Anecdotally, from examples across numerous episodes of "Finding Your Roots" with Henry Louis Gates, both of your findings appear to be on the mark. (+1).

@PieterGeerkens - I'm not going to throw it into the answer, because cherry-picking people would destroy the quasi-random nature of this answer, but its interesting further information.

are you using "slaveowner" and "enslaver" to mean different things?

@Hasse1987 - No. I got partway through the answer when I encountered that term, and felt it was a preferable one, so I started using it. It wouldn't be a bad edit to go fix all the "slaveovner"s to "enslavers"s

@T.E.D. - "Enslaver" is a good term insofar as it emphasises that it takes ongoing effort to enslave someone, so that someone who buys another person or who "owns" them since their birth is just as guilty of enslaving them as someone who captures them and puts them in change, but it does seem to have a downside insofar as it does not convey important practical (not moral) information about who exactly is being referenced....

For instance, if someone was captured in war by an enemy soldier, sold to an American trafficker of enslaved people, and then purchased by a plantation owner in the American South, then later escaped and was caught by someone whose career it was to do so, all of those people would be called their enslaver. But while they are arguably all just as morally culpable, from a practical historical perspective, it definitely matters which type of person one is talking about.

Slaveowner, slave catcher, and slave trafficker are definitely distasteful words because, well, they imply that some people are intrinsically slaves, but the distinction between them is definitely relevant from a practical historical perspective.

@Obie2.0 "slaveholder" seems to be a more widely-used term throughout history and seems to make the same distinction from other roles in the enslavement process without the same recognition of ownership rights that perhaps makes "slaveowner" more distasteful

Changing the dictionary meaning is a bad idea.Enslave definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary: To enslave someone means to make them into a slave ; George was born to an enslaved African mother. An enslaver can also be the slaveowner, but when someone buys a slave, they are the slaveowner (and not the enslaver).

Because I can, I'm going to make a separate chat for the terminology discussion. A meta post on the topic might be in order as well.

I found a discussion about this exact terminology issue on a U.S. National Park Service website:

> Many labels for escaping African Americans were constructs of enslaving society or by paternalistic abolitionists. As such, terms discussing slavery and freedom from the period tend to reflect how the dominant society viewed African Americans and their efforts toward freedom. Instead, the National Park Service and its partners strive to use language that more accurately reflects both the inherent humanity of enslaved people and historical accuracy.

...

> The terms slave master and slave owner refer to those individuals who enslaved others when slavery was part of American culture. These terms can imply that enslaved people were less capable or worthy than those who enslaved them. Using the word master or owner can limit understanding of enslaved people to property.

> These terms also support a social construct that there are people who should naturally hold power (i.e. slave owners, slave masters) and those who should naturally not (enslaved individuals).

I don't know that I'd be in favor of enforcing this use on the site, but I think you can see why I prefer the term myself, and that its not idiomatic usage to just me.