The hidden history of Benjamin Montgomery: Slave,manager,and accountant

‘(A) history of accounting cannot be separated from the biographies of those individuals that made that history’ ( Flesher and Flesher, 2003 , p. 97).

Introduction

Scholars have lamented the fact that little is known about the roles that African-American slaves (and freed men and women) may have played in the development and evolution (Wren and Bedeian, 2009) of various business domains (Hayek et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2012), as the periods of American slavery and emancipation have been too often improperly excluded from these histories (Cooke, 2003). Consequently, ‘Of all the chapters of American accounting history, the least is known about the first three quarters of the 19th century' (Previts, 1976: 15). A review of the extant accounting literature reveals some general histories (Edwards, 1960), histories of a few institutional bodies (Romeo and Leauby, 2004), histories of communities (Fuglister and Bloom, 1991), a modicum of corporate histories (Tyson, 1992; Vent and Milne, 2000), and examinations of the accounting records of 19th century bookkeepers (Henry and Bitter, 2007; Vollmers and Bay, 2001; Vollmers and Tyson, 2004). In the recently published ‘Accounting for Slavery: Masters and Management’ (2018), Rosenthal examines the impact of slavery on the evolution of management and the impact on accounting. Specifically, the author reviews the advanced accounting methods utilized to track slaves including depreciation and efficiency metrics. This contributes to the examination of the impact of slavery on accounting. However less is written regarding the role of slaves, rather than slavery, on accounting history (Stewart, 2010), as ‘the accounting implications have tended to go unnoticed even among specialists in the field of accounting' (Fleischman et al., 2011: 765). Moreover, authors that have addressed slavery from an accounting perspective have primarily concentrated on how individuals involved in performing accounting functions sustained racism through the dehumanization of those in bondage through the facilitation of slavery (Anes, 2002; Silva, 2014 or through the development of advanced accounting techniques (Rosenthal, 2018). There is support for examining the accounts of previous societies as an objective and impartial window of the time (Chatfield, 1977). The author notes that more is revealed about history in examining old receipts than reading the ‘most skillfully written narratives.’ Curiously, we are not aware of any research that explores the specific involvement of African-American slaves from the U.S. ante-bellum period (ca. 1815–1865) in the history of accounting.

Many factors have contributed to this scholarly silence. First, there can be no denying that ‘the ugliness and guilt associated with such a dark chapter in American history has plausibly led us to avert our questioning gaze …' (Hayek et al., 2010: 367–368) concerning this era (Aufhauser, 1973; Cooke, 2003). Indeed, a review of current studies within business disciplines shows that researchers still struggle to adequately approach minority communities (Fitzgerald, 2006) and issues of race-ethnicity (Hammond and Streeter, 1994; Ospina and Foldy, 2010; Yanow, 2003) in scholarship (Humphreys et al., 2015; Novicevic et al., 2017).

Second, the limited scholarly attention is simply that there is little data available concerning slaves and their impact on accounting. In the classic work ‘Can the subaltern speak?’ by Spivak (1988), she asserts that the scarcity of data from marginalized people is not a reflection of their silence, but more aptly a reflection of our inability to hear, understand and appropriately communicate the message that they are conveying. Additionally, archival data are primarily managed by the dominant culture who subjectively minimize ‘non-events’ (Stoler, 2009) that ‘challenge accepted norms’ (Decker, 2013: 6). Even government records lack sufficient information (Decker, 2013; Fleischman et al., 2011), further compounding the scholarly scarcity. Other records have certainly been lost and/or destroyed over time. Less benignly, documentation of slaves’ influence on accounting is missing because ante-bellum era plantation slaves were not allowed by law to be taught to read and write (Hammond, 2002; Hammond and Streeter, 1994; Stewart, 2010).

