A slave owner in my family

An excerpt from the will of Samuel Arnold of East Haddam, Connecticut, "Imprimis, I give and bequeath unto my Beloved wife Abigal one third part of my movable Estate (excepting my negro slaves) to her, her heirs and assigns forever..."

If you had asked me a year ago whether any of my ancestors owned slaves, I would have said, "I doubt it."  Before the Civil War, all of my American ancestors lived in New England and New York. I know that slavery existed in those parts of the country as well as in the South. But there were far fewer enslaved people in the North.  So what were the odds that one of my ancestors would own slaves?

Then I found my 7th great-uncle, Samuel Arnold of East Haddam, Connecticut. Or, to be more precise, I discovered his will. In that will (excerpted above), Samuel Arnold named nine different "negro slaves," and specified which of them he was leaving to each of his children. So I certainly have at least one relative who owned slaves, or more if we count his heirs.

Samuel Arnold was my 7th grand uncle

I always find wills and probate records interesting. This one is particularly interesting since it is from a time (1739), when it is rare to find any information about a relative other than the basic vital statistics about their birth, marriage, death, and children.

Obviously, what jumped out at me about Samuel Arnold's will was the slaves. But as often happens, a little bit of information leads to even more questions. The will describes relationships among a few of the slaves, (e.g., "Prince, ye 5th son of my eldest man servant named Prince and of Cate his wife.") Were the other slaves also related to Prince and Cate? Since Prince was their fifth son, they had at least four other sons, and the will names exactly four other male slaves—Sampson, Ceaser [sic], Japhet, and Peter. Were they the older sons of Prince and Cate? The other named slaves are Lois and Rose. Were they then the daughters of Prince and Cate?

I also wonder what happened to these enslaved people after Samuel Arnold's death. His will distributes them among his seven children. But the inventory of his estate does not include the slaves! The will is dated November 3, 1738, Samuel Arnold died on March 30, 1739, and the inventory was taken April 27, 1739. Did Samuel Arnold sell his slaves between those dates? Did he free them? Or did he give the slaves to his children prior to his death? And other than Samuel Arnold's will I have found no information about Prince and Cate and their family. A few later probate records mention slaves with the same names. For example the will of John Stocking of Middletown, Connecticut, dated December 2, 1746, leaves his "negro girl Rose" to his mother. But there is no way to tell if this is the same Rose that Samuel Arnold left to his son Josiah.

I am also curious about the younger slave named Prince.  Most of the bequests in Samuel Arnold's will are quite simple. (E.g., "I give unto my son Enoch Arnold... my negro man servant called Ceaser.") But he leaves much more elaborate instructions about Prince:

"I give to my son Samuel Arnold... my negro man servant named Prince, ye 5th son of my eldest man servant named Prince and of Cate his wife, and also my will is that the aforesaid servant shall at my decease be in the hands of my executors and by them to be put in the hands of my son Samuel if they shall judge it best for him to have the sd. servant; but if my sd. executors shall judge it best to sell the sd. servant and my sd. son to have ye money, then my will is that my executors shall sell my sd. servant in the following manner, viz.: to such suitable master as will give most for my sd. servant, and to pay £10 a year annually until the payment be out; and also my will is that my sd. son shall have the money according to the foregoing proposal of payment, provided my sd. servant shall not be sold to any master living out of this town."

Why was Prince singled out to be "in the hands of" Samuel Arnold's executors at his decease? Why might those executors judge it best to sell Prince rather than leave him to the younger Samuel Arnold? Does this reflect something about Prince or the younger Samuel? The latter was not a juvenile. He graduated from Yale College in 1724 and was likely in his 30s when his father wrote this will.

Samuel Arnold was a distant uncle. I don't know if any of my direct ancestors also owned slaves. Since Samuel Arnold did, it seems possible his close relatives did as well. The likely candidates on my Arnold line would be Joseph Arnold (my 7th great-grandfather and Samuel's father), John Arnold (my 6th great-grandfather and Samuel's brother) or Gideon Arnold (my 5th great grandfather and Samuel's nephew).  They all lived in Haddam, Connecticut, across the Connecticut River from East Haddam, where Samuel settled. Joseph Arnold died intestate in 1691; the inventory of his estate does not include any slaves. I have not (yet?) found any probate records for John or Gideon Arnold. So for the time being, this question remains a mystery.

