Peter and Sarah Van Horne were a married couple who were enslaved by Susan Livingston Kean Niemcewicz at Liberty Hall. We are not certain when they met and married or what their relationship looked like. Legal records often erased the individuality of enslaved people, presenting them only as property and making it difficult to get a sense of who they truly were. But there are some hints in historical records that we can use to learn more about this family.
When were they born?
According to Peter Van Horne’s gravestone, he was born in 1793, meaning that he was 29 years old when his son Robert was born in 1821 and 36 when he was manumitted in 1829. Sarah Van Horne was likely born in 1794, making her 28 at Robert’s birth and 27 at her manumission. Due to a law passed in 1798, enslaved people could only be manumitted between the ages of 21 and 40, meaning that if Peter and Sarah were a few years older, they would not have ever gained their freedom, at least not legally.
We believe that Peter Van Horne was brought to Liberty Hall in 1811, when he was purchased by Peter Kean for his mother, Susan. This bill of sale refers to Peter Van Horne as a boy, but that does not mean that he was a child. This was an infantilizing term used for older Black teenagers and adult men. If this Peter was the same man as Peter Van Horne, he was likely around 18 years old. Susan Niemcewicz likely wanted a young man to work the grounds of the newly-purchased Liberty Hall. Around the same time, she also claimed ownership over the Stout family. It is likely that she chose this time to purchase Peter and the Stouts because she had just moved to Liberty Hall and because Thomas, a young man she had previously enslaved had self-emancipated from her home in Elizabethtown.
Sarah’s early life is less clear. Susan Niemcewicz enslaved two people named Sarah before coming to Liberty Hall. One was the daughter of Betty and sister of Phillip, Violett, Plymouth, and Stephen. Although her birth year does not exactly line up with the year on Sarah Van Horne’s burial record, we cannot rule out this possibility due to inaccurate record-keeping. Another woman named Sarah was purchased by Susan Niemcewicz in 1804 with her two children. This would almost certainly make her too old to have been Sarah Van Horne. It is possible that Sarah Van Horne was neither of these women and more research is necessarily in order to identify her and learn about her origins.
We know more about their son Robert because he was born after New Jersey’s 1804 gradual emancipation law. Gradual emancipation meant that people like Robert who were born to enslaved mothers after July 4, 1804 would eventually be free, but those born even a month beforehand were legally enslaved for life. It also meant that Robert’s birth was registered with the county, while his parents have no birth certificates.
Where did their last name come from?
Peter and Sarah were unusual because they had a recorded last name. The name “Van Horne” probably came from the white family that claimed ownership over one or both of them at some point before they were brought to Liberty Hall.
We know that Peter and Sarah van Horne were married because of their manumission document, but because marriages between enslaved people were not legally recognized, we have no idea when they were married. We can also only guess where they met, what their courtship looked like, or how they eventually decided to celebrate their wedding. Marriages between enslaved people (and even mixed-race marriages) were sometimes registered with religious institutions in Elizabethtown during the eighteenth century, but no records exist for the Van Horne family.
The Van Horne family’s life was full of uncertainty. Enslaved people always had to worry about the possibility of being sold away from their family members and friends or separated for long periods of time. The Van Hornes experienced family separation when Susan Niemcewicz travelled to New York City for extended visits with family. Niemcewicz believed that Sarah and Peter Van Horne’s labor was essential to her happiness but did not feel the same way about Robert, especially when he was a very young child. On more than one occasion, she bound Robert out to work with family friends in Elizabethtown and took his parents far away from him. This meant that she sent Robert to labor for someone else, while receiving pay for his work. Even temporarily, family separation was traumatic for parents and children. We do not know how this impacted Robert, but we do know from Niemcewicz’s letters that this was deeply distressing to his mother.
On one such occasion, when Robert was only 10, he became very ill when he was sent to live with Jane Dayton in Elizabethtown while his parents were brought to New York City. From the very beginning, Sarah Van Horne was worried about her son, first concerned that he had to experience extreme cold without her to care for him and later when he became very ill with the whooping cough. Even though Robert could have died, Niemcewicz was more concerned that he was not troublesome to the Daytons and chose to keep Sarah Van Horne with her instead of sending her to her son. If Sarah Van Horne had any consolation, though, it was the fact that he had larger family networks to care for Robert when she could not. His grandmother and two aunts lived locally and nursed him back to health. In the event of separation, enslaved parents and their children like the Van Hornes relied on larger community networks such as extended family and friends to keep their children safe and cared for.
So what were the Van Hornes like? We know that Sarah Van Horne was a loving mother who worried after her son. She was also felt pride for his achievements. Susan Niemcewicz once wrote that Sarah believed her son was “of great importance” (Susan Niemcewicz to Thomas Dayton, Feb. 2, 1832, Liberty Hall Collection, Kean University). Although this was written in a mocking tone, reading between the lines, we can learn how much Sarah Van Horne cared for her son and believed in his abilities.
