The popular opinion regarding slavery in the United States is that
it was a simple matter of racial oppression of blacks by whites. However,
the presence of black slaveholders in North America prior to the Civil
War shows that slavery was not based solely on color but on economics.
Black slave owners, for the most part, were complicities in support
of the institution deriving from it wealth and privileges denied to
Trinidadian historian, Eric Williams, wrote "slavery in the Caribbean
has been too narrowly identified with the Negro" (1966, p. 5).
The same argument can be made for slavery in the United States, for
the popular opinion regarding slavery is that it was a simple matter
of racial oppression of blacks by whites. However, if this is the case,
how then does one account for the presence of black slaveholders in
North America before the Civil War? If both blacks and whites owned
slaves, can we not assume that slavery was not just a matter of racial
hatred? Even if the percentage of black masters was much smaller than
that of white masters, does this make insignificant their participation
in a system that was cruel and inhumane1? How can this phenomenon be
explained? This is a topic that has largely been ignored and which warrants
study. This paper is a preliminary examination at the seemingly aberrant
circumstance of black slave ownership.
has been a universal phenomenon throughout human history. In some periods
it has flourished with many civilizations climbing to power and grandeur
on the backs of slaves, while at other times its scope and economic
impact has been less significant. Moreover, slavery is still in existence
in our modern world.
"race"2 was not always a determining factor in
slave status until the advent of the European Transatlantic Slave Trade.
Men, women, and children from all parts of the ancient world were enslaved.
Slavery existed in the regions surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, in
Europe, in Asia, as well as in Africa. Warriors, pirates, and slave
dealers were not concerned with the color of the skin or the physical
characteristics of their captives. They enslaved both blacks and whites,
young and old, poor and rich. A slave could be peasant or patrician,
illiterate and unskilled, or someone of technical or professional accomplishments.
Thus slaves' social origins as well as skin color and physical characteristics
Christian, Muslim and Jewish, took part in the trade in slaves during
the Middle Ages. Not until the thirteenth century did the Church forbid
Christians to trade in Christian slaves, but allowed the traders to
continue to engage in the buying and selling of slaves of other faiths
(Meltzer, 1993; Kenny, 2001).
explorers and traders of the fifteenth century ushered in the modern
era of African bondage. However, up to the 16th century slavery also
involved Africans. "Slaves and slavery, without distinction of
color, were a recognized and often lucrative part of international commerce
in which both Europeans and Africans regarded themselves as equals"
(Knight, 1974, p. 187). Moreover, a number of northern Africans, both
slaves and free, were present in Spain and Portugal. Some of these were
among the first to arrive in the New World accompanying the early Spanish
expeditions (Knight, 1974). A Portuguese raid in 1441 on the coast of
Senegal brought back black captives as gifts to Prince Henry the Navigator.
The Pope "granted, to all of those who shall be engaged in the
said war [capturing Africans], complete forgiveness of all their sins"
(Meltzer, 1993, p. 1). Thus the traffic in human cargo was sanctified.
various means Europeans were able to secure the participation of Africans
in the procurement of slaves. In 1491 the Portuguese reached the Bantu
people in the Congo and after proper baptism of Chief Nzinga Knuwa,
now given the title of John I, engaged his services in supplying slave
labor for the Portuguese sugar plantations in the northern coast of
Africa. A year later, Columbus reached the New World and instituted
a colonization process heavily dependent upon slave labor (Meltzer,
1993). The subsequent profitability of the sugar, tobacco, and cotton
plantations of the New World required an abundant labor supply, and
slaves fulfilled this need.
were not the first to be enslaved. The Portuguese and other Europeans
first enslaved the indigenous people living on the Caribbean islands,
whom they misnamed Indians. After the Indians, European convicts and
others were sent out under various labor arrangements such as indentured
servitude and even kidnappings (Williams, 1966). Finally, it was the
availability of an abundant supply of labor that could be acquired cheaply
from the western coast of Africa that determined the choice of that
continent as supplier for the enterprise of colonizing the Americas.
was not new to Africa (Kenny, 2001; Meltzer, 1993; Franklin, 1988; Berry
& Blassingame 1982). Domestic slavery was common practice and an
internal trade in slaves had been going on long before the arrival of
the Europeans to their continent. The Africans, like other people throughout
the world, had practiced slavery since prehistoric times (Baepler, 1999).
