son, Frank, for the nominal sum of one dollar. Then, in
1815, he purchased his wife, Judy, for only one dollar. Had David
Yonge bought his family at the current market value, he would have
paid at least $562.50.9 According to data collected by Ulrich Phillips,
the average selling price of a prime slave was $450 in 1814. A male
child was about one-half the value of a prime slave and so his market
value was $225. The value of a female slave was about two-thirds the
value of a prime slave; therefore her value was estimated at $337.50.
Clearly, when William Simmon transferred the slave family to David
Yonge, the motive that influenced him to sell the slaves went beyond
the incentive for profit. In another example, Margaret Wilson of
Charleston City purchased her daughter, Martha, for the nominal sum
of one dollar in 1823.10

However, the black parents who purchased their offspring for a

nominal sum of money comprised a small percentage of the parents
who bought their children. Most black parents were forced to pay a
considerable amount of money for the freedom of their children. In
1799, Sarah, a free mulatto of Charlestown, paid 200 pounds sterling
for her three-year-old daughter, Henrietta. In many instances, free
black parents paid more than the current market value for their slave
children. Thomas Charnock, for instance, paid more than the actual
value for his son, George Charnock, in 1809. In that year, he purchased
the boy for $400. However, the market value then current for a prime
male slave was about $500 in Charleston City. And a young male child
was worth about one-half the value of a prime slave. So the market
price of young George Charnock should have been about $250. Yet,
Thomas Charnock paid over the selling price for a slave child by $150.
Also, in 1811, Tisey Hawie of Charleston City paid $95 over the market
value of her daughter, Marie. In that year, female children were selling
for $275. But Tisey Hawie purchased her daughter for $370."

Since the value of slaves fluctuated, the market price never

remained at a fixed amount of money. Consequently the inflated prices
paid by free black parents for their children could be attributed to
fluctuations in the market place rather than the sellers taking advantage
of a captive buyer. But for many black parents, the price for the
freedom of their loved ones surpassed their limited earning capacity,
and they were faced with a major dilemma.

In many instances, free black men were confronted by the problem

of whether to purchase their children or their wives. Since children
inherited the status of their mothers, the free men occasionally chose to
buy their spouses to prevent any subsequent offspring from becoming
the property of their wives' owners. They later purchased any of their
children who remained in servitude. So when Josey, a free black man of
St. John's Parish, purchased his wife, Clarinda, he was aware that his
children born after the transaction would not be the property of his
wife's former master.' 2

After the free black men purchased their spouses, the next step
was to acquire the freedom of their children, but that task was often an
ordeal. For example, when Peter Parlar of Charleston City purchased
his wife, Rebecca Parlar, he then attempted to buy the freedom of his
daughter, Hannah. However, he could not accomplish that task while
Hannah was still a child. Fortunately, their daughter was not separated
from them and continued to live in Charleston City, so Peter and
Rebecca Parlar could visit her. Even though they occasionally saw their
child, the couple still desired to obtain the freedom of their beloved
daughter, but the financial burden was difficult for them to bear. So
Peter Parlar requested that after his death, his house and lot on
Radcliffe Street in Charleston Neck should be sold and "the proceeds
thereof [used] in purchasing through a Trustee or Trustees my daughter
Hannah now the property of Mrs. Lartouch..."" His request was made
on May 2, 1833. Within two weeks after his declaration was issued, he
died, and his executors began the process to settle his estate and carry
out his last request."

Unfortunately for a few free blacks, their dying pleas were not
always adhered to by their executors. In 1834, for example, John Porte
of Charleston City requested that:

The little worldly substance that I am possessed of should be

appropriated to the use of my two children Mary and Eliza who
are Infants ... of Rebecca a Slave of Thomas Lowndes Esquire.
For this purpose I give all my money and goods to my
Executors hereinafter named ... to be applied in purchasing the
freedom of the said two children and bring them up in the
world as well as circumstances will admit ..."

In order to ensure that his requests were honored, he selected two

trusted friends, John Francis and John Lee, to implement his demands.
16 Mr. Porte hoped that within a reasonable amount of time the capital
secured from his estate, once invested, would eventually allow his
executors to purchase his beloved children. Yet nine years after his
death, the freedom of Mary and Eliza had not been obtained by his
executors. Furthermore, the prospect of his offspring's freedom
appeared somewhat in doubt. But strangely enough, the owner of the
two slave girls brought a suit against the executors of John Porte in the
Court of Equity.

In March 1843, Thomas Lowndes filed a claim against John

Francis and John Lee for not honoring the requests of John Porte. In the
suit, Lowndes said that he was willing to respect the provisions of John
Porte's last will and testament and to sell the slave children to the
trustees of the said girls in order that they might be freed from slavery.
But the executors of John Porte refused to appropriate the money from
the estate of the deceased man for the designated purposes of the will."
 After hearing the case, the court ruled that John Francis and John
Lee must pay to James Louis Petique (the surviving trustee of the slave
children of John Porte) the sum of $778.38, to be applied by the trustee
to the purposes of the will. It is quite likely that the money from the
estate of John Porte was turned over to James Louis Petique and
invested, thereby facilitating the purchase of Mary and Eliza Porte."

In general, free black parents who attempted to buy their families

were confronted with many obstacles, making it extremely difficult for
them to free their loved ones from servitude.

One obstacle which confronted many black parents occurred when

several of their children were born in slavery. Even though they desired
t o see all of their offspring freed from servitude, the sustained effort
needed to buy their entire family was too great a burden for them to
withstand. So they often decided to purchase one or two of their
children and prayed that someday they would be able to acquire the
freedom of their remaining offspring. Quite often, their prayers were
not answered, and their other children remained in slavery. For
example, George Lawrence of Charleston Neck was able to free his son,
Charles Lawrence, from servitude. However, upon the death of George
Lawrence, he still had slave children who were not owned by him.
Unfortunately, the small estate owned by the colored man could not
purchase his loved ones. As a consequence, the offspring of George
Lawrence were doomed to remain slaves. Although it pained the
parents to see their children in slavery, they were pleased to know that
at least one or two of their offspring were no longer the slaves of
another man. Also, many parents were comforted by the prayers that
their children who were freed from the hands of slavery would buy the
liberty of their brothers and sisters in servitude.19

In many instances, the children of free blacks did seek to continue

the struggle of their parents and obtain the freedom of their brothers
a nd sisters who were slaves. In 1823, for example, Maria Chapman
Moore of Charleston City purchased her brother, Dublin, from John
Taylor. Elsewhere in the vicinity, Nat Ball, a tailor from Charleston
Neck, bought his sister from Edward Simons for $300 in 1835.20 But
the financial obstacles confronted by free black siblings did not always
permit them to purchase their brothers and sisters who remained in
slavery. Although they wanted to see them emancipated from servitude,
the money needed to accomplish that desire could not be raised. Julia
Cox of Charleston City found that the financial difficulties which faced
her could not be conquered, and so she could not buy the freedom of
her sister. Consequently, one sibling remained a slave while the other
was free. Yet the plight of that beloved sister touched the heart of Julia
Cox. As her sister remained in servitude and gave birth to several
children, the bond between the siblings appears to have intensified.
Julia Cox finally requested that her estate should be sold and the
proceeds given to the children of her deceased sister. Even though she
desired that all of her nieces and nephews should be freed, the
liquidation of her property could not facilitate her wishes. As a result,
she requested that the money from the sale of her estate should be used
for the personal consumption of her nieces and nephews.21 By and
large, the bond of kinship was the motivating force which caused many
free blacks to purchase slaves. However, the ties of kinship were not
always sufficient to overcome the lack of funds needed to purchase
their beloved offspring.

Among free black parents, there still existed an undying faith that
their children would be freed from slavery. Occasionally they received
the aid of their own parents to help them purchase the freedom of their
children. In 1784, for example, Mary Jones of Charlestown purchased
the son of her daughter, Betty, for 30 guineas. In another example, Ann
Snelling bought her granddaughter from James Lee for 100 guineas in
1802.22
 In spite of the persistence of many free black parents and
grandparents, they could not always obtain the freedom of their
kinsfolk. For instance, Bess Mclntoish, a free black woman of
Charleston City, worked for many years to purchase the freedom of her
daughter, but the money needed to accomplish that goal could not be
acquired. So her child grew up as a slave while she remained a free
person. Yet the frustrations of having a child in slavery and not being
able to obtain that child's freedom prodded Bess to liberate her child
from the chains of slavery. According to the master of her daughter, she
"secreted" her child to freedom on December 12, 1825.23 Although
such acts of bravery occurred, the majority of free black parents who
had slave offspring sought to free their children legally from servitude.

Once those fortunate black parents purchased their beloved

children, they usually manumitted them. In 1785, Carolina, a colored
butcher of Charlestown, emancipated his son, Quash, after the child
was purchased from John McQueen for 200 pounds sterling. In another
example, Sam, a colored hairdresser of Charleston City, manumitted
his wife, Abigail; his children, Sam, Rose, Abigail, and Joe; and his
granddaughter, Elizabeth, the child of Rose, in 1790. However, some
free blacks procrastinated before they emancipated their loved ones.
For instance, Peter Elwig of Charleston City, purchased his wife,
Amelia, from James Richardson for $400 in April 1817. Yet he waited
for two years before he freed his beloved wife in August 1819.24

But for many free blacks, the privilege of emancipating their

loved ones turned into a distant dream. In 1800, the state assembly
passed a statute which restricted personal manumission. According to
the law, the slaves who were scheduled to be freed should be capable of
supporting themselves. In other words, the slaves who were to be
manumitted should have a trade or a means to function economically in
the society. Consequently, free blacks who purchased their children
could not emancipate them until their offspring reached maturity and
were capable of supporting themselves.

In response to the Act of 1800, free black parents apprenticed their

children to artisans in order that they could be freed from the legal
bond of slavery. In 1802, Abraham Jacobs, a caterer of Charleston City,
w a s aware that when he purchased his children, Mary, Sarah, and
Moses, he could not immediately manumit them. Yet he also knew that
if his children were properly trained in a trade their chances of being
emancipated were quite good. So Jacobs had his children apprenticed to
facilitate their manumission.21 In the meantime, there existed the
distinct danger that all of his hard work and sacrifices encountered to
buy his children could be eliminated by a single financial mishap.
According to the laws of the state, slaves were defined as property and
subject to be seized and sold for the debts of their owners. Since the
state considered all slaves as property, the relatives held by free blacks
could be seized and sold for the debts of their black owners.

The precarious financial situation of free blacks caused them to

incur debts which could not be paid without the seizure of their
property. Since the overwhelming majority of free blacks who owned
relatives were dependent upon the white community for their
livelihood, when the society at large suffered economically, the free
black population faced severe economic problems. In Charleston City
and Charleston Neck, for example, the black entrepreneurs needed the
patronage of white customers, but when economic recessions reduced
their business, they often could not pay their bills and thereby
prompted their creditors to seize their property.26

During the early nineteenth century, the jubilation which

overwhelmed many black parents when they purchased their offspring
from `ole massa' soon turned to fear. As the parents of slave children
waited to emancipate their children legally, they jeopardized the
freedom of those children when they incurred debts which could not be
paid. For many black parents, there existed a numbing fear that their
beloved children would be seized and sold by their creditors before
they could be emancipated. Also, those black parents who were ill
worried that if they died their offspring would be sold by their
creditors. Fearing that their children would be sold, many black parents
developed methods to protect their loved ones as they waited to
manumit them.

When Titus Gregorie purchased his son, Aberdeen, and his

daughter, Elizabeth, he was aware that his financial troubles could
affect the freedom of his children. Titus Gregorie probably went
through many sleepless nights worrying about how he could protect his
children from being seized and sold for his debts. Perhaps after seeking
council from a trusted friend, he determined how to resolve the
worrisome problem of ensuring the freedom that he sought to grant his
two children. On March 19, 1808, he enacted his decision and
transferred his two children to James Gregorie for the nominal sum of
one dollar. Clearly, the sale transacted by Titus Gregory was an act of
love and concern for his offspring rather than a commercial exchange
for profit. Since the sale was for a nominal sum of money, he was not
seeking financial benefits but merely the safety of his loved ones.
Before the sale was concluded, he requested that certain conditions
must be adhered to after the transaction. Their agreement stipulated
that the children of Titus Gregorie would remain in the household of
their father. Also, when the children were capable of supporting
themselves, they would be emancipated by James Gregorie.
Furthermore, the trust stipulated that the children would not be sold for
the debts of the parties involved in the sale. In spite of the contract
between the two parties, the agreement was an extralegal transaction
which could be broken by James Gregorie.27
 In essence, the contract was based on the trust of Titus Gregorie in
the honesty of his trustee. Fortunately for Titus Gregorie, his
assessment of the character of James Gregorie was correct. In fact,
after they reached maturity and were capable of supporting themselves
the offspring of Titus Gregorie were freed from the stigma of chattel.
In 1823, Aberdeen and Elizabeth Gregorie were living in the household
of their father and reported to be free blacks by the city tax collector. In
1850, Aberdeen Gregorie was recorded as a free black by the federal
census marshal of Charleston Neck.2S

Like Titus Gregorie, many free blacks were fearful that their
children would be sold for their unpaid bills, and so they sold their
offspring for nominal sums of money under the express conditions that
their children would be manumitted.

In spite of the Act of 1800, free blacks continued to buy their

children, even though they were doubtful that the freedom granted to
their loved ones could be protected. For example, Peter McKinney of
Charleston City purchased his daughter, Nancy, from John Chichestor
for $500 in 1805. After the purchase, he did not establish a trust to
protect his daughter. McKinney, like many parents who owned their
offspring was probably uncertain that a trust would be honored. Parents
like McKinney held their children as their legal property until
manumission became possible. In the meantime, their children were in
jeopardy if they encountered any unpaid debts. But the unwavering
faith of black parents compelled them to hold the title to their children,
and the impending fear that their children would be seized and sold for
unpaid debts did not deter them from buying their offspring.29

Occasionally the parents of slave children legally manumitted

their offspring while their children were minors. For example, George
Mathews, a free black and a carpenter of Charleston City, purchased his
daughter and his two grandchildren named Binah and Hercules in 1817.
Mathews not only manumitted his daughter but freed his two
grandchildren, who were minors.30 Although the Act of 1800 stipulated
that slaves who were not capable of supporting themselves should not
be emancipated, the statute was not always enforced by the local
officials. For that reason, slaveholders like George Mathews
manumitted their minors. However, there was no guarantee that the law
would be loosely enforced for all free blacks.

By 1820 the state legislature began to reassess its policy on

manumission. The legislators were of the opinion that the liberal
usages of manumission had increased the free black community to
numbers which were perceived as a threat to the safety of the white
society. In South Carolina, between 1790 and 1800, the free black
population increased by 76.8 percent. After 1800 the community
continued to grow by substantial levels. In fact, the population grew by
42.9 percent between 1800 and 1810 and by 49.9 percent between 1810
and 1820. As the free black community grew, many legislators became
concerned about the increasing numbers of colored persons. During the
legislative session of 1820, the assembly debated the issue of repealing
the privilege of private manumission. By the latter part of the session,
the state assembly had revoked the privilege of emancipating slaves for
individual slaveowners and given the function to the legislators. As a
legislative function, the number of manumitted slaves sharply declined.
In 1822, for example, the state legislature granted only six out of 22
petitions for emancipation. After that date, the number of
manumissions was even smaller."

The majority of free blacks who owned slave relatives and friends
were adversely affected by the Act of 1820. As a result of the statute,
they could not manumit their loved ones and friends in South Carolina.
They were forced to own their kinsfolk and friends as their property.
However, they did not treat them as chattel but as beloved relatives and
friends. Yet the Act of 1820 created a legal barrier between them and
their slaves. For example, free black slaveholders could not legally give
or sell property to their slaves. In addition, the slave wife of a free
black man was not entitled to inherit her husband's estate. Also, if her
husband died intestate and having no legal or free heirs, the property of
her husband was escheatable, transferable to the state or to creditors.
Unfortunately, the slave wife would be included among her husband's
property and would be seized and sold to the highest bidder.

For many free blacks, the statute of 1820 placed their nominal
slaves in great peril. Since the law prevented free blacks from issuing
deeds of manumission, they had to hold their loved ones as property.
Once the stigma of chattel was placed upon the heads of their relatives
and friends, the probability that their loved ones would be seized and
sold for their debts became apparent to many slaveholders. In fact, after
1820, the black slaveholders of Charleston City and its vicinities were
confronted with periodic economic crises which resulted in the
confiscation of their real estate and slaves.

In many instances, black slaveholders had their property seized

and sold for nominal sums of money. In 1833, Charles Henry, a free
black slaveholder of Charleston Neck, was forced to sell his property
on the corner of Cumming and Radcliff streets to pay overdue city
taxes which amounted to only $2.43.32 In Charleston City, Joshua
Wilson, a colored butcher, had to sell his house on Henrietta Street to
pay local taxes for $3.38 in 1835.33 However, not all of the
confiscations were directed by the city government. Usually free black
slaveowners borrowed money from associates and could not repay the
loans, therefore their creditors filed a claim against them in the Court
of Common Pleas. In 1831, for example, Smart Simpson of Charleston
City received from George Buist a loan for $600. When Simpson could
not repay the loan, the Court of Common Pleas placed a lien on his
property. As another example, in 1835, Sally Johnston was ordered to
sell her real estate to repay the loan she obtained from C.P. Gordon for
$200.34

The seizures and sales ordered by the local officials were not
always confined to real estate. The sale of slaves occasionally occurred.
In 1827, for example, the Charleston City Council ordered that George
Mathews, a free black, must sell his slave named Peggy to pay overdue
workhouse expenses. On October 26, 1827, Peggy was sold to Mrs.
Elizabeth McKenzie for $215.33 George Mathews probably allowed the
sale of Peggy because she was a troublesome worker. Since Peggy was
sold for workhouse expenses, it is likely that she had been sentenced to
the Charleston Workhouse for running away or for other disciplinary
reasons.

The seizure and sale of slaves were not always desired by black
slaveholders. In October 1836, William and George McKinlay, free
colored men and tailors of Charleston City, purchased the following
slaves: John Douglass, his wife, Susan, and their children, Robert,
Mary, John, Susan, Allice, Rebecca, Ann, and Edward, from Charles A.
Magwood for $1,160.60. When William McKinlay and his brother,
George McKinlay, purchased the Douglass family, their intentions were
only to hold the legal title to the slave family and to allow them to
interact as free persons; however, the legal status of the family was still
defined as chattel and subject to the debts incurred by the McKinlay
brothers. In fact, four years after the purchase of the slave family, the
Charleston Courier reported that one member of the Douglass family
was to be sold. On September 3, 1840, the Courier advertised that a
slave girl about eleven years old belonging to William McKinlay was
scheduled to be auctioned for overdue city taxes which amounted to
only $19. The proposed sale was to take place on September 7, 1840.36
Within two days after the Courier reported the auction of the slave girl
named Rebecca Douglass, the following response appeared.

The Subscriber who is advertised to be sold by the City Sheriff

as the slave of William McKinley for City Taxes, hereby gives
notices that she is a free and not the property of McKinley. Any
sale by the Sheriff will be illegal and give no title to the
purchaser.

Rebecca Douglass"

The response placed in the Courier on the behalf of the slave child was
probably written by William McKinlay. Since he was the nominal
owner of the Douglass family, he committed himself to protect the
freedom of the slave family. William McKinlay, therefore, did not
approve of the sale of Rebecca Douglass and sought to prevent the
auction.

The prompt response by William McKinlay may have prevented

what appeared to be the certain sale of Rebecca Douglass. For instance,
on the day of the proposed sale, she was not advertised to be sold in the
Charleston Courier or the Charleston Mercury. Usually the city sheriff
placed an advertisement for the auction of property in the local
newspapers on the day of the sale, but that was not the case for Rebecca
Douglass. The absence of the notice suggests that the sale was
withdrawn. Furthermore, there was no recorded bill of sale which
transferred the girl to a new owner. So the auction of Rebecca Douglass
may never have taken place. But by and large, the dilemma confronted
by William McKinlay represents one of the many problems
encountered by nominal slaveholders.

Lamb Stevens, a black planter of St. James & Goose Creek Parish,
defended the freedom of his slave family against a swindler. In the
Charleston Court of Equity, he filed a complaint against Christian Alfs
i n June 1851. In the suit, he charged that Alfs tricked him into
transferring his granddaughter and her child to Alfs. In the court
testimony, he described the situation which led to the fraudulent
transfer. Lamb Stevens recalled that because his granddaughter was
having marital problems and refused to live peaceably with her
husband to resolve the conflict, he allowed Phoebe and her child to
leave the parish and find employment in Charleston Neck. In October
1850, his granddaughter began to work for Christian Alfs as a maid.
While in the employment of Alfs, she was accused of stealing some
gold from a white woman who lived with her employer. When Lamb
Stevens was informed of the charges against his granddaughter, he
became fearful that if Phoebe were convicted she would be severely
punished (the law stipulated between 20 and 50 lashes for the guilty
party). In order to protect his granddaughter from that punishment, he
was persuaded by Christian Alfs to sign a false bill of sale for Phoebe
and her child, thus transferring the slavestoAlfs. Lamb Stevens
transferred his loved ones to Alfs because he believed that a slave who
was owned by a black man would not receive justice in the courts; if
the owner was a white man, then justice would not be perverted. So
Stevens transferred his nominal slaves to Alfs, but under the assurance
that his loved ones would be protected by the pretended buyer. In fact,
Lamb Stevens demanded that Alfs sign a document which stipulated
that as soon as the trial was resolved his loved ones would be returned
to him and the bill of sale in Alfs' possession would be destroyed.

In spite of the demands made by Lamb Stevens, the agreement

between the two parties was broken, and Christian Alfs used the bill of
sale to claim ownership of the nominal slaves. Once Lamb Stevens
discovered that his loved ones would not be returned to him, he filed a
suit against Alfs for fraud.

In June 1851, the case of Lamb Stevens vs. Christian Alfs was
heard by the Court of Equity. In court testimony, Lamb Stevens said
that he signed a false bill of sale for his granddaughter Phoebe and her
child, thus transferring them to Alfs. But the transfer was to protect
Phoebe from the perils of a trial which might convict her for stealing
from a white woman. He also maintained that the transaction was not
an actual sale because no money was exchanged. However, Christian
Alfs told the court that he actually purchased the slaves from Lamb
Stevens and paid $300. Consequently, he believed that the bill of sale
was a legal document. The counselor for Lamb Stevens refuted the
testimony of Alfs by providing the sworn statement of Thomas S.
Knight, a witness to the transaction. Knight, a neighbor of Lamb
Stevens, was at the home of the colored man when the alleged sale
occurred. He recalled that Stevens had signed the bill of sale in order to
defend Phoebe against the charge of theft, and he also said that no
money was exchanged between the two parties.38 After the conclusion
of the testimonies, Judge Benjamin F. Dunkin rendered his decision.
The judge ruled that

According to the testimony now before the court the

transaction on the parts of the defendant is one of the most
unblushing attempts to perpetrate fraud and pervert the cause
of justice that has stained the records of the country.

It is ordered and decreed that the defendant deliver up to the

complainant the slave Pheobe and her child Sally ...39

The plight of Lamb Stevens and his granddaughter demonstrates the

uncertainties which confronted black slaveholders when they tried to
maintain the freedom of their loved ones. Since the state legislature
denied black slaveholders the privilege of emancipating their nominal
slaves without the consent of the assembly, they were forced to hold
their loved ones as their legal property. Furthermore, the slaveholders
who owned female kinsfolk saw the burden of slavery inherited by the
offspring of their slave women. Many black slaveholders feared for the
safety of their kinsfolk who were slaves and so attempted to maintain
their freedom by legal, extralegal, and illegal means.

By 1820, free blacks were required to petition the state assembly

t o manumit their slave relatives and friends legally. In many cases,
they sought the services of white agents to represent their claims. These
agents drafted and presented petitions to the state legislature in
Columbia, South Carolina. In the document, the desire of the petitioner
to manumit his loved ones was expressed. Usually the petitioner
provided the signature of several prominent citizens in his community
who attested to the character of the slaveowner and his slave relatives.
Once a petition was completed, the agent presented the document to a
special committee of the state legislature. The petition had to clear the
special committee concerning slave emancipations before reaching the
floor of the House of Representatives. In the committee, the request
was examined to determine if the case warranted a special act of
legislation. If the committee deemed the request to be worthy of
consideration, a bill to manumit the slave was written and introduced to
the legislature. But both houses of the assembly had to approve the
statute by a majority vote before the bill became a law and the slave
was emancipated. However, the overwhelming majority of the petitions
never reached the floor of either the House or the Senate but died in the
special committee. After the petition failed to receive the approval of
the committee, the only recourse was to present another request during
the next legislative session. Regrettably, the petitions of all of the black
slaveholders were rejected by the committee. So many free blacks were
forced to continue to hold their loved ones as chattel. Yet the
difficulties associated with obtaining a successful petition did not deter
them from attempting legally to free their loved ones from the stigma
of property.4°
 When manumission became a state function, numerous petitions
from free blacks poured into the legislature. In 1823, William N.
Mitchell, the executor of the deceased James Powell, Sr., who was a
free black of St. John's Berkeley Parish, presented a petition to the
special committee for the emancipation of the son of the colored man.
According to the petition, Powell had directed his executor to manumit
his son. Powell was unable to free the boy prior to the adoption of the
statute which banned private manumission because his son was a
minor, incapable of supporting himself and thereby ineligible for
emancipation. By the time his son was capable of earning a livelihood,
manumission became a legislative function. As a consequence, Powell
could not emancipate his son. So before his death, he directed his
executor to manumit his son, James Powell, Jr. William N. Mitchell
adhered to the request and petitioned the state legislature for the
emancipation of James Powell, Jr. Regrettably, the petition of Mitchell
was rejected by the special committee. The committee members
maintained that there was no special reason presented by the petitioner
to warrant a bill of manumission."

The opinion of the special committee was that only slaves who
performed heroic deeds should be manumitted (in 1822 they approved
t h e emancipation of Peter Desverneys for disclosing the Denmark
Vesey Conspiracy). By 1823, the committee had firmly established the
principle that manumission was a special privilege granted only in rare
circumstances.42

In spite of the unlikely prospect of manumission, free blacks

continued to petition the state legislature for the freedom of their loved
ones. In 1828, 1830, and 1838, James Patterson, a free black from
Columbia City, petitioned the assembly to free his wife and children.
Patterson had worked as a carpenter and earned a sufficient amount of
money to buy his wife, Sally, and his son, George. While he permitted
his family to interact as free persons, the stigma of slavery remained
with his loved ones as long as they were chattel. Since his family
members were slaves, they would not be entitled to inherit his estate,
and after his death, the state of quasifreedom that he granted his family
would be in jeopardy. To ensure the freedom of his loved ones, he
petitioned the state assembly in 1828. However, his first petition was
rejected by the special committee on the grounds that he did not present
a case to show that his family should be freed .41

Although James Patterson's first petition was denied, he did not

end his quest to emancipate his loved ones. He presented another
petition to the legislature in 1830. But once again his request was
rejected by the stubborn committee. After the second denial, James
Patterson went home a somewhat disappointed soul. Perhaps it became
apparent to him that the only way he could ensure the freedom of his
family was to leave his birthplace and move to a free state. But the pain
of leaving his native land and a successful business was difficult to
bear while manumission was still possible. So the prospect of flight
became an unlikely alternative for him. As long as there was a glimmer
of hope that his family would be freed, he did not lose his faith .44

Eight years after his second petition, James Patterson again asked
the assembly to free his loved ones. In 1838, he petitioned the
legislature to emancipate his family. His third petition had the
endorsement of many prominent white citizens of Columbia City.
Among the signers were Jos. A. Black, James Boatwright, John Bryce,
James Guignard, Alex Kird, B.F. Taylor, and Andrew Wallace.4 In the
petition, he reiterated the poignant request that he had made a decade
before.

Wherefore your Petitioner most humbly entreats your

Honorable body to manumit the said Slaves Sarah Patterson,
George Patterson, and Mary Patterson so that the honest
 industry the unwearied pains and unaltering efforts of a father
and husband may not be loosed to him entirely and your
Petitioner will ever pray.46

In spite of the touching request, the committee still denied the

petition of James Patterson. In fact, the committee maintained that

It would be inexpedient except as a reward for great and

distinguished merit, to depart from the principles and policy of
the law which forbids the emancipation of slaves. However
great may be the merit of the present petitioner, your
committee are of opinion that is not such as to call for an extra
ordinary act of favor on the part of this legislature, and nothing
has been offered to show, that the wife and children of the
petitioner ... has any claims whatsoever to the interposition of
the legislature in the behalf- your committee therefore
recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be rejected."

A decade after James Patterson submitted his first petition, the

legislature had not changed its views on manumission. The committee
members were so afraid that one exception would cause a flood of
petitions from slaveholders who held the legal title to their wives,
husbands, concubines, and children that the committee would not
depart from a strict adherence to the law. So after three petitions, James
Patterson could not obtain the freedom of his family by legislation.

Although James Patterson's petitions were rejected, his

association with some of the prominent citizens of Columbia City
ensured that the freedom he permitted his family would be continued.
In 1850, for example, his wife, Sally Patterson, was reported by the
federal enumerator as a free woman of color. Also, she owned not only
real estate valued at $1,200 but two female slaves. And her two
children, George and Mary Patterson, were listed as free persons of
color and living in the household of their mother. In spite of the
legislature's refusal to emancipate the Patterson family, they continued
to interact as free colored persons after the death of James Patterson."
Clearly the city officials circumvented the authority of the special
committee and allowed the defacto free black family to live as free
persons.

The stubbornness of the special committee was not perpetual. The

committee's principles were occasionally compromised. The petition of
Mose Irvine is a perfect example of legislative compromise. Before his
petition was presented to the committee, he purchased his wife, Harriet,
and their two children, Mary and Martha, from Mary Russell for $300
in 1828. One year after the purchase of his family, he petitioned the
legislature to emancipate his loved ones. But his emotional request was
denied by the special committee in 1829. Upon hearing the decision, a
dejected Mose Irvine returned to his home on Logan Street and planned
his next move. When his request was refused, he was aware that
another petition made during the next legislative session would be
fruitless .49 For that reason, he was.forced to bide his time and pray
that the legislature would change its mind. So he waited, and after six
years of steadfastness, he once again asked the committee to
emancipate his beloved family.

Mose Irvine doubted that his request for the emancipation of his
family would be granted; therefore, he presented an alternative petition.
He asked that his family should be permitted to own his real estate, if
the committee chose not to manumit his loved ones. In December 1836,
t h e committee considered the request and concluded that Irvine's
family should not be emancipated; however, they did concede that the
slave fam- ?ly should be given the privilege of owning property. When
the committee approved the second provision, a bill was drafted to
authorize the slave family of Mose Irvine to own property.'°
 On December 21, 1836, the state assembly passed a bill to permit
"the children of Mose Irvine and Harriet, his wife ... to take by descent
or devise or purchase, the estate of the said Mose Irvine and to follow
the condition of their father Mose Irvine."" The legislature passed by
the assemblymen slightly departed from the policy of the assembly.

To Mose Irvine, the legislation was quite inadequate. Even though

his loved ones were given the right to own property, they were legally
h i s chattel. Furthermore, when he died, his family could still be
confiscated by the state as vacant property or seized by his creditor for
unpaid bills. By 1842, he had even lost confidence in the bill passed to
permit his family to own property. In his will, he stated:

I give my house and lot in Logan Street to C.M. Furman and

A.C. Smith and their heirs forever In trust nevertheless for the
use and purposes following that is to say In trust to permit ...
my Wife and children to reside therein during the life time of
my Wife or to apply the income of the same to support my
Wife and children ...32

All in all, the legislation passed by the assembly did little to alleviate
the dilemma faced by Mose Irvine.

The legislature's firm commitment against manumission can be

demonstrated by the case of George Wilson, alias George Watkins. In
1822, he was emancipated by the state assembly for his part in
disclosing the Denmark Vesey Slave Plot. About three years after
Wilson received his freedom, he purchased his wife, Jenny, and their
son, Sampson, from L.S. Campbell for $100. After ten years of holding
the title to his family, he decided that the only way his loved ones could
be protected from his creditors was by an act of legislation. In 1835, he
petitioned the legislature to emancipate his wife and son. But his
request was denied by the committee." In spite of the loyal service he
provided the white community when he gave important information
which prevented the Denmark Vesey Slave Revolt, he could not
persuade the committee to sponsor a bill to emancipate his family.

When the petition of George Wilson was denied, the prospect for
all black slaveholders seemed quite doubtful. In fact, between 1821 and
1838, the legislature emancipated fewer than 15 slaves in the state."
Th e slaves manumitted during the period mentioned were freed for
heroic deeds. In many instances, they informed their masters of slave
conspiracies and were rewarded with their freedom. But the slaves who
were owned by relatives seldom received their liberty by acts of
legislation. In short, the free blacks who attempted to free their loved
ones by the political process were doomed to certain failure.

Many black slaveholders therefore used an assortment of schemes

to protect the freedom they granted their loved ones who were their
property when the state legislature refused to emancipate their slave
relatives and friends. As manumission became unlikely, nominal
slaveholders established deeds of trust between themselves and family
members, prominent free blacks, and white citizens. In the deeds, they
transferred the legal title of their nominal slaves to a trustee or trustees.
Although the trustee was given the legal title to the nominal slaves, the
trust stipulated that certain provisions must be adhered to by the trustee
or the slaves would revert back to the original owner or to other
trustees. Usually the deeds required the trustee to permit the slaves to
interact as though they were free blacks. In addition, the nominal slaves
could not be seized and sold for the debts of the former or present
owners. In practice, the trusts were established by slaveholders to
protect their slave relatives and friends from possible seizure for their
debts and to ensure their nominal slaves a degree of freedom when the
slaveholders died.

In spite of the questionable legality of the trust, free blacks used

the deeds to protect the freedom of their loved ones. In fact, between
1822 and 1864, numerous trusts were recorded in the Secretary of
State's Office in Columbia, South Carolina, by free blacks as well as
white slaveholders. Furthermore, many trusts were secretly established
and therefore were not recorded. In short, when free blacks could not
emancipate their loved ones who were their chattel, they used
extralegal as well as illegal means to provide a degree of freedom for
their slave relatives and friends.

In 1823, James Hopton Marsh, a free black of Charleston City,

established a deed of trust to protect the freedom of his mother. Prior to
the trust, he purchased his mother, Abby Hopton, from Robert and
Harriet L. Howard for $800 in 1821. Two years after the purchase, he
became concerned that the freedom granted to his mother could not be
protected by himself. So Marsh transferred his mother to Robert
Howard, the former owner of the female slave, for five dollars.
However, the trust explicitly stipulated that Abigail Hopton would not
be subject to the control of Robert Howard, thereby granting her the
liberty of movement and thus nominal freedom. But the nominal slave
was required to pay to Robert Howard the sum of one dollar annually
for slave taxes. When James Marsh sold his mother to Robert Howard,
he made the transaction to protect his mother from being seized and
sold for his unpaid bills."

In another example, Jeremiah L. Espinard, a free colored man of

Charleston City, feared that his death was imminent, so he sold his wife
to a free colored man to ensure her freedom. In the trust, he stated:

I Jeremiah L. Espinard, a free man of color of the city of

Charleston ... have always experienced the most faithful and
affectionate conduct from Kitty a female negro woman slave
belonging to me. And whereas it is my wish to make provision
as will secure to her comfort and protection whilst she lives
 being unable by law to execute a deed of emancipation in her
favour ...

I Jeremiah L. Espinard for and in consideration of the sum of

five dollars to me in hand paid by the said Jacob Weston ... sell
unto the said Jacob Weston a negro Female slave named Kitty.

Jacob Weston will at no time nor on any occasion whatsoever

demand or require from ... Kitty more than ... 50 cents per annu
... or sum as may be necessary for the payment of taxes ...f6

After Jeremiah L. Espinard sold his wife to Jacob Weston, he also

transferred the furniture in his home to Weston for the benefit of his
beloved wife. According to the trust, he stipulated that

I Jeremiah L. Espinard a free man of color ... for in

consideration of the sum of one dollar ... paid by Jacob Weston
also a free man of color ... sold ... the following household
furniture ... two moss Mattresses, one feather bed, one set of
drawers, one pine bedstead, one Mahogany Dining table, one
small Mahogany tea table, light setting chairs, house on
Wentworth Street in the City of Charleston ...

In trust nevertheless and to and for the sole, separate and

exclusive use benefit and behalf of my wife Kitty with full
power to sell and dispose of the same or such part thereof as it
may be expedient to sells?

Trusts established between close colored friends occurred quite

frequently in the state. These extralegal agreements were usually
honored by the colored trustees.

Many black slaveholders allowed trusted white friends to hold the

legal title of their loved ones. In Sumter County, William Ellison, a
free colored man, established a deed of trust with his reliable white
associate to protect the freedom of his daughter, Maria Ellison. When
he purchased his daughter from Dr. David Gilliens, the Act of 1820
prohibited slaveholders from issuing deeds of manumission to free
their loved ones. Consequently, William Ellison could not legally
emancipate his daughter without the consent of the state assembly. To
ensure the safety of his beloved child, he established a deed of trust
with Col. William McCreighton. On November 18, 1830, he transferred
the legal title of his daughter to Col. McCreighton for the nominal sum
of one dollar. Yet the trust explicitly stipulated that Maria Ellison was
to live with her father, who could free her when the state changed the
statute against personal manumission or could manumit the slave girl
outside the state's jurisdiction. But more importantly, Maria Ellison
could not be seized and sold for the debts of either William Ellison or
Col. McCreighton. Even though the legal title to Maria Ellison was
transferred to McCreighton, the special provisions of the trust ensured
her safety as long as the trustee fulfilled his obligations. In the case of
Col. McCreighton, he honored his commitment and permitted the slave
girl to act as a free person."

Maria Ellison was a de facto free black. For example, she left
Stateburg Township under her own power and traveled to Fairfield
County, where she married Henry Jacobs (a free man of color and a
carriage maker). In the federal census of 1850, she was listed as a free
woman of color, yet no legal document was issued by the legislative
body to sanction the freedom of Maria Ellison. In fact, William Ellison
was so sure of the nominal freedom of his daughter that upon his death,
he bequeathed to her the sum of $500.99 By and large, when the deeds
of trust were adhered to, the slaves were allowed to live as though they
had been born of free parents.
 Some black slaveholders did not think that their trustees would
honor the agreements, and so they established intricate provisions
within the trusts to protect their loved ones. Elizabeth Taylor, a free
colored woman of Charleston City, created an elaborate provision in
her trust to protect her beloved husband. In the trust, she stated:

I the said Elizabeth Taylor shall have the use and enjoy the
services of the said Mulatto fellow Abram Taylor for and
during my natural life and it is herein and hereby expressly
agreed and understood that the sum of five Dollars to me paid
annually shall be in full fair and equalent compensation for the
said use and service of the said Abram Taylor and after my
death for the use and benefit of Rev. Gentleman ... Rector of St.
Philips Church ... the said Christopher Panis ... shall not require
or compel that said Abram Taylor to pay more than two Dollars
a year wages nor shall they the said Trustees ... attempt by an
application to the Court of Equity or by any legal provision
whatsoever to sell barter or exchange the said Abram Taylor
nor shall they or either of them attempt to send or force the
said Abram Taylor to leave or remove from this City or State
unless it truly his own desire and with his own consent ...

But should the said Christopher Panis trustee aforesaid his

heirs Executors or Administrators or any other person
whomsoever ... the said trust and Limitations and all the
Interest hereby Conveyed or intended to be conveyed shall
cause and determine and the said Abram Taylor Shall pass to
and be held intrust by the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal
Church ...'0

When Elizabeth Taylor made her trust, she was aware that her trustees
could violate their agreements and sell Abram Taylor. In order to
further ensure the freedom of her beloved husband, she requested that
an alternative trustee should take possession of Abram Taylor, if the
original trustees failed to honor their commitments. On the whole, this
trust permitted Abram Taylor to interact as a free man of color as long
as the document was honored by the trustees.

In the antebellum era, it was not unusual for nominal slaves to

approach free blacks and request them to serve as their agents to
purchase their freedom. Usually a slave worked in his spare time to
earn the capital to facilitate the purchase. Once the money was raised,
the agent approached the owner and negotiated a suitable price. After
the purchase, the agent or technical owner permitted the slave to work
and live as a free person of color.

Arrangements between slaves and free blacks to purchase their

freedom were quite common in Charleston City during the 1820s and
the 1830s. For example, a slave woman named Maria asked Margaret
Randall, a free woman of color, to buy her freedom. Maria had saved
enough money for the eventual purchase and directed her agent to
negotiate a fair price with her owner. After the bargaining, it was
agreed that Maria would be sold for $200. On July 18, 1829, Margaret
Randall purchased the slave Maria from Sarah McPherson. Two days
after the purchase, Mrs. Randall declared that "by these present do
hereby forever relinquish unto the said Negro slave Maria ... all and
every claim and claims of her wages unto me. "61 Sometime after the
transaction Maria undoubtedly blended into the free black community.

Occasionally slaves even used free blacks to purchase their

families for them. In Charleston City, Elias Beard requested that
Samuel Weston act as agent and purchase his family. Prior to the
request, Elias Beard had received his freedom by the last will and
testament of Plowden Weston. But the emancipation was illegal
because at the time his master could not manumit him without the
approval of the state assembly. That approval was not attained by the
executors of Plowden Weston. Yet as a nominal slave, Beard was able
to acquire the capital needed to buy his family. When Elias Beard
acquired the money to purchase his loved ones, he directed Samuel
Weston to buy them. On March 1, 1830, Samuel Weston purchased
Rachel Beard and her two children, Georgiana and Martha, from Henry
and Carolina Holmes for $700.61

While Samuel Weston held the legal title to the slave family, he
still permitted them their freedom. Yet as long as he legally owned the
slave family, there was the distinct possibility that the family could
have been seized and sold for his debts. To ensure the safety of the
Beard family, he stipulated that

I or any person whatever claiming ... through or under me

should at anytime her after claim ... or appropriate the said
Rachel and her children or their services to me or their use or
benefit ... I do hereby declare and acknowledge that any free
person whatsoever, whether white or colored may on behalf of
... Rachel and children receive, conceal, remove out of the way
and protect them or any of them against me or any person so
aforesaid claiming them ...63

Like Samuel Weston, other free blacks were receptive to the

requests of their black brethren in slavery and held the legal title to
slaves without receiving or demanding financial benefits. Furthermore,
they permitted their nominal slaves to live as free persons of color.

In the free black community, there were many individuals who

allowed their nominal slaves to blend into the colored community. For
many there existed an active opposition against slavery which can be
seen in the deeds of trusts. For example, Smart Stoll, a tailor of
Charleston City, purchased a slave girl named Susannah. After the
purchase, he declared that "in consideration of the Sum of One Dollar
... paid ... by within Negro Girl Slave Susannah have ... from this date
relinquish unto the said negro Girl Slave Susannah and her future issues
and increase ... any and all Control and domanion over her."64 In
March 1831, Priscilla North of Charleston City, purchased two brown
children named Henry and John from Henry Muckinfuss of Charleston
City for $190.69 Shortly later Priscilla North declared her opposition to
slavery when she said:

Be it remembered that I Priscilla North of the City of

Charleston (a free person of color) being at present the owner
of two colored children viz John aged five years and Henry age
three years. And whereas the Laws of the State opposed to
emancipation

Now know ye that inconsideration of divers, good causes me

here into moving and as well as for and inconsideration of the
sum of Ten Dollars to me in hand paid ... by Thomas F. Purse
and Henry W. Muckinfuss. I have granted, bargained, sold and
delivered ... unto the said Thomas F. Purse and Henry W.
Muckinfuss the aforesaid two slaves Henry and John ... In Trust
nevertheless upon this special trust and confidence that the said
Thomas F. Purse and Henry W. Muckinfuss ... shall and will
permit and allow the said slaves to be considered from
henceforth free and discharged from the bonds of slavery and
to be in no manner whatever subject to the debts contracts or
engagements of myself or of ... said trustees ...66

Clearly, free blacks evaded the law against private emancipation

and declared their slaves who were relatives and friends to be free from
slavery. By using deeds of trust, they provided some assurance that
their loved ones would be permitted to enjoy the privileges of duly
emancipated slaves.
 By the 1830s, the judiciary raised some serious questions about
the legality of the trusts. In Thomas Linam vs. Samuel 0. Johnson, the
court of appeals ruled that "if the owner without a formal act of
emancipation permit his slave to go at large and to exercise all the
rights and enjoy all the privileges of a free person of color the slave
becomes liable to seizure as a derelict ... under the act of 1800."67
According to the act, slaves who were not duly emancipated and lived
as free coloreds could be seized by free persons and used for the good
of the claimer.

However, in Monk vs. Jenkins, the court ruled that a de facto free
black could enjoy the privileges of a free person of color while he was
at large. According to Justice William Harper, "there can be no slaves
without a master, and it follows that after such irregular emancipation,
until seizure is actually made, the emancipated slave must stand on the
footing of any other free negro."68 In essence, the decision of Judge
Harper permitted nominal slaves or de facto free blacks to work and
live as free coloreds until seizure had been made by the state or free
person.

In 1841, the state legislature moved to firmly close all loopholes

in the Act of 1820. The assembly passed a bill which stipulated that no
slaves could be freed outside of the jurisdiction of the state by wills,
deeds of trust or any other conveyances. Furthermore, article three of
the statute declared:

That any bequest, gift or conveyance of any slave or slaves,

accompanied with a trust or confidence, either secret or
expressed that such slave or slaves shall be held in nominal
servitude only, shall be void and no effect and every donee or
trustee, holding under such bequest, gift, or conveyance shall
be liable to deliver up such slave or slaves or held to account
for the value, for the benefit of the distributee or next of kin of
 the person making such bequest, gift, or conveyance.69

As the number of defacto free blacks began to grow, the

legislature became fearful that these nominal slaves would blend into
the free black community, thereby increasing the free ranks. In
addition, the legislative power to emancipate slaves was being usurped
by the trusts. Consequently, the deeds of trust were ruled to be illegal,
and the slaves involved in the transactions could be seized by the next
of kin or the state.

For many black slaveholders, the statute of 1841 presented them

with a major dilemma. Since the statute declared that slaves involved
i n the trusts would be seized, some slaveholders were hesitant about
establishing a deed of trust. In addition, the law even restricted
slaveholders from emancipating their loved ones outside of the state.
For those slaveholders who wanted legally to emancipate their loved
ones, the only alternative was to petition the state legislature.

In 1845, Priscilla Jesszup of Abbeville County requested that the

state legislature allow her to emancipate her beloved husband. In the
petition, she stated that her husband, John Jesszup, had been the slave
of Mr. Marion and by her industry she was able to purchase his
freedom in 1834.70

By 1845 Priscilla Jesszup was in bad health and feared that her
death was imminent. According to Jesszup, her husband would fall into
other hands as a slave if she did not manumit him before her death. For
that reason, she desperately wanted her husband to be emancipated so
h e would not be separated from their free children, who needed the
guidance of their father. But the prayers of a poor colored woman fell
upon deaf ears; the Committee on the Colored Population refused to
manumit her beloved husband. The committee maintained that
 There are many circumstances in this case, that should excite
sympathy in behalf of the object of the petitioner yet believing
it to be the true policy of the state vigilantly to guard against
what might become an abuse of sympathy they unamiously
recommend that a strict adherence to the statute of 1841 and
accordingly recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be not
granted."

By the 1840s, the state legislature had not changed its strict
interpretation of the act of 1820 and therefore freed no slaves. Yet the
petitions from free blacks were still presented to the committee. In
1853, William Jackson, a carpenter of Colleton County, petitioned the
legislature to emancipate his family. But the request of Jackson was
denied by the Committee on the Colored Population.72 In short, black
slaveholders could not legally emancipate their loved ones in the state
or even outside it.

The only alternative for many black slaveholders was to break the
law and establish deeds of trust. In fact, many slaveholders provided
for the freedom of their loved ones in this way and disregarded the
statute of 1841. Shortly after the law was passed, William Cooper
issued a deed of trust. In the document, he declared:

I William Cooper of the City of Charleston for and

inconsideration of the sum of ten dollars ... by Thomas Lehre ...
have granted bargained sold ... a colored man named William
Garden Cooper unto the said Thomas Lehre ...

In Trust nevertheless to and for the following Trusts uses and

purposes herein after specified What is to say that said William
Garden Cooper to work out and receive, keep enjoy and dispose
of the proceeds of his own labor and earnings in any manner of
way he might think fit, without the control or interference of
 him the said Trustee and in Trust further that the said Wm
Garden Cooper should not in any manner or way be subject to
the debts liabilities or engagements whatsoever of the said
Thomas Lehre. And in trust further that should the said
William Garden Cooper desire to leave the state he shall have
full power and authority to do so without any hinderance or
molestation on the part or behalf of the said Trustee ...'3

When William Cooper made his trust, he was confident the statute of
1841 would not be enforced and that his nominal slave would be
allowed to blend into the free black community.

While William Cooper openly declared his trust, other free blacks
created secret deeds to protect their loved ones. In 1845, Lamb Stevens,
a free black of Charleston District, sold his daughter, Judy, and her
children, Robert and Rachel, to John Bemar for the nominal sum of one
dollar. The sale resulted from his fear that he could not maintain the
freedom of his family. Undoubtedly Stevens demanded that certain
conditions must be adhered to by Bemar before the transaction was
concluded. In the oral agreement, he may have stipulated that his loved
ones were to have their freedom and, most importantly, that his family
could not be sold for his or Bemar's debts."

In Charleston City, Francis Mishaw, a free person of color,

established a similar trust to protect his loved ones. On October 25,
1847, he declared:

I give and bequeath the colored Woman Sally who was

purchased by me from Mrs. Allen D. Lowndes and her present
and future issue and increase and all other property whatsoever
that I may be seized or possessed of ... at the time of my death
to Dr. E. Horry Deas, Dr. Peter Porcher and Philip J. Porcher
Esquire ...'s
Although Francis Mishaw did not state his intentions in the will, the
style of his declaration seems to suggest that the three trustees were
assigned to look after his estate for the slave woman Sally. Francis
Mishaw was aware that had he explicitly stated his intentions of
procuring the freedom of his slaves, he would have openly violated the
Act of 1841. By creating a secret trust, the probability that the
agreement would be discovered was unlikely.

Throughout the 1850s and the early 1860s, the explicit and secret
trusts continued to be a common means of ensuring the freedom of
nominal slaves. In Charleston City, for example, Katy Ann Harleston
and her daughter, Tersa, were sold to John B. Mathews, Thomas R.
Small, and Edward Mick for the nomimal sum of five dollars in 1855.
The trust stipulated that Katy Harleston and her child were to be treated
as free persons of color.76 Elsewhere in the city of Charleston, Cato W.
Joyner was transferred to Richard E. Dereef, a free man of color, for the
sum of five dollars and under the express condition that the slave would
be considered as a free man." As late as 1864, trusts were being used to
provide nominal slaves with a degree of freedom. Malcolm Brown, a
free colored man of Charleston City, transferred the title of his woman,
Rose Lavinia, and her child, Emma, to Thomas R. Small, Tobias
Darison, and Thomas D. Small, in order that the slaves could be freed
from the worst elements of slavery. For many black slaveholders, the
law against the trusts was not enough to deter them from freeing their
loved ones from slavery.71

By and large, the bond of kinship stimulated many free blacks to

purchase their relatives who remained in slavery. Once they acquired
their loved ones manumission usually occurred. But after 1820, free
blacks could not legally emancipate their relatives and friends from
slavery without the consent of the state assembly. So they used legal,
extralegal, and illegal means to free their loved ones from the stigma of
chattel.
 After 1820, hundreds of slaves were illegally manumitted by their
owners in Charleston City. Among the slaves freed were relatives and
friends held by free persons of color. Their colored owners allowed
them to interact in the community as free persons when manumission
could not be legally attained. In general, the nominal slaves owned by
free blacks were bondsmen without masters because their colored
owners only held their legal title and did not interfere in their ingress or
egress. These nominal slaves were de facto free blacks, living and
working as free persons of color. In fact, they even paid free Negro
capitation taxes and owned property, including slaves. But the status of
the quasi-free black was a precarious situation. According to the law,
they were slaves, as were the children born to females of that status.
Also, the law stipulated that the de facto free blacks could be seized
and sold by the state as vacant property. Until they were caught,
however, their status remained somewhere between slavery and
freedom; thus they were neither slaves nor free persons.

The bond of kinship established by free black families facilitated

a benevolent exchange between black slaveholders and their slave
relatives. To many free blacks, the status of their loved ones who were
slaves did not destroy that special bond within their families. Even
though they owned their kinsfolk, the love between the free parent and
the slave child did not diminish, just as the concerns and love between
the free spouse and the slave spouse did not change. By and large, the
personal relationship between free black slaveholders and their loved
ones or nominal slaves was no different from the interaction among
free relatives. The colored slaveholders regarded their loved ones as
free persons and permitted them to live as free persons of color.

The relationship between Peter Elwig and his slave son Joseph
Elwig is a perfect example of the interaction among free blacks and
their slave kinsfolk. In 1823, Peter Elwig purchased his son Joseph and
two other sons, Peter and James, from Ann Richardson for $500. After
the purchase, he was unable to manumit his beloved children because
the state assembly had taken the power of personal manumission away
from the slave masters. Although Joseph Elwig and his brothers were
the slaves of their father, the love that their father had for them did not
diminish. Rather it seems to have intensified. The father reared his sons
as though they were born free from slavery. When Joseph Elwig
reached adolescence, his father trained him to be a carpenter.'

By the time Joseph Elwig was 26 years old, he had enjoyed many
of the privileges of free blacks. In 1836, he operated a carpenter shop in
Charleston City. In that year, he was considered a free black by the city
tax collector and accordingly paid free Negro capitation taxes. In 1839
he even married a free woman of color named Rebecca. Both he and his
wife lived on Coming Street and paid city taxes in 1840. As Joseph
Elwig interacted as a free black, he appeared to be removed from the
bond of slavery and so considered himself, not the slave of his father,
but a free man.2

Yet Joseph Elwig was a nominal slave. His owner was his father,
but the institution of slavery was his master. In spite of the fact that he
paid the same taxes that a duly emancipated slave was required to pay,
h e was still property. Joseph Elwig was the slave of an intolerable
institution which refused to permit many devoted fathers and mothers
to emancipate their beloved children from the stigma of property. The
inhumane system of slavery also forced many parents to sell their own
flesh and blood, though not for profit as some writers have suggested.
For many black parents, the sale of their children was the supreme
sacrifice of love. Many parents were aware that they could not protect
the freedom granted to their children solely by themselves. So they
usually transferred the legal title of their offspring to a trusted relative
or a reliable friend who would not interfere in the ingress or egress of
their loved ones. Yet, the whole transaction reinforced the fact that
their children were merely property and had to be sold to ensure their
freedom.

Like many black parents, Peter Elwig was forced to sell his son to
ensure the freedom of his child. In 1843, he became ill and feared that
his death was imminent. In order to prevent his son from being sold by
his creditors or confiscated as vacant property, he transferred the legal
title for him to Rebecca Elwig, the wife of his slave son, for the
nominal sum of one dollar. After the transaction was made, the
relationship between Rebecca and Joseph Elwig did not change for the
worse. In 1844, the couple lived on Charlotte Street and were listed as
free persons of color by the city tax collector. Furthermore, Joseph
Elwig continued to operate his carpenter shop as if he were a free man
as late as 1864. Clearly Joseph Elwig was not treated by his father or
wife as a mere slave, but as a free person.3 For Joseph Elwig, the
limitations he suffered were the result, not of a personal form of
slavery between master and slave, but of an institutionalized form of
bondage.

Surely the bond between parent and child was seldom disrupted by
the slave status of the offspring. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of
black parents did not destroy that special relationship with their
children even though they maintained ownership of their offspring over
a long period of time. In 1843, for example, George Lucas, a free black
o f Charleston Neck, purchased his three daughters named Dinah,
Martha, and Georgianna from Robert Hume for $500. In 1860, George
Lucas still held the title to his loved ones, but they were reported as
free persons of color by the city tax collector. At his home on Nassau
Street resided his wife, Josephine Lucas, and their children who were
slaves. Like many black parents, Lucas refused to inform the tax
collector that his offspring were slaves and should not be classified as
free persons. The bond of the family was so strong that Martha and
Georgianna Lucas remained in the household of their father in 1870.4

Elsewhere in Charleston Neck, Nelson Richardson purchased his

wife and allowed her to live as a free person. In 1849, he bought his
spouse, Ann Richardson, from Edward W. Bancroft of Charleston City
for $450. Although his wife was a slave, he did not regard her as mere
chattel. In 1850, for instance, he told the census enumerator that his
beloved wife was a free mulatto. By 1859 he was so successful in
concealing the slave status of his wife and subsequent children that he
did not have to pay slave taxes on his loved ones.5

In 1853, Georgianna Alston, a colored woman of Charleston City,

bought a mulatto man named Thomas from Jacob Cohen for $1,000.
The slave purchased by Georgianna Alston was, in fact, her husband
and not merely a laborer. In 1860, the couple was living together on
Spring Street in Charleston City and reported to be free persons of
color by the federal enumerator. In addition, the federal census marshal
reported that Thomas Alston was the owner of $2,000 worth of real
estate and personal property valued at $250. Also the couple paid free
Negro capitation taxes in 1860. Neither Thomas Alston nor his wife
paid slave taxes for him. In short, many free blacks like Thomas Alston
broke the barriers between slavery and freedom, thus establishing
themselves as free persons.b

During the antebellum period, there were free black slaveholders

who held the legal title to trusted friends and permitted them to work
and live as free persons. In Charleston City, Elias Beard, a slave to the
estate of Plowden Weston and a de facto free black, asked Samuel
Weston to hold the title of his family. After Beard had saved enough
money to purchase his loved ones, he requested that Weston be his
agent and buy his family for him. On March 1, 1830, Samuel Weston
bought Rachel Beard and her two children, Georgianna and Martha,
from Henry and Carolina Holmes for $700. Although Samuel Weston
held the title to the loved ones of Elias Beard, he did not interfere in the
life of the slave family. In fact, both Elias and Rachel Beard were
reported to be free blacks and living on Queen Street in 1836. The
nominal slave family had moved to Barnwell County by 1840. In the
federal census of that year, Elias Beard was listed not only as a free
black but as the owner of a young male slave. By 1850 Rachel Beard
and her children had returned to Charleston City and established
themselves as free persons with little interference from their nominal
owner, Samuel Weston.'

In another example, Richard Holloway, a free black and a

carpenter of Charleston City, permitted several of his slaves to have
t hei r freedom. For instance, Holloway assumed the obligation of
holding Charles Benford so that the slave could enjoy the privileges of
a free black. While Benford was the nominal slave of Holloway, he
worked actively in the Methodist Church of Charleston City and
proselytized to slaves as well as free blacks throughout the area.
Although Benford was a slave, his status did not inhibit his quest for
freedom; as the nominal slave of Richard Holloway, his liberties were
protected. Yet his status as the property of another man made him
subject to the debts of his nominal owner; thus he could be seized and
sold for the unpaid bills of his holder. To ensure the freedom of the 52-
year-old Charles Benford, his nominal master transferred the title of
the slave to the Rev. William Caspers, Samuel J. Wagner, and Abel
McKee in 1837." In the trust, Richard Holloway declared that

If the said negro man should at anytime hereafter besiged under

any legal process for the debt or debts of any or either of the
above named, parties ... then and in such cases the interest and
 property of such one or more of the said parties ... shall cease
and determine and he shall become wholly exclusively the
property of the other party or parties ...9

When Richard Holloway transferred the title of Benford to the three

gentlemen, he believed that they were more capable of protecting the
freedom that he had given his nominal slave.

Charles Benford was not the only slave owned by Richard

Holloway who was permitted to live as a free person of color. In 1833,
Holloway purchased Maria Tunno and her two children named Joseph
and Benjamin from Robert Bentham for $350. After the purchase, he
probably allowed the colored woman to work for herself and reimburse
him for the money expended to buy her freedom. Once Tunno fulfilled
her obligations, she was released from all claims to her by Richard
Holloway. In 1845 the family of the deceased Richard Holloway
declared that Maria Tunno and her offspring were freed from bondage
and under no obligations to the Holloway family.10

Many other free blacks were committed to protecting the freedom

of their nominal slaves. Yet the status of the nominal slaves was to be
ultimately decided by the courts and the legislature.

During the late 1830s, the courts were determining the status of
the nominal slaves in South Carolina. In 1833, two cases reached the
Court of Appeal which dealt with the nominal slaves. In Thomas Linam
vs. Samuel 0. Johnson, the court declared that when slaves were
manumitted by their masters without a formal act of emancipation and
exercised the privileges of free blacks, they could be seized as vacant
property by free persons. The Act of 1800 was cited by the court to
show how the slaveowners violated the law when they emancipated
their slaves. According to the court decision, the emancipation of
slaves was valid when a deed was duly recorded and accompanied by
"the certificate of a magistrate and five free holders that the intended to
be emancipated, is not of bad character and is capable of gaining a
livelihood. And it is declared ... lawful for any person to seize and
convert to his own use such slave so illegally emancipated and set
free.""

However, in Elizabeth Cline vs. Daniel Caldwell, the court ruled

that "a deed of a slave, absolute on its face, but with a secret trust, to let
the negro go at large as a freeman, or with a view of future
emancipation, is no violation of the act of 1820, and is obligatory
between the parties: until emancipation actually takes place, the right
of property remains in the grantee."" According to this decision of the
court, as long as the owner of the nominal slave maintained the right of
ownership, the slave could live and work as a free man and not violate
the law which banned private manumission. In essence, the court
declared that the slaves who received their freedom by deeds of trust
could establish themselves as free persons provided that they had an
owner, while the nominal slaves who were emancipated without a
formal act of manumission could be seized (before such seizure
occurred, however, they still enjoyed the privileges of free blacks).

In Monk vs. Jenkins, the nominal slaves who were illegally

manumitted were entitled to exercise their freedom. Justice William
Harper concluded that until seizure had been made, the slave must
stand on the footing of free blacks. In other words, the nominal slave
could own property and live as a free person of color, but his or her
freedom could not be guaranteed. If seizure occurred he or she would
be forced into a more restrictive form of slavery. Since the slave had no
owner to claim him or her, the slave would become the property of the
individual that seized him or her as vacant property."

In 1841 the state legislature moved to end the controversy

concerning nominal slaves. During the legislative session of that year, a
bill was introduced in the assembly to restrict the liberties granted to
nominal slaves. After viewing the merits of the proposed legislation,
the assembly passed the bill, which declared that "every devise or
bequest to a slave or slaves or to any person upon a trust or confidence,
secret or expressed for the benefits of any slave or slaves shall be noll
and void."" The statute not only declared that the trust to allow nominal
slaves their freedom was illegal but stipulated that the slaves should be
seized when the law was violated.

On several occasions the courts upheld the constitutionality of that

statute. In Vose vs. Hannahan, the court ruled that "a deed of gift of
slaves accompanied by a secret trust, that the slaves shall be held in
nominal servitude only are declared void and no effect by the third
section of the Act of 1841."'s As late as 1859 the courts continued to
uphold the legislation against the trusts. In W.W. Belcher vs. Hugh
McKelvey, the Court of Appeals ruled that "where a gift of slaves is
made by the donor in contravention of the Act of 1841 against
emancipation, the gift is void."16 However, in R.W. Broughton and
others vs. Robert Telfer and E. Waterman, the court slightly modified
the Act of 1841. The court declared that "a conveyance by deed prior to
the Act of 1841 of slaves intrust to allow the slaves to be practically
free is valid ..."" By and large, the legislation passed by the state
assembly was a stopgap measure which affected only the nominal
slaves who were freed after the Act of 1841. Yet hundreds of nominal
slaves were living in the state as free persons of color before the statute
became law and continued to exercise the privileges of free blacks after
the passage of the bill.