Finally, the scarcity of information may also be reflective of the immaturity of the profession (Coleman, Shenkir, and Stone, 1974; Faircloth, 1988; Fuglister and Bloom, 1991; Lee, 2007; Previts and Sheldahl, 1977; Stone, 1979; Tyson, 1992; Vent and Milne, 2000; Vollmers and Bay, 2001; Vollmers and Tyson, 2004). Accounting did not begin to coalesce into a profession until the late 19th century. A consensus definition of an ‘accountant’ or an accountant's duties was undefined. Thus, the underdeveloped profession provided little information about accountants or the accounting community.

Consequently, there are hidden voices in accounting history – stories of men and women that are underrepresented among the elite influential pioneers in the profession (Lee, 2008; 2009; Winstead et al., 2016). Exploring these hidden voices provides a deeper understanding of society (Walker, 2016) and an examination of accounting beyond a strictly constant or linear focus (Cobbin et al., 2013). Accounting researchers have been called upon to be more inclusive in accounting history research and to provide greater focus on the biographical profiles of those who are not among the profession's elite (Flesher and Flesher, 2003; Lee, 2009). Earlier discussions on the needs of accounting history research encourage the use of biographies as a way to understand the impact of accountants (even non-elite) on the profession of accounting (Parker, 1977). Such a micro-historical approach, or hidden voices genre, examines the practical experience (i.e. lived lives) of individuals (Lee, 2008) and reveals previously unobserved information about their lives in context (Flesher and Flesher, 2003; Walker, 2016). This revelatory case study (Yin, 2017) is appropriate given the unique nature of the life of Montgomery and the records into his role as an accountant.

Hammond (2002) chronicled the experiences of African-Americans in the accounting profession since 1921. Through a series of interviews and documentary research, Hammond (2002) documented the challenges and accomplishments of African-Americans endeavoring to become licensed (CPA) to practice in the accounting profession. While African-American accountants clearly faced numerous challenges during the 20th century (Hammond and Streeter, 1994), African-Americans receive no recognition for contributions that were made to the accounting profession during the 19th century. This provides an opportunity and suggests a need for more historical accounting research to uncover the hidden voices (Flesher and Flesher, 2003) ‘of the individuals … embedded in this lamentably opaque epoch' (Hayek et al., 2010: 368). As we will reveal, one of those voices belongs to Benjamin Thornton Montgomery (1819–1877).

Although Ben Montgomery began life as a slave, he ultimately became a plantation business manager, inventor, entrepreneur, government official, and the first emancipated African-American plantation owner in the State of Mississippi (Hermann, 1990). Montgomery is attributed with achieving an unparalleled level of responsibility in the documented history of plantation slavery (Hayek et al., 2010; Hermann, 1980; Jones et al., 2012). Furthermore, observing his practices through the unique historical lens of the American ante-bellum period, we argue that he should also be acknowledged for his functional responsibilities as an accountant. Accordingly, from a redemptive (Shore, 2005), genealogical history perspective (Macintosh, 2009; Poor et al., 2016; Ruef and Harness, 2009), we utilize a sociohistorical (Novicevic et al., 2011) narrative process (Rowlinson et al., 2014) to examine the compelling historical case of Ben Montgomery.

In doing so, our analysis contributes to accounting history research by providing primary evidence of the accounting practices followed by Ben Montgomery during his plantation experience as slave, manager, and owner. This contribution also addresses the scholarly paucity of particularistic history in accounting research (Hammond and Oakes, 1992; Hammond and Preston, 1992; Hammond and Streeter, 1994) by demonstrating the specific role of Montgomery during the ante-bellum era (Jones et al., 2012). In addition, we contribute to the body of accounting knowledge by addressing the calls for additional research at a micro level that demonstrates social histories in context (Hopwood, 1994; Parker, 1999; Walker, 2016). We challenge the conventional assumptions of a slave's competence and intellect during a time when racial discrimination was designed to systematically oppress any form of literacy among African-Americans (Schiller, 2008).

We organize the paper as follows. We begin with the assumptions, method, and rationale of our historical approach to researching the case of Ben Montgomery. In section three we present a brief historical review of the accounting profession in an effort to define who accountants were and the duties that they performed during the ante-bellum era. In section four we explore the conditions and constraints of acknowledging the contributions of African-Americans during the ante-bellum period. In section five we provide salient biographical information regarding the life of Ben Montgomery. From his life-stories, section six relies on primary and secondary data to demonstrate how Montgomery's organizational responsibilities and functions were consistent with that of an accountant during his era. Our last two sections conclude with a discussion of the value of Montgomery's contributions and argue for his place in accounting history.

