What percentage of white women owned slaves, why, and what percentage of them personally bought them, versu black woners
Executive summary
Recent scholarship overturns the idea that female slaveholding was rare: region-specific analyses and transaction records show white women made up roughly 30–40% of recorded slaveowners or participation in transactions in some datasets, and they accounted for about 16% of purchases/sales in an 1830 New Orleans sample and ~12% of runaway-ad notice owners in one dataset [1] [2] [3]. Free Black slaveholders existed but were numerically small: nationwide they owned a tiny share of all enslaved people (e.g., 3,776 free Black owners with 12,907 slaves vs. ~2,009,043 total slaves in Woodson-derived data), though in some cities a sizable fraction of free Black households owned slaves [4] [5].
1. White women were far more involved than older narratives allowed
Historians now show white women were active owners, managers and market participants rather than passive bystanders: Stephanie E. Jones‑Rogers’s work and recent quantitative studies find white women constitute a large share of owners in some regions (she calculates as much as 40% of slaveowners in parts of the South) and are frequently listed in bills of sale and court records as owners who litigated to keep enslaved people under their title [1] [6] [7].
2. What “percentage” means depends on the dataset and question
Different measures produce different percentages. Transaction-based studies put white women in roughly a third of transactions in large markets (over 30% in New Orleans market samples) and nearly 40% when the enslaved person involved was a woman [2] [8]. Jones‑Rogers’s regional archival work points to white women making up about 40% of owners in some studied samples; other sources find lower shares in certain record types (for example, 16% of purchases/sales in an 1830 New Orleans sample, ~11–12% of runaway‑ad owner listings) [1] [3] [9].
3. Why white women owned and bought enslaved people: economics, law, and status
Primary explanations in current scholarship are economic and legal: enslaved people—especially women who bore children—were a primary form of inheritable wealth for women, more often passed to daughters than land; owning enslaved people provided financial independence within a patriarchy and improved marriage prospects; white women used legal tools to preserve title against husbands and actively managed, bought, sold and disciplined enslaved people [1] [10] [11].
4. Buying versus merely inheriting or managing: evidence of active purchases
New transaction studies challenge the “inherited only” picture. Researchers using notary records, market sales and runaway ads find white women were both buyers and sellers—“buying and selling in equal proportion” in some datasets—and not primarily widows forced to sell; in New Orleans 1830 notary records white women appear in ~15.8% of transactions and in a larger New Orleans market sample they are involved in ~30.2% of transactions [2] [9] [12].
5. How common were Black slaveholders, and how do the numbers compare?
Free Black slaveholders existed but were a very small fraction of total ownership. Historical compilations show roughly 3,776 free Black people owned 12,907 slaves versus about 2,009,043 slaves overall—so Black ownership was numerically minor nationally—though in some localities (e.g., antebellum Charleston or certain urban contexts) a substantial share of free Black households owned enslaved people [4] [5].
6. Gendered patterns in whom white women enslaved
Researchers report white women disproportionately appear as owners in transactions involving enslaved women; owning enslaved women was an intergenerational wealth strategy because their children inherited enslaved status. Scholars argue this partly explains why white women were especially active buyers/sellers in markets for female enslaved labor [2] [8].
7. Limits of the evidence and competing interpretations
Available datasets are incomplete and uneven: census ownership figures, notary records, market rolls and runaway advertisements capture different slices of practice and region. Authors caution against treating a single percentage as universal; some estimates (e.g., “40% of slaveowners were women”) apply to studied samples or regions, not the entire United States in every decade [6] [2]. Scholars also debate motives—some emphasize economic self‑interest, others point to gendered household roles and legal structures that made women both owners and managers [10] [13].
8. Suggestion for further reading and what evidence to seek next
For deeper context read Stephanie Jones‑Rogers’s They Were Her Property and the transaction study cited by the National Bureau of Economic Research; comparative readings of census‑based state reports and market notary rolls clarify how region and record type change the percentages reported [7] [2] [6]. Available sources do not mention a single nationwide percentage that applies to all states and years.
Limitations: this summary uses only the provided sources and therefore emphasizes the datasets and regional findings they report; broader archival work could refine national-level estimates [2] [1].