The medieval Europeans sold slaves even of their own faith or nation,
as did the Africans. As early as the 12th century, Africans had toiled
as slaves on sugar plantations along the Mediterranean (Knight, 1974).
The early Church owned large numbers of slaves. As one historian of
the subject has stated, speaking of all those involved in the trade,
neither continent was a stranger to the slave trade: Africa as well
as Europe had accepted and practiced slavery for a very long time (Meltzer,
1993). It was accepted practice, throughout, to take prisoners in war
as well as criminals and force them into domestic service.
in Africa, however, differed significantly from New World slavery. Meltzer
(1993) points out that, "there was, then, fluidity in society that
made it possible for a captive to move up the ladder from vassal to
free man and even to chief. He was not a man permanently imprisoned
in servitude, with little or no hope of liberation" (p. 23). Berry
and Blassingame comment, "The condition of servitude did not follow
a man or woman as doggedly in Africa as in other societies. Once a bondsman
[or bondswoman] obtained his freedom, people would not publicly refer
to his slave origin" (1982, p. 6). As time passed, the difference
in status between free and slave became less clear. Black captivity
in Africa was in no way a yardstick of inferiority, nor was being African
synonymous with inferior status.
Europeans who ventured down the western coast of Africa did not perceive
its inhabitants as natural slaves. The Europeans encountered strong
states and strong rulers. Meltzer (1993) observed, "there was no
reason for the whites to consider the Africans their inferiors"(p.23).
In their encounters with African kings in West Africa, European slave
traders were respectful. "They dealt with African merchants as
equals, and sometimes took their sons to Europe for education, treating
them as members of their own families" (Curtin, 1974, p. 19). In
addition, the diplomatic missions creating alliances for the purposes
of carrying out trade did not make distinctions in terms of shades of
day bondage has not been confined to blacks. Contradicting the popular
belief that race hatred or white racism (Van Deburg, 1984) was the basis
for slavery, are the numerous accounts of Christian-Americans held in
slavery by North Africans during the time of the European colonization
of America. Baeplar's (1999) collection of Barbary captivity narratives
recounts the suffering and humiliating conditions suffered by white
slaves. Barbary slaves, however, were not born into captivity nor stolen
from their homelands. Their captivity resulted in the course of travels
while engaging in mercantile or military enterprises. Barbary slavery
was not tied to skin color but as Baeplar makes clear, it was the result
"of a legacy of mutual hostility between North Africa and the West"
(1999, p. xi). In the Americas, it was not until the "end of the
eighteenth century, [that] the words 'slaves' and 'Negroes' began to
be interchangeable" (Knight, 1974, p. 186).
to Meltzer (1993) the European immigrants who come to the United States
probably share with black Americans a history of ancestors yoked in
slavery.. Most of the people, no matter what their color or where in
the world they came from, have ancestors who at one time or another
were slaves, or who enslaved others. In addition, according to this
same author, many were both slaves at one time and masters at another
(1993). Popular view to the contrary, slavery was not a system exclusively
maintained by whites to exploit blacks.
too narrow a view of slavery served to give such a simplistic view of
its history. It was the pioneering work of black historians writing
between 1913 and the 1940s that helped to shape a more nuanced understanding
of slavery and to expand our knowledge about what it was like to be
a slave. From historians like Eric Williams from Trinidad, C. L. R.
