Anyone have proof William Russell Martin was a slave trader

Question

I have seen it pop up as unsourced information that my 3rd great-grandfather, William Russell Martin (b. 5 Jan 1802 KY - d 22 Feb 1867 MO) was a slave trader. However, I have spent hours and hours searching various records at the National Archives and in the State of Missouri and am unable to find proof. The closest I have come is this one picture I have attached on my ancestry.com tree (roots web info on William Russell Martin). I am also trying to hunt down a copy of the book referenced regarding the history of Pioneer Families in Missouri. I have moved back to Virginia and am no longer in Missouri so is proving a bit challenging. And so far Google has not yielded much. Thanks for any help anyone has! 

Answer 1

There is a William R. Martin in Audrain county, Missouri listed in the 1860 Federal Census - Slave Schedules who is listed as owning 23 slaves who range in age from 1 to 44.  He was definitely a slave owner.

Comments

Hi Carol - agreed. I have the copy of the census showing the slave ownership. I am trying to prove or disprove the family lore that he was a slave trader. It keeps popping up within "hints" on ancestry.com. I may never be able to get an answer. Could be one of those things that came down through the family with no evidence following it. Thanks for your response!! :-)

---

Amy, It sounds like a family story that just doesn't ring 100% true on the slave trading but is true about slave ownership.  William's occupation is listed as farmer in both the 1850 and 1860 census' and he also has slaves in both the 1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules.  Based on my experience, you'll never get the "slave trading" erased from the records.  The best you'll be able to do is document that William's occupation was a farmer and that he owned slaves.  At this point in your research, I wouldn't worry about proving something that appears to have never happened based on the existing records.  Good luck.

---

If you find out how much land he farmed, it might be a clue as to how many field hands he would need to do the work.  Just because he owned slaves, as much was true in that time period, does not mean he was a trader for profit.