Many of the nominal slaves not affected by the statute banning the
trust lived in Charleston City. These nominal slaves continued to enjoy
the liberties of free blacks. Lydia Weston, for example, was freed by
her master, Plowden Weston, in 1826. The emancipation declared by
her owner was not legally binding because the state legislature did not
sanction the deed, as stipulated in the Act of 1820. She was therefore
still the slave to the estate of Plowden Weston. But with that
declaration of freedom, she conducted herself as a free woman. In
1830, she told the federal enumerator that she was a free woman of
color. Also the census taker for the 1840 enumeration listed her as a
free person of color, and the city tax collector reported that she paid
free Negro capitation taxes in 1846. Since Lydia Weston paid the taxes
of free blacks, she accordingly acted as a duly emancipated slave and
petitioned the city council for the permission to build a house on
Inspection Street in 1852.' 8

Lydia Weston was so sure of her status as a de facto free black

that she even owned slaves. In 1830, she was the owner of a young
female slave who may have been her child. Ten years later, she
acquired an elderly female slave, and shortly thereafter, she purchased
a woman named Seraphine from her godmother, Seraphine Lacomb, for
the nominal sum of one dollar. In spite of the fact that Lydia Weston
was a slave, she enjoyed the rights of a free black and even owned
slaves. The city officials of Charleston City clearly circumvented the
statute of 1800 and passively allowed many slaves to act as free
persons of color.19

For many nominal slaves the demaraction between slavery and

freedom was a thin line. Although the de facto free blacks could be
seized and subsequently reenslaved by any free person, they continued
to interact as free persons of color. Since the number of free blacks was
quite large in Charleston City and its surrounding areas, the nominal
slave could easily blend into the free black community, finding safety
in the masses. As they conducted themselves as free blacks and paid
free Negro taxes, they brought little suspicion upon themselves.

As long as the de facto free blacks remained a subservient class,

their privileges were usually assured. John Judah, the slave of Francis
M . Weston, was granted his freedom by his master in 1831 and
maintained his liberties for more than 30 years. In the deed of trust, his
owner declared that "John Judah shall have his time and workout for his
own profit in any place or places as any free person of color ..."20 With
that declaration of freedom, John Judah assumed the privileges of a
free black and maintained his freedom. In fact, so accepted was the
status of John Judah that when Rev. Paul Trapier married him to Sarah
Ann Logan, he referred to the couple as free blacks. Also the federal
enumerator of the 1840 census reported that John Judah was not only a
free black but the owner of two female slaves. By 1860 the 45-year-old
John Judah was firmly established in the city as a free black. In that
year, he operated a butcher shop and owned real estate appraised at
$1,400 by the city officials. In short, the status of John Judah as a slave
was not an important issue and so he kept his freedom with some
ease.21

Occasionally the nominal slaves amassed a considerable amount

o f property. In 1835, the children of Philip Stanislas Noisette and his
slave Celestine were declared to be free from bondage by their father.
Within two decades after the declaration of emancipation, the daughter
of Philip and Celestine Noisette was able to amass property valued at
$28,000 in 1860.22 Although Margaret Noisette was a slave, she owned
sixteen acres of farm land, valued at $8,000, and other real estate in the
city of Charleston. She also owned 15 slaves who probably worked her
farm. In addition, her son Alexander Noisette, who was a nominal
slave, owned a personal estate which was appraised at $6,000.1;

Elsewhere in Charleston City, Anthony Weston, the nominal slave

to the estate of Plowden Weston, amassed an estate valued at $40,075
and held 14 slaves. To ensure the safety of the estate, his wife, Maria
Weston, held the title to much of his property.24
 Many other defacto free blacks owned and sold property as though
they had been legally emancipated. For instance, Hannah Gonzalez, the
nominal slave of Henry Frost and Frederick Winthrop, purchased and
sold slaves like a free person. On March 9, 1860, she purchased three
slaves named Emma, Cuspid, and James from James F. Green and Alex
Gordon, the executors of Basilio Gonzalez, for $500. Shortly after the
purchase, she sold the boy Cuspid to John Marion for $125. Then
Hannah Gonzalez sold her mulatto boy James to John Marion for $675
in September 1860. In spite of the fact that Hannah Gonzalez was a
nominal slave, she owned property and even recorded legal bills of
sale." According to Justice William Harper in Monk vs. Jenkins, the
nominal slaves were entitled to own property just as a free black until
someone seized them as chattel; then all the property acquired by the
slaves would revert to the seizers. But until the seizure was made, the
nominal slaves owned property and even sold slaves.

But the status of the nominal slaves was a precarious situation.

Even though the defacto free blacks enjoyed the privileges of free
colored persons, they were slaves and subject to be seized by free
persons, the state, their owners, or the next of kin to their masters as
vacant property. In 1831, for example, George Mathews declared:

It is my Will that Somerset Cinda and her child Nelly John and
Little Dye should be valued at a reasonable amount and be
permitted to purchase their time and also that such a period be
allowed them as my Executrix and Executor shall think liberal
but should they or any of them not avail themselves of this
privilege or not fulfill the terms granted to them to pay the
amount. It is then my direction that they or any of them so
acting be sold and the proceeds equally divided among all my
grandchildren. 16
Upon the death of George Mathews, his slaves assumed the obligations
o f purchasing their freedom. In order to facilitate the purchase, the
slaves were permitted to work for themselves and subsequently buy
their freedom. In the meantime, they took the privileges of free colored
persons. For example, Dye, the slave to the estate of George Mathews,
assumed the rights of a free black while she attempted to fulfill her
contract to the executors of George Mathews. During that time, she
lived and worked as a free black. She eventually married a free colored
butcher named Johnson and subsequently gave birth to a child named
James. But while Dye Johnson interacted as a free woman, she
apparently neglected to fulfill her obligations to the estate of George
Mathews and failed to buy her freedom. According to the provisions of
her contract, if Dye Johnson did not buy her freedom within a specified
period of time, she would be sold.27

In conformity to the contract, Dye Johnson and her son were

seized and placed in the Charleston Workhouse for an eventual sale by
Simon Mathews, who was the grandson of George Mathews. To prevent
the sale, Dye's husband asked his guardian, Thomas F. Purse, to
intercede and stop the auction. In an advertisement placed in the
Charleston Courier, Thomas F. Purse asserted that "Die Johnson ... and
her child James ... are themselves free persons of color...."2' He also
cautioned the public from purchasing the slaves from Simon Mathews
or any other person. In fact, Purse even obtained an order preventing
the Master of the Workhouse from delivering the slaves to anyone until
the freedom of Dye Johnson had been established.

In a separate advertisement, Simon Mathews challenged the

allegations made by Thomas F. Purse. Mathews declared that

Die mentioned in the above advertisement was the slave of

George Mathews deceased in his life time and is now the
property of his Estate. The Subscriber as one of the parties
 interested in said Estate claim the right to sell her. Her pretence
of freedom is without the least foundation.

Simon Mathews29

The dilemma confronted by Dye Johnson was quite typical of the

problems facing the nominal slaves. They could be seized not only by
the heirs of their masters but by any person as vacant property. Yet a
few fortunate souls who befriended white citizens were protected by
them. In practice, these whites served as their defacto guardians and
defended their liberties.

In several instances, it became necessary for the nominal slaves to

seek the aid of their owners. For example, Jerry Stevens, the nominal
slave of his father, Lamb Stevens (a black planter of St. James & Goose
Creek Parish in Charleston District), was purchased by his father from
Dennis and Elizabeth Cain for $700 in 1831. Jerry Stevens, like many
offspring held by free black parents, was permitted to live and work as
a free person of color. With the permission of his father, he traveled to
Orangeburg County and attempted to establish himself as a free black
in 1833. But without any documents to prove his freedom, he was
seized as a runaway slave and placed in the jail by the sheriff on May 6,
1833. Fearing that he would be auctioned as unclaimed property, he
convinced the sheriff to place an advertisement in the Charleston
Mercury to notify his father of his predicament.10 On May 28, 1833,
the Charleston Mercury ran the following notice:

Committed to the Gaol of Orangeburg this day a Negro Man of

dark complexion 5 feet 10'/z inches high; calls his name Jerry,
and says he belong to his father, a free Negro, living in
Charleston by the named of Lamb Stevens; and that his father
bought him from Dennis Cain. He also states that a Mr. Riggs
living near Cypus is the Guardian of his father, Lamb Stevens.
 Wm. Murrow3'

Since the notice ran in the Charleston Mercury for several days, it
is likely that colored friends or business associates living in Charleston
City read the appeal and sent someone out to the Cherry Hill plantation,
which was about 30 miles from the city, to inform Lamb Stevens that
his son was in the Orangeburg County Jail. Upon hearing this news, he
undoubtedly traveled to Orangeburg County and retrieved his son
because the sheriff discontinued the notice place in the Mercury around
the middle part of June. Furthermore, the sheriff did not place an
advertisement in the newspapers for the sale of Jerry Stevens as
unclaimed property.

As shown by the case of Jerry Stevens, slaveholders occasionally

had to defend the freedom granted to their nominal slaves. Fortunately
f o r Stevens and other nominal slaves, their owners and de facto
guardians were able to protect their liberties.

The dilemma confronted by Jerry Stevens demonstrates the

limitations that many nominal slaves had when they left the safety of
their familiar environment. As long as the nominal slaves remained in
their own towns and cities, there was a degree of security. But when
they departed from their native soil and traveled to neighboring
counties where there were few free blacks, they immediately drew the
suspicions of the white residents and were requested to prove their
freedom. Since the de facto free blacks seldom had certificates of
freedom, they were seized as fugitive slaves and placed in the county
jails. Unfortunately, the nominal slaves who were declared as fugitives
were usually sold by the local sheriff as vacant property and forced into
slavery.

In the relatively secure city of Charleston, there was the lurking

sense of danger for many nominal slaves. Some were the descendants
o f female slaves whose owners died without transferring them to new
owners, leaving them slaves without masters. Rather than find people
to serve as their nominal owners, they conducted themselves as free
blacks and paid the capitation taxes required of all duly emancipated
slaves and their descendants. Yet they were still slaves, and the local
authorities sought to force them into bondage. Many local officials
were disturbed by the lost revenue from slave taxes and fees charged
for hired-out slaves because the nominal slaves had no masters who
could be assessed for the taxes. The lost revenue from the taxes as well
as the increasing number of de facto free blacks prompted the city
authorities to search for these nominal slaves and force them to take a
master.

On several occasions, the city officials went from door to door

searching for de facto free blacks. When the suspected parties were
located, they had to prove their freedom or take a master. To
complicate the ordeal, the testimony from free blacks to demonstrate
that the accused was entitled to his or her freedom was not acceptable
evidence. White witnesses were needed to prove the freedom of free
blacks. In 1827, for example, the local officials of Charleston City
demanded that Abigail Webley Beale, the daughter of Lydia Watson,
prove her freedom. On April 18, 1827, she used the sworn statement of
Eliza Allen to demonstrate that she was not a slave. According to Mrs.
Eliza Allen, she was acquainted with the family of Abigail Webley
Beale and the woman was the descendant of free parents born in the
East Indies.32

Even though the search for de facto free blacks did not always
produce a guilty party, the investigations continued. Throughout the
antebellum era, allegedly free blacks who were believed to be nominal
slaves were challenged to prove their claims of freedom. In 1833,
Nancy Harrison, the daughter of Mose and Ann Fairchild Brown, was
asked to provide evidence to show that she was entitled to her freedom.
Elsewhere in Charleston City, Louisa Shrewsberry used the sworn
testimonies of Dr. Thomas G. Prioleau and Mrs. Murphy, a midwife, to
prove that she was not a slave. In 1848, John L. Francis, a barber of
Charleston City, was accused of being a slave by the local authorities.
Without the testimony of Thomas Jones, the son of the former owner of
the colored man's mother, he would have been forced to take a master.
According to Thomas Jones, he knew John L. Francis to be the son of
Hagar, who was purchased by his father and later sold to Steward
Lamboll and manumitted in August 1797." Unfortunately, many
members of the free black community were not as lucky as John L.
Francis and were enslaved.

By the late 1850s and the early 1860s, the search for de facto free
blacks began to intensify. As the emotions heightened during the
secession crisis, the local authorities organized systematic searches to
locate de facto free blacks and arrest them. In 1860, James D. Johnson,
a free black and a tailor of Charleston City, stated that colored persons
who for 30 years had paid capitation taxes as free coloreds were now
forced "to go back to bondage and take out their Badges" like slaves.34
Johnson also reported that Joseph Dereef, a free colored, told him of
"the case of a female whose Grandmother he knew to be Bonafide [free
black] and knew her Mother also, when she had his child she came to
him to identify her he being the only person that knew her origin that
she could refer to and he could not relieve her."" Because Joseph
Dereef was not white, he could not testify that the woman was a
bonafide free person of color, and she was forced to take a master even
though she was of free parentage. As the hysteria increased, between
300 and 500 badges were purchased within two or three days, mostly by
"those who were under a mistaken notion that they were free and did
not require it. "16
 In the summer of 1860, many de facto free blacks were forced into
slavery, permitting the city assessor to tax the owners when the slaves
were hired out. In addition, many nominal slaveholders who allowed
their slaves to work for themselves were fined when they did not pay
the badge fees for their slaves. For example, Richard Dereef, a free
colored, "had to pay some $80 fines for Servants without Badges"
reported James D. Johnson." As the search for de facto free blacks
intensified, more arrests were registered by the city authorities, forcing
still more colored persons into slavery and increasing the collections
from badge fees and slave taxes.

During the hysterical spring and summer of 1860, the city

officials primarily prosecuted a particular segment of the black
communityusually the de facto free blacks who no longer had nominal
owners and those who could not provide sufficient proof to demonstrate
their freedom. Among that segment of the black community, many
were forced back into slavery, while others escaped bondage and fled to
free states.

While many de facto and duly emancipated free blacks were being
enslaved or leaving the city to escape the chains of bondage, there were
several nominal slaves who were not prosecuted and continued to live
a n d work as free coloreds. These de facto free blacks had nominal
owners who allowed them to exercise the privileges of free coloreds as
they paid the slave taxes and badge fees. In June 1860, when the city
officials were looking for defacto free blacks, the Beard family, the
nominal slaves of Samuel Weston, were reported to be free persons of
color by the census taker. Also, the children of Rachel Beard paid the
same capitation taxes that duly emancipated slaves and their
descendants were required to pay. When the city tax collectors
compiled the tax list of 1864, the son of Rachel Beard paid free Negro
taxes while working as a laborer in the city. Although the status of the
Beard family was still that of chattel, they continued to exercise the
rights of free blacks."

Like Rachel Beard and her children, many other slave families
continued to use the privileges of free coloreds even though the local
officials were arresting hundreds of defacto free blacks. In June 1860,
Ann Walker, the nominal slave of Edward North, was reported as a free
mulatto and the owner of two slaves as well as an estate which was
appraised at $4,000. Likewise, in July 1860, the census taker reported
that the slave children of Philip Noisette owned property as free
coloreds.39 Because many nominal slaves had owners and maintained
their taxes while interacting as free coloreds, they could not be
prosecuted like those slaves who had no masters. The nominal slaves,
therefore, lived and worked in the shadow of slavery while they
enjoyed the privileges of free blacks.

The hysteria of 1860 prompted many free blacks and nominal

slaves to flee to the north. Yet before the panic of 1860, hundreds of
nominal slaves in Charleston City were held by relatives and friends
who allowed them to work and live as free persons of color.
 Many historians have argued that the majority of black masters
purchased their relatives and friends who were held in bondages. Being
unable to manumit their loved ones, the black masters were forced to
hold their kinsfolk and friends as nominal slaves. So they treated their
relatives and friends as free persons, and whenever possible, they
attempted to manumit their loved ones. Thus the dominant pattern of
slaveholding that developed among free blacks was benevolent and
based primarily on kinship. The chief architect of the benevolent
interpretation was Carter G. Woodson, and his thesis has been accepted
by most historians.

Yet the Woodson thesis has many weaknesses that have been
overlooked or not fully explored by its supporters. Furthermore, the
Woodson thesis has been overemphasized, while the other side of free
black slaveowning has been characterized as a minor facet by many
scholars. However, there is ample evidence which demonstrates that
free blacks purchased slaves as capital investments. To many black
masters, slaves represented valued property being used to produce more
wealth. These slaveowners, therefore, bought slaves as commercial
assets and used them to make a profit. In fact, the commercial side of
free black slaveholding was more prevalent than previously maintained
b y historians. In short, the Woodson thesis that most free black
slaveowners were benevolent masters may be a myth.'

The benevolent interpretation postulated by Carter G. Woodson

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 declared (in 1924) that
 The census records show that the 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
slaves belonging to such families were few compared with the
large numbers found among the whites on well-developed
plantations. Slaves of Negroes 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

In essence, Woodson's argument is centered upon three major

points, all derived from the census of 1830. First, the majority of free
blacks purchased relatives and friends who were slaves to white
owners, and then allowed them a greater degree of freedom. Second,
the small number of slaves held by black masters when compared to the
large number of slaves owned by white planters suggests that free
blacks purchased family members. Third, the census demonstrates
these first two points, proving that free black slaveowners were
benevolent or philanthropic.

Many scholars in the historical community have acquiesced to the

Woodson thesis and have argued that most free black masters were
benevolent slaveowners. In fact, John Hope Franklin reiterated the
benevolent interpretation:

The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal

interest in their property. Frequently the husband purchased his
wife or vice or versa; or the slaves were the children of a free
father who had purchased his wife; or they were other relatives
 or friends who had been rescued from the worst features of the
institution by some affluent free Negroes ... 3

The assertions of John Hope Franklin were quite typical among

many prominent historians. Ira Berlin also accepted the benevolent
interpretation, asserting that

Although most free Negro slaveholders were truly benevolent

despots, owning only their families and friends to prevent their
enslavement or forcible deportation, a small minority of
wealthy freemen exploited slaves for commercial purposes.4

Many historians like John Hope Franklin and Ira Berlin have
accepted the Woodson thesis. Even at this writing, they continue to
maintain that most black masters were benevolent slaveowners and
held relatives to rescue them from the chains of slavery.5

Yet a small group of scholars has questioned the benevolent

premises of Carter G. Woodson. In 1942, Luther P. Jackson reiterated
the Woodson thesis that free black masters were primarily benevolent.
But 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 who purchased slaves to work in their businesses were
prevalent in the 1850s. These black capitalists worked as barbers,
carpenters, and farmers, as well as in other occupations which
demanded laborers. Recognizing that slaves could be used to produce
more wealth, these entrepreneurs utilized slaves as commercial assets
and purchased them and sold them to make a profit.

The assertions of Luther P. Jackson slightly modified the

Woodson thesis. Both hypotheses accepted the benevolent motives of
black masters as the dominant force at one point in the development of
black slaveholding; however, Jackson maintained that the commercial
side of the institution was more prevalent after 1850.6

The observations of Jackson have been shared and even extended

by other historians. In 1976, the benevolent premise was eloquently
questioned by a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University. David
Rankin said that

Historians have traditionally assigned noble and generous

motives to colored slaveholders. They have argued that the
great majority of Negro masters owned relatives, and the New
Orleans conveyance records provide ample evidence of fathers
and mothers buying their offspring. They have argued that the
small size of Negro slaveholding supports their picture of the
paternal masters ... If many free coloreds bought slaves for
their own good, others sold them for a profit. For example, On
April 15, 1862, just ten days before Union forces captured New
Orleans, a free woman of color sold a 25 year old female slave
to Daniel Edwards ... Other free coloreds sold troublesome
slaves or returned them to the original owner for cash.'

Rankin's observations concerning the commercial aspects of free black

slaveowning were quite correct. Yet the commercial transactions of
free blacks were also conducted by so-called benevolent slaveholders.

A careful examination of the three major premises stated by

Carter G. Woodson casts suspicion upon the validity of the benevolent
interpretation. For example, Woodson asserted that the majority of free
blacks who owned slaves purchased only relatives and friends to allow
them a greater degree of freedom, but he did not consider that many
free persons of color bought slaves to be used as investments even
while they maintained and protected their slave families and friends. In
Charleston Neck, James Brown, a free mulatto and a butcher, bought
his wife Nancy, who later gave birth to their two sons, John and James
Brown, while she was a slave. Since Brown could not manumit his
family, he was forced to hold his loved ones as nominal slaves and give
them their liberties. Yet James Brown also purchased slaves who were
not related to him by kinship, but acquired as an investment for himself
and his family. In 1821, for example, he bought a Negro boy named Joe
from Levy Moses, the slave trader of Charleston City, for $250.' He
later purchased from Moses a black woman named Juliet and her three
children named Lucy, George, and Juliet for $800.9 Brown bought
these slaves to assist him in the maintenance of his butcher shop as
well as to provide domestic services for his family.

Since Brown owned two sets of slaves, he undoubtedly treated

them differently. Even though his two slave sons were his property, he
treated them as though they had been born free from slavery. But the
slaves purchased for their labor were considered mere chattel to be
bought and sold. A deed of trust established between James Brown and
two colored friends demonstrates his interaction with his two sets of
slaves. In the trust, he stated that

In consideration of the natural love and affection which he the

said James Brown hath for his two slaves John Brown and
James Brown and for the purposes of making some provisions
for them after his death and also of the sum of One dollar to
him ... paid by the said John Weston and R.E. Dereef ... hath
given and granted ... unto them ... the following Negro Slaves
that is to say Joe aged about 10 years Juliet aged about 6 years
Lucy aged about 9 years and George about 7 years ...

In trust nevertheless for the sole use benefit and behalf of him
the said James Brown ... after his death should his said sons
John Brown and James Brown be alive ... to have and to hold
the said Negro Slaves ...' 0
In the deed of trust, James Brown transferred the legal title to all of his
slaves except Juliet, the mother of the slave children, to John Weston
and Richard E. Dereef for the future benefit of his two slave sons. In
the meantime, Juliet continued to serve the domestic needs of the
colored family until the death of James Brown in 1842. In the inventory
of the deceased man, Juliet was listed as an "old servant Negro woman"
and valued at $50.00." The slaveownership of James Brown, then,
demonstrated a benevolent as well as a commercial exchange.

In many other instances, free blacks who purchased their families

purchased other slaves for investment purposes to benefit their loved
ones. In 1828, William Tardiff, a free mulatto and a boat builder of
Charleston Neck, purchased his daughter, Katty, and her children,
Hestor and Joe, from Benjamin F. Scott and J.D. Jenkins, executors of
the estate of the deceased B. Reynolds, for $780. He also owned other
slaves to utilize their labor. However, his interaction with his daughter
was primarily a fatherdaughter relationship, while he treated his slave
workers as chattel. In May 1835, he wrote:

I leave my daughter Katty and her present and future issue and
increase to the care and protection of the free portion of my
family to hold them in the same manner as I have myself
hitherto held her. It is further my will that if my other slaves
shall desire to be sold or if the sale of them be deemed
expedient for the good of my Estate my Executors shall have
full power and authority to dispose of them to the best
advantage ..."

In the early part of June 1835, William Tardiff died, leaving an

estate valued at $4,678.79. Among the property that he owned were five
slaves. His human chattel consisted of a male boat builder valued at
$600, and a female slave named Betty and her three children, who were
appraised at $1,000. Yet neither his daughter nor his grandchildren
were listed in the inventory. Clearly, William Tardiff, as well as his
executors, made a distinction between the enslaved relatives and the
other slaves. In 1839, the daughter and grandchildren of William
Tardiff were reported in the Free Negro Capitation Tax Book; however,
they were listed as slaves. Undoubtedly the widow of William Tardiff
considered her dependents free persons, but the city tax collector
apparently knew that they were slaves."

When Carter G. Woodson asserted that free blacks purchased

slave relatives and friends, he was quite correct. However, free blacks
who held loved ones bought other slaves to be exploited for profit. To
classify these transactions as benevolent would be a mistake. Even
though these slaveowners usually demonstrated benevolent behavior
towards their slave relations and friends, a commercial or materialistic
exchange existed between them and their slaves purchased as
investments. In fact, the free blacks who maintained a dual relationship
with their slaves had no universal commitment against slavery. To
them, slavery was an oppressive institution when it affected a beloved
relative or a trusted friend, but beyond that realm, slavery was viewed
as a profit-making institution to be exploited.

In many instances, free black slaveowners shared a similar view

o f slavery with their white counterparts. Slaveowners of both races
occasionally manumitted a trusted servant and in the same moment
requested the sale of another slave. The act of freeing one or several
slaves while others remained in bondage did not constitute a firm
commitment against slavery, but a personal view which acknowledged
that some slaves, through merit or hard work, deserved their freedom,
while others were destined to be slaves until death. So when
philanthropic free blacks purchased slaves and then emancipated them,
they were not always paternalistic owners as Carter G. Woodson
suggested.

For example, Richard Holloway, Sr., a free black of Charleston

City, bought a slave named Charles Benford in order that the slave
might enjoy his freedom. Yet at the same time, he owned other slaves
who were not treated so kindly. In 1834, for instance, he purchased a
Negro woman named Sarah and her two children, Annett and Edward,
from Susan B. Robertson for $575. Within three years after the
purchase, he apparently became dissatisfied with the slave family and
sold them for $945. When Holloway sold the slave family, he made a
profit of $370." Even though Richard Holloway, Sr., allowed a trusted
servant to enjoy a greater degree of freedom, he was still a slaveowner
for profit. So he sold and purchased slaves as an investment even while
he held other slaves for benevolent reasons. To consider him a
benevolent master would be erroneous because he also exploited other
slaves for his own benefit.

Another example of the dual interaction between black masters

and their slaves is the case of Rose Summers. In her will, she stated:

I give and bequeath unto my Executor within named Two

Children my Slaves one named John and the other an infant
named Polly being the Children of my Slave named Bellah but
on this express and positive conditions that he my said
Executor will emancipate and set free the above named two
children ...

I desire as soon as it may be practicable that my Executor

herein named will sell for money my four slaves to the best
possible advantage together with all my household Furniture
..."

While Summers requested that the children of her trusted servant

Bellah should be emancipated, her other slaves were doomed to the
auction block. In December 1840, her executor sold the slave woman
Elsey; then the slaves Sam and Henry were auctioned to the highest
bidder for $970.13 in January 1841. Shortly after that date, the slave
woman named Harriet was sold by the executor of Rose Summers for
$300. After the sale of the Negro slaves and the furniture, the estate of
Rose Summers netted $1,334.79, which was divided among five
colored women designated as heirs by the deceased woman. 16

Clearly, Carter G. Woodson was partially correct when he said

t hat "benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot
easier by granting them their freedom ..."" Yet these same Negroes also
owned slaves who were purchased as laborers and used as investments.
Even as they freed trusted servants, many black masters had no
intentions of emancipating their other slaves, even when the masters
died and could not benefit from their investments. So when Carter G.
Woodson declared that "the majority of Negro owners of slaves were
such from the point of view of philanthropy," he failed to consider that
there were so-called benevolent masters who freed one slave and sold
another slave for profit.'" Woodson's perceptions of free black
slaveholding were partially correct; however, when the totality of the
institution is examined, his assumptions are revealed to be erroneous.

Carter G. Woodson underestimated the materialistic side of black

slaveholding when he said that the majority of free blacks owned slaves
for benevolent reasons. Many black masters were firmly committed to
chattel slavery and saw no reasons for manumitting their slaves. To
those colored masters, slaves were merely property to be purchased,
sold or exchanged. Their economic self-interest overrode whatever
moral concerns or guilt they may have harbored about slavery. Since
the black masters benefitted from slavery, they rationalized that
because the institution was profitable, they could not relinquish their
valuable property without being reimbursed. So black masters
continued to own slaves even when the Union army was preparing to
invade South Carolina in 1864.

Throughout the antebellum period in South Carolina, the

materialistic side of black slaveholding was recorded in hundreds of
individual documents. In the Office of the Secretary of State, free
blacks registered numerous bills of sale which involved the purchasing
of slaves. For example, January Hinds, a free black of Charleston City,
recorded the purchase of a Negro woman named Caty for 35 pounds
sterling in 1800. A few years later, Mary Ann Smith, a colored woman
of Charleston City, registered the purchase of a bricklayer named
Stephen from Eliza Troup for $550.19 Although free blacks purchased
relatives and friends who were slaves, others undoubtedly acquired
slaves for commercial purposes. In 1833, Albert Smith purchased a
black woman named Suzette for $305. Apparently, Smith became
dissatisfied with the slave, and two years later, he sold the woman to
Michael Custilione for $305. When black masters sold slaves at the
market value, the transactions were usually far from being benevolent
and implied commercial usage. In spite of Carter G. Woodson's
assertions that black slaveholding was primarily benevolent and based
on kinship, the sale of slaves was prevalent among free black masters.
In Charleston City, for example, William Johnson, a free black and a
carpenter, recorded the sale of a Negro boy named Ben. In 1781, the
slave boy was sold to Conrad Keckely for 1,000 pounds sterling. Seven
years later, James and Hannah Miles sold a Negro woman named Lucy
to Richard Savage for 35 pounds sterling. And in 1801, the sale of the
woman Charlotte was registered by John Martin Logan, who was a
colored carpenter from Charleston City. 10 Surely the slave dealings of
these black slaveowners were acts of commerce for monetary returns.

The commercial impulse of black masters to exploit the

commodity of slave property was recorded not only by the Secretary of
State but the Master of Equity in Charleston District. In scores of
reports, the black masters appeared to have used their slaves as
commodities. On June 2, 1838, for example, two colored women were
involved in litigation over the ownership of a slave named Joe. In that
year, Patience McKenzie filed a suit against Eliza Mackey. She claimed
that her male slave was unlawfully seized by Eliza Mackey and placed
in the city workhouse. As well as declaring ownerwhip of the slave, she
maintained that the Negro man was her husband. Patience McKenzie
asserted that Joe belonged to her because she had fulfilled the last
financial payment to Eliza Mackey, who loaned her the money to
purchase the slave in 1832. However, when she made her final
payment, the colored creditor declared that the money was merely the
wages for the labor of the slave. According to the testimony of Eliza
Mackey, the slave was purchased by her and only hired out to Patience
McKenzie.21 In sworn testimony, Eliza Mackey said that Joe was
purchased by herself from William A. Carson in 1837. Shortly
thereafter, she hired him to Patience McKenzie, who paid her wages for
the labor of Joe until March 1838, when the colored hirer refused to pay
the fee for using the slave. Then Mackey placed the slave in the
workhouse and demanded that the master of the workhouse release the
slave only on her authority. Regardless of whether Patience McKenzie
or Eliza Mackey owned the slave, the commercial impulses of Mackey
are quite apparent.22

In a similar case, George Shrewsberry and James Hanscome, both

colored slave masters, argued over the ownership of three slaves in the
court of equity. Rather than sue each other, they filed a complaint
against the master of the workhouse because he refused to release the
slaves to either of the men until the ownership of the slaves was
established. In 1845, the two colored slaveowners filed a suit against
the master of the workhouse and claimed that he refused to release their
property. In court testimony, it was established that George
Shrewsberry acquired the slaves from James Hanscome through a
gambling debt. However, James Hanscome refused to acknowledge the
legitimacy of the debt and claimed the slaves as his property.
Consequently, George Shrewsberry placed the slaves in the workhouse
to prevent Hanscome from seizing the slaves. In the meantime,
Shrewsberry petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Charleston to
determine the ownership of the slaves. Before the court rendered its
decision, James Hanscome attempted to retrieve his alleged property,
but the master of the workhouse refused to release the slaves to him or
to George Shrewsberry until the ownership of the slaves was
established.21 The commercial impulses of both colored men are
vividly illustrated by the court proceedings. Such cases are not isolated
incidents; in fact, they are prevalent in the court records.24

Indeed, many colored slave masters argued over the possession of

their slaves, and even family members fought over the division of slave
property. In 1848, Nelly Collins, the wife of Jonathan Collins, a free
colored planter of St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, filed a suit against
her daughter, Jeanette Collins. According to the bill of complaint, Nelly
Collins alleged that without her consultation, Jeanette Collins had
hurried to town after the death of Jonathan Collins and had qualified as
executor of his estate, thereby receiving a warrant to appraise the estate
on February 10, 1848. Sometime thereafter, a white man named John
Myers, who lived with Jeanette Collins as her husband, threatened
Nelly Collins and took possession of several slaves belonging to the
estate of Jonathan Collins. Nelly Collins stated that John Myers had
unlimited control over Jeanette Collins. The two of them made it
difficult for Nelly Collins to enjoy the property of her deceased
husband and she requested that the court protect it.

However, Jeanette Collins gave a much different account of the

altercation. In sworn testimony, she declared that it was impossible to
occupy and cultivate the plantation with her mother, Nelly Collins. She
also maintained that at the time of the litigation, her mother did not
cultivate the plantation and allowed the "Negroes to be idle." According
to Jeanette Collins, she frequently requested that her mother adopt
some plan by which they could jointly manage the estate but Nelly
Collins refused.

After much angry testimony, the two parties agreed to a partition

of the estate. With the aid of Edward R. Laurens, the Master of Equity,
it was agreed that Nelly Collins should have the exclusive right of
occupying the plantation but that she must pay to Jeanette Collins the
sum of $15 annually for rent. The following slaves were declared the
exclusive property of Nelly Collins: John, Susanna, Murrow, Lander,
Hope, Jemima, and Rebekiah. It was also agreed that Jeanette Collins
would be given the following slaves: Louisa, Caesar, Harriet, Harry,
Patience, Glasgow, and Mingo.2S Clearly, this sort of litigation filed by
black masters over the possession and division of slave property was
far from being benevolent and can be interpreted as a commercial
transaction.

The commercial impulse of black slaveowners to use their human

chattel as a commodity was recorded in numerous other types of
documents. For example, there were mortgages registered by free
blacks who used their slaves as collateral to secure loans. In 1811,
Philis Wells, a free colored woman of Charleston City, used her servant
Mark as collateral to obtain a loan from Peter Desportes for $900. In
1823, a slave named Sarah was used as security by William Aiken, a
free black and a carpenter of Charleston City, when he applied for a
loan from Joseph S. Brown for $600. Undoubtedly, there were black
slaveowners who were confronted with financial difficulties and were
forced to mortgage their slaves. In Charleston City, Sally, a free black
woman, mortgaged her two children, Vensus and Jane. Apparently
Sally needed the money and was ready to risk losing her children if she
could not repay the loan borrowed from John Francis Chion.26 It
appears that few black parents were as daring as Sally; most refused to
mortgage their beloved children because they feared the consequences
if default occurred. Yet the black masters who were not related to their
slaves by ties of kinship were not personally disturbed when default
and seizure occurred. In December 1841, John St. Mark, a barber of
Charleston City, bought a Negro man named Billy and his wife, Provy,
from Otto Cook for $420. Two years later, he obtained a loan from
George Shrewsberry for $300. To secure the loan, he mortgaged Billy
and Provy. Shortly thereafter, John St. Mark apparently defaulted on
the loan and sold the slaves Billy and Provy for $375.27

In marriage settlements, black women occasionally conveyed their

slaves and other possessions to third parties who would ensure the
safety of their property from the debts of their husbands. In 1783,
Hannah Norman, a free mulatto, sold to Margaret and Richard
Singleton for ten pounds sterling the following slaves: Nancy, Mary,
Judy, Lizzy, Nanny, Pindar, Billy, Peggy, Jeanny, Lucy, Isaac, Celia,
and Hagar. However, the contract stipulated that Hannah Norman Miles
would have the exclusive use of the slaves and that her slaves could not
be seized for the financial debts of her husband, James Miles. In
another example, Maria Chapman, a colored woman of Charleston City,
transferred to Simon Magwood her slaves named Katy, Kates, Pompey,
Peggy, and Fanny, as well as four lots of land on St. Phillips Street and
five shares of stock in the Bank of the United States.2" Most of the
black women who conveyed their slaves in the marriage settlements
were not related to their slaves by kinship; thus their slaves were
primarily viewed as commodity. For example, shortly after the
marriage settlement of Hannah Norman Miles, she sold her servant
woman Lucy, who was part of the chattel in her marriage contract, for
35 pounds sterling. When the bond of kinship has been eliminated from
the slaveholding of free blacks, the commercial element becomes a
strong motive. Consequently, the colored women who established
marriage settlements viewed their slaves as investments to be utilized.
In the marriage contract of Claudia Angelina Inglis, the daughter of a
colored slaveowning barber from Charleston City, she held one-fifth
interest in three slaves named Lindy, James, and George. And Elizabeth
Susan Hanscome, the child of a white planter and his colored mistress
from St. James & Goose Creek Parish, owned the rights to several
slaves and a plantation appraised at $4,091.81.29 By and large, slaves
conveyed in marriage contracts were seen as property by their colored
owners.

The probate records also demonstrated the commercial motives of

black slaveholding in South Carolina. In scores of wills, black slave
masters used their human chattel as commercial assets, requesting that
their slaves should be auctioned to the highest bidder for payment of
their debts or for the benefit of family members. In 1820, Benjamin
Lincoln, a free black and a tailor of Charleston City, instructed his
executors to "sell my Negro Woman Slave Phillis and for the proceeds
thereof to pay my just debts ..."10 In another example, Barbara Maria
Bampfield, the daughter of Thomas Cole, a mulatto slaveowner and a
bricklayer from Charlestown, stated:

it is my desire that my servant Fatima be sold and that she shall

have time to get an owner to her satisfaction and the money to
be disposed of as before mentioned, that is after paying my
funeral expences just debts and the said Fatima five dollars that
the Balance be divided between Sarah Cole and Elizabeth
Maria Jones Equally."

Shortly after the death of Barbara Maria Bampfield, her servant Fatima
was sold by Jehu Jones, Jr., the executor of the deceased woman's
estate, for $200 in 1832.

Not all of the black masters requested that their slaves should be
sold. Other slaveowners bequeathed their servants to family members.
Such transactions were usually made by colored masters to benefit their
offspring or spouses. Maria Rose Derac, a colored emigrant from Santo
Domingo, provided her adopted daughter, Mary Louisa Derac, with
three slaves after her death. In 1834, Mary Gotton, a colored nurse of
Charleston City, gave her daughter, Julia Mondaze, a Negro woman
named Madaline. Then she presented her daughter with three slaves
named Alex, John, and Ben upon her death.32

Many of the black masters who conveyed their slaves to relatives

were commercial slaveowners who exploited the labor of slaves. Yet
occasionally, when the colored masters received faithful service from
their servants, they called for the manumission of their obedient slaves.
In 1785, Abraham Jackson, an ex-slave from St. Paul's Parish,
stipulated that "my Negro Woman by the name Sarah be immediately
set free from all Servitude ..."'" However, Jackson did not emancipate
the children of the slave woman, but requested that they be disposed of
as "my Executor shall judge proper ...'114 Indeed, even as the colored
masters were making their deathbed testaments, the commercial bond
of slavery permeated their dying demands. To them, slavery remained
an economic system to be exploited.

Other records collected by the probate court provide insight into

the commercialism of black slaveholding. In the inventories sanctioned
by the probate court, there were black slaveowners who possessed
slaves upon their death and who were subsequently recorded by the
probate judge. The executors of the colored masters who filed
inventories primarily listed slaves who were not related to the deceased
by ties of kinship. For example, Thomas Siah Bonneau and Joseph
Humphries, the executors of Charlotte Kershaw, refused to list the
slave relatives of the deceased woman in her inventory. However, they
recorded her two servants named Jenny and Sibby, who were appraised
at $400. Furthermore, the three slave relatives of Charlotte Kershaw
were reported in the will and in the inventory of the testator as her
legitimate heirs to receive not only money and personal property but
slaves. Clearly, the bond of kinship compelled the colored slaveholders
to inform their executors that their loved ones were not chattel to be
humilated and dehumanized by appraising them at the level of horses,
cattle, and swine, narrowed to the impersonal medium of gold and
silver. Yet the colored masters who were not related to their servants
w e r e not restrained from considering their slaves as chattel.
Consequently, when the executors of the commercial masters filed their
inventories, those slaves were appraised just like cattle and pigs. In
1860, the slaves of Philip Cohen, a colored farmer of Barnwell County,
were appraised and auctioned like the livestock on the plantation of the
colored man. 33 In another example, Peter B. Mathews, the executor of
Julia Cox, was requested to appraise and sell the property of the
deceased black woman, which consisted of a slave named Beck and
household furniture. Elsewhere in Charleston City, Florian H. Long, the
son and executor of Ann May, had four slaves belonging to his
deceased mother appraised and subsequently divided among her
children, Mary Long, Eliza Long, Florian H. Long, and Lydia Frost, in
1848. Like the slaves of white masters, the servants of black
slaveowners were flung into the arena of contending heirs. Thus, the
existence of family life among the slaves was occasionally upset by the
death of the master. Mothers were sometimes separated from their
children. In the case of Ann May, her 25-year-old servant named
Matilda and the children of the slave woman were equally divided
among the four heirs. Even though the offspring of Matilda may have
lived in the same household, they were owned by different masters and
subject to be sold and separated from each other.36
 The commercial impulse of black slaveholding can be examined
nowhere better than in Charleston City. In the port city, the
environment was conducive to black slaveholding. The urban setting of
Charleston provided many free blacks with the economic opportunity to
prosper. Since the demands for skilled and semi-skilled workers were
quite prevalent, the black entrepreneurs found an eager market for their
services. Many free blacks were employed in jobs which were shunned
by white workers. In fact, free blacks nearly monopolized such work as
barbering, bricklaying, shoemaking, and tailoring. Once the black
entrepreneurs were able to establish themselves and had developed a
clientele, they began to prosper and eventually earned the capital
needed to invest in slaves. So it was quite common for free black
artisans to purchase slaves and use them in their businesses." In 1822,
Moses Brown, a colored barber, purchased a Negro boy named Moses
from Mary Warhaim for $300. Since Moses Brown was a barber, he
instructed his slave in the art of cutting hair. By 1823 the slave boy was
working in his master's shop on 5 Tradd Street. Also in 1829, Camilla
Johnson, a colored pastry cook, purchased a mulatto woman named
Diana Todd (who was 18 years old) from Joseph and Ann Wilkie for
$375. According to a Charleston socialite, Camilla Johnson used her
mulatto servant to work at several of the parties she was hired to cater.
As these black artisans began to prosper, they were able to utilize the
services of slaves, and so they invested in human chattel and trained
their servants in the skills of their trade to increase the profits of their
businesses."

Once the black artisans trained their servants, the skilled slaves
were a sought-after commodity, particularly among the planters of the
neighboring parishes. So it was not unusual for black artisans to sell
their talented slaves for a profit. In Charleston in 1818, George Miles
sold his shoemaker named Jack to Simon Moses for $600." Elsewhere
in the city, Hector Thompson, a colored butcher, sold a slave butcher
for $375 in 1826. Eight years after that date, Thomas Small, Sr., a free
black and a carpenter, sold his apprentice named Josiah to John Garden,
a mustizoe planter of St. Paul's Parish, for $550. And in 1839, Joseph
Williams sold a slave named Harry, who was trained as a millwright, to
Maria Weston for $1,000.40. The urban center of Charleston was by far
the mecca for slave transactions within the free black community in
South Carolina.

Surely the monetary benefits of slavery stimulated free blacks to

invest their earnings in that form of property. Yet their financial
support of the peculiar institution created some problems.

As free blacks began to utilize the labor of slaves, the discontent

of their servants became apparent. Although many slaves preferred the
city to the plantation, they were still slaves and subject to the authority
of their masters. Even the slaves who were held by kind colored owners
yearned to be their own masters, entitled to all of the fruits of their
labor. Furthermore, the paradox of black slaveholding increased the
complexity of this form of bondage and caused a division between free
blacks and slaves. In other words, the existence of black slaveowners
weakened the structure of southern slavery, which was based on the
rhetoric that involuntary servitude was the natural state of being for all
people of African descent. How could a so-called inferior people
accumulate scores of slaves and vast tracts of land but still be a
subservient class? Yet if the black masters did not fit the model of
inferior beings, then their slaves certainly were not inferior, because
they were of the same heritage as their colored owners. This paradox of
black slaveholding caused all types of disciplinary problems.
Consequently, the desire for freedom which existed in all slaves was
heightened among the servants of black masters, precipitating
discontent within the slave community and eventually manifesting
itself in rebellious behavior by the slaves.
 In many instances, free black masters saw the need to place
advertisements in the local newspapers for the return of their runaway
slaves. On August 20, 1836, Sarah Johnson, a colored seamstress,
notified the public that her Negro woman had absconded from her
residence. In the notice, she said that

Servant Hestor went away on Tuesday morning. She is small

stature a little pitted with small pox her front teeth much
decayed had on when she went away a striped blue frock. It is
suspected that she will try to go into the country ... I will pay
any reasonable reward.

No. 95 Wentworth Street

Sarah Johnson"

Similarly, in 1859, Eliza McNellage placed a notice in the Charleston

Mercury for the return of her rebellious slave. She stated that several
weeks ago her black slave girl named Mary, who was about 16 years
old, had run away. According to McNellage, the slave girl was "well
known in the vicinity of Market and Archdale Streets."42 In order to
apprehend her disobedient slave, she offered a reward of $20.

The black masters of Charleston City were not the only colored
slaveowners confounded by the dilemma of troublesome slaves. In May
1840, Robert Collins, a colored planter of St. Thomas & St. Dennis
Parish, notified the public that his Negro woman Tirah had fled from
his plantation. Collins said the slave woman had absconded from his
residence on April 6 and he would give to anyone "who will deliver her
to me or in the Work House in Charleston" the sum of ten dollars." On
March 9, 1849, a colored rice planter of Georgetown County made a
similar request for the return of his runaway slave. Randal Harris said
that the Negro man Beda had departed from his plantation and that the
slave was carrying a gun with him. Randal Harris believed that Beda
was going to the plantation of Andrew James Anderson, a colored
planter of St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, where the wife of the slave
man lived. In the advertisement, he described Beda as a male about 30
years old, standing 5 feet 6 inches tall. For the return of the slave, he
offered a reward of $25."

Clearly, when black masters exploited their slaves for commercial

purposes, they encountered the same problems which perplexed many
white slaveowners. Regardless of the color of the slave masters, the
oppressive nature of slavery was met with opposition from the slaves.

Many black masters were faced with the dilemma of controlling

their slaves when they exploited the labor of their servants. The black
masters believed that punishment was a necessary instrument to control
their slaves and preserve a sense of authority. Like white slaveowners,
t h e black masters placed disobedient slaves in the city jail or the
workhouse and contemplated further punishment for their servants. In
1851, Elizabeth Collins Holloway, a colored woman, placed her servant
Celia in the city jail after her slave had run away. In 1852, Holloway's
servant Peggy was confined in the workhouse for disciplinary reasons.
Such a confinement usually lasted from five to thirty days, depending
upon the disposition of the slave masters. After the slaves were
released from the workhouse, it was not unusual for their masters to
give them a flogging for their disobedience. However, not all of the
slaves were put in the workhouse for acts of resistance. Just before the
sale of slaves, it occasionally became necessary to place slaves in the
workhouse when they had a history of running away to ensure that they
would not escape and avoid the auction. In many instances, urban
slaves who realized that they would be sold into the country fled from
their masters. In December 1856, Charlotte Carmand placed her servant
Rebecca in the workhouse because she feared that the slave woman
would be tempted to flee from the city when her servant discovered the
proposed sale. After Mrs. Carmand sold the slave woman, she was
released from the workhouse and placed in the hands of a new master.
In general, the disciplinary actions of colored masters to control their
slaves included confinement, flogging, and sale on the auction block.45

Many black masters sold their human chattel when they became
dissatisfied with their conduct. Occasionally the colored slaveowners
bought slaves only to sell them a few days later when it became
apparent that their servants were troublesome. In 1818, March
Dearington, a free black from Charleston City, purchased a slave
woman named Phoebe and her child Martha from William Swift for
$700. Apparently he became displeased with his slaves and quickly
unloaded his investment. Less than one day after the sale, he sold the
slave family to William Howie for $700. Elsewhere in Charleston City,
Lucy Wilkinson purchased a slave woman named Peggy, then sold the
woman less than five days later to Robert R. Gibbes for $80. In another
case, Samuel D. Holloway took possession of a slave woman named
Ann from John Jackson when his associate could not repay the loan he
gave Jackson to purchase the female slave. After Samuel D. Holloway
claimed the slave as his property, he found the woman to be totally
unproductive and so decided to place her in the hands of a slave broker
to facilitate a sale. But the slave soon learned that she was to be sold
and ran away from her colored master.46

Even though black masters were confounded by rebellious slaves,

they were seldom deterred from buying slaves. In 1833, Juliet Eggart
declared:

I do authorize and empower my Executor in case the negro girl

Celia above bequeathed should misbehave, so as to render it
expedient for the interest of my children that she should be
sold, that my said executor should sell and dispose of the said
 Negro girl Celia, provided that the proceeds arising from her
sale be invested in other property for the use and benefit of my
said children to be held for the same purposes as above
declared in respect to said negro Celia ..."

Many black masters were ready to sell their rebellious slaves, but
they were not willing totally to abstain from investing in human
chattel. In many instances, they sold their disobedient slaves and
purchased others who were subservient to their demands. For example,
Elizabeth Collins Holloway sold her slave Bella when the woman
refused to leave the country and move to the city. In the place of Bella,
the colored woman purchased a slave named Dolly."

By and large, the commercial impulse of black masters to exploit

their slaves was quite apparent in Charleston City. Many slaveowners
of African descent used the labor of slaves for their own benefit. Yet
the exploitation of slave labor was not always a smooth process
because the slaves of black masters attempted to assert their own rights
to freedom by resisting their owners. Thus, Carter G. Woodson's serene
picture of black slaveholding does not totally portrait the realities of
the institution.

In many instances, black slaveowners were no different from

white slave masters. They both exploited the labor of slaves to extract a
profit and used their slaves as commodities. In the early nineteenth
century, Joseph Morton, a free black and a dray keeper, acquired seven
slaves who were employed by him. According to the will and inventory
of Joseph Morton, he used the slaves named James and Jack as dray
drivers. And his slaves Betty and Hagar were washerwomen, who were
hired out, while Sam and Jim worked as tailors in Charleston City.
Upon the death of Joseph Morton, he requested that Betty was to serve
his wife for the term of two years and then be emancipated by his
executors. He also declared that after the death of his wife, the slaves
named Damon, Jack, and Sam should be emancipated. Even though
Joseph Morton made provisions for the manumission of five slaves, he
was still a slaveowner for profit and exploited his slaves during his life.
Furthermore, he was aware of the benefits of slavery and how the
institution could be of great services to the enterprising black artisan.
So he gave his grandson, Joseph McKenzie Morton, the slave named
Jim, and provided the services of Hagar to his granddaughter, Patience
McKenzie Morton.49

Among the well-to-do colored families, the ownership of slaves

wa s often passed from parent to child. Many colored families were
aware of the financial benefits of slavery, and so they provided their
children with slaves to further their ambitions. In 1835, Mrs. Barbara
Barquet of Charleston City sold a Negro man named Peter (who was 20
years old) to her daughter Margaret C. Humphries for the nominal sum
of one dollar. so Mrs. Barquet hoped that the male slave would be a
great assistance to her son-in-law Joseph Pencil Humphries, who was a
tailor. Prior to the nominal sale, Joseph and Margaret C. Humphries
owned only three slaves, who were all under 10 years old and unable to
be utilized as laborers by the colored couple. With the acquisition of
the 20-year-old male slave, Joseph P. Humphries acquired a laborer to
be employed in his tailor shop on 112 Queen Street. By 1840 the couple
owned four laborers who were between 10 and 24 years olds'

Upon the death of Mrs. Barbara Barquet, she provided her other
children with slaves. In her last will and testament, she wrote:

I Barbara Barquet of Charleston ... declare my last will and

testament as follows; I give and bequeath my servant Phebe to
my daughter Carolina wife of John Francis Plumeau for her
sole and separate use not subject to the debts or contracts of her
present or any future husband. I give and bequeath my servant
Johnny to my son Bissett Barquet. I give and bequeath my
 servant Carolina to my son Edward Barquet. I give and
bequeath to each of my grand children the sum of $1,000. I
give and bequeath my servants Henry, Becky, Bella and Manny
to my daughter Carolina Plumeau. I give and bequeath my
servants Isaac, Bella the younger and Diana to my children to
be equally divided among them and I authorize my executors to
sell them for the purpose of making a division when it become
necessary ...S2

Mrs. Barbara Barquet, like many of the wealthy colored heads of

families, regarded her slaves as mere property. For many, the moral
issues of holding another person in bondage were overridden by the
economic motive of profit. So when Mrs. Barquet ordered the sale of
her slaves Diana, Bella, and Isaac, there was virtually no guilt
associated with the request. On March 7, 1846, the three slaves were
appraised at $1,300 and scheduled to be sold for the benefit of Mrs.
Barquet's children. About five months later, the slaves were auctioned
to the highest bidder for $1,350.40. As well as receiving the proceeds
from the sale of the slaves, the offspring of Mrs. Barquet were provided
with the wages of the three servants for the month of June, which
amounted to $38. Before the death of Mrs. Barbara Barquet, her
daughter Margaret C. Humphries was the only slaveowner among her
children. After the division of the estate belonging to the deceased
colored woman, all of her children were given slaves and subsequently
became slave masters for profit."

Quite often the black slaveowners who received their slaves by

descent were not benevolent masters, but owners of slaves for their own
benefit. In 1834, Susan Ann Dereef, a colored woman of Charleston
City, requested that after her death "my property be for the use and
benefit of my mother during the time of her natural life and after her
decease the said property shall be divided between my two sons
William Edward and John Francis ..."1' Upon the death of Susan Ann
Dereef, her estate consisted of four slaves named Tolimbo, Abraham,
Sam, and Sarah, who were appraised at $560. In 1839 William Edward
Dewees, the only surviving heir of Susan Ann Dereef, acquired the
wages from the slaves named Sam and Sarah. In that year, Sam's wages
amounted to $96, while the labor of Sarah produced $36. Between 1839
and 1841, the annual wages of the two slaves came to $132. As well as
benefitting from the labor of slaves, William Dewees used his human
chattel as collateral to secure a loan from his uncle Richard E. Dereef
for $540 in 1843. Two years after the loan, Dewees decided to sell
Samuel to Alexander H. Brown for $500. Shortly thereafter he sold a
Negro woman named Harriett for $340.11

The commercial use of slaves by free blacks who acquired

servants through descent was by no means a rare event. Furthermore,
slaves were passed on, not only from black parents to their children, but
also from black husbands or white lovers to their women. In 1798,
Mathew Webb, a colored butcher from Charlestown, gave his wife,
Elizabeth Webb, the use of his two servants named Sambo and Betty.
However, he stipulated that after the death of his wife, the slaves were
to be manumitted. In 1805, John Sheppard requested that his wife take
possession of the Negro woman named Coombe. Unlike Mathew Webb,
he made no provisions for the emancipation of the servant woman. John
Sheppard probably believed that his wife should have the authority to
determine whether the slave woman ought to be freed.56

Occasionally white planters provided their colored mistresses with

slaves as well as stocks and bonds. In 1821, Thomas Young Smith, a
white planter of Charleston District, gave his colored companion, Ann
Francis, the services of two slaves and the sum of $500." In another
example, Thomas Hanscome, a white planter of St. James & Goose
Creek Parish, bequeathed to Nancy Randall, a free black woman, the
title to thirteen slaves named Bess, William, Boston, Robert, Simon,
Henry, Flora, Black Dye, Abraham, George, John, Frost, and Phillis, as
well as $15,000 in stocks and bonds. After the death of Thomas
Hanscome, his colored mistress took possession of the property given
to her in 1832. Shortly after Nancy Randall acquired her estate, she
purchased a Negro man named Jacob from Edward H. Edward for $600.
In 1835 she bought seven slaves-Becky, Dye, Bess, Jenny, Sam, Isaac,
and George-for $1,820. The slaves acquired by Nancy Randall were
used as hired-out laborers to urban dwellers as well as field hands on
the plantation owned by her deceased lover. In 1841, Nancy Randall
continued to use the services of slaves for her own benefit. In that year,
she recorded a deed of gift to her grandson Joseph Hanscome DaCoster
which provides added proof of the commercialism of her
slaveholding.9e In the deed, she declared:

I Nancy Randall for and inconsideration of the natural love and

affection which I have and bear unto my Grandson Joseph
Hanscome DaCoster have given and granted ... unto William P.
DaCoster (the father of the said Joseph) twenty two shares in
the State Bank -one note of James Hanscome dated 18 Oct.
1841 for five hundred and twenty five Dollars -one note of
Thomas Hanscome dated 26 January 1842 for $525.00-one note
of John G. Garden dated 7 May 1842 for $450.00-a negro man
named Jacob and one negro woman named Hagar ... in trust to
permit me the said Nancy to receive and enjoy the interest and
income of the said Bank shares and notes and services, wages,
and use of the said two negroes during the term of my natural
life and after my death intrust ... for the use of my grandson ...
19

By 1844 Nancy Randall had begun to liquidate her slave property.

In that year, she sold her slaves named Robert and Simon. One year
later, her slaves named George, Henry, Boston, William, Phillis, Bella,
Frost, and Diana, as well as Diana's child, were auctioned to the highest
bidder. In total, there were eleven slaves sold, and the sale netted
$4,469.44. Like many colored masters, Nancy Randall was compelled
by the urge for profit and did not even consider the possibility of
freeing her slaves.60

The examples here used to illustrate the commercialism of black

slaveholding represent only a fraction of the documents demonstrating
t h e exploitation of slaves by black masters. Furthermore, the
commercial side of black slaveholding was not a minor facet of the
institution. To the contrary of the beliefs of many distinguished
historians, the commercial aspects of black slaveholding are portrayed
in numerous documents and represent the majority of the slave
transactions recorded by the colored slaveowners.

Commercialism was apparently the prevailing trend even among

the small black masters. For example, in 1830, the percentage of black
slaveowners who owned less than ten slaves was 90.2 percent.61 Yet
m any of these small slaveowners were not benevolent masters, as
Carter G. Woodson maintained, but slave masters for profit. In fact,
Woodson's assertions that the small size of the slaveholding by black
masters when compared to white planters proves that the colored
masters were benevolent seems to be a feeble argument. For one thing,
the slaveowners of the urban localities owned fewer slaves than their
rural counterparts in South Carolina. Furthermore, the number of slaves
held by free blacks does not always provide an accurate depiction of
black slaveholding. Surely the black masters who owned one, two,
three, four or even five slaves could have been using slaves in their
businesses rather than holding relatives or friends.

In 1830, the federal enumerator reported that Richmond Kinlock

owned two slaves. Among the slaves listed by the census taker was a
20-year-old black woman named Peggy, who was purchased by Sophia
Jennerette Kinlock, the wife of Richmond Kinlock, for $300 in 1822.
According to the Woodson thesis, Richmond Kinlock probably was a
benevolent slaveowner because he held a small number of slaves. Yet
that was not the case; in fact, he used Peggy as a domestic servant and
occasionally hired the woman out. In his will, he wrote:

It is my wish that the woman Peggy be hired out to pay all my

lawful debts, but should my Creditors demand immediate
payment then it is my wish and desire that Peggy shall be sold
and after all my debts is paid the balance of sale shall go to
purchase of a small girl which shall be the same to my beloved
wife if Peggy had not been sold as well as all issues from her
...6'

Clearly the whole argument that the small size of black

slaveholding demonstrates benevolent behavior is overstated. The
colored masters who owned one or two slaves were as commercial as
the largest planters who acquired hundreds of slaves. Both slaveowners
used their slaves as laborers and as property.

The example of the commercial slaveowning of Richmond

Kinlock does not represent an isolated event. In many instances, small
black slaveholders used their slaves to satisfy their own demands.
According to the federal census of 1830, Lydia Watson was a colored
slaveowner who owned three slaves, but she was by no means a
benevolent slave master. In fact, Lydia Watson's slaves were recorded
in her inventory as servants and were appraised at $650. Shortly before
her death, she requested that her woman Lucy was to serve either her
daughter or her niece as a slave. She also liquidated her human chattel
when the market in slaves was profitable. In June 1827, she sold a
woman named Ellinere and the child of the slave woman for $300.
Then five months later, she parted with a carpenter named Isaac for
$450.63

Elsewhere in Charleston City, Antoinette Langlois was reported in

1830 to be the owner of a female slave between 10 and 24 years old.
However, the slave girl was not the child of Antoinette Langlois, but an
investment which appreciated as the girl reached maturity. In 1827, she
had purchased the child, Sylvanie, from her mother for $125. Seven
years later, she sold Sylvanie to Leon Heckimath for $300. When Mrs.
Langlois sold her slave, the value of the servant had appreciated by
$175. Also in 1830, Martha Juliet Garden was reported to be the owner
of two females. One slave was under 10 years old, while the other was
between 24 and 36 years old. Eight years after the fifth census, she sold
the now-36-year-old slave, Jane, to Joseph P. McCall for $450.64

The commercial use of slaves was prevalent not only among the
small colored slaveholders, but also among prominent members of the
free black community in Charleston City. Thomas Siah Bonneau, a
mulatto and a school teacher, owned several slaves as well as a small
plantation in St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish in 1830. Mr. Bonneau was
one of the leading members of the Brown Fellowship Society from
1816 until his death in 1831. Even though he was a positive force in the
free black community and educated many of the children from well-to-
do colored families, he was still a slaveholder for profit and a slave
master of his own people. Between 1822 and 1830, he recorded eight
bills of sale for the purchase of twelve slaves valued at $4,120.
Between 1822 and 1830, he also sold two slaves for $620. On April 23,
1823, for example, he purchased a Negro girl named Betsey for $230.
Later, after becoming displeased with the slave girl, he sold Betsey to
Joseph Dereef, a free man of color, for $270. Mr. Bonneau not only
discharged his troublesome slave within two weeks of the date of
purchase but made a profit of $40.61

Thomas Siah Bonneau's exploitation of his slaves can be seen

more clearly by examining his last will and testament.

I Thomas S. Bonneau desire that soon after my decease

instructions shall be given to have all my Stock and other
things appertaining with the plantation itself sold and the
money ... shall go to defray all expenses, and taxes ... however
the said plantation cannot be sold at a fair price and it can be
worked by hands now there viz Scipio, Abram, and Peggy so as
to pay expense taxes and so forth in such case the same shall
not be sold, [but] retained for the benefit of the family.66

In the will of Thomas Siah Bonneau, he also stipulated that his slaves
Scipio, Fanny, and Mary should be "subservient to the wishes of my
beloved wife ... and if the said two girls at anytime while serving prove
obstreperous and wishes to be hired," he then demanded that the slave
girls should be sold to a Kentucky slave trader.67 In spite of the fact
that Mr. Bonneau was a prominent member of the colored community
and perhaps a humane slave master, the freedom his slaves requested
(to receive the wages for their labor) was looked upon with displeasure
by the colored master.

Thomas Siah Bonneau was one of many colored men of stature

who benefitted from the labor of slaves. According to the census of
1 8 3 0 and the Brown Fellowship Society's List of Members, the
following free mulattoes were slaveowners and members to the colored
society: John Brown, Malcolm Brown, Moses Brown, Peter Brown,
Thomas J. Cooper, William Cooper, James Harrison, John Harrison,
Richard Holloway, Benjamin T. Huger, Joseph P. Humphries, Thomas
Inglis, Jehu Jones Jr., Richmond Kinlock, John Lee, Charles Lemar,
James Maxwell, John McBeth, William Mushington, and William W.
Seymour. Many of the society's members were among the most
talented and educated individuals within the colored community and
highly respected by their class. Yet they were slave masters of their
own race and used black men and black women as merchandise to be
purchased and sold for profit.6e

In spite of the fact that black masters used their slaves as

commercial assets, many historians still have argued that free black
slaveholding was primarily benevolent. Yet there has been no
systematic attempt to prove their assertions. Even though scholars like
Carter G. Woodson and John Hope Franklin maintained that the federal
census provides ample proof that the majority of black slaveowners
were benevolent and therefore purchased relatives or friends, their
observations were erroneous in South Carolina. For instance, the census
rolls suggest only that free blacks acquired slaves. The purpose of their
slaveholding cannot be derived solely from the federal enumerations.
But when the census is used as a tool to be cross-checked with state and
local records, which often indicate the motives of the slaveowners, an
accurate depiction of the institution can be ascertained. Since the
majority of colored masters lived in Charleston City, and many of the
documents recorded by free blacks were not destroyed during the
turbulence of the Civil War, the port city provides the most suitable
place to begin an examination of the motives of black slaveholders. In
Charleston City, there were 260 slave masters who were reported to be
of African descent by the census takers of 1830. However, only 200, or
76.9 percent, of the colored masters were recorded as free blacks or
free mustizoes in the Free Negro Capitation Tax Book, the Charleston
City Directories, and other state and local documents. The remaining
60, or 23.1 percent, of the alleged colored masters had no documents
besides the federal census to indicate their race. Consequently, only the
free black masters who were proven to be free blacks or free mustizoes
by documents in addition to the federal census should be used to
examine the motives of the black slaveholders and determine the
percentage of commercial or benevolent masters.69
 Before a quantitative study can be conducted, a definition of
commercial and benevolent must be refined. Some conclusions can
then be made concerning the dominant pattern of black slaveholding.
The commercial element of black slaveholding is not difficult to
determine. The commercial slaveowners used their slaves as
commodities to be bartered, deeded, devised, pledged, seized, and
auctioned. Commercial black masters sold slaves at or near the current
market value. Some also willed their slaves to heirs and requested that
other servants were to be auctioned to the highest bidder. Others used
their slaves as collateral to secure loans, and they sometimes saw their
servants confiscated and sold after default occurred. While it is true
that the commercial slaveowners occasionally freed their trusted slaves
for faithful service rendered, the majority of the requests were deathbed
manumissions which were prompted by guilt. As one Charleston editor
noted, it was sheer hypocrisy for an "old sinner" who had "enjoyed the
profits of the labor of his slaves, during his life time" to manumit them
on his deathbed.70 Consequently, the free blacks who emancipated
slaves while they held others in bondage should be categorized as
commercial owners. In many instances, they purchased family
members or friends who were treated as loved ones and bought other
slaves to be used as laborers or as investments. In general, the
commercial masters acquired slaves as commodities and used the labor
of slaves for profit. For them, slavery was a livelihood, and whatever
moral concern they may have had was overshadowed by the realism of
economics.