We know less of Peter Van Horne because Niemcewicz did not mention him in her letters as frequently. Susan Niemcewicz and her family were frequently frustrated with Peter because he did not always listen to orders, may have stolen from his enslavers, and was “without moral principles” in their view (Sarah Sabina Morris Kean Baker to John Kean, June 17, 1833, Liberty Hall Collection, Kean University). From this, we can infer that Peter Van Horne valued independence and freedom. Although his enslavers considered his unwillingness to listen to commands to be a moral failing, it was more than likely that he was resisting his enslavement in smaller, less noticeable ways, like working slowly or poorly, a common strategy for enslaved people.
As for Robert Van Horne, we know that he had a loving mother, a father that taught him independence, and a community network of extended family. Even Susan Niemcewicz acknowledged that he was a smart child. Although he was made to labor, he had some opportunities for fun. We know that he had a pet dog and cat who he took care of and perhaps he also spent time with the Stout boys or made friends with other children living in the area.
Peter and Sarah Van Horne were manumitted, or freed, by Susan Niemcewicz in 1829 but manumission did not always mean that formerly enslaved people could choose where to live and work. In this document, Peter and Sarah agreed to work for Susan Niemcewicz for the rest of her life as a condition of their freedom. Because of this, their daily lives probably changed very little after manumission. Robert Van Horne was not included in this document.
Peter and Sarah Van Horne’s lives probably looked very similar before and after their manumission. Peter was responsible for work outside, like caring for horses and carrying messages. He also wore livery, so he also did some household labor. Sarah Van Horne was responsible for household work, like cleaning, airing out rugs, and taking care of Susan Niemcewicz when she got older. She also took care of Robert who was made to labor alongside her as a young boy, washing windows, polishing brass, and cleaning mahogany furniture. Still a child himself, Robert Van Horne also had childcare responsibilities for Susan Niemcwicz’s young grandchildren. Even as young as eight years old, he was responsible for keeping a toddler Christine Kean safe and entertained. Even after their manumission, Peter and Sarah Van Horne would not have been paid right away. Instead, their manumission document stated that they would receive $100 for each year they worked after April 1829. Robert Van Horne received nothing for his labor.
At the time of the 1830 census, there were no more people enslaved at Liberty Hall, but Susan Niemcewicz continued to employ free Black workers, including the Van Horne family, some of whom may have been formerly enslaved.
The Black people who lived and worked at Liberty Hall at this time included:
It is clear that Peter and Sarah Van Horne craved freedom. They packed their belongings (including some items given to them in Susan Niemcewicz’s will) only a few weeks after her death entitled them to leave Liberty Hall. They likely travelled to Elizabethtown, where they had family. Robert continued to labor at Liberty Hall. The boundaries between freedom and enslavement were not strictly defined in New Jersey during the nineteenth century, both for people like Robert who were born free but still were required to labor for their mothers’ enslavers until adulthood, and for people like his parents who had been freed but still had to work for the people who had claimed ownership over them for several more years. Sarah and Peter Van Horne must have been devastated that they had to leave their son, but the institution of slavery and New Jersey’s gradual emancipation laws forced parents and children to make compromises and difficult decisions like this in order to do what they thought best for their families.
At some point after Susan Niemcewicz’s death in 1833, the Van Hornes moved to nearby Elizabethtown. It was here that the 1840 census recorded a Peter Van Horne living with a woman and boy, who almost certainly were Sarah and Robert. We do not know why John Kean (who inherited Liberty Hall from his grandmother) allowed Robert to leave with his parents since he was only eighteen, but Robert likely lived as a free man from this point on.
Peter Van Horne died of consumption soon after the 1840 census, and was buried in the graveyard of Siloam-Hope First Presbyterian Church alongside other Black church members. In 2022, the 313+ Ancestors Speak Project unveiled a monument to the free and enslaved Black people buried in this cemetery, including Peter and Sarah Van Horne, as well as some of their descendants.
Robert had a difficult life in Elizabethtown. After his father’s death, he lived with (and likely helped to support) his mother while also raising his own family. He eventually found work as a day laborer and married for the first time in his early twenties. He and his wife, known only as Mrs. Robert Van Horne, had three children together between 1844 and 1847, all of whom died very young and were buried alongside their grandfather, Peter. Not long after the death of their last child, Robert’s wife also died of unknown causes.
By 1852, Robert had married once again, this time to a woman named Sarah Johnson, who had come to New Jersey from Maryland. They had several children together, Mary Etta, Sarah, Frances, and Josephine, but only the younger two, Frances and Josephine, would survive to adulthood.
Robert’s mother, Sarah Van Horne did not live to meet her grandchildren from his second marriage. She died of dropsy on February 10, 1852 at the age of 57, nearly twelve years after the death of her husband. Robert was widowed for a second time in 1863 and by the time he died in 1871, at approximately age 48, his surviving teenage daughters were already working as domestic servants in white households.