Black Farmers in Delaware, Part 1: Early Farmers

Jessica Clark • September 3, 2024


Delaware land and population records prior to and during the 1800s are spotty and incomplete, especially where free Black men are concerned. The free Black population was increasing, rising from a 50/50 split in 1800 (230 free Blacks, 239 enslaved persons) to a 75/25 split in 1840 (305 free, 111 enslaved).

 

Free Blacks were still regarded by law as something more than mere pieces of property but “less than fully human,” and did not enjoy the rights and freedoms of White men. Although they paid taxes, they could neither vote nor testify in a courtroom against Whites. There were few schools available for their children. 

 

As of 1832, it was illegal for more than 12 free Blacks to hold a meeting past 10pm in winter without three “respectable” Whites present. By 1849, it was illegal to be unemployed while poor and the state held the power to sell anyone judged as such into servitude.

 

Free Black men and women risked the threat of being grabbed by “slave catchers” or arrested. Free Blacks lived in constant fear that they or members of their families would be sold back into slavery. Kidnappers found that taking free Blacks had far fewer consequences than seizing those who were enslaved. One of the most notorious “slave catchers” was Patty Cannon who lived four miles west of Seaford in Sussex County. Cannon abducted hundreds of free Black people and freedom seekers along the Delmarva Peninsula and sold them into slavery in southern states such as Alabama and Mississippi. When arrested, she confessed to nearly two dozen murders of Black kidnap victims. 

 

Some free Black men, individually or in groups, actively expressed their opinions on contemporary issues. They sought religious freedom and fairness in labor practices and spoke passionately about their sense of justice, independence, and desire for equality. They petitioned the state demanding action on abolition, emigration, and education. The White majority responded to their growing numbers by passing increasingly harsh, restrictive legislation to restrict their political and economic progress. In spite of these discriminatory practices, free Blacks found ways of creating economically and socially viable families and communities.

 

Even later, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs designed to help all farmers largely hindered Black farmers’ ability to obtain loans or increase their acreage. White farmers wouldn’t sell land to Black farmers. If Black farmers were successful in acquiring land, they often were denied operating loans, and were provided limited access to USDA programs intended to help farmers improve their property. USDA documents revealed, in many cases, loans for Black farmers would take two or three times longer to receive compared to loans for White farmers. As such, Black farmers had to wait to plant crops and so their yield suffered. Every obstacle forced more Black farmers out of farming. 

 

“Thompson’s Beginning”

 

Levin Thompson, a free Black man, displayed a great deal of creativity and business acumen. By the time of his death in 1816, he was among the top 5% of assessed property owners in Sussex County. He was wealthy enough to loan money to his White counterparts for interest.

 

According to William H. Williams’s Slavery and Freedom in Delaware, 1639-1865, in 1794, Levin Thompson, born to a Maryland free family, arrived in Delaware and purchased a 200-acre farm and timberland east of Laurel that he expanded into ownership of 428 acres of farmland named “Thompson’s Beginning.” Thompson also operated a gristmill and a sawmill. He owned several spinning wheels and a loom that produced 200 yards of linen and 60 yards of woolen cloth a month. He formed partnerships with White neighbors who assisted him through the tangled legal network that restricted Blacks. To operate his extensive holdings, Thompson employed many free Blacks and provided housing near his mills for 40 free Blacks. Many of his workers purchased freedom for their family members. 

 

Delaware has three counties: New Castle, Kent, and Sussex. Around 1860, about 10% of free Black men in Kent and Sussex counties were tenant farmers or were temporary farm laborers who worked during the growing and harvesting of crops such as corn, wheat, and other foodstuffs. In the Cypress Swamp area of Sussex County, free Blacks took jobs related to the timber industry, cutting down trees, driving teams of oxen, and reworking logs into lumber and shingles. Those who did not have land might own oxen they could rent out for cultivating fields, hauling wood and bark, or moving buildings. 

 

Belltown

 

By 1860, 68 enslaved persons showed on property listings by White farmers within a three-mile radius of Belltown, now the Five Points intersection near Lewes, Delaware. Fully half of those were listed as “fugitives” so a good number of them had probably set out in search of freedom along the Underground Railroad.

 

Oral tradition states the Sussex County town was named after Jacob “Jigger” Bell, whose name first appears in the 1822 historical record. Bell, a thirty-something resident of Lewes and a free Black man, was painted as a bold businessman and as Delaware’s first Black real estate developer. He bought up land, divided it into smaller parcels, then sold the parcels to others drawn to the free-Black haven and self-sufficient community. Most of the land in Belltown was farmland with cornfields and apple orchards. In the census of 1860, Bell is listed as a 60-year-old minister. He died in the late 1870s, nearing the ripe old age of 90. By the 1870s, Belltown was big enough to support two churches, both built on land donated by Black property owners.

 

Special Field Order 15, issued on January 16, 1865, promised newly-freed Blacks 40 acres of farmland in a strip of land covering 400,000 acres ranging from South Carolina to Florida. Nearly 40,000 freed Blacks took up residence on this land. But this field order did not benefit Black Delaware farmers as Delaware was a border state and not a Confederate state. Additionally, President Andrew Johnson rescinded the Special Field Order in the fall of 1865. This returned the land to the previous property owners, many of whom had been White enslavers.

 

Many of Delaware’s former enslaved farmers became sharecroppers, under terms that benefitted the landowners who collected half the crop. Landowners often financed the cost of seeds, fertilizers, and other crop inputs but often at exorbitant interest rates. This left the Black farmers with little money for food, clothing, and other living expenses. Black farmers often were forbidden to seek better opportunities. 

 

By 1980, gripping drought suffocated much of the South. White farmers put in irrigation. Black farmers were denied access to federal or local money and were not advised to structure their business to separate the farm from the home. Without irrigation, yields suffered and forced many Black farmers to lose their homes. The number of Black farmers nationwide plummeted from 926,000 in 1920 to less than 46,000 by 2017.

 

Although Blacks could not become doctors or lawyers and despite, for the most part, living in a state of poverty or semi-poverty, free Blacks found ways to survive, to accumulate significant amounts of material wealth, and build a future for themselves and their families as they became an essential aspect of Delaware’s economic growth.

 

 

Jessica Clark is a graduate of the University of Maryland School of Journalism. After a 30-year career as a Public Information Specialist and photojournalist for several federal agencies, she retired to Georgetown, Del. She restored former Governor John Collins’ 1790s home on Collins Pond and is a Sussex County Master Gardener. 


Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

By Friends of Megan Outten July 29, 2025
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
By John Christie July 29, 2025
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co July 15, 2025
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
Protest against Trumpcare, 2017
By Jan Plotczyk July 9, 2025
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Farm in Dorchester Co.
By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser May 21, 2025
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities May 21, 2025
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Show More