The benevolent exchange between master and slave is more

complicated than the commercial usage of slaves by free black masters.
According to the Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the term benevolent
is defined as "marked by or suggestive of goodwill."" In the annals of
American slavery, the slaveowners who treated their slaves with some
tenderness were often referred to as benevolent masters by their
bondsmen. For example, Charles Ball, an ex-slave, recalled that "my
mistresses, in Maryland, were all good women; and the mistress of my
wife, in whose kitchen I spent my Sundays and many of my nights, for
several years, was a lady of most benevolent and kindly feelings."72

In order to determine the dominant pattern of black slaveholding,

a working definition of benevolence must be established. Since the
historians of black slaveholding have argued that the majority of black
masters acquired relatives and friends, one facet of benevolent behavior
should be the acquisition of kinsfolk and friends. The second facet
should include the black masters who attempted or requested to
emancipate their relatives and friends from the legal stigma of chattel.
However, the slaveholders conforming to the first or the second
criterion must pass a third test. They should not have acquired slaves as
investments while their kin and friends were protected from the worst
elements of slavery.

Surely the slaveowners who owned two sets of slaves were not
firmly committed against slavery. They viewed the institution as a
profitmaking enterprise, but their ties of kinship to some of their slaves
did not permit them to treat their relatives or trusted friends as chattel.
Yet the slaves purchased as investments were not related to their
masters by kinship, nor were they trusted friends, and so they were
viewed as commodities to be exploited for profit. In essence, the truly
benevolent colored masters acquired slaves for purely humanitarian
reasons and sought no return, other than their initial investments that
purchased the bondsmen or the taxes imposed on the nominal owners of
slaves. Furthermore, the benevolent masters did not benefit from the
labor of their nominal slaves, but allowed their slaves to assimilate into
the free black community.

In Charleston City, 63 (31.5 percent) of the colored masters

reported on the census of 1830 and acknowledged as free blacks or free
mustizoes recorded documents regarding their slaveholding. Forty-one
out of those 63 colored slaveowners registered documents which
suggested that they used their slaves as commodities. Indeed, 65.1
percent of the black masters who recorded slave transactions were
slaveowners for profit. These commercial masters sold, mortgaged, and
used the labor of slaves for their own benefit. For example, Jane
Brown, a free colored woman, sold a slave woman named Daphne for
$500 in 1829. In that same year, the slave woman Charlotte and her
child were sold by their colored owner, Joseph Barralli, for $850." The
majority of the commercial transactions by free coloreds involved the
auction or the private sale of slaves. Other commercial masters hired
out their servants, devised them to relatives and friends, or requested
the sale of slaves in their wills.

Many of the commercial slaveowners registered numerous slave

exchanges and exploited slaves for profit even while they held others
for humanitarian reasons. Consequently, only five black slaveholders in
o u r sample were purely benevolent slave masters who acquired just
relatives and friends. The purely benevolent masters represented only
7.9 percent of the black slaveholders who recorded their slave
transactions. However, 17, or 26.9 percent, of the colored masters
recorded on the fifth census as free blacks or free mustizoes registered
bills of sale for slaves which did not specify the reason for purchasing
the bondsmen. Furthermore, they did not record other documents which
could have given added information on their slaveholding. In 1823, for
example, Carlos Smith purchased a Negro woman named Catey and her
four children, Mary, Margaret, Ann, and Charles, for $1,200. But the
bill of sale does not indicate whether Carlos Smith was related to his
slaves or acquired them as laborers."

For the most part, the documents recorded by free black masters
were for commercial transactions. Even though the commercial masters
represented only 15.7 percent of the black slaveowners reported on the
fifth census, they made up 65.1 percent of the colored slaveholders who
registered documents concerning their ownership of slaves. Surely the
h i g h representation of the commercial masters indicates that the
benevolent aspect of black slaveholding may not have been a dominant
force in South Carolina. In 1859, for example, the Charleston City tax
list reported that 108 free black persons owned slaves in the port city.
Fifty-three, or 49 percent, of those colored masters recorded documents
which provided additional proof of their ownership of slaves. Within
that group, there were 36 free persons of color who registered
documents which suggested that they used slaves as commercial assets.
The colored masters who recorded commercial slave transactions
represented 33.3 percent of the black or mustizoe slave masters
reported on the 1859 tax list. Clearly, the dominant pattern of the
commercial use of slaves recorded in these documents indicates that
black slaveholding was primarily an institution based on the
exploitation of slaves rather than a benevolent system centered upon
kinship or humanitarianism."
 The commercial use of slaves occurred not only among the urban
colored masters of Charleston City but also among their rural
counterparts. To cultivate rice and cotton, the major staples in
antebellum South Carolina, and to produce other crops on a commercial
scale, free black planters needed laborers. Yet the only workers
available to them in the numbers demanded for moderate- to large-
scale production were slaves. By and large, free blacks who owned
farms or plantations and sought to produce commercial crops tended to
become slaveowners during the years from 1750 to 1860.

It was not until the seventeenth century that South Carolinians

began to experiment with rice planting in the low country. In that
period of time, rice was cultivated in inland swamps throughout the low
country from Orangeburgh to Charleston District. By 1690, rice was
established as a staple crop in the colony. In 1699, 330 tons (between
2,000 and 2,200 barrels of rice) were being exported. In 1720, there
were 12,727 barrels of rice being transported to foreign countries. The
early experiments with rice planting laid the foundation which
established the crop as one of the major sources of revenue in South
Carolina.'

As late as 1720, the production of tar and turpentine engaged more

labor and revenue than the cultivation of rice. The conflict between
Sweden and Russia, which started in 1699 and ended in 1721, caused a
crisis in the London dockyards when Englishmen were excluded from
the Baltic trade, and the flow of tar and pitch from that region fell off
drastically. In 1705, Parliament passed an act to encourage the
production of naval stores in America by offering bounties of four
pounds sterling per ton on tar and pitch as well as three pounds sterling
per ton on rosin and turpentine. The stimulus provided by the British
propelled the American production to almost half of the tar and pitch
used by England. South Carolina was one of the major producers of the
commodity. In 1725, however, the English bounty was rescinded, and
export figures dropped sharply. The loss of trade represented a loss of
between one-fourth to one-third of the gross income of the colony.'

South Carolinians increased the production of rice in an attempt to

fill the void left by the withdrawal of naval stores from the economy. In
1730, the rice planters exported 48,155 barrels of rice. The rice culture
continued to expand until the Revolutionary War, when production was
sharply curtailed. As the war intensified, many planters found it
difficult to cultivate their crops, and exports were reduced when British
restrictions increased. After the war, however, the cultivation of rice
gradually increased again, and by 1839 the Palmetto State produced
74.9 percent of the rice grown in America.'

The growth of rice cultivation was paralleled by the increased

importation of African slaves during the colonial period. According to
Peter H. Wood writing in 1974, the familiarity of the rice culture
among African slaves attributed to the successful development of the
staple in South Carolina. Wood suggests that Africans from the
Windward Coast and the Senegambia region of West Africa (present
day Gambia, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Senegal)
cultivated rice plantations and small rice plots in that area. Since a
number of Africans from the Windward Coast and the Senegambia
region was accustomed to the rice culture, they applied their knowledge
in the rice fields of South Carolina.' With a labor force accustomed to
the cultivation of the crop, the planters were able to grow a large
amount of rice.

Yet the geographical location of the rice plantation was as

important to the growth of the staple as the use of African laborers. The
ideal area for rice planting was in the coastal counties of South
Carolina. Near the coast were swamps along freshwater streams. The
swampland could be cleared by the tidal flows which pushed fresh
water into and drained it out of the rice fields. In that region, the
relationship between land, river, and ocean was of great importance
because when the tides pushed fresh water into the rice fields,
undesirable grass and weeds were killed, and the flowing waters
flushed out the rubbish (rotten stubbles and roots of the plant) which
accumulated in the fields. For many planters, the success of a harvest
depended on the channeling of the tidal flows and the utilization of the
marshes, swamps, and streams of the low country.'

The principle rivers along which rice planting occurred were the
Waccamaw, the Pee Dee, the Santee, the Black, the Sampit, the Edisto,
the Combahee, and the Cooper. Along the coast of South Carolina in
the county of Georgetown ran Waccamaw, the Pee Dee, the Santee, the
Black, and the Sampit rivers. These provided the rice planters with an
abundance of fresh water. The Santee River separated Georgetown
County from Charleston County. It flowed into three parishes in
Charleston County: St. James Santee, St. John's Berkeley, and St.
Stephens. The Cooper River also was located in Charleston County and
flowed within the boundaries of St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish as well
as passing through the western part of the parish near St. James &
Goose Creek. In Colleton County, the Edisto and the Combahee Rivers
flowed in the western part of the county and emptied into the South
Fork River in Barnwell County. And the Combahee River flowed in the
southern part of Barnwell County and separated the county from
Beaufort County. The abundance of fresh water supplied by the coastal
rivers made Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, and Georgetown counties
the leading producers of rice in America during the nineteenth
century.6
 The colored masters who planted rice needed not only the flowing
rivers, but the capital to invest in land and farming implements. In
1806, John Holman, Jr., an African slave trader from Sierra Leone,
purchased a plantation on the Santee River in Georgetown County from
George Parker for $15,000. In 1813, James Anderson, a colored
slaveowner of St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, purchased a plantation
called Bulls Head, which contained 541 acres of land, from Samuel
Parker for $1,400. And in 1846, Margaret Harris, the daughter of a
colored rice planter from Georgetown County, bought a rice plantation
on the Santee River for $4,050. The colored masters who invested in
rice land were primarily the offspring of wealthy white or colored
slaveowners who provided them with the financial support to facilitate
such investments. Often times, the colored planter received his or her
land from relatives by purchase or descent. For example, Robert
Collins, a colored planter of St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, sold a
tract of land consisting of 130 acres, called Pleasant Hill, to his
daughter Sarah Boag for the nominal sum of $25.'

Once the colored masters acquired their land, the next step was to
purchase farming implements. On the well-managed rice plantation, the
following equipment and livestock were essential: harrows, hoes,
oxchains & yokes, oxcarts, plows, spades, and oxen. On the plantations
of the wealthy colored planters, there were threshing machines and
wind fans. When compared to the investments for land, the farming
implements were quite inexpensive. In 1860, Robert Michael Collins, a
mulatto rice planter of Georgetown County, invested in $100 worth of
farming implements on a plantation valued at $10,000 and producing
90,000 pounds of rice. But clearly, rice planting was, as one scholar
said, the occupation of the wealthy, and the amount of capital needed
for rice planting limited the number of black masters who could afford
to invest in the enterprise.'
 The most costly investment made by the colored rice planters was
the acquisition of slaves. In 1819, Elias Collins, a mulatto planter of
Georgetown County, purchased eight slaves from Anthony Chanet for
$6,000. In 1847, John Garden, a free mustizoe planter from Colleton
County, owned 62 slaves appraised at $17,352, while his rice
plantation, called Hermitage and situated on the Pon Pon River, sold for
$8,000. Elsewhere in the state, Margaret Harris of Georgetown County
owned 44 slaves valued at $25,300, while her rice plantation on the
North Santee River, called Santee, was appraised at $4,050 in 1860.9
The acquisition of slaves by colored planters was essential for the
cultivation of their plantations. Consequently, their human chattel was
not only their most expensive investment, but their most valuable asset
because of the commercial value and the labor provided by their
bondsmen.

Once the colored rice planters acquired land and slaves, they used
their bondsmen in the same tasks as did white planters. In the fall or
winter, their slaves started to prepare for the planting season by burning
off the stubble of the preceding rice crop. The task of burning the
stubble was usually assigned to female slaves, who dragged the fire
with their hoes. When the wind shifted, they had to leap across the
trenches to avoid the advancing fire. (The women tied their dresses to
their knees to prevent the flames from catching their clothing.) When
the smoldering stubble was consumed by the fire, the blackbirds
descended upon the land and devoured the unsprouted grains of the
prior crop. By February the slaves began the task of plowing and hoeing
the fields. The tidal swamps were underlaid with muck or mud, and the
rice seeds would not germinate in such an environment. The slaves had
to turn the soil before the seeds could be planted. Using the power of
oxen, they plowed the topsoil to a depth of two inches. After the field
was plowed, the slaves set their hoes at an angle and chopped up the
soil into an exceedingly fine substance. Upon the completion of the
hoeing, the bondsmen still had other tasks to do. 10

In March, the slaves continued their preparations for the planting

season by cleaning out the old trenches and digging deeper ones. Rice
was planted in trenches four inches wide and eleven inches apart. It was
sometimes necessary to clean out the trenches because mud
accumulated in them. Both men and women scooped out the mud and
scattered it on the edge of the trenches. Usually, the slaves had to dig
deeper trenches when the hardened mud clogged up the passage and
created a problem. About once a year, the male slaves were assigned to
shovel out the mud from the trenches. By April the slaves normally had
the trenches ready for planting."

Between April and May, the slaves began the planting season.
Usually women were used to sow the seeds by hand. They very
carefully placed the seeds in the bottom of the trenches and then
covered them with earth using their hoes. When the planting was
completed, the slaves flooded the rice plot until the plant was ready to
sprout. Then the rice field remained underwater for about two weeks or
longer, depending upon the warmth of the season. The water was then
drained off, and the plot was allowed to dry until the rice began to
appear above the ground. Then the field received a second flooding to
kill any weeds or grass which may have accumulated around the rice
plants. After the second flooding, the plot remained underwater for
about one week or longer, and then, for the next ten days, the water was
gradually drawn off until the field was dry. During that time, the slaves
began to hoe the field. They removed weeds and grass growing in the
trenches and stirred the ground that became packed by the water. After
the drying-out period elapsed, the land was flooded until the plant was
ready for harvest."

In September or October, the harvest season began when the rice

field was nearly dry. The slaves, with sickles in hand, started to cut the
rice stalks, leaving the loose stalks on the stubble behind them. During
the harvest season, it was not unusual for a prime slave to cut three or
four rows of rice stalks at one time. In fact, the efficient field hand cut
one-half of an acre of rice stalks in two hours. After the rice was cut,
the slaves allowed it to dry in the sun for one or two days; then they
bound the rice into sheaves to be carried to the stockyard. Generally the
slaves transported the rice bundles on flats or rafts to the mill. But
quite often, they carried the bundles on the top of their heads, as their
ancestors had on the Windward Coast of West Africa, and placed them
into carts to be transported to the mill for threshing. 1I

On the plantations of wealthy colored planters, there were mills

equipped with threshing machines. These mills were situated on the
edge of a river or a creek, so the slaves could navigate small flats or
rafts containing rice to be threshed. The mills generally contained three
buildings: a storage house for the rough rice which was hauled from the
fields, a building containing the machinery used to thresh the rice, and
a storage house where the milled rice was kept for shipment. The
mechanical apparatus which threshed the rice was a remarkable
machine and quite a timesaving device. According to Duncan Clinch
Heyward, the threshing machine separated the husk from the white
kernels of the grain. He recalled that

bundles of rice ... were carried to the "beater," which threshed

off the grains. Within the beater box, iron rakes moved the
straw to a chute through which it fell into the racks of wagons
...

As the grains of rice were threshed from the straw, they were
passed through a fan on the first floor of the mill, and then in
elevator cups were carried again to the second floor and run
through a large screen. Again falling to the first floor, they ran
through a market fan, after which elevator cups carried them
 back to the second floor and emptied them into wooden tubs,
each usually holding fifty bushels."

In one day, the threshing machines on some plantations were

capable of processing between 600 and 1,200 bushels of rice. Once the
white kernel was separated from the husk, it streamed down from the
cups of the apparatus into the waiting tubs held by slaves, who emptied
the full containers into a chute in the rice house." Since the threshing
machines were quite expensive, only the well-to-do planters could
afford such luxuries.

Those small rice farmers who could not afford to own a threshing
machine or chose not to send their rice to the mills employed other
methods to process their rice. Usually female slaves cleaned the rice by
putting it into a hollow wooden mortar, then beating the rice with a
long wooden pestle which removed the husk from the kernel. After the
husk was removed, the women whitened the rice with a flat tip attached
to the pestle. When the process was completed, the rice was ready to be
marketed.16

Once the rice was processed, the next step was to hire a factor to
sell the crop. Most of the factors were situated in Charleston City,
where they acted as the agents of the planters. As well as selling the
staple crops, the factors provided credit and sold supplies to the
planters. Several colored planters procured the services of the factors in
order to devote their energies to managing their plantations. Also, the
colored planters who produced large quantities of rice needed the
specialized knowledge of their factors to receive the maximum price
for their staple. Since their rice was sold in distant markets, they
needed the factor to provide them with current information on the price
of rice as well as the state of the market and to give them advice on
when to sell their crop. When the rice was sold, the factor received a
commission of 2.5 percent from the sale. In 1843, for example, the rice
crop of Elias Collins was sold by his factor, William Mazyck, for
$1,134.59."

On the plantations owned by colored rice planters, the life of the

slaves was not much different from the life of the slaves held by white
planters. In either case, the slaves usually worked eight to ten hours per
day in the rice fields. According to Robert Allston, once the slaves on
rice plantations finished their daily work, they were allowed to have the
balance of the day to be appropriated for their own purposes. Generally
the diligent slaves had about two hours of sunlight when they finished
their work early. The slaves were also given Sundays off, as well as the
customary holidays of Christmas and New Year's Day. The practice of
allowing the slaves free time was adhered to by the colored planters
because the pressures from their bondsmen forced them to provide such
leisure time. Otherwise, the discontent within the slave community
would have reached the point of rebellion."

Although the black planters did not pay their slaves for duties
rendered, they provided their slaves with sufficient food to sustain their
workers. Most rice planters grew enough food to meet the needs of
t hei r slaves. According to the eighth federal census, the colored
planters who grew more than 9,000 pounds of rice also cultivated
between 100 and 400 bushels of Indian corn. And they harvested
between 300 and 1,000 bushels of sweet potatoes. They also raised
between 30 and 70 swine as well as owning cattle, milking cows, and
sheep. These foodstuffs provided the principal diet of the slaves. In
fact, the diet for one week was 3 pounds of pork, 11.25 pounds of rice,
and 12.25 pounds of corn for a field hand. During the summer, the
slaves were given a twice-weekly supply of beef. In addition to the
allotment of beef, there was mutton and milk available for the slaves.
The diet of the bondsmen was also augmented with fish caught in
nearby streams and rivers. But occasionally the colored planters could
not grow enough foodstuffs to feed their slaves and had to buy more
food. In 1843, the plantation of one colored planter from Georgetown
County did not produce a sufficient amount of corn to feed the slaves.
To end the shortage, the agent of the colored planter bought 100
bushels of corn for $65."

When such shortages occurred, the wise planter was ready to

purchase foodstuffs to ensure that his bondsmen would be adequately
fed. Intelligent planters were aware that starving slaves were incapable
of providing efficient labor, and so they attempted to supply a
sufficient amount of food to keep their investments healthy and
cultivating rice.

Another service provided by the colored planters was issuing

clothes to their slaves. Usually they gave out clothing twice a year. For
example, the slaves of Elias Collins, a colored planter from
Georgetown County, were given summer and winter clothing as well as
shoes, which amounted to a cost of $305.25 during the year of 1843.
When the allotment of clothing was handed out, the adult male slave
received two pair of pants, two shirts, and one pair of shoes, while the
female slave received two or three dresses, one handkerchief scarf, and
one pair of shoes. Usually blankets were provided for each infant at
birth, and the older children received a one piece-garment.
Occasionally the wife of a planter who owned sheep utilized the wool
from the animals and made homespun clothes for the slaves. Others
simply purchased homespun cloth and required each slave family to
make their own clothes. In 1860, for example, Margaret Peagler, the
wife of a colored planter from St. Stephens Parish, bought 40 yards of
homespun cloth for her slaves. After the purchase of the cloth, the
female slaves began the task of making garments for the other
slaves.20

Another service was provided by the colored masters when they

furnished housing for their workers. Adequate shelter was essential if
the health of the slaves was to be maintained. The typical slave house
was about 18 by 22 feet. Usually the house consisted of a wooden frame
covered with shingles and provided with a fireplace. On the Woodland
Plantation owned by Joseph Hanscome, a colored planter of St. James
& Goose Creek Parish, there were brick chimneys in the slave houses.
Each house also contained a hall and two sleeping apartments which
normally held five people. According to the eighth federal census, the
colored rice planters accomodated four slaves per house." Yet the
efforts made by the slaveowners of African descent to maintain a
suitable life for their bondsmen was often negated by the hazards of the
swamp.

Occasionally the rice planters of African descent were besieged by

epidemics which decimated their slave communities. As Frederick Law
Olmsted noticed, the slaves did not "enjoy as good health on rice
plantations as elsewhere."22 The mortality rate was particularly high
among the infant population. During the summer, the health hazard was
so severe that Robert Allston, a rice planter of Georgetown County,
said that he "would as soon stand fifty feet from the best Kentucky
rifleman and be shot at by the hour, as to spend a night on my
plantation in the summer."27 The observation made by Robert Allston
was not an idle statement based on some mythical paranoia but a
factual account of the dangers which confronted the occupants of his
plantation. In just one year, for example, he lost 28 slaves, 22 of whom
were prime workers. Many of the deceased slaves were the victims of
cholera or malaria. The sickness of the swamps drew no distinction of
color, striking the slaves of both white and colored slaveowners. In
1843, Robert Collins, Jr., the mulatto nephew of Elias Collins,
registered the death of slaves on the Santee Plantation in Georgetown
County.24 In spite of adequate food, clothing, and shelter, the slaves on
any rice plantation were occasionally faced with a life and death
struggle for survival.

The colored slavemaster lived in paradise when compared to the

lowly slave, but that life was limited to a very elite group. In the
Palmetto State, there were only seven large rice planters of African
descent, and they were primarily related by ties of kinship. The
Pendarvis family was one of the largest slaveowning colored
households to plant rice in the state. During the middle part of the
1730s, the mulatto children of Joseph Pendarvis, a white planter of
Colleton County, and his African mistress Parthena, were given 1,009
acres of land near the Green Savanna as well as a plantation in
Charleston Neck. The land that Joseph Pendarvis bequeathed to his
children, James, Brand, William, John, Thomas, Mary, and Elizabeth,
had been the property of his father, John Pendarvis. The children of
Joseph Pendarvis received not only land from their father, but also
slaves, becoming one of the prominent slaveholding families in South
Carolina. 25

James Pendarvis, the oldest son of Joseph Pendarvis, received

most of the property of his deceased father. Consequently, he was the
only offspring of the white planter who owned more than 100 slaves. In
1786, for example, James Pendarvis owned 113 slaves, as well as 3,250
acres of land. In 1790 the federal enumerator reported that James
Pendarvis was the owner of 123 slaves. Prior to his death in 1798, he
owned 155 slaves, of which 134 bondsmen were adult field hands,
while 21 slaves were children. Indeed, James Pendarvis was the largest
acknowledged colored slaveholder in South Carolina. His slaveholding
rivaled that of many colored planters who owned slaves in Louisiana
and also surpassed white slaveowners in his native state.26

Since the executors of James Pendarvis did not record the amount
of rice produced on his plantation called Beech Hill, an estimated
account of his rice cultivation will be employed. According to David 0.
Whitten, the yield per slave ranged from 2,025 to 3,600 pounds of rice
in 1857. However, he also stated that the yield per slave had not greatly
increased from the yield in the late eighteenth century. Using this
information, a range of the amount of rice produced by the slaves of
James Pendarvis can be established. Prior to his death, he owned 134
adult slaves. We may estimate the yield per slave as ranging from
2,025 to 3,600 pounds of rice. Multiplying the number of field hands by
the yield per slave, the bondsmen of James Pendarvis produced an
estimated amount of rice ranging from 271,350 to 482,400 pounds.27
This estimate of rice cultivated by James Pendarvis ranks him among
the largest rice planters in the state. By and large, James Pendarvis was
an oddity, because few of the rice planters of acknowledged African
descent reached that level of production or wealth.

Upon the death of James Pendarvis, he owned a vast estate which

was appraised at 5,987 pounds sterling and 15 shillings. His estate
consisted of two plantations, Leggs and Beech Hill, as well as tracts of
land on the Horse Savanna and the Spoon Savanna in Colleton County
which contained more than 3,000 acres of land. To complement his
landholding, he owned 155 slaves. His livestock included 2 horses, 99
head of cattle, and 107 oxen. For his two working plantations, he owned
one wind fan, which was used in the milling of rice and was appraised
at 220 pounds sterling.21

Before the death of James Pendarvis, he requested that much of

his estate should be given to his grandchildren. In his will, he gave the
child of his son, William Pendarvis, Sr., the plantation named Beech
Hill and the slaves who lived on the land. While the boy was a minor,
the Beech Hill Plantation was to be worked by the slaves, and the
money derived from the rice crop was to be put in the bank for the
young boy. Also, the children of his daughter, Ann Perry, were
provided with all of the lands at the Horse Savanna and the Spoon
Savanna in Colleton County. When James Pendarvis provided his
grandchildren with slaves and land, he also appointed William Eckells
to serve as the administrator of his young heirs until they were capable
of managing their own affairs. In 1800, Eckells administered an estate
which contained at least two rice plantations and 156 slaves. By 1810
the heirs of James Pendarvis had reached the legal age to own property,
but they had disappeared from the annals of history in South Carolina.
In that year, no documents recorded the presence of his grandchildren
in the state. Yet during the eighteenth century, James Pendarvis and his
family were among the wealthiest residents of Colleton County.19

In 1785, William Pendarvis, Sr., the quadroon son of James

Pendarvis and the grandson of the African woman named Parthena, was
one of the elite colored planters. In that year, he owned 43 slaves. By
1786 his slave community consisted of 17 adult males, 17 adult
females, and 10 children, together appraised at 1,493 pounds sterling.
With the use of slave labor, he cultivated his plantation called Walnut
and produced an estimated amount of rice between 68,850 and 122,400
pounds. By the summer of 1786, he became gravely ill and asked his
father to manage the plantation in the event of his death. He also
requested that the proceeds from Walnut Plantation should be given to
his wife, Mary Pendarvis, for the benefit of his son, William Pendarvis,
Jr.30

During the late 1700s, James Pendarvis and William Pendarvis,

Sr., were part of the elite group of colored planters. They were the
earliest planters of African descent and the largest slaveowners to be
found in the state. Yet they were not the only colored men to use the
labor of slaves in the planting of rice in South Carolina.

The Holman and the Collins families were members of the elite
group of large slaveowners who planted rice. In fact, the two families
were related by ties of kinship or marriage, and their origins can be
traced to a white slave trader and his African mistress from Sierra
Leone. Sometime between 1764 and 1768, John Holman left his
homeland in England and sailed to the west coast of Africa. Upon
reaching the shores of the continent, he began to establish himself as a
slave trader and a merchant, engaging in commercial exchanges with
South Carolina. Daniel McNeill, a sea captain from South Carolina,
once stated that he first met John Holman in 1773 or 1774 and began to
do business with him. On the Isle de Los, which was to the north of
Sierra Leone, Daniel McNeill purchased 6,720 pounds of rice from
John Holman.31

By the late 1780s, John Holman was firmly established as a slave

trader. At his fortress on the Rio Pongo River, located to the north of
Sierra Leone in modern day Guinea, he conducted a brisk trade with the
indigenous people. He exchanged the supplies furnished by his factor
for slaves and foodstuffs, which were eventually sold to the planters of
South Carolina or to the slavers on the coast of West Africa.

Generally, the slave traders used the services of factors or middle

men to sell their human cargo. These merchants of human chattel were
situated in the ports of the major slave-using countries and negotiated a
suitable price with the planters for the bondsmen. The proceeds from
the sale were returned to the slave traders, minus the commission of the
factor and other expenses. When John Holman disposed of his slaves,
he too used a factor to sell them. In 1772, he requested that Henry
Laurens, a merchant from Charlestown, South Carolina, should be his
agent and sell 30 African slaves; but Laurens, being in England, could
not comply with his wishes. So John Hopton, the assistant of Henry
Laurens, placed the slaves in the hands of John Lewis Gervais, who
sold the slaves for 1,350 pounds sterling. Even though the demand for
slaves was quite good, few planters wanted old or very young slaves
who could not be used as workers. Consequently, Henry Laurens
reminded Holman to "send none but young ones I don't mean Children.
When a small parcel of old or ordinary Slaves come to hand, it is
exceedingly difficult to dispose of them at any Rate.""

As well as trading in slaves, Holman supplied his factor with such

delicacies as African deer and such luxuries as leopard skins. By 1784,
J o h n Holman was the second wealthiest man on the Rio Pongo,
according to Daniel McNeill. In that year, Holman owned numerous
slaves and a thriving business. In fact, the profits he made from the
slave trade permitted him to extend his credit to John Lewis Gervais for
851 pounds sterling and 2 shillings in 1787."

As John Holman's wealth increased, he became extremely

dissatisfied with his life in Africa. According to Daniel McNeill, once
the slave trader had made enough money to live comfortably, he began
to contemplate leaving Africa and settling in South Carolina. As early
as 1770, he wrote to Henry Laurens and asked the Charlestown
merchant to find him a plantation in Charleston District.14 Laurens
replied that "five hundred pounds Sterling will secure you a Snug and
improveable little Estate and twenty working hands, Men and Wives
for the field, a Woman or two about the House."" Laurens suggested
that Holman come to South Carolina and inspect the land before
actually making a purchase.

Although John Holman wanted to leave Africa, it took more than

fifteen years before he decided to settle in South Carolina. In 1787,
Holman visited South Carolina and made arrangements to purchase a
plantation. In that year, he bought a tract of land on the Cooper River in
Charleston District which was called the Blessing Plantation from
Archibald Brown for 2,500 pounds sterling. Shortly thereafter, he went
to the custom house of Charlestown and informed the collector of his
intentions to bring slaves into the state. While Holman was in the city,
he wanted to be assured that he would not violate the law by bringing
slaves into the state. During the 1780s, the state assembly had first
prohibited the importation of slaves into the state, then later repealed
the act. When Holman was informed by George Abbot Hall, the
collector of the custom house, that he could freely bring slaves into the
state and not violate the law, the slave trader departed for Africa and
prepared to bring not only his slaves but his colored family.76

One of the reasons John Holman wanted to leave Africa was his
concern for the safety of his mulatto children. Sometime around 1765,
h e had taken an African woman called Elizabeth as his mistress, and
the slave woman had given birth to five children named John, Samuel,
Esther, Elizabeth, and Margaret. As the upheaval on the coast of West
Africa began to intensify, Holman was concerned for the security of his
children. In 1771, for example, the crews of several vessels as well as
an English factor were killed by the Ballam of Sierra Leone. For more
than ten years, no white man dared to enter the territory controlled by
the Ballam. Surely John Holman was aware of the dangers of the slave
trade and knew that as long as he continued the perilous commerce in
human chattel, he risked the eventual collapse of his business and
perhaps even his death. In fact, three years after he took his family
from Rio Pongo and settled in Charleston District, the dangers of
slaving struck the family of an old business associate. In 1793, the
mulatto son of John Ormond was killed by the Bago while his slaves
assisted in the burning and pillaging of the slave trader's establishment,
which was valued at 30,000 pounds sterling. Ormond's father, an old
English slave trader of the Isle de Los, died about a month after the
disaster. Such upheavals were common on the coast of West Africa and
caused John Holman to flee for the safety of himself and his mulatto
family."

John Holman also knew that if the indigenous people of West

Africa did not kill him, the movement to abolish the slave trade would
be the death of his profitable business. In 1788, the Abolition Society
of England waged its war of words against the trade. Within one year, it
printed 26,526 reports and 51,432 books and pamphlets which strongly
criticized the slave trade. As the petitions against the trade mounted,
the British Crown appointed a special committee of the Privy Council
to hold hearings on the trade. As a result of the agitation, the
Parliament passed a law limiting the number of slaves carried on a
vessel. Such weak legislation could not appease the movement against
the slave trade. Yet it was not until the turn of the century that
Parliament passed a law which suppressed the African slave trade.
After May 1, 1807, no slave ship could be cleared from a British port,
and no vessel could be used to import slaves into a British possession
after March 1, 1808. In that year, the federal government of the United
States also banned the importation of slaves into America. 3

John Holman attempted to maintain a suitable life for his family

as the demise of the slave trade became apparent to him. While in
Africa, his mulatto children were raised like free persons. For example,
his oldest son, John Holman, Jr., was sent to Liverpool to be educated.
The boy was quite fortunate to receive an education, because few slave
traders provided their mulatto offspring with schooling. In 1789, there
were only 50 boys and girls studying in Liverpool, with others being
taught in London and Bristol. Not all of those children were the
offspring of slave traders. Some were the children of Africans who
befriended the Europeans.79

With the education of the Europeans, John Holman, Jr., embarked

upon his career as a slave trader. In 1784, when he was about 15 or 16
years old, his father employed him as an assistant in the slaving
business. By the time the young mulatto slave trader was 20 years old,
his father had provided him with sufficient goods to trade with other
Africans for slaves. Within a few years, he acquired a store of goods
and 13 slaves. His slave community consisted of seven males, named
Davy, Little Belahly, Numah, Mohomadue, Old Calcutta, Sadue, and
Salliah, as well as six females, named Carefah, Cumba, Cunney-
gunney, Maria, Mah-canning, and Sarah-due. Once he acquired his
slaves, he soon put them to work. His trusted slaves assisted him as
slave traders and went down the Dambia River to barter for goods and
slaves.40

The half-brother of John Holman, Jr., also was a slave trader.

Indeed, William Holman provided Daniel McNeill with several slaves.
W h i l e the half-brothers of William Holman departed for South
Carolina, he remained on the continent and continued to deal in slaves.
By 1796, William Holman had occupied the slave trading post at Bahia
that was formerly controlled by the mulatto son of John Ormond.
Within five years after the departure of his father to South Carolina, he
became one of the major slave dealers on the Rio Pongo River. As the
number of American slavers increased by unprecedent numbers during
the late eighteenth century, the demand for slaves allowed Holman to
reap the benefits from the market in human chattel. To William
Holman and his half-brothers, the trade in Africans was a profit-making
enterprise to be exploited. Yet the turmoil associated with the slave
trade caused the death of many slavers and prompted the flight of
William Holman's kinsfolk to pursue a safer investment in South
Carolina."

The decision to leave Africa was not a difficult choice for John
Holman, Sr., but it was a distressing situation for his African mistress
and her children. Elizabeth Holman had family ties on the continent,
and breaking such familial relationships must have been quite painful
for her. Also, her sons, John and Samuel Holman, were prosperous
slave traders and may have been hesitant about leaving their familiar
surroundings and settling in a totally foreign environment. In spite of
their misgivings about leaving their birth place, however, they adhered
to the wishes of their father and prepared to embark upon the journey to
the New World.

In January 1790, John Holman, Sr., and his family boarded a

vessel bound for Charlestown, South Carolina. About three months
later, the slave trader and his family arrived at the port city. But to the
utter surprise of Holman, he could not leave the ship with his slaves
without the local authorities seizing his property for violating the
statute which banned the importation of slaves into the state. Holman
was forced to seek temporary lodging in Georgia, where he stayed for
eight months, until his business associates in Charlestown successfully
petitioned the General Assembly to allow him to settle in the state with
his slaves.42

On January 12, 1791, the petition of John Holman, Sr., was

presented to the House of Representatives of South Carolina by Colonel
John Lewis Gervais. In the petition, Holman stated that when he visited
Charlestown in 1787, he was under the impression that his slaves could
b e legally imported into the state. Upon his subsequent return to
Charlestown in 1790, he found that the law which permitted the
importation of slaves into the state had been repealed by the legislature
in November 1788. Holman requested that the House should take his
peculiar and very hard case into consideration and permit him to come
with his slaves and settle in South Carolina. After the petition was
presented to the House, the legislative body ordered that the request be
referred to a special committee." On January 13, 1791, the committee
reported that "having considered the facts alleged in the said Petition ...
[we] are of opinion that it is for the Interest of the State to admit
persons of property to become settlers ... therefore ... John Holman
[should] be permitted to come with his negro slaves into this state ...""
On February 19, 1791, John Holman, Sr., was permitted to bring his
slaves into South Carolina. After nearly one month of legislative
delays, the petition of Holman was passed by the General Assembly.41

Sometime after the legislation was passed, Holman left his

temporary residence in Georgia and brought his family and slaves into
South Carolina to settle in the parish of St. Thomas & St. Dennis in
Charleston District. In that parish, he used the labor of slaves to
cultivate and harvest rice on his plantation called Blessing, which was
situated on the Cooper River. Holman maintained his residence on the
Blessing Plantation and grew rice until his death in July 1792.46
Shortly before his death, he recorded his last will and testament.

I John Holman lately a Resident in Africa but now of Saint

Thomas's Parish ... do make and publish and declare this to be
my last will and testament ... I give devise and bequeath one
half part of all my Estate real and personal whatsoever to my
eldest Son John Holman and his heirs ... I give devise and
bequeath One Eighth part of all my said Estate real and
personal whatsoever and whatever unto my Son Samuel
Holman and his heirs ...

I give devise and bequeath the remaining three eighth parts of

all my said Estate real and personal whatsoever and
wheresoever to Henry Lauren Junior Esquire and to my said
Sons John and Samuel ... In trust to permit ... my three
Daughters Hestor, Elizabeth, and Margaret Holman each to
have use and enjoy one of the Eighth parts ...

I do hereby Manumit liberate enfranchise and Set free my

Women Slave Elizabeth the mother of the Said John and
Samuel Holman and I do hereby charge and oblige my said
Two Sons to maintain Support and protect her and to use her
with Tenderness and Affection. I do hereby declare that I deem
 and consider and that all persons forever herein after Shall
deem and consider not only my said Children John, Samuel,
Esther, Elizabeth, and Margaret and their issue but also my
Sons John Cameron and Richard and William Holman to be
free to all intents ..."

In the will of John Holman, Sr., he emancipated his children in

order that they might inherit his estate. Although Holman regarded his
offspring as free persons, he had to declare their freedom because the
legislation that allowed him to bring slaves into the state could be
interpreted by his creditors to include his mulatto children, thereby
excluding them from being considered legitimate heirs. Consequently,
Holman reiterated that his offspring were free and declared them to be
emancipated."

With the provisions of his will, John Holman, Sr., provided the
economic base for the second largest slaveholding family of African
descent to plant rice in South Carolina. When Holman died, he left an
estate valued at 3,451 pounds sterling and 3 shillings. Among the
possessions recorded in the inventory of the deceased man were 57
slaves. Most of the slaves reported were of African birth and retained
their tribal names. In the inventory, the following Africans were listed:
Addullah, Belkekly, Coreah, Cotte-de, Cumbah, Habbah, Mahmah-
Toag, Newmah, Newmahoy, Sadue, Sarede, Yahle, Yah Morah, and
Yerebah. One of the female slaves was called Kisse, which was the
name of a river in West Africa. Even though the estate of John Holman,
Sr., was appraised in January 1793, it was not until May 1808 that a
division of the slaves was decreed by the court. By that time, the estate
consisted of 70 slaves. When the Court of Equity in Charleston District
made its decree, John Holman, Jr., was allotted 37 slaves, while his
brother, Samuel Holman, was granted 9 slaves and his sisters,
Elizabeth, Esther, and Margaret, received the remaining slaves. Yet
when the division was made, John Holman, Jr., already owned 20
slaves, while Samuel Holman held 42 slaves. Consequently, the
allotment of slaves increased the slaveholding of John Holman to 57
slaves, and his brother's holding was increased to 51 persons. With the
slaves provided by their father, both men were able to produce rice on a
commercial scale.49

On March 24, 1794, John Holman, Jr., took the responsibility of

managing the Blessing Plantation when Henry Laurens, Jr.,
relinquished the power of executor to the estate of John Holman, Sr.
Laurens recalled that John Holman, Jr., was the most fit person to
administer the estate, and he willingly surrendered his powers after two
years of management. From March 1794 until January 1798, John
Holman, Jr., used the slaves from the estate of his father as well as his
own slaves to work the Blessing Plantation. With the aid of a gang of
slaves, he cultivated a considerable amount of rice. When Holman
managed the plantation of his deceased father, he utilized the labor of
about 45 prime slaves, who cultivated an estimated amount of rice
ranging from 91,125 to 162,000 pounds. The annual revenue from the
rice plantation was between $3,508 and $6,237.10 But the Blessing
Plantation on the Cooper River was not sufficient for the demands of
John Holman, Jr., and he was prompted to move to more fertile soil.

In 1798, John Holman, Jr., disbanded his plantation in Charleston

District and moved to Georgetown District. In that year, he rented a
plantation situated on the Santee River from George Parker for 245
pounds sterling per year. During that period of time, using the slaves
belonging to the estate of his father as well as his own slaves, he
commenced to grow a large crop of rice. After renting the plantation
for five years, he decided to purchase the tracts of land on the Santee
River in August 1803. Since he did not have $15,000 in cash, which was
the selling price of the plantation, he extended his payments over a
span of three years and used his slaves as collateral. On August 16,
1804, he was to make the first payment on the plantation, which
amounted to $10,000 plus interest. Two years later, his final obligation
for $5,000 and interest was demanded by George Parker."

In November 1803, John Holman, Jr., was preparing to leave for

the coast of West Africa when he signed the contract to purchase the
rice plantation. But before he departed for his homeland, he appointed
George Parker to act as his attorney during his absence. While Holman
was in Rio Pongo, his attorney managed the plantation and took the
proceeds to be applied to the mortgage on the land.52

After Holman returned to South Carolina in January 1805, he

relieved George Parker from the stewardship of rice plantation. But his
residence on the Santee Plantation was merely temporary because he
returned to Rio Pongo in West Africa in May 1805. However, he
replaced George Parker and put his brother, Samuel Holman, in charge
of the plantation. When John Holman returned to Africa, he was never
again to set foot on the soil of South Carolina. Clearly, John Holman,
Jr., was an extremely unusual colored man; he was not only a rice
planter and a slaveowner, but an absentee owner who resided in Africa.
s'

With the departure of John Holman, Jr., his brother managed the
rice plantation. As the sole administrator, Samuel Holman directed the
daily operations of a plantation which contained 128 slaves. In 1806, he
utilized the labor of 79 field hands, who cultivated an estimated amount
of rice ranging from 159,975 to 284,400 pounds. The proceeds from the
rice crop were between $5,775.97 and $10,266.84.54

In 1807, Samuel Holman decided to visit his native land of Rio

Pongo after more than one year of managing the plantation of his
brother. Before his departure, he placed his factor, Anthony Chanet, in
charge of the estate. As he was sailing to Africa, the principal creditor
of his brother seized all of the property belonging to the colored
planters. Apparently Samuel Holman had neglected to pay the debts
owed by his brother, causing the seizure of their property. Since the
debts were not owed by Samuel Holman, the confiscation of his
property was illegal and prompted litigation against George Parker,
who was the principal creditor of John Holman, Jr."

In 1807, Samuel Holman sued George Parker for the return and
use of his slaves. After the litigation, the Court of Equity in Charleston
District declared that Parker must release the slaves belonging to
Samuel Holman. On March 16, 1807, Holman received 21 slaves from
George Parker. Then three months later, Parker returned three more
servants who belonged to the colored planter. Clearly, George Parker
was quite reluctant to release the slaves and procrastinated before
returning the bondsmen to Holman. For instance, a second court order
was needed to force him to relinquish eight more slaves owned by
Holman. From the time Holman's slaves were seized, it took nearly ten
years of litigation before all of his slaves were returned to him. The
court also awarded him the sum of $2,790 for the use of his slaves by
George Parker. By and large, the litigation of Samuel Holman was
successful and he eventually reclaimed his property.56

However, the litigation of John Holman, Jr., was not so fortunate.

In June 1810, the Court of Equity ruled that he was indebted to George
Parker for the sum of $25,194. Consequently, the confiscation of his
property was upheld by the court, but the property of the colored
planter had to be liquidated and the proceeds from the sale given to his
creditor. Also the court declared that only 37 of the 57 slaves could be
auctioned for the debts owed to Parker. Shortly after the decree, the
plantation of John Holman, Jr., was sold for $2,000. The sheriff then
auctioned 37 slaves belonging to the colored planter for $11,730. When
those sales were concluded, the sheriff auctioned property valued at
$13,730. As a result of the court verdict, John Holman, Jr., was
deprived of most of his property in the state, and thus ended the brief
career of one of the largest colored planters in South Carolina."

In the society of the Southern planters, the demand for capital was
a great concern. Occasionally, a planter was forced to borrow large
sums of money to purchase slaves and land. Usually, the factors of
Charleston provided the planters with the capital they needed for their
plantations. Yet the whole process of borrowing money often placed
them in serious debt and resulted in the seizure of their property. In
fact, the financial demise of Samuel Holman was partially attributed to
his dependence on borrowed capital. Holman was quite indebted to the
merchants of Charlestown. In January 1806, he mortgaged 42 slaves to
secure a loan from Frederick Tavel for $24,000. Under the conditions
of the mortgage, he was required to pay $12,000 and interest on the
loan by July 1, 1806. The final payment was due one year after the first
installment was paid by Holman. But when the first payment was
required, he apparently could not secure the capital without making a
second mortgage on the same slaves used as collateral to obtain the
loan from Frederick Tavel. In July 1807, his slaves were used as
security for a loan from Anthony Chanet for $16,558.75. Apparently he
used the money from Chanet to pay off the first installment of the loan
from Tavel. Even with that payment, he was heavily indebted for the
sum of $28,558.75. As his financial problems mounted, he eventually
lost his slaves because of the outstanding debts. On July 9, 1807, he lost
13 slaves seized under the mortgage of Frederick Tavel. Five years
later, Lewis Chopein confiscated five slaves belonging to Samuel
Holman because of an outstanding loan. By 1819, Samuel Holman was
eliminated from the ranks of the large colored planters when a
substantial portion of his estate was taken by creditors. In November
1819, the final chapter of his life in South Carolina was concluded
when he left the state and went back to his homeland of Rio Pongo in
West Africa.S"

When Samuel Holman arrived on the coast of Africa, his brother,

John Holman, was a resident of Rio Pongo. The two brothers probably
had only a brief reunion because there still remained some bitterness
between them due to the mismanagement of the property of John
Holman by his brother. In fact, John Holman was firmly convinced that
he had lost his property in South Carolina because of the negligence of
Samuel Holman. While in Africa, John Holman resumed his activities
as a slave trader and once again prospered. Yet he did not forgive his
brother for losing his slaves and plantation and refused to give him a
significant portion of his estate acquired after the confiscation. In 1821,
he wrote:

I John Holman a Native of Africa but now resident of Rio

pongas considering the uncertainity of human life ... do hereby
make this my Last Will and Testament ... I request and ordain
that my Executor shall pay or cause to be paid all my just debts
out of my Estate or properties Whatsoever and also collect and
receive whatever debts and sum or sums of money that may be
owing to me or my Estate. After which I Further request
bequeath devise and give unto my Brother Samuel Holman and
all of my Sisters each the Sum of One Shilling and no more ...
19

Clearly, John Holman was dissatisfied with his brother and sisters,
virtually disinheriting them. Consequently, the remainder of his estate
was given to his wife and nephew. He requested that

the whole and residue of my Estate Household goods and

property of whatever nature whatsoever to be equally divided
and given to my Well beloved Wife Sally and Well beloved
 Nephew Samuel Holman both of whom are Natives of Africa ...
And I do hereby declare ratify and confirm that my Wife Sally
is and has been liberated and made free from me and my heirs
forever and that no persons have or can have any claim to her
and further I do wish and direct that my aforesaid Nephew
Samuel Holman shall take care of my Wife Sally as his own
Mother ... 60

Shortly after John Holman recorded his last will and testament, he died
in his homeland of Rio Pongo in West Africa.

John and Samuel Holman were perhaps the only African slave
traders who established themselves as slaveowning planters in North
America. However, despite the demise of John and Samuel Holman as
rice planters in South Carolina, that avenue of production did not cease
for the colored family but continued until the Civil War. Elizabeth
Collins, Esther Anderson, and Margaret Collins, the sisters of John and
Samuel Holman, used their inheritance to assist them in cultivating
rice. In 1808, each of the three sisters inherited nine slaves from the
estate of their father. With the aid of their mulatto husbands, who were
members of the Collins family, they were able to accumulate a modest
estate. The husbands of the Holman sisters were born in the state and
therefore had a better understanding of the region. They did not
squander the property of their wives through mismanagement, but
increased their wealth.''

The marriage between the two families was not a union where
only one group owned property, but a wedding of two property-owning
classes. The Collins family owned a plantation in St. Thomas & St.
Dennis Parish of Charleston District. According to the will of Robert
Collins, a white planter and the patriarch of the mulatto family, he
bequeathed to Susanna Collins and her children, Nelly, Esther, Rachael,
Charlotte, Rebecca, Gasham, Elias, Robert, and Jonathan Collins, all of
his plantation, which contained 545 acres of land. Upon the death of
their father, they shared the plantation as tenants in common and used
slaves to work the land. For example, Robert Collins, the husband of
Margaret Holman, used the slaves of his wife to till the soil of the
plantation shared by his brothers and sisters. When James Anderson,
the nephew of Robert Collins and the husband of Esther Holman,
purchased a plantation in St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, he also
utilized the slaves of his wife to grow rice in 1814. The marriage
between the Holman and Collins families was ideal because it united a
slaveholding class with a landholding class, thus providing the two key
ingredients for rice planting.61

During the nineteenth century, there was only one line of the
Collins family that dominated the rice culture among the colored
planters. Elias Collins, the second son of Robert Collins, was one of the
several colored planters who cultivated rice in Georgetown District.
When he married Elizabeth Holman, the daughter of John Holman, Sr.,
his wife brought nine slaves into the marriage and provided the
collateral to secure the capital needed for rice planting. By his skillful
use of his wife's slaves as collateral, Collins gradually acquired a large
estate. In 1804, for example, he used the slave named Andrew as
security to obtain a loan from James Cotton for $900. A decade later,
he secured from Sarah Boone the sum of $1,200. In 1817, he mortgaged
four slaves to Anthony Chanet for $2,800. Two years later, he borrowed
from Chanet the sum of $4,800. With the capital from the loans, he was
able to purchase slaves and land, thus increasing the output of his rice
plantation. In 1819, for example, he purchased eight slaves from
Anthony Chanet for $6,000. By 1820 he owned 34 slaves, of whom 25
were working in the rice fields. In that year, his slaves cultivated an
estimated amount of rice ranging from 50,625.to 90,000 pounds.
Within 20 years of his marriage to Elizabeth Holman, he had acquired a
plantation which contained 821 acres of land and 34 slaves who
cultivated rice by the thousands of pounds.63

Yet Elias Collins never reached the ranks of the large planters who
owned more than 100 slaves in South Carolina. Between 1820 and
1840, his slave community grew by only 17.6 percent, or 6 slaves, and
numbered 40 bondsmen.64 One of the reasons for the small rate of
increase was the high mortality rate of rice plantations. Usually the
infants had the highest death rate and contributed to the low rate of
growth within the slave communities of the rice planters. In 1840, for
example, Elias Collins owned only five slaves who were under ten
years old, but he also held 20 females of childbearing age. When one
compares the small number of children to the large number of
childbearing females, the comparison suggests that more than five
slaves under ten years old resided on the plantation, but they apparently
fell victim to the diseases of the swamp and perished. For that reason,
the slave population of Elias Collins did not grow by substantial
margins after 1820.61

Although the slave community of Elias Collins was modest in

size, he decided to purchase a second plantation. In 1842, he bought the
Northhampton Plantation from William B. McDonald for $1,000. The
plantation was situated in St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish of
Charleston District and contained 3,500 acres of land. When Collins
purchased the Northhampton Plantation, he was apparently planning to
place a gang of slaves on the land and commence to work the soil.
However, the untimely death of Elias Collins in the winter of 1842
disrupted his plans for expansion."

A few years before the death of Elias Collins, he recorded his last
will and testament.

I Elias Collins a free person of color of the Parish of Prince

George Winyaw ... do hereby constitute and appoint Mess.
 Robert Hume and Jacob Cohen and my Nephew Robert Collins
the son of my brother Robert Collins ... Executors of this my
last Will and Testament. After payment of my just debts and
charges I dispose of my Estate as follows I give and bequeath
to my wife Elizabeth Collins all the negroes which belonged to
her and which she brought me on our marriage together with
the present and future issue and increase of the females ...

All the ... remainder of my Estate both real and personal I give
... to my Executors ... In trust nevertheless to and for the
following uses and upon the following conditions and
limitations that is to say in trust that my said Executors will as
soon as convient after my decease divide the whole of the said
residue and remainder into four equal parts-one part whereof I
give ... to my daughter Margaret Mitchell ... Another of the said
part I give devise and bequeath to my son Robert Michael
Collins ... the remaining parts and shares its my will that my
said Executors shall keep and retain in trust for my two infant
children Jonathan G. Collins and Elizabeth Collins ...61

When the will of Elias Collins was written, there was a provision
in the document which could not be legally adhered to by his executors.
For instance, the request to give one-half of his estate to Jonathan G.
a n d Elizabeth Collins was not binding. Even though Elias Collins
admitted that he was the father of Jonathan G. and Elizabeth Collins,
they were excluded as legal heirs because of their status as slaves. Like
many planters, Elias Collins could not avoid the temptations of slavery
and sexually exploited a female servant while he was a married man.
After his mistress gave birth to Jonathan G. and Elizabeth Collins, he
attempted to protect his offspring from the worst features of slavery. In
March 1839, he sold his mistress, Mary, and her children to Jacob
Cohen, Robert Collins, and Robert Hume for the nominal sum of five
dollars. Upon the transaction, he stipulated that the slaves should not be
sold but given the privileges of free colored persons. The executors of
Elias Collins adhered to the demands and permitted the slave family to
enjoy the privileges of free coloreds. Yet when they petitioned the
Court of Equity to divide the estate, the court declared that the slave
children of Elias Collins were excluded as heirs and not entitled to the
property of their father."

Once Jonathan G. and Elizabeth Collins were denied the property

of their father, the court divided the estate between the free heirs. Since
Margaret Mitchell was the only offspring of Elias Collins conceived
within the sanctions of matrimony, she was entitled to three-fourths of
the estate. But Robert Michael Collins was born outside the boundaries
of marriage and entitled to only one-fourth of the property belonging to
his father, as stipulated by the Act of 1839. When the court divided the
property of Elias Collins, it decreed that Margaret Mitchell was allotted
the following 21 slaves: Jack, Lease, Homiday, Rachel, Little John,
Sary, Mike, Mer- rideth, Jacob, Becky, Molly, Tenah, Judy, George,
Sampson, William, Moses, Phillis, Joseph, Rachel, and Fudio. Robert
Michael Collins was given seven slaves, named Glasgo, Sam, Carolina,
Big John, Harry, Hannah, and Bob. While the slave property was
divided between the two heirs, the real estate was sold to the high
bidders and the proceeds given to the heirs. On April 16, 1846, James
W. Gray, the Master of Equity, sold all of the real estate belonging to
the estate of Elias Collins. The Northhampton Plantation was auctioned
to Jonathan Lucas for $750. Shortly thereafter, Margaret Mitchell
purchased Santee Plantation, formerly occupied by her father, for
$4,050. After the two plantations were auctioned, Margaret Mitchell
received three-fourths of the net proceeds while her half-brother was
given the remaining one-fourth portion.69

By 1846, Margaret Mitchell Harris, the recent bride of Randal

Harris, owned a modest estate. After the court decree, she held 37
bondsmen of which 21 slaves were inherited from the estate of her
father while 16 slaves were inherited from the estate of her mother. In
1844, Elizabeth Holman Collins, the mother of Margaret Harris, had
died without leaving a will. Without the instructions of a will, Margaret
Harris applied to the probate judge for a letter of administration in
order to settle the estate of her mother. After the letter was given to her,
the colored woman paid the debts of her mother and claimed the
residue of property, which consisted of 16 slaves and personal
possessions, as the inheritance from her mother. Including the property
from both of her parents, she owned not only 37 slaves but a rice
plantation with 981 acres of land.70

With the two key ingredients of slaves and land, the colored
woman was ready to plant rice. In 1849, Margaret Mitchell Harris and
her half brother used their combined labor force and cultivated a large
amount of rice. Using the labor of 37 field hands, they grew 240,000
pounds of rice, 150 bushels of sweet potatoes, and 100 bushels of
Indian corn. Without the labor of slaves, the two colored planters could
not have produced such a phenomenal quantity of rice and other
agricultural goods."

Indeed, the large quantity of rice cultivated on Santee Plantation

can be attributed to the high productivity of the slaves. To measure the
productivity of the slave workers, it is necessary to convert the labor
force into the terms of a male worker or field hand. By comparing the
working capacity of every slave, regardless of age or sex, with that of a
field hand, the entire labor force can be reduced to its equivalent in
field hands. For example, two female slaves between 10 and 14 years
old are the equivalent of one field hand. Once the equivalent in field
hands has been determined, the productivity per field hand can be
founded by dividing the rice produced by the number of field hands.
The slaves of Margaret Mitchell Harris and Robert Michael Collins
were equivalent to about 26.66 field hands. Dividing the amount of rice
produced-240,000 pounds-by 26.66, the result is 9,002.2 pounds of rice
per hand. The productivity of the slaves belonging to the two colored
planters was by far the highest in Georgetown County.72 In 1849, the
slaves of Margaret Mitchell Harris and Robert Michael Collins were
more productive than the slaves of Elias Doars, J.B. Easterling, Hugh
Frasier, Robert Huggins, Robert Hume, or Eliza Pinckney.73

With the labor of slaves, Margaret Mitchell Harris and Robert

Michael Collins extracted a modest profit from Santee Plantation. In
fact, the proceeds of one complete harvest were nearly double the cost
of purchasing the plantation. In 1844, Mrs. Harris bought Santee
Plantation for $4,050, but the value of the harvest from 1849 was
estimated at $7,632.

In order to determine the profitability of Santee Plantation, the

rate of return from the total sum of money invested in the plantation
must be calculated. Assuming that the plantation was purchased at the
market value in 1849, the total amount of capital invested can be
ascertained. In the census of 1850, the value of land, livestock, and
farming implements was listed by the federal census taker at $5,045.
Only the value of the slaves remains to be estimated. According to
Ulrich Phillips, the prime slave from Charleston District during the
year of 1849 was worth about $650. Yet the slaves on Santee Plantation
were not all prime field hands; some were children and women. Thus
the average value of the slaves in that community should have been
about $450, or a total value of $22,050. With the estimates provided by
the census and the value of the slaves determined, the total amount of
capital invested in Santee Plantation comes to $27,095.7'

The second step in calculating the rate of return from the rice
plantation is to obtain the amount of revenue made from the staple
crop. In 1850, the census recorded the individual amount of rice grown
by the planters. According to the federal enumerator, Santee Plantation
produced 240,000 pounds of rice during the year of 1849. Using the rice
prices printed in the Charleston Courier, the annual average price can
be calculated at .0318¢ per pound and multiplied by the amount of rice
grown, which comes to a total revenue of $7,632.71

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Seventh

Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 11, Georgetown County,
South Carolina, pp. 1089, 1090; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 701-702;
William W. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification
Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 (New York: Harper & Row,
1968), p. 362; Dale Evans Swan, `The Structure and Profitability of the
Antebellum Rice Industry: 1859" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of
North Carolina, 1972), pp. 57-80; David 0. Whitten, "Antebellum Sugar
and Rice Plantations, Louisiana and South Carolina: A Profitability
Study" (Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University, 1970), pp. 106-110.

After the revenue has been entered, the third step is to estimate the
expenses incurred on Santee Plantation. First of all, the support of the
slaves should be calculated. Using the methods employed by Dale
Evans Swan, which estimated the maintenance cost of slaves in regards
to sex and age categories, the total cost for one year can be assessed at
$1,148.62. Based on the studies of Alfred Conrad, Clement Eaton, John
R. Meyers, Kenneth Stampp, and David 0. Whitten, other expenses can
be estimated at $1,487.76, bringing the total cost for working the
plantation to $2,636.38. When the difference between the gross sale
($7,632) and the expenses ($2,636.38) is calculated, the Santee
Plantation is shown to have netted $4,995.62, or a rate of return of
18.43 percent, from the initial capital investment of $27,095.76

The rate of return on Santee Plantation surpassed the dividends

from many profitable investments in Charleston City. In 1849, the
interest rate on money deposited in the Charleston Bank or the
Charleston Saving Institution varied from 5.5 to 6.5 percent; the return
from Santee Plantation nearly tripled the interest rate of the two
establishments. Also, the dividends from the Planters & Mechanic
Bank or the Union Bank Stocks could not compare with the returns of
Santee Plantation. Yet such fortunes could not be expected over a
prolonged period of time because the planters were victims of the
weather and the sickness within their slave communities. These two
problems often caused small rice harvests, reducing the revenue made
from the staple crop. As the profits dwindled, the planters were
sometimes placed into severe debts when they overextended
themselves."

In January 1860, Margaret Mitchell Harris decided to sell the

majority of her slaves and discontinue the cultivation of rice, even
though the Santee Plantation was profitable during her tenure. On
January 7th, she sold 44 slaves to Thomas Ryan of Charleston City for
$25,300. Apparently the 60-year-old mulatto woman grew weary of
managing Santee Plantation and liquidated her chattel property.71 She
invested the proceeds from the auction in stocks and bonds. Upon the
sale of her slaves, Mrs. Margaret Mitchell Harris was the last colored
rice planter who owned more than 40 slaves in South Carolina.
However, Mrs. Harris was not the last colored planter to grow a large
quantity of rice.

In 1859, Robert Michael Collins, the half-brother of Margaret

Mitchell Harris, continued to plant rice in Georgetown District. With
just 12 slave laborers, he planted 90,000 pounds of rice, 1,000 bushels
of sweet potatoes and 100 bushels of Indian corn. The cultivation of
rice was by far the money-making staple on his plantation. In fact, the
plantation of Robert Michael Collins made $3,591 from the sale of
rice.79

Without a high level of productivity by the field hands of Robert

Michael Collins, he could not have made such profits. During the fall
harvest of 1859, his field hands averaged 9,836 pounds of rice. When
Collins extracted the maximum amount of labor from his slaves, he
assured himself of a reasonable profit. At the end of 1859, he made a
net profit of $1,969.73. Yet the rate of return from the capital invested
in the rice plantation at the market value of 1859 was only 7.05 percent.
Even though the return was not as large as the rate made by Robert
Michael Collins and his half-sister in 1849, it was greater than that of
other investments. In 1859, the return from the plantation of Robert
Michael Collins exceeded the dividends from the Planters & Mechanic
Bank Stock by .04 percent, it surpassed the interest rate of the
Charleston Saving Institution by 2.05 percent. By and large, the colored
planters extracted a profit from rice planting, but the financial rewards
would not have been obtained without the use of slave labor.e°

Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Eighth

Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule II, Georgetown County,
South Carolina, p. 134; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 13-14; Dale Evans Swan,
"The Structure and Profitability of the Antebellum Rice Industry 1859"
(Ph.d. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1972), pp. 57-80.

