Housing for the Enslaved in Virginia


Slave housing in Virginia varied widely depending on the context: whether it was rural or urban, whether it was on an elite plantation or a small farm, and even whether it was located close to or far from the enslaver’s main house. Many of the first Africans who came to Virginia lived in barracks-style housing and other, less-than-permanent accommodations. As the enslaved population grew, however, houses were designed and constructed specifically for Black laborers and, in particular, those living in family units. Most slave quarters were constructed of wood, and many were log and earthfast structures with no foundations. Those located closest to elite plantation houses were generally better built, with wooden frames and masonry chimneys and foundations. Separate one or two-room structures, designed to accommodate one- or two-family units, were the most popular house type, although many enslaved laborers slept where they worked—in kitchens, laundries, and stables. Enslaved laborers who were hired out in cities sometimes resided in separate “shanty towns.” Few intact slave quarters exist in the twenty-first century—likely fewer than 300—and most of those are relatively large and well-built.

Types and Construction of Housing

The landing of the first Negroes


Africans first came to Virginia in 1619, and various documents dating to the next several decades refer to “quartering negroes” on plantations. Because the African population was still relatively small, it is unlikely that prior to 1675 housing was designed and constructed specifically for these enslaved laborers. As their numbers grew, however, such quarters became the norm. In 1686 the French traveler Durand de Dauphiné noted this recent development in describing the type of housing that he observed: “Whatever their rank … they build only two rooms with closets on the ground floor, & two rooms in the attic above; but they build several like this, according to their means. They also build a separate kitchen, a separate house for the Christian slaves, one for the negro slaves, & several to dry the tobacco.”

The terms “quarter” and “cabin” were most often used to refer to housing for enslaved workers. The former, developed out of the seventeenth-century “quartering house” for indentured servants, came to be associated with slave housing more generally, while cabin implied a small domestic building of inferior construction, often made of logs. Both log cabins and quarters typically were one-story structures with one or two rooms. In addition to an individual building, the term “quarter” could refer to a clustered group of slave houses physically separated from enslavers and often under the charge of an overseer. The term also was applied to a division of a larger farm or plantation that encompassed crop fields, woods, housing for enslaved workers and perhaps an overseer, and other agricultural or industrial support buildings.

Slave houses varied in size and layout, and many different types of houses could exist on a single plantation, especially those with large enslaved populations and wealthy owners. House servants and craftsmen usually lived in quarters near the enslaver’s main dwelling and residential complex, collectively known as the home house quarter. Enslaved agricultural workers, or field hands, resided in smaller cabins near fields. The most modest of these had unfinished interiors and dirt floors, shuttered windows, and chimneys formed of wood and mud. These so-called farm quarters also included an overseer’s house and related outbuildings such as barns and corn cribs. Slave quarters or cabins could be placed in single file along a road or plantation “street,” in parallel rows, or randomly distributed as a “slave village.” Quarters located near the main house on elite plantations were likely to have been built of more durable materials and often echoed the generally more elaborate architectural design schemes adopted there. Thus, home house quarters tended to be sturdy frame structures set on masonry foundations, while some were even built entirely of brick or stone.

The earliest cabins had no foundations and were erected around timbers set in the ground. This method of construction was shared by most other Chesapeake buildings, including the homes of enslavers. The posts supported a relatively slight wooden frame, which was enclosed by clapboarded sides and roof, and heated by one or two fireplaces with wooden chimneys. Other cabins were made of logs, joined together at the corners and supported by only a slight masonry foundation or none at all. Most of this housing was poorly built—described by the Englishman Edward Kimber, who visited Virginia and Maryland in 1736, as “Huts or Hovels”—and there was little expectation that it would last for more than a few decades. Quarters sometimes were constructed of brick and stone, although in most of Virginia this seldom occurred outside of elite plantations or in urban settings where wooden housing was subject to threat of fire. Roofs were predominantly covered with wood: split shingles, clapboards, slabs, or rough boards. This was the case even in urban areas, although fire insurance policies dating to the antebellum period indicate greater use of terra cotta tile, metal, and gravel roofs, again largely due to concerns over fire.


Slave Ship Diagram


The violent and disruptive nature of the transatlantic slave trade and the Middle Passage meant that enslaved Africans were likely to be separated from their families either before or after their arrival in America. Enslavers often resorted to housing large numbers of unrelated individuals together in barracks-like structures in order to supervise and impose control over their workers. Archaeological evidence from a site dating to about 1690 in James City County has revealed such a quarter. The relatively small structure (26 by 16 feet) was supported by posts set into the ground and included a single interior fireplace that probably was serviced by a wooden chimney. As such, it is typical of the type of impermanent construction in use throughout the region at this time. Of particular interest is the discovery of fifteen features within the building footprint that are interpreted as sub-floor pits used for storing personal items. Similar features have been found with regularity in the Tidewater in association with the houses of enslaved laborers. The remarkable density of pits in the James City County example suggests that a large number of unrelated individuals were housed there.