James from Jamaica, Carter G. Woodson, Luther P. Jackson, John H. Russell,
John Hope Franklin, James H. Johnston from the United States, among
others, we learned that slaves were not just victims but that many found
a way to exercise agency over their lives even to the point of becoming
slavemasters themselves. These historians were instrumental in "establishing
the usefulness and purpose of exploring the black past" (Van Deburg
1984, p. 131). According to Schwartz , 1987, they focused on Black Americans
as worthy objects of study instead of imitating the work of white historians
who concentrated on slaveholders to the exclusion of blacks. In
looking at evidence gleaned from slaves themselves, black historian,
John W. Blassingame determined to show "that the Afro-American
slave was a multidimensional human being" (Van Deburg, 1984, p.
historiography opened up new veins of research. Subjects previously
neglected such as family life in the slave quarters (Blassingame) or
the differences in slave status (field slaves vs. house slaves) or elite
slaves (slave drivers) revealed that slavery was not a monolithic institution
and that slaves were more than helpless victims. It was now possible
to learn about the life of slaves and blacks in general.
that emerged was one that allowed blacks to be full human beings. Among
the things that were uncovered was the capacity of blacks to be as avaricious
as whites and to be willing to enslave their own brethren for personal
gain. Slave ownership of blacks by blacks dates back to Columbus' arrival.
Johnson & Roark (1984) state that blacks accompanied the early explorers
as adventurers, sailors, and settlers. Many blacks, like their white
counterparts, became landowning farmers and participants in the local
affairs of society. A few black masters owned slaves in West Africa
and transported their slaves to the New World (Johnson & Roark,
1984). Although such cases were rare, they serve to reaffirm that slavery
initially was not based on skin color.
masters were former slaves who were emancipated for meritorious military
duty, faithful service, saving a life, and other such reasons (Halliburton,
1976; Koger, 1995). Some slaves were able to buy their freedom and that
of their relatives or friends by spending years working on Sundays and
doing extra work after their "normal" working hours.
of blacks to own slaves were always a matter of contention and depended
upon place and time. In some instances being unable to manumit their
loved ones, some black masters were forced to hold their kinsmen and
friends as nominal slaves (Koger, 1995). In 1833, a Supreme Court decision
settled the matter regarding the rights of free Blacks to own slaves.
Judge Daniel speaking for the Court rendered the following decision:
"By the laws of this State [North Carolina] a free man of color
may own land and hold land and personal property including slaves
A good number of black slave owners obtained the capital to buy slaves
through their own industry and their work as artisans, entrepreneurs,
and even as unskilled laborers. Selective manumission, absence of large-scale
European immigration to the slave states and long-standing reliance
on black slave labor produced a highly skilled free black population
that enjoyed a higher economic standing than those in the free states.
Some of these free blacks purchased slaves and moved into the planter
class (Koger, 1995, p. 88).
was another way for slaves to obtain freedom. According to Koger (1995),
"from the early eighteen century until the prohibition of private
manumission in 1820, the pattern of interracial intimacy appears to
have been the most common means of gaining liberty in South Carolina"
(p. 31). The freed slave women and their offspring often received not
only their freedom but also slaves. In many instances, the female slaves
and their children received their freedom by deeds of manumission. Still
in other instances, they had to wait until the death of their owners.
Once emancipated, some females continued to live in the household of
their former masters, exercising not servant-master roles, but those
of a husband and wife.
not every freed woman agreed to live with the former master. According
to Salzman, Smith, & West (1996), many of them established independent
plantations on the land, expanding their economic assets by purchasing
slaves. Women slaveholders were in the majority in urban areas. As Vogeler
(1997) points out the reason for dominance of black women slave masters
can be explained by the fact that the majority of all adult manumission
were of females.
of black slaveholding, and even Woodson (1968), who base their findings
on United States census figures only, maintain that the dominant slaveholding
pattern developed among blacks was benevolent and based primarily on
kinship. However, by researching and cross-referencing tax records,
bills of sale, mortgages, wills with census records, Koger (1995) paints
a different picture of black slaveholding. It seems quite evident that
black slaveholding was linked to a kind of "pigmentocracy."