The benefits derived from slavery and rice planting were not
utilized only by Robert Michael Collins, but also by his relatives from
Charleston District. In 1850, Andrew James Anderson, the cousin of
Robert Michael Collins and Margaret Mitchell Harris, owned twelve
slaves and a rice plantation called Bulls Head in St. Thomas & St.
Dennis Parish. Anderson received the majority of his property by
descent. Between 1818 and 1828, he was given slaves by his
grandmother, Esther McIntoish, and his mother, Esther Holman
Anderson, while his father, James Anderson, left him the Bulls Head
Plantation after the death of his mother. With both slaves and land, he
planted 24,000 pounds of rice, 500 bushels of sweet potatoes, and 100
bushels of Indian corn in 1849. During the late fall of 1849, he sold his
rice crop for about $763.20.81

As long as rice planting was profitable, the colored planters would

not divest themselves of their slaves or land. Indeed, several colored
planters like Andrew James Anderson used the labor of slaves to
cultivate their plantations as late as 1860. Sarah Collins Boag, the
cousin of Andrew James Anderson and Robert Michael Collins,
employed the labor of her slaves in the planting of rice until the Civil
War. In 1860, she owned ten slaves and 270 acres of land called
Pleasant Hill. On her small tract of land, she produced 6,000 pounds of
rice, 200 bushels of sweet potatoes, and 150 bushels of Indian corn.
Without the labor of slaves, Sarah Boag could not have tilled the soil of
her farm.82

Sarah Boag, like her cousin, received her slaves and land by
descent. In 1842, Sarah Collins Boag as well as her brother, Robert
Collins, and her two sisters, Martha and Charlotte Collins, were given
the means to plant rice. On March 24, Robert Collins, Sr., transferred
the slaves named Bella, Charles, John, Hannah, David, Isreal, Pino, and
Dick to his children for $100.83 Although he transferred eight slaves to
his offspring, the bondsmen were not his property. His wife, Margaret
Holman Collins, had requested in her will that "my earthly property
consisting of Negroes names as follows Charles, John, Beller, Mensee,
Hanna and her three children I give and bequeath unto my Dear
Husband Robert Collins ... And at his death the negroes be equally
divided to my children ..."86 The slaves acquired by Margaret Holman
Collins were part of her inheritance from the estate of her deceased
father, John Holman, Sr. She, in turn, passed the slaves on to her
children. Sarah Collins Boag inherited the slaves named Pino and Dick.
She also inherited a slave named Peggy from her aunt, Charlotte Boone,
in 1837.85

In addition to the slaves, Sarah Boag acquired the tract of land

called Pleasant Hill, which contained 130 acres of land, from her father
in 1842. Her brother and sisters were provided with the farm called
Hickory Hill. While the children of Robert and Margaret Holman
Collins were provided with slaves and land, only one of their offspring
used the inheritance to plant rice .36

When Sarah Collins Boag harvested her rice crop, she could not
depend upon the plant as a major cash crop. In 1859, her crop of rice
was valued at only $239.40. Yet the market value of 150 bushels of
corn, 200 bushels of sweet potatoes, and 6,720 pounds of hay was
estimated at $333.32. Many of the small rice planters could not
cultivate a sufficient amount of rice to make their farms profitable, so
other crops were grown on a commercial scale and sold to the large-
and medium-sized planters who could not grow enough foodstuffs to
feed their slaves.87 In fact, over 60% of the revenue made from the rice
farm was based on grain and meat production. On the whole, the small
colored planters benefitted from the deficiencies which occurred on the
large plantations and produced more than one crop on a commercial
scale.

Among the colored slaveowners who planted both large and small
quantities of rice, the ties of kinship were quite prevalent. The colored
planter families already examined had another planter relative,
Jonathan Collins of St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish. He was the uncle
of Margaret Mitchell Harris, Robert Michael Collins, and Sarah Collins
Boag as well as the great uncle of Andrew James Anderson. In 1840,
Jonathan Collins planted a small crop of rice. Using his labor force of
four adult slaves, he cultivated an estimated amount of rice which
ranged between 8,200 and 14,400 pounds. For the next eight years, he
used his slaves to grow rice. On February 10, 1848, his rice production
ceased after a prolonged illness caused his death. One month before his
death, he recorded his last will and testament.ee

I Johnathan Collins of St. Thomas Parish being weak in body

but of sound mind and memory praised be God for the same do
make this my last will and testament in manner ... I give devise
and bequeath equally unto my wife Nelly Collins and unto my
daughter Jennet all my estate real and property during their
lives ...19

When Jonathan Collins died, he owned sixteen slaves-Glasgow,

Hannah, Louisa, Rebecca, Caesar, Harriet, Florry, Patience, Glasgow
(sic), Susannah, John, Morrow, Lauder, Hope, Jemina, and Mingo-who
were appraised at $5,525. It was not until the winter of 1848 that the
estate was appraised, and it was still longer before the property was
divided among the two heirs.

With the aid of the Charleston Court of Equity, the property of the
deceased Jonathan Collins was divided between his two heirs. On June
21, 1849, Edward R. Laurens, the Master of Equity, ruled that Nelly
Collins was entitled to seven slaves -John, Susannah, Morrow, Lauder,
Hope, Jemina, and Rebecca. Jennette Collins, the daughter of Nelly
Collins, was also awarded seven slaves - Louisa, Caesar, Harriet,
Patience, Glasgow, and Mingo. Nelly Collins was given the exclusive
right of occupying the plantation of her deceased husband, but she was
required to pay her daughter the annual rent of $15.90

By 1859, the two colored women employed their slaves in the

planting of rice. Nelly Collins used her slaves to harvest 2,400 pounds
of rice as well as 130 bushels of sweet potatoes and 125 bushels of
Indian corn. Yet Jennette Collins produced more than four times the
amount of rice that her mother produced, with an equal number of
slaves and the same amount of land. Using slave labor, her farm
yielded 10,000 pounds of rice, 800 bushels of sweet potatoes and 150
bushels of Indian corn. The market value of her rice, sweet potatoes,
Indian corn, and hay amounted to $1,144.49, while the same four crops
on the farm of her mother were worth $338.33.91

By and large, the colored rice planters of Charleston and

Georgetown counties can be traced to the Holman family. For example,
John and Samuel Holman of Georgetown District were brothers; their
sisters were Elizabeth Holman Collins, Esther Holman Anderson, and
Margaret Holman Collins. Elias, Robert, and Jonathan Collins were
also brothers and Elias and Robert married Elizabeth and Margaret
Holman, while their nephew, James Anderson, married Esther Holman.
The three African women gave birth to several offspring, and each of
the sisters had one child who followed the example of his or her father
and planted rice. With the property provided by their parents, the
children of the three African sisters entered the world of the rice
planters.

Not all of the colored rice planters were related to each other by
the bond of kinship. Alex Holmes of Georgetown County was not part
of the Holman or the Collins clan. For more than 20 years, he worked
as a carpenter before he acquired the capital needed to purchase slaves
and land for rice planting. According to the 1850 census, the 70-year-
old black farmer owned 12 slaves and a plantation which contained
1,550 acres of land. With the acquisition of slaves and land, he
managed a plantation which yielded 16,300 pounds of rice, 1,000
bushels of sweet potatoes, and 400 bushels of Indian corn.92 By 1860,
Alex Holmes had apparently become dissatisfied with his investment,
because he liquidated all of his slaves except one 56-year-old male and
divested himself of his plantation.93

Elsewhere in South Carolina, Frank Logan and his wife, Jane

Logan, of St. Paul's Parish in Colleton District used their slaves to plant
rice. In 1820, Frank Logan utilized seven field hands to harvest an
estimated amount of rice which ranged between 14,175 and 25,200
pounds. By the next federal census, Frank Logan had died, but his wife
took over the management of the rice farm and continued to plant the
staple. In 1840, there were 12 slaves working in the rice fields, and they
grew an estimated crop of rice which ranged between 24,300 and
43,200 pounds. In that year, Jane Logan was nearly 70 years old, and
she did not live to be a part of the next federal census. Yet her death
was not the end of the colored rice planters of Colleton County.94

During the period from 1810 to 1847, John Garden was the largest
colored planter of St. Paul's Parish, but he used the Indian descent of
his mother to escape the limitations of being classified as a free black.
Yet both he and his mother, Flora Garden, associated with free coloreds
and married into the caste of colored persons. In 1795, John Garden
applied for membership into the colored fraternal society called the
Brown Fellowship Society. Also, he married the daughter of George
and Ruth Gardiner, who were free mulattoes of Charlestown. In
addition, the second marriage of his mother, Flora Garden, was to a
black man named Robert Baldwin. In spite of the fact that John Garden
was designated as free Indian, his father may have been of African
descent. But the laws of the state permitted persons of free Indian
descent on their mothers' side to declare themselves as Indians."
Although John Garden was closely aligned to the free black
community, he rejected his African ancestry and used the heritage of
his mother to avoid the special tax imposed on free Negroes as well as
t h e other disadvantages of being classified as black. Without the
limitations of being assigned to a so-called inferior class, he became
one of the largest non-white planters in the state.

When John Garden was 48 years old, he accumulated an estate

that ranked him along the small planters of the state. In 1820, he owned
3 5 slaves and a plantation called Hermitage. And like the wealthy
planters of Charleston and Colleton counties, he maintained a home in
Charleston Neck where he often stayed. While residing in Charleston
Neck, he hired an overseer to manage the plantation. Under the
directions of John Garden, his overseer used 17 slaves in the rice fields
and produced an estimated amount of rice which ranged between
34,425 and 61,200 pounds. Within ten years, John Garden increased the
number of field hands employed on the Hermitage Plantation from 17
to 34 slaves and produced between 68,850 and 122,400 pounds of rice.
By 1840 the 68-year-old planter owned 62 slaves, 40 of whom worked
in the rice fields and grew between 81,000 and 144,000 pounds of rice.
Within 20 years, John Garden acquired 62 slaves and a plantation
which contained 382 acres of land, placing him among the large
planters in South Carolina.96

As the wealth of John Garden grew, his health began to falter.

Fearful that his death was imminent, he recorded his last will and
testament in February 1847. In his last will, he stated:
 I desire all my Country property to be held by my Executors
until all just debts are fully paid after which I desire the same
to be sold to the best advantage and the proceeds equally
divided between my following children, Viz: Ruth C. Garden,
Ellen R. Bass, Frances M. Grant, Elias W. Garden, John
Garden.

Secondly I give to Susan Elizabeth Garden my wife my house

and lot in Cannonsborough now occupied by me together with
the furniture ... and the following servants Viz Clarissa and
Hannah with their future issue and increase ...97

Shortly after the will was written, the 75-year-old planter died. After
his death, the executors of John Garden managed the estate until a sale
could be conducted.9'

For the next ten months, Elias W. Garden, the son and executor of
John Garden, directed the daily operations on Hermitage Plantation.
While managing the plantation, he used the slaves to harvest the last
crop of rice on the estate of his deceased father. When the slaves
finished their tasks, the rice crop sold for the net sum of $913.98. For
his services as overseer, he charged the estate of his father the sum of
$177.14.99

Upon the completion of the harvest, Elias W. Garden was ready to

follow the directions of his deceased father and sell both the slaves and
t h e plantation. On November 23, 1847, he placed a notice in the
Charleston Courier to inform the public that Hermitage Plantation and
60 slaves were to be auctioned by Thomas Hume. When the sale was
conducted, the executors of John Garden sold Hermitage Plantation to
William W. Westcoat for $8,000. Westcoat then purchased 40 slaves
belonging to the deceased John Garden for $13,179. (Sixteen slaves on
the plantation were retained by the Garden family for $4,205.) Unlike
many of the colored planters, John Garden had demanded the
liquidation of his estate, and the proceeds were divided between his
heirs. Consequently, the auction ended the line of major colored
planters in Colleton County, which could be traced back to James
Pendarvis in 1798.100

For the most part, the colored rice planters of South Carolina
needed the labor of slaves to plant and harvest their rice crops. Once
the slaves and land were acquired, the network of kinship preserved the
rice planta tions. When the colored planters rose to the ranks of major
slaveowners and rice cultivators, they continued the production of the
staple crop until death; then their children were provided with the
necessary implements to work the plantations. Few colored planters
started from poverty and ascended to the wealth of the rice planters.
Clearly, the capital needed for large-scale production could not be
obtained without the assistance of well-to-do benefactors, thereby
limiting the number of free blacks who planted rice on commercial
levels.

By the 1820s, cotton had replaced rice as the major staple grown
in South Carolina. It dominated the plantation economy of nearly all of
t he counties in the state. The cotton belt ran from the low country
(Beaufort, Charleston, Horry, Williamsburg), where the crop was
grown in modest amounts, to within 20 miles of the Orangeburg-
Barnwell lines. From the sandy soil of Abbeville County to the fertile
lands of Richland County, the cash crop was also planted. As the crop
spread into the upper counties of the state, it became the dominant
staple by the 1830s. In fact, the upper counties (Abbeville, Anderson,
Chester, Fairfield, Greenville, Lancaster, Laurens, Newberry, Pickens,
Spartanburg) grew huge amounts of cotton. By 1849, the region
produced 63,840,779 pounds of cotton, while the middle counties
(Barnwell, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Darlington, Edgefield, Kershaw,
Lexington, Marion, Marlboro, Orangeburg, Richland, Sumter) grew
53,285,661 pounds of cotton.10'

When cotton became the major staple of the South, it was not the
crop of the wealthy, as was the rice, but the staple of the small farmers.
The typical colored farmers who planted cotton were not the owners of
slaves or large estates, but rather small farmers who used the labor of
their families to cultivate the land. In 1849, Andrew Chisolm of
Barnwell District was assisted by his wife, Betsey Chisolm, in the
picking of two bales of cotton. As the family units grew, the number of
workers increased, so that the colored farmers could produce more
cotton. In 1859, John Hazel of Barnwell District employed the labor of
himself and his wife, Mary Hazel, as well as their adult offspring,
James, Joseph, and Richard Hazel, to pick 16 bales of cotton. Elsewhere
in the state, Jesse Hamilton, a colored farmer of Chester County, owned
388 acres of land. With the aid of his wife and three adult offspring, the
farm yielded 31 bales of cotton. Such family units were quite
exceptional in South Carolina. Furthermore, the colored farmers who
relied on the labor of their children eventually lost their supply of
workers when their offspring left home and ventured out for
themselves. Most free blacks who planted cotton were small farmers
and could not afford the services of added laborers beyond their nuclear
families. Yet a few of these small families grew into mediumsized
production units and acquired the capital to purchase slaves, thereby
guaranteeing the cultivation of cotton.102

Sometimes the small farmers of African descent worked their own

land until they obtained the money to purchase slaves. In 1833, Wade
Sanders of Newberry District bought 160 acres of land from Jacob
Duchill for $300. At first, Sanders and his wife provided all the labor as
they worked the soil of their small farm. By 1849, their children were
of the age to assist them in the chores of the farm. In that year, they
improved 100 acres of land which yielded 16 bales of cotton, 200
bushels sweet potatoes, and 500 bushels of Indian corn. 101 Without
using the labor of slaves, the Sanders family planted a crop of cotton
which was valued at $537.60. But during the following years, Wade
Sanders used the proceeds from the cotton to purchase seven slaves. In
1860, he owned a slave community which consisted of a 31-year-old
male and six females who were 26, 24, 21, 19, 18, and 10 years of age.
Through the industry of Wade Sanders and his family, he was able to
acquire slave workers within 17 years after the purchase of his farm.
104

After the purchase of the field hands, the output on the farm of
Wade Sanders increased from the planting season of 1849. In that year,
the colored family grew only 16 bales of cotton. But ten years later, the
family used the labor of slaves, and the amount of cotton increased by
32.8 percent, or 7 bales, over the level in 1849. In fact, nearly all of the
crops planted were more plentiful than in the previous decade. For
example, the crop of corn grew by 16.6 percent, while the production of
oats increased by 60 percent. Furthermore, the amount of improved
land grew from 100 to 150 acres of tilled soil. Like many farmers,
Wade Sanders wanted to produce more cotton, but without the services
of a stable work force, he could not achieve that objective. So when he
acquired his slaves, he purchased a permanent labor force-laborers who
would not pursue their own interests as his offspring were prone to do
when they reached maturity, but who could be used for many years to
come.101

Once the cotton planters bought their slaves, they used the labor of
their servants to till the soil. In February, the male slaves prepared the
soil for the upcoming harvest by plowing under the old crops. With the
power of mules, the field hands turned the earth, in order to cut up and
destroy the worms and insects which could infect the cotton fields.
When this task was completed, the next phase of cotton planting did not
begin until the next month.

By March the field hands plowed the soil and prepared to plant the
cotton seeds. Using the aid of a mule, the male slaves turned the earth
into ridges which were six feet wide from water furrow to water furrow.
Then the slaves applied a lighter plowing for the planting of the seeds.
Usually female slaves sowed the cotton seeds by hand. After the task
was finished, the slaves used a harrow, which was drawn by mules, and
covered the seeds with earth. When the seedlings sprouted, the arduous
task of tending the cotton commenced.

In May, the slaves were sent into the fields to remove unwanted
grass and weeds which accumulated around the plant. To dislodge
undesirable material, the field hands plowed as close as possible to the
plant on both sides, scraping the dirt and the grass away from the
cotton. Then a group of slaves followed with their hoes and cut up the
grass. Not only was it necessary that the slaves remove all of the grass,
but the plants had to be chopped out with the hoes and spaced about ten
to twelve inches apart. After the plants were spaced apart, the slaves
still had to hoe the fields and kill any grass between the rows. The task
of hoeing would not be completed until July.

By late August the cotton was ready to be picked. At that time,

each slave was given a sack, which was fastened to his or her neck by a
strap. Then the slaves commenced to pick the cotton. When their sacks
were full, they emptied them into large baskets which were placed at
the beginning of the rows. As the sky began to darken, the slaves were
forced to end their picking for the day, but their tasks continued into
the night. They still had to carry the baskets full of cotton to the storage
house, so that the cotton could be weighed and kept until it was ginned
and sold. 106
 On the plantations of the large colored planters, there were cotton
gins. In 1850, the cotton gins cost about $150 and were well within the
budget of the well-to-do planters of African descent. In 1861, for
example, the plantation of William Ellison was equipped with five new
gins, which were worth $810. The labor-saving device was worth the
expense because it performed the task which at one time required the
services of several slaves. Before the cotton gin was invented, it took a
single slave one whole day to gin one pound of cotton by hand. But the
original cotton gin made by Eli Whitney could gin 50 pounds of cotton
in a single day. By the 1830s, the cotton gin was an established and
important implement on the plantations of many cotton growers. The
cotton farmers who could not afford the device often used the gins of
neighboring planters. Once the cotton was ginned, it was pressed into
bales by means of a screw, then covered with bagging and tied by
ropes. Then the bales were ready to be sent to market and sold. 101

The routine of the colored planters did not differ from the white
planters with a similar number of slaves. For example, the plantation of
John H. Berry of Barnwell County was operated in the same manner as
those of his white neighbors. In 1848, Berry sold a 24-year-old black
woman named Hannah and her child to Joseph F. Biniker for $550. Like
many planters, he occasionally had to liquidate his human chattel to
avoid financial difficulties. By 1850, Berry owned nine slaves, three of
whom were adults and used as field hands. His small task force cleared
60 acres of land which yielded 5 bales of cotton, 100 bushels of peas,
and 300 bushels of Indian corn. Within ten years, his labor force had
increased from three to five adult workers. As a result of the added
field hands, the output of the farm made substantial gains. 101 In 1859,
John H. Berry used his slaves to improve 200 acres of land and
harvested 22 bales of cotton, 100 bushels of sweet potatoes, 200
bushels of peas, and 700 bushels of Indian corn. Clearly, the desire to
produce more agricultural goods compelled him to increase the number
of workers. Like many planters, he was aware that increased production
resulted in more revenue; there was thus a stimulus not only to produce
more but to acquire added laborers. 109

The financial benefits of cotton planting were responsible for

several colored farmers' utilization of slave labor. In 1860, Lewis
Kinsey, a mulatto planter of Barnwell County, owned nineteen slaves,
nine of whom were employed as field hands. On his plantation, the
field hands grew 19 bales of cotton, 150 bushels of peas, and 1,000
bushels of Indian corn. The revenue from the cotton was about $912,
while the corn crop was estimated at $903. Quite often, the planters
grew more corn than they could consume and sold the surplus to
planters who did not cultivate enough of the grain to feed their slaves.
In Edgefield County, George Quarles, a 60-year-old black farmer and
the owner of two field hands, planted cotton as well as a surplus of
corn. In 1859, he grew 12 bales of cotton, which were worth $576. But
he also cultivated more corn than his family or slaves could have
consumed. When Quarles planted 400 bushels of Indian corn, he
intended to sell the surplus to planters who grew insufficient amounts
of corn. With the sale of the grain, he augmented the revenue from his
farm and moved away from a single cash crop.10

Yet many planters relied on the cultivation of cotton as their

single source of revenue and either refused or were unable to diversify
their farms. In 1859, Daria Thomas, a mulatto planter of Union County,
used his field hands to focus solely on the planting of cotton. The
slaves of Daria Thomas improved 150 acres of land and grew 16 bales
of cotton, 50 bushels of Indian corn, 50 bushels of peas, and 100
bushels of sweet potatoes. When the cotton was marketed, it sold for
about $768. The value of the other agricultural goods amounted to only
S139.1 11

In Charleston City, the elite members of the free black community

invested their earnings in plantations. For example, Joseph Hanscome,
t he son of a wealthy white planter and a colored mother, used the
money that he inherited from his father to purchase land and slaves. On
August 1, 1833, Joseph Hanscome bought Woodland Plantation, which
was situated in St. James & Goose Creek Parish of Charleston District
and contained 600 acres of land, from Edward H. Edwards for $5,000.
Shortly after the purchase, he moved his family and his city slaves
from their home on Green Hill Street and relocated in the parish of St.
James & Goose Creek. With the labor provided by his urban servants,
he planted a small amount of cotton. Like most city slaves, however,
his servants were not prepared for the arduous life of the field hands.
And so it became necessary for him to purchase workers who were
accustomed to agricultural labor. Within two years of the acquisition of
Woodland Plantation, he purchased ten field hands. On January 27,
1835, Joseph Hanscome took advantage of the estate auction conducted
by the executors of the deceased Mrs. S. Parker, who had resided on a
neighboring plantation, and procured for $3,700 the following slaves:
July, Lydia, Ive, Kit, Vensus, Adam, Billy, Owen, and Nelly.12.

By 1835 Joseph Hanscome owned sixteen slaves, ten of whom

were used as field hands. With the added workers, he planted a modest
amount of cotton. Since Hanscome did not record the amount of cotton
grown, the average yield of cotton in that area has been used to
determine the number of bales cultivated. According to the study of
Edward Saraydar, the average yield per hand was 2.8 bales of cotton.
Using that estimate, the slaves of Joseph Hanscome produced 28 bales
of cotton, which were worth $1,792. For the next three years, he used
his slaves to till the soil of Woodland Plantation until his death in the
winter of 1838."'

Before the death of Joseph Hanscome, he requested that his estate

should be sold. In order to liquidate the estate, the executors of Joseph
Hanscome advertised the auction in the Charleston Mercury. On
January 1, 1839, the Mercury reported that 15 slaves - Jacob (a
carpenter), July (a field hand), Kitty (a field hand), Billy (a field hand),
Adam (a field hand), Nell, Jack, Hannah, Liddy, Vensus, Peggy, Grace,
Nelly, Delia, and Delia's child - would be sold nine days later at the
north side of the custom house in Charleston City. The Mercury also
ran the advertisement for the sale of Woodland Plantation. "4

Estate Sale by Elliot, Condy, & Dawes

On Thursday 10th January, will be sold, at 11 o'clock at the

North side of Custom House, The valuable and pleasantly
situated Plantation, called Woodland, containing 600 acres of
Land ... situated 15 miles from town ... On the plantation there
is a fine Dwelling House, on a high basement, containing 6
rooms, with Piazzas to North and South. All the buildings are
in good order, consisting of kitchen, Servant House, and Negro
Houses with brick chimneys."'

When the sale was conducted, Woodland Plantation sold for

$3,600. Sixteen slaves formerly belonging to the deceased Joseph
Hanscome were auctioned for $10,340. In addition, the furniture,
livestock, plantation implements, and provisions together sold for
$1,295.85. Among the items auctioned were cotton seeds, corn, fodder,
a mahogany tea table, and other miscellaneous property. The total
proceeds from the auction came to $15,235.85, which was to be used by
the executors of Joseph Hanscome to pay any debts incurred. The
residue of the money would be invested in stock and bonds for the
benefit of his wife. 16

Joseph Hanscome was able to invest $8,700 in slaves and land

within a period of two years. Undoubtedly the high price of cotton
during the early 1830s was the prime motive for his costly investment.
But unlike Hanscome, it took most colored planters years to acquire the
money to invest in slaves and land. By 1860, William Jones, a 70-year-
old mulatto of St. Luke's Parish in Beaufort County, had acquired the
funds to purchase slaves. Before the acquisition, he had worked as a
carpenter in the county. Eventually, he saved enough money to buy
three field hands to work the small farm that he owned in 1859. Once
the field hands cleared 100 acres of land for planting, they cultivated 7
bales of cotton, 50 bushels of peas, 200 bushels of sweet potatoes, and
500 bushels of Indian corn. Elsewhere in the county, Peter Jackson of
Prince William Parish bought two field hands by 1860. Yet it was not
until the mulatto planter was in his seventies that he acquired the
slaves. The 78-year-old slaveowner used his slaves to plant 3 bales of
cotton. In Lexington County, Sarah Bowers, a mulatto slave master,
used her 36-year-old male slave to till 15 acres of land, which yielded 1
bale of cotton, 1 bushel of Irish potatoes, and 25 bushels of Indian corn
in 1859. Sarah Bowers and her husband had waited several years before
they purchased the slave. Although it took nearly a decade for some
colored farmers to buy slaves, they viewed their acquisitions not only
a s a means of providing labor but an investment by which they could
graduate into the planter class."7

The more ambitious and capable colored farmers occasionally did

rise to the planter class. For instance, William Ellison not only went
from slavery to freedom, but became the largest acknowledged colored
cotton planter in South Carolina. After spending 25 years of his life as a
slave, he was able to acquire 70 slaves and a plantation which yielded
100 bales of cotton in 1861. The rise of William Ellison to prominence
took more than half of a century to accomplish.

When William Ellison was born in Fairfield District in 1791, the

chance that he would be something more than a slave seemed remote.
Yet there was something special about this slave child which separated
him from the other children on the plantation of his owner. The most
noticeable difference was the parentage of the slave child. The mulatto
b oy was probably the offspring of his master, who was also named
William Ellison. As the child of William Ellison, he was not treated as
an ordinary slave. When the boy reached adulthood, his master sent
him to Captain William McCreighton to be taught a trade. Under the
guidance of Captain McCreighton, the mulatto man was trained in the
skill of making and repairing cotton gins. Occasionally the mulatto
children of slaveowners were trained as artisans in order that they
would be capable of earning a livelihood, which prepared them for
manumission.

Indeed, William Ellison's training was preparing him to embark

upon a new life as a freeman. On June 8, 1816, he was emancipated by
h i s owner. Shortly after the emancipation, he journeyed to Sumter
District and pursued his trade as a cotton gin maker and repairer. In
February 1817, he placed a notice in the Camden Gazette and alerted
the public that he was ready for business.'' In the notice, he stated that
having served as an apprentice to William McCreighton, he had
established himself at Stateburg in the county of Sumter and would
make or repair cotton gins. Within three years after the advertisement,
he purchased two slaves. The proceeds from the cotton gin shop
allowed him to invest in slaves and facilitated his development as a
large planter. 19

By 1820, William Ellison had gone from slavery to freedom to

slaveownership. According to the federal enumeration, he owned two
male slaves. The slaves probably worked in the cotton gin shop because
the census reported that three persons were employed as manufacturers
i n the household, but Ellison and his slaves were the only persons
capable of working in the business. In addition to the census report,
Robert W. Anderson, a hotel keeper of Sumter, recalled that Ellison
owned "a valuable slave, who was a fine mechanic and cotton gin
maker."' 10 As the cotton gin business of William Ellison increased, he
added two more male slaves to his labor force, bringing his holding to
four male workers by 1830. But the small number of slaves owned by
Ellison was not sufficient for large-scale cotton production.121

It was not until the middle part of 1830 that William Ellison
purchased the land and slaves needed to work a cotton plantation. On
November 7, 1835, he bought two tracts of land from Stephen D.
Miller, the former governor of South Carolina, for $1,120. The first
tract of land that he acquired was situated near Bracey's Woodland and
ran to a large oak tree near the settlement of Mrs. Howard, then to a
corner of land owned by Stephen D. Miller and Thomas Sumter, then to
land owned by Thomas Sumter near the Camden Road. The second tract
of land was above the Garners Terry Road and contained 54 acres of
land.122

Then, in January 1838, Ellison bought 65'h acres of land for

$581.50: one year later, he purchased 216 acres of land for $5,000. By
1840, Ellison owned a plantation which contained 335'h acres of land,
but he still lacked the laborers for major cotton production.121

After William Ellison bought these tracts of land, the next step
was to acquire slaves, but the profits from the cotton gin shop were not
sufficient to buy the field hands needed to till the soil. In order to
obtain enough capital to equip his plantation with laborers, he used the
artisan slaves named Marlbourgh, Minto, and John as collateral to
secure a loan from John G. Herriot for $5,094.68 in 1837. With the
money from the loan, he increased his slaveholding from four slaves in
1830 to thirty slaves in 1840.

With the added laborers, he planted a modest amount of cotton.

According to the sixth federal census, there were eleven slaves
employed as agricultural workers. They produced an amount of cotton
which can be estimated at about 30 bales. With land and slaves, Ellison
was on the verge of becoming a large planter, but he did not reach that
plateau until the late 1850s.' 24

Between 1849 and 1859, the output of Ellison Plantation grew

from the production of a large farm to that of a modest plantation.
Within ten years, he increased the cultivation of cotton by 128.5
percent. In fact, the output of all agricultural goods grew by more than
50 percent. The growth of Ellison Plantation could not have been
accomplished without the labor of slaves.

In 1849, William Ellison used 26 slaves to cultivate 200 acres of

land which yielded 35 bales of cotton. Then ten years later, the number
o f laborers increased to 35 slaves who cultivated 80 bales of cotton.
Although the added field hands were an important element which
attributed to the increased production, the rise in the productivity of the
slaves prompted the growth of the plantation. In 1849, for example, the
field hands averaged only 1.3 bales of cotton but a decade later the
average per worker rose to 2.2 bales of cotton. Ellison's efficient use of
slave labor allowed him to increase the output of his plantation and
thereby make more money. When Ellison sold his 80 bales of cotton in
1859, he received $3,840. In 1861, he used the labor of slaves to
produce 100 bales of cotton which was valued at $4,000.121

For most black planters, the primary motive for purchasing slaves
was to exploit their labor for profit. The revenue to be made in
cultivation of staple crops inspired the free black planters to invest in
slaves and land. As long as the colored planters could extract a profit
from slavery, they would not forsake their valuable investments but
sought to increase production and earn more revenue from their
plantations.
 However, the typical colored farmer who owned slaves did not
grow rice or cotton. He was a small cultivator who acquired from two
t o as many as seven slaves to be employed as field hands. These
colored slaveowners used slaves to cultivate small plots of land and
sold the surplus produced to large planters who concentrated on the
production of staple crops. In 1850, Jonathan Eady, a colored farmer of
St. Stephen's Parish in Charleston County, owned six slaves, four of
whom were between 20 and 45 years old and used as field hands. His
slaves tilled 100 acres of land and grew 450 bushels of Indian corn.
Once Eady extracted the amount of produce needed to sustain his
family and slaves, he sold the surplus. In the winter of 1860, his slaves
produced a surplus of corn and peas which was valued at $348.
Elsewhere, in the summer of 1858, John Connor, a farmer of African
descent from St. James & Goose Creek Parish, used four slaves to plant
a surplus of Indian corn which amounted to 150 bushels. During the
following winter, the corn was sold for $75.126 Clearly these small
slaveowners were subsistence farmers, making enough money from the
land to meet their most essential needs, with little capital for
investments.

Many of the small colored farmers would not have acquired slaves
had they not inherited their human property from relatives. Many
colored slaveowners kept their bondsmen and their land within their
families. In 1834, Daniel Eady, a colored farmer of St. John's Berkeley
Parish in Charleston District, gave his daughter Esther Bluit the use of
three slaves named Catherine, Isaac, and William. When Esther Bluit
died, the slaves were inherited by her cousin Jonathan Eady, who used
the slaves Isaac and William as field hands.127 Also, Susannah Eady,
the aunt of Jonathan Eady, requested that her nephew should be given
her slave Mariah and all of her plantation implements and livestock.'28
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Seventh
Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule IV, Sumter County, South
Carolina, pp. 707-708; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860:
Schedule IV, Sumter County, South Carolina, pp. 21-22; Inventories
vol. A 1858-1868 (Sumter County), pp. 216-217.

Quite often the colored heirs were the offspring of white slave
masters who owned several slaves that they allotted to their children. In
1832, the mulatto children of Henry Glencamp and his colored mistress
of St. Stephen's Parish were provided with a total of 18 slaves. Under a
decr ee from the Court of Equity in Charleston County, Henry
Glencamp, Jr., received three slaves named Billy, Lucy, and Susy while
his sister Nancy Lewis was given two slaves named John and Peter. The
remaining slaves were divided between Isaac Glencamp, Christiana
Harris, and Nancy Palmer, but only two of the heirs used their slaves as
field hands in 1849. In that year, Henry Glencamp, Jr., used his slaves
to plant 200 bushels of Indian corn and 200 bushels of sweet potatoes.
Henry Glencamp continued to utilize the labor of slaves until the state
surrendered to the Union Army. His brother, Isaac Glencamp,
employed three slaves named James, Nancy, and William as field
hands to plant corn, sweet potatoes, and peas. In 1855, Isaac Glencamp
became gravely sick and subsequently died. His widow decided to sell
some of the slaves belonging to the deceased man. On December 3,
1855, Rebecca Glencamp sold James, William, and Nancy for $1,837.
Then she parted with her servant Mary and Mary's children, Selina,
Phillip, and Henry, for $1,280.129

By the 1850s, the small colored farmers had begun to reassess

their commitment to chattel slavery. As the antislavery movement
intensified its agitation, the conflict produced a sense of impending
crisis. Many colored slaveowners began to doubt the continued
existence of slavery. Furthermore, the low returns from slavery caused
them to sell their bondsmen; yet, before the auction, they extracted all
the labor which could be obtained from their slaves. In other words, the
colored farmers requested that their slaves should be sold after their
death rather than given to kinsfolk. Unlike the 1820s and the 1830s,
when the colored masters often gave their slaves to relatives, few
slaveowners provided their children with slaves during the 1850s, but
liquidated their human chattel and bequeathed the proceeds from the
sale to their loved ones. For instance, when the husband of Sarah
Conner died, she sold all of the slaves belonging to her deceased
spouse. On February 1, 1859, she parted with Daphney, Bill, Christiana,
and George for $1,865. When the small colored farmers began to see
slavery as a short-term investment, they chose not to pass their slaves
onto their heirs, and the number of small slaveholding farmers
decreased. In 1849, for example, there were only seventeen colored
farmers who owned fewer than eight slaves and did not plant a staple
crop. By 1859 the number declined to eleven. The decrease can be
attributed to the liquidation of several estates belonging to colored
masters. 110

In spite of the reluctance of small colored farmers to own slaves,

they continued to do so. In Barnwell County, Zed Chavous, a 65-year-
old farmer, owned two slaves who cleared 25 acres of land in 1849.
Across the county line, Martha Ardis of Edgefield County used her 30-
year-old male slave in the planting of corn, peas, and sweet potatoes.
And north of Edgefield County, John Bar, a mulatto farmer of
Orangeburgh District, owned seven slaves, four of whom were
employed as field hands and produced 200 bushels of sweet potatoes
and 550 bushels of Indian corn.' 31

For the most part, the colored masters who were planters used the
labor of slaves because they sought to produce crops on a commercial
scale and thus needed the services of several workers. Even the small
farmers purchased slaves to be employed as farm workers on their
subsistence operations. Many of these small farmers hoped that they
would develop into large cultivators. To them, the exploitation of slave
labor was a means of achieving their goals.
 At the beginning of the nineteenth century, there existed a small
but vibrant class of free black artisans in the urban communities of
South Carolina. Even though the source of the Southern economy
stemmed from the plantation system, the majority of free blacks could
not obtain the capital to invest in land and slaves for rice or cotton
planting. As a result of the shortages of skilled workers and
manufactured goods, many plantations were not self-contained units
and had to seek the urban centers as a source for skills and goods which
could not be furnished by slaves. Meanwhile, the plantations provided
the towns with agricultural goods; thus a network of interdependence
was formed between rural and urban communities. As the southern
economy grew and small towns became cities, many free blacks
benefitted from the expansion. With the growth of the urban
communities, free persons of color were employed as barbers,
bricklayers, cabinet makers, carpenters, caterers, coopers, cotton gin
makers, mantua makers, millwrights, pastry cooks, seamstresses,
shoemakers, and tailors. Once they entered their trades and began to
prosper, the colored artisans wanted to expand their businesses, but
expansion usually entailed the acquisition of added laborers. Since
most of the available workers were bondsmen, the colored artisans
found themselves purchasing slaves to be employed as laborers.

Unlike the colored planters of the countryside, the colored artisans

did not require much capital to start their businesses. Usually, they
needed only the tools of their trade and a place to conduct their work.
In many instances, the homes of black artisans served as their
workshops only until they purchased more suitable shops in the
business districts. Yet many artisans worked in trades which could be
performed in the confines of their own homes and required no special
place of work. For example, the seamstress easily accomplished her
tasks within the home. Other skills could be furnished outside of both
the home environment and the workshop. For the most part, the
carpenter was employed on projects which demanded only the sweat of
his brow and the tools to perform the job. Thus, with only a minimal
amount of capital invested in their trades, the colored artisans soon
began to prosper.

In many instances, the success of the artisan of African descent

was manifested in his acquisition of slaves. As early as the eighteenth
century, the well-to-do bricklayers purchased slaves to be employed as
workers. When the demand for the skills of bricklayers increased, they
often used slaves as bricklayers. During the 1770s, there was a great
demand for the services of bricklayer, builders, carpenters, and
plasterers because the Revolutionary War and the fire of 1778 caused
much destruction, prompting a revival of construction in Charlestown.
Consequently, the colored bricklayers found an eager market for their
skills.' In 1787, William Raper, a free mulatto of Charlestown, used the
labor of four adult males in the bricklaying business. Raper employed
his slaves named Jimmy, Tom, and Ishmael as bricklayers, while Paul
worked as a laborer. The number of skilled slaves owned by William
Raper suggests that there was a great demand for his trade. As the
restoration of Charlestown continued, he needed the four workers to
fully exploit the growing demands for bricklayers.'

William Raper had accumulated a modest estate when the

restoration of Charlestown began to subside. By 1788, Susanna Cole
Raper, the widow of William Raper, reported that her husband owned
nine slaves who were appraised at 466 pounds sterling, 8 shillings, and
9 pence. Raper owned not only artisan slaves, but also house servants.
According to the inventory of the deceased man, he held a house boy
named Bob and a washerwoman named Tamer. He also owned three
females named Bella, Clarissa, and Betty, whose occupations were not
recorded by Mrs. Raper.'

When William Raper recorded his last will and testament, he

made provisions to provide his loved ones with slaves. In the will, he
requested that Susanna Cole Raper should have the use of the slaves
named Tom, Tamer, and Bella until her death; then the slaves would
become the property of his granddaughter, Elizabeth Susan Gardiner.
Also Raper declared that the mulatto boy John (the son of Tamer)
should faithfully serve his wife until the lad reached the age of 25 years
old. The slave was then to be emancipated by the executors of William
Raper. But the other slaves mentioned in the will of the colored
bricklayer were doomed to remain in servitude until death.4

Upon the death of Susanna Cole Raper, the slaves provided by her
husband were inherited by Elizabeth Susan Gardiner in 1789. While the
granddaughter of William and Susanna Raper was a minor, the father of
the colored girl employed the slaves as laborers.

Quite often the colored artisans provided their offspring and

grandchildren with slaves to assist them as entrepreneurs. If the heirs
were minors, the slaves were held in trust by the parents until the
offspring were capable of managing the property themselves. For eight
years, George Gardiner, a mulatto bricklayer of Charlestown, retained
the use of the slaves belonging to his daughter Elizabeth, until he died
in 1797. Then the wife of George Gardiner served as the guardian of her
daughter and utilized the slaves. In the inventory of George Gardiner,
the following slaves were recorded: Frank (a laborer), Jack (a laborer),
Paul (a laborer), Bob (a bricklayer), Betty (a house servant), and
Clarissa and her child Mary. While George Gardiner was alive, the
colored bricklayer used the slaves as workers in the bricklaying
business.'
 Not all of the colored artisans chose to provide their heirs with
slaves. In 1771, Thomas Cole, a mulatto and a bricklayer of
Charlestown, directed his executors to sell three slaves named Prince,
Will, and Carolina. He requested that the proceeds from the sale of the
slaves be equally divided between his five children, Thomas, Barbara,
William, Elizabeth, and John Cole.6

As the bricklayers of African ancestry became firmly committed

t o slavery, the institution gradually developed into a way of life.
Consequently, they acquired slaves not only to be used as skilled and
unskilled workers in their businesses but as domestic servants to be
employed in their households.

The slaveowning bricklayers of Negro descent were not peculiar

t o the eighteenth century. During the nineteenth century, there were
colored bricklayers who owned slaves in Charleston City, and their
ownership of slaves continued during the Civil War. In 1850, Paul
Wigfall owned six male slaves whose ages were reported to be 50, 36,
36, 34, 21, and 17 years old. These slaves formed the nucleus of his
labor force and assisted him in the construction of several buildings in
the city. For example, Wigfall was hired by Julia Dupie to construct a
two-story building which was to consist of one attic, four fireplaces and
six rooms. Without the services of slave labor, such a job would have
been virtually impossible for him to finish. After the house was
completed, he was paid $1,110.

By 1860, three bricklayers of African ancestry owned slaves in

Charleston City. Edward Palmer used the labor of a 30-year-old male to
assist him in the bricklaying trade. Palmer also owned a 35-year-old
female named Peggy, who probably worked as a domestic servant for
the colored family. The other slaveowning bricklayers were Samuel
Austin and Francis Perry. All three of the colored bricklayers continued
to hold slaves during the turmoil of the Civil War.'

The labor of slaves was used not only by colored bricklayers, but
also by carpenters. In 1823, Peter Simpson, a free black of Charleston
City, bought a carpenter named Jack for $300. Because the demand for
his services had increased, he purchased the artisan-slave to be used as
an assistant. During the 1820s and the 1830s, Thomas Small, Sr., used
the labor of two male slaves as carpenters. In 1823, he purchased a 17-
year-old boy named Richard from John Peter Young of Charleston City.
For the next two years, he trained the young slave and later employed
him as an apprentice. Upon the completion of his apprenticeship,
Richard was sold by his black master for $425." Thomas Small also
disposed of a carpenter named Josiah for $550 in 1834.9 Apparently,
Small purchased slaves to be utilized as workers, but when the demand
for his trade declined, he relieved himself of the artisan-slaves for a
profit.

Between 1830 and 1850, the number of slaveowning carpenters of

African descent ranged from seven to ten masters in Charleston City. In
1830, the following ten carpenters owned slaves: Frank Crawley, James
Gordon, Richard Holloway, Sr., Benjamin Lawrence, George Mathews,
Peter Mathews, James Maxwell, John McBeth, Thomas Small, Sr., and
Smart Simpson. The slaveowning carpenters of 1830 held 61 slaves or
an average of 6.1 bondsmen each.' By 1840 the number of slaveowners
had declined to nine masters, who were Thomas Cole, John Drayton,
Henry Francis, Richard Holloway, Jr., Richard Holloway, Sr., Sam
Mathews, James Maxwell, Stephen McLane, and Edward White. They
owned 35 slaves and held an average of 3.8 bondsmen each." According
to the seventh census of 1850, there were seven colored carpenters
designated as slaveowners: Richard Holloway, Jr., Nero Horlbeck,
Abraham Jones, John Lewis, Stephen McLane, Joshua Mishaw, and
Edward White held 23 slaves. In 1860, the number of black carpenters
who owned slaves remained at seven masters, but they held only
sixteen slaves. These slaveholding carpenters were Friday Evans,
Charles Holloway, Richard Holloway, Jr., Peter Mathews, Stephen
McLane, Richard Small, and Thomas Small, Jr. After 1830, the number
of slaveowning carpenters of African ancestry declined until it
stabilized at seven masters in 1860. However, the number of slaves
continued to decrease until it reached just sixteen slaves. Within one
year of the surrender of South Carolina to the Union Army, there were
only nine slaves held by four colored carpenters, Charles Holloway,
Peter Mathews, Thomas Small, and Edward White.12

Many of the slaveholding carpenters of African ancestry acquired

slaves to be utilized as workers. During the 1830s and the 1840s,
Richard Holloway, Sr., employed a slave named Cato, probably as a
carpenter. Holloway continued to use the labor of Cato until 1845,
when he sold the slave to his son, Richard Holloway, Jr." The son also
used the labor of the slave as an artisan until the servant died in 1851.
Yet the death of Cato did not end the slaveholding of Richard
Holloway, Jr., but forced him to acquire a slave to replace the deceased
Cato. By 1860, Richard Holloway, Jr., had acquired a 16-year-old boy,
who probably was employed as an apprentice to the colored carpenter.
In fact, the majority of the slaveowning carpenters owned at least one
male slave who was probably employed as a laborer. In 1850, for
example, 4 out of 7 colored carpenters held at least one male slave who
was between 14 and 49 years old." The carpenters who owned male
slaves capable of working probably used them as workers, because all
of the male slaves were reported to be black while the owners of the
slaves were mulattoes; thus the ties of kinship did not exist. With no
bond of kinship, the motive for acquiring male slaves capable of
working must have centered upon the demand for laborers. Even the
three carpenters who did not purchase male slaves but bought adult
female slaves probably used their slaves as laborers. Quite often the
well-to-do carpenters purchased female slaves to be employed as
domestic servants or hired out to non-slaveowners. In 1860, for
example, Green Guignard, a 75-year-old carpenter of Richland County,
owned three female slaves whose ages were 52, 50, and 37 years old.
Undoubtedly, Guignard used the female slaves as workers to serve his
family or to be hired out to non slaveowners, because he informed the
census taker that his 37-year-old slave was a fugitive. Clearly, there
was no bond of kinship between Guignard and his slaves.' 5

Like the men in these examples, the majority of the slaveowning

carpenters of Negro ancestry acquired slaves to be used as workers.
T h e s e colored carpenters employed their slaves as apprentices,
carpenters, domestic servants, and as hired out workers.

The colored artisans who made cotton gins and threshing

machines used the services of slave workers. In Sumter District, the
Ellison family utilized the labor of slaves in the cotton gin-making
business. In 1817, William Ellison, the patriarch of the family,
established himself in Sumter District and started to make and repair
cotton gins. Within two years after his arrival in the county, he
acquired two male slaves to work in his shop. By 1830 he used four
artisan-slaves to assist him in the business. Since the price of cotton
was high during the 1830s and the production of the staple had
increased, he found an eager market for his trade. Consequently, he
increased the number of slaves working in the cotton gin shop from
four to twelve laborers by 1840. A decade later, he maintained his labor
force at twelve workers.' 6

William Ellison needed the efforts of both unskilled and skilled

workers to construct the cotton gin. For instance, the unskilled slaves of
Ellison were assigned the task of cutting hickory and pine trees from
h i s land. Once the trees were chopped down and hauled to his
workshop, the wood was used to make the frame of the cotton gin. His
artisan-slaves turned and grooved the wood by hand until the desired
product was constructed. While that task was being performed, his
slave blacksmith tempered the saw which cuts the cotton from the seed.
The teeth of the implement were made with a file by hand. Once the
cotton gin was completed, it was ready to be marketed.17

During the year of 1849, the slaves of William Ellison made 15

cotton gins which together sold for $1,000. Clearly, William Ellison
needed many laborers to make 15 cotton gins, and those laborers were
primarily slaves.'"

The artisan-slaves of William Ellison provided many other

services besides making cotton gins. In 1857, the slave blacksmith
made a bulltongue plow for Hugh Graham. Also, on the 27th of June, he
made a new plow out of an old one for $1.50. For repairing a small mill
spindle, the artisan-slave earned his master the sum of $5. The use of
slave labor was a significant part of the life of William Ellison and
contributed to the success and wealth of the colored artisan. In fact, the
gross return from the blacksmith shop owned by Ellison and worked
with the labor of slaves was reported to be $1,500 for the year of
1849.19

By the 1850s, Henry, Reuben, and William Ellison, Jr., the sons of
William Ellison, began to play a more important role in the cotton gin
shop. All of the sons were trained as cotton gin makers and were
capable of managing the shop. As the health of William Ellison started
to falter, he directed his sons in some of the minor details of running
the business. On March 26, 1857, he wrote to Henry Ellison and told his
son to purchase "two hand saws from Mr. Adger for the shop."20 After
the death of William Ellison, his sons took over the cotton gin and
blacksmith businesses. With the artisan-slaves provided by their father,
they continued to manage the two shops until the end of the Civil
War.'-'
 Although the sons of William Ellison were provided with slaves
b y their father, they all owned slaves before the execution of their
father's last will and testament. In 1850, Henry Ellison owned two
slaves, while both of his brothers utilized the labor of one slave. Both
Reuben and William Ellison, Jr., held only adult female slaves. Like
many well-to-do businessmen, they acquired domestic servants to
fulfill the needs of their families. For 14 years, Hannah, the slave of
Reuben Ellison, served her master until he died in May 1864. From
1830 until 1865, the Ellison family were the only colored people to use
the labor of slaves in Sumter District.22

In Charleston City, there were a few colored artisans who

benefitted from their mechanical talents and purchased slaves. In 1860,
six out of fifteen mechanics and millwrights owned slaves in the port
city. Six colored artisans named Amos Baxter, William P. DaCosta,
Alfred Grant, William Jackson, Frederick C. Sasportas, and Anthony
Weston held a total of 39 slaves. The majority of these artisans either
used their bondsmen as skilled workers or as house servants. In 1839,
Maria Weston, the wife of Anthony Weston, bought a millwright
named Harry to be employed in the establishment owned by her
husband. Mr. Weston used the artisan-slave to help him build a number
of threshing machines for the planters of Charleston District. Even
before Anthony Weston acquired the services of Harry, he owned five
artisan-slaves named John, George, Alex, Bob, and Sandy, who were
purchased for $4,550. On the estates of many rice planters, there were
threshing machines which occasionally wore out or needed to be
repaired, providing a market for the millwright's services. Clearly,
these circumstances increased the business of Anthony Weston as well
as other millwrights and compelled them to purchase slaves. The
profits earned from the rice planters allowed Weston to purchase a total
of thirteen bondsmen over a period of four years for the sum of
$7,675.23

For the most part, the slaveholding millwrights of African

ancestry owned two or three male slaves, who were employed as
artisans. In 1850, Richmond Kinlock used the labor of two male slaves
whose ages were 41 and 36 years old. In that same year, William Clark
also owned two male slaves who were 40 and 31 years old and
employed as millwrights. Quite often the colored artisans purchased
young male slaves who were instructed in the trades of their masters. In
1833, Stanhope Fowler, a free mulatto and a millwright from St.
Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, bought a 13-year-old boy named William
from Jacob Bond-Ion for $500. After Fowler had trained the lad, he
used the slave boy to assist him in the making and repairing of
threshing machines. William remained in the service of Stanhope
Fowler and continued to work for his master until the conclusion of the
Civil War.24

Not all of the slaveowning millwrights of Negro heritage used

their slaves as artisans. Once the colored artisans began to prosper,
their lifestyle and desires were altered to meet their status. And so they
occasionally purchased domestic servants to do the mundane chores of
their households. In 1849, Frederick C. Sasportas, a free mulatto and a
millwright from Charleston Neck, purchased a mulatto woman named
Adeline for $449. For the next two years, the mulatto woman worked in
the household of her master until she was sold by her colored owner in
1851. A few years after Sasportas sold Adeline, he purchased a 17-year-
old woman named Ellen to attend his needs. Elsewhere in Charleston
County, Benjamin Kinlock, a millwright and the brother of Richmond
Kinlock, used the services of two female slaves whose ages were 41
and 31 years old. Since Kinlock's family consisted of three adults and
six children, the female slaves performed numerous tasks and worked
as babysitters, cooks, maids, and washerwomen.25 Thus the majority of
the colored mechanics and millwrights who owned slaves used their
bondsmen as both unskilled and skilled workers.

In antebellum South Carolina, the largest group of colored slave

masters in the city of Charleston worked in the garment business. Many
of the mantua makers, seamstresses, shoemakers, and tailors found that
slavery provided them with the labor needed to fully exploit the market
i n clothing. In 1850, the number of colored slaveowners who made
garments in Charleston City was reported at 29 masters. The majority
of these artisans worked as mantua makers and seamstresses. All of
these artisans were female entrepreneurs, and many were either
unmarried or widowed and could not depend on the assistance of a
spouse. By their own industry, the colored women acquired the capital
to purchase slaves. In 1847, Caroline Lubet, a mulatto mantua maker of
Charleston City, bought a 26-year-old woman named Elizabeth for
$425. Nearly four years later, she purchased a mulatto girl named
Louisa from Celeste and James Hillegas for $500. By 1850, Caroline
Lubet was reported to be the owner of two black women and an 18-
year-old mulatto girl. In fact, her ownership of slaves lasted from 1847
until 1865, when she was forced to emancipate her slaves. 26

Once the colored mantua makers and seamstresses purchased

slaves, they usually employed their servants to assist them in the
garment trade. The majority of the slaves held by these artisans were
adult females. For example, records for one year show that the
slaveholders owned 21 adult females and only 5 adult males. Since the
garment trade in female clothing required the talents of skilled women,
it was not necessary to purchase adult male slaves.27 The
preponderance of female slaves suggests that the slave women were
acquired to be used as mantua makers and seamstresses. In 1850,
thirteen out of sixteen slaveholding garment makers held adult female
slaves whose average age was 26.5 years old. These female slaves were
prime workers and purchased to be used as laborers.

Quite often the colored mantua makers and seamstresses held only
one prime worker who was employed in the garment trade. In 1860, for
example, Mary Ann Gardner, a free mulatto and a seamstress, owned a
30-year-old black woman, the only adult slave held by the colored
woman. In that same year, Rebecca Thorne and Sarah H. Weston, who
were free persons of color and seamstresses, both owned only one adult
slave, who in both cases was a 40-year-old black woman. Undoubtedly
these colored women used their slaves to assist them in the clothing
business and continued to benefit from the skills of their slaves as late
as 1864.2$

Whereas the trades of the mantua makers and the seamstresses

were dominated by females, the occupation of tailoring was controlled
by males. A few of the colored tailors owned slaves in South Carolina.
As early as 1807, Jehu Jones, Sr., a free mulatto and a tailor of
Charleston City, started to buy slaves to be used as workers. In 1807,
Jones purchased a Negro family, which consisted of Sylvia and her
three children, James, Richard, and Mary, for $1,000. When Jehu Jones,
Sr., acquired the slave family, he soon began to train the young slave
boys in the trade of tailoring and subsequently used them as
apprentices. After nearly 16 years, Richard, the slave of Jones and the
son of Sylvia, was a mature man and a talented tailor. But Jones
apparently no longer needed the services of Richard because he sold the
slave tailor to Peter Gowan for $550 in 1823. Although Jones sold the
son of Sylvia, he kept his slave woman until he died in the fall of
1833.29 Upon the death of Jehu Jones, Sr., he owned five slaves: Sylvia
(elderly), Henry (a boy), Martha, and Martha's children, Allen and
Lewis. As requested by his last will and testament, the executors of
Jehu Jones, Sr., sold all of his slaves, and the money was divided
between his family members.70
 It was not unusual for the colored tailors to search the slave
market to find a suitable slave to be trained in the skill of tailoring. In
1837, James Drayton Johnson, a free mulatto and a tailor from
Charleston City, bought a 19-year-old boy named Billy from Sarah G.
Fuller for $650. Johnson subsequently taught the boy the art of making
clothes. When Johnson purchased Billy, he made a wise investment
because the slave continued to work for him as late as 1850. Not all of
his slave purchases were as successful as Billy. In 1835, he bought a
boy named Florence to be trained as a tailor. After seven years of
apprenticeship and service, he became dissatisfied with the work of
Florence and sold the slave boy to Alex H. Brown for $660. Nearly four
months after James Drayton Johnson disposed of the slave boy, he
purchased a tailor named Tommy from Jacob C. Levy for $250. With
the absence of Florence, Johnson needed another skilled worker.

Like Johnson, other colored tailors occasionally purchased slaves

who would not submit to their authority and had to be sold. In 1831,
Benjamin T. Huger, a free mulatto and a tailor of Charleston City, was
compelled to sell his servant Moses when the slave proved to be
unmanageable. Yet the occasional sale of a discontented slave did not
inhibit the tailors from buying workers, but stimulated them to replace
their wayward servants with more suitable laborers."

Many colored tailors found that the success of their businesses

depended upon the acquisition of slaves. As the city of Charleston
grew, the garment market began to expand. The demand for slave
clothes was increasing, and both free blacks and whites added to the
growing business provided by the planters. Since most plantations
rarely had the facilities to make clothing, the planters often frequented
the local tailors and shoemakers of Charleston City. In fact, the order
from a single planter entailed clothing to meet the needs of 50 to 75
persons. Clearly, such an order demanded the skills of several workers
to make the coarse clothing for the slaves. The tailors also maintained a
steady business in clothing for free persons of color, white citizens,
urban slaveowners, and nominal slaves. In 1839, for example, John
DeLarge, a colored tailor and a slaveowner of Charleston City, had a
good deal of business with the Dewee family. In fact, he made $70
worth of clothing for the colored family within two months. As the
demand for clothing increased, the more successful tailors eventually
purchased between two and four slaves to assist them in making
garments.32

During the 1850s, the Weston brothers were among the most
successful and wealthy men of color to work as tailors in Charleston
City. In 1850, the two brothers owned a total of five slaves and real
estate valued at $12,000. In 1842, Jacob and Samuel Weston had
decided to combine their resources and purchase a slave to assist them.
On January 13, they bought a 16-year-old boy named Henry Devand
from Mr. J. Hersman for $700. Prior to the purchase, the two brothers
had employed Henry Devand in their shop on 104 Queen Street. After
the Weston brothers bought Henry Devand, they purchased two slaves
named Richard Bontham and Harry, who were also employed in their
tailor shop. In addition to these artisan-slaves, the Westons bought
house servants. In 1840, for example, Jacob Weston purchased a black
woman named Clarissa from Harriet Hulbion for $225. Samuel Weston
bought four adult female slaves between 1843 and 1860. Apparently he
employed one or two of the women to work in the house while the other
slaves were hired out to non- slaveowners.13

By the 1850s, the institution of slavery had become an important

part of the Westons' life. In fact, the Weston brothers' ownership of
slaves spanned more than 20 years and did not end for one brother until
his death in March 1864. Upon the death of Jacob Weston, he still held
the two slaves Henry Devand and Harry, who were appraised at $500.74
About three years before his death, he requested that "Henry Devand,
the servant of myself and [my] brother Samuel Weston [shall] be or
[should] be purchased by my brother ... paying a reasonable value for
my portion." He further requested that "Richard Bontham, the servant
of myself and [my] brother Samuel Weston, shall serve during the stay
of my wife in the City of Charleston and upon her leaving he shall have
his time with the consent of my brother.... 1131 Jacob Weston also
provided for the freedom of his servant Harry upon the departure of his
wife to England. After Jacob's death, Samuel Weston continued to use
the labor of slaves in the tailor shop on Queen Street until the defeat of
the Confederacy forced him to emancipate his slaves.36

In the city of Charleston, the slaveholding tailors of African

heritage made up a modest portion of the colored garment makers. For
example, 11 out of 57, or 19.3 percent, of the colored tailors owned
slaves in 1850. Eleven tailors-William Holmes, Benjamin T. Huger,
James Drayton Johnson, James Johnston, John Oliver, George Prince,
Edward Roche, Francis Smith, Joseph Terry, Jacob Weston, and Samuel
Weston-held a total of 45 slaves, which was an average holding of 4
bondsmen." By 1860 the percentage of colored tailors owning slaves
had slightly increased, although the numbers of both slaveowners and
slaves had declined. In that year, 10 out of 48, or 20.8 percent, of the
colored tailors owned slaves, but the 10 masters held only 37
bondsmen. As the War Between the States intensified, the number of
colored tailors who owned slaves continued to decline. In 1863, there
were only six colored tailors who owned slaves in Charleston City.
Those six-James Johnston, George McKinlay, William McKinlay,
Jacob Weston, Samuel Weston, and James Williams-held a total of 21
slaves. Within one year of the defeat of the Confederacy, six colored
tailors continued to own slaves even as the Union Army was
approaching the port city. In 1864, James Drayton Johnson, James
Johnston, George McKinlay, Charles Walker, and Samuel Weston were
the owners of 16 slaves. Among the slaveholding tailors of African
descent, the ownership of slaves resulted from the desire to capitalize
on the growing market in garments, which could not be exploited
without the assistance of laborers. These businessmen simply tapped
the most available supply of labor in order to meet their increasing
demands."

As the colored shoemakers witnessed an increase in the volume of

their trade, they too were compelled to purchase slaves to be employed
in their shops. In 1828, John Mishaw, a free mulatto and a shoemaker
o f Charleston City, purchased a 25-year-old shoemaker named Tom
from William Pritchard for $420. As Mishaw drew more and more
customers, he searched the slave market for the services of another
skilled worker. In 1832, he purchased his second slave, who was also
trained as a shoemaker, from Allen Johnson for $200. Within eight
years, he acquired a total of five male slaves who were between 10 and
55 years old. These male slaves probably assisted him in the shoe store
on 55 Queen Street. The size of his labor force suggests that he
received a brisk business from the patrons of Charleston. For the most
part, the colored shoemakers were patronized not only by free blacks
and urban slave masters, but also by planters. The demand for slave
shoes caused many shoemakers to acquire additional laborers. With an
order from just a single large planter entailing between 40 and 60 pair
of shoes, the services of several skilled workers were necessary. In
1817, William Cooper of Charleston City bought a black slave named
David from Peter Labaussay for $700. Undoubtedly, Cooper purchased
the slave to be employed in his shoe shop on 46 King Street. Between
1829 and 1840, Malcolm Brown, a mulatto and a bootmaker of
Charleston Neck, purchased a total of nine slaves for $4,312.50. Most
o f the slaves were males and probably employed in Brown's
establishment on 45 Anson Street. In 1840, the federal census reported
that five of Brown's male slaves were between 10 and 36 years old,
while only two females were between 10 and 24 years old. By 1850
Malcolm Brown owned four male slaves who were 47, 40, 38, and 10
years old. Although male workers were used in the shoe store, Brown
owned six female slaves whose ages were 51, 32, 27, 16, 16, and 12
years old in 1850. Many of these women were employed as domestic
servants and either worked in the household of their master or were
hired out. A descendant of Malcolm Brown recalled that the colored
slaveowner "owned a number of slaves who treated his girls as any
slave would treat his [or her] white mistresses ... [and] referred to them
as Miss Susan, Miss Mary and Miss Sarah." When the slaves of
Malcolm Brown became disobedient, he was ready to sell his servants.
In 1839, for example, he sold a black woman named Isabella and her
two children, Harriet and Charlotte, to Joseph Patton for $1,000. Then
four years later, he parted with his slave Deborah, who had been
employed by him for nine years. 19

In the antebellum society, free blacks used the labor of slaves in

virtually every facet of the southern economy. Even in the food-related
services, there were colored persons who used the skills of slaves.
Several black women used their expertise in Southern cuisine and
catered to the aristocrats of Charleston City, but they needed slaves to
assist them. From 1819 to 1824, Sally Seymour used slaves to work in
her pastry shop on Tradd Street. Before her death in April 1824, she
held two slaves named Felix (a cook) and Jenny whom she employed in
her business. Like Sally Seymour, other black women were able to
utilize their talents as caterers, confectioners, and cooks, thus earning
the money needed to purchase slaves. During the 1820s and the early
1830s, Camillia Jchnson used five slaves named Maria, London,
Dianah, Diana, and Phoebe as cooks and attendants in her catering
business on King Street. Miss Johnson employed her servants to cater
and attend many of the parties held by the socialites of Charleston. Yet
Camilla Johnson did not have a monopoly in the catering or the pastry
business during the 1830s. In 1830, for example, eight colored persons
named Eliza Dwight, Martha Gilchrist, Hannah Hetty, Elizabeth
Holton, Mary Holton, Elsey Lee, Cato McCloud, and Betsey Walker
worked as caterers and pastry cooks. All of them were slaveowners, and
they owned a total of 34 slaves. The majority of the slaves they held
were adult females who assisted their owners. By 1850 the number of
slaveholding caterers and pastry cooks who were of African heritage
had declined to six. These colored slaveholders were Ann Bentham,
James Burke, Hannah Francis, Mary Holton, Betsey Walker, and
Martha Vanderhorst. According to the census, they held a total of 20
slaves. Like the slaveholders of 1830, they owned primarily adult
female slaves. In fact, 12 out of 20 slaves held by the colored
slaveowners were adult females, which suggests that they were used as
workers in the shops of their owners.40 Even as the Confederate and
the Union forces were engaging in combat, there were six colored
caterers and pastry cooks (Ann Bentham, Joseph W. Dereef, Robert
Hargrave, Emma McCall, Sarah Ann Snowden & Betsey Walker) who
owned a total of ten slaves in Charleston City. Undoubtedly, these
artisans found a market for their skills and utilized the labor of slaves
to assist them.41

Butchers of African heritage also used the labor of slaves. In 1830,

John Weston, a colored butcher of Charleston Neck, owned a boy
named John who was used as an assistant. After Weston's death, the
executors of the deceased man were requested to sell all of the utensils
and articles connected with his trade. Unfortunately, the slave boy was
included among the items scheduled to be sold. Elsewhere in
Charleston Neck, William Friday, Jr., purchased a male slave named
York from George Jacobs for $215 in 1832. Seven years later, he
bought Lydia for $530. Friday used York to work in the butcher shop on
Cannonsboro Street, while Lydia toiled as a domestic servant. When
William Friday, Jr., died in 1841, his widow, Alicia Friday, took
possession of the slaves and appropriated them for her own benefit.