Family-Sized Units

The most common house forms were single-cell buildings, typically accommodating a family unit, and duplexes, which consisted of separate rooms accommodating two different family groups. Importing enslaved African to Virginia had effectively ended by 1775, leaving the enslaved population to increase naturally through reproduction and fostered their living in family groups. As a result, most enslavers quickly abandoned barracks-style housing in favor of family-focused log and frame quarters. By the mid-1700s, logs were the most popular building material for slave houses on outlying quarters and were used for service buildings and the houses of many whites and free Blacks as well.

A duplex was a double cabin or quarter with exterior doorways providing entry to each room and no interior access from one space to the other. Each room had its own fireplace, with chimneys positioned either at the ends of the structure or with a single chimney placed in the center with flues to serve both fireplaces. The relatively large number of surviving duplexes that date to the 1820s–1850s are generally more substantial and weather-tight, with continuous foundations or masonry piers, raised wooden floors, glazed windows, and brick or stone fireplaces. Some duplexes had interior wall plaster and trim boards, but the majority were more cheaply built. Their interiors were enclosed with plain sheathing or were left with the framing exposed and covered with whitewash, and the garret above was unheated and could be accessed only by a ladder.

In the nineteenth century, quarters were often “improved,” reflecting a new attitude among enslavers that combined Christian duty, paternalism, scientific agricultural reform, and a sharp business approach to the management of the enslaved workforce. Whereas earlier quarters generally had few and small windows, covered only with wooden shutters, new houses tended to feature windows with glass panes. Some enslavers may have used such improvements to signal to their peers that they were rich enough and moral enough to invest in higher-quality accommodations for their enslaved laborers. More importantly, though, glazed windows provided improved light and ventilation that kept enslaved people healthier and allowed for extra indoor work as well.

Slave houses ranged widely in size, although they became more standardized over time. Enslavers may have preferred smaller slave houses, such as the 12 by 14 feet (168 square feet) cabin that survives in Stafford County. But the range in the sizes of slave quarters was nevertheless quite broad, from distressingly small buildings measuring only 8 by 8 feet to those 18 by 20 feet and larger. By the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, quarters with a single room often measuring only 140 square feet of interior space became the norm. In the early- to mid-nineteenth century, the sizes of quarters expanded to about 230 to 250 square feet. While duplexes provided more space overall, commonly measuring 16 by 32 feet (512 square feet), these buildings were designed to accommodate two separate households.

Represents Our next door neighbor


Smaller, more private slave buildings reflected an ongoing and complex series of interactions between enslavers and enslaved laborers. Over the course of the eighteenth century, African American populations and families stabilized, and enslavers sought to encourage that stability out of the belief that it produced individuals who were less likely to rebel. At the same time, Virginia planters began to transition from growing tobacco to cultivating wheat and other grains. With these less labor-intensive crops, enslaved laborers had the time and energy to acquire new skills while contributing to their own subsistence through gardening, gathering, hunting, sewing, and producing marketable goods. Enslavers thus became more dependent on their enslaved workforce, who, in turn, negotiated for greater autonomy and better working and living conditions. Better-built quarters and kin-based households formed a negotiated outcome of sorts.

Urban Slavery

As they did on rural plantations, some urban enslavers erected separate quarters for their enslaved laborers outside of the main house. With the more confined setting, the quarters were generally pushed to the side or rear portions of the lot. Because most urban enslavers owned only one or two enslaved workers, accommodations often could be found within the main house, usually in spare and sparsely furnished spaces. One common strategy, on plantations as well as in towns, was to require that enslaved laborers sleep in the buildings where they worked, including kitchens, laundries, smokehouses, and stables. Kitchens were particularly popular as mixed-use buildings and featured either two rooms on the first floor, separated into the kitchen and quarters, or a kitchen below and a quartering room above.

Hiring Out Slaves


Enslavers often hired out their enslaved laborers to work for other people for set periods of time. In most cases, hired enslaved workers lived on their employers’ properties, moving into existing slave buildings, such as cabins, duplexes, kitchen quarters, or spare rooms. In cities and towns, constraints of space could lead employers to secure rental lodgings for hired enslaved workers. Depending on the circumstances, either the employers or the enslaved people themselves paid for this housing. As a result, hired enslaved laborers sometimes lodged in boarding houses or found other, cheaper accommodations located relatively near their workplace. This practice may have had the unintended benefit of offering a more autonomous domestic setting, and cities such as Richmond and Petersburg often featured distinct residential districts for free and enslaved African Americans. Boarding houses and rude cabins comprised such “shanty towns” with which enslavers and white citizens likely had little familiarity and where African Americans had more opportunities to pursue their own social life and maintain their traditional cultural values.

