This post owes its existence to a talk given by Pat Candlin at a ‘Guyana Speaks’ event. The monthly events regularly feature interesting presentations which, as the title of the sessions indicates, focus mainly on Guyana. Pat’s talk was about his book (co-authored with Cassandra Pybus) ‘Enterprising Women – Gender, Race and Power in the Revolutionary Atlantic’.
The gap between buying a book and actually reading it can be quite long but, having recently got round to it, this one is very thought provoking for a number of reasons.
How often do we bemoan the absence from the history books of stories about strong, successful and independent women of colour? This book has many such stories.
However, a health warning is necessary. The women featured in the pages of the book were all operating in the southern Caribbean at a time of great political turmoil under conditions that bear comparison with what we know as ‘the wild west.’ This was frontier territory, with islands like Grenada and Trinidad changing hands following tussles between the competing colonial powers of Britain, France and Spain. British Guiana came into existence after Britain seized Demerara, Essequibo and Berbice from the Dutch in 1796. The problematic feature of these women’s stories is that they all owned slaves, in some cases many of them. Having been enslaved themselves, or being the daughters of women who were, their route to riches involved the enslavement of others.
British writers of the time were quick to stereotype women of colour, perhaps some things haven’t changed as much as they should have done over the past two hundred years.
Betsey Goodwin was the woman who ‘shared the bed’ of George Ricketts after he became Governor of Barbados in 1794. An early historian of Barbados, John Poyer, writing in 1808, suggested Betsey’s position encouraged other members of the free coloured community who had ‘assumed a rank in the graduated scale of colonial society to which they had hitherto been strangers.’ He also suggested that, because Betsey was believed to have encouraged the Governor to allow prisoners to go free, other free coloured people had ‘boasted of the impunity which they could obtain through the influence of Betsey Goodwin.’ Betsey was described as ‘sly and insidious’ and this became a familiar stereotype. Enslaved black women and women of colour had much to gain from associating with a powerful white man, if they played their cards right they could gain their own freedom and that of their children. It suited contemporary writers to portray them in a very negative light.
Another common stereotype was that of the black (or mixed heritage) brothel keeper. Rachael Pringle Polgreen is one such person and we have a supposed likeness of her.
Whether this unflattering image or ‘likeness’ is an accurate portrayal is very much up for debate. It is a lithograph by Thomas Rowlandson dating from 1796. Rowlandson could have met Rachel on the one visit he made to the Caribbean but the lithograph was created when he was back in London (five years after Rachel’s death) and based on a drawing by another, un-named, artist. It is a caricature that fits well with the stereotype that the British were happy to perpetuate. As the authors of the book say, the caricature ‘played to the powerful cliches that had enveloped Caribbean women by the end of the eighteenth century.’ For example, writing in 1806, Dr.George Pinckard wrote that the typical tavern keeper in Barbados was a ‘mulatto woman … who now indulges in indolence and the good things in life, grows fat and feels herself to be of importance to society.’
The few known facts about Rachel’s life give a far more nuanced picture. There were white men at various stages of her life but it is clear that she had a strong entrepreneurial spirit and was a shrewd businesswoman. The (long) list of her belongings at the time of her death was, Candlin and Pybus assert, ‘just the kind of inventory one would expect of a wealthy white person in Barbadian society at the time.’ This list included her main property which was valued at £1,000 (£154,000 at today’s prices) and 38 enslaved people, six of whom she chose to grant their freedom.
The story of the Philip clan starts in provincial France where, some time in the 1750s, a baker, Honore Philip, decided to seek new opportunities in the Caribbean. With his two brothers he settled on the small French colony of La Grenade. Two of the brothers chose to settle on the tiny outlying island of Petite Martinique while the third settled on the main island of Grenada. Why they located here is not known but they were soon thriving producing cotton and indigo.
By 1760, Honore had married ‘Jeanette, a free negro woman.’ The authors speculate that his relationship with her started while she was enslaved and that he gave her her freedom at the time he married her. This sort of behaviour was sanctioned by the Code Noire, the ‘rules’ that governed how French colonisers were expected to treat the local black poulation.