He affirms that a survey of the local documents and of the census of
1850 shows 83.1 percent of the black masters were mulattoes and 90 percent
of their slaves were of darker skin. To him, this pattern does not support
the assertion that black slave ownership was merely benevolent. He further
states that because mulattoes primarily married other mulattoes, the
black slaves that were owned by light-skinned blacks were rarely kin
and were instead overwhelmingly held as laborers. Woodson (1968) holds
a contrary view; he reasons that almost all black slave owners 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.
Halliburton (1976), however, notes that the majority of black masters
[no mention is made of skin color] never knew the dehumanization of
slavery because they had been born of free black parents. In terms of
commercialism, there was no distinction between the colored slave masters
with 1 or 2 slaves and the large plantation with 100s. Koger (1995)
argues that a great many freemen became slave masters themselves for
the same reason as whites, to make use of slave labor for the sake of
profits. He writes, "by and large, Negro slave owners were darker
copies of their white counterparts." His research led him to conclude,
"clearly the dominant pattern of the commercial use of slaves recorded
in the 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" (p. 101). Some
colored masters registered mortgages using their slaves as collateral
to secure loans. For many black slaveholders, slaves were merely property
to be purchased, sold, or exchanged. The fact that free black men and
women owned slaves, beyond the necessity of securing the freedom of
a spouse, children, or other dear ones, demonstrates that for some blacks,
just as for whites, greed has no boundaries. It is well to keep in mind,
however, the vicissitudes of slavery, so that whereas: "there may
not have been much objection to the ownership of one's own family by
a free Negro;
when one undertook to acquire slaves to improve
his economic status, there were those who looked upon it as a dangerous
trend, the legality of which was seriously questioned" (Franklin
1995, p. 155). Again, free blacks had rights as long as whites recognized
those rights. Those rights could be abrogated at any time. At the beginning
of hostilities between North and South, for example, a law was passed
in North Carolina "to prevent Negroes from having the control of
slaves" (Franklin, 1995, p. 156).
the uncertainty and volatility in the laws and individual states rules
regulating the rights of blacks to own property, those blacks that had
slaves for profit had socioeconomic interests in common with white holders
of chattel. As many historians reveal, free Negroes who acquired their
bonds people the same way they gained their own free status, that is,
as gifts of inheritance from white slave owners, were especially likely
to have the same socioeconomic interest in their human property as did
white slave owners (Schwarz, 1987; Koger, 1995; Clayton, 1993, Vogeler,
1997; Halliburton, 1976). Scholars including Woodson, point out that
up to the 1860's, having economic interests in common with the white
slaveholders, black owners enjoyed the same social standing: attended
the same churches, same private schools, and places of amusement. They
frequently lived on the same streets as white families. Slaves represented
an important status symbol, but also an inexpensive source of help in
the workplace or in the home. Most of the blacks who held slaves solely
for profit were farmers or plantation owners (Woodson, 1968).
the time that slavery was in existence, the kinds of slaves that could
be owned changed according to time, place, and prevailing laws. Free
black ownership was not too complicated at first. Black slave masters
were allowed to own (in addition to blacks) white, Christian, and European
Americans (Schwarz, 1987). In Virginia in 1670, the legislature prohibited
this "freedom" of ownership of Christian whites by blacks,
and in 1723 it sharply curtailed the opportunity for bonds people to
be emancipated. The number of free black slaveholders would start to
rise again only after legislation in 1782 allowed emancipation by deed
or will. According to Schwarz (1987), legal and political conditions
changed dramatically by 1806, making it necessary for many free blacks
to hold slaves to assure their own continued residence in Virginia.
Anxious over the increasing presence of unenslaved and harder to control
blacks, legislators decided that future beneficiaries of emancipation
would have to leave the commonwealth within twelve months of their change
of status or else be reenslaved and sold for the benefit of the poor
whites. This forced the former slaves to acquire new skills for doing
business on their own, which obliged some of them to buy a work force
in the form of slaves (Schwarz, 1987). After 1832, blacks could acquire
no more slaves except spouses, children or those gained by descent.