Slave Quarters as Creole Architecture

The Old Plantation


Slave quarters were creolized, meaning that they reflected the influences of more than one cultural tradition. By far the most visible influence was that of white enslavers, however. They regularly determined the number and variety of occupants within enslaved households with reference to family relationships, gender, age, and work skills. The design of the overwhelming majority of houses also reflected white, European-American traditions, as the enslavers controlled the placement of the building, the degree of material investment, and construction format, making it difficult to interpret the inputs and cultural influences of Africans. In addition, enslavers could upgrade these quarters to make statements of political economy, status, and accommodation, while also drawing upon long-standing cultural traditions for worker and lower-class housing.

African traditions were not invisible, however. Even while the large majority of houses were designed in the European-American style, some scholars have suggested that certain architectural characteristics found in slave housing are African-inspired. These include spatial units of 10- or 12-foot squares, thatched roofs and wattle walls, and one-story, linear “shotgun” house type.

Artifacts from Slave Quarters at Poplar Forest


In addition to their creolized nature, slave quarters were negotiated spaces, meaning that their design and function were the result of the power dynamics and interactions between enslaved African Americans and their enslavers. In rural settings, at least, enslavers and overseers rarely entered slave quarters, and some enslaved people even used door locks to secure their residences. Enslavers provided few interior furnishings and little furniture, most likely no more than a crude boxed bed and a cast iron cooking vessel. Enslaved people received periodic food and clothing rations, but otherwise supplied all of their other personal material goods, whether through theft, trade, purchase, or the work of their hands. Archaeologists investigating slave quarters have found furniture hardware, tools, hooks, and storage containers ranging from barrels to sub-floor pits. They also have found many food-related objects, including numerous types of glass and ceramic vessels, metal containers, and utensils.


African American Cabin


Of the thousands of slave quarters that were erected throughout Virginia over a span of more than 200 years, it is likely that fewer than 300 survive. In the entire Chesapeake region, there are no standing seventeenth-century slave quarters and only a few, better-built eighteenth-century structures. Many more nineteenth-century examples exist, but these tend to be larger quarters, mostly duplex buildings found near the mansion houses of upscale plantation estates. These structures typically were modified in later periods for other uses and to reflect changing cultural sensibilities, meaning that only a small percentage of slave houses remain as they were originally built. Therefore, the surviving buildings fall into two broad categories: those that are in poor condition and are in dire peril because they no longer serve a viable function and others that have been adapted, and usually significantly altered, to accommodate contemporary uses. Finding and recording the few relatively intact quarters that survive therefore is crucial to documenting and preserving the memory and significance of these  buildings. These structures also carry social and cultural significance for African American communities. While places of confinement and oppression, slave buildings also served as homes for families and places of community and culture. As such they are important sites related to the legacy of slavery in Virginia.

  • Breeden, James O. Advice Among Masters: The Ideal in Slave Management in the Old South. Princeton: Greenwood Press, 1980.
  • Chappell, Edward. “Housing Slavery,” in The Chesapeake House, edited by CaryCarson and Carl R. Lounsbury. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Press, 2013.
  • Herman, Bernard L. “Slave and Servant Housing in Charleston, 1770–1820.” Historical Archaeology 33, no. 3 (1999): 88–101.
  • Morgan, Philip D. Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry. Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress, 1998.
  • Pogue, Dennis J. “The Domestic Architecture of Slavery at George Washington’s Mount Vernon.” W interthur Portfolio 37, no. 1 (2002): 3–22.
  • Samford, Patricia M. Subfloor Pits and the Archaeology of Slavery in Colonial Virginia. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2007.
  • Sanford, Douglas W., and Dennis J. Pogue. “Measuring the Social, Spatial, and Temporal Dimensions of Virginia Slave Housing.” Vernacular Architecture Newsletter 122 (winter 2009): 1, 3–8.
  • Upton, Dell. “White and Black Landscapes in 18th-Century Virginia.” Material Life in America, 1600–1860, edited by Robert Blair St. George. Boston, Massachusetts: Northeastern University Press, 1988.
  • Vlach, John M. Back of the Big House: The Architecture of Plantation Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993.
APA Citation:
Pogue, Dennis & Sanford, Douglas. Housing for the Enslaved in Virginia. (2020, December 07). In Encyclopedia Virginia. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-housing-in-virginia.
MLA Citation:
Pogue, Dennis, and Douglas Sanford. "Housing for the Enslaved in Virginia" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 13 Jun. 2024
Last updated: 2023, February 07
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.