Rough Estimates for the "Nations" of Jacmel Slaves (c.1782)

Another crude method of calculating somewhat plausible numbers for the "nations" of the Jacmel Quartier's enslaved population is to use the numbers from the 1782 Census. While probably an undercount or plagued by inaccuracies, it does provide a total number of the slave population, which means one can use the numbers from Roseline Siguret's study of the quartier's indigo and coffee estates from 1757-1791 to crudely approximate the possible distribution of "nations" in the popular of the region. While very imperfect, doing so gives the numbers above for the "nations" in Siguret's table. 

First, the Creole preponderance is undeniable, although it may have been even higher if slave imports at the port of Jacmel were low, as was the case in 1786. Slaveholders would have had to rely on smuggling or the intra-colony slave trade to provide new captives, probably a mix of both. The next striking feature is how, assuming our crude estimate is somewhat close to the reality, the huge Congo and Central African presence was. The "Congos" and Mondongues plus smaller numbers of other groups who appear to be from Central Africa (Maiemba, for instance) were about 24% of the total slave population. That said, one is shocked by our estimate for the still reasonably high numbers of Senegalais, Mandingues, Bambaras, and other Upper Guinea "nations" in the region. Furthermore, the Ibos, in our estimate, were over 9% of the total slave population. 

Overall, the trends from our estimate reveal a plurality of Creoles with a substantial "Congo" presence and Ibo presence. The persistence of African nations from the Bight of Benin as well as Upper Guinea (perhaps around 8%) illustrates a great diversity of slave imports continued well into the late 18th century. The huge Creole population, too, very likely descended, perhaps to a greater degree, from Africans purchased from the Slave Coast and Upper Guinea, too. Of course, these estimates are likely to be very inaccurate for the smaller nations, such as several whose numbers in Siguret's survey were only 1 or 2. In addition, some of the slave population's "national" identity may have switched over time, as some became another "nation" or later captives from that same background were "reconceived" as belonging to a new or different "nation" instead. Thus, the above table is meant only as a very "rough" idea of what the ethnicities of slaves in Jacmel, Bainet and Cayes de Jacmel may have been like in c.1782.