The Code of 1849 added parents to these exceptions, but in 1858, "acting
in an atmosphere of sectional crisis and perhaps emboldened by the United
States Supreme Court's pronouncement against black citizenship in Dred
Scott v. Sanford (1857), the legislature took away what little security
free blacks might hope to give to relatives in the future" (Schwarz,
1987, p. 332). Thus black Virginians could no longer buy family members.
These changes occurred throughout the United States with some differences
changes in the law, blacks continued to hold slaves through the Civil
War. Koger (1995) refers to the fact that "in 1860, some 3,000
blacks owned nearly 20,000 black slaves [in the southern states]. In
South Carolina alone, more than 10,000 blacks were owned by black slaveholders."
Thus, black slave ownership was dependent upon the prevailing atmosphere
of the times. During certain periods and in certain areas blacks had
no restriction as far as ownership of property and slaves, in others
they were only permitted to own family members. At least in the case
of Virginia in 1806, slave owning assured free blacks continued residency
and even their own freedom.
black slave owners like their white counterparts were also guided by
economic exigencies. Koger (1995) states that black slave owners were
not more likely to grant slaves their freedom. Ways of controlling slaves
depended on the economic and personal situation of the master. Slave
owners, both black and white, faced a difficult economic choice when
contemplating manumission. Schwarz (1987) reveals: "Emancipation
of slaves might require not only payment of wages to workers who were
now free, but also financial guarantees of support in accordance with
the law of manumission." He concludes, "No matter what their
opinion on the morality of slavery, free blacks had to face these economic
factors" (p. 324). 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 freeperson
and then endorsed the deed of manumission (Koger, 1995). Black slaveowners
appeared to be no more caring of their brethren than were white slaveowners.
Koger (1995, p. 35) writes, "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."
masters were no better disposed than whites to providing good treatment
to their slaves even in the case of their own family members. Woodson
(1968) cites cases of husbands-masters who were not anxious to free
their purchased slave-wives. The "benevolent" husbands put
their wives on probation for a few years for training/educational purposes.
If during this period the woman's behavior was not one acceptable to
her husband, she was sold to another master (Woodson, 1968). As one
can see, ownership by a black slave master did not always bode well
for one who was a woman as well as a slave.
were no more benevolent than whites in their treatment of slaves. Although
many kept their slaves in decent conditions, some were tough and tight-fisted
masters. They did not waste money on clothing and fed slaves the cheapest
food available, which often accounted for their poor health, and treated
them severely to get them to do their duties (Daudert, 1999). In many
cases black slaveholders raped, inflicted bites, and withheld food from
their slaves. The black masters believed that punishment was a necessary
instrument to control their slaves and preserve a sense of authority.
Like white slave owners, black masters placed disobedient slaves in
the city jail or the workhouse as punishment for their servants. After
their slaves were released from the workhouse, it was not unusual for
their black masters to give them a flogging for their disobedience (Koger,
1995; Johnson & Roark, 1984; Daudert, 1999). Being owned by a black
slave master did not offer any advantages as far as treatment and conditions
of servitude. Cruelty was a common tool of social control.
ownership was not confined to any one region or any one kind of economic
enterprise. Many black masters were from the Lower South and engaged
in planting large quantities of cotton, rice, and sugar cane and owned
a large number of slaves (Koger, 1995). The majority of the large Negro
planters lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane. However, not all
black slave owners were planters, nor were they all from the South.
Koger (1995, p. 2) refers to the fact that "in 1830 the city of
New York had eight black slave owners who owned 17 slaves. The institution
of black slave owning was widespread, stretching as far north as New
York and as far south as Florida, extending westward into Kentucky,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Missouri."
were amassed from slave labor and here too color was secondary. According
to Salzman, Smith, & West (1996, p. 603), "eight of the wealthiest
antebellum black entrepreneurs were slaveholders from Louisiana who
owned large cotton and sugar plantations." The trajectory of Marie
Metoyer, also known as Coincoin, from daughter of African-born slaves
to wealthy slave owner is a case in point. After being granted freedom
from her white master, she established an independent plantation in
Louisiana, expanding her economic assets by purchasing slaves and additional
acreage. Her offspring expanded on her holdings, making them the largest
African-American slaveholding family in American history with holdings
of 20,000 acres of land and 500 slaves. The widow C. Richards and her
son P. C. Richards owned 152 slaves and a large sugar cane plantation.
