The illegal act of American Indian enslavement never stopped - Tales of the Illegal slave traders
- Ishmael Bey
- 23 hours ago
- 9 min read
Theophilus Freeman illegally enslaved the Free Indigenous Solomon Northup from New York:
Theophilus Freeman was a notorious slave trader operating out of New Orleans.
After Solomon Northup (a free Black man from New York) was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841, he was transported south and sold into slavery by Freeman.
Freeman ran a slave pen in New Orleans where kidnapped individuals like Northup were sold (Northup, Twelve Years a Slave).
After being sold by Freeman, Northup was first bought by a planter named William Ford.
Eventually, after Ford, Solomon was sold to a cruel planter named Edwin Epps.
Epps' plantation, where Solomon spent the bulk of his 12 years enslaved, was located near the Moro Plantation along Bayou Boeuf in central Louisiana (modern-day Avoyelles and Rapides Parishes).
Theophilus Freeman
The Moro Plantation and Epps’ plantation were both part of the Bayou Boeuf slave-holding region — a remote, rural corridor heavily reliant on slave labor (Midlo Center for New Orleans Studies).
Solomon Northup, Twelve Years a Slave (1853)
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., ed., The Annotated Twelve Years a Slave (2013)
The Historic New Orleans Collection — Beyond "Twelve Years a Slave"
Dr. Sue Eakin’s scholarly research on Solomon Northup (she rediscovered and verified the true locations, including plantations like Epps' and Moro, in the 20th century)
Theophilus Freeman (c. 1800 – May 18, 1860) was a prominent and controversial figure in the American domestic slave trade during the antebellum period. Operating primarily in New Orleans, Louisiana, Freeman was known for his extensive involvement in the buying and selling of enslaved individuals, as well as for his appearances in notable slave narratives.
Freeman was likely born around 1800 in Georgia. He may have been the son of Daniel Freeman of Jasper County, Georgia, as a Theophilus Freeman is named as a son and heir in Daniel Freeman's will dated January 30, 1840. By the 1830s, Freeman had established himself in the slave trade, appearing in the 1830 census of Prince William County, Virginia, with one enslaved man in his household. He formed a partnership with N. C. Finnall in the trading firm Finnall & Freeman, which exported enslaved people from the Virginia area to New Orleans for sale
In New Orleans, Freeman operated a slave pen where enslaved individuals were held before being sold. He was known for his aggressive and often brutal methods of preparing enslaved people for sale, including forced grooming and physical examinations. Freeman's business practices were described in two antebellum slave narratives—that of John Brown and that of Solomon Northup. In Northup's memoir, Twelve Years a Slave, Freeman is depicted as the slave trader who sold Northup under the name "Platt" after he was kidnapped and transported to New Orleans.
Freeman's business extended beyond New Orleans. He partnered with Benjamin Eaton at the Forks of the Road slave market in Natchez, Mississippi, and later with John Goodin in the firm John Goodin & Co., which operated in New Orleans and Vicksburg, Mississippi. Freeman's operations involved a network of traders who collected enslaved people from across the Upper South and delivered them to the lower Mississippi River valley.
Freeman's career was marred by numerous legal issues. He was involved in lawsuits, including a case where he was charged with assault and battery on Susan McNally in 1858. In April 1860, Freeman was arrested for drawing a knife on a citizen, Dayton Daniels, during a dispute. Despite his earlier wealth, Freeman died in poverty in New Orleans on May 18, 1860
Theophilus Freeman's role in the domestic slave trade and his depiction in slave narratives have made him a subject of historical study. His actions exemplify the brutal realities of the slave trade in the United States and the complex networks that sustained it. Freeman's life and business practices offer insight into the economic and social structures of slavery in the antebellum South.
For further reading, consider exploring Frederic Bancroft's Slave Trading in the Old South and Calvin Schermerhorn's The Business of Slavery and the Rise of American Capitalism, 1815–1860
Association with Early Spanish Settlers
One possibility is that the name "Moro" derives from early Spanish settlers in Louisiana. Historical records indicate that individuals with the surname "Moro" were among the early Spanish inhabitants of the region. For instance, in 1774, during Spanish rule, a property in what is now New Orleans was registered under the name "Pablo Moro," which was the Spanish alias of Jean Morand, a French landowner . Additionally, the 1891 history of St. Mary Parish notes that the Moro family was among the early Spanish settlers in the area . It's plausible that the plantation was named after a member of this family or in recognition of their presence in the region.