In the absence of concrete information about my direct ancestors, I decided to read up a little on slavery in early Connecticut. How typical (or not) was Samuel Arnold? Were there many enslaved people in Haddam and East Haddam? Who owned slaves in colonial Connecticut and why? Did slavery contribute to the economy?  I.e., did enslaved people increase production enough to balance out the costs of feeding and supporting them, and if so were they a less expensive source of labor than free laborers?  Or was owning slaves a novelty or status symbol? And how did Connecticut transition from allowing slavery in the mid-18th century to being a free state a century later on the eve of the Civil War?

Samuel Arnold's estate was valued at £441, making him well-off, but not among the wealthy elite of Connecticut. This makes his situation rather unusual. In a survey of estate inventories from eighteenth century Connecticut, only 3% of estates valued at less than £500 included slaves. And those estates typically included only one or two slaves. So Samuel Arnold was among that 3% and was something of a rarity in having nine slaves.

While some farmers, like Samuel Arnold, owned slaves, the use of enslaved labor was more common among craftsmen, merchants, and the wealthy.  Large-scale farmers and artisans might have had economic motives for using enslaved labor, needing a full-time worker to perform a particularly arduous or dangerous job. But it appears that many slaves were used for menial chores or as valets and maids, suggesting that a large portion of enslaved labor did not contribute to the economy.

In the early part of the eighteenth century, there was little moral objection to slavery. It was common for ministers in Connecticut to own slaves, just as it was for doctors, military officers, and other successful professionals. While this attitude was shared throughout the early colonies, it seems slavery was more popular in Connecticut than in its neighbors. As a result, Connecticut was relatively slow in eliminating the practice.

The 1790 census enumerated 2,764 slaves in Connecticut, accounting for 1.16% of the population. While this was more slaves than the combined total for the rest of the New England states, it was also quite small compared to the southern states; South Carolina had 107,094 slaves, representing 43% of its population.

By 1790, Connecticut had already started on the road to abolition. In 1784, the legislature enacted gradual emancipation, freeing all enslaved people when they reached age 25. A 1797 law lowered this age to 21. These laws meant that slavery would slowly decline in Connecticut, but they also condemned those where were enslaved and over 25 to live out their lives in servitude.

Connecticut did not officially outlaw slavery until 1848, making it the last New England state to do so.  But by that time gradual emancipation had greatly reduced the enslaved population. In 1840, there were only 54 slaves in Connecticut.


Notes on Sources

I originally found Samuel Arnold's will in Manwaring's collection of Connecticut Probate records:

Charles William Manwaring (ed.), A Digest of the Early Connecticut Probate Records, Vol III, Hartford District, 1729–1750 (R.S. Peck & Co., Hartford, Conn., 1906), pp. 219–220. 

This three volume set was my first foray into estate records, and contains probate records for many of my ancestors Hartford and Haddam Connecticut. All three volumes are available and searchable at archive.org. John Stocking's will is on pages 660–661 of the third volume.

I subsequently found the images of the original probate papers when Ancestry.com introduced their massive collection of Connecticut Wills and Probate Records. In addition to providing the text from the will pictured at the top of the page, this also provided a copy of Samuel Arnold's estate inventory.

Connecticut, Wills and Probate Records, 1609–1999, online index and images, Ancestry.com, Hartford Probate district: Probate Packets, Antrim-Ayrault, M, 1641–1880: images 529–541 of 1517; 

The dates of Samuel Arnold's will and estate inventory are from his probate records. I found the date of his death in the Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Records.

Connecticut Town Death Records, pre-1870 (Barbour Collection), online index and images, Ancestry.com, East Haddam Vital Records 1743–1857: image 14 of 258.

A brief biography of the younger Samuel Arnold appears in a collection of biographical sketches of early graduates of Yale College. It states that he was baptized on October 8, 1704 in East Haddam, making him at least 34 years old when his father's will was written.

Franklin Bowditch Dexter, Biographical Sketches of the Graduates of Yale College with Annals of the College History, October, 1701—May, 1745 (Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1885), pp. 292–3. Available via Archive.org.

Statistics about eighteenth century slavery in Connecticut were taken from:

Jackson Turner Main, Society and Economy in Colonial Connecticut (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1985).

This book presents a fascinating picture of many aspects of colonial life in Connecticut. The author collected information from estate inventories from all parts of Connecticut. Using this information, he analyzed many aspects of economic and material life in the colony. The statistics about slavery are just a small part of this work. Given the methodology, it seemed fitting to use this book in researching a question triggered by Samuel Arnold's own will and estate inventory.

Data on the enumeration of slaves in the 1790 census was provided by the Wikipedia article on that census.

The Connecticut History web site provides an excellent overview of gradual emancipation.