Another black slave magnate with over 100 slaves was Antoine Dubuclet,
a sugar planter whose estate was valued at $264,000, when the mean wealth
of southern white men for that year was $3,978 (Grooms, 1997). Grooms
points out that in 1830 a fourth of the free black slave masters in
South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves. Moreover, eight of the black
slaveholders owned 30 or more slaves. Grooms, citing research from African
American historian and Duke University Professor John Hope Franklin,
points to the fact that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned
slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city. Such numbers
force one to question the traditional view of black slaveholding in
the United States.
ownership of slaves shows that opportunities to make money by exploiting
their fellow blacks were available to some free people of color. Urban
black businessmen and women in Louisiana owned productive slaves, which
allowed them to amass their wealth. CeCee McCarty of New Orleans, a
merchant and money broker, accumulated $155,000 from her business activities
using her slaves as a traveling sales force. In the same way, namely
by using slaves, Albin and Bernard Soulie accumulated over $500,000
as merchants and brokers. Another wealthy black, Francis La Croix, a
tailor and real estate speculator and Julien La Croix, a grocer and
real estate speculator, reported assets totaling $300,000 and $250,000
respectively (Salzman, Smith, & West, 1996). These black masters
seemed to have had no qualms about exploiting the labor of their fellow
the wealthiest free persons of color in the South and wealthier than
nine out of ten whites, was a slave who purchased his freedom, William
Ellison. He was a cotton gin maker and master craftsman. Johnson &
Roark (1984, p. 12) refers to the fact that "Ellison owned a large
cotton plantation and more slaves than any other free person of color
in the South outside Louisiana [Charleston, 1820-1830s], even more than
all but the richest white planters." Ellison was so successful
that many of his white competitors went out of business (Johnson &
Roark, 1984). Such accounts discredit the impression that whites dealt
only with other whites. Where money was involved, it was apparent that
neither Ellison's race nor former slave status was of any particular
interesting fact in terms of slave ownership is that some blacks, while
being slaves, were able to acquire fortunes. Anthony Weston profited
significantly from the construction industry, building rice mills and
improving the performance of rice-thrashing machines. While a slave,
he purchased $40,075 in real estate and slaves in his wife's name, since
she was a free black. Being able to amass fortunes while a slave, certainly
conflicts with the notion that racism was the original basis for slavery.
In the words of Caribbean historian Eric Williams3,
"a racial twist has
been given to what is basically an economic
phenomenon. Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence
of slavery" (Williams 1966, p. 7).
say that black slaveholders were the exception, but so, too, were white
ones. According to McGrath (2001, p. 1) "only a small minority
of Southern whites owned slaves, little more than five percent of the
white population if calculated by individual owner, or some 20 to 25
percent if all members of the slave owners' families are included."
This means that 75 percent or more of white Southerners neither owned
slaves themselves nor were they members of slave owning families. This
is not to imply that black slave owners were equal to their white counterparts
in terms of power and control of the system. What seems clear is that
black slave owners came to identify with their white counterparts in
terms of ownership of slaves to such an extent that they had a vested
interest in the system.
the complexities of slavery allows us to look at this institution as
the product of human invention and not as an aberration, a characteristic
of a particular "race." The phenomenon of black slave ownership
supports the contention that slavery was not based on color but on economics.
Black slave owners, for the most part, were complicitous in support
of the institution deriving from it wealth and privileges denied to
is impossible to make general comments about slavery and its practitioners
and victims that holds true for all times, peoples and places. The institution
of slavery in the United States lasted more than 200 years and its character
was dependent upon, among other things, demographic, geographic and
economic particularities. Individual personalities and idiosyncracies
of slave masters as well as slaves had an effect upon relations that
developed between free and enslaved. Slavery was nowhere a monolithic
institution. The status of slave was not the same everywhere. At first,
individual colonies and subsequently states established their own laws
regarding the conduct of the system. Thus, ownership of slaves by free
Negroes up to the Civil War was allowed in various places (Genovese
, 1974, p. 407). But black slaveownership was an anomaly everywhere.