Many other colored butchers of Charleston City owned slaves. In

1860, for example, 6 out of 22, or 27.2 percent, of the free black
butchers held slaves in the port city. These six-Thomas Fanning, Elias
Gardner, Joseph A. Sasportas, George Shrewsberry, Francis L.
Wilkinson, and James Williams - held a total of 27 slaves. Even as the
Emancipation Proclamation was being written by President Abraham
Lincoln, there were five colored butchers who owned 23 slaves.42

Many colored artisans believed that the success of their trades

depended on the acquisition of slaves. It was therefore not unusual for
caterers and pastry cooks as well as butchers to purchase slaves to be
used in their businesses.

In fact, the colored artisans who were the most successful

entrepreneurs used the labor of slaves. In Charleston City, for example,
the majority of the well-to-do colored barbers purchased slaves to be
employed in their shops and as capital investments to be sold when the
market was most profitable. In 1820, Thomas Inglis was one of the
wealthiest colored persons in the port city. He not only owned and
managed a barbershop on Meeting Street, but also held several slaves,
according to the federal censuses of 1820 and 1830. In 1812, Inglis
bought a slave named David Gray from Claudia Smith for $300. (After
the acquisition of Gray, he recorded three bills of sale for the
purchasing of four more slaves, valued at $1,775.) For more than
twenty years, David Gray worked in the barbershop of his master. To
reward the diligence of his faithful servant, Thomas Inglis requested
that "my Executrix and Children ... treat him [David Gray) kindly and
do permit him to hire himself out, as he may request ... so as to enable
him to live comfortably ..."4' Even though David Gray may have been
treated kindly, he was still a slave and subject to the whims of his
master.
 In spite of the occasional kindness of Thomas Inglis, he was a
slaveowner for profit, and his emotions did not influence him when
dealing in human chattel. When the market was favorable for the sale
of a healthy slave, he was quite willing to part with his property for the
right price. In 1817, for example, Thomas Inglis sold a 22-year-old
slave named Alex for $1,000. Six years later, he disposed of a slave
family consisting of a black woman named Mary and her two children,
Mary and Peter, for $650. And in 1830, he sold Lindy, who had worked
as a domestic servant in his household for nearly nine years, to
Elizabeth Snipes for $450.44 Clearly slavery was a harsh business and
the motive of profit ruled the hearts of slave masters regardless of race.

When Thomas Inglis died in 1835, he owned an estate more

valuable than many planters would have dreamed of possessing. His
property was appraised at $36,662. Among the possessions recorded in
the inventory of the deceased colored man were ten slaves named
Abby, Rose, Sonis, George, James, Bella, Nancy, Charlotte, Alex, and
March, who were appraised at $3,750. In addition to slaves, he owned
four houses valued at $11,700 as well as stocks and bonds appraised at
$19,303. As the wealth of Inglis had grown, he had purchased slaves to
work in his barbershop, and the profits from slavery had been invested
in added slaves, real estate, stocks, and bonds."

Before the death of Thomas Inglis, he provided his loved ones

with slave property. In his will, he stated:

I give to my beloved Wife Martha Sophia Inglis two servants to

be selected by her from such of them as I may die possessed of
and in like manner to each of my children two servants to be
selected by my said Executrix ... 46

Like many slaveowners, Thomas Inglis was aware of the usefulness of

slaves and gave his family members such property. Upon his death, he
w a s the wealthiest and the largest slaveowner among the colored
barbers in South Carolina.

Most of the colored barbers who owned slaves were the masters of
one or two servants, often needing no more than that to meet the
demands of their trade. In 1830, for example, Moses Brown of
Charleston City was reported to be the owner of two slaves. In that
year, he held a servant woman and a male slave. Moses Brown
purchased his male servant (also named Moses) from Mary Warhaim
for $300 in 1822. Shortly after the sale, he put the slave to work in his
barbershop on 5 Tradd Street. The son of Moses Brown followed in his
father's footsteps and used the labor of slaves. In 1840, Peter Brown
acquired two male slaves to work as barbers. His ownership of slaves
spanned more than 20 years. In 1850, he was reported as the owner of a
21-year-old male slave. By 1860 his male servant was still employed in
the barbershop on 3 Elliot Street .41

A few of the colored barbers were willing to purchase young

slaves to be trained and later used as skilled workers in their shops. In
1848, for example, William Inglis, Jr., purchased two colored boys
named John (10 years old) and James (5 years old) from Otis J. Chafee
for $420. Inglis probably used the 10-year-old slave to sweep the floor
of his shop and to perform other menial jobs. When the boy was
unoccupied, he was instructed in the trade of cutting hair. In 1850,
William Inglis, Jr., still kept his young slaves and employed them in
his barbershop on 4 Queen Street. A colored competitor of Inglis also
used two young slaves to work in his barbershop on Anson Street.
Robert Moultrie, a 27-year-old mulatto, utilized the labor of two male
slaves whose ages were 20 and 10 years old. Undoubtedly, the 20-year-
old slave was employed by his master as a barber, while the 10-year-
old boy performed the menial chores in the barbershop.48 On 33 State
Street, Peter Nelson, a mulatto and a barber, used three male slaves
who were 20, 19, and 10 years old. Although several of the slaves
owned by the colored barbers were quite young, they were capable of
working and eventually were used as barbers.49

In 1850, 7 out of 23, or 26 percent of Charleston's Negro barbers

(Peter Brown, Frederick Campbell, John L. Francis, William Inglis, Jr.,
Edward Lee, Robert Moultrie, and Peter Nelson) held a total of 19
slaves, of whom 11 were males.S° By 1860, only 3 out of 20, or 15
percent, of the colored barbers owned slaves in Charleston City-Peter
Brown, John L. Francis, and Francis St. Mark. The three colored men
held eleven slaves between them. At the outbreak of the Civil War, the
colored barbers maintained their ownership of slaves. As late as 1864,
only one of the three barbers, Francis St. Mark, had divested himself of
his slaves. Apparently he either found someone to purchase his slaves
or simply emancipated his servants, because he was no longer recorded
as a slaveowner. During the 1860s, the city of Charleston was still the
mecca for the black slaveowner -even as the Civil War raged closer to
the shores of the port city."

Not all of the colored barbers who owned slaves lived in

Charleston City. In 1850, Edward Rainey, the father of Congressman
Joseph Rainey of South Carolina, owned an 18-year-old black male
who was probably used in his barbershop situated in Georgetown City.
By 1860 Rainey had acquired a 40-year-old black man to work in the
barbershop. Elsewhere in South Carolina, Benjamin Roberts of
Anderson County used the proceeds from his barbershop to purchase
two female slaves, who may have been employed as domestic servants
or hired outs:

A few colored artisans made such a handsome profit from their

trades and the use of slavery that they made other investments which
required workers. In 1816, Jehu Jones, Sr., a free colored person and a
tailor by trade, used the revenue from his business to purchase the
Burrows-Hall Inn for $13,000. Soon thereafter he referred to the
building as the Jones Inn. Once Jones was ready for business, he
catered to many of the travelers who made an extended visit to the
city."

Many of the guests were impressed by the pleasant atmosphere

Jones provided. In 1832, Thomas Hamilton, the English traveler, came
to Charleston and stayed in the Jones Inn. He suggested that

Every English who visits Charleston will, if he be wise, direct

his baggage to Jones's Hotel. It is a small house, but everything
is well managed, and the apartments are good. Our party at
dinner did not exceed ten, and there was no bolting or
scrambling ... The pleasure of ... revisiting the glimpses of
clean table clothes and silver-of exchanging salt pork and
greasy corn cake, for a table furnished with luxuries of all sorts
- was very great. For a day or two, I experienced a certain
impulse to voracity, by no means philosophical; and sooth to
say, after the privations of a journey from New Orleans, the
luxury of Jones's iced claret might have converted even
Diogenes into a gourmet."

Such a well-managed inn could not have been maintained without

the aid of an assortment of helpers. Jones used the services of butlers,
cooks, maids, and other servants to keep the hotel running in an orderly
fashion. The workers used by Jones were not free laborers, but slaves.
According to the fourth federal census, he owned six slaves." With that
kind of manpower at his disposal, it is only natural to suspect that he
used the slaves as laborers in his hotel.

When Jehu Jones, Sr., died in 1833, he presented his stepdaughter

with the hotel. Under the management of Ann Deas, the Jones Inn was
frequented by many of the old clients as well as by new visitors. Like
her stepfather, Deas used slaves to maintain the high standards of the
Jones Inn. In 1840, for example, she owned five female slaves who
were between 10 and 36 years of age and undoubtedly worked in the
hotel. In fact, the Jones Inn served as a training school for aspiring
cooks. Usually, the owner of the hotel apprenticed slaves to be taught
the art of Southern cuisine. In August 1844, the Charleston Courier ran
the following advertisement:

At private sale a first rate man cook, taught at the hotel of Jehu
Jones, and has cooked for years for one of the first families of
this State ...ss

The slaves of Ann Deas played an important part in the success of the
Jones Inn. They not only cooked the delicacies fit for royalty but tended
to the needs of her clientele and made a pleasant setting for visitors.

The Jones Inn suffered financial difficulties during the middle

part of the 1840s, and Ann Deas was forced to relinquish her control
over the hotel. In 1847, John Lee and his wife, Eliza Seymour Lee,
rented the Jones Inn. Prior to the lease, they operated Lee's Boarding
House, which was located a short distance from the Jones Inn on 65
Broad Street. Under the care of Eliza Seymour Lee, the daughter of the
renowned cook Sally Seymour, the boarding house provided some of
the finest meals in Charleston. In fact, the food prepared by Mrs. Lee
was so delicious that visitors to the boarding house often requested her
to instruct their slaves in her style of cooking." Occasionally she
obliged them. In 1841, Eliza Seymour Lee instructed the slave of
Nathaniel Heyward, Jr., a planter of Beaufort District, in the art of
Southern cuisine. Yet John and Eliza Lee not only apprenticed slaves,
but also owned servants to be employed in their boarding house. In
1839, John Lee purchased a black man named George from Sarah
Ralston for $1,000. Nearly one year later, he bought Edwin for $700.
With the assistance of slaves, the Lees were spared from performing
the mundane chores of the boarding house business. Yet their
experience as the owners of Lee's Boarding House prepared them to
expand their horizons and manage the Jones Inn.5'

On October 17, 1847, John and Eliza Lee were ready to open the
doors of the Jones Inn and conduct business. In an advertisement placed
in the Charleston Mercury, John Lee informed the public of the
reopening of the inn.

to be re-opened ... that long established and popular House

known as Jones's Hotel, Broad street opposite City Square and
one of the most central and pleasant situations in the city.

The premises have undergone a thorough repair, and many

important improvements have been made. The furniture is neat
and genteel and the bedding in complete order. The subscriber
who has had long experience in catering for his friends and the
public pledges himself to make every exertion in his power in
rendering Jones Hotel as desirable a residence for ladies and
gentlemen as can be found in any hotel or private boarding
house of Charleston.

John Lee Former Proprietor of Lee's House"

Within three years after the grand reopening of the Jones Inn, the
proprietors catered to citizens from both the northern and southern
parts of the nation. On August 9, 1850, the inn received the following
visitors: Edward Gamage, a merchant from New York and his wife,
Esther Gamage; Isaac Ball, a planter from South Carolina and his
brother, Alvin Ball; and Richard Cogdell of South Carolina.60

In order to maintain a pleasant setting for the visitors to the Jones

Inn, John and Eliza Lee owned 8 slaves, whose ages were between 13
and 36 years old, to tend the needs of their clientele.61

In another section of the city, William W. Seymour, the brother of

Eliza Seymour Lee, managed a tavern on Pond Point. Seymour's
establishment was much smaller than his brother-in-law's inn, but it
served a similar purpose. The taverns of Charleston City were gathering
places serving meals and beverages as well as providing weary
travelers with lodging. In spite of the small size of Seymour's tavern,
he still needed the services of barmaids, cooks, and servants to clean
the various rooms. In 1842, these jobs were performed by his slaves. In
that year, he owned the following slaves: Charlotte, 55 years old; Jim,
45 years old; Sally, 20 years old; Samuel, 15 years old; Frank, 13 years
old; Isaac, 11 years old; and the children of Sally named Thomas, 3
years old, and Allen, 6 months old. William W. Seymour continued to
use the labor of slaves to maintain the standards of the tavern until his
death in 1862. Shortly later, the administrators of the deceased colored
man's estate sold his slaves for $3,080.62

Many of the free blacks who purchased slaves were not artisans.
I n the Palmetto State, there were colored men and women who
managed businesses which did not require specialized training. These
enterprising free blacks catered to the basic needs of their society and
performed such services as hauling material, keeping stables, and
selling wood.

As the clientele of these colored entrepreneurs grew, they too

found the need to purchase slaves to be used as workers in their
businesses. During the early 1800s, Joseph Morton, a free black of
Charleston City, conducted a thriving business as a drayman. Morton
hauled all sorts of items and merchandise throughout the city. By 1810
his business had grown to the extent that he required the services of
four drays (carts) and four horses. To drive his carts, he used the labor
of two slaves named James and Jack. The profits from draying allowed
him to purchase not only two dray drivers, but also a washerwoman and
two male servants.

Although most of the draymen made enough money to support

themselves, only a few men, like Joseph Morton, were able to extract a
handsome profit from their services and purchase slaves. In 1820,
Simon Groning, a free black of Charleston City, bought a 30-year-old
slave named Carlos for $300. Groning probably employed the slave as a
dray driver. Elsewhere in the city, Carlos Smith, a free black and a dray
driver, purchased a 31-year-old slave named James for $455 in 1825.
Between 1820 and 1826, Carlos Smith bought nine slaves -James, Doll,
Chloe, Little James, Caty, and Caty's children, Mary, Margaret,
Charles, and Annfor a total sum of $2,245.63

As the colored draymen prospered, they did not always purchase

male slaves to be used as dray drivers; sometimes they bought the
services of domestic slaves. For example, Dick Wragg, a free black of
Charleston City, owned a female servant named Mira. In his will, he
requested that "my Wrench Mira and my Dray and Horse shall be sold
and the monies arising thereform be applied towards paying all my just
debts and funeral charges. "64

Throughout the antebellum period, the number of colored

draymen who owned slaves was quite small. In 1850, for example, 3
out of 22 colored dray drivers owned slaves in Charleston City. In that
year, the draymen Robert Cattel, Jerry Fergusson, and Hamlet Murley
held a total of 21 slaves.61 By 1861, Peter Desverneys was the last
drayman of African descent to own slaves in South Carolina. According
to his inventory, he owned three slaves named Adeline, John, and
Rebecca. The death of Peter Desverneys in 1861 ended the line of
colored draymen who owned slaves.66
 During the antebellum era, the black stablekeepers of South
Carolina also used the labor of slaves. On 7 Chalmer Street in
Charleston City, Jack Gardner managed a stable. With the assistance of
two male slaves, he kept the horses groomed and the stables clean. In
1840, Isaac Mathews owned the Mathews Livery Stable on 94 Board
Street. Mathews used the services of five males to work in the
establishment. After his death in 1850, his son Henry Mathews
managed the business and used the slaves belonging to the estate of
Isaac Mathews to assist him. A short distance from the Mathews Livery
Stable, Jacob Green and his sister Mary Green also ran a stable. They
used the services of two male slaves, whose ages were 25 and 35 years
old, to work as attendants in the stable. Not all of the stable keepers
lived in Charleston City. In 1850, Jesse Rabb, a free mulatto of
Columbia City, operated a stable and used the services of a 32-year-old
black male to work in the establishment. 61

Among the woodsellers of Charleston City, there were a few

colored slaveowners. The wood dealers who purchased slaves used their
services to gather and haul wood to be sold. Often the wood was
purchased by residents, steamboat captains, and factory owners of
Charleston City for fuel.

From 1841 until 1865, Robert Howard, a free mulatto, used the
services of slaves in his woodselling business. In 1841, Howard
purchased a 22-year-old black slave named William from Edwin R.
Dorrill for $550. Four years later, he bought Julius for $500. Using the
labor of the two slaves, he began to haul wood into the city and sell it to
numerous customers. In July 1852, for example, Howard sold his wood
to Mrs. Elizabeth Holloway for $13. Even though Robert Howard was
able to supply many of the citizens of Charleston City with wood, he
required the services of slaves to accomplish his task. Yet he not only
used the labor of slaves in the woodselling business, but also held four
adult females who were probably hired out.6' With the revenue made
from selling wood and hiring out slaves, Howard diversified his
investments by purchasing houses to be rented out. By 1860 he had
accumulated an estate valued at $37,100, which included five slaves
(two males and three females) as well as 18 houses. Robert Howard
appears to have been committed to slavery, as he continued his
ownership of slaves into 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864. Indeed, he did not
relinquish his human property until the defeat of the Confederacy
forced him to free his servants. However, Robert Howard was not the
only black man who used the labor of slaves in the woodselling
business.69

During the turmoil of the early 1860s, R.H. Harney and William
Rollins were colored wood dealers who owned slaves in Charleston
City. In 1862, the two wood dealers held a total of four slaves. One
suspects that they used the bondsmen as laborers in the woodselling
business. Without slaves, it would have been difficult for them to
compete with the slaveowning woodsellers who had the access to
several laborers. And so they submitted to the pressures from
competitors and purchased slaves to be used as laborers.70

Not all of the slaveowning artisans purchased slaves to employ in

their shops or businesses. Some purchased bondsmen to be hired out. In
many instances, the artisans of African ancestry who owned slaves
m ade arrangements with non-slaveowners who wished to hire their
servants. The two parties would negotiate the price for the labor of the
slave and the period of service. Usually the hired out slave worked
from January until Christmas, and once the engagement was completed,
a new contract was established by the two parties.

In Charleston City, colored artisans found an eager market for the

labor of slaves. Nearly every month, the local newspapers ran advertise
ments for the services of slaves. In August of 1852, the Charleston
Courier ran the following notice: "wanted immediately, a boy, from 14
to 19 years of age, to do house work." Many of the advertisements in
the newspapers were for domestic servants because many urban
families chose not to buy house slaves, preferring to hire them. In 1848,
the city officials reported that 71.6 percent of the slaves from
Charleston City were employed as domestic servants, and the majority
of the house slaves were females. Many colored artisans, aware of the
demand for domestic servants, purchased slaves to be hired out as
house slaves. These black entrepreneurs, hoping for profits bought as
many slaves as possible to be used as business ventures. For example,
between 1840 and 1846, George Shrewsberry, a free mulatto and a
butcher by trade, bought 16 slaves named Diana, William, Louisa,
Grace, Frank, Ellen, Liddy, Sarah, Sabina, Cyrus, Jacob, Isaac, David,
Nat, Lewis, and Richard for $4,608.01. Once the slaves were purchased,
he hired out his servants. Another colored butcher, Francis L.
Wilkinson, owned four women named Betty, Mary, Tillah, and
Charlotte who were hired out. As late as 1864, his wife, Selina
Wilkinson, collected from his slaves wages for one month, which came
to $16."

Colored artisans who owned several slaves usually engaged their

servants as hired out workers and kept the money earned by the labor of
their slaves. In 1850, for example, Martha Vanderhorst, a 38-year-old
mulatto and a pastry cook, owned 7 slaves, whose ages were 12, 14, 14,
15, 16, 16, and 17 years. She could not have used all seven slaves in her
pastry store on 53 King Street, so she undoubtedly hired the surplus
workers to non-slaveowners.72

For the most part, the colored women of Charleston City were the
primary suppliers of hired out slaves within the free black community.
Often times, these women were widows or spinsters and lived off the
income of hired slaves. Between 1845 and 1861, Elizabeth Holloway,
t h e former wife of Robert Collins, Jr., hired out the slaves of her
deceased husband. Upon the death of her spouse, she inherited the
following slaves: Katy, Bella, John (35 years old), Jenny (12 years old),
Peggy (10 years old), Cecila (8 years old), and Ansel (4 years old). In
order to support herself as well as two little ones named Martha and
Sarah Collins, she hired out her slaves. From April 1846 to March
1847, Elizabeth Holloway received the wages of John and Jenny. For
that year, her male slave earned $96, while her young female made $36.
With a total of $132 provided by her slaves, Elizabeth Holloway
supported her family." In October 1846, for example, Elizabeth
Holloway bought clothing for her two daughters which cost $40. Mrs.
Holloway used the wages of her slaves not only to feed and clothe her
children, but also to educate them. In 1848, she sent her daughter Sarah
Collins to one of the local schools for free blacks in Charleston City
and paid $12 for tuition. By 1850, both Sarah and Martha Collins were
attending a private school which cost their mother the sum of $24.
Within two years, the colored girls were sent to a boarding school, and
their mother paid $150 for the facilities. From 1853 to 1860, the annual
cost of educating her daughters ranged between $159.19 and $192.
With the money provided by her slaves, Mrs. Holloway easily paid the
costs of educating her children. In 1853, for example, the expenses
incurred for the education of her daughters came to $159.19; however,
the revenue received from the wages of her slaves (John, Peggy, and
Jenny) amounted to $232, which left a balance of $72.81. Clearly,
Elizabeth Holloway made enough to support herself and her children by
the wages of hired-out slaves.''

Mary colored women like Elizabeth Holloway used their slaves as

hired-out laborers. In Charleston City, the majority of the colored
slaveowners were women, and many of them did not have a spouse or a
trade to support themselves. The only assets by which they could
sustain themselves were slaves. In 1850, for example, Sarah Lincoln, a
25-year-old mulatto, owned two black females who were 15 and 25
years old. Since she was reported with no spouse or occupation, her
only means of support was the revenue made by her hired-out slaves."

In many instances, free blacks purchased young slaves who could

not immediately be used as hired-out laborers. In 1842, Mary Ann
McCall, a 22-year-old mulatto, purchased an 8-year-old black girl for
the purpose of hiring out the child when she was a few years older. In
1816, Francoise Perrier, a free mulatto and a native of Santo Domingo,
purchased a 5-year-old girl named Clementine. For more than 40 years,
Perrier used the services of Clementine and later her son James as
hired-out workers.76 In her will, she requested that "my daughters
Pamela and Adella ... (should have] my servant Woman Clementine
and her issue and my Servant boy James to have and to hold the said
negroes for their own use and benefit .1177 Like many enterprising
slaveowners, the colored women who owned slaves were aware of the
benefits to be derived from slavery and used the labor of their slaves to
support themselves.

Some colored persons even provided their relatives and friends

with the wages of hired-out slaves. In 1850, Jubah Warren, a free black
woman of Charleston Neck, provided the wages of nine slaves to her
loved ones. According to Jubah Warren's will, Elizabeth Melrose
Whiting was to receive the wages of all her slaves until the money
amounted to $600 for the purpose of buying a maid for her dear friend.
Within six months, the wages of the slaves named Pleasant, Emma,
Patty, Stephen, Rachel, Susannah, Sylvia, Pinda, and Monday amounted
to $202. After Whiting purchased the maid, the wages were given to the
sisters of Jubah Warren." In another example, Henrietta McNeil, a free
mulatto of Charleston City, recorded a document in which her great-
grandchildren were provided with the wages of a 25-year-old slave.79

Generally, the free black artisans who owned successful

businesses became slavemasters because the demand for their services
urged them to seek the most available supply of labor. Their use of
slaves in their businesses soon extended into speculation in human
chattel and the purchase of slaves to be used as domestics or hired out
to non-slaveowners. When the colored artisans utilized the services of
slaves, they became committed to the institution of slavery, and their
use of bondsmen developed into a way of life.
 The Denmark Vesey Conspiracy has been explored by countless
scholars and writers, but few have linked the failure of the plot with the
division between the colored elite and the black masses. Afro-
American Charleston during the nineteenth century was a tale of two
cities: one made up of affluent persons of color who shared a direct
interest in preserving the institution of slavery, the other containing
poor members of the free black community and the vast number of
slaves. By 1820 the disparity between the elite of Charleston's colored
society and the slaves created an unbridgeable schism which doomed
the revolution of Denmark Vesey.

As the white slaveowners of Charleston City went about their

daily routines, a free black man named Denmark Vesey prepared to
unleash the fury of the slaves and destroy the slaveowning inhabitants
of the port city, and any others who opposed the rebels. During the
period from 1818 to 1822, Vesey charted the conquest of Charleston
City. He determined that success of the revolution depended on the
capture of the guardhouse and the arsenal in the city. Equally important
was the taking of the guardhouse and the arsenal of Charleston Neck.
After those initial victories, Denmark Vesey and his supporters would
hold the arsenals until the black people of the countryside reached the
city. Then guns would be handed out and the rebels would sack the city,
killing all of the whites regardless of age or sex. This plan was more
complex than implied by the brief description.'

Vesey's scheme, nearly five years in its development, required the

loyalty of hundreds of black folk. Vesey elicited the support of city
slaves as well as country slaves. Among the lieutenants of the rebellion
were house servants and skilled laborers. Ned and Rolla Bennett, for
example, were the house slaves of Governor Thomas Bennett. Ned was
selected to lead a company of slaves and storm the arsenal of
Charleston Neck. From the privileged ranks of the slave society, he
recruited bondsmen who were apprenticed to the butchers of the port
city. With the assistance of slave butchers, the rebels would be supplied
with horses taken from their masters' shops. Other horses would be
provided by the blacks who worked in the private and the public livery
stables. The rebels would then have a cavalry, led by the slave William
Garner, whose function was to scatter the fleeing whites when the
bloodshed occurred. Other key men were Gullah Jack, Peter Poyas, and
Monday Gell. Gullah, a harness maker, was assigned the task of
capturing Duquercon's store, while Monday, of the Ebo tribe, recruited
a group of his kinsmen from the country to attack the white inhabitants
of Charleston City. From James Island, Mingo, a country slave,
organized an army of 4,000 men to be deployed on the South Bay and
subsequently marched into the town. By the summer of 1822, the
conspiracy involved the confidence of numerous slaves throughout the
area.

Maintaining the commitment of the black insurrectionists was not

easy for Denmark Vesey. Many slaves were hesitant about taking up
arms and killing not only their masters but all of the whites in the city.
One candidate recruited by Rolla Bennett could not fathom the thought
of murdering his master. He advised the slave rebel "to let it alone, and
told him I would oppose them if they came to kill my owner." As the
revolution gradually reached the appointed date, Rolla himself began to
vacillate about the killing. He recalled, "my heart pained me within,
and I said to myself, I cannot kill my master and mistress, for they use
me, more like a son, than a slave-I then concluded in my mind, that I
would go into the country, on Saturday evening, before they were to
commence on Sunday, that I might not see it." As other slaves
questioned the killing of kind masters, Denmark Vesey read the Bible
to his recruits and justified the taking of life. At one meeting on Bull
Street, he spoke of the bondage of the Israelites and how the Lord had
delivered the children of Israel. It was the righteousness of God, Vesey
said, which destroyed the armies of Pharaoh when the "chosen people"
were denied their freedom. This black Moses of Charleston declared
that God was on the side of the slaves of Pharaoh, and the judgment of
the Lord would deliver black people from the chains of slavery. As for
the killing, he read Joshua 6:21, in which the Israelites, at the Lord's
command, destroyed "all that was in the city, both man and woman,
young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."'
Vesey concluded "it was no sin for us to do so, for the Lord had
commanded us to do it."4 With religious zeal, he convinced most of his
men of the righteousness of their cause and of the notion that liberation
could be achieved only by the divine sword of God.

Vesey also encountered difficulty in recruiting new followers.

Being a free man of color, Vesey traveled through the dark corridors of
Charleston Neck, into the business district of Charleston City, and even
into the rural setting of James Island. As he encountered prospective
candidates, this charismatic black man challenged bondsmen to seize
their freedom. One day at the marketplace, he asked a slave whether he
was satisfied as a servant. Vesey deplored the slave's acceptance of
servitude and told him the fable of Hercules and the wagoner whose
cart was stalled. As the wagoner prayed to God, "Hercules said, `you
fool, put your shoulders to the wheel, whip the horses and your wagon
will be pulled out..."' Vesey concluded that 'if we did not put our hand
to work and deliver ourselves, we should never come out of slavery."'
Even as Vesey walked the streets, if a slave bowed to a white man, he
rebuked the bonds man and observed "that all men were born equal, and
that he was surprised that anyone would degrade himself by such
conduct, that he would never cringe to the whites .... "6 When the
Missouri Compromise Crisis was printed in the newspapers, Vesey
regularly monitored the debates. When the existence of slavery was
questioned in the West, he knew that the death of the peculiar
institution was within sight. But Vesey was concerned about the
immediate future. During his search for discontented slaves, he often
told the bondsmen that Congress had emancipated the slaves, but
Southern whites refused to obey the law. To soothe the doubts of new
recruits, he told them about the successful revolution in Santo
Domingo. And when the insurrection commenced, he said, a large army
from Santo Domingo and Africa would aid their quest for freedom.
With the reopening of the slave trade in 1804, there were hundreds of
African-born slaves in the low country. Vesey elicited the help of
Gullah Jack to spread the message of revolution to the community of
African slaves.7 Gullah Jack was born in Angola and practiced
mysticism. As a conjurer, he drew upon the traditions of Africa and
enticed slaves to join the cause by providing a potion which protected
the rebels from harm. Thus, using an assortment of persuasive
techniques, Denmark Vesey induced both rural and urban slaves to
commit themselves to the revolution.

Many slaveowners of Charleston believed that their slaves were

incapable of rebelling because they were good masters. But Denmark
Vesey looked through the placid exterior of the so-called contented
slave and saw the unquenched desire for freedom. Even the most
fortunate house slave with a benevolent master was property. For
example, Ned and Rolla Bennett were treated kindly by Governor
Bennett, but still they were chattel and could not control their destiny.
Their children could be sold, or the masters of their wives could leave
Charleston City, separating Ned and Rolla from family members. Like
the Bennetts, most urban slaves of the port city knew their fate
depended upon the whims of white slaveowners. They could be sold to
the rice planters of Georgetown District and denied the comfort of
loved ones and friends. Often the fear of being sold into the country
prompted city slaves to flee from their masters. During the antebellum
period, the newspapers of South Carolina printed numerous runaway
notices. For example, upon the death of Mary Baker, the slave woman
Martilla could not stand the prospect of leaving the city and working on
a plantation on Johns Island; so the 23-year-old woman escaped from
her new owner and sought refuge in Charleston, reported the South
Carolina Gazette. The most faithful servant of a white owner was aware
that if his or her master did not emancipate him or her, the auction
block was next when the master died. Furthermore, even the benevolent
master occasionally was confronted with serious debts which warranted
the selling of family members. The sanctity of the slave family, then,
was never secure. Denmark Vesey understood the nature of slavery and
did not let his supporters or candidates forget that they were not the
controllers of their lives, but mere chattel. Freedom of the black masses
of Charleston City could be achieved by revolution and nothing else."

For the rural slaves of Charleston District, there was a burning

desire for freedom. The slaves who worked in the rice fields of the low
country knew the cruelness of slavery which few urban slaves
experienced. From sunup until sundown, they worked in the muddy
waters of the rice fields. If the work fell behind schedule, the whip was
administered on most plantations. Liberty for the field slave was not a
philosophical concept, but the escape from forced labor induced by the
whip. Many rural slaves perceived Denmark Vesey's call to arms as the
only way freedom could be obtained in South Carolina.9

Restrictions on the privilege of private emancipation strengthened

Vesey's argument. In 1800, the state legislature had declared that only
slaves of good character who were capable of earning a living should be
freed. Twenty years later, the assembly completely banned the
emancipation of slaves by private citizens, placing that power in the
hands of the legislators. If freedom were to be obtained, the slave
master must petition the state government in Columbia and hope the
assemblymen would feel the request was justified. However, the state
legislators believed that manumission should be granted only when the
slave performed a herculean task, such as saving the life of a master.
The typical slave was doomed to servitude until death.

Even before 1800, emancipation by benevolent masters was

be yon d the grasp of the majority of the slaves. Few masters
emancipated their slaves in South Carolina. Unlike George
Washington, whose deathbed will freed his plantation slaves, the
majority of the masters gave their bondsmen to relatives. Others
requested that their slave property be auctioned to the highest bidder
and the proceeds given to their heirs. Often the sale separated husband
from wife and mother from child. Even if the slave was manumitted
outside South Carolina, he or she could not return to the state as a free
person. Permanent banishment into the North entailed the severing of
kinship ties because emancipation did not include complete family
units. Usually the slave freed by one master was married to a slave
owned by a different master. Thus, one spouse was free while the other
remained in bondage. The dream of legal freedom was beyond the
reach of the majority of the slaves in South Carolina. 10 Since
emancipation was impossible, many slaves concluded that the only
chance for freedom was to join the slave insurrection led by Denmark
Vesey.

The hopes of the black insurrectionists hinged on the carelessness

of Charlestonians. By 1820 the city was a calm and placid place. Few
masters had learned their lessons from previous slave rebellions. In
1739, slaves on the Stono River had killed two guards at the warehouse
and approached the arsenal. As they descended on the town, the slaves
plundered and burned everything in their path. By the time the revolt
was suppressed, twenty whites had died and several buildings had been
burned to the ground. If the Stono Rebellion was too far in the past to
remind the slaveowners of their vulnerability, the Gabriel Prosser
Conspiracy should have taught the masters of Charleston an important
lesson. In the spring of 1800, Gabriel had planned to march an army of
slaves into Richmond and take the city's arsenal. But twenty years after
the conspiracy in Virginia, the authorities of Charleston were slack in
their duties. Even the city patrol sleepily went through the byways with
only an old gun and seldom enforced the curfew against slaves
traveling the streets after dark. The guard also turned his back to the
slaves who frequented the shops where liquor was sold. The stables
were seldom guarded, and the arsenal commanded only one man. Vesey
knew his band of followers could easily avoid the patrol and take the
arsenal with little difficulty. By the time the white residents of
Charleston realized what was happening, the country slaves would have
entered the city and sealed the fate of all the whites. As long as the
officials remained unaware and trusted their false security, Denmark
Vesey was convinced that victory could be won. I I

As the day of the insurrection approached, black Charleston was a

divided community. Discord between the free colored elite and the
mass of black slaves created two distinctly different societies with little
social interaction. Many of the elite members of the Afro-American
community wanted nothing to do with slaves, apart from owning them.
The majority of the colored elite did own slaves at one time, regarding
slave ownership as a privilege and a status symbol. Ownership of slaves
by free Negroes created a wedge which separated the free class from
the slaves.

As the community of free Negroes grew, the disparities between

free persons and slaves became quite apparent. Since dark skin was
associated with slavery, the free Negro elite formed societies which
extolled light skin and looked down on dark-skinned people. Many in
the elite society of Afro-Americans did not socialize with free people
of dark complexion. By 1790, Charleston was divided not only by lines
of free and slave status, but by a self-imposed color line separating
mulattoes from blacks. Even the mulatto and the black communities
were divided between the rich and the poor. When Denmark Vesey was
organizing the insurrection, the fragmentation of the Afro-American
community was a very dangerous problem which was eventually to
destroy the rebellion.

Not all black masters held slaves for commercial purposes. Some
free blacks purchased family members and friends but neglected or
were unable to manumit them. However, whether their motives were
commercial or benevolent, black masters were viewed as a threat to the
slave insurrection planned by Denmark Vesey because elite free
Negroes had close relationships with white Charlestonians. During the
early 1820s, many of the Negro elite were former slaves who had
obtained their freedom by merit. Few hated their former owners; rather,
they had grown to respect the men and women who had held them as
property. Some were related to their former masters by ties of kinship.
More importantly, they conducted business with white Charlestonians.
Their livelihood depended on the patronage of the Southern gentry and
other white citizens; therefore they were amicable to white people. For
the Negro elite, taking part in a slave insurrection was unthinkable.
Even the black masters who did not cast their lot with white masters
could not support a slave rebellion because they had so much to lose
and nothing to gain.

Once freed from bondage, most of the Negro elite seemed to

demonstrate a fondness towards their former masters. Between 1790
and 1800, George Mathews, the slave of Martha Ann Mathews, was
granted his freedom by his owner. Even though he had spent much of
his life as a slave, he showed no animosity towards his mistress. After
all, she had been a good owner and had treated him with compassion.
As a free man, he was indebted to the benevolence of his former
mistress and respected her. In fact, George Mathews asked his former
mistress to serve as the executor of his estate and to look after his
family when death claimed his soul. Clearly, he trusted his former
owner and viewed her as an important ally.

Other members of the Negro elite indicated both respect and

fondness for their former masters by keeping the surname of the white
people who had held them as chattel.' 2 After Sam Cochran was
emancipated from bondage, he chose to keep the last name of his
former mistress. In another example, Fanny Graham retained the
surname of her young mistress when she was freed. Undoubtedly, both
Sam Cochran and Fanny Graham saw the usefulness of a close
relationship with their former owners and sought to maintain the
linkage. By keeping the surname of their former masters, they
proclaimed to the white community what families had owned them.
Their former owners, in turn, viewed them as honest and respectable
people who had earned their freedom and the patronage of white
Charlestonians."

For the children of white men and black women, the relationship
to whites was even closer. When the products of miscegenation were
freed from the stigma of slavery, few sought to escape the influence of
their white fathers or wanted to destroy the white people of Charleston.
In many instances, they were provided with land or slaves by their
white fathers. For example, Isaac and Henry Glencamp (the mulatto
sons of Henry Glencamp, a white planter of St. Stephens Parish) were
provided with land and slaves by their white father. In the neighboring
parish of St. Thomas & St. Dennis, the mulatto sons of Robert Collins
were given 540 acres of land as well as slaves. With land and slaves,
the mulatto offspring of white planters followed their fathers' footsteps
and became cotton and rice planters. Unlike many of the black farmers,
who worked the soil with their own hands, the mulatto planters used the
labor of slaves to till the soil and gather the harvest. Without question,
the mulatto sons of white planters who were given land and slaves had
a direct interest in the peculiar institution. Furthermore, being the
offspring of well-to-do whites, they benefitted from the friendships
established by their fathers with other planters. Their rights as free
mulattoes were protected by the neighbors and friends of their fathers."

In antebellum Charleston, a network of personal relationships

developed between the Negro elite and white persons. Often the face-
toface, person-to-person contacts permitted Southern whites to see
members of the Negro elite as men and women. However, these
interactions seldom went beyond a form of paternalism which existed
between master and slave. The personal relationships did not eliminate
the Southern etiquette which separated whites from blacks. Despite
their wealth and respectability, the Negro elite were still Negroes-but a
better class of Negroes, according to their white neighbors and allies. In
any case, the relationships afforded the Negro elite with the protection
provided by influential whites who could ensure their freedom."

Whenever possible, the Negro elite cultivated their relationships

with the white aristocracy. When black Charlestonians were
withdrawing from the white-controlled Methodist Church, the Negro
elite continued to join churches dominated by white congregations.
Indeed, the most influential members of colored society attended St.
Philip's Episcopal Church of Charleston City. For example, Thomas
Bonneau, a free mulatto and a schoolteacher, was a member of St.
Philip's. Shortly after purchasing the freedom of his wife and daughter,
he had two-year-old Henrietta Potts Bonneau baptized in the church. In
fact, St. Philip's was the place where all of the Bonneau children
received their baptisms.' 6

Other members of the Negro elite also attended St. Philip's

Church. On March 13, 1812, Ruth Cole sponsored the baptism of her
granddaughter Ruth Raper Garden. Within the congregation of St.
Philip's, the wealthiest colored persons purchased their own pews in the
gallery of the church. During the early 1820s, James and Sylvia Wilson
owned a pew in the south part of the gallery. Ann Mitchell inherited the
pew of her husband, James Mitchell, which was situated in the north
gallery. Even though Negroes were segregated in the church and
confined to the galleries as well as being refused burial in the church
cemetery, they flocked to St. Philip's Church. In spite of the
restrictions, the church provided a setting to continue their
relationships with the white aristocracy. In the congregation, many
influential whites attended services. Elsewhere in Charleston, free
Negroes were members of the white-dominated congregations of St.
Michael's, St. Mark's, St. John's, St. Luke's, St. Paul's, St. Stephen's,
and Grace Episcopal. With powerful whites in the congregations, the
elite Negroes had the opportunity to ally themselves with the leading
citizens of Charleston, and they petitioned the white leaders to protect
their rights as free coloreds."

Free Negroes not only attended church with whites but often lived
only a few doors from the gentry of Charleston City. In 1822, for
example, William Brown Stevens, a free mulatto and a brick mason,
was the nextdoor neighbor of Justine Angel. According to the census
and the city directory, Angel lived on 126 Tradd Street and owned a
plantation in St. John's Parish of Colleton District, worked by 61 slaves.
On 26 George Street, Joseph Langlois, a mulatto and a shoemaker,
lived on the same block with Daniel J. Waring. In 1822, Waring was an
attorney of law; eight years later, he was a planter in St. Thomas & St.
Dennis Parish of Charleston District, and the owner of 42 slaves." In
another example, Eliza Dwight, a free mulatto, resided within a few
blocks from the home of George W. Cross. During the court trial of
Denmark Vesey, Cross served as the black rebel's lawyer. Since several
free Negroes lived in the same neighborhoods with the white gentry, it
is likely that the Negro elite had dialogues with the whites, and
probably expressed their disbelief at the thought of a slave rebellion.' 9

For the most part, the free Negro elite was a respected class of
people. Many aristocratic whites praised this segment of the Afro-
American community for being hard working and thrifty. But being
praised as a respectable class meant separation from the majority of
black folk. Many in the white community looked down on free Negroes
who associated with slaves. These free blacks were viewed as trouble
makers who stirred up discontent within the slave community. To
placate the fears of white Southerners, many free Negroes shunned the
slave community, creating a division between the free class and the
slave class. But the main reason that the Negro elite sought to set
themselves apart from slaves was one of status. The Negro elite did not
want to be mistaken for slaves. They marked the distinction between
themselves and slaves by using the fruit of their freedom to acquire
material possessions. Many of the well-to-do free Negroes owned
houses, plantations, and slaves. They made legal contracts and filed
lawsuits to protect their property. Owning land and slaves, the Negro
elite could not be confused with slaves, who were regarded as the
lowest in the Southern social order.20

Perhaps the clearest example of the separation between the Negro

elite and the slave community was the founding of the Brown
Fellowship Society. In 1790, James Mitchell and four mulatto men, all
members of St. Philip's Episcopal Church, organized the society. Since
St. Philip's refused colored worshippers burial plots in the churchyard,
they formed the fraternity to provide a cemetery for members and
nonmembers. The society also assisted the widows and the orphans of
its members and gave relief to free coloreds of poor status. Despite the
benevolence of the Brown Fellowship Society, it excluded slaves, even
nominal slaves who were awarded the rights of free blacks, from its
membership. Unlike other benevolent fraternities created by free
Negroes, the Brown Fellowship did not help the slave community.
Other free black groups purchased slaves and manumitted them, but the
existing documents do not indicate a similar practice sponsored by the
Brown Fellowship. Many of its members were commercial slaveowners
and were not inclined to manumit their slaves. In 1796, for example,
Samuel Holman was admitted to the colored society. Holman was a
mulatto slave trader in Rio Pongo, West Africa, and a recent resident of
St. James Santee, where he owned a large plantation and at least 40
slaves. In the fourth federal census of Charleston City, the following
members of the Brown Fellowship were reported as slave masters:
William Cooper, 4 slaves; Richard Holloway, 6 slaves; Thomas Inglis,
15 slaves; Jehu Jones, Jr., 6 slaves; John Lee, 1 slave; James Mitchell,
12 slaves; and William Penceel, 15 slaves. In 1820, William Cooper
reported his female slave named Jane to the census taker; within seven
years, he sold the woman for $200. Apparently he needed the cash and
liquidated his human property."

While members of the society were exploiting the labor of slaves,

there was probably much animosity between slaves and elite Negroes.
Clearly the Brown Fellowship's members wanted to preserve the
distinction between free persons of color and slaves, and so they
refused membership to slaves.

The discrimination practiced by the Brown Fellowship was

directed, not only against slaves, but against free persons of dark
complexion. The charter of the mulatto fraternity proclaimed that
membership was limited to "free brown men." Apparently the members
of the Brown Fellowship viewed the dark men of Charleston City as a
class somewhat above the status of slaves but beneath the status of free
mulattoes. Since dark skin was associated with slavery, the elite
mulattoes separated themselves from free blacks. Even though there
were wealthy men of dark hue such as Samuel Creighton, whose estate
was appraised at $3,540 and more valuable than that of John Weston, a
mulatto member of the Brown Fellowship, the dark skin of Creighton
associated him with the dreaded black majority; therefore he could not
join the society. Within the mulatto community, there existed a phobia
of dark-skinned people. As early as 1790, the Afro-American
community was divided, not only between slave and free person, but
between mulatto and black. It is somewhat difficult to determine the
precise date at which the color-consciousness of mulattoes was
incorporated into their society. Perhaps the color line was established
during the period after the revolutionary war when the number of
darkskinned people gradually began to increase. Fearing submersion by
people of dark complexion, the mulattoes of Charleston sought to
maintain what they perceived as a special relationship with the white
aristocracy and separated themselves from the majority of Afro-
Americans, attempting to form a distinctly separate class.22

Perhaps the best example of the phobia against dark-skinned

people can be seen in the marriage patterns within the mulatto elite.
The vast majority of well-to-do or aspiring mulattoes married within
their caste. For example, the mulatto daughters and the sons of Sally
Seymour, a free black and a pastry cook, married light-skinned
Negroes. By 1824, Elizabeth Seymour was married to the free mulatto
tailor John Lee, and Charlotte Seymour to the free mulatto barber
Edward Lee; William Weanich Seymour married the mulatto woman
Mary Warren. Although Sally Seymour was of dark complexion, all of
her children married mulattoes. It is difficult to determine whether the
children of Sally Seymour made a conscious effort to find mulatto
spouses, but the pattern of mulattoes marrying mulattoes was quite
typical. In another example, Nancy Randall, the colored mistress of
Thomas Hanscome (a white planter of St. James & Goose Creek
Parish), witnessed the marriage of her children to free mulattoes. By
1844, Thomas Hanscome had wedded Mary Sophia Inglis, the mulatto
daughter of Thomas and Martha Inglis; Elizabeth Sarah Hanscome
wedded John George Garden, the mulatto son of John and Elizabeth
Susan Garden; Louisa Rebecca Hanscome married the mulatto cotton
gin maker William P. DaCosta; and Mary Hanscome married John Lee,
the mulatto son of John and Elizabeth Lee. These examples seem to
indicate a color barrier. In fact, the eighth census of 1860 provides
documentation of the prevalence of mulattoes marrying mulattoes.
According to the census, more than 9 out of 10 co-residing spouses of
lightskinned men were mulattoes. During the early 1820s, the
percentage of mulattoes married to light-skinned partners probably was
equally significant."

Although Charleston City had an imbalance between females and

males of free status, the shortage of free men did not deter mulatto
women from searching for husbands. When free mulatto men could not
be found, the women were not adverse to marrying into the slave ranks;
however, their spouses were mostly mulattoes. By 1834, for example,
Esther Barron, a free mulatto, had married the mulatto slave James
Barron. About 12 years later, she bought her husband from William T.
Rivers for $700. In another example, Georgiana Alston, a free mulatto,
wedded the mulatto slave Thomas Alston and subsequently purchased
his freedom for $1,000. With a significant number of male mulattoes in
the slave community of Charleston District, free mulatto women were
able to satisfy the desire to marry within their own color stratum, and
seldom married black men. An indication of this phenomenon can be
seen in the census of 1860. In that year, only 13 percent of the mulatto
women had co-residing spouses who were free black men. According to
the census, there were 410 mulatto women who were heads of
household and did not have co-residing spouses. Apparently, free
mulatto women who were not reported with spouses chose to marry
slaves, while others were concubines of white men. By and large, the
existing documents suggest that light-skinned women were more
inclined to wed mulatto men than to choose free Negroes of a darker
hue.24

Perhaps the greatest disparity between free mulattoes and free

blacks was the distribution of wealth. Few Afro-Americans of dark
complexion were as rich as the wealthy mulattoes. Between 1800 and
1840, members of the mulatto elite amassed property of substantial
value. In 1825, William Penceel, a mulatto tin plate maker, owned
property valued at $3,234. In 1833, Jehu Jones, Sr., a member of the
Brown Fellowship Society and a tailor, amassed property appraised at
$1,250.25 The wealthiest mulatto was Thomas Inglis, a barber, who
accumulated property valued at $36,662 in 1835. Between 1800 and
1840, the mean wealth of the dark-skinned elite was $1,805. But the
mean wealth of the mulatto elite was $4,642. The average wealth of the
mulatto elite was more than twice that of their dark-skinned
counterparts. In Charleston City, between 1800 and 1840, the wealthiest
Afro-American of dark complexion was Samuel Creighton, a barber,
who owned property valued at $3,540. Yet his wealth could not
compare with that amassed by Thomas Inglis. Indeed, the mulatto
barber's estate had more than ten times the value of the darkskinned
barber's. Even the richest dark man of South Carolina could not surpass
the wealth of the mulatto elite in Charleston City. In 1850, Lamb
Stevens owned a 500-acre plantation called Cherry Hill in St. James &
Goose Creek Parish, and 30 slaves to till the soil. The wealth of the 80-
year-old planter was estimated at $12,118. Yet the black rice planter
acquired about one-third of the wealth accumulated by Thomas Inglis.
Apparently color not only separated mulattoes from blacks but created
a disparity between wealthy members of the two castes. Although the
figures demonstrate a gulf between elite mulattoes and elite blacks,
they do not show what caused the difference. Did the mulattoes of
Charleston City work harder than their darker counterparts, or were
mulattoes the receivers of special patronage which dark-skinned
persons were denied?26

What caused the economic disparity in the Afro-American

community was a combination of hard work and, most importantly,
special patronage by white Charlestonians. For the dark-skinned
artisans, clients were difficult to acquire. Apparently whites preferred
to deal with lightskinned Negroes, and such color-consciousness did
not permit darkskinned Afro-Americans to achieve the degree of
economic security obtained by the mulatto elite.27

Along with white patronage, some mulattoes were given a head

start. Favors by white benefactors and parents as well as mulatto
parents and relatives helped the mulatto elite to establish themselves.
Sometimes the favors were cash, real estate, credit, and even slaves.
White men often gave property to their Afro-American mistresses. In
the will of Thomas Hanscome, a white planter, Hanscome gave the sum
of $15,000 to his colored mistress. In another example, James Holton, a
white Charlestonian, bequeathed all of his personal estate and the house
on Cumberland Street to the mulatto woman Lattice and their seven
children. White Charlestonians provided not only for their concubines
but also for the children of miscegenation. Francis Carmand, a white
tailor, gave his mulatto son the sum of $500 and two slaves. William
Wightman provided his mulatto daughter by the colored woman Jane
Wightman with $20,000. The majority of well-to-do mulatto parents
could not match the gifts given by whites, but they provided their
children with a firm economic foundation. Barbara Barquet, the wife of
John P. Barquet, provided her daughter Caroline Plumeau with five
slaves, then gave her grandchildren the sum of $1,000. Although few
mulatto parents provided their children with the amount of property
given by Mrs. Barquet, they gave their offspring what small
possessions they could. In 1826, for example, Ann Brown, the wife of
Moses Brown, requested that her small house on Price Alley should be
given to her five children. If mulatto parents could not afford to give
their offspring cash, they trained them to work in trades. 28 During the
1820s and the 1830s, two of the sons of Ann and Moses Brown worked
in the barber shop owned by their father. After the death of the elder
Brown, his sons continued to work as barbers and probably catered to
the white clients who patronized the shop of Moses Brown. Other
relatives also assisted the younger family members on occasion.
Hannah McKenzie, for example, transferred the legal title to the 25-
year-old slave Joe to her grandson Robert Mishaw. According to the
deed, "the income ensuing from the wages of the said boy" would be
applied by her grandson toward supporting her great-grandchildren
"until they shall attain the age of 21 years." Even the babies of the
mulatto elite were provided for by well-to-do relatives. Few of the
black elite provided their children with the amount of property given by
the mulatto elite.29

The color prejudice directed against the black elite did not cause
the small number of well-to-do blacks to join the ranks of slaves. Like
the elite mulattoes who separated themselves from blacks, the elite
blacks distinguished themselves from their countless dark-skinned
counterparts held in bondage. While Denmark Vesey was raising the
consciousness of the black masses and telling them to throw off the
chains of slavery, free persons of dark hue were buying and selling
slaves for profit. During that period, Rebecca Jackson, a stoutly built
black woman, worked in the city as a washerwoman. After years of
saving, she bought a woman to help in the washing of her clients'
clothes. But finding the slave difficult to manage, she sold her. For
nearly 35 years, Rebecca Jackson continued to purchase and sell human
chattel. In 1830, she sold Charity for $180.70 Before Mrs. Jackson died,
she owned five slaves and requested her son Henry Jackson to sell her
human property. On March 3, 1841, Martha, the daughter of Rose, was
sold for $505. The mother and the sisters of the slave girl were
auctioned on April 27, 31, and May 1. In another example, Sylvia
Mannell, a free woman of dark complexion, liquidated her human
chattel for $225 in 1817. And Moses Well, a dark-skinned shoemaker,
sold his 17-year-old servant for $400. Although Rebecca Jackson,
Sylvia Mannell, and Moses Wells were the same color as the majority
of the slaves living in Charleston City, the common bond of
complexion did not deter them from exploiting their own race for
profit. Slavery was an oppressive institution when it personally touched
the lives of the black elite -when loved ones were held in bondage-but
in other cases it was a legal and a viable investment. Money was the
major reason for blacks exploiting other blacks."

Whether the majority of the black elite sympathized with white

slavers cannot be answered conclusively. Yet, without doubt, there was
support for institutionalized slavery. For every free black who may
have sympathized with Denmark Vesey, there were blacks who helped
preserve the peculiar institution. They not only bought and sold slaves
but returned runaway slaves. In 1793, Robert Baldwin, a free Negro of
dark complexion, was employed by James Clitherall to search for the
slave Joe, who had escaped from bondage and headed towards
Georgia.32

With little solidarity between the elite blacks and the dark-skinned
slaves of Charleston City, there quite naturally was division within the
black community. Yet the gulf was small when compared to the
division between the mulatto elite and the slaves. The number of elite
blacks was quite small, and an even smaller number owned slaves for
profit. Of the 184 Negro slaveowners of Charleston City who were
reported to be mulatto or black, there were only 27 masters with dark
complexion, according to the federal census of 1850. Dark-skinned
masters comprised 14.6 percent of the Afro-American slaveowners,
while the mulattoes represented 85.4 percent. A similar figure can
likely be attributed to the households headed by free Negro masters on
the federal census of 1820.

Even as the members of both elite groups attempted to distance

themselves from the slave ranks, they were drawn into the slave
community. During the early 1800s, it was not unusual for well-to-do
free Negroes to marry slaves. Thomas S. Bonneau, a mulatto
schoolteacher and a member of the Brown Fellowship Society, married
the mulatto slave owned by Sarah M. Summers. In another example,
Mose Irvine wedded the slave Harriett, who was the property of Mary
Russell. Often the elite Negroes bought the freedom of their spouses. In
1810 Sarah Edwards, a free black woman, married the slave of Isaac
Edwards. Upon the death of her husband's master, she accumulated
enough money to buy the freedom of her spouse in 1818. While the
majority of free Negroes who purchased the freedom of spouses were
married to their loved ones before the transaction, others bought slaves
and subsequently married their bondsmen. In 1828, for example,
Hannah Morrison, a free black woman, bought the slave Martin from
Margaret Stock. After nearly eight years of holding Martin Nelson as
her property, she apparently became infatuated with the slave and
subsequently married him. When the males of the Negro elite married
slave women, they often confronted the dilemma of producing
offspring who were owned by white masters. Few of the wealthy
AfroAmericans accumulated the capital to buy the freedom of all their
children. Even when the money was raised, there was no guarantee the
owners of their offspring would not depart with the young slaves. By
1820 many of the Negro elite had offspring or other close relatives who
were slaves to white masters. Even though they wanted to separate
from the slave community, their loved ones were part of the masses of
slaves. If the separation was not physically possible, they made a
mental separation; they did not think of their loved ones as slaves or
view their destiny as similar to that of the slaves. But there could not be
a complete separation from the slave community until the liberty of
loved ones was obtained."

Between 1820 and 1822, the Charleston of Denmark Vesey was a

divided city, where free Negro snobbery created a barrier which
separated free Afro-Americans and slaves. Being an astute man, Vesey
knew that the free Negro community could not be counted on as
supporters of the revolution. He was aware of the threat imposed by the
Negro elite because of their personal relationships with whites. He
cautioned his followers to avoid the elite and tried to keep the plans of
the insurrection from them. So secret was the planned revolution that
even free Negroes who helped the slave community and earned the
respect of many bondsmen were excluded from the insurrection. Even
Bishop Maurice Brown, who purchased slaves for the sole reason of
manumitting them, was kept in the dark about the slave insurrection.
Indeed, none of the influential members of the African Methodist
Church, such as Charles Corr and Henry Drayton, were aware of the
planned uprising." Even though these free Afro-Americans were
members of the African Church and aided the slave community as well
as trying to bridge the gap between free Negroes and slaves, they were
perceived as threats. Men like Bishop Brown, Charles Corr, and Henry
Drayton were committed to peaceful change. Their religious
convictions led them to believe that if freedom could not be achieved
while living, it would be given to the righteous at death. But Denmark
Vesey was not concerned about the hereafter. What mattered was the
present. Freedom was not the reward of the righteous slave at death, but
the divine right of all men and women regardless of race. Vesey was
determined to take the nectar of sweetness called freedom for all of his
people by any means necessary. Vesey saw the weakness of the
theology taught by fellow members of the African Church and preached
a revolutionary doctrine. He knew that his radicalism was too much for
his free Negro associates to withstand, and he feared that if they
became aware of the plot, betrayal was certain.

Yet the betrayal actually came from numerous sectors of the free
Negro community. As Vesey made plans for the revolution, there were
many slaveowners within the free Afro-American population. In 1820,
f o r example, Negro heads of household who owned slaves were
reported at 72.1 percent of Afro-American dwellings in Charleston
City. In the neighboring suburb of Charleston Neck, slightly more than
half of the Negro households were listed with slave property. Almost
everywhere Denmark Vesey traveled within the city, he encountered
free Negro slaveowners. When he went to the African Methodist
Church, located on Anson Street, to attend services, he walked past the
houses of Negro masters. Within walking distance from the church
lived George Charnock, a mulatto tinner, who owned two slaves. A
short distance up Anson Street lived two mulatto masters: Benjamin
Lincoln, the owner of five slaves, and Charles Henry, who owned a
slave carpenter. (Both Lincoln and Henry eventually liquidated their
slave property.) Even when Denmark Vesey was recruiting the slave
Jesse and walked up St. Philips Street towards Liberty Street, he was
about two blocks from the house of Julia Eggart. In March 1821,
Eggart, a mulatto, purchased Grace, a 17-year-old black woman, for
$400. Within six blocks from Vesey's home on Bull Street, there were
four Afro-Americans on Beaufain Street who owned slave property. For
example, Richard Holloway, a carpenter, owned six slaves. The other
masters were Fanny Graham, one slave; Tissey Remoussin, one slave;
and Rachel Wells, five slaves. Even the next-door neighbors of
Denmark Vesey eventually purchased slaves. At 6 Bull Street, Sophia
Kinlock, the mulatto wife of Richmond Kinlock, bought Peggy, a 12-
year-old black girl, for $300 in 1822. And Robert Smyth, a mulatto
carpenter, who lived about two or four houses from Denmark Vesey at
15 Bull Street, owned six slaves in 1820."

Although a few of the Negro masters who lived in the immediate

vicinity of Denmark Vesey may have owned relatives, they still were a
threat to the slave insurrection. Indeed, benevolent masters were
committed to preserving the nominal freedom they granted their slave
relatives and would not chance such an extreme action. If the
revolution failed, their loved ones, who were legally defined as slaves,
could be confiscated and sold by creditors or seized as vacant property
when there were no legal heirs. There was also the threat of execution
for the free black rebels. Whether benevolent or commercial, the Negro
masters of Charleston would not support a slave rebellion. And
Denmark Vesey knew it and tried to avoid them. The success of the
revolution demanded absolute loyalty, warranting the exclusion of the
Negro elite and most of the free black community.

In fact, none of the lieutenants of Denmark Vesey were free

persons of color. His closest confidants were Gullah Jack, Monday
Gell, Peter Poyas, Rolla Bennett, Mingo Harth, and Mingo's son, all of
whom were slaves. Few free Negroes were willing to risk their own
freedom and kill hundreds of whites to secure liberty for the masses of
black folk. Many in the free black community could not fathom such a
radical reaction. Others doubted that Vesey could garner the support
necessary from the slave community to accomplish a successful
revolution. When Adam, a free person of color, was approached and
told about the insurrection, he did not believe Vesey could muster the
bodies needed to take Charleston. And Edward Johnson, a free Negro,
would not join the revolution until it had started. Indeed, Johnson was a
rarity. Most free Negroes were concerned about their own daily lives
and did not conspire with slaves. 16

Even within the slave community, there was much reluctance

about the insurrection. Several slaves told Vesey or his lieutenants that
they would have nothing to do with the plot. Some were concerned
about killing their masters and chose not to join the slave rebels. Others
were concerned about the indiscriminate killing of women and
children. Still others were convinced the rebels would be suppressed by
whites and executed. Despite the reluctance of many slaves, the
insurrection was kept from the knowledge of white Charlestonians for
nearly four years.

Eventually the reluctance of one slave led to betrayal. On

Saturday, May 25, 1822, William Paul, a cohort of Denmark Vesey, had
a chance encounter with Peter Desverneys, the mulatto slave of Colonel
J.C. Prioleau. Paul attempted to convince the slave to join the ranks of
the rebels. Desverneys, a contented slave, rebuked the rebel. Yet the
encounter with William Paul worried the loyal servant of Colonel
Prioleau. Burdened by the information Paul had given him, he finally
sought the counsel of a free mulatto named William Penceel. Penceel
urged the slave to inform his master about the insurrection. Desverneys
rushed home to do so. Finding that his master was out of town, he
informed Prioleau's wife and son. When Colonel Prioleau returned
from his trip, Desverneys once again told his horrendous story and
shocked his master into immediate action. With deliberate haste,
Colonel Prioleau contacted the authorities. Peter Desverneys was
brought in to be questioned. After he told his story and alerted the local
officials, the first arrest was made. On May 30, William Paul was
arraigned. Paul confessed and implicated two of Vesey's lieutenants.
On May 31, Mingo Harth and Peter Poyas were arrested and
subsequently questioned. Under the close interrogation of the warden,
both men calmly denied the accusations made by William Paul and
were released.

