Enslaved Person and Enslaver (vs Slavery Owner)

Draft 19 Aug 2026

Around 2006, I learned from Dr. Vernon Heron, a genealogist and historian in Charlotte, to use the words enslaved person rather than slave to recognize they are people not property. That is when I became a member of a genealogy group that became the Charlotte Chapter of AAHGS (Afro-American Historical and Genealogical Society). I served as chapter president from 2016 to 2018 after having helped our group become part of the national organization. I have given dozens of presentations on family history around the country, primarily on African-American history and genealogy.

In recent years, I see the word Enslaver used instead of Owner or Slaveowner or Slaveholder. See this link to the Underground Railroad Museum page that explains the emergence of using this term. It says the word owner or similar conveys the idea of being a "natural owner". It notes that "An enslaver exerted power over those they kept in bondage".

In my experience, people do not think of a slave owner as a natural owner. They understand the term to be a legal owner based on evil laws and language of the time. 

My questions are what would it take to emancipate and how did the legal owner use the power they had? My view is that the legal owner would be one of many enslavers if they were cruel or at least not moderate in how they used their power. If they had practical ways to emancipate and did not do so, they would be one of many enslavers in my view.

A problem with Enslaver is that it does not address the complicity of those who captured, bought, transported, traded, loaned money for, profited from, and institutionalized slavery with a evil web of laws. Enslaver is intended to also emphasize that people are not property and should not be owned. Slave Owner and similar terms are clear in historical records and we recognize this role as part of an evil system. 

Perhaps a better term would be Slavery Owner? 

This term would convey the idea of being legal owner in an evil system and not the owner of person. 

See the book Complicity - How the North Prolonged, Promoted, and Profited from Slavery researched and written by journalist of the Hartford Courant. For example, it notes how New York City threatened to secede during the Civil War as it had controlled 60% of the profits from the cotton trade. YouTube Video

As members of AAHGS we have learned from many accounts how difficult it was for an owner to emancipate the enslaved. At times, the emancipation was not allowed by an evil web of laws. The best most owners could do is be moderate in treatment of the enslaved and hope for and advocate for changes in laws.

Those who could legally emancipate enslaved persons, could be bankrupt or near bankrupt if they did. They often would need to post bonds, repay loans used to purchase enslaved persons, and would forego the future value of labor they had prepaid. Some avoided these costs by posting Runaway Slave Ads that showed a reward of "5 Cents and No Thanks" or similar for the return of the enslaved person.

This relates to the need for a government controlled and partially compensated emancipation as proposed by Joseph Smith in his abbreviated 1844 presidential campaign, by Emerson in the 1850s and Lincoln in 1862 with only DC doing so. All other countries made this type of economic compromise to avoid war. We chose a far more costly and tragic war to officially end slavery.