"Freedom was a privilege, not a right; and free blacks could not
assume the legal certainty in their property or in their security that
whites took for granted" (Huggins, 1977, p. 194).
use of quotation marks indicates that while race is a social construct
without biological validity it is, nevertheless, of great social consequence.
contrary views see: Degler, C. (1959). Slavery and the genesis of American
race prejudice. Comparative studies in society and history, 2, 49-67;
Jordan, W. D. (1973). White over black: American attitudes toward the
negro, 1550-1812. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
P. (Ed.). (1999). Introduction to White slaves, African masters: An
anthology of American barbary captivity narratives. (pp. 1-58). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Berry, M. F., & Blassingame, J. W. (1982). Long memory: The Black
experience in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Clayton, R. (1993). Slavery, slaveholding and the free black population
of antebellum Baltimore. North Carolina: Heritage Books.
Curtin, P. D. (1974). The black experience of colonialism and imperialism.
In S. W. Mintz (Ed.). Slavery, colonialism, and racism (pp. 17-29).
New York: W.W. Norton.
Daudert, C. (1999). The temptation of st. Rosalie: Portrait of a
black slave owner. New York: Hansa-Hewlett.
Degler, C. (1959). Slavery and the genesis of American race prejudice.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 2, 49-67.
Franklin, J. H. (1988). From slavery to freedom: A history of Negro
Americans. New York: McGraw Hill.
Franklin, J. H. (1995). The free negro in North Carolina 1790-1860.
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Genovese, E. D. (1974). Roll Jordan, Roll: The world the slaves
made. New York: Pantheon Books.
Grooms, R. M. (1997). Dixie's censored subject: Black slaveowners.
Retrieved June 3, 2002, from http://www.americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
Halliburton, R. (1976). Free black owners of slaves: A reappraisal of
the Woodson thesis. South Carolina Historical Magazine, 76, 129-136.
Huggins, N. I. (1977). Black odyssey: The Afro-American ordeal in
slavery. New York: Pantheon Books.
James, C.L.R. (1963). The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and
the San Domingo Revolution. New York: Vintage Books.
Johnson, M. P. & Roark, J. L. (1984). Black masters: a free family
of color in the old south. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
Jordan, W. D. (1973). White over black: American attitudes toward
the negro 1550-1812. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books.
Kenny, A. (2001). White is right. The Spectator, 287, 16-17.
Knight, F. W. (1974). Slave society in Cuba during the nineteenth
century. Madison, WS: University of Wisconsin Press.
Koger, L. (1995). Black slaveowners: free black slave masters in
South Carolina, 1790-1860. North Carolina: Mc Farland.
McGrath, (2001). Slavery's inconvenient facts [Electronic version].
Chronicles magazine, 11, Retrieved June 4, 2002 from http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/mcgrath
Meltzer, M. (1993). Slavery: A world history. New York: DaCapo
Salzman, Smith, & West, (Eds.). (1996). In Encyclopedia of Afro-American
culture and history. (Vol. 2, pp. 603, 899, 1061). New York: Simon
& Schuster Macmillan.
Schwarz, P. J. (1987). Emancipators, protectors, and anomalies: free
black slaveowners in Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of history and
biography, 95, 317-338.
Van Deburg, W. L. (1984). Slavery & race in American popular
culture. Madison, WS: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Vogeler, I. (1997, March). Free black slaveowners in South Carolina.
Retrieved June 5, 2002 from http://www.uwec.edu
Williams, E. (1966). Capitalism and slavery. New York: Capricorn
Woodson, G. C. (1968). Free Negro owners of slaves in the Unites
States in 1830. Connecticut: Negro Universities Press.