Geographical Naming Conventions
Another theory is that the plantation was named after a local geographical feature. In Louisiana, it's common for plantations to be named after nearby natural landmarks, such as bayous, creeks, or mounds. While there is no widely recognized "Moro Creek" in the immediate vicinity of the plantation, it's possible that a lesser-known or now-defunct waterway bore the name, leading to the plantation adopting it.
Linguistic Interpretation
The term "moro" in Spanish translates to "Moor," historically referring to Muslim inhabitants of North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. In some contexts, "moro" can also denote a dark or swarthy complexion. Given Louisiana's complex colonial history, which includes French and Spanish influences, the name could have been inspired by such linguistic associations, perhaps describing the landscape's appearance or as a cultural reference.
Connection to Indigenous Sites
The area surrounding Moro Plantation is rich in indigenous history. The Atchafalaya Basin Mounds, also known as the Moro Plantation Mounds, are archaeological sites associated with the Coastal Coles Creek and Plaquemine cultures, dating back to around 980 CE . The naming of the plantation might have been influenced by these pre-existing indigenous landmarks, adopting the name "Moro" from the mounds or the indigenous terminology associated with them.
Solomon Northup: A Case of Illegal Enslavement
In 1841, Solomon Northup, a free Black man from New York, was kidnapped in Washington, D.C., and sold into slavery. He was transported to New Orleans and sold by Theophilus Freeman to planter William Ford. Northup remained enslaved for twelve years before regaining his freedom. His memoir, Twelve Years a Slave, details this harrowing experience and highlights Freeman's role in his illegal enslavement .
Sarah Connor: Legal Struggles for Freedom
Another individual, Sarah Connor, sued Freeman for her freedom in 1846. Connor presented evidence, including a notarial contract and a private act of sale, to support her claim. Despite these documents, her freedom was contested, illustrating the precarious nature of legal status for free people of color during that era
The Freeman–Birch Partnership
James H. Birch was a slave trader based in Washington, D.C. In 1841, he purchased Solomon Northup, who had been kidnapped under the pretense of employment, from two conmen. Birch then shipped Northup to New Orleans aboard the brig Orleans, consigning him to his business partner, Theophilus Freeman. Freeman operated a slave pen in New Orleans, where he sold enslaved individuals to buyers in the Deep South. In Northup's case, Freeman sold him to planter William Ford in Louisiana
Their partnership exemplified the broader network of the domestic slave trade, wherein traders in the Upper South would acquire enslaved individuals and transfer them to partners in the Lower South for sale. This system facilitated the movement of thousands of enslaved people from the Upper to the Lower South, contributing to the expansion of slavery in the United States.
Following his rescue and return to freedom, Solomon Northup initiated legal action against James H. Birch for kidnapping and illegal enslavement. However, Birch was acquitted, largely due to the prevailing racial prejudices of the time and the legal system's reluctance to convict white individuals based on the testimony of Black victims
Birch the Dealer of Slaves including Indian ones
James H. Birch, presided over Alexandria’s largest slave pen at 1315 Duke St.
In 18th-century Alexandria, slave auctions often were held spontaneously on sidewalks or street corners. But by the early 19th century, with the importation of slaves outlawed and the tobacco crop dissipating in Northern Virginia because of soil exhaustion, shipping slaves from the commonwealth to the emerging cotton fields of the Deep South became extremely lucrative.
It is during this time that permanent slave facilities were established along Duke Street. Alexandria became the second-largest slave center in the country, just behind New Orleans.
Originally built as the private home of Brig. Gen. Robert Young in 1812, the Duke Street dwelling was leased by the firm of Franklin and Armfield in 1828 and converted into a large slave jail and pen. The strategic location of the site — between the bustling city to the east and vast farmlands to the west — allowed the firm to efficiently contain and then ship off hundreds of slaves at any one time.
In 1858, partners Charles M. Price and John Cook acquired the Franklin and Armfield property. Cook left the partnership soon after and was replaced by Birch. Soon the front facade was emblazoned with the name “Price, Birch & Co. Dealers in Slaves.”