Alarmed by the disclosures and the possibility of further linkage,

Vesey moved the date of the insurrection from July 14 to June 16. By
the second week of June 1822, the final preparations had been made to
capture the city of Charleston. Vesey and his cohorts gathered pikes,
bayonets, and daggers to be used as weapons when the assault took
place. They also planned to procure firearms from the local merchants.
The slave Bacchus Hammett boasted that he could acquire "a keg of
Powder ... and five hundred (500) muskets from his master's store on
the night of the 16th." Since the revolution was scheduled for Sunday
night, Denmark Vesey and his lieutenants intended to use the day of
worship as a cover to spread the message of the insurrection to the
plantation slaves. On Saturday, June 15, Vesey provided the slave Jesse
with two dollars so that the slave could hire a horse and go to Johns
Island, where he would inform "the people to be down on the night of
the 16th." Also, Frank, another slave rebel, had recruited slaves from
four plantations and hoped to lead them into the city. With the
assistance of the slave barbers of Charleston City, the rebels were
provided with wigs and whiskers to conceal their identities when the
arsenal would be seized. A few days before the planned revolution,
Vesey even wrote a letter to the leaders of Santo Domingo and
requested the aid of the black Jacobins. With weapons, manpower, and
perhaps the moral support of the slaves of Charleston, the revolution
was scheduled to start. At the stroke of midnight, Vesey and the slave
rebels proposed to descend on the city while Charlestonians were sound
asleep. In the stillness of night, havoc would be wreaked. Freedom
would be bestowed on the black masses -freedom obtained by the blood
of divine vengeance."

But even as Vesey gathered his followers for an imminent strike,

the conspiracy was unraveling. When the Charleston authorities could
not get William Paul to deny his story, they decided to continue their
investigation and employed the slave George Wilson as a spy. While
attending the conference of the slave rebels, he confirmed the gravest
horrors of white Charlestonians. A slave insurrection really was
planned and was scheduled for June 16. With the information provided
by George Wilson, the city of Charleston was under siege. Governor
Bennett communicated with John C. Calhoun, the Secretary of War,
and requested federal troops. By June 16, five military companies,
commanded by Robert Hayne, patrolled the streets of Charleston."

The evidence gathered by George Wilson permitted the local

authorities to locate and arrest the rebel leaders. Within two days, ten
slaves were arrested, including Peter Poyas, Batteau Bennett, Ned
Bennett, and Rolla Bennett. Between June 19 and June 27, there were
fifteen arrests made by the authorities. Indeed, Denmark Vesey was one
of the fifteen rebels arrested. He had evaded the patrols for six days
before he was captured at the house of his wife. While he was at large,
white Charlestonians were almost in a state of panic. Doors were
locked. Slave masters questioned their loyal servants and wondered if
they were black Jacobins. By July 2, all of the rebel leaders were
captured and held in jail.39

While in jail, the rebels were placed in chains and kept isolated
fr om their cohorts. Long into the night, they were interrogated or
tortured in an attempt to force them to implicate others. But Denmark
Vesey and his lieutenants took an oath of silence. When Peter Poyas
was interrogated, he responded with only a "cryptic smile." With the
exception of Rolla Bennett and Monday Gell, all of the leaders
remained silent. For the most part, they maintained their composure
and prepared for death.40

Once the trials had started, it was only a matter of time before
Vesey and his followers would be executed. Yet they faced the gallows
with courage. While a crowd of white Charlestonians waited for the
executions to commence, Peter Poyas challenged the other blacks: "Do
not open your lips; die silent, as you shall see me do!"•' Denmark
Vesey showed his followers in life how to be a proud black man, urging
the slaves to be men and to take their freedom; he also showed them
how to die with conviction. When his last breath was taken, he had not
uttered a word against his companions.

As Charleston purged itself of the black rebels, there were 35

slaves executed. By the end of July, more than 30 blacks were deported
from the state. The local authorities prohibited the black sympathizers
from dressing in black or wearing black crape to mourn the dead. The
bodies of the rebels were given to the city surgeons for dissection.
Although the rebels suffered death without accomplishing their
objective, they died knowing that a major effort had been made to seize
their freedom. But fate had crushed their hopes of liberty, and death
was the only reward for them. While death claimed their bodies, their
images were implanted in the psyche of Charlestonians for decades
after the planned revolution.42

The white authorities praised the loyalty of the three

AfroAmericans who had betrayed the revolution and saved Charleston
from a bloody uprising. Had not Peter Desverneys mentioned the plot
to William Penceel, and had Penceel not urged the slave to expose the
conspiracy, all of Charleston would have felt the wrath of the black
masses. For the information he provided, Peter Desverneys was
manumitted by the state assembly and awarded the annual sum of $50.
William Penceel was exempted from the free Negro capitation tax and
received a reward of $1,000. And George Wilson was given his
freedom and a yearly pension of $50.03

Little is known about the mulatto informers beyond the fact that
they betrayed their own race. Why did they expose Denmark Vesey?
Did they sympathize with the white slavers? When the two slaves were
freed, how did the free Negro community treat them? Were they
ostracized for their treachery? These are just a few of the questions
which have remained unanswered. But by profiling the lives of Peter
Desverneys, George Wilson, and William Penceel, some answers might
be found.

As the slave of Colonel J.C. Prioleau, Peter Desverneys was a

trusted house servant. Apparently the 32-year-old mulatto was
contented with his status as property. When recruited to join the
uprising of Denmark Vesey, the slave replied that he was "satisfied
with my condition, that I was grateful to my master for his kindness
and wished no change." Yet, when freedom was offered to the so-called
satisfied slave, he took his liberty with little hesitation. Perhaps
Desverneys betrayed Denmark Vesey because he wanted his freedom
and perceived the slave revolt as an impossible method of obtaining
liberty. Rather than being the loyal slave portrayed in the court
testimony, he was a pragmatic man who saw the opportunity of
achieving freedom by performing a heroic deed; therefore he betrayed
Denmark Vesey. If Desverneys had been a dedicated slave, he would
not have taken his freedom but would have remained the loyal servant
of his master. Undoubtedly, he wanted his freedom just as much as any
slave and betrayed the black masses to obtain his own liberty.
Regardless of his motives, he was freed from slavery on December 25,
1822, and joined the community of free Afro-Americans."

As a free man, he was not ostracized by the Negro elite. In fact,

Peter Desverneys married Sarah A. Cole, the widowed wife of the
deceased John Cole and the daughter of Sally Seymour, the renowned
pastry cook of Charleston City. His marriage made him the brother-in-
law of William W. Seymour, a member of the Brown Fellowship
Society and a tavern keeper, who owned eight slaves in 1842. His
sister-in-law was Eliza Lee, the proprietor of the Mansion House and
later of the Jones Inn. Eliza Lee also was the owner of a slave named
Summer in 1825. The marriage of Peter Desverneys established
influential connections with the elite members of the free Negro
society. Furthermore, the marriage indicates that he was not shunned by
the elite Negroes. After all, many of the mulatto elite were commercial
slaveowners. Men like James Brown, George Charnock, William
Cooper, John L. Francis, Richard Holloway, Thomas Inglis, Jehu Jones,
John Lee, Richard Moore, and William Penceel probably praised the
former slave because he protected their slave property and perhaps
their lives. He also uplifted the position of the free mulattoes in the
eyes of white aristocrats. By and large, the Negro elite viewed Peter
Desverneys as a hero."

By 1840, Peter Desverneys had strengthened his ties to the white

power structure. In that year, he was reported as the head of a
household which contained six slaves. Out of the six slaves that he
owned, two were the servants Alfred Sanders and Lavinia Cole, who
were married on December 21, 1837. In the latter part of 1838, his
slaveholding increased when Lavinia Cole Sanders gave birth to a
healthy little boy named George. Apparently Peter Desverneys used the
adult slaves as laborers. It is likely that Alfred Sanders worked as a
dray driver while Lavinia Cole Sanders was hired out. Whatever the
labor of the slaves may have been, they were property. And Peter
Desverneys did not let his slaves forget that fact. Indeed, the cold
reality of ownership became quite clear to Alfred and Lavinia Sanders
when, in 1849, Peter Desverneys sold the 9-year-old son of the slave
couple for $325. The sale must have devastated the couple. But Peter
Desverneys either needed the cash or wanted to assert his power over
the slave parents. Without question, Desverneys was a commercial
slave master. In his will, he ordered his executors to "sell the said Slave
[Lavinia Cole Sanders] with the issue and increase at public auction
and execute [a] good and sufficient Bill of sale." However, the sale was
conditioned to take place after the death of his wife. When the 72-year-
old mulatto died, his wife collected the wages of Lavinia Cole Sanders
and appropriated the money for her own benefit. As late as July 1863,
she received the wages of her slave, which amounted to $21. With the
ownership of slave property, Peter Desverneys had a direct interest in
preserving the peculiar institution. Despite being a former slave, he
still acquired human chattel and treated them no better or worse than
the typical white master. Perhaps the fact that he was a mulatto
shielded him from the reality of his actions. After all, he was not
exploiting a fellow mulatto. Maybe slavery was only a business and a
means of earning a livelihood. Whatever reasons may have prompted
him to acquire slaves, he was a brown master with the soul of a white
slaver.46

Undoubtedly Peter Desverneys was proud of his life. Indeed, he

thought so highly of his betrayal of Denmark Vesey that it was
mentioned in his will. A few years before his death, he even petitioned
the state assembly to increase the annual pension given to him. In the
petition, he flaunted the virtue of his action and reminded the
legislators what could have happened if he had kept silent. For the most
part, Peter Desverneys typified the mulatto elite of Charleston City.
Totally removed from the masses of black folk, he only wanted to deal
with dark-skinned people in a master-slave relationship.07

The case of George Wilson was quite a different story. According

to the death records of Charleston City, he was a dark-skinned man and
may have sympathized with the black masses. But he was 46 years old
when Denmark Vesey made the leap of faith towards freedom. Fearing
liberty would never be obtained for himself or his family, he saw an
opportunity to gain freedom. It is not known whether he was the only
slave approached with the prospect of spying on Denmark Vesey or
why he was chosen, but his act of betrayal was rewarded with
emancipation. On Christmas Day of 1825, he referred to himself as
George Watkins. Yet his freedom could not George Wilson brought
him, not only the security of knowing he never would be sold, but the
responsibility of a free man and a new name. In 1825, he referred to
himself as George Watkin. Yet his freedom could not be totally
enjoyed because his family was owned by L.S. Campbell. Unlike Peter
Desverneys, he had a wife and a son who were slaves. Working as a
skilled artisan, he saved enough money to buy his loved ones for $100
in 1825. In 1830, his wife, Jenny, and their son, Sampson, were
reported on the census as his slaves.08 Holding the legal title to his
loved ones troubled him. Knowing their nominal freedom could be
protected only while he himself was living, he was faced with a major
dilemma. The only way he could free his family was to petition the
state assembly and ask for a deed of manumission. In 1835, he made
the formal request, but it was turned down by the special committee of
the judiciary. By 1840 he continued to own his wife and children as
well as five grandchildren. Perhaps the stress and worry of owning
loved ones caused him to lose his sanity. In March 1848, he went
insane and died. The records suggest that George Wilson, unlike Peter
Desverneys, was a benevolent master who held only family members
and did not buy slaves for profit. Apparently, he only wanted freedom
and viewed his part in the thwarted insurrection as a means of obtaining
liberty for himself and family.49

But the reason William Penceel thwarted the slave uprising

centered on the simple fact that he was a slaveowner for profit. As early
as 1808, he was the owner of the slave woman Bella. In 1814, he
purchased Stephen, an 8-year-old black boy, for $180. According to the
census of 1820, he was the owner of two slaves, probably Bella and
Stephen. Apparently William Penceel used the slave boy, who was 14
years old in 1820, as an apprentice in his tin plate business. Later, the
mulatto tin maker purchased a 20-yearold black woman named Nancy.
For William Penceel, the slave rebellion represented a threat to his
property. As the editor of the Charleston Courier observed, the right of
slaveownership by free Negroes gave them "a stake in the institution of
slavery" and made it "[their] interest as well as [their] duty to uphold
it." Perhaps the editor of the Courier was referring to William Penceel.
Without question, William Penceel feared the slave insurrection headed
by Denmark Vesey, and he persuaded Peter Desverneys to disclose the
conspiracy so that his slave property would be protected.so

Perhaps William Penceel was also plagued by a more subliminal

fear of being submerged into a sea of blackness. Penceel was a mulatto
a n d a member of the exclusive Brown Fellowship Society, and he
probably adhered to the mulatto doctrine of separation from the black
masses. If Charleston had become a Santo Domingo, what would have
happened to the mulattoes of wealth? He probably weighed that
question throughout the discovery of the conspiracy. He knew the
destiny of the elite mulattoes of free status if the revolution of
Denmark Vesey succeeded. Throughout the city of Charleston, there
were free mulattoes who sought refuge from the revolution in Santo
Domingo. They served as a symbol of the dangers of servile
insurrection. Many of the mulatto emigrants from Santo Domingo lost
property which consisted of land and slaves. Consequently, they viewed
the black revolution of Toussaint L'Ouverture as their ruin. Although
William Penceel was not born in Santo Domingo, his neighbors once
lived in the former French colony. Within a few blocks from the home
of William Penceel, which was located on Logan Street, lived two
mulatto women who had once lived in Santo Domingo. At 11
LegareStreet, Maria Rose Derac resided with her stepdaughter, along
with four black females of slave status who were owned by the mulatto
woman. And on 48 Tradd Street, which was within walking distance of
Penceel's home, lived Francoise Perrier. Since the free mulatto
community was quite small and close-knit, it is likely that William
Penceel not only knew Maria Rose Derac and Francoise Perrier but was
close friends with the two colored women. The women probably
informed him of the conditions in Santo Domingo and told him the
reasons for their flight from the island. Santo Domingo was not
amicable to white or brown masters. But more importantly, the status
of free mulattoes was threatened by the masses of black people, whose
interests were not always similar to those of the mulatto elite of Santo
Domingo. The prospect of black revolution in Charleston was seen by
William Penceel as the second coming of Toussaint L'Ouverture. He
perceived the Denmark Vesey conspiracy as a threat to his position
within the Southern hierarchy. Although the mulatto elite was below
the status of white persons, they had the right to own property and to
file suit in court. The prospect of rule by the slaves who were owned by
t h e mulatto elite meant submersion within the black masses and
perhaps a lower status in the new social order. The fear of such
submersion may have haunted William Penceel and caused him to side
with the white slaveowners."

Regardless of his motives, William Penceel benefitted from his

r o l e in the dismal defeat of Denmark Vesey and the slaves of
Charleston. By proclamation of the state assembly, he was awarded
$1,000 and exempted from the capitation tax which was imposed on
adult free Negroes. Demonstrating his commitment to the peculiar
institution, he used part of his bounty to purchase slaves. On January
16, 1823, he bought Sukey and her two children, Thorn and Harriet, for
$700. The purchase occurred within one month after the reward was
provided by the state legislature. By April 1825, Penceel owned an
estate valued at $3,234. The estate consisted of five slaves and a house
on Logan Street. Nearly one-third of his wealth was attributed to the
bounty for betraying Denmark Vesey.12
 While many within the slave community viewed William Penceel
as an enemy and a traitor, he remained a respected and honorable man
to the mulatto elite and the white citizens of Charleston City. A
member of the Brown Fellowship Society, he faced no movement to
expel him from the elite fraternity of free mulattoes. On the contrary,
he was part of a colored society dominated by slave masters, who
viewed his role in exposing the slave rebellion as a responsible
reaction. Needless to say, white Charlestonians praised him. They
perceived him as a safe Negro. He was a respectable mulatto who
served as a buffer between the white masters and the black majority of
Charleston City. To demonstrate their gratitude, white Charlestonians
signed a petition to allow the brother of William Penceel to enter the
state as a free man of color. Sometime after the slave conspiracy,
Charles Penceel had left the state and traveled to the North, where he
visited friends. But the Act of 1822, which was passed before his visit,
denied him the privilege of returning to South Carolina. Fearing he
would be exiled for life, he sought the aid of his brother. William
Penceel then used his influence to garner the support of the white
aristocrats of Charleston City. With pressure from an array of
influential citizens, the state assembly passed the statute which
permitted Charles Penceel to reenter the state. S' On December 17,
1824, the bill numbered 2351 declared:

whereas it appears by the testimonials of many of the good

citizens of ... Charleston, that the said Charles Pencil is a
person of good character and belongs to a family who have
done much public service in the deletion of the late servile
rebellion of Charleston ... the said Charles Pencil [shall] be ...
permitted to return to ... this State."

Although William Penceel received the support of influential

white friends, if he had not exposed the Denmark Vesey conspiracy, he
would not have acquired the special bill. The state assembly did not
reverse the statute which prohibited free blacks from entering or
reentering the state after the passage of the bill for Charles Penceel. For
example, Jehu Jones, Sr., the respected owner of the Jones' Inn, was
denied the right to return to the state despite the aid of prominent
whites of Charleston City. In many cases, the respect that William
Penceel had among the white aristocracy could not be matched by the
wealthiest free mulattoes of South Carolina."

The advantages William Penceel enjoyed did not filter down to

the free Negro community in general. Despite the fact that a free Negro
helped to dispel the slave plot, the state assembly moved to restrict the
free AfroAmerican community. On December 1, 1822, the state
legislators passed a statute which forced free Negro males above the
age of 15 to take a white guardian or be sold into slavery. Although the
law was not enacted until June of 1823, free Negroes wasted little time
in finding guardians. On March 8, 1823, Thomas Siah Bonneau elicited
the aid of William Dewees, Jr., to serve as his guardian. On that same
date, Edward Carews agreed to serve as the guardian of James Brown.
About four weeks later, Malcolm Brown, the son of Bishop Brown, was
able to secure H.H. Bacot as his guardian. At first the role of the white
guardian was to attest to the character of the free Negro. Eventually, it
developed into a protective role where the guardians defended the
liberty of free Negroes from swindlers who sought to enslave them.
However, the state viewed the guardian system as a means of
controlling the free Negro community. First of all, the local authorities
had a record of free Negro males and where they resided. Also, if the
free Afro-American did not behave himself or lost his guardian, the
colored person could be forced into slavery if another white guardian
was not found. The Act of 1822 also called for the enslavement of free
Negroes who left the state and tried to return. Finally, those free Afro-
Americans born outside of the state who were not residents in 1817 had
to pay an annual tax of $50 or face enslavement. 16

By late 1822 and early 1823, repression against free Negroes came
not only from the state assembly but from the local authorities of
Charleston City. Once the slave conspiracy was discovered, a mob of
white Charlestonians burned the African Methodist Church to the
ground. The local authorities also forced Bishop Maurice Brown to flee
the state or face enslavement, even though it was proven he had nothing
to do with the slave conspiracy. As the panic swelled, vigilante
associations patrolled the streets of Charleston and strongly enforced
the laws which controlled free Negroes."

For the most part, white Charlestonians spoke loudly but enacted
nothing extreme. A petition presented by the working class declared
that free Negroes and slaves shared a common bond. The petition stated
that the two groups were "associated by color, connected by marriages
and friend ships." It went on to say that "free Negroes have parents,
brothers, sisters and children, who are slaves; should an insurrection
occur, they would have every inducement to join it." After condemning
the free Negro community, the petition asked that Afro-Americans be
denied the right to own property. Other citizens demanded the complete
banishment of the free Negro caste. Many of the strongest critics of
free Negroes came from the working class of Charleston, which
competed with free AfroAmericans. They would have been the
benefactors of any extreme measures against free Negroes. But calmer
heads prevailed."

Astute Charlestonians were aware that free Negroes served as a

buffer zone between white masters and slaves. Contrary to the opinion
o f the working class of Charleston, which viewed free Negroes as a
threat, the aristocrats saw the division within the Afro-American
community and sought to exploit the schism. As Edwin C. Holland
observed, "Most [free mulattoes] are industrious, sober, hard-working
mechanics, who have large families and considerable property: and ...
abhor the idea of an association with the blacks in any enterprise that
may have for its object revolution." He went on to say, "The greater
part of them own slaves themselves, and are, therefore, so far interested
in this species of property, as to keep them in the watch, and induce
them to disclose any plans that may be injurious to our peace." Like
Holland, white aristocrats of Charleston maintained that free Negroes
supported the Southern system and were a safe class of loyal residents.
Many of the aristocracy viewed the free Negro community as a useful
entity which protected the interest of white slaveowners. Well-to-do
Charlestonians therefore supported the existence of free Afro-
Americans. After the slave plot was uncovered, Governor Thomas
Bennett refused to implicate the free Negro community. He suggested
that the threat to the security of the citizens of Charleston came from
outside agitators. 19

Nevertheless, one member of the "safe" free black community

broke with his class and fought against the Southern system of slavery.
What caused Denmark Vesey to rebel when so many in the free
AfroAmerican community chose a safer course? Being a free black and
a man of wealth, Denmark Vesey had much to lose; yet he instigated
the slave conspiracy. Many within the power structure of Charleston
could not understand why he had organized the rebellion. Judge Lionel
H. Kennedy commented, "It is difficult to imagine what infatuation
could have prompted you to attempt an enterprise so wild and
visionary." Although the danger of discovery was quite high, Denmark
Vesey felt the urgent need to free all of his people. Other free blacks
wanted to achieve the goal of freedom, but they did not attempt such a
radical plan. Determining what separated Denmark Vesey from the
rank and file of free blacks may answer the question posed by Judge
Kennedy.60
 Although Denmark Vesey shared a common heritage with the free
blacks of Charleston, he was not born within the Southern society but
nurtured in the bosom of Africa. Perhaps his African experience made a
difference. Memories of Africa were fresh in Vesey's mind. He recalled
his capture and forced exile from the continent. In the year of 1781, he
was one of 390 blacks who saw freedom slowly slip away. On a slave
ship bound for Santo Domingo, he appeared to be destined for oblivion.
B u t fate delivered him from the realm of obscurity. There was
something special about the 14-year-old slave boy. Perhaps a certain
sparkle in the slave boy's eyes caught the fancy of Captain Vesey, who
kept him as a cabin boy. Even though he was sold to a Santo Domingo
planter, he was later reunited with Captain Vesey and became the
property of the old man. For 20 years, he was the slave of Captain
Vesey. During his servitude, he traveled to Africa, Santo Domingo, and
the state of South Carolina. Denmark Vesey was a privileged slave
whose master treated him with compassion. He was even taught to read
and write. But he was still property, and he wanted to be free. In 1800,
fortune smiled on Denmark Vesey when he won the (East Bay Street)
lottery and purchased his freedom.''

Yet the experiences of Denmark Vesey were not so very different

from those of his free black counterparts who chose not to join him and
fight for freedom. Within the free population of black Charleston, there
were other Africans who were stolen from the land of their parents, yet
they were not compelled to challenge the system of slavery. For
example, Aberdeen Forrest was born in West Africa, but his life was
similar to that of most free Negroes. Although he was opposed to
slavery, he chose a peaceful course which centered around the
acquisition of family members who remained in bondage. Working as a
cooper, he saved enough money to buy the freedom of his wife Bess in
1809. By 1820 he owned four slaves who probably were related to him.
Other Africans joined the ranks of the free black community and
became what the aristocracy of Charleston called the "safe" class. In
February 1801, Zamie, a woman of African birth, bought the 14-year-
old girl Angelique. About ten months later, she purchased Victor for
$700.62 As an owner of slave property, Zamie was not a threat to the
institution of slavery.

Actually, domestic slavery was quite common in West Africa.

Although the system of African slavery was not as exploitative as the
institution established by Europeans, it was still forced servitude. In
fact, in the parish of St. Thomas & St. Dennis, there lived a family of
African-born slavers who owned more than 100 slaves in 1800. Two
members of the African family were active in the slave trade when the
state assembly reopened the commerce in human chattel. Apparently,
the common bond of African birth did not unite the small number of
free blacks who were born on the continent. Furthermore, the African
birth of Denmark Vesey did not cause him to despise slavery. His
hatred of slavery was a product of 20 years of bondage."

However, even having known the chains of slavery did not prompt
other black Charlestonians of free status to join the ranks of the rebels.
Many of the former slaves had had kind masters who had permitted
them to purchase their freedom. Others were related to their owners by
ties of kinship. Within that segment of the former slave population,
there was little of the bitterness that characterized Denmark Vesey.
Others remembered the humiliation of slavery but did not care to
jeopardize their freedom, which was too sweet to risk.

Once freed, the former slaves were concerned about earning a

livelihood rather than instigating a slave uprising. For 18 years,
Denmark Vesey was preoccupied with his trade. Vesey was a skilled
carpenter. Catering to the whites of Charleston, he accumulated a
modest estate. By 1819 he was the owner of a house on Bull Street. His
wealth was estimated at $3,000.64 Vesey typified the free black
artisans in that he was hardworking and thrifty. From sunup until
sundown, artisans like Vesey worked and maintained their freedom,
and a few accumulated wealth which surpassed that of many white
Charlestonians. Even the estate amassed by Denmark Vesey was more
valuable than most of the working men of Charleston, white or black.

Yet Denmark Vesey's wealth did not draw him towards the slave
masters of Charleston. Vesey saw slavery as an oppressive institution
and abstained from the purchasing of slaves for profit when so many of
his race were acquiring slave laborers. With his wealth, he could easily
have purchased slaves, but racial pride ran through his veins.

From 1800 to 1822, Denmark Vesey witnessed the abuses of

slavery. He saw the separation of husbands from wives and parents
from children. He saw urban slaves sold to rice planters. While reading
the local newspapers, he came across the advertisements of masters
who reported runaway slaves. He also read the advertisements which
sold black men and women. Perhaps more importantly, he observed the
subservient manner which both slaves and free blacks were forced to
assume. Slavery was a vivid nightmare for Denmark Vesey, who could
not forget his past or ignore the plight of the black majority of
Charleston City.

Although Denmark Vesey was a free man, he was closely

connected with the slave community. At a time when countless free
Negroes were trying to separate from the black masses and to cast their
lot with the slave masters, he chose a radical alternative. Disregarding
the opinions of white Charlestonians, who disapproved of interaction
between free blacks and slaves, he associated with the servant class.
His intimate friends were slaves. He worked with slaves. He attended
the African Methodist Church, which had a congregation consisting of
slaves and a few free blacks. But, more importantly, he sympathized
with the slaves of Charleston. His commitment was so strong that he
refused to emigrate to West Africa when free blacks like George
Creighton supported the exodus and eventually left Charleston for the
promised land. Vesey concluded that African repatriation could not
solve the problems of the majority of black folk. Their plight would be
the same.61 His concern about the slaves of Charleston was fervent,
and he cast his lot with them.

What kept Denmark Vesey so committed to the slave community?

The free black rebel was wealthy and lived a comfortable existence.
Vesey himself recalled that he was contented with his life. But a very
personal concern transformed him from a nonviolent opponent of
slavery to a violent rebel who called for the destruction of slavery. Like
many of the free blacks of Charleston, Vesey had family members who
were slaves. Despite the wealth he accumulated, he could not acquire
the freedom of loved ones. Perhaps he tried to buy the liberty of his
wife and children but was turned down. Whatever the reasons that
denied him the acquisition of loved ones, their bondage haunted him.
As he saw his son grow from a small boy into manhood, his hatred of
slavery intensified. Frustrated and embittered, the 55-year-old black
man knew his life was gradually ending. He was old, but his children
were young and had not tasted liberty. Furthermore, they would never
be free if something drastic were not done. On a dark night in 1818,
Denmark Vesey planned an insurrection which would free not only his
family but all the slaves of Charleston. Appealing to the desire to have
the comfort of one's wife and children, he persuaded slaves who were
privileged bondsmen to join the revolution. As the cohorts of Vesey
recalled, the revolution was for the children who might never be free.
What made Denmark Vesey burn with such hatred that he planned to
annihilate all of white Charleston was the simple love of a father for his
children. His radicalism was born out of the desire to see loved ones
freed from bondage. That love caused him to risk much, for greater
than the risk was the anticipated reward-the liberty of his family and
the black masses.66

One may ask, why did not the love of slave relations cause the
other free Negroes of Charleston to join the ranks of the black rebel?
Many of the elite Negroes had already obtained the freedom of one or
more loved ones and firmly believed that their remaining kinsfolk
would be freed. Others were accumulating the capital to purchase slave
relatives and could not fathom such extreme actions. Even those of
marginal means believed that through patience and hard work, they
would acquire the freedom of loved ones. They saw hope in the dark
clouds of despair. Yet hope made up of accomodation, compromise,
and patience had not secured the family of Denmark Vesey. While most
free Negroes were sustained by hope, Vesey felt frustration and
desperation. Such feelings of hopelessness prompted radical measures,
and violence was the last alternative. Had not the overwhelming
majority of free black Charlestonians seen the light at the end of the
tunnel, they might have chosen a radical course of action and joined
Denmark Vesey. Despite having the privilege of freedom, if their loved
ones could not have been purchased, they might have been receptive to
the call for revolution. The security of family was worth the threat of
death and would have made men and women like Thomas S. Bonneau,
Maurice Brown, Sarah Edwards, Tissey Hawie, Lamb Stevens, and Ann
Snelling the black Jacobins of Charleston.61

Since the right to purchase loved ones was firmly established in

South Carolina, the stimulus needed to radicalize the free Negro
community of Charleston was absent. Although Denmark Vesey could
not buy the freedom of his loved ones, other free blacks did. White
Charlestonians knew that the ownership of slaves gave free Negroes a
stake in the system and the desire to preserve the old order. 68 Whether
the slaves were kinsfolk or workers, the black masters seldom called
for the overthrow of the Southern regime. Sharing a common interest in
slaveownership with white Charlestonians, free Negroes were separated
from the masses of black people. With a divided black majority, the
peculiar institution was protected from servile rebellions. By and large,
the Charleston of Denmark Vesey was a fragmented city where unity
within the black community was impossible.
 After the Civil War, free black masters no longer exploited the
labor of slaves. As a consequence of the war, the black slaveowners
were required to free their slaves; if they wanted to use the services of
workers, they had to make the transition from slaves to employees.
This transition was slow and difficult for the rural masters and marked
the death of the plantation system. The collapse of the institution of
slavery caused a decline in the amount of farm produce harvested by
former slave masters. As the ex-slaves began to assert their freedom,
few wanted to labor as they did before the war. As a result, farm
production declined, as did land acquisition by former black masters.
Furthermore, the problem of decreasing production was exacerbated by
the devastation of the war and by bad planting weather. For these
reasons, over 75 percent of the black slaveowners who cultivated
farmland in 1859 were not planting in 1869. In fact, not one of the
thirteen black masters who grew rice in 1859 planted the staple in 1869,
and by 1879, only one former colored slaveowner cultivated rice in
South Carolina. By and large, the war and the emancipation of the
slaves caused the collapse of the black slaveowning class of rice
planters as well as the large cotton planters.

Yet to the urban colored slaveholders, the death of slavery not

only ended a way of life but created a new one. With the conclusion of
the Civil War, many former slaveowners quickly adapted to the new
economy and prospered without regretting their loss of slaves.
Furthermore, the former colored slaveowners had several opportunities
thrust upon them, and they cast aside their slaveholding past and
entered a new world. Indeed, a few former slaveowners entered the
arena of politics and were elected to public offices. But some former
masters were bitter about the war and their loss of slaves. For them, the
seeds of their destruction were sown during the years before the Civil
War.

The political climate before the war was a threatening time for
f r e e blacks in South Carolina. As the patriots of the state were
preparing for war, they began to question the loyalty and the mere
existence of the free black community. Many South Carolinians saw
the opportunity to rid their communities of free blacks and used the
hysteria of the early 1860s to accomplish their goals. In December
1859, the state assembly debated the merits of a bill which would
enslave all free blacks, if they did not leave the state by the first of
March 1860.1 The prospered bill stipulated that the local sheriffs of the
several districts where free persons of color resided should sell them to
the highest bidders if they did not take a master. Whether free blacks
chose a master or were sold into bondage, they would be considered the
property of their buyers; thus they would not be entitled to own
property or even themselves. The proposed bill not only threatened the
freedom of the free black community but would have eliminated the
black slaveowning class; thus it caused great concern among the black
masters.

In Charleston City, James D. Johnson, a free black slaveowner and

a tailor, voiced his concern about the continued existence of the free
black community in South Carolina. On April 20, 1860, he wrote to
Henry Ellison, a colored master and a cotton planter of Sumter County,
describing the atmosphere in Charleston City.2 James D. Johnson
informed Henry Ellison that "the agitation has been so great as to cause
many to leave who were liable to the law of 1822 and the panic has
reached those whom that law cannot affect."' The concerns of Johnson
were based on the first and seventh sections of the Act of 1822. The
first section stipulated that all free persons of color who left South
Carolina for any amount of time and returned to the state would be
forced to leave their native soil or sold into bondage. The seventh
section required that all free coloreds have a white person to serve as a
guardian or they too would be forced into slavery. According to
Johnson, the Negrophobia of 1860 caused the Charleston officials to
strenuously enforce both sections of the statute. In fact, the colored
tailor said that "there are cases [in which] persons who for 30 years
[have been free] have to go back to bondage ... and for the consolation
of those who are exempted we are told this is the beginning, the next
session will windup the affairs of every free colored man and they will
have to leave."4

Many colored residents of Charleston City shared the anxieties

expressed by James D. Johnson. In fact, John Lee, a hotel owner of the
city, said that "it is plain now all must go."' By December 1860, a group
of colored persons were debating the merits of leaving the city and
emigrating to Haiti. While some discussed the possibility of flight,
others left the port city for the safety of the North. In the spring of
1860, James D. Johnson recalled that several free blacks were leaving
the city and heading to the Keystone State.6 Johnson was so afraid that
the situation would deteriorate that he concluded that "every property
holder will be glad to take what he can get unrespective of the value of
his property."' He feared that free black property owners would be
forced to sell their real estate and slaves and flee from the state,
because if the proposed bill was passed, they would lose their property
and freedom. By the summer of 1860, he gave in to his fears and fled
from the city. On August 7, he departed for Toronto, Canada, where
part of his family had resided for many years.'

Although the fears of James D. Johnson and many free blacks

were legitimate, the bill to enslave the free colored community did not
clear the Judicial Committee. The proposed bill was never voted on and
remained in the committee. As James M. Johnson, the son of James D.
Johnson, prophesied "nothing would be done affecting our position."9
He was quite right, because many colored persons were aligned with
prominent white citizens who protected their privileges. In fact, the
editors of the Charleston Mercury voiced their opposition to the
proposed bill. On November 24, 1860, the editors declared that "we
desire at once to enter our emphatic protest. We regard it as a measure
harsh in its policy and wholly unrequired by the public exigencies ..."10
A few days later, several citizens of Charleston City joined the protest
made by the Mercury and declared their disgust with the state
assembly.

To the Editor of the Charleston Mercury Permit us to join with

you in your "emphatic protest" against the Free Negro bill
published in your paper of Saturday. We do sincerely hope that
a measure so full of oppression and injustice will never be
found on the Statute books of South Carolina. For ourselves, we
can see neither the policy nor the necessity of such legislation
and think it well characterized by you as only "mischievous in
its effects" and "ill timed" in its promolgation. It is no doubt
true that we have bad free negroes amongst us, and so we have
bad white men; but as we keep the latter in check so we can the
former.

But we have also a considerable number of colored persons in

our community who are leading peacable, honest, and
industrious lives and who have the confidence and esteem of
our best citizens. Many of these have been born and grown up
with us and we are as well acquainted with those of any other
class. By honest and patient industry they have accumulated
more or less of property and some of them are inquite
comfortable circumstances ... consequently they have a stake in
t h e welfare of the community and everything to lose by
whatever trends to disturb or overthrew it.
 We regard them, therefore as a safe class of people, who will
keep their eyes and ears open to give us warning of any danger
and we should be both sorry and ashamed to see an act of the
legislature passed to reduce them to slavery or to drive them
with ruinous haste from our borders ..."

Many prominent citizens like Christopher Gustavious

Memminger, an influential lawyer and politician of Charleston County,
believed that the free black community served a useful role and
protected the interest of slaveowners. Since many of the well-to-do
colored persons were slave masters and landholders, the whites
concluded that the free black elite would join them in support of the
institution of slavery. At the outbreak of the Civil War, the lines were
drawn by the free black populace and the views of white supporters of
the colored community seemed accurate.'2

On April 12, 1861, the threat to the colored masters was not the
Negrophobia of the previous year, but the prospect of war. It was on
that date that the attack on Fort Sumter occurred and the beginning
stages of the Civil War had started. The black masters saw the
opportunity to affirm their commitment to South Carolina and sided
with the white slaveowners. A group of free blacks from Charleston
City, including a number of colored slaveowners, issued the following
statement: "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 you ... our allegiance is due to
South Carolina and in her defense, we will offer up our lives, and all
that is dear to us."13 The sentiments of the Charleston black
slaveowners were shared by the black masters of other counties. For
example, William Ellison, a cotton planter and the owner of 63 slaves,
offered his aid to the Confederate Army in Sumter County. According
to Thomas S. Sumter, a resident of Sumter County, the sons of William
Ellison offered their services to the Confederacy, but were not allowed
to enter the army because of their color.14

As the Confederate Army began to make successful advances in

t h e summer of 1862, the black masters continued their farming
operations with slave labor. However, like their white counterparts, the
black masters were faced with the dilemma of declining cotton
production. In the rebelling Southern states, production went from 4.5
million bales in 1861 to 1.5 million bales in 1862, largely as a result of
the war economy, which stressed the cultivation of corn and other
foodstuffs rather than cotton. The naval blockade by the Union forces
and the lack of adequate capital also contributed to the decline. Indeed,
even before the blockade became successful, the Confederate
government withheld all cotton from the Southern ports. The Southern
leaders believed that if they restricted the exportation of the staple, the
European nations would provide the South with military aid in order to
maintain the supply of cotton. Even when the supply of cotton was
moderate, the planters could not ship their crops to foreign markets.
For example, in the winter of 1860-1861, Henry Ellison of Sumter
County kept in storage 100 bales of cotton that he could not sell
because of the restrictions of the war."

By 1863 it was becoming apparent to the black masters that it was

only a matter of time before their valuable slave property would be
f r e e d . Even before President Lincoln issued his Emancipation
Proclamation on January 1, 1863, he declared his intentions of freeing
the slaves in the rebellious Southern states if the South did not cease in
the military campaign against the North. The proposed emancipation by
the president was met with vicious opposition from Southerners. In
November 1862, Governor Francis W. Pickens of South Carolina
declared that "the infamous proclamation" would "produce none of the
effects intended by its vulgar author." Yet the fear that the
proclamation would lead to the de facto emancipation of the slaves was
apparent when he said that "to protect ourselves from any effort
instigated by the deluded or ignorant I would urge the immediate
organization of a large State Police Guard under the direct command of
the Governor, to be ordered out at such times and in such Districts as he
may think proper, to be kept at least for some months in actual daily
duty to give a feeling of safety to the helpless."16 Many Southerners
feared that the Emancipation Proclamation would cause their slaves to
take their freedom. But until the Union forces were within striking
distance, prospects of actual emancipation were remote.

As the tide of the war changed, the hopes for a Southern victory
were becoming less of a reality. With the Confederate Army's failure at
Gettysburg, the Confederacy had lost its offensive thrust and was
forced to fight a defensive war which could only result in the defeat of
the South.

As the war began to turn, so did the fortunes of the black masters.
Clearly, the war made life difficult and harsh on the farms and
plantations owned by colored slaveholders. Shortages of food and
clothing became common on most plantations. In many areas of the
state, there were shortages of salt which affected the ration of meat
because the planters could not preserve their food over a great length of
time. In March 1864, for example, Henry Ellison, a colored cotton
planter from Sumter County, was confronted with a shortage of salt. In
order to receive a supply of salt, he solicited the aid of a colored friend
in Charleston City.

Many of the slaveowners were the victims of either the

Confederate or the Union soldiers, who pillaged their livestock and
caused many of the shortages. In Charleston County, Sarah Boag, a free
black and a slaveowner, lost nearly all of her livestock during the war
years. Before the conflict between the states, she owned 25 cows, 45
sheep, 70 swine, and 75 head of cattle, but after the Civil War, all her
remaining livestock consisted of a single mule, 3 cows, and 3 working
oxen.

As the war raged on, shortages of meat and other foodstuffs were
not the only dilemma faced by the colored masters. Even the wealthiest
colored masters could not always purchase clothing for their families
and slaves. Quite often the slave masters employed their female slaves
to make homespun clothing. Yet a few masters were able to buy their
clothing from merchants in Charleston City. In 1864, Selina Wilkinson
bought a calico dress for $30 and in that same year, a pair of shoes for
$40."

As the colored slaveowners saw the effects of shortages reduce

their farm and plantation operations, there were few, if any, who did
not question the existence of the peculiar institution and their role as
slaveowners. Many black masters began to reassess that role. Others
sought to liquidate their human chattel. In the summer of 1863, Joseph
Sasportas, a butcher of Charleston City, sold his 40-year-old slave
named Maria to Fanny Northrop for $300. Surely the concerns of
Joseph Sasportas caused him to sell one of his six slaves when the tide
of the war began to turn. Other colored slaveowners liquidated all of
their slave property that they held before the Union Army forced them
to emancipate their slaves." In January of 1863, the administrators of
the deceased William W. Seymour sold for $3,080 the following three
slaves: Allen, 20 years old; Diana, 18 years old; and Joe, 10 years old.
After the sale, the money was divided between the deceased man's
children. Apparently, the administrators of the deceased believed that it
was unwise to divide the slaves themselves between Seymour's heirs,
because if the South lost the war, they would be relieved of their
property without compensation. As the war continued to worsen for the
Confederacy, other colored masters probably attempted to sell their
slave property but could not find a willing buyer because the Union
Army was advancing towards South Carolina. 19

Yet even as the Confederacy was falling into disarray, many of

the black masters refused to sell their slaves, while others chose not to
grant their servants nominal freedom. As late as 1864, there were 81
colored slave masters who owned 241 slaves in Charleston City. Many
of these slaveowners used their slaves as workers and did not intend to
emancipate them. In July 1864, for example, Selina Wilkinson, the
widow of Francis L. Wilkinson, placed her servants in the local
workhouse when the rumors of their impending emancipation caused
discontent among them. Even well into the war years, several free
blacks acquired slaves for the first time. In 1863, Abigail H. Anderson,
a 17-year-old washerwoman, obtained two slaves and paid taxes
amounting to $6. Other slaveowners who did not own slaves until after
1862 were as follows: Ann Benjamin, four slaves; Amelia L. Cornwell,
four slaves; Rose Hill, one slave; Eliza Ann Portee, one slave; William
Purse, two slaves; and Charles Walker, two slaves.20 Although many of
the slave acquisitions during the 1860s were exploitative, there were
free blacks who purchased slaves for humanitarian reasons. On January
1, 1863, John Nelson, a free black of Charleston City, purchased his
daughter Josephine from John S. Ryan for $500. Even after the
Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln
and the decree went into effect, free blacks continued to purchase
slaves. On January 20, 1863, John L. Francis, a free black and a barber
of Charleston City, bought a 10-year-old slave boy named Joe for $500.
By 1864, four new slaveowners were added to the tax list of colored
persons who paid duties on slave property. These colored slave masters
were Susan Curry, one slave; Maria Holwell, one slave; William Grant,
one slave; and Theresa Maxwell, three slaves. Apparently, free blacks
were not inhibited from buying slaves even as the collapse of the
rebelling South appeared imminent.31
 By the autumn of 1864, the troops of General William T. Sherman
were advancing toward South Carolina. In addition, Union forces of
some 5,000 men were ordered from the islands off the coast of South
Carolina to facilitate Sherman's advance. As the Union forces were
preparing to invade the city of Charleston, the Confederate Army began
hastily burning military stores. When the cloud of smoke began to rise,
the Union leaders on the Sea Islands concluded that the Confederate
troops were fleeing the city. They therefore ordered their soldiers to
occupy the Confederate stronghold. Among the invading troops were
the Twenty-First U.S. Colored Troops. When they reached the city, a
crowd of jubilant free blacks and slaves greeted the soldiers; but the
colored masters of Charleston perceived the invasion as apocalyptic
destruction rather than salvation.22

By the winter and early spring of 1865, other strongholds where

black masters resided had fallen to the Union Army. In February 1865,
Georgetown County was taken by the Union troops. Then Sumter
County, where the large black planters lived, fell in April 1865. As the
Union soldiers marched through South Carolina, they wreaked havoc
a n d destruction within the following counties: Camden, Cheraw,
Chesterfield, Darlington, Lancaster, Lexington, Orangeburgh, Richland,
and Winns boro. By the end of the spring, South Carolina was under the
control of the Union Army, and the job of reconstructing the state had
begun.21

As a result of the problems caused by the war, the Bureau of

Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands was established in March
1865. The Bureau attempted to aid the freedmen who were plagued by
the dislocation caused by the war and shortages of food and to assist the
slaves in signing labor contracts. The Bureau also aided the planters by
providing them with supplies to feed their former slaves. Upon the
conclusion of the war, many colored planters were unable to grow
enough foodstuffs for their families or former slaves."

Without the assistance of the Freedmen's Bureau, the family and

former slaves of Robert Michael Collins, a colored rice planter from
Georgetown County, would surely have starved. As a result of the
devastation of the war and the pillage of his plantation, he was unable
to feed his former slaves. The failure of the rice crops of 1865, 1866,
and 1867 complicated the problem. In fact, on March 14, 1867, a
Freedmen's Bureau official reported that "the last two years most of the
rice crops have failed some in some part others entirely and now I am
afraid that some of the planters cannot without great sacrifice feed their
laborers ..."2S His observations were quite correct, but for Robert
Michael Collins, the situation did not worsen until the summer of 1868.
As a result of his food shortages, he was forced to seek aid for his
laborers and their families from the Bureau.

On June 30, 1868, the agency issued one month of rations, which
consisted of 21.5 bushels of corn and 105 pounds of bacon, to Robert
Michael Collins. The amount of food issued suggests that at least two
o r three families remained on the Santee Plantation, which had
numbered 17 slaves before the Civil War. The rations sent to Collins
were not an act of benevolence by the federal government, but a loan
which had to be repaid. Indeed, a bill was sent along with the supplies
for the amount of $49.53. Collins attempted to plant rice to fulfill his
financial obligation.26

In spite of the small sum of money owed by Robert Michael

Collins, he could not repay the loan. On October 19, 1868, Wesley
Markwood, the clerk of the local Freedmen's Bureau of Georgetown,
wanted to know when the crop of Mr. Collins would be ready for
market in order that his debts could be paid. By December 10, 1868, the
debt was still unpaid, and Wesley Markwood sent another letter
informing Collins that his account should be cleared by the 25th of
December. Unfortunately for Collins, bad planting weather had
destroyed much of his rice crop, forcing him to rely upon the sale of
wood from the Santee Plantation to sustain himself and dependents.
Consequently he could not fulfill his meager debt of $52.48.27 On
December 30, 1868, he wrote to Wesley Markwood explaining the
dilemma he faced. Collins said, "I am truly sorry that I have not been
able to meet you at this appointed time owning to the inclemency of the
weather I could not haul my wood enough to make up the balance will
call and settle up."2" He concluded the letter by asking for more time to
pay his debt.

In the spring of 1869, Robert Michael Collins began to repay the

loan. On April 18th, Henry F. Heriot, the clerk of the local agency of
Georgetown, reported that Collins had fulfilled part of his debts to the
Bureau when he paid $35 of the $52.48 he owed. His complete
fulfillment of the debt took one year to accomplish.19

After the war, Collins, like other planters, found his plantation in
disarray. Before he could start to rebuild his estate, he needed capital to
purchase seeds for planting and other necessities. The postwar years
were distressing times, and money was scarce. Many planters were
forced into debt when they acquired the capital to plant rice.
Consequently, many planters could not quickly recover from the
devastations of the war.

Rebuilding the plantation of Robert Michael Collins was a slow

and arduous task. By 1870, his plantation was a mere shadow of what
the estate had been before the war. In 1860, the plantation was worked
by 11 field hands, who produced 100 bushels of Indian corn, 1,000
bushels of sweet potatoes, and 90,000 pounds of rice. In addition, there
were 2 oxen, 3 horses, 3 cows, 10 cattle, 10 sheep, and 30 swine on the
rice plantation. But the war reduced the crops and the livestock to a
fraction of the antebellum numbers. In 1870, the plantations yielded 50
bushels of Indian corn, 100 bushels of sweet potatoes, and no rice. All
that remained of the livestock were 2 oxen, 3 horses, 7 swine, 8 cows,
and 10 cattle, together valued at $360. Clearly his reduced farm
produce and depleted livestock did not allow him to make enough
money to pay his workers, and he produced barely enough food to
sustain them.30

The former slaves of Robert Michael Collins worked the land, not
for wages, but for food, shelter, and clothing. In fact, the census of
1870 did not report any wages paid to his workers. Like many of the
planters in South Carolina, Collins was affected by the shortage of
capital which existed throughout the state. The transactions between
Collins and his workers were based on the mutual needs of the two
parties. For Collins, the former slaves provided the labor to till the soil.
They also cut down trees on the plantation to be sold, providing a
steady source of revenue. In return for their labor, the former slaves
were allotted food and clothing. In essence, the labor contract between
the two parties resembled the system of work during slavery.
According to Eugene Genovese, the system of slavery was based on
mutual needs and obligations. The slave masters provided their
bondsmen with food, shelter, and clothing; the slaves gave their labor
in return. The major difference between the antebellum arrangements
and the Reconstruction contracts was the distinction between the forced
labor of slavery and the quasi-voluntary system which developed after
slavery. Many of the former slaves could leave their current employers
and work for other planters."

By 1880, Robert Michael Collins' contracts with his former slaves

had turned away from the antebellum system of mutual obligations and
toward a wage system. According to the census of 1880, he paid his
laborers $1,000 for the year of 1879. In exchange for their wages, the
exslaves produced 20 bushels of cow peas, 20 bushels of apples, 100
bushels of potatoes, 200 bushels of Indian corn, and 4,050 pounds of
rice. Also the former slaves chopped $600 worth of wood. After nearly
15 years of struggling, the plantation of Robert Michael Collins finally
began to resemble the plantation of 1860.32

The cost of resurrecting Collins' plantation was paid in land. The

plantation withered from 3,100 acres in 1870 to 1,480 acres in 1880, a
decrease of 1,620 acres, or 52.2 percent. Even so, the plantation was
more productive than at any time since the Civil War and demonstrated
that the wage system could be successful and profitable. By 1880,
Collins was the only black rice planter who had regained a semblance
of the past glory of the antebellum period."

Most black rice planters could not recover from the collapse of
slavery and the devastation of the war. In 1860, Andrew James
Anderson owned a plantation which consisted of 663 acres of land and
produced 300 bushels of sweet potatoes, 400 bushels of Indian corn,
and 13,200 pounds of rice. Upon the emancipation of his slaves, he
decided to sell the rice plantation and leave the parish of St. Thomas &
St. Dennis. It was not until February of 1867 that he found someone to
purchase the plantation. In that year, he sold Bulls Head Plantation to
Aaron Logan for $1,333.34 and moved to Georgetown County, to a plot
of land not far from his cousin, Robert Michael Collins. Apparently,
Anderson became disillusioned by the war and no longer wanted to
plant rice. In another example, the census of 1870 shows that Sarah
Boag, a colored woman of St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish of
Charleston District, did not recover from the losses she sustained after
the Civil War. As a result of the defeat of the Confederacy, Mrs. Boag
lost $6,000 worth of slave property-ten slaves, who had produced 6,000
pounds of rice in 1859. She could not plant rice without her slaves. The
Civil War had so disrupted the operations of her farm that 312 acres of
land remained idle.34 With her income from farming eliminated, Mrs.
Boag relied on her occupation as a midwife as well as the sale of milk
to support herself in 1869. In that same year, Janet Collins, the sister of
Sarah Boag, owned 132 acres of land which lay fallow. Yet, in 1860,
her slaves had tilled the soil and produced 150 bushels of Indian corn,
800 bushels of sweet potatoes, and 10,000 pounds of rice. Janet Collins
a n d Sarah Boag, like the majority of the colored slaveowners who
planted rice, found that the war had left them with little ability or will
to reconstruct their plantations."

During the Reconstruction period, the largest colored cotton

planter in South Carolina shared the same gloomy fate as the colored
rice farmers. In the late 1860s, the estate of William Ellison suffered a
slow and painful death. Before the war, Ellison Plantation numbered
800 acres of land and was worked by 44 field hands, who cultivated 80
bales of cotton, 200 bushels of peas, 1,000 bushels of sweet potatoes,
and 2,000 bushels of Indian corn in 1859. After the war, the former
slaves remaining on the plantation improved only 80 acres of land,
which yielded 5 bales of cotton, 10 bushels of Irish potatoes, 50 bushels
of peas, and 460 bushels of Indian corn in 1869. Unfortunately, even
that recovery was only monetary, and the output had declined even
further by 1879. In that year, the former slaves of the colored farmer
cultivated 6 bales of cotton, 15 bushels of peas, 50 bushels of potatoes,
and 50 bushels of Indian corn. The reduced production of Ellison
Plantation suggests that the slaves felt no obligation to help rebuild the
estate and left the plantation to pursue their own lives.36

With the defeat of the Confederacy, Henry Ellison, the son of

William Ellison and the manager of his father's estate, knew that the
plantation economy was dead, and he sought other means of making a
livelihood. In order to augment the revenue earned from the plantation,
he invested the capital acquired into a general store, which served the
exslaves and whites of Stateburg township in Sumter County during the
1880s.37

While many former slave masters discontinued their farming

operations, others expanded their output in spite of the disruption
caused by the Civil War. Henry Glencamp, a 65-year-old mulatto of St.
Stephen's Parish in Charleston County, reconstructed his farm and even
increased the output. In 1859, for example, the slaves of Glencamp had
picked 2 bales of cotton and harvested 200 bushels of Indian corn. A
decade later, his former slaves cultivated 3 bales of cotton and 300
bushels of Indian corn. In Beaufort County, William Jones hired his
former slaves to cultivate 12 bales of cotton and 15 bushels of Indian
corn in 1869. In 1859, his slaves had grown only 7 bales of cotton.
However, while William Jones planted more cotton than was grown
before the war, he did not produce enough agricultural goods to feed his
former slaves. In 1869, he was forced to seek aid from the Freedmen's
Bureau. Between May and June of 1869, he received 41 bushels of corn
and 306 pounds of meat from the agency to feed his workers.3'

For most colored planters, the process of rebuilding plantations

took a long period of time. In 1859, Wade Sanders, a free black of
Newberry County, used slaves to work his farm. With the labor of
slaves, his farm yielded 100 bushels of peas, 100 bushels of sweet
potatoes, 600 bushels of corn, and 23 bales of cotton. After the war, he
hired his former slaves to cultivate 7 bales of cotton and 170 bushels of
corn.39 In exchange for the labor of his former slaves, he paid them
$986 for the year of 1869. The profits extracted from the farm allowed
him to purchase at public auction a 175-acre tract of land for $1,000 in
1872. By the post-Reconstruction era, the farm of Wade Sanders was
more productive than during the antebellum period when he had
utilized the labor of slaves. In 1879, he employed agricultural laborers
to cultivate 31 bales of cotton, 38 bushels of wheat, 100 bushels of oats,
and 400 bushels of Indian corn. Within 14 years after the conclusion of
the Civil War, Wade Sanders' farm produced more cotton than he had
grown using the labor of slaves in 1859.40

Planters like Sanders were the exception rather than the rule. After
the death of the peculiar institution, most of the former slaveowning
planters of African ancestry were devastated, and few recaptured the
success of the antebellum era. Clearly, their livelihood had benefitted
so much from slavery that when the institution was destroyed, they
could not recover and rebuild their plantations and farms.

After the Civil War, the colored urbanites of Charleston City were
forced to free their slaves, but the end of slavery did not destroy their
livelihood. With the elimination of chattel slavery, the colored slave
masters adapted to the wage labor system and hired workers. For
instance, Edward Palmer, a colored brick mason who owned slaves in
1864, hired George Mooting (a 42-year-old laborer) to work as an
assistant in 1870." While most of the colored artisans hired former
slaves to be employed in their trades, others acquired the services of
their offspring. In 1870, Francis Plummeau, a former slaveowner and a
mechanic, apprenticed his son Alexander Plummeau to provide him
with assistance in the family business. For the most part, the colored
slaveowners of Charleston City were not heavily dependent on slavery
during the early 1860s, and so they made the adjustment from slave
labor to wage labor with only minor difficulties.42

Although the colored slaveowners of Charleston City lost about

$216,900 in slave property when they were forced to free their
bondsmen, the former slave masters retained a considerable amount of
wealth. Prior to the war, most of the colored slaveowners had
diversified their slaveholding by investing in real estate. Several
slaveowners, including Malcolm Brown, Joseph Dereef, Richard E.
Dereef, John L. Francis, Robert Howard, James Drayton Johnson, and
Maria Weston, rented houses for a handsome fee. In 1854, for example,
Charlotte A. Carmand, a colored woman and a slaveowner of
Charleston City, received $540 for renting her two houses on Morris
Street and Henrietta Street for 12 months. Many of the colored
slaveowners relied on their investments in real estate when the war
ended their exploitation of slave labor. In 1864, for example, Robert
Howard, a free mulatto of Charleston City, owned real estate valued at
$29,800 and 12 slaves who were worth $10,800. Even though he lost his
slave property without compensation, he retained his real estate, which
in 1870 was appraised at $30,000 and rented for a considerable sum of
money. Elsewhere in the city, Anthony Weston, a 79-year-old
millwright of African ancestry, lost 14 slaves who were valued at
$12,600. His real estate depreciated by $11,500, but he retained
property worth $30,000 in 1870. His estate consisted of several houses
which were rented to the citizens of Charleston City, providing him a
steady source of revenue in 1870."

Unlike the freedmen of South Carolina, the colored slaveowners

o f Charleston City entered the postwar era with property, education,
and status, which contributed to their success during the Reconstruction
a n d the post-Reconstruction periods. Indeed, many of the mulatto
slaveowners separated themselves from the masses of black folk and
attempted to establish a caste system based on color, wealth, and free
st at us before the war. According to Martin Delany, the colored
community of Charleston City clung to the assumptions of the
superiority of white blood and brown complexion. These mulattoes of
the old free Negro elite did not attend church with the dark-skinned
folk of Charleston City. They not only formed congregations which
excluded freedmen of dark complexion, but married among themselves
and imitated the white aristocrats of the port city. In 1870, for example,
George Shrewsberry, a well-to-do mulatto and a former slaveowner,
employed two black domestic servants to wait on his family. By 1874
Shrewsberry was elected to the city council of Charleston and described
as a very conservative man by the Charleston Daily Courier. Many of
the former slaveholding persons of African ancestry not only separated
themselves from the community of blackskinned freedmen, but aligned
themselves with the Old Guard of the white community."

Yet the children of the mulatto slaveowners seemed to be more

willing to bridge the gap between light-skinned and dark-skinned
people of color. Indeed, many of the colored leaders came from the
slaveowning families of Charleston City. Since many of the daughters
and sons of the black masters were educated, they used their knowledge
to teach the freedmen how to read and write. During the late 1860s,
Frances Rollins, the daughter of William Rollins, a colored slaveowner
of Charleston City, worked as a schoolteacher in Beaufort County.4
Miss Rollins was educated at the Institution for Colored Youth in
Philadelphia and was one of four sisters who worked to uplift the
freedmen of South Carolina. After her service as a schoolteacher in
Beaufort County, she married William James Whipper, a state
representative of South Carolina. Other offspring from the slaveholding
class of free blacks also assisted in the education of their race. Shortly
after the war, Thaddeus Sasportas, the son of Joseph A. Sasportas, a
mulatto slaveowner, went to Orangeburgh County to aid the ex-slaves
and worked as a teacher. Thaddeus Sasportas not only taught the
freedmen how to read and write, but provided political leadership. At
the age of 24, he served as a delegate to the constitutional convention
of 1868. He later was elected to the state legislature and represented the
black constituency of Orangeburgh County.46

When the franchise was given to black males, several of the

offspring of colored masters filled the ranks of the elected officials in
South Carolina. In 1870, Florian H. Frost of Williamsburgh County, the
son of Lydia Frost, a slaveowner of Charleston City, was elected to the
state house of representatives and served until his death in 1872.
During the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction eras, 2 out of 8
black congressmen were from slaveholding colored families of South
Carolina. After serving in the state senate, Joseph Rainey, the son of
Edward Rainey, a slaveowner of Georgetown County, was elected to the
U.S. House of Representatives in 1870. Rainey subsequently served
four straight terms, and during his tenure, he frequently spoke in favor
o f education and social advances for blacks. At the beginning of
Rainey's second term, the colored people of South Carolina also elected
Robert DeLarge to the Congress." Robert DeLarge was the son of a
slaveholding tailor named John DeLarge and served as the state land
commissioner of South Carolina before he was elected to the U.S.
House of Representa- tives.48

As the collapse of the Confederacy submerged the mulatto slave

owners in a sea of blackness, the former slave masters attempted to
reconstruct their farms, plantations, and trades. At the same time, they
separated themselves from the black masses through social exclusion.
But the children of these colored slaveowners were not as susceptible to
the prejudices of their parents, and they tried to bridge the gap between
mulattoes and blacks as well as the gap between slave masters and
slaves, thus creating a unified community of black folks.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Fifth
Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule I, Charleston City, South
Carolina, pp. 6, 8, 22, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43, 49, 50, 52-57,
61, 63, 72, 74, 75, 78, 82, 88, 90-100, 103, 107, 108, 111, 112; Bills of
Sale vol. SD 1825-1827 (Secretary of State), p. 458; Ibid., vol. 4V
1820-1822, p. 225; Charleston Courier, January 21, 1826; Journal of the
Senate of South Carolina for 1835, p. 43; Bills of Sale vol. 4M 1816-
1818, p. 225; Ibid., vol. 5G 1827-1829, p. 133; Ibid., vol. 5A 1823-
1825, p. 293; Ibid., vol. 5K 1829-1832, pp. 296, 530; Journal of the
Senate of South Carolina for 1836, p. 24; Bills of Sale vol. 4D 1810-
1811, p. 235; Ibid.. vol. 4F 1811-1813, pp. 117, 153, 192, 476; Ibid.,
vol. 41 1813-1815, p. 166; Ibid., 4P 1817, p. 467; Ibid., vol. 4S 1819-
1820, pp. 80, 388; Ibid., vol. 4V 1820-1822, p. 134; Ibid., 4X 1822-
1823, p. 383; Ibid., vol. 5A 1823-1825, pp. 190, 130, 282, 312, 511,
548; Ibid., vol. 5G 1827-1829, pp. 58, 104, 116, 136, 131, 275, 500;
Ibid., vol. 5K 1829-1832, pp. 24, 128, 136, 308, 501, 48; Ibid., vol. 50
1832-1836, pp. 489, 498; Ibid., vol. ST 1836-1839, pp. 192, 304, 559;
Ibid., vol. SW 1839-1843, p. 518; Mortgages vol. 4A 1840-1841 (South
Carolina), p. 241; Ibid., vol. 4B 1841-1848, p. 63; Ibid., vol. 4Z 1836-
1840, p. 293; Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County),
p. 1176; Ibid., vol. 42 1839-1840, pp. 214, 260, 864; Ibid., vol. 46 1851-
1856, p. 46; Charleston Mercury, November 26, 1833; Miscellaneous
Records vol. 5Z 1842-1843 (Secretary of State), p. 257; Ibid., vol. SQ
1834-1839, p. 125; Inventories vol. A 1839-1844 (Charleston County),
p. 434; Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1848 Number 22; Ibid.,
1851 no. 81; Bills of Sale vol. 5W 1839-1843 (Secretary of State), p.
590.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Seventh
Census of the United States, 1850: Schedules I & II, Charleston City,
South Carolina; Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p.
293; Ibid., vol. 5W 1839-1843, pp. 131, 307, 408, 414, 461; Ibid., vol.
6A 1843-1846, pp. 129, 166, 183, 216, 328, 406; Ibid., vol. 6B 1846-
1849, pp. 62, 261, 418, 505, 526, 545; Ibid., vol. 6C 1849-1853, pp. 34,
92; Ibid., vol. 6D 1853-1857, pp. 95, 152, 161, 549, 124; Ibid., vol. 6E
1857-1863, p. 85; Charleston Mercury, January 26, 1850;
Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. D 1847-1849
(Charleston County), pp. 436-437; Ibid., vol. F 1852-1853, p. 116; Ibid.,
vol. L 1860-1861, pp. 263-264; Ibid., vol. F 1852-1853, pp. 72, 227;
Inventories vol. C 1850-1854 (Charleston County), p. 234; Ibid., vol. F
1860-1864, pp. 168, 394; Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1843,
Number 10.5 (Charleston County); Miscellaneous Records vol. SQ
1834-1839 (Secretary of State), p. 125; Mortgages vol. 4Z 1839-1840
(South Carolina), p. 620; Ibid., vol. 4E 1848-1853, p. 410; Ibid., vol. 4A
1840-1844, pp. 38, 327; Record of Wills vol. 47 1851-1857 (Charleston
County), p. 697; J.S.G. Richardson, Reports of Cases At Law Argued
and Determined in the Court of Appeal and Court of Errors of South
Carolina vol. 5 (Columbia: A.S. Johnston, 1852), pp. 273-275;
Henrietta P. Jervey, ed., "The Private Register of the Rev. Paul
Trapier," South Carolina Historical Magazine vol. 58 (1957), p. 170.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Fifth
Census of the United Slates, 1830: Schedule I, Charleston City, South
Carolina, pp. 8, 11, 17, 22, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 54, 55, 61,
63, 75, 81, 82, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 103, 108, 112; Bills of Sale vol. 4P
1817 (Secretary of State), p. 467; Ibid., vol. 4V 1820-1822, p. 225;
Ibid., vol. 4X 1822-1823, p. 383; Ibid., vol. 5A 1823-1825, pp. 364,
511; Ibid., vol. 5D 1825-1827, p. 50; Ibid., vol. 5G 1827-1829, pp. 58,
104, 116, 131, 136, 500; Ibid., vol. 5K 1829-1832, pp. 24, 48, 296, 530;
Ibid., vol. 50 1832-1836, pp. 489, 498; Ibid., vol. 5T 1836-1839, pp.
192, 304, 549; Ibid., vol. 5W 1839-1843, pp. 408, 468, 590; Charleston
Courier, January 21, 1826; Ibid., August 20, 1836; Charleston Mercury,
August 21, 1836; Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1848, number
22 (Charleston County); Ibid., Bills 1851, no. 81; Mortgages vol. 3Z
1836-1840 (South Carolina), p. 293; Ibid., vol. 4A 1840-1844, pp. 94,
241; Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), p. 138;
Ibid., vol. 42 1834-1839, pp. 864-866; Ibid., vol. 42 1839-1845, pp.
214-215, 260-262; Ibid., vol. 44 1845-1851, pp. 23-24, 294; Ibid., vol.
46 1851-1856, pp. 46-49.
Sources: J.R. Honour, List of the Tax Payers of the City of Charleston
for 1859 (Charleston: Walker & Evans, 1860), pp. 383-404; Bills of
Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 136; Ibid., vol. 5T 1836-
1839, p. 359; Ibid., vol. 6A 1843-1846, pp. 211, 321; Ibid., vol. 6B
1846-1849, pp. 62, 342, 505; Ibid., vol. 6C 1849-1853, pp. 92, 107, 115,
138; Ibid., vol. 1853-1857, pp. 288, 427, 611; Ibid., vol. 6E 1857-1863,
p. 18; Ibid., vol. 6F 1862-1872, p. 27; Charleston Courier, August 20,
1836; Charleston Mercury, July 6, 1859; Guardian/Trustee/Returns:
Probate Records vol. F 1852-1853 (Charleston County), pp. 72, 227;
Ibid., vol. L 1860-1861, pp. 263-264; Inventories vol. H 1834-1844
(Charleston County), p. 243; Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint
1843, Number 10.5 (Charleston County); Miscellaneous Records vol.
6D 1849-1851 (Secretary of State), pp. 190-192; Ibid., vol. 6H 1856-
1858, p. 2; Mortgages vol. 4A 1840-1844 (South Carolina), pp. 158,
241; Ibid., vol. 48 1841-1848, pp. 58, 63-64, 157-158; Ibid., vol. 4D
1847-1850, p. 646; Ibid., vol. 4G 1852-1854, p. 465; Ibid., vol. 4E
1848-1853, pp. 391, 410, 440-441; Ibid., vol. 4H 1853-1856, p. 134;
Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County), pp. 905-907;
Ibid., vol. 41 1834-1839, p. 584; Ibid., vol. 49 1856-1862, pp. 752-753;
Ibid., vol. 50 1862-1868, pp. 350-353.
Introduction

1. R. Halliburton, Jr., "Free Black Owners of Slaves: A

Reappraisal of the Woodson Thesis," South Carolina Historical
Magazine vol. 76 (July 1976), pp. 135-136; Carter G. Woodson, "Free
Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830," Journal of Negro
History vol. 9 (January 1924), pp. 6-35.

2. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Eighth Census of

the United States, 1860: Schedule 1, St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, p.
929; Ibid., Schedule Il, p. 124; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 13-14 (According
to the census, Auguste Donatto owned an estate valued at $68,600 and
managed by a white overseer named Charles Sorgner. In Louisiana,
there were several mulatto planters who owned large plantations which
were managed by white persons); Eighth Census of the United States,
1860: Schedule I, Sumter District, South Carolina, p. 80; Ibid.,
Schedule II, pp. 180-181; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 21-22; Seventh Census
o f the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Georgetown County, South
Carolina, pp. 300, 309; Ibid., Schedule II, n.p. (see October 21 & 22
slave schedules); Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 701-702.

3. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Iberville

Parish, Louisiana, p. 42; Ibid., Schedule!!, pp. 359-360; Ibid., Schedule
IV, pp. 1-2; P.A. Champomier, Statements of Sugar and Rice Crops
Made in Louisiana (New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co., 1859), pp. 10-
15.

4. Halliburton, "Free Black Owners of Slaves," p. 129 (see

chapters 2, 4, and 7).

5. Halliburton, "Free Black Owners of Slaves," p. 130 (Throughout

the antebellum South, there were many blacks who owed their slave
property to the benevolence of relatives. After the death of Andrew
Durnford, his son inherited St. Rosalie Plantation and 74 slaves);
Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Plaquemine
Parish, Louisiana, p. 32; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 13-14; David O.
Whitten, "A Black Entrepreneur in Antebellum Louisiana," Business
History vol. XLI (1971), pp. 204-205 (In 1791, a family of mulatto
slave traders who were born in West Africa traveled to South Carolina
and established themselves in the districts of Charleston and
Georgetown, where they used their imported African slaves to plant
rice. See Chapter Seven).

6. Woodson, "Free Negro Owners of Slaves," p. 42; David Rankin,

"The Forgotten People: Free People of Color in New Orleans 1850-
1870," (Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1976), pp. 156-
160; Halliburton, "Free Black Owners of Slaves," pp. 130-134.

Chapter One: Free Black Slaveholding and the Federal

Census

1. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, First Census of

the United States, 1790: Schedule I, St. James & Goose Creek Parish,
Charleston District, South Carolina (National Archives, Washington,
D.C.), p. 37.

2. Barnes F. Lathrop, "History from the Census Returns." In

Sociology and History: Methods, edited by Seymour Martin Lipset and
Richard Hofstadter (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968), pp. 79-82.

3. Ronald Vern Jackson and Gary Ronald Teeples, eds., The South
Carolina 1840 Census Index (Utah: Accelerated Indexing System,
1977), pp: i-vii; Lathrop, "History from the Census," pp. 80-85.
 4. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule 1, Charleston
Neck, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 100; Bills of Sale vol. 50
1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 486 (Department of Archives &
History, Columbia, South Carolina); Ibid., vol. 5T 1836-1839, pp. 1,
134, 340, 359, 400, 420, 498; Ibid., vol. 5W 1839-1843, p. 2.

5. Leonard P. Curry, The Free Black in Urban America 1800-1850:

T h e Shadow of the Dream (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1981), p. 270.

6. Jackson and Teeples, eds., South Carolina 1840 Census, pp. i-vi;
Claudia Dale Goldin, Urban Slavery in the American South 1820-1860:
A Quantitative History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976),
p. 133.

7. Goldin, Urban Slavery, p. 41.

8. Robert S. Starobin, ed., Denmark Vesey: The Slave Conspiracy

of 1822 (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1970), p.-136.

9. Charleston Courier, December 8, 1835.

10. Clement Eason, "Slave Hiring in the Upper South: A Step

Toward Freedom," Mississippi Historical Review vol. 46 (March
1960), p. 673; Goldin, Urban Slavery, pp. 20-25.

11. MSS. Ford Family Papers 26 September 1825, Manuscript

Division, Record Group 9, South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, South
Carolina; Ibid., 8 June 1826; Bills of Sale vol. 5W 1839-1843
(Secretary of State), p. 408; T.C. Fay, Charleston Directory and
Strangers Guide for 1840-1841 (Charleston, 1840), p. 100.

12. Bills of Sale vol. 6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of State), p. 497;

Ibid., vol. 6C 1849-1853, p. 313; Eighth Census of the United States,
1860: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 498; J.R. Honour,
List of the Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for 1860 (Charleston:
Walker & Evans, 1861), p. 327.

13. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 320; Ibid., St. James Santee
Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 179; Tax Returns of 1824
for Prince George, Georgetown County, Record Number 828
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847, Record Number 52
(Charleston County), (Department of Archives & History, Columbia,
South Carolina); Mabel L. Webber, ed., "Dr. John Rutledge and his
Descendants," South Carolina Historical & Genealogical Magazine vol.
31 (April 1930), pp. %-97; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860:
Schedule I, St. James Santee Parish, Charleston County, South
Carolina, p. 147.

14. Fourth Census of the United States, 1820: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 71.

15. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847, Record Number 52

(Charleston County); Third Census of the United States, 1810:
Schedule I, St. John's Berkeley Parish, Charleston County, South
Carolina, p. 226.

16. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839, Charleston County, (The

Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina) p. 266
(The wills examined were the transcribed copies recorded by the
W.P.A.).

17. Carter G. Woodson, "Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the

United States in 1830," Journal of Negro History vol. 9 (January 1924),
p. 31; F.Y. Porcher, Directory and Strangers Guide for the City of
Charleston for 1831 (Charleston: Irishman, 1831), p. 54; Seventh
Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1, Charleston City, South
Carolina, p. 122.

18. Woodson, "Free Negro Owners of Slaves," pp. 30-31 (The

following persons were reported to be free black slaveholders by Carter
G. Woodson but were actually white absentee slaveowners: 1. Frances
C. Dalton was a native of England and the wife of Dr. James Dalton.
When Mrs. Dalton died in 1846, she was buried in the graveyard of St.
Michael's Church, which was a segregated cemetery. -Clara Jervey, ed.,
inscriptions of the Tablets and Gravestones in St. Michael's Church and
Church yard Charleston, S.C. (Columbia: State Company, 1906), p. 85.
2. Mistress Lucretia Horry of St. Bartholomews Parish was recorded as
white on the 1820 census and listed as a white resident of Charleston
City by the local directory. -Fourth Census of the United States, 1820:
Schedule I, St. Bartholomews Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina,
p. 48; Porcher, Directory for 1831, p. 82. 3. Henry Johnson was listed as
a white man in the census of 1810. - Third Census of the United States,
1810: Schedule I, St. Paul's Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina, p.
606. 4. John D. Legare was reported to be a white citizen by the city
directory. -Supplement of Charleston Directory for 1836 (Charleston:
Dowling, 1836), p. 52. 5. Ephraim Mikell Seabrook was of English
ancestry according to Mabel L. Webber. -Mabel L. Webber, "The Early
Generations of the Seabrook Family," South Carolina Historical &
Genealogical Magazine vol. 17 (January 1916), pp. 63, 67. The other
white slaveowners classified as free persons of color were Justine
Angel, Martha Ann Mathews, Margaret Stock, Charles Tennent,
Nicholas Venning, Robert Yenning, and Daniel J. Waring. - Porcher,
Directory for 1831, p. 54; Fifth Census of the United States, 1830:
Schedule i, St. George Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina, p. 457;
Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 134; Negrin's Directory and Almanac for the Year
1806: Containing Every Article of General Utility (Charleston: J.J.
Negrin's Press, 1807), p. 76; Record of Wills vol. 401834-1839
(Charleston County), p. 398; Porcher, Directory for 1831, p. 113;
Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Christ Church
Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, pp. 378, 380; Porcher,
Directory for 1831, p. 117).

19. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 284; Henrietta P. Jervey, ed., "The
Private Register of the Rev. Paul Trapier," South Carolina Historical
Magazine vol. 58 (1957), p. 105.

20. Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the

AnteBellum South (New York: Vintage Books, 1956), p. 195.

21. Joel Williamson, New People: Miscegenation and Mulattoes

in the United States (New York: Free Press, 1980), p. 18.

22. Winthrop D. Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes

Toward the Negro 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1968), pp. 171-172.

23. Winthrop D. Jordan, "American Chiaroscuro: The Status and

Definition of Mulattoes in the British Colonies," William & Mary
Quarterly vol. 19 (April 1%2), p. 190.

24. Ibid., p. 191.

25. Duke De La Rouchefoucault Liancourt, Travels Through the

United States of North America the Country of the Iroquois and Upper
Canada in the Years 1795, 1796, and 1797 (London: R. Phillips, 1799),
p. 602.

26. Record of Wills vol. 3 1732-1737 (Charleston County), pp.

240-241; Brent H. Holcomb, ed., "1786 Tax Returns," South Carolina
Magazine of Ancestral Research vol. 9 (Spring 1981), p. 73; William
Montgomery Clemens, ed., North and South Carolina Marriage Records
(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1973), p. 217; Record of
Wills vol. 9 1760-1767 (Charleston County), p. 132; Ibid., vol. 26
1793-1800 (Charleston County), pp. 596-598.

27. First Census of the United States, 1790: Schedule I, St. Paul's
Parish, Charleston District, South Carolina, p. 37; Second Census of the
United States, 1800: Schedule I, St. Paul's Parish, Charleston District,
South Carolina, p. 161; Brent H. Holcomb, ed., "Tax Returns 1785,"
South Carolina Magazine of Ancestral Research, vol. 5 (Summer 1977),
p. 160; Holcomb, "1786 Tax Returns," p. 173; Record of Wills vol. 9
1760-1767 (Charleston County), p. 132; Ibid., vol. 26 1793-1800
(Charleston County), pp.-596--5-98.--

28. Miscellaneous Records vol. 4E 1811, 1814, 1816 (Secretary of

State), p. 152 (Department of Archives &History, Columbia, South
Carolina).

29. Ibid., vol. 5Z 1842-1843 (Secretary of State), p. 260.

30. Ibid., p. 261.

31. Record of Wills vol. 22 1786-1793 (Charleston County), pp.

194-195; Ibid., vol. 14 1771-1774 (Charleston County), pp. 109-110;
A.S. Salley, Jr., ed., Register of St. Philip's Parish Charles Town South
Carolina 1720-1758 (Charleston: Walker, Evans & Cogswell, 1904),
pp. 100, 145.

32. J.S.G. Richardson, Reports of Cases At Law Argued and

Determined in the Court of Appeals of South Carolina vol. 3
(Columbia: A.S. Johnston, 1847), pp. 136-140; Record of Wills vol. 3
1828-1853 (Kershaw County), pp. 190-191 (Department of Archives &
History, Columbia, South Carolina), Seventh Census of the United
States, 1850: Schedule I, Kershaw District, South Carolina, p. 128.

33. Miscellaneous Records vol. 6A 1843-1847 (Secretary of

State), p. 88.

34. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 223; Record of Wills vol. 49 1856-
1862 (Charleston County), p. 752.

35. Miscellaneous Records vol. 4H 1813-1816 (Secretary of

State), p. 287; Ibid., vol. 5Y 1840-1842 (Secretary of State), pp. 221-
222 (In the document, Adam Garden, a free Indian, swore that Elias
Garden was of free Indian heritage).

36. Ira Berlin, Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the
Antebellum South (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), p. 164; Free
Negro Capitation Tax Book 1821 (Charleston), (Department of
Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Miscellaneous
Records vol. 5Y 1840-1842 (Secretary of State), p. 268; Ibid., vol. 4Z
1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p. 299; Ibid., vol. 5Z 1842-1843
(Secretary of State), pp. 260-261; Marriage Settlements vol. 4 1801-
1805 (South Carolina), pp. 128-129, (Department of Archives &
History, Columbia, South Carolina).

37. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 330; Eighth Census of the United
States, 1860: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 475;
Miscellaneous Records vol. 4Z 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), pp. 269-
270 (Even though Joseph Dereef was declared to be a free Indian by the
Court of Common Pleas in 1823, he was reported to be a free mulatto
by the census taker of 1850).
 38. Jordan, "Definition of Mulattoes," p. 198; Stampp, Peculiar
Institution, pp. 195-196; Berlin, Slaves Without Masters, p. 163.

Chapter Two: The Numbers and Distribution of Black

Slaveholding

1. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1864 (Charleston),

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Eighth Census of the
United States, 1860: Schedule I & I!, South Carolina (National
Archives, Washington, D.C.); Frederick Ford, Census of the City of
Charleston South Carolina for the Year 1861 (Charleston: Walker &
Evans, 1861), pp. 315-334; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1863
(Charleston).

2. Miscellaneous Records vol. 3C 1791-1794 (Secretary of State),

p. 147 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

3. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1851, Record Number 81

(Charleston County), (Department of Archives & History, Columbia,
South Carolina); Seventh Census of the United States, 1850.• Schedule
1, Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 305; Fifth Census of the United
States, 1830: Schedule !, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 81.

4. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1,

Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 325: Henrietta P. Jervey, ed., "The
Private Register of Rev. Paul Trapier," South Carolina Historical
Magazine vol. 58 (1957), p. 177; Record of Wills vol. 49 1856-1862
(Charleston County), pp. 866-869 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina).

5. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I, Charleston

Neck, South Carolina, p. 121; Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol.
C 1850-1854 (Charleston County), pp. 102, 258, 261; Sixth Census of
the United States, 1840: Schedule 1, Charleston Neck, South Carolina,
p. 130; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1, St.
George Parish, Colleton District, South Carolina, p. 243; Miscellaneous
Records vol. 6D 1849-1851 (Secretary of State), p. 71; Ibid., vol. 6A
1843-1847, pp. 259, 358.

6. Bills of Sale vol. 6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of State), p. 342

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 218; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 807; Eighth Census of the
United States, 1860: Schedule !, Charleston City, South Carolina, p.
297; Ibid., Schedule !I, p. 439; J.R. Honour, List of the Tax Payers of
the City of Charleston for 1860 (Charleston: Walker & Evans, 1861), p.
318.

7. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1821 (Charleston); Record of

Wills vol. 36 1818-1826 (Charleston County), pp. 1123-1125; Bills of
Sale vol. 41 1813-1815 (Secretary of State), p. 164; Ibid., vol. 4V 1820-
1822, p. 118; Ibid., vol. 4X 1822-1823, p. 235.

8. Charleston Mercury, May 15, 1860.

9. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 172; Bills of Sale vol. 6D 1853-
1857 (Secretary of State), p. 95; Seventh Census of the United States,
1850: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 223; Ibid.,
Schedule II, p. 825.

10. Record of Wills vol. 38 1826-1834 (Charleston County), pp.

519-522.

11. Ibid., vol. 33 1807-1818, pp. 1276-1277; Ibid., vol. 411834-

1839, pp. 842, 845.

12. Ibid., pp. 584-585; Inventories vol. H 1834-1844 (Charleston

Count y), pp. 243-244; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1827
(Charleston).

13. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 212; Guardian/Trustee/Returns:
Probate Records vol. G 1853-1854 (Charleston County), p. 378
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 223; Charleston Courier, June 26, 1851;
Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. G 1853-1854
(Charleston County), p. 15; Inventories vol. D 1854-1857 (Charleston
County), p. 102.

14. Miscellaneous Records vol. 4Y 1822-1824 (Secretary of

State), pp. 159-60.

15. Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. A 1839-1844

(Charleston County), p. 150; Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary
of State), p. 287; Ibid., vol. 50 1832-1836, p. 205; Free Negro
Capitation Tax Book 1832 (Charleston); Bills of Sale vol. 6E 1857-
1863 (Secretary of State), p. 85; Eighth Census of the United States,
1860: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 376; Bills of Sale
vol. 4P 1817 (Secretary of State), p. 243.

16. see Appendix B.

17. J.L. Dawson and H.W. De Saussure, eds., Census of the City of
Charleston, South Carolina for 1848 (Charleston, 1849), pp. 34-35.

18. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. G 1853-1854

(Charleston County), pp. 94-95.

19. Register of Mesne Conveyance vol. X-13 1857-1858

(Charleston County), p. 273 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Inventories, Appraisement & Sales vol. D
1854-1857 (Charleston County), pp. 299, 440.

20. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, St.

Stephens Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 407; Ibid.,
Schedule II, n.p. (see August 31 of the slave schedule); Ibid., Schedule
I, Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 309; Ibid., Schedule II, n.p.
(see October 21 of the slave schedule).

21. Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County), p.

964; Ibid., vol. 36 1818-1826, p. 985.

22. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 209; Bills of Sale vol. 6C 1849-
1853 (Secretary of State), p. 115; T.C. Fay, Charleston Directory and
Strangers Guide for 1840-1841, (Charleston, 1840), p. 21.

23. Bills of Sale vol. 6E 1857-1863 (Secretary of State), p. 85.

24. Miscellaneous Records vol. 6B 1844-1849 (Secretary of

State), pp. 420-421; Bills of Sale vol. 6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of
State), p. 216; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,
Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 247; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 865;
Ibid., Schedule 1, St. Stephens Parish, Charleston County, South
Carolina, p. 407; Ibid., Schedule 11, n.p. (see August 31 of the slave
schedule).

25. Mariana Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow: The Free

Blacks in Antebellum South Carolina (Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press, 1973), p. 81.

Chapter Three: From Slavery to Freedom to Slaveownership

1. Record of Wills vol. 11671-1724 (Charleston County), p. 50

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Peter
H. Wood, Negroes in Colonial South Carolina from 1670 through the
Stono Rebellion (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1974), p.
100.

2. John D. Duncan, "Slave Emancipation in Colonial South

Carolina," American Chronicle, A Magazine of History, 1 (1972), p. 66.

3. Record of Wills vol. 27 1793-1800 (Charleston County), p. 867;

Ibid., vol. 30 1800-1807 (Charleston County), p. 1083.

4. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp.

436, 439; Ibid., vol. 22 1786-1793 (Charleston County), pp. 136-137;
Ibid., vol. 27 1793-1800 (Charleston County), p. 685.

5. Ibid., vol. 24 1786-1793 (Charleston County), p. 1102.

6. Miscellaneous Records vol. 3D 1792-1795 (Secretary of State),

p. 284 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Ibid., vol. 30 1799-1803 (Secretary of State), pp. 299-300, 645.

7. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1848, Record Number 22

(Charleston County), "Testimony of Rebecca Thorne," 22 April 1848,
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); The
City Gazette of Charleston, August 13, 1824; Record of Wills vol. 36
1818-1826 (Charleston County), p. 1034.

8. Benjamin Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution (New

York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1973), pp. 95-96.
 9. John Livingston Bradley, "Slave Manumissions in South
Carolina, 1820-1860," (M.A. Thesis, University of South Carolina,
1964), p. 56.

10. Record of Wills vol. 28 1800-1807 (Charleston County), pp. 4-

6.

11. Ibid., p. 9.

12. Miscellaneous Records vol. 2Z 1789-1792 (Secretary of State),

pp. 140-141; Ibid., vol. 2U 1783-1785 (Secretary of State), pp. 155,
169; Ibid., vol. 2Z 1789-1792 (Secretary of State), pp. 131-132.

13. Ibid., vol. 2U 1783-1785 (Secretary of State), pp. 94-95.

14. Record of Wills vol. 27 1793-1800 (Charleston County), p.

674, 788-789.

15. Mariana Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow: The Free

Blacks in Antebellum South Carolina (Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press, 1973), pp. 22, 45.

16. Ibid., p. 35; H.M. Henry, The Police Control of the Slave in
South Carolina, (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1968), p. 193.

17. Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, p. 36.

18. (Anthony Weston was referred to as Toney Weston by his

white customers in Charleston City.) Charleston Mercury, April 8,
1839.

19. Record of Wills vol. 37 1826-1834 (Charleston County), pp.

184-185.
 20. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Sixth Census of
the United States, 1840: Schedule I, Charleston Neck, South Carolina,
p. 100, (National Archives, Washington, D.C.); Eighth Census of the
United States, 1860: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p.
376; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1827, 1832, 1836, 1840, 1844,
1846 (Charleston), (Department of Archives & History, Columbia,
South Carolina).

21. Record of Wills vol. 37 1826-1834 (Charleston County), p. 184.

22. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I,

Charleston Neck, S.C., p. 101; Seventh Census of the United States,
1850: Schedule 1, Charleston Neck, S.C., p. 303; Free Negro Capitation
Tax Book 1846 (Charleston).

23. Record of Wills vol. 22 1786-1793 (Charleston County), p.

150; Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, p. 94; Anne King Gregorie,
History of Sumter County (Sumter, South Carolina: Library Board,
1954), p. 134.

24. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp.

238-239; Directory and Strangers Guide for the City of Charleston for
the Year 1822 (Charleston: Schenck, 1822), p. 106.

25. Martin Robinson Delany, The Conditions, Elevation,

Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of the United States
(Philadelphia: Author, 1852), p. 108; Charleston Courier, February 13,
1824.

26. Record of Wills vol. 44 1845-1851 (Charleston County), p.

383; Direc- toryfor 1822, pp. 105, 108; Record of Wills vol. 36 1818-
1826 (Charleston County), pp. 1008-1009; Ibid., vol. E2 1860-1867
(Sumter County), pp. 116-117 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina).

27. Miscellaneous Records vol. 4Y 1822-1824 (Secretary of

State), pp. 170-171; Bills of Sale vol. 3N 1799-1805 (Secretary of
State), p. 381 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina); Ibid., vol. 41 1813-1815 (Secretary of State), p. 218;
Directory for 1822, p. 108.

28. Bills of Sale vol. 3N 1799-1805 (Secretary of State), p. 108;

Ibid., vol. 41 1813-1815 (Secretary of State), p. 218; Ibid., vol. 4X
1822-1823 (Secretary of State), p. 328; Inventories vol. G 1824-1834
(Charleston County), pp. 11-13 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Bills of Sale vol. 4X 1822-1823 (Secretary
of State), p.328.

29. (On November 7, 1804, Philida Turner was manumitted by her

master.) Miscellaneous Records vol. 6B 1844-1849 (Secretary of
State), pp. 388-389; Bills of Sale vol. 4F 1811-1813 (Secretary of
State), p. 192.

30. Record of Wills vol. 34 1818-1826 (Charleston County), pp.

97-98.

31. Ibid., p. 97.

32. Bills of Sale vol. 4F 1811-1814 (Secretary of State), p. 402;

Ibid., vol. 41 1813-1815 (Secretary of State), p. 221.

33. Record of Wills vol. 28 1800-1807 (Charleston County), p. 3.

34. Mortgages vol. 2G 1776-1796 (South Carolina), p. 331

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

35. E. Horace Fitchett, "Traditions of the Free Negro in

Charleston, South Carolina," Journal of Negro History vol. 25 (April
1940), pp. 141-142.

36. Joseph W. Barnwell, "Bernard Elliotts Recruiting Journal

1775," South Carolina Historical & Genealogical Magazine vol. 8 (July
1916), pp. 98-99; Willie Pauline Young, ed., Abstracts of Old Ninety
Six and Abbeville District Wills and Bonds (Abbeville, S.C., 1950), pp.
128-129; First Census of the United States, 1790. Schedule I,
Orangeburgh District, South Carolina, p. 101.

37. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1843, Record Number

1 0 . 5 (Charleston County); Record of Wills vol. 42 1839-1845
(Charleston County), pp. 62-63; J.R. Honour, List of the Tax Payers of
the City of Charleston for 1859 (Charleston: Walker & Evans, 1860), p.
402. - - - - -- ---- ----

38. Record of Wills vol. 31 1807-1818 (Charleston County), pp.

265-267; Calvin D. Wilson, "Negroes Who Owned Slaves," Popular
Science Monthly vol. LXXXI (1912), p. 490.

39. (In South Carolina, there was a small voice for emancipation.
He n r y Laurens and his son John Laurens spoke out. Although
antislavery arguments were widely heard in the state, many
slaveowners, black and white, did not free them.) Clement Easton, The
Freedom-of- Thought Struggle in the Old South (New York: Harper &
Row, 1964), p. 22.

40. Record of Wills vol. 31 1807-1818 (Charleston County), pp.

265-267; Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1832, Record Number
21 (Charleston County); Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of
State), p. 221; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, St.
Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p.
184; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 395; Eighth Census of the United States,
Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 403; Free Negro
Capitation Tax Book 1860, 1862, 1863, 1864 (Charleston).

41. E. Ophelia Settle, "Social Attitudes During the Slave Regime:

Household Servants Versus Field Hands," The American Sociological
Society, vol. 28 (December 1933), pp. 95-98; Record of Wills vol. 42
1839-1845 (Charleston County), pp. 260-261; Fifth Census of the
United States, 1830: Schedule 1, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 61.

42. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, p. 17.

43. Ibid., p. 48.

44. Herbert Aptheker, American Negro Slave Revolts (New York:

International Publishers, 1978), pp. 268-269.

45. Henrietta P. Jervey, ed., "The Private Register of Rev. Paul

Trapier," South Carolina Historical Magazine vol. 58 (1957), p. 177;
Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 115; Bills of Sale vol. 6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of
State), p. 186.

46. Record of Wills vol. 49 1856-1862 (Charleston County), p.

867.

47. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. M 1858-1864

(Charleston County), p. 352 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina).

48. Stanley Feldstein, Once A Slave: The Slaves' View of Slavery

(New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1971), pp. 49-50.

49. Record of Wills vol. 37 1826-1834 (Charleston County), p.

182; Bills of Sale vol. 5T 1836-1839 (Secretary of State), p. 498.
 50. Bills of Sale, vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 486;
Ibid., vol. 5T 1836-1839 (Secretary of State), pp. 134, 340, 400, 498;
Ibid., vol. 5W 1839-1843 (Secretary of State), p. 2; Eighth Census of
the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p.
376; Honour, Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for 1860, p. 332.

Chapter Four: "Buying My Chidrum from Ole Massa"

1. George Rogers, Jr., and David R. Chestnutt, eds., The Papers of

Henry Laurens vol. 7, Aug. 1, 1769- Oct. 9, 1771 (Columbia: University
of South Carolina Press, 1979), pp. 126-127.

2. Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p. 454

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

3. Bills of Sale vol. 4D 1810-1811 (Secretary of State), p. 5; E.

Horace Fitchett, "The Free Negro in Charleston, South Carolina,"
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1950), p. 43 (Maurice
Brown was the founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in
Charleston. While in the city, he attempted to bridge the gap between
the free Negro elite and the less fortunate free coloreds and slaves. But
in 1822, he was forced to leave the state and move to Philadelphia for
violating the Act of 1822); Mariana Wikramanayake, A World in
Shadow: The Free Blacks in Ante-bellum South Carolina (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1973), pp. 74, 87-88.

4. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1811 (Charleston),

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Bills
of Sale vol. 3T 1803-1805 (Secretary of State), p. 350; Ibid., vol. 3X
1805-1808 (Secretary of State), p. 463; Ibid., vol. 41 1813-1815
(Secretary of State), p. 394.

5. Bills of Sale, vol. 3X 1805-1808 (Secretary of State), p. 463;

Ibid., vol. 41 1813-1815 (Secretary of State), p. 394.

6. Ibid., vol. 5D 1825-1827 (Secretary of State), p. 328;

Miscellaneous Records vol. 6E 1847-1853 (Secretary of State), p. 596
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

7. Bills of Sale vol. SD 1825-1827 (Secretary of State), p. 53.

8. Ibid., P. 449.

9. Ibid., vol. 41 1813-1815 (Secretary of State), p. 192; Ibid., vol.

4K 1815-1816 (Secretary of State), p. 91.

10. Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, "The Slave Labor Problem in

Charleston District," Political Science Quarterly vol. 22 (September
1907), p. 437; Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p.
41.

11. Miscellaneous Records vol. 2U 1783-1785 (Secretary of

State), p. 187; Bills of Sale vol. 4A 1808-1810 (Secretary of State), p.
373; Phillips, "Slave Labor Problem" pp. 437-438; Robert William
Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time On the Cross: The Economics of
American Negro Slavery (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974), pp. 73-75, 86-
88; Bills of Sale vol. 4D 1810-1811 (Secretary of State), p. 272.

12. Ibid., vol. 2Q 1773-1789 (Secretary of State), p. 514.

13. Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County), p.

1138, (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

14. Charleston Mercury, May 16, 1833.

15. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1846, Record Number 59

(Charleston County), (Department of Archives & History, Columbia,
S.C.).

16. (Both John Francis and John Lee were free coloreds and
slaveowners. In 1836, John Francis operated a barbershop on 312 King
Street in Charleston City, while John Lee owned a tailor shop on 72
Tradd Street.) Fifth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule I,
Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 33, 78; Supplement to the
Charleston Directory for 1836, pp. 108, 109.

17. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1846, Record Number 59

(Charleston County).

18. Ibid., Bills of Complaint 1846, Record Number 59 (In 1834,

Mary Portee, the slave child of John Portee, was a pupil at Mary Ann
Seymour's school. Even before the law suit against John Francis and
John Lee, the owner of the slave girls allowed them to assimilate into
the free black community. After the litigation, the slave children of
John Portee paid free Negro taxes and were reported to be free persons
of color in 1848. Also Eliza Ann Portee was listed not only as a free
black but as the owner of one slave in 1862);
Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. A 1834-1841
(Charleston County), pp. 216-217, (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Court of Common Pleas BIAE 1824-0122A
(Charleston County), (Department of Archives & History, Columbia,
South Carolina); Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1848, 1862
(Charleston).

19. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1846, Record Number

59.5 (Charleston County).

20. Bills of Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 308;

Record of Wills vol. 44 1845-1851 (Charleston County), pp. 109-110;
Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 874.
 21. Record of Wills vol. 45 1845-1851 (Charleston County), p.
896; Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. F 1852-1853
(Charleston County), p. 116.

22. Bills of Sale vol. 2Q 1773-1789 (Secretary of State), p. 743;

Ibid., vol. 3X 1805-1808 (Secretary of State), p. 159.

23. Charleston Mercury, December 27, 1825.

24. Miscellaneous Records vol. 2U 1783-1785 (Secretary of

State), pp. 427-428; Ibid., vol. 2Z 1789-1792 (Secretary of State), p.
244; Bills of Sale vol. 5D 1825-1827 (Secretary of State), p. 328;
Miscellaneous Records vol. 6E 1847-1853 (Secretary of State), p. 596.

25. Bills of Sale vol. 3N 1799-1805 (Secretary of State), p. 418.

26. William W. Freehling, Prelude To Civil War: The

Nulliffication Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836 (New York:
Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 26-35; Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow,
pp. 100-110; Ira Berlin, Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the
Antebellum South (New York: Vintage Books,-1976)-,- pp. 222-230.

27. Bills of Sale vol. 3T 1803-1805 (Secretary of State), p. 350;

Ibid., vol. 3X 1805-1808 (Secretary of State), p. 463; Miscellaneous
Records vol. 3Y 1806-1809 (Secretary of State), p. 425.

28. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1823 (Charleston); Seventh

Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston Neck, South
Carolina, p. 303.

29. Bills of Sale vol. 3X 1805-1808 (Secretary of State), p. 15.

30. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp.

238-239 (Between 1839 and 1841, Hercules Mathews, the grandson of
George Mathews, was reported to be a free black by the city tax
collectors); Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1839, 1840, 1841
(Charleston).

31. John Livingston Bradley, "Slave Manumissions in South

Carolina 1820-1860," (M.A. Thesis, University of South Carolina,
1964), pp. 58-60.

32. Charleston Mercury, October 7, 1833; Free Negro Capitation

Tax Book 1827, 1832 (Charleston); Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825
(Secretary of State), p. 318; Fifth Census of the United States, 1830:
Schedule 1, Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 129.

33. Charleston Mercury, October 19, 1835; Free Negro Capitation

Tax Book 1832, 1833, 1836 (Charleston).

34. Court of Common Pleas BIAE 1831-0272A (Charleston

County); Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1827, 1832, 1833
(Charleston); Court of Common Pleas BIAS 1839-0134A (Charleston
County).

35. Bills of Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 116.

36. Bills of Sale vol. 5T 1836-1839 (Secretary of State), p. 33;

Charleston Courier, September 3, 1840.

37. Charleston Courier, September 3, 1840.

38. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1851, Record Number 75

(Charleston County); Seventh Census of the United States, 1850:
Schedule I, St. James & Goose Creek Parish, Charleston County, South
Carolina, p. 427 (Mr. Christian Alfs was a German immigrant who
worked as a castor oil manufacturer on King Street. Shortly after the
litigation, the German immigrant died and left behind a small amount
of property); Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,
Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 301; Inventories, Appraisements &
Sales vol. C 1850-1854 (Charleston County), p. 364 (Department of
Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

39. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1851, Record Number 75

(Charleston County).

40. Bradley, "Slave Manumissions in South Carolina," pp. 59-62.

41. Ibid.-,-pp.-4647.

42. David J. McCord, ed., The Statutes at Large of South Carolina

Containing the Acts from 1814 to 1838 (Columbia: A.S. Johnston,
1839), pp. 194-195.

43. Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, p. 38.

44. Ibid., pp. 38-39.

45. Petition of James Patterson, Slavery Petitions file 260

(Department of Archives &History, Columbia, South Carolina).

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Columbia City, Richland County, South Carolina, p. 10; Ibid., Schedule
II, p. 121.

49. Bills of Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 345;

Sara Wells, ed., "Marriages Performed by Rev. Basil Manly," South
Carolina Magazine of Ancestral Research vol. 8 (Winter 1980), p. 3;
Journal of the House of Representatives of the Legislature of South
Carolina for 1829, p. 16 (The Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.).

50. Journal of the House of Representatives for 1836, p. 24.

51. Thomas Cooper, ed., The Statutes at Large of South Carolina

(Columbia: A.S. Johnston, 1839), p. 549.

52. Record of Wills vol. 44 1845-1851 (Charleston County), cit.,

pp. 383-84.

53. Ibid., vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County), p. 1138 (In the

will of Peter Parlar, he mentioned that George Wilson was sometimes
referred to as George Watkins); Robert S. Starobin, ed., Denmark
Vesey: The Slave Conspiracy of 1822 (New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
1970), p. 17. Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p.
481; Journal of the House of Representatives for 1835, pp. 43, 79.

54. Bradley, "Slave Manumissions in South Carolina," pp. 59-62.

55. Bills of Sale vol. 4V 1820-1822 (Secretary of State), p. 303;

Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, p. 40.

56. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5E 1826-1828 (Secretary of State),

p. 103.

57. Ibid., p. 104.

58. Ibid., vol. G 1829-1831, (Secretary of State), pp. 231-232.

59. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Fairfield County, South Carolina, p. 234; Record of Wills vol. E-2
1860-1867 (Sumter County), p. 117 (Department of Archives &
History, Columbia, South Carolina).
 60. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5R 1835-1837 (Secretary of
State), pp. 217-218.

61. Ibid., vol. 5H 1828-1830 (Secretary of State), pp. 387-388.

62. Ibid., vol. 5N 1831-1835 (Secretary of State), pp. 64-65.

63. Ibid., p. 65.

64. Ibid., vol. 5L 1829-1831 (Secretary of State), p. 130.

65. Bills of Sale vol. 5K 1829-1831 (Secretary-of State), p. 392.

66. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5L 1829-1831 (Secretary of State),

pp. 399-400.

67. H. Bailey, ed., Report of Cases Argued and Determined in the

Court of Appeals of South Carolina vol. 11 (Charleston: E. Miller,
1834), pp. 137-138.

68. Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow p. 43.

69. Acts of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina

for 1841 (Columbia: A.H. Pemberton, 1842), p. 155.

70. Petition of Priscilla Jesszup, Slavery Petitions file 264.

71. Ibid.

72. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I. St.

Bartholomews Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina, p. 289; Ibid.,
Schedule II, p. 336; Petition of William Jackson, Slavery Petitions file
266.

73. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5Y 1840-1842 (Secretary of

State), pp. 331-332.

74. Bills of Sale vol. 6A 1843-1846 (Secretary of State), p. 497;

Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, St. James &
Goose Creek Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 427; Ibid.,
Schedule II, p. 407.

75. Record of Wills vol. 44 1845-1851 (Charleston County), p.

451.

76. Miscellaneous Records vol. 6G 1853-1856 (Secretary of

State), pp. 699-700 (Thomas R. Small and John B. Mathews were free
persons of color); Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1860, 1863, 1864
(Charleston).

77. Miscellaneous Records vol. 6H 1856-1858 (Secretary of

State), p. 50.

78. Ibid., vol. 6K 1860-1868 (Secretary of State), pp. 249-250.

Chapter Five: Neither a Slave Nor a Free Person

1. Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p. 53

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Free
Negro Capitation Tax Book 1823 (Charleston) (Department of Archives
& History, Columbia, S.C.).

2. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1836, 1840 (Charleston).

3. Bills of Sale vol. 6A 1843-1846 (Secretary of State), p. 38; Free

Negro Capitation Tax Book 1860, 1864 (Charleston).

4. Bills of Sale vol. 6A 1843-1846 (Secretary of State), p. 100;

Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1860 (Charleston); Ninth Census of
the United States, 1870: Scheaule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p.
413.

5. Bills of Sale vol. 6C 1849-1853 (Secretary of State), p. 11;

Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston
Neck, South Carolina, p. 309; J. R. Honour, List of Tax Payers of the
City of Charleston for 1859 (Charleston: Walker & Evans, 1860), p.
398.

6. Bills of Sale vol. 6D 1853-1857 (Secretary of State), p. 18;

Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 502; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1860
(Charleston).

7. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5N 1831-1835 (Secretary of State),

pp. 64-65 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina); Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1836 (Charleston); Sixth
Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I, Barnwell County, South
Carolina, p. 224; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1860 (Charleston);
Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 488.

8. Summer Matison, "Manumission by Purchase," Journal of

Negro History vol. 32 (1948), p. 153; Mariana Wikramanayake, A
World in Shadow: The Free Blacks in Ante-bellum South Carolina
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press), p. 40; Miscellaneous
Records vol. 5R 1835-1837 (Secretary of State), p. 375.

9. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5R 1835-1837 (Secretary of State),

p. 375.

10. Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 561;

Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. B 1844-1850 (Charleston
County), p. 141 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina); Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1845, Record Number
4 (Charleston County) (Department of Archives & History, Columbia,
South Carolina).

11. H. Bailey, ed., Reports of the Cases Argued and Determined in

the Court of Appeals of South Carolina vol. II (Charleston: E. Miller,
1834), pp. 137-138.

12. W.R. Hill, ed., Reports of Cases at Law, Argued in the Court
of Appeals of South Carolina (Columbia: n.p., 1834), pp. 423-424.

13. Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, p. 43.

14. Acts of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina

for 1841 (Columbia: A.H. Pemberton, 1842), p. 156.

15. J.S.G. Richardson, ed., Reports of Cases in Equity Argued and

Determined in the Court of Appeals and the Court of Errors of South
Carolina vol. X (Columbia: Johnston, 1858),.p. 465.

16. Reports of Cases in Equity, vol. 9 (Charleston, 1861), p. 9.

17. Richardson, Reports of Cases in Equity, vol. Ill (Columbia:

Johnston, 1852), p. 431.

18. Record of Wills vol. 37 1826-1834 (Charleston County), p.

184 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Sixth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule I, Charleston Neck,
South Carolina, p. 57; Seventh Census of the United States, 1840:
Schedule I, Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 101; Free Negro
Capitation Tax Book 1840, 1846, 1850 (Charleston); Charleston
Courier, January 27, 1852.
 19. Sixth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule 1,
Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 57; Miscellaneous Records vol. 6B
1844-1849 (Secretary of State), p. 616.

20. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5L 1829-1831 (Secretary of State),

p. 441.

21. Henrietta P. Jervey, ed., "The Private Register of the Rev. Paul
Trapier," South Carolina Historical Magazine vol. 58 (1959), p. 177;
Sixth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule I, Charleston Neck,
South Carolina, p. 100; Seventh Census of the United States, 1840:
Schedule I, Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 121; Eighth Census of
the United States, 1860: Schedule !, Charleston City, South Carolina, p.
378; Honour, Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for 1860, p. 394.

22. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp.

202-204; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,
Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 522.

23. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule IV,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 371; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 493;
Ibid., Schedule I, p. 522.

24. Record of Wills vol. 37 1826-1834 (Charleston County), pp.

184-185; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,
Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 376; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 461;
Honour, Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for 1860, p. 332.

25. (In 1836, Hannah Gonzalez and her children were freed from
bondage by their owner, Basilio Gonazlez. According to a deed of trust,
they were transferred to Henry Frost and Frederick Winthrop for the
nominal sum of five dollars. However, the trust stipulated that "the said
female slave Hannah should be unrestrained in the Government and
disposal of herself and children and the appropriation of any monies
arising from her or their personal industry as if she or they were
manumitted, emancipated from the bond of slavery.") Miscellaneous
Records vol. 6A 1844-1849 (Secretary of State), pp. 389-390; Bills of
Sale vol. 6E 1857-1863 (Secretary of State), pp. 223, 251, 252.

26. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp.

238-39.

27. Ibid., pp. 238-239; Charleston Courier, September 4, 1841.

28. Charleston Courier, September 4, 1981.

29. Ibid.

30. Bills of Sale vol. 5K 1829-1832 (Secretary of State), p. 350;

Charleston Mercury, May 28, 1833.

31. Charleston Mercury, May 28, 1833.

32. Miscellaneous Records vol. SE 1826-1828 (Secretary of

State), p. 265; Ibid., vol. 5Z 1842-1843 (Secretary of State), p. 546.

33. Miscellaneous Records vol. 6B 1844-1849 (Secretary of

State), pp. 388-389, 654.

34. James Johnson to Henry Ellison, 20 April 1860, Ellison

Family Papers (South Caroliniana Library, University of South
Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina).

35. Ibid.

36. Charleston Courier, August 9, 1860.

 37. James Johnson to Henry Ellison, 20 April 1860, Ellison Family
Papers.

38. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule !,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 488; Free Negro Capitation Tax
Book 1860, 1864 (Charleston).

39. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 278; Honour, Tax Payers of the City
of Charleston for 1860, p. 332; Record of Wills vol. 42 1839-1845
(Charleston County), p. 62; Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1843,
Record Number 10.5 (Charleston County); Eighth Census of the United
States, 1860; Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 522;
Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp. 203-204.

Chapter Six: The Woodson Thesis: Fact or Fiction?

I. R. Halliburton, Jr., "Free Black Owners of Slaves: A Reappraisal

of the Woodson Thesis," South Carolina Historical Magazine vol. 76
(July 1976), pp. 129-135.

2. Carter G. Woodson, "Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the

United States in 1830," Journal of Negro History vol. 9 (January 1924),
p. 42.

3. John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of

Negro Americans (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974), p. 173.

4. Ira Berlin, Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the

Antebellum South (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), p. 273.

5. Halliburton, "Free Black Owners of Slaves," pp. 130-135.

 6. Luther P. Jackson, Free Negro Labor and Property Holding in
Virginia, 1830-1860 (New York: Russell & Russell, 1942), pp. 224-
225.

7. David Rankin, "The Forgotten People: Free People of Color in

N e w Orleans 1850-1870," (Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins
University, 1976), pp. 155-156.

8. Bills of Sale vol. 4M 1816-1818 (Secretary of State), p. 225

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Ibid.,
vol. 4V 1820-1822 (Secretary of State), p. 295; Free Negro Capitation
Tax Book 1821, 1822 (Charleston) (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina).

9. Bills of Sale vol. 1822-1823 (Secretary of State), p. 40.

10. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5H 1828-1830 (Secretary of

State), pp. 88-92 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina).

11. Inventories vol. A 1838-1844 (Charleston County), p. 358

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

12. Bills of Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 467;

Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), p. 241
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

13. Inventories vol. H 1834-1844 (Charleston County), pp. 114-

115; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1839 (Charleston).

14. Summer Matison, "Manumission by Purchase," Journal of

Negro History vol. 32 (1948), p. 153; Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836
(Secretary of State), p. 554; Ibid., vol. 5T 1836-1839 (Secretary of
State), p. 338.
 15. Record of Wills vol. 42 1839-1845 (Charleston County), p.
214.

16. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. A 1838-1841

(Charleston County), pp. 487-488 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. 2
1839-1844 (Charleston County), pp. 178, 235; Charleston Courier,
December 10, 1840.

17. Woodson, "Free Negro Owners of Slaves," p. 42.

18. Ibid.

19. Bills of Sale vol. 3P 1800-1801 (Secretary of State), p. 281;

Ibid., vol. 3T 1803-1805 (Secretary of State), p. 554.

20. Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), pp. 430,

667; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1822 (Charleston); Bills of Sale
vol. 2Q 1773-1789 (Secretary of State), pp. 290, 424; Ibid., vol. 3N
1799-1805 (Secretary of State), p. 235.

21. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1839, Record Number 28

(Charleston County), (Department of Archives & History, Columbia,
South Carolina).

22. Ibid.

23. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1845, Record Number

102 (Charleston County).

24. Ibid., 1820, No. 13; Ibid., 1834, No. 20, 55-56; Ibid., 1835, No.
37; Ibid., 1845, No. 4; Ibid., 1848, No. 22; Ibid., 1850, No. 34; Ibid.,
1851, No. 81.
 25. Ibid., 1848, No. 13.

26. Mortgages vol. 301809-1813 (South Carolina), p. 94

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia South Carolina); Ibid.,
vol. 3T 1822-1826, p. 77; Ibid., vol. 3L 1800-1808, pp. 129-130; Ibid.,
vol. 4A 1840-1844, p. 491.

27. Bills of Sale vol. 6A 1843-1846 (Secretary of State), p. 541;

Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1840 (Charleston).

28. Marriage Settlements vol. 11785-1792 (South Carolina), p.

365 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

29. Ibid.,vol. 14 1838-1841, pp. 249-253, 323-324.

30. Record of Wills vol. 36 1818-1826 (Charleston County), p.

1031; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1823 (Charleston).

31. Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County), pp.

951-952; A.S. Salley, Jr., ed., Register of St. Philip's Charles Town
South Carolina 1720-1758 (Charleston: Walker & Evans, 1904), pp.
100, 145; Record of Wills vol. 14 1771-1774 (Charleston County), p.
109; Marriage Settlements vol. 1 1785-1792 (South Carolina), p. 646.

32. Bills of Sale vol. 5K 1829-1832 (Secretary of State), p. 545;

Record of Wills vol. 36 1818-1826 (Charleston County), pp. 1057-
1058; Bills of Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), pp. 219-
220; The Directory and Stranger's Guide for the City of Charleston for
the Year 1819 (Charleston: Schenck & Turner, 1819), p. 48.

33. Record of Wills vol. 22 1786-1793 (Charleston County), p. 67.

34. Ibid., p. 68.

 35. Ibid., vol. 37 1826-1834, pp. 196-200; Inventories vol. G 1824-
1834 (Charleston County), p. 200; Estate Papers, Probate Court, Bundle
146, Record Number 11 (Barnwell County), (Department of Archives &
History, Columbia, South Carolina).

36. Record of Wills vol. 45 1845-1851 (Charleston County), p.

896; Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. F 1852-1853
(Charleston County), p. 116; Record of Wills vol. 44 1845-1851
(Charleston County), p. 294; Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate
Records vol. F 1852-1853 (Charleston County), p. 412; Seventh Census
of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina,
p. 200.

37. Berlin, Slaves Without Masters, p. 234.

38. Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p. 44;

Charleston Courier, January 21, 1826; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book
1821 (Charleston); Marriage Settlements vol. 11 1833-1835 (South
Carolina), pp. 51-55; Charleston Mercury, November 26, 1833.

39. Bills of Sale vol. 4P 1817 (Secretary of State), p. 297.

40. Ibid., vol. SD 1825-1827, p. 289; Ibid., vol. 50 1832-1836, p.

519; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1832, 1834 (Charleston); Bills of
Sale vol. 5T 1836-1839 (Secretary of State), p. 498; Free Negro
Capitation Tax Book 1840 (Charleston).

41. Charleston Courier, August 20, 1836.

42. Charleston Mercury, July 6, 1859; Bills of Sale vol. 6D 1853-

1857 (Secretary of State), p. 127; J.R. Honour, List of the Tax Payers of
the City of Charleston for 1859 (Charleston: Walker & Evans, 1860), p.
398.
 43. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I, St.
Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p.
189; Charleston Mercury, May 22, 1840.

44. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 309; Charleston Courier, March
9, 1849.

45. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. F 1852-1853

(Charleston County), pp. 72, 227; Ibid., vol. 1 1856-1858, pp. 126-127.

46. Bills of Sale vol. 4P 1817 (Secretary of State), pp. 352-353;

Ibid., vol. 5K 1829-1832, pp. 128-129; Master of Equity, Bills of
Complaint, 1850, Record Number 34 (Charleston County).

47. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), p. 138.

48. Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. C 1850-1854

(Charleston County), p. 229.

49. Record of Wills vol. 31 1807-1818 (Charleston County), pp.

223-228; Inventories vol. E 1810-1818 (Charleston County), p.-9.-

50. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5Z 1842-1843 (Secretary of State),

p. 257; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1836, 1840 (Charleston).

51. Fifth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 88; Sixth Census of the United
States, 1840: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 69.--

52. Record of Wills vol. 1845-1851 (Charleston County), pp. 23-

24.

53. Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. B 1844-1850

(Charleston County), pp. 207-208; Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate
Records vol. E 1846-1852 (Charleston County), pp. 93-94.

54. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), p. 62.

55. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1821 (Charleston);

Inventories vol. H 1834-1844 (Charleston County), p. 46;
Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. A 1838-1841
(Charleston County), pp. 140-141; Mortgages vol. 4A 1840-1844
(South Carolina), p. 663; Bills of Sale vol. 6A 1843-1846 (Secretary of
State), pp. 504-505.

56. Record of Wills vol. 27 1793-1800 (Charleston County), p.

745; Ibid., vol. 33 1807-1818, pp. 999-1000.

57. Record of Wills vol. 36 1818-1826 (Charleston County), p.

992.

58. Ibid., vol. 39 1826-1834, pp. 960-971; Charleston Courier,

December 29, 1831; Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County),
p. 501; Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), pp. 326,
644; Miscellaneous Records vol. 5Z 1842-1843 (Secretary of State), p.
339.

59. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5Z 1842-43 (Secretary of State), p.

339-40.

60. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. E 1846-1852

(Charleston County), pp. 90, 129.

61. Halliburton, "Free Black Owners of Slaves," p. 141.

62. Fifth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 108; Inventories vol. C 1850-1854
(Charleston County), p. 234; Bills of Sale vol. 4X 1822-1823 (Secretary
of State), p. 190; Record of Wills vol. 46 1851-1856 (Charleston
County), pp. 47-48.

63. Fifth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule 1,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 31; Inventories vol. G 1824-1834
(Charleston Counth), pp. 422-423; Record of Wills vol. 38 1826-1834
(Charleston County), pp. 769-770; Bills of Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829
(Secretary of State), pp. 51, 131.

64. Fifth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 75; Bills of Sale vol. 5K 1829-1832
(Secretary of State), p. 6; Ibid., vol. 501832-1836, p. 489; Fifth Census
of the United States, 1830: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina,
p. 95; Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 420; Ibid.,
vol. 5T 1836-1839, p. 268.

65. Berlin, Slaves Without Masters, p. 305; Rules and Regulations

of the Brown Fellowship Society, Established at Charleston, South
Carolina, November 1, 1790 (Charleston: J.B. Nixon, 1844), p. 26; Bills
of Sale vol. 4F 1811-1814 (Secretary of State), p. 319; Ibid., vol. 4P
1817, pp. 31, 362, Ibid., vol. 4V 1820-1822, p. 64; Ibid., vol. 4X 1822-
1823, pp. 259, 337, 340; Ibid., vol. 5A 1823-1825, p. 68; Ibid., vol. 5K
1829-1832, p. 97; Mortgages vol. 3R 1818-1822 (South Carolina), p.
190; Ibid., vol. 3T 1822-1826, p. 151.

66. Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County), p.

905.

67. Ibid., p. 906.

68. Woodson, "Free Negro Owners of Slaves," pp. 42-44; Rules

and Regulations of the Brown Fellowship Society, pp. 25-27.
 69. see Appendix A

70. Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the

AnteBellum South (New York: Vintage Books, 1956), p. 234.

71. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. "benevolent."

72. John F. Bayliss, ed., Black Slave Narratives (New York:

Collier Books, 1970), p. 50..--

73. Bills of Sale vol. 5K 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 308;

Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1827, 1832 (Charleston); Bills of Sale
vol. 5K 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 48.

74. Bills of Sale vol. 5K 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 204;

Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1821, 1822, 1823, 1827 (Charleston).

75. see Appendix C

Chapter Seven: White Rice, White Cotton, Brown Planters,

Black Slaves

1. Peter H. Wood, Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South

Carolina from 1670 through the Stono Rebellion (New York: W.W.
Norton & Co., 1974), pp. 35-40; William B. lees, Limerick Old and in
the Way: Archeological Investigations at Limerick Plantation
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1980), p. 43.

2. Wood,-Black. Majority,-pp.- 110-111.

3. Lee, Limerick, pp. 43, 56-57.

4. Wood, Black Majority, pp. 59-62; David C. Littlefield, Rice &

Slaves: Ethnicity & the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina (Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981), pp. 76-80, 92-98.

5. David Doar, Rice and Rice Planting in South Carolina Low

Country (Charleston: Charleston Museum, 1936), p. 41; William W.
Freehling, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in
South Carolina, 1816-1836 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1968), pp.
9-12; Duncan Clinch Heyward, Seed From Madagascar (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1937), pp. 28-29.

6. Henry Savage, Jr., River of the Carolinas: The Santee (New

York: Rhinehart & Company, 1956), pp. 19-20; J.H. Easterby, ed., The
South Carolina Rice Plantation As Revealed in the Papers of Robert F.
W. Allston (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945), pp. 20-25;
Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, p. 11.

7. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1833, Record Number 34

(Charleston County), "Testimony of George Parker," 1 March 1819
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Ibid.,
"Testimony of Stile Edward Lightbourn," 10 September 1823; Register
of Conveyance vol. M-8 1815-1816 (Charleston County), pp. 298-299
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847, Record Number 52
(Charleston County), "Report of James W. Gray," 3 July 1846;
Miscellaneous Records vol. 5Z 1842-1843 (Secretary of State), pp. 64-
65 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

8. Charleston Courier, November 23, 1847; Inventories vol. C

1793-1800 (Charleston County), pp. 344-345 (Department of Archives
& History, Columbia, South Carolina); Eighth Census of the United
States, 1860: Schedule I, Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 314;
Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 13-14; Ann King Gregories, The History of
Sumter County (Sumter, 1954), p. 110.
 9. Bills of Sale vol. 4S 1819-1820 (Secretary of State), p. 92
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. B 1844-1850 (Charleston
County), pp. 313-315, 394; Miscellaneous Records vol. 61 1858-1861
(Secretary of State), pp. 421-422; Eighth Census of the United States,
1860: Schedule i, Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 314; Ibid.,
Schedule IV, pp. 13-14.

10. Heyward, Seed From Madagascar, pp. 28-30; Doar, Rice and
Rice Planting, pp. 13-14.

11. Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the

AnteBellum South (New York: Vintage Books, 1956), p. 48; Heyward,
Seed From Madagascar, p. 31.

12. Heyward, Seed From Madagascar, pp. 31-33; 36-40.

13. Ibid., pp. 40-42.

14. Ibid., pp. 41-42.

15. Ibid., p. 42; Doar, Rice and Rice Planting, pp. 18-20.

16. Wood, Black Majority, pp. 61-62.

17. Clement Eaton, the Growth of Southern Civilization 1790-1860

(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963), pp. 200-202; Master of Equity,
Bills of Complaint 1847, Record Number 52 (Charleston County).

18. Easterby, ed., South Carolina Rice Plantation, pp. 346-347;

Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross:
The Economics of the American Negro Slavery (Boston: Little, Brown,
1971), p. 208.
 19. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule IV, St.
Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, pp.
357-258; Ibid., Schedule IV, Georgetown County, South Carolina, pp.
13-14 (In 1859, Andrew James Anderson of St. Thomas & St. Dennis
Parish grew 13,200 pounds of rice, while his cousin Robert Michael
Collins plated 90,000 pounds of rice); Easterby, ed., South Carolina
Rice Plantation, p. 346; Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847,
Record Number 52 (Charleston County).

20. Easterby, ed., South Carolina Rice Plantation, pp. 347-348;

Guion Griffis Johnson, A Social History of the Sea Islands with Special
Reference to St. Helena Island South Carolina (Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1930), pp. 87-88; Heyward, Seed of
Madagascar, p. 181; Fogel and Engerman, Time on the Cross, pp. 116-
118; Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847, Record Number 52
(Charleston County); Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. L
1860-1861 (Charleston County), pp. 399-400 (Department of Archives
& History, Columbia, South Carolina).

21. Easterby, ed., South Carolina Rice Plantation, p. 348; Fogel

and Enger- man, Time on the Cross, pp. 115-116; Charleston Mercury,
January 7,1839; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule II,
St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina,
pp. 395-396; Ibid., Schedule I, p. 184; Ibid., Schedule II, St. Stephens
Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 385; Ibid., Schedule i, p.
177; Ibid., Schedule II, St. John's Berkeley Parish, Charleston County,
South Carolina, p. 356; Ibid., Schedule i, p. 158; Ibid., Schedule 11,
Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 134; Ibid., Schedule I, p. 314
(In 1860, the colored rice planters A.J. Anderson, Sarah Boag, Janet
Collins, Nelly Collins, R.M. Collins, John Dangerfield, Henry
Glencamp, and Nancy Lewis held 90 slaves who lived in 20 slave
houses, or 4.4. persons per dwelling).
 22. Sherman L. Ricards and George M. Blackburn, "A
Demographic History of Slavery: Georgetown County, South Carolina,
1850," South Carolina Historical Magazine vol. 76 (October 1975), p.
220.

23. Easterby, ed., South Carolina Rice Plantation, p. 30.

24. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847, Record Number 52

(Charleston County); Easterby, ed., South Carolina Rice Plantation, p.
151.

25. Record of Wills vol. 3 1732-1737 (Charleston County), pp. 240-

242.

26. Brent H. Holcomb, ed., "1786 Tax Returns," South Carolina

Magazine of Ancestral Research vol. IX (Spring 1981), p. 73; First
Census of the United States, 1790: Schedule I, St. Paul's Parish,
Charleston District, South Carolina, p. 37; Inventories vol. C 1792-
1800 (Charleston County), pp. 344-345.

27. David O. Whitten, "Antebellum Sugar and Rice Plantations,

Loui si ana and South Carolina: A Profitability Study," (Ph.D.
dissertation, Tulane University, 1970), pp. 44-45.

28. Inventories vol. C 1792-1800 (Charleston County), pp. 344-

345.

29. Record of Wills vol. 26 1793-1800 (Charleston County), pp.

596-597; Second Census of the United States, 1800: Schedule I, St.
Paul's Parish, Colleton County, S.C., p. 161; Inventories vol. C 1792-
1800 (Charleston County), p. 345.

30. Inventories vol. A 1787-1793 (Charleston County), pp. 491-

492; Record of Wills vol. 22 1786-1793 (Charleston County), p. 83.
 31. General Assembly Petition 1791 (South Carolina), Record
Nu m b e r 10-003-1791-151 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1803
Record Number 15 (Charleston County), "Testimony of Daniel
McNeill," 9 August 1805.

32. Ibid., "Testimony of Augustine Beaudeguin," 4 February 1802;

George C. Rogers, Jr., and David R. Chesnutt, eds., The Papers of
Henry Laurens volume eight: Oct. 10, 1771- April19, 1773 (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1980), p. 451; Ibid., p. 344.

33. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1803, Record Number 15

(Charleston County), "Inventory of John Holman," 21 January 1793.

34. Ibid., "Testimony of Daniel McNeill," 9 August 1805.

35. George C. Rogers, Jr., and David R. Chestnutt, eds., The

Papers of Henry Laurens volume seven: Aug. 1, 1769- Oct. 9, 1771
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1979), p. 344.

36. General Assembly Petitions 1791 (South Carolina), Record

Number 10-003-1791-151.

37. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1803, Record Number 15

(Charleston County), "Testimony of Augustine Beaudeguin," 4
February 1802; Record of Wills vol. 24 1786-1793 (Charleston
County), pp. 1076-1077; Daniel P. Mannix and Malcolm Cowley, Black
Cargoes: A History of the Atlantic Slave Trade 1518-1865 (New York:
Penguin Books, 1978), p. 79; Substance of Report Delivered by the
Court of Directors of Sierra Leone Company to the General Court of
Proprietor On Thursday the 27 March 1794 (London: James Phillips &
George Yard, 1794), pp. 92-94.
 38. Mannix and Cowley, Black Cargo, pp. 182-186; WE.
Burghardt DuBois, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the
United States of America 1638-1870 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press, 1965), p. 102.

39. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1803, Record Number 15

(Charleston County), "Testimony of Henry Laurens, Jr.," Christopher
Fyfe, A History of Sierra Leone (New York: Oxford University Press,
1962), p. 17.

40. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1803, Record Number 15

(Charleston County), "Testimony of William Bowman Bland," 13
February 1802.

41. Viscountess Knutsford, Life and Letters of Zachary Macaulay

(London, 1901), pp. 126, 212; Mannix and Cowley, Black Cargo, pp.
185-190.

42. General Assembly Petitions 1791 (South Carolina), Record

Number 10-003-1791-151.

43. Journal of the Senate of the Legislature of South Carolina for

1791, p. 5 (Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.); General Assembly
Petition 1791 (South Carolina), Record Number 10-004-1791-125.

44. Journal of the Senate of South Carolina 1791,-p. 17.

45. Thomas Cooper, ed., The Statutes at Large of South Carolina

(Columbia: Johnston, 1839), p. 183.

46. Master of Equipty, Bills of Complaint 1803, Record Number

1 5 (Charleston County), "Testimony of John Holman, Jr.," 27
September 1803.
47. Record of Wills vol. 24 1786-1793 (Charleston County), pp. 1076-
1078.

48. Cooper, ed., Statues of South Carolina, pp. 183, 248 (Although
it was not until 1794 that the state assembly banned the importation of
free blacks into South Carolina, it is uncertain whether the children of
John Holman, Sr., came into the state as free persons or as slaves. But
when he declared his children to be free in 1792, their liberty could not
be withdrawn).

49. Inventories vol. C 1793-1800 (Charleston County), pp. 8-9;

Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1807, Record Number 53
(Charleston County); Ibid., Bills of Complaint 1833, Record Number
34, "Testimony of Stile Edward Lightbourn," 10 September 1823.

50. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1803, Record Number 15

(Charleston County), "Testimony of Henry Laurens, Jr."

51. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1833, Record Number 34

(Charleston County), "Testimony of Samuel Parker," 1 March 1819;
Ibid., "Testimony of Stile Edward Lightbourn," 10 September 1823.

52. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1833, Record Number

34, 'Testimony of Stile Edward Lightbourn," 10 September 1823.

53. Ibid., "Testimony of Samuel Parker," 1 March 1819; Ibid.,

"Testimony of Stile Edward Lightbourn," 10 September 1823.

54. Ibid., "Testimony of Stile Edward Lightbourn," 10 September

1823 (In 1806, the annual per-pound price of rice was 3.611; therefore
the gross revenue made from the rice planted was between $5,775.97
and $10,266.84); Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, p. 361.

55. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1807, Record Number 53

(Charleston County); Ibid., "Testimony of Stile Edward Lightbourn,"
10 September 1823.

56. Ibid., Bills of Complaint 1823, Record Number 48, "Decree,"

March 1823.

57. Ibid., Bills of Complaint 1807, Record Number 53,

"Testimony of Stile Edward Lightbourn," 10 September 1823.

58. Mortgages vol. 3M 1804-1809 (South Carolina), p. 100

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Ibid.,
vol. 3L 1800-1808, pp. 414-416; Master of Equity, Decrees 1823,
Record Number 48 (Charleston County); Miscellaneous Records vol.
4R 1819-1820 (Secretary of State), p. 367 (Department of Archives &
History, Columbia, South Carolina).

59. Record of Wills vol. 36 1818-1826 (Charleston County), p.

920.

60. Ibid., p. 92 1.

61. Master of Equity. Bills of Complaint 1803, Record Number 15

(Charleston County); Ibid., Bills of Complaint 1807, Record Number
53 (Charleston County); Record of Wills vol. 41 1834-1839 (Charleston
County), pp. 516-518.

62. Record of Wills vol. 41 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp.

5 16 - 5 17 , 759-760; Miscellaneous Records vol. 5Z 1842-1843
(Secretary of State), pp. 64-65; Register of Conveyance vol. M-8 1815-
1816 (Charleston County), pp. 298-299; Record of Wills vol. 33 1807-
1818 (Charleston County), p. 1341; Inventories vol. E 1810-1818
(Charleston County), p. 471.

63. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847, Record Number 52

(Charleston County), "Testimony of Jacob Cohen," 25 June 1844; Tax
Returns of 1824 for Prince George Parish, Georgetown District, South
Carolina, Record Number 824 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Mortgages vol. 3M 1804-1809 (South
Carolina), p. 29; Ibid., vol. 3P 1813-1818, p. 78; Ibid., vol. 3R 1818-
1822, p. 149; Ibid., vol. 3P 1813-1818, p. 270; Ibid., vol. 4S 1819-1820,
p. 92; Fourth Census of the United States, 1820: Schedule I,
Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 74; Sixth Census of the United
States, 1840: Schedule I, Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 320.

64. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 320; Fourth Census of the
United States, 1820.• Schedule !, Georgetown County, South Carolina,
p. 74.

65. Ricards and Blackburn, "A Demographic History of Slavery,"

pp. 220-224.

66. Register of Conveyance vol. W-2 1846 (Charleston County),

pp. 353-354; Miscellaneous Records vol. 4R 1819-1820 (Secretary of
State), pp. 200-201; Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847, Record
Number 52 (Charleston County).

67. Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847, Record Number 52

(Charleston County), "Wills of Elias Collins."

68. Ibid., "Testimony of Jacob Cohen," 25 June 1844; Ibid.,

"Decree," 5 July 1844.

69. Ibid., "Decree," 5 July 1844; Ibid., "Report of James W. Gray,"

3 July 1846.

70. Marriage Settlements vol. 16 1844-1848 (South Carolina), pp.

212- 214 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina); Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1847, Record Number
52 (Charleston County), "Testimony of Jacob Cohen," 25 June 1844;
Winyah Observer, June 15, 1844.

71. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, pp. 300, 309; Ibid., Schedule II,
n.p. (The census taker did not record the page numbers of the slave
schedules for Georgetown and Charleston City, but the date of the
enumeration was listed; see October 22); Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 701-
702.

72. Randolph Campbell, "The Productivity of Slave Labor in East

Texas: A Research Note," Louisiana Studies vol. 13 (Summer 1974),
pp. 155-156.

73. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule II,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, n.p. (see October 21); Ibid.,
Schedule IV, pp. 421-422.

74. Ibid., Schedule!, pp. 300, 309; Ibid., Schedule II, n.p. (see
October 22); Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 701-702; Ulrich Bonnell Phillips,
"The Slave Labor Problem in Charleston District," Political Science
Quarterly vol. 22 (September 1907), p. 434.

75. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule IV,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, pp. 701-702; Freehling, Prelude to
Civil War, p. 362.

76. Alfred H. Conrad and John R. Meyer, "The Economics of Slavery

in the Antebellum South," in Hugh G.J. Aitken, ed., Did Slavery Pay?
Readings in the Economics of Black Slavery in the United States
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971), pp. 148-149; Eaton,
Growth of Southern Civilization, pp. 200-202; Stampp, Peculiar
Institution, pp. 383-390; Whitten, "Antebellum Sugar and Rice
Plantations," pp. 106-110.

77. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. D 1847-1849

(Charleston County), pp. 275-279, 436-440; Ibid., vol. E 1846-1852, pp.
93-94.

78. Miscellaneous Records vol. 61 1858-1861 (Secretary of State),

pp. 421-422.

79. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 314; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 134;
Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 13-14.

80. (In 1859, the interest rate in Charleston City varied from 5 to 6
percent in the City); Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. L
1860-1861 (Charleston County), pp. 263-264.

81. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, St.

Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p.
384; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 267; Record of Wills vol. 34 1818-1826
(Charleston County), p. 411; Fourth Census of the United States, 1820:
Schedule I, St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South
Carolina, p. 110; Tax Returns of 1824 for St. Thomas & St. Dennis
Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, Record Number 3257;
Record of Wills vol. 33 1807-1818 (Charleston County), p. 1341;
Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule IV, St. Thomas &
St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, pp. 337-338.

82. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, St.

Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p.
184; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 395; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 357-358.
 83. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5Z 1842-1843 (Secretary of State),
p. 259.

8 4 . Re c or d o f Wi l l s v o l . 4 1 1834-1839 (Charleston
County), p. 759.

85. Ibid., pp. 517-518.

86. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5Z 1842-1843 (Secretary of State),

pp. 64-65.

87. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule IV, St.
Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, pp.
337-338 (To determine the value of farm goods grown, the annual price
of the produce must be obtained. According to Dale Evans Swan, the
yearly average for agricultural produce was 65a per bushel for sweet
potatoes, 90.3t for one bushel of Indian corn, $1.01 for one hundred
pounds of hay, and $1.03 per bushel for peas and beans); Dale Evans
Swan, "The Structure and Profitability of the Antebellum Rice
Industry: 1859" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina,
1972), p. 285.

88. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I,

Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 189; Master of Equity, Bills of
Complaint 1848, Record Number 13 (Charleston County), "Testimony
of Jennette Collins," 27 May 1848.

89. Record of Wills vol. 44 1845-1851 (Charleston County), p.

301.

90. Inventories vol. B 1844-1850 (Charleston County), p. 385;

Master of Equity, Bills of Complaint 1848, Record Number 13
(Charleston County), "Report of Edward R. Laurens," 21 June 1849.
 91. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, St.
Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p.
184; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 395; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 357-358.

92. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 310; Ibid., Schedule !I, n.p. (see
October 22); Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 709-710; Eighth Census of the
United States, 1860: Schedule !, Georgetown County, South Carolina,
p. 291; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 103.

93. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 291; Ibid., Schedule 11, p. 103.

94. Fourth Census of the United States, 1820: Schedule I, St.

Paul's Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina, p. 45; Fifth Census of
the United States, 1830: Schedule I, St. Paul's Parish, Colleton County,
South Carolina, p. 450; Sixth Census of the United States, /840:
Schedule I, St. Paul's Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina, -p.-206.

95. Fourth Census of the United States, 1820: Schedule I, St.

Paul's Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina, p. 52; Rules and
Regulations of the Brown Fellowship Society, Established at
Charleston, South Carolina, November 1, 1790 (Charleston: J.B. Nixon,
1844), p. 25; Miscellaneous Records vol. 5Z 1842-1843 (Secretary of
State), pp. 260-261; Ibid., vol. 4B 1809-1811, p. 373; Marriage
Settlements vol. 4 1801-1805 (South Carolina), pp. 128-129
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

96. Fourth Census of the United States, 1820: Schedule 1, St.

Paul's Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina, p. 52; Ibid., Schedule I,
Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 81; F.Y. Porcher, Directory and
Strangers Guide for the City of Charleston for 1831 (Charleston:
Irishman, 1831), p. 176; Fifth Census of the United States, 1830:
Schedule I, St. Paul's Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina, p. 454;
Ibid., Schedule I, Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 140; Sixth
Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I, St. Paul's Parish,
Colleton County, South Carolina, p. 205.

97. Record of Wills vol. 44 1845-1851 (Charleston County), p.

166.

98. Charleston Courier, February 22, 1847.

99. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. D 1847-1850

(Charleston County), pp. 274-276, 436.

100. Charleston Courier, March 12, 1847; Ibid., September 2,

1847; Ibid., November 23, 1847; Ibid., January 13, 1848; Inventories,
Appraisements & Sales vol. B 1844-1850 (Charleston County), pp. 394-
395; Bills of Sale vol. 6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of State), pp. 275, 357.

101. Alfred G. Smith, Economic Readjustment of an Old Cotton

St at e: South Carolina 1820-1860 (Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press, 1958), pp. 62-63.

102. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1,

Barnwell District, South Carolina, p. 400; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 43-44;
Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Barnwell
District, South Carolina, p. 449; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 29-30; Ibid.,
Schedule I, Chester County, South Carolina, p. 85; Ibid., Schedule IV,
pp. 53-54.

103. Register of Conveyance vol. R 1833-1839 (Newberry

County), p. 156 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina); Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1,
Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 255; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 303-
304.

104. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,

Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 275; Ibid., Schedule Il, p. 297.

105. Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 43-44.

106. Stampp, Peculiar Institution, pp. 45-46; Eaton, Growth of

Southern Civilization, pp. 27-28; Stanley Feldstein, Once A Slave: The
Slaves' View of Slavery (New York: William Morrow & Company,
1971), pp. 47-49.

107. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule V,

Sumter County, South Carolina, p. 656; Inventories & Sales 1858-1868
(Sumter County), pp. 216-217 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Eaton, Growth of Southern Civilization, pp.
27-28.

108. Record of Deeds vol. 2D 1847-1851 (Barnwell County), p. 34

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Barnwell
District, South Carolina, p. 469; Ibid., Schedule 11, p. 963; Ibid.,
Schedule IV, pp. 273-274.

109. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,

Barnwell District, South Carolina, p. 363; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 363;
Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 177-178.

110. Ibid., Schedule I, p. 354; Ibid., Schedule 11, p. 354; Ibid.,

Schedule IV, pp. 173-174; Ibid., Schedule 1, Edgefield County, South
Carolina, p. 73; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 470; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 177-
178.

111. Ibid., Schedule I, Union County, South Carolina, p. 207;

Ibid., Schedule II, p. 340; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 11-12.

112. Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County), pp.

963-964; Register of Conveyance vol. F-10 (Charleston County), pp.
328-329; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1832 (Charleston); Bills of
Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 643.

113. Ibid., p. 643; Aitken, ed., Did Slavery Pay?, p. 218.

114. Charleston Mercury, January 1, 1839.

115. Ibid., January 7, 1839.

116. Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. A 1839-1844

(Charleston County), pp. 40-43.

117. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule !, St.

Luke Parish, Beaufort County, South Carolina, p. 36; Ibid., Schedule t!,
p. 83; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 287-288; Ibid., Schedule I, Prince
William Parish, Beaufort County, South Carolina, p. 94; Ibid., Schedule
II, p. 170; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 11-12; Ibid., Schedule !, Lexington
County, South Carolina, pp. 403-404; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 245; Ibid.,
Schedule IV pp. 27-28.

118. King, Sumter County, pp. 83, 134; Inventories & Sales 1858-
1 8 6 8 (Sumter County), pp. 216-217; Mariana Wikramanayake, A
World in Shadow: The Free Blacks in Ante-be//um South Carolina
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1973), pp. 94-95.

119. Gregorie, Sumter County, p.-134.

120. Fourth Census of the United States, 1820: Schedule I, Sumter

District, South Carolina, p. 106; Robert W. Andrews, The Life and
Adventures of Capt. Robert W. Andrews of Sumter S.C. (Boston:
Whitcomb, 1887), p. 26.

121. Fifth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule !, Sumter

District, South Carolina, p. 82.

122. Deeds of Conveyance vol. K 1838 (Sumter County), pp. 64-

68 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

123. Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roark, Black Masters: A

Free Family of Color in the Old South (New York: W.W. Norton,
1984), p. 366.

124. Miscellaneous Records vol. 1 1834-1837 (Secretary of State),

p p . 505-506; Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule 1,
Sumter District, South Carolina, p. 2.

125. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule !,

Sumter District, South Carolina, p. 769; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 911; Ibid.,
Schedule IV, pp. 707-708; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860:
Schedule I, Sumter District, South Carolina, p. 180; Ibid., Schedule!!,
pp. 180-181; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 21-22; Inventories & Sales 1858-
1868 (Sumter County), pp. 216-217.

126. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, St.

Stephen's Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 407; Ibid.,
Schedule II, n.p. (see August 31); Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 361-362;
Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. E 1857-1860 (Charleston
County), pp. 370, 400, 571.

127. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp.

266-267; Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. E 1857-1860
(Charleston County), pp. 972-973.

128. Record of Wills vol. 36 1818-1826 (Charleston County), pp.

985-986.

129. Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County), pp. 6-7;

Miscellaneous Records vol. 5N 1831-1836 (Secretary of State), pp.
424-425; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1, St.
Stephen's Parish, Charleston County, S.C., p. 405; Ibid., Schedule!!,
n.p. (see August 29-30); Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 361-362; Inventories,
Appraisements & Sales vol. D 1854-1857 (Charleston County), pp. 299,
440; Ibid., vol. E 1857-1860, pp. 370, 400.

130. Ibid., p. 400 (The seventeen colored farmers who owned

fewer than eight slaves were Anthony Coats, Zed Chavous, Thomas
Aiken, Elias Cumbo, John Conner, Jonathan Eady, Isaac Glencamp,
Henry Glencamp, Charlotte Collins, Janet Collins, Stanhope Fowler,
Benjamin Lewis, William Burgress, John Barr, Richard Dempsy,
Lucinda Holly, and Jerry Dickey); Seventh Census of the United States,
1850: Schedule I, Anderson County, South Carolina, p. 272; Ibid.,
Schedule !!, p. 19; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 117-118; Ibid., Schedule I,
Barnwell County, South Carolina, p. 396; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 875;
Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 257-258; Ibid., Schedule !, St. James Santee
Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, pp. 366-367; Ibid.,
Schedule!!, p. 151; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 343-344; Ibid., Schedule !,
St. James & Goose Creek Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p.
427; Ibid., Schedule!!, p. 407; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 345-346; Ibid.,
Schedule I, St. Stephen's Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, pp.
405, 407; Ibid., Schedule II, n.p. (see August 29-31); Ibid., Schedule !,
St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina,
pp. 384-385; Ibid., Schedule !I, p. 267; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 337-338;
Ibid., Schedule I, Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 305; Ibid.,
Schedule !I, p. 1071; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 701-702; Ibid., Schedule 1,
Horry County, South Carolina, p. 42; Ibid., Schedule II, n.p. (see
August 22); Ibid., Schedule 1, Orangeburgh County, South Carolina, pp.
275, 308; Ibid., Schedule!!, pp. 761, 901; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 367,
371; Ibid., Schedule !, Picken County, South Carolina, p. 505; Ibid.,
Schedule 11, p. 51; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 413-414; Ibid., Schedule 1,
York County, South Carolina, p. 228; Ibid., Schedule Ii, p. 829 (In
1859, the following eleven colored farmers owned fewer than eight
slaves: Elias Cumbo, Thomas Jefferson, Stanhope Fowler, Edward
Fordham, Mary Perry, Daniel Postell, Martha Ardis, Simon Davis,
Margaret Harris, Martha Williams, and John Barr); Eighth Census of
the United States, 1860: Schedule I, St. James Santee Parish,
Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 144; Ibid., Schedule !I, p. 295;
Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 327-328; Ibid., Schedule I, St. Stephen's Parish,
Charleston County, p. 178; Ibid., Schedule !I, p. 385; Ibid., Schedule IV
pp. 3-4; Ibid., Schedule 1, St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston
County, South Carolina, p. 184; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 395; Ibid.,
Schedule IV, pp. 357-258; Ibid., Schedule 1, Charleston Neck, South
Carolina, p. 167; Ibid., Schedule !I, p. 270; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 1-2;
Ibid., Schedule I, St. Paul's Parish, Colleton County, South Carolina,
pp. 357, 367; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 449, 467; Ibid., Schedule IV pp.
449-500; Ibid., Schedule I, Edgefield County, South Carolina, p. 82;
Ibid., Schedule 11, p. 481; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 647-648; Ibid.,
Schedule I, Fairfield County, South Carolina, p. 255; Ibid., Schedule II,
p. 60; Ibid., Schedule I, Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 314;
Ibid., Schedule I!, p. 134; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 13-14; Ibid., Schedule
I, Orangeburgh County, South Carolina, p. 384; Ibid., Schedule !I, p.
432; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 29-30.

131. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Barnwell County, South Carolina, p. 396; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 875;
Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 257-258; Eighth Census of the United States,
1860: Schedule I, Edgefield County, South Carolina, p. 82; Ibid.,
Schedule II, p. 481; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 647-648; Ibid., Schedule I,
Orangeburgh County, South Carolina, p. 384; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 432;
Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 29-30.

Chapter Eight: Free Black Artisans: A Need for Labor

1. Marie Ferrara Hollings, "Brickwork of Charles-Town to 1780,"

(M.A. Thesis, University of South Carolina, 1978), pp. 32-34.

2. Inventories vol. B 1787-1793 (Charleston County), pp. 15-16

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); A.S.
Salley, Jr., ed., Register of St. Philip's Parish Charleston or Charleston,
South Carolina 1754-1810 (Charleston: South Carolina Society, 1927),
p. 376.

3. Inventories vol. B 1787-1793 (Charleston County), pp. 15-16.

4. Record of Wills vol. 22 1786-1793 (Charleston County), pp.

194- 196 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina).

5. Ibid., pp. 194-195; Inventories vol. C 1793-1800 (Charleston

County), p. 273; Miscellaneous Records vol. 30 1799-1800 (Secretary
of State), p. 279 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina).

6. Record of Wills vol. 14 1771-1774 (Charleston County), p. 109;

A.S. Salley, Jr., ed., Register of St. Philip's Parish Charles Town, South
Carolina 1720-1758 (Charleston: Walker, Evans & Cogswell, 1904),
pp. 100, 145.

7. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 118; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 760;
Leonard Price Stavisky, "The Negro Artisan in the South Atlantic
States, 1800-1860: A Study of Status & Economic Opportunity with
Special Reference to Charleston," (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia
University, 1958), p. 230; J.R. Honour, List of the Tax Payers of the
City of Charleston for 1860 (Charleston: Walker & Evans, 1861), 315,
329; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1863 (Charleston), (Department
of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

8. Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p. 318

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Free
Negro Capitation Tax Book 1823, 1826, 1832 (Charleston); Bills of
Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p. 548; Miscellaneous
Records vol. 5E 1826-1828 (Secretary of State), p. 231.

9. Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 519.

10. Fifth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule !,

Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 31, 35, 39, 51, 53, 74, 92, 96, 98,
100; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1822, 1823 (Charleston County);
Directory and Strangers Guide for the City of Charleston for the Year
1822 (Charleston: Schenck, 1822), pp. 106, 108; F.Y. Porcher,
Directory and Strangers Guide for the City of Charleston for the Year
1831 (Charleston: Irishman, 1831), pp. 124, 125, 128; Seventh Census
of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina,
pp. 222, 395.

11. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 21, 35, 41, 65, 73, 91; Free Negro
Capitation Tax Book 1822, 1823 (Charleston); Directory for 1822, p.
103; T.C. Fay, Charleston Directory and Strangers Guide for 1840-1841
(Charleston, 1840), pp. 43, 61, 69; Seventh Census of the United States,
1850: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 238.

12. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, pp. 96, 133, 153, 222, 238, 267, 278; Ibid., Schedule
11, pp. 89, 133, 825, 853, 907, 917, 937; Eighth Census of the United
States, 1860: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 281, 308,
333, 395, 430, 489; Honour, Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for
1860, pp. 320, 323, 326, 329, 330, 331; Free Negro Capitation Tax
Book 1864 (Charleston).

13. Record of Wills vol. 43 1839-1845 (Charleston County), pp.

891-893; Bills of Sale vol. 6A 1843-1846 (Secretary of State), p. 406.

14. "Return of Deaths Within the City of Charleston from the 11th
of May to the 17th of May 1851" (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Eighth Census of the United States, 1860:
Schedule !, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 333; Ibid., Schedule II,
p. 445; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1,
Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 133, 152, 222, 278, 279; Ibid.,
Schedule I!, pp. 89, 133, 825, 917 (According to the census of 1850, the
following Negro carpenters owned male slaves: Richard Holloway, 38-
year-old slave; Abraham Jones, 48-year-old slave; Stephen McLane,
15-year-old slave; and Joshua Mishaw, 40-year-old slave).

15. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,

Columbia City, South Carolina, p. 23; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 90.

16. Anne King Gregorie, History of Sumter County (Sumter:

Library Board, 1954), p. 134; Fourth Census of the United States, 1820:
Schedule I, Sumter District, South Carolina, p. 106; Fifth Census of the
United States, 1830: Schedule I, Sumter District, South Carolina, p. 82;
Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I, Sumter District,
South Carolina, p. 2; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850:
Schedule V, Sumter District, South Carolina, p. 656.

17. Thomas S. Sumter, Stateburg and Its People (Sumter, 1922), p.

19.
 18. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule V.
Sumter District, South Carolina, p. 656.

19. Business Records of William Ellison, MSS. 18 Ellison Family

Papers (South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, South Carolina); Seventh Census of the United States, 1850:
Schedule V, Sumter District, South Carolina, p. 656.

20. William Ellison to Henry Ellison, 26 March 1857, Ellison

Family Papers.

21. Record of Wills vol. E-2 1860-1867 (Sumter County), pp. 116-
119 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Inventories & Sales 1858-1868 (Sumter County), pp. 216-217
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); James
Drayton Johnson to Henry Ellison, 9 December 1861; Sumter,
Stateburg, p. 20.

22. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Sumter

District, South Carolina, p. 769; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 911; Inventories
& Sales 1858-1868 (Sumter County), pp. 324-325.

23. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 297, 376, 436, 468, 510; Ibid.,
Schedule II, pp. 439, 461, 484; Honour, Tax Payers of the City of
Charleston for 1860, pp. 315, 318, 322, 324, 329; Bills of Sale vol. ST
1836-1839 (Secretary of State), p. 498; Ibid., vol. 50 1832-1836, p. 486;
Ibid., vol. ST 1836-1839, pp. 1, 340, 420; Martin Robinson Delany, The
Condition, Elevation, Emigration and Destiny of the Colored People of
the United States (Philadelphia: Author, 1852), p. 108; Bills of Sale
vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 486; Ibid., vol. ST 1836-
1839, pp. 1, 134, 340, 359, 400, 420, 498; Ibid., vol. 5W 1839-1843, p.
2; Ibid., vol. 6A 1843-1846, pp. 183, 393.
 24. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,
Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 284; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 921; Bills
of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836 (Secretary of State), p. 210; Seventh Census
of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish,
Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 384; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 267.

25. Bills of Sale vol. 6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of State), p. 526;

Ibid., vol. 6C 1849-1853, p. 138; Ibid., vol. 6D 1853-1857, p. 330;
Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 247; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 865.

26. Bills of Sale vol. 6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of State), p. 220;

Ibid., vol. 6C 1849-1853, p. 34; Seventh Census of the United States,
1850: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 129; Ibid.,
Schedule II, p. 85.

27. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 83, 100, 129, 172, 221, 223, 226,
246, 251, 254, 277, 288; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 1, 34, 85, 745, 821, 825,
829, 865, 873, 877, 913; J.H. Boggert, Directory for the City of
Charleston for the Year 1852 (Charleston: Edward C. Councell, 1851),
pp. 25-80; The Charleston City and General Business Directory for
1855 (Charleston: David Gazlay, 1855), pp. 100-175.

28. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule II,

Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 1, 34, 85, 745, 821, 825, 829, 873,
877, 913 (According to the census of 1850, the following colored
mantua makers and seamstresses owned adult female slaves: Catherine
Alston, 30-year-old slave; Eleanor Elfe, 28-year-old slave; Mary
Gardner, 34-year-old slave; Charlotte Hall, 61 and 52-year-old slaves;
Rose Holmes, 34-year-old slave; Rebecca Lawson, 35-, 28- and 18-
year-old slaves; Caroline Lebate, 29-, 28- and 18-year-old slaves; Sally
Johnson, 48-year-old slave; Mary Steedman, 24-year-old slave;
Catherine Steel, 40-year-old slave; Anna Stint, 35-, 28- and 27-year-old
slaves; Anna Vaughan, 43- and 39-year-old slaves; and Carolina Veree,
33-year-old slave); Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule
!, Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 260, 430, 389; Ibid., Schedule
1!, pp. 427, 463, 475.

29. Bills of Sale vol. 3X 1805-1808 (Secretary of State), p. 364;

Ibid., vol. 4X 1822-1823, p. 359; Inventories vol. G 1824-1834
(Charleston County), p. 581.

30. Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County), p. 581.

31. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1823 (Charleston); Bills of

Sale vol. ST 1836-1839 (Secretary of State), p. 192; Seventh Census of
the United States, 1850: Schedule 1, Charleston City, South Carolina, p.
242; Ibid., Schedule 11, p. 857; Bills of Sale vol. 50 1832-1836
(Secretary of State), p. 908; Ibid., vol. 5W 1839-1843, pp. 468, 516;
Ibid., vol. 5K 1829-1832, p. 530.

32. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. A 1838-1841

(Charleston County), p. 140 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina).

33. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule !,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 218; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 807; Bills
of Sale vol. 5W 1839-1843 (Secretary of State), p. 408; Record of Wills
vol. 50 1862-1868 (Charleston County), pp. 221-224; Bills of Sale vol.
5W 1839-1843 (Secretary of State), p. 353; Bills of Sale vol. 6A 1843-
1846 (Secretary of State), p. 206; Ibid., vol. 6D 1853-1857, p. 389;
Ibid., vol. 6E 1857-1863, p. 176.

34. Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. F 1860-1864

(Charleston County), p. 552.
 35. Record of Wills vol. 50 1862-1868 (Charleston County), p.
221.

36. Ibid., p. 223; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1864

(Charleston).

37. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 127,153, 209, 218, 226, 231, 242,
255, 280,287; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 81, 797, 806, 807, 821, 833, 857,
881, 925, 953.

38. Ira Berlin, Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the
Antebellum South (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), p. 237; Eighth
Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Charleston City, South
Carolina, pp. 307, 328, 332, 333, 375, 465, 499; Honour, Tax Payers of
the City of Charleston for 1860, pp. 319, 323, 324, 326, 328, 332, 333;
Directory for 1855, pp. 29, 53, 70.

39. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1823 (Charleston); Bills of

Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 148; Ibid., vol. 50 1832-
1836, p. 165; Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule !,
Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 122; Fay, Directory for 1840-1841,
p. 63; Bills of Sale vol. 4M 1816-1818 (Secretary of State), p. 333; Free
Negro Capitation Tax Book 1823 (Charleston); Bills of Sale vol. 5K
1829-1832 (Secretary of State), pp. 176, 356; Ibid., vol. 50 1832-1836,
pp. 589, 590; Ibid., vol. ST 1836-1839, pp. 182, 494; Ibid., vol. SW
1839-1843, pp. 69, 106; Sixth Census of the United States, 1840:
Schedule 1, Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 126; Seventh Census
of the United States, 1850: Schedule !, Charleston Neck, South
Carolina, p. 315; Ibid., Schedule If, pp. 661, 797; E. Horace Fitchett,
"The Free Negro in Charleston, South Carolina," (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Chicago, 1950), p. 43; Bills of Sale vol. 5T 1836-1839
(Secretary of State), p. 549; Ibid., vol. 6A 1843-1846, p. 4.
 40. Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County), pp. 11-13;
F r e e Negro Capitation Tax Book 1823 (Charleston); Marriage
Settlements vol. 11 1833-1835 (South Carolina), pp. 51-55 (Department
of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Charleston
Mercury, November 26, 1833; Fifth Census of the United States, 1830:
Schedule !, Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 30, 37, 53, 81, 82, 102,
119, 120; Directory for 1822, pp. 104-106; Porcher, Directory for 1831,
pp. 124-128; Supplement of Charleston Directory for 1836 (Charleston:
Dowling, 1836), pp. 108, 111; Fay, Directory for 1840-1841, City for
1840, p. 98, 108, 110; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850:
Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 129, 145, 174, 186,
226, 286; Ibid., Schedule I!, pp. 745, 757, 829, 953; Fay, Directory for
1840-1841, pp. 98-110; Leonard Mears and James Turnbull, The
Charleston Directory and Strangers Guide for 1859 (Charleston:
Walker, Evans & Co., 1859), pp. 14, 71, 85, 212, 214.

41. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1862 (Charleston).

42. Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County), pp. 411-

412; Direc- toryfor 1822, p. 110; Record of Wills vol. 38 1826-1834
(Charleston County), pp. 758-759; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book
1823 (Charleston); Bills of Sale vol. 5K 1829-1832 (Secretary of State),
p. 539; Ibid., vol. 5W 1839-1843, p. 12; Guardian/Trustee/Returns:
Probate Records vol. B 1842-1843 (Charleston County), p. 247; Eighth
Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Charleston City, South
Carolina, pp. 403, 431, 434, 479, 492; Honour, Tax Payers of the City
o f Charleston for 1860, pp. 320, 321, 329, 333; Mears and Turnbull,
Directory for 1859, p.,-184; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1862
(Charleston).

43. Directory for 1822, p. 105; Fourth Census of the United States,
1820: Schedule 1, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 37; Fifth Census
of the United States, 1830: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina,
p. 22; Bills of Sale vol. 4F 1811-1814 (Secretary of State), p. 246; Ibid.,
vol. 4S 1819-1820, p. 18; Ibid., vol. 4V 1820-1822, pp. 240, 255;
Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), 289.

44. Bills of Sale vol. 4M 1816-1818 (Secretary of State), p. 337;

Ibid., vol. 4X 1823-1825, p. 373; Ibid., vol. 4V 1820-1822, p. 240; Ibid.,
vol. 5K 1829-1832, p. 296.

45. Inventories vol. H 1834-1844 (Charleston County), p. 124.

46. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp.

288-289.

47. Fifth Census of the United States, 1830: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 11; Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825
(Secretary of State), p. 44; Directory for 1822, p. 102; Charleston
Courier, January 21, 1826; Sixth Census of the United States, 1840:
Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 7; Fay, Directory for
1840-1841, p. 11; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule
I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 128; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 82;
Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule II, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 424; Honour, Tax Payers of the City of Charleston
for 1860, p. 317; Mears and Turnbull, Directory for 1859, p. 24.

48. Bills of Sale vol. 6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of State), pp. 21,

418; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston
City, South Carolina, p. 161; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 733; Free Negro
Capitation Tax Book 1844 (Charleston); Directory for 1855, p. 53;
Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 180; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 749.

49. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, p. 161; Ibid., Schedule II, n.p. (see September 20).
 50. Ibid., Schedule!, pp. 98, 128, 161, 180, 247, 268; Ibid.,
Schedule!!, pp. 29, 82, 733, 749, 865, 905.

51. Berlin, Slaves Without Masters, p. 237; Honour, Tax Payers of

Charleston City for 1860, pp. 317, 321, 331; Mears and Turnbull,
Directory for 1859, pp. 24, 71, 201; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book
1862, 1863, 1864 (Charleston).

52. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Georgetown City, South Carolina, p. 292; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 1079;
Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Georgetown City,
South Carolina, p. 291; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 104; George C. Rogers,
The History of Georgetown County, South Carolina (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1970), p. 442; Eighth Census of the
United States, 1860: Schedule I, Anderson County, South Carolina, p.
257; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 165.

53. Harriett P. Simons and Albert Simons, "The William Burrows

House of Charleston," South Carolina Historical Magazine vol. 70 (July
1969), pp. 169-170.

54. Ibid., p. 171.

55. St. Julien Ravenel, Charleston: The Place and the People (New
York: MacMillian Company, 1906), pp. 459-461; Fourth Census of the
United States, 1820: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 50.

56. Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County), pp.

1172-1173; Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County), p. 581;
Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule I, Charleston City,
South Carolina, p. 26; Charleston Courier, August 14, 1844.

57. Charleston Mercury, December 25, 1833; Ibid., January

30,1847; Ibid., March 1, 1845; Record of Wills vol. 36 1818-1826
(Charleston County), pp. 1008-1009; Ravenel, Charleston, pp. 459-461.

58. Miscellaneous Records vol. 5X 1839-1841 (Secretary of

State), pp. 532-534; Bills of Sale vol. 5W 1839-1843 (Secretary of
State), pp. 411, 414, 604.

59. Charleston Mercury, October 13, 1847.

60. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 99.

61. Ibid., Schedule II, p. 87.

62. Miscellaneous Records vol. 4Y 1822-1824 (Secretary of

State), pp. 170-171; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850:
Schedule !, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 150; Directory for 1855,
p. 95; Mortgages vol. 4B 1841-1848 (South Carolina), pp. 63-64
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. F 1860-1864 (Charleston
County), pp. 394, 430.

63. Record of Wills vol. 31 1807-1818 (Charleston County), pp.

223-228; Inventories vol. E 1810-1818 (Charleston County), p. 9; Bills
of Sale vol. 4S 1819-1820 (Secretary of State), p. 388; Ibid., vol. 5A
1823-1825, pp. 31, 312; Ibid., vol. SD 1825-1827, pp. 182, 183; Ibid.,
vol. 5K 1829-1832, p. 204; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1823, 1826
(Charleston).

64. Record of Wills vol. 28 1800-1807 (Charleston County), p. 21.

65. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 105, 144, 203; Ibid., Schedule II,
p. 780; n.p. (see August 12 & September 11).
 66. Inventories vol. F 1860-1864 (Charleston County), pp. 278-
279.

67. Porcher, Directory for 1831, p. 123; Fifth Census of the United
States, 1830: Schedule I, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 16; Fay,
Directory for 1840-1841, p. 60; Sixth Census of the United States,
1840: Schedule 1, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 27; Seventh
Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1, Charleston City, South
Carolina, p. 153; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 133, 780; Ibid., Schedule V, p.
149; Record of Wills vol. 45 1845-1851 (Charleston County), pp. 713-
714; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston
City, South Carolina, p. 109; Ibid., Schedule 11, n.p. (see August 12);
Ibid., Schedule I, Columbia City, South Carolina, p. 1; Ibid., Schedule
II, p. 125.

68. Ibid., Schedule I, p. 186; Bills of Sale vol. 5W 1839-1843

(Secretary of State), p. 307; Ibid., vol. 6A 1843-1846, p. 445;
Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. F 1852-1853
(Charleston County), pp. 72-75, 227-230; Seventh Census of the United
States, 1850: Schedule II, Charleston City, South Carolina, n.p. (see
September 30).

69. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 281; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 433;
Frederick A. Ford, Census of the City of Charleston, South Carolina for
the Year 1861 (Charleston: Evans & Cogswell, 1861), pp. 48, 69, 74,
101, 140; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1862, 1863, 1864
(Charleston).

70. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1862 (Charleston).

71. Kenneth M. Stampp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the

AnteBellum South (New York: Vintage Books, 1956), pp. 67-71;
Charleston Courier, August 16, 1852; J.L. Dawson and H.W. De
Saussure, eds., Census of the City of Charleston, South Carolina for
1848 (Charleston, 1849), pp. 34-35; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book
1844, 1850 (Charleston); Bills of Sale vol. 5W 1839-1843 (Secretary of
State), pp. 453-455; Ibid., vol. 6A 1846-1849, pp. 289, 290, 292, 321,
340, 378, 388; Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. F 1860-1864
(Charleston County), p. 543; Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate
Records vol. M 1858-1865 (Charleston County), pp. 584, 585.

72. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 145; Ibid., Schedule Il, n.p. (see
September 12); Mears and Turnbull, Directory for 1859, p. 212.

73. Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. C 1850-1854

(Charleston County), p. 229; Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate
Records vol. F 1852-1853 (Charleston County), pp. 72-75.

74. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. F 1852-1853

(Charleston County), pp. 72-75, 227-230; Ibid., vol. G 1853-1854, pp.
94, 95, 181, 182, 588, 589; Ibid., vol. H 1854-1855, pp. 412, 413; Ibid.,
vol. 1 1856-1858, pp. 517, 578; Ibid., vol. L 1860-1861, pp. 263, 264.

75. Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule !,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 226; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 833.

76. Ibid., Schedule I, p. 129; Bills of Sale vol. 5W 1839-1843

(Secretary of State), p. 461; Ibid., vol. 4V 1820-1822, p. 246; Record of
Wills vol. 48 1856-1862 (Charleston County), pp. 452-453; Seventh
Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule I, Charleston City, South
Carolina, p. 133.

77. Record of Wills vol. 48 1856-1862 (Charleston County), p.

453.

78. Ibid., vol. 45 1845-1851, p. 501; Guardian/Trustee/Returns:

Probate Records vol. E 1846-1852 (Charleston County), pp. 61, 62, 301.

79. Miscellaneous Records vol. 6B 1844-1849 (Secretary of

State), pp. 420-421.

Chapter Nine: The Denmark Vesey Conspiracy: Brown Masters vs.

Black Slaves

1. Robert S. Starobin, ed., Denmark Vesey: The Slave Conspiracy

of 1822 (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1970), p. 24; William W.
Freehling, Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in
South Carolina, 1816-1836 (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1968), pp.
58-59.

2. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 21-25; Herbert Aptheker,

American Negro Slave Revolts (New York: International Publishers,
1978), pp. 268-269.

3. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 19, 22, 100.

4. Ibid., p. 22.

5. Ibid., p. 20.

6. Ibid., p. 100.

7. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, pp. 55-56; Aptheker, Slave

Revolts, pp. 270-272; Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roark, Black
Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South (New York: W.W.
Norton, 1984), pp. 38-39.
 8. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 41-42; Eugene D. Genovese,
From Rebellion to Revolution: Afro-American Slave Revolts in the
Making of the New World (New York: Vintage Books, 1981), pp. 45-
46.

9. Peter H. Wood, Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South

Carolina From 1670 through the Stono Rebellion (New York: W.W.
Norton, 1974), pp. 59-62; David C. Littlefield, Rice and Slaves:
Ethnicity & the Slave Trade in Colonial South Carolina (Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University, 1981), pp. 76-80, 92-98.

10. Journal of the House of Representatives of South Carolina

1821, Record Group 1550, Microfilm reel 28, pp. 102-103 (The Library
of Congress, Washington, D.C.); Mariana Wikramanayake, A World in
Shadow: The Free Black in Ante-bellum South Carolina (Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press, 1973), pp. 34-35, 45; Johnson and
Roark, Black Masters, p. 31.

11. Wood, Black Majority, pp. 314-320; Aptheker, Slave Revolts,

pp. 219-224; Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, pp. 56-57.

12. Record of Wills vol. 40 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp.

238-239.

13. Bills of Sale vol. 4S 1819-1820 (Secretary of State), p. 11;

Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1821 (Charleston City);
Miscellaneous Records vol. 5M 1830-1832 (Secretary of State), pp.
229-230; Ibid., vol. SQ 1834-1839, pp. 125-126.

14. Record of Wills vol. 36 1818-1826 (Charleston County), pp.

985-987; Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County), p. 6;
Record of Wills vol. 41 1834-1839 (Charleston County), pp. 516-518.
 IS. Johnson and Roark, Black Masters, pp. 96-97.

16. Register of St. Philip's Church 1810-1857.

17. Ibid., Register of Mesne Conveyance vol. T-9 (Charleston

County), pp. 236-237 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia,
South Carolina); Register of St. Philip's Church 1810-1857; Johnson
and Roark, Black Masters, p. 227.

18. Directory and Stranger's Guide for the City of Charleston for
the Year 1822 (Charleston: Schenck, 1822), pp. 22, 109; Fourth Census
of the United States, 1820: Schedule!, St. John's Parish, Colleton
District, South Carolina, p. 102; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1822
(Charleston City); Directory for 1822, p. 85; Fifth Census of the United
States, 1830: Schedule I. St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston
District, South Carolina, p. 194.

19. Directory for 1822, pp. 24, 104; Starobin, Denmark Vesey, p.
30.

20. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 37, 133-137.

21. Robert L. Harris, "Charleston's Free Afro-American Elite: The

Br own Fellowship Society and the Humane Brotherhood," South
Carolina Historical Magazine vol. 81 (Summer, 1981), pp. 289-295;
Rules and Regulations of the Brown Fellowship Society, Established at
Charleston, South Carolina, November 1, 1970 (Charleston: J.B. Nixon,
1844), pp. 26-27; Fourth Census of the United States, 1820: Schedule 1,
Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 37, 38, 50, 60, 61; Bills of Sale
vol. 5D 1825-1827 (Secretary of State), p. 50.

22. Harris, "Charleston's Free Afro-American Elite," pp. 289-292;

Record of Wills vol. 30 1800-1807 (Charleston County), p. 1127;
Inventories vol. D 1800-1810 (Charleston County), p. 438; Ibid., vol. G
1824-1834, pp. 411-412.

23. Miscellaneous Records vol. 4Y 1822-1824 (Secretary of

State), pp. 170-171; Bills of Sale vol. 3N 1799-1805 (Secretary of
State), p. 381; Register of St. Philip's Church 1810-1857; Johnson and
Roark, Black Masters, pp. 209-210.

24. Bills of Sale vol. 6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of State), p. 150;

Seventh Census of the United States, 1850: Schedule 1, Charleston
Neck, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 323; J.R. Honour, List of
the Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for 1859 (Charleston: Walker
& Evans, 1860), p. 383; Bills of Sale vol. 6D 1853-1857 (Secretary of
State), p. 18; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,
Charleston City, Ward 8, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 502;
Johnson and Roark, Black Masters, pp. 378-379.

25. Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County), pp. 74,

581.

26. (According to the inventories of Charleston County, four free

blacks - Bersheba Cattle, Samuel Creighton, Joseph Martin, and Sally
Seymour-owned either slaves or real estate valued at a minimum of
$1,500); Inventories vol. D 1800-1810 (Charleston County), p. 438;
Ibid., vol. E 1810-1818, p. 9; Ibid., vol. F 1819-1824, pp. 81-82; Ibid.,
vol. G 1824-1834, pp. 11-13 (The determination of complexion was
based on documents which referred to the black elite as free persons of
unmixed heritage. For the most part, the term "free black" was used by
whites and free Negroes to distinguish dark-skinned people from light-
skinned people. For instance, Julia Cox, a free woman of Charleston,
referred to herself as "a free Black woman" when she recorded her will.
Her statement of color was an indication of the pride of race as well as
a description of complexion. The census taker of 1850 denoted her as a
free woman of dark hue and unmixed in heritage); Record of Wills vol.
1845-1851 (Charleston County), p. 896; Seventh Census of the United
States 1850: Schedule I, Charleston City, Ward 3, Charleston County,
South Carolina, p. 209; Record of Wills vol. 30 1800-1807 (Charleston
County), p. 1127; Ibid., vol. 311807-1818, p. 223; Miscellaneous
Records vol. 4Y 1822-1824 (Secretary of State), p. 170; Bills of Sale
vol. 3N 1799-1805 (Secretary of State), p. 381. Between 1800 and 1840,
Thomas S. Bonneau, Ruth Cole, Maria Derac, Susan Ann Dereef, Ruth
Gardner, Mary Gotton, Joseph Hanscome, Thomas Inglis, Jehu Jones,
Sr., Charlotte Kershaw, Jacob Kochler, Benjamin Lincoln, Richard
Moore, William Penceel, Sarah Reids, and Lydia Watson owned
property valued at a combined sum of $78,915 and were denoted as
light-skinned Negroes); Inventories vol. E 1810-1818 (Charleston
County), p. 431; Ibid., vol. F 1819-1824, p. 571; Ibid., vol. G 1824-
1834, pp. 24-25, 44-45, 74, 422-423, 502, 581; Ibid., vol. H 1834-1844,
pp. 16, 46, 109, 114-115, 124, 200, 243-244, 389; Register of St.
Philip's Church 1810-1857; Rules and Regulations of the Brown
Fellowship Society, pp. 26-27; Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834
(Charleston County), pp. 960-971; Miscellaneous Records vol. 5E
1826-1828 (Secretary of State), p. 265; Seventh Census of the United
States, 1850: Schedule 1, St. James & Goose Creek Parish, Charleston
County, South Carolina, p. 427; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 407; Ibid.,
Schedule IV, pp. 353-354).

27. E. Horace Fitchett, "Free Negro in Charleston, South

Carolina," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1950), pp. 36, 48,
93.

28. Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County), pp.

960-962; Ibid., vol. 32 1807-1818, pp. 728-730; Ibid., vol. 42 1839-
1845, pp. 452-453; Ibid., vol. 40 1834-1839, pp. 262-263; Ibid., vol. 44
1845-1851, pp. 23-24; Ibid., vol. 38 1826-1834, pp. 524-525.
 29. Miscellaneous Records vol. 6B 1844-1849 (Secretary of
State), p. 420.

30. Ibid., vol. 4Y 1822-1824, pp. 159-160; Bills of Sale vol. 5G

1827-1829 (Secretary of State), p. 286.

31. Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. A 1838-1841

(Charleston County), pp. 521-522 (Dept. of Archives & History,
Columbia, S.C.); Bills of Sale vol. 4P 1817 (Sec. of State), p. 117; Ibid.,
vol. 3X 1805-1808, p. 281.

32. Miscellaneous Records vol. 3D 1792-1795 (Secretary of

State), pp. 62-63.

33. Register of St. Philip's Church 1810-1857; Bills of Sale vol. 4F

1811-1814 (Sec. of State), p. 319; Ibid., vol. 5G 1827-1829, p. 345;
Sara Walls, ed., "Marriages Performed by Rev. Basil Manly," The
South Carolina Magazine of Ancestral Research vol. 8 (Winter, 1980),
p. 3; Bills of Sale vol. 4P 1817 (Sec. of State), p. 393; Register of St.
Philip's Church 1810-1857; Bills of Sale vol. 5G 1827-1829 (Sec. of
State), p. 313; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1836 (Charleston City).

34. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 38, 98.

35. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, p. 26; Free Negro Capitation Tax

Book 1821, 1822 (Charleston City); Fourth Census of the United States,
1820: Schedule I, Charleston City, Charleston District, South Carolina,
p. 62; Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County), pp. 24-25;
Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p. 318; Free Negro
Capitation Tax Book 1821, 1822, 1823 (Charleston City); Bills of Sale
vol. 4V 1820-1822 (Secretary of State), p. 134; Directory for 1822, pp.
102-108; Fourth Census of the United States, 1820: Schedule !,
Charleston City, Charleston District, South Carolina, pp. 60-61; Bills of
Sale vol. 4X 1822-1823 (Secretary of State), p. 190; Free Negro
Capitation Tax Book 1821 (Charleston City); Fourth Census of the
United States, 1820: Schedule 1, Charleston City, Charleston District,
South Carolina, p. 72.

36. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 5-7; Wikramanayake, A World

in Shadow, p. 150.

37. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 32, 39, 100.

38. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 17-25; Aptheker, Slave Revolts,

pp. 268-272; Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, pp. 55-61.

39. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, p. 12; Vincent Harding, There Is A

River: The Black Struggle for Freedom in America (New York: Vintage
Books, 1983), pp. 71-72.

40. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, p. 5.

41. Ibid., p. 5.

42. Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, p. 134.

43. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 17-28.

44. Ibid., p. 17; Johnson and Roark, Black Masters, p. 40.

45. Register of St. Philip's Church 1810-1857; Miscellaneous

Records vol. 4Y 1822-1824 (Secretary of State), pp. 170-171;
Mortgages vol. 4B 1841-1848 (South Carolina), pp. 63-64; Ravenel,
Charleston, pp. 459-461; Charleston Mercury, October 13, 1847; Bills
of Sale vol. 5D 1825-1827 (Secretary of State), p. 241; Fourth Census
of the United States, 1820: Schedule I, Charleston City, Charleston
District, South Carolina, pp. 38-50.
 46. Sixth Census of the United States, 1840: Schedule !,
Charleston Neck, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 115; Henrietta
P. Jervey, ed., "The Private Register of Rev. Paul Trapier," South
Carolina Historical Magazine vol. 58 (1957), p. 177; Bills of Sale vol.
6B 1846-1849 (Secretary of State), p. 186; Record of Wills vol. 49
1856-1862 (Charleston County), p. 868; Guardian/Trustee/Returns:
Probate Records vol. M 1858-1864 (Charleston County), pp. 352-353.

47. Journal of the Senate of South Carolina 1857, pp. 12, 87, 137.

48. Return of Deaths Within the City of Charleston from 14-21

March 1848 (Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South
Carolina); Miscellaneous Records vol. 42 1823-1825 (Secretary of
State), p. 186; Record of Wills vol. 39 1826-1834 (Charleston County),
pp. 1138-1139; Bills of Sale vol. 5A 1823-1825 (Secretary of State), p.
481.

49. Journal of the Senate of South Carolina 1835, p. 43; Return of

Deaths in the City of Charleston from 14-21 March 1848.

50. Bills of Sale vol. 4A 1808-1810 (Secretary of State), p. 83;

Ibid., vol. 41 1813-1815, p. 164; Fourth Census of the United States,
1820: Schedule 1, Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 37; Bills of Sale
vol. 4V 1820-1822 (Secretary of State), p. 118; Charleston Courier,
December 8, 1835.

51. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1821, 1822 (Charleston City);
Directory for 1822, p. 110; Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston
County), pp. 44-45; Ibid., vol. E 1857-1860, p. 457; Bills of Sale vol.
4V 1820-1822 (Secretary of State), pp. 183, 225, 246; Record of Wills
vol. 36 1818-1826 (Charleston County), pp. 1057-1059; Ibid., vol. 48
1856-1862, pp. 452-453; Seventh Census of the United States, 1850:
Schedule I, Charleston City, Ward 1, Charleston County, South
Carolina, p. 133 (For discussion on the class conflict between the
mulatto elite and the black masses of Santo Domingo, see C.L.R.
James, The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San
Domingo Revolution [New York: Vintage Books, 1963], pp. 163-173).

52. David J. McCord, ed., The Statutes At Large of South Carolina

Containing the Acts from 1814 to 1838 (Columbia: A.S. Johnston,
1839), pp. 194-195; Bills of Sale vol. 4X 1822-1823 (Secretary of
State), p. 235; Inventories vol. G 1824-1834 (Charleston County), p. 74.

53. Minutes of the Brown Fellowship Society, Robert Scott Small

Library, College of Charleston, Charleston, S.C.; McCord, Statutes at
Large, p. 245.

54. Ibid., p. 245.

55. (After searching the statute books of South Carolina, there was
not one law passed to allow free Negro emigrants into the state);
General Assembly Petitions 1823 (10-3-1823-138), (Department of
Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina); Journal of the House
of Representatives of South Carolina 1840, p. 61.

56. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 149-151; Index to Manumission

Book; Acts and Resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of
South Carolina Passed in December 1822 (Columbia: Daniel Faust,
1822), pp. 11-13.

57. Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, pp. 150-153.

58. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, p. 144.

59. Ibid., p. 136; Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, pp. 135,

144-145.
 60. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, p. 34.

61. Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, p. 140; Harding, There

Is A River, p. 66.

62. Return of Deaths in the City of Charleston from 20-27 May

1821; Bills of Sale vol. 4A 1808-1810 (Secretary of State), p. 199; The
Directory and Stranger's Guide for Charleston Neck for the Year 1819
(Charleston: Schenck & Turner, 1819), p. 5; Fourth Census of the
United States, 1820: Schedule I, Charleston Neck, Charleston District,
South Carolina, p. 75; Bills of Sale vol. 3N 1799-1805 (Secretary of
State), p. 335; Ibid., vol. 3P 1800-1801, p. 467.

63. Master of Equity, Bills 1807, Number 53 (Charleston County).

64. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 2-4.

65. Wikramanayake, A World in Shadow, p. 177; Starobin,

Denmark Vesey, p. 32.

66. Harding, There Is A River, p. 68.

67. Johnson and Roark, Black Masters, pp. 40-41.

68. Starobin, Denmark Vesey, pp. 133-137.

Chapter Ten: No More Black Massa

1. Charleston Courier, December 16, 1859.

2. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Sumter

District, South Carolina, p. 80; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 180-181; Ibid.,
Schedule IV, pp. 21-22; J.R. Honour, List of the Tax Payers of the City
of Charleston for 1860 (Charleston: Walker & Evans, 1861), p. 324;
James Drayton Johnson to Henry Ellison, 20 April 1860, Ellison Family
Papers, (South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, South Carolina).

3. James Drayton Johnson to Henry Ellison, 20 April 1860, Ellison

Family Papers.

4. Acts and Resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of

South Carolina Passed in December 1822 (Columbia: Daniel Faust,
1822), pp. 11-13; James Drayton Johnson to Henry Ellison, 20 April
1860, Ellison Family Papers.

5. Ibid.

6. James M. Johnson to Henry Ellison, 19 December 1860; James

Drayton Johnson to Henry Ellison, 20 April 1860, Ellison Family
Papers.

7. James Drayton Johnson to Henry Ellison, 20 April 1860, Ellison

Family Papers.

8. James Drayton Johnson to Henry Ellison, 16 September 1860,

Ellison Family Papers.

9. James M. Johnson to Henry Ellison, 23 December 1859, Ellison

Family Papers.

10. Charleston Mercury, November 24, 1860.

11. Ibid., November 27, 1860.

12. Charleston Courier, December 16, 1859.

13. Leon F. Litwack, Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath

of Slavery (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), p. 17.
 14. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Sumter
District, South Carolina, p. 80; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 181-182; Thomas
S. Sumter, Stateburg and Its People (Sumter, 1922), pp. 11-12.

15. James L. Roark, Masters Without Slaves: Southern Planters in

the Civil War and Reconstruction (New York: Norton, 1977), pp. 76-
77; Inventories & Sales 1858-1868 (Sumter County), pp. 216-217
(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

16. Charleston Mercury, November 26, 1862.

17. Louisa P. Weston to Henry Ellison, 23 March 1864, Ellison

Family Papers; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,
St. Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p.
184; Ibid., Schedule 11, p. 395; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 337-338; Ninth
Census of the United States, 1870: Schedule I, St. Thomas & St. Dennis
Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 512; Ibid., Schedule 11,
pp. 1-2.

18. Bills of Sale vol. 6F 1862-1872 (Secretary of State), p. 27

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina).

19. Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. F 1860-1864

(Charleston County), pp. 394, 430.

20. Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1864 (Charleston),

(Department of Archives & History, Columbia, South Carolina);
Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. M 1858-1865
(Charleston County), pp. 584-585 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Free Negro Tax Book 1863 (Charleston).

21. Inventories, Appraisements & Sales vol. F 1860-1864

(Charleston County), p. 430; Bills of Sale vol. 6F 1862-1872 (Secretary
of State), p. 12; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1864 (Charleston).

22. Joel Williamson, After Slavery: The Negro in South Carolina

During Reconstruction 1861-1877 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp.-30-
35.

23. George C. Rogers, The History of Georgetown County, South

Carolina (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1970), p. 417;
Anne King Gregorie, The History of Sumter County (Sumter: Library
Board, 1954), p. 265.

24. J.G. Randall and David Herbert Donald, The Civil War and
Reconstruction (Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1969), pp. 576-
577.

25. Wesley Markwood to Major E.L. Dean, 14 March 1867,

Letters Sent to Georgetown, South Carolina 1867-1868, Freedmen
Bureau, Record Group 105 (National Archives, Washington, D.C.).

26. R.M. Collins to Wesley Markwood, 30 June 1868, Register of

Letters Received and Endorsements Sent January 1867- January 1869
vol. 190, Freedmen Bureau, RG 105.

27. Wesley Markwood to Major H. Ride, 18 July 1868, Register of

Letters Received October 1867- January 1869 vol. 16, Freedmen
Bureau, RG 105.

28. R.M. Collins to Wesley Markwood, 30 December 1868,

Freedmen Bureau, RG 105.

29. Henry Heriot to Major Ride, 5 March 1869, Register of Letters

Received January 1869- February 1870, Freedmen Bureau, RG 105.

30. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 314; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 134;
Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 13-14; Ninth Census of the United States, 1870:
Schedule 1, Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 262; Ibid.,
Schedule II, pp. 86-87.

31. Eugene D. Genovese, Roll, Jordan, Rol: The World the Slaves
Made (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974), pp. 3-10.

32. Tenth Census of the United States, 1880: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 407; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 2-3.

33. Ninth Census of the United States, 1870: Schedule I,

Georgetown County, South Carolina, p. 262; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 86-
87; Tenth Census of the United States, 1880: Schedule II, Georgetown
County, South Carolina, pp. 2-3.

34. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, St.

Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p.
184; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 395; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 337-338; Ninth
Census of the United States, 1870: Schedule I, St. Thomas & St. Dennis
Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p. 512; Ibid., Schedule II, p.
1.

35. Ninth Census of the United States, 1870: Schedule II, St.
Thomas & St. Dennis Parish, Charleston County, South Carolina, p.l.

36. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I, Sumter

County, South Carolina, p. 80; Ibid., Schedule !I, p. 180; Ibid.,
Schedule IV, pp. 21-22; Ninth Census of the United States, 1870:
Schedule I, Sumter County, South Carolina, p. 237; Ibid., Schedule 11,
p. 3; Tenth Census of the United States, 1880: Schedule I, Sumter
County, South Carolina, p. 302; Ibid., Schedule II, p. 18.
 37. Sumter, Stateburg, p. 20.

38. Ninth Census of the United States, 1870: Schedule I, St.

Stephen's Parish, Charleston County, p. 451; Ibid., Schedule!!, pp. 1-2;
Register of Planters (Beaufort County) vol. 65 1868, p. 34, Freedmen
Bureau, RG 105; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule I,
St. Luke's Parish, Beaufort County, South Carolina, p. 36; Ibid.,
Schedule II, p. 83; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 287-288.

39. Ibid., Schedule I, Newberry County, South Carolina, p. 275;

Ibid., Schedule II, p. 127; Ibid., Schedule IV, pp. 43-44; Ninth Census
of the United States, 1870: Schedule I, Newberry County, South
Carolina, p. 544; Ibid., Schedule II, pp. 1-2.

40. Ibid., Schedule II, p. 1; Conveyance Records vol. S-S 1872-

1874 (Newberry County), p. 234 (Department of Archives & History,
Columbia, South Carolina); Tenth Census of the United States, 1880:
Schedule !, Newberry County, South Carolina, p. 100; Ibid., Schedule
!!, pp. 15-16.

41. Ninth Census of the United States, 1870: Schedule 1,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 546.

42. Ibid., Schedule I, p. 399.

43. Frederick A. Ford, Census of the City of Charleston, South

Carolina for the Year 1861 (Charleston: Evans & Cogswell, 1861), pp.
24, 48, 50, 51, 68, 69, 72, 74, 76, 101, 104, 107, 108, 121, 157, 159, 161,
198; Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. G 1853-1854
(Charleston County), p. 378; Free Negro Capitation Tax Book 1864
(Charleston); Ninth Census of the United States, 1870: Schedule I,
Charleston City, South Carolina, pp. 138, 139, 338.
 44. Ninth Census of the United States, 1870: Schedule I,
Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 544.

45. Dorothy Sterling, The Making of An Afro-American: Martin

Robinson Delany, 1812-1885 (New York: Doubleday, 1971), p. 279.

46. Thomas Holt, Black Over White: Negro Political Leadership

in South Carolina during Reconstruction (Chicago: University of
Illinois Press, 1977), pp. 46, 70; Seventh Census of the United States,
1850: Schedule !, Charleston Neck, South Carolina, p. 312, 346;
Honour, Tax Payers of the City of Charleston for 1860, p. 329; Free
Negro Capitation Tax Book 1862 (Charleston).

47. Record of Wills vol. 44 1845-1851 (Charleston County), p.

294; Guardian/Trustee/Returns: Probate Records vol. F 1852-1853
(Charleston County), p. 412; Lawrence C. Bryant, ed., Negro Senators
and Representatives in teh South Carolina Legislature (Orangeburgh:
Author, 1968), pp. 166-167; Eighth Census of the United States, 1860:
Schedule I, Georgetown City, South Carolina, p. 291; Ibid., Schedule
11, p. 104; Rogers, Georgetown County, p. 442; Alton Hornsby, Jr., The
Black Almanac (New York: Barron's Educational Series, 1977), pp. 44-
45. Within the local government of Charleston City, there were several
former slaveowners of African descent. These former masters were:
Malcolm Brown (Alderman, Ward 6,1868); Peter Brown (delegate,
Ward 3, to the Republican Convention of Charleston County in 1867);
Richard E. Dereef (Alderman, Ward 5, elected as a Democrat in 1868);
Elias Garden (Alderman, Ward 6, elected as a Democrat in 1871); R.H.
Harney (delegate, Ward 6, to the Republican Convention of Charleston
County in 1867); Richard Holloway (Alderman, Ward 4, 1868); Robert
Howard (Alderman, Ward 3, 1868); John B. Morris (delegate, Ward 8,
to the Republican Convention for Charleston County in 1867); George
Shrewsberry (Alderman, Ward 6, 1873); and Thomas R. Small (School
Commissioner, Ward 8, 1870); Honour, Tax Payers of the City of
Charleston for 1860, pp. 317, 319, 321, 323, 324, 327, 329; William C.
Hine, "Black Politicians in Reconstruction Charleston, South Carolina:
A Collective Study," Journal of Southern History vol. XLIX (November
1983), pp. 55-560, 573-582.

48. Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Schedule 1,

Charleston City, South Carolina, p. 411; Honour, Tax Payers of the City
of Charleston for 1860, p. 387; Carol K. Rothrock Bleser, The Promised
Land: The History of the South Carolina Land Commission, 1869-1890
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1969), p. 76; Holt,
Black Over White, p. 51.
The letters f.p.c."denote free persons of color