Nicole Moore Sanborn

As a result of the system of plantation slavery in the United States and the absence of legal rights for African-American slaves, modern perception of slavery is very specific. The American school system teaches of one form of slavery, the one that operated in the United States until the late 19^th century. As a result, students typically apply their perceptions of slavery in the United States onto Latin American slavery. Despite the modern stereotypes African slaves in Colonial Latin America were solely plantation slaves who lacked legal rights, the wills of Joaquin Felix de Santana and Colonel Manuel Pereira da Silva and Felipe Edimboro’s court case refute the modern perception of how slavery operated.

Slavery can take many forms. Typically slavery is associated with agricultural slavery, especially on plantations in the southern United States. Due to the system of slavery in the United States and mining operations and sugar plantations in Latin America, perceptions of slavery continue to fixate on the idea of slavery usually meaning plantation slavery. However, slaves in Latin America could also take on urban roles. Felipe Edimboro, a slave for Sanchez, was the butcher of Sanchez’ cattle. Sanchez also entrusted Edimboro to be the overseer of his 1,000-acre San Diego plantation, including over 800 cattle, 30 horses, and 30 slaves while he went away on business. Edimboro did work for a plantation owner, but his position was not a field worker. He presumably had enough leadership and business skills to be entrusted with such a large operation while his owner was away. Although the will of Captain Joaquin Felix de Santana and does not specify what he did as a slave, after manumission he served as a judge three times and worked as a counselor at the chapel of Our Lady of the Rosary. Colonel Manuel Pereira da Silva was the commander of the segregated black militia regiment, the highest government post available to a black man in Brazil. Although Santana and Silva served at these posts after manumission, if they had solely been agricultural slaves lacking in interpersonal communication, leadership, and business skills, they would not have been qualified to serve as judges and military commanders. Edimboro’s position during slavery and Santana and Silva’s roles after manumission question the idea of Latin American slaves working on agricultural plantations.

In the United States, slaves lacked legal rights, where African-Americans still struggled for civil rights well into the 20^th century. In Latin America, however, slaves were awarded a number of legal rights. Spanish law awarded slaves legal rights including the right to own and dispose of property, buy their freedom, buy their family members freedom, and initiate legal action against their owners.

When a slave initiated a legal action against his owner, it was called coartacion. Coartacion required determining the slave’s “just price” by assessing his abilities (based on sex, customs, and skills). The slave then had to make a down payment to become a coartado, and received notarized manumission once paying his assessed sum in full. In the case of Edimboro, slaves’ rights were properly executed. Edimboro bought his freedom through initiating legal action against his owners and was properly represented according to law. Edimboro first chose Miguel Ysnardy to be his interpreter, then his assessor. Ysnardy was replaced with Manuel Rengil as Edimboro’s interpreter, at the request of Sanchez. Edimboro was assessed at 500 pesos, of which he paid 312 pesos on a down payment. The court granted Edimboro don Bartolome de Castro Ferrer (a public attorney) as legal counsel, who won the case for him despite Sanchez’s opposition. Three wills read from the Colonial Lives book showed instances where slaves bought their manumission from their owners. Joaquim Felix de Santana’s will included information on who he was owned by and declares he gained freedom from being a slave of Captain Felix da Costa Lisboa, paying him 135$000. Monetary amounts are denoted in the exact fashion as in the text. Colonel Manoel Pereira da Silva owned his own slaves, and in his will he declares upon his death, his slave Anonia would be assessed at 100$000 to give to his heir, with a period of one year to pay. Each of these men exercised legal rights.

Edimboro owned and disposed of property, and he as well as Colonel Manuel Pereira da Silva attempted to buy their family members’ freedom. Colonel Manuel Pereira da Silva’s first executer, Anastacia Pereira da Silva, was his natural child and slave, whom he purchased to freedom. He conferred her freedom through a letter of manumission April 25, 1796. Natural children were children born of parents who were not married but were legally able to marry at the time of their relationship. Edimboro originally sued for the freedom of himself, his wife Filis, and their young son. However, the marriage was not seen as legitimate before the court because they practiced it in private according to the Protestant tradition instead of being officially married into the Catholic tradition. It is unclear whether Edimboro successfully acquired the freedom for his wife and son in this court case. Slaves could earn money and thus buy property through a jornal and the journalero system, in which slaves could work outside jobs apart from their owners and receive a payment for this work. However, the slaves had to pay a certain portion of this jornal to their masters. Edimboro’s 312 pesos were saved up from the jornal money he and his wife saved. The best description in Edimboro’s court case of the jornal system is in Sanchez’s accusations of Filis (Edimboro’s wife) not paying her jornal to him. Through Edimboro’s court case and the wills of Joaquin Felix de Santana and Manuel Periera da Silva, it is clear slaves did have legal rights and could own and dispose of property, as these men exercised their legal rights.

Slaves in Latin America were not powerless but had the ability to shape their lives. Although it was difficult to acquire enough money to pay for manumission, it was legally possible. Telling this story and challenging the power structure in classrooms is tricky. The best ways to tell these stories are to look at court cases and wills, but this is rarely done outside of a college classroom. Textbooks tell of the encomienda system and indigenous people dying off but rarely mention African conquistadors or even seriously discuss African slaves, though the primary slaves were Africans. In Bahia, the province of Brazil the will documents originated, 40% of the population consisted of slaves, mostly Africans. Challenging power dynamics not only complicates students’ images of the past, but it also forces the United States to come to terms with the harsh realities of their slavery system. Modern stereotypes of slavery originate from students’ understanding of the slavery construct in the United States, one where African-Americans are not seen as equal under the law and were treated brutally. There was no jornal system and slaves could not own property.

While there were a few key white Spanish and Portuguese players in control, colonial Latin America had a system in place that allowed for slaves to buy manumission and saw them as people in the eyes of the law. Manuel Pereira da Silva rose to power and held a high militia position. Edimboro, though he had to take legal action, was able to purchase his manumission because the courts recognized his humanity and saw freedom as a natural state. It is up to future historians to paint a more accurate picture and challenge the social constructs in history books and find documents that show the lives of the less powerful people in Latin America.