At some point in 1770s Honore died and Jeanette became the sole proprietor of his extensive estates. In 1778 a visitor wrote that all the land of Petite Martinique – some 477 acres – was ‘jointly owned by Jeanette Philip and a number of her mixed race children.’ Contrary to the stereotype, Jeanette did not succumb to ‘indolence’ but continued to expand her property empire with vigour. When she died in 1788 the estate was divided among her children, among them a daughter, Judith. There are many twists and turns to the story of Judith Philip, including ten years living at a fashionable address in London, which cannot be covered here, suffice to say that she lived until 1848 and died a very wealthy women.
The book gives some information about the extent of the Philip family’s ownership of enslaved people. But the details are all to be found on the Legacy of British Slavery database https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/search
Looking at the records for Judith Philip alone shows her ownership of enslaved people on three estates on Grenada.
| Number enslaved | Compensation | |
| Petit Ance Estate | 64 | £1,499 18 shillings 6 pence |
| Susanna Estate | 68 | £1,558 8 shillings 5 pence |
| Grand Ance Estate | 143 | £3,456 17 shillings 5 pence |
The total compensation claimed by Judith Philip was £6,515 4 shillings 2 pence, about £866,000 at today’s prices according to the Bank of England inflation calculator.
As an aside, I couldn’t resist putting ‘Gleave’ into the database search box. I know there was a Gleave on Barbados in the 1860s but he was a Methodist minister at a time when Methodists were still extremely unpopular with the plantocracy because they gave the until recently enslaved people ideas above their station. It is a relief to know that the name Gleave does not appear in the ‘Legacy’ database and that John Rowland Gleave was on the side of the good guys. You can read about him here https://www.historycalroots.com/john-rowland-gleave/
The book is full of surprising stories, none more so that that of Susannah Ostrehan who owned her own mother, Priscilla. Strange as this sounds, owning family members was the best, indeed the only, way of keeping them relatively safe.
In 1809 Susannah realised she was dying and she went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that her mother became a free woman once her owner died. The British colonial authorities put all sorts of obstacles in the way of those seeking to manumit slaves. Just a few years earlier in 1801, the Governor had become so concerned at the number of enslaved people being freed that he increased the cost of issuing a manumission certificate from £50 to £300 and even if the money was raised, officialdom could not be relied upon to issue the appropriate papers. It was cheaper and more reliable to entrust a friendly ship’s captain bound for London with the requisite papers and rely on him to secure the enslaved person’s freedom through the appropriate authorities there (where the cost was still only £50).
Susannah entrusted a Captain Welch with the mission to secure her mother’s freedom. This was clearly a lengthy process as, having made the voyage to London, a ship would have to complete a return journey with the precious papers. Susannah died before the ship returned but she had prepared for that eventuality in her will by bequeathing her mother to a friend, Christian Blackman. The story has a happy ending as, although her daughter did not live to see it, the papers arrived from London and Priscilla was freed.
Finally, if we learn anything about the abolition of slavery in schools it is likely that the names of William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson will feature prominently. What we hear less about is the agency of enslaved people themselves in bringing the whole trade to an end. There is plenty of evidence of this in the book, one of Judith Philip’s own brothers, Joachim, turned against the system. He was eventually hanged in the market square in St Georges for his part in the 1796 uprising in Grenada led by Julien Fedon. Hopefully we will learn more about how enslaved people fought against their oppression thanks to projects like this one https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/secrets-of-rebel-slaves-in-barbados-will-finally-be-revealed
As I suggested at the outset, it is very hard to pretend that people like Judith Philip were exemplars of enlightened behaviour – they were not. As the authors say of Judith Philip, ‘she owned people on a large scale almost all of her life. Her wealth was built from plantation slavery and when the horror of slavery was over, her powerful attorneys made sure she was substantially compensated for her loss. But should we only see women like Judith Philip through the prism of slavery?’ They conclude ‘her singular success marks her as a remarkably enterprising women, worthy of our attention in a world so profoundly shaped by white men.’ More generally they conclude ‘one does not have to valorize self-emancipated slaves who became slave owners and helped perpetuate the system that held them in bondage – or even admire them. However, we would argue it is important to know such women existed in all their complexity and contradictions.’
An uncomfortable read, but I certainly found it a thought provoking book.