When Union troops entered Alexandria on May 24, 1861, they found the building hastily abandoned, with one slave still chained to the basement floor. This photograph of the facility, taken about 1862, shows the main building after it was turned into a prison by federal authorities.
Famous Cases of American Indians illegally enslaved
Hudgins v. Wright (Virginia, 1806)
In this landmark case, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Wright family, affirming their freedom based on their descent from a free American Indian woman. The court emphasized that, under Virginia law, Native Americans were presumed free unless proven otherwise. This decision highlighted the legal distinctions between African and American Indian ancestry concerning enslavement.
“ the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Wrights, granting them freedom based on their descent from a free Indian woman, Butterwood Nan ”
Cherokee Nation v. Nash (2017)
Although not about the enslavement of American Indians per se, this federal case addressed the rights of the Cherokee Freedmen—descendants of African American slaves once held by the Cherokee Nation. The court upheld the 1866 treaty guaranteeing these individuals full citizenship rights within the Cherokee Nation, reinforcing the legal obligations stemming from historical practices of slavery involving Native American tribes.
Rachel Findlay (Virginia, 1773 & 1820)
Rachel Findlay, born around 1750 in Virginia, was of mixed African and American Indian ancestry. In 1773, she and her brother sued for their freedom, arguing that their maternal grandmother was an Indigenous woman who had been illegally enslaved, as Virginia had prohibited Indian slavery in 1705. The court ruled in their favor, but Findlay was illegally sold further west. Decades later, in 1813, she filed another suit and, in 1820, won her freedom again. This case also secured the freedom of approximately 44 of her descendants.
“ Rachel Findlay (ca. 1750–after August 17, 1820) was born into slavery early in the 1750s in the part of Virginia that later became Powhatan County. Her maternal grandmother was an illegally enslaved Indian woman and her mother possibly had both Indian and African ancestry. “
Marguerite Scypion (Missouri, 1805–1836)
Marguerite Scypion, born in the 1770s in St. Louis, was of African and Natchez ( American Indian ) descent. Her mother had been enslaved after the Spanish colonial government had abolished Indian slavery in 1769. Scypion filed a "freedom suit" in 1805, and after decades of legal battles, a jury in 1836 ruled in her favor, recognizing that her maternal lineage made her and her descendants legally free. This decision effectively ended Indian slavery in Missouri.
Robyn v. Hardiway (Virginia, 1772)
In this case, the Virginia General Court ruled that Robyn, a woman of American Indian descent, and her family were entitled to freedom because their ancestor had been illegally enslaved. This case set a precedent for other freedom suits based on Indigenous ancestry.“ The judgement in the case of Robin et al v. Hardaway (1772) ruled that the descendants of a certain Indigenous woman who had been sold into slavery between 1682 and 1748 were, in fact, free, as their ancestor had been sold into slavery illegally. “
Holmes v. Ford (Oregon, 1853)
In this case, the Oregon Territorial Supreme Court ordered the release of children born to an enslaved African American couple, Robin and Polly Holmes. While the case primarily concerned African American slavery, it underscored the broader legal challenges surrounding slavery in territories where the institution was prohibited, indirectly affecting Indigenous American populations subjected to similar illegal enslavement practices.
United States v. Wright (1913)
This U.S. Supreme Court case dealt with the application of federal laws to American Indian territories, emphasizing the government's authority to regulate affairs concerning American Indians. While not directly about slavery, it reflects the broader legal context in which the rights and freedoms of Native Americans were contested and defined.
⚖️ Legal Context and Implications
These cases highlight the legal avenues available to individuals of American Indian descent who were illegally enslaved, despite laws prohibiting such practices. While these suits were brought by individuals rather than against companies, they underscore the systemic nature of illegal enslavement and the role of the legal system in addressing these injustices.
It's important to note that while these cases led to the emancipation of specific individuals and their descendants, they did not result in the prosecution of slave trading companies. However, they contributed to the broader legal and societal shifts that eventually led to the abolition of slavery in the United States.
If you're interested in exploring more about freedom suits or the legal history of slavery, I can provide additional information or resources on those topics.
FIRST TRIBE