Historical case approach

For this study, we embraced Bevir’s (2002) post-foundational philosophy. From this perspective, readers of historical texts are charged with capturing the intent and actions of case subjects by focusing on their meanings that extend beyond original language (Novicevic et al., 2006). Therefore, case subjects are viewed as agents whose actions were historically contingent and researchers must interpret their practices in context through primary and secondary data (Novicevic et al., 2011).

We argue that this underlying philosophy is appropriate for sociohistorical studies that are ethno-methodologically informed. Sociohistorical techniques oblige researchers to examine archived documents through applicable passages that relate to the constructs guiding the research with respect to the context in which they were created (Novicevic et al., 2011). An ethno-methodologically informed perspective requires researchers to be aware of the principles of ethno-methodology while accepting that exacting adherence is impractical given a specific case (Iszatt-White, 2011). Business-oriented historians rarely have the luxury of observation, interviews, and other techniques associated with typical ethnography, the majority of data associated with historical ethnographies are usually in the form of texts from historical case documents (Humphreys et al., 2011) that must be narrated.

Siggelkow (2007) suggests that when conducting case analyses, specific cases should be chosen for examination based upon their capacity to offer compelling insights. Compelling insights via accounting histories (Carnegie and Napier, 2012) can be explored using surviving records and documentation emerging from business history. Additionally, these case analyses provide potential studies for more biographical research of those historically involved in accounting practice (Flesher and Flesher, 2003). Single cases can be advantageous when examining an unusual situation that is not easily observable (Ozcan, 2017). As very little documentation exists demonstrating slaves working as accountants, the case of Ben Montgomery is well suited for case analysis. Yin (2017) indicates that single case studies are useful in examining the how and why questions. Specifically, revelatory analysis of a phenomenon that was previously inaccessible to researchers. Consequently, the historical case of Ben Montgomery was intentionally selected, as we reasoned this case met each of these recommended criteria.

Our historical method of researching the accounting practices of Ben Montgomery during the plantation era is best described as a form of analytically structured narrative history process (Rowlinson et al., 2014). Analytical constructs are used to search archival documents, facilitating the construction of a narrative of structures and events that may not even have been realised by the case actors at the time. Through construct-guided analyses of historical texts, scholars focus on interpretation and meaning (Hassard, 2012) to reveal individual behaviours and practices (Humphreys et al., 2015); thus, we ‘let the case speak' (Siggelkow, 2007: 22) through Montgomery's actions and the known practices of accountants during the ante-bellum period.

Relative to the case of Ben Montgomery, this approach involved analysing documentary (e.g. books, newspapers) and archival (e.g. letters) data. In order to reveal patterns of shared beliefs about Montgomery, and his actions as described in secondary sources, we surveyed Hermann’s (1999), The Pursuit of a Dream, which chronicles the intersecting lives of Ben Montgomery and Joseph Davis. In addition, because Davis’ philosophy was so directly influenced by Robert Owen, we also examined Rosen’s (2011), From New Lanark to Mound Bayou: Owenism in the Mississippi Delta. We complemented this secondary source with primary archival data regarding Robert Owen and his philosophy from the Working Men's Institute Museum and Library in New Harmony, Indiana.

The primary data revealing Montgomery's plantation practices are the 128 letters (approximately 400 pages) he wrote to his former owner, Joseph Davis. Montgomery's letters have been transcribed for scholarly use. The original texts are housed as part of the Joseph E. Davis Collection at the University of Mississippi's Department of Archives and Special Collections (after having been for decades deposited in a bank safe in Vicksburg, Mississippi). The letters are stored in two boxes. Box one contains nine folders of Ben Montgomery's letters written during the 1865–1870 time periods, while box two contains legal suits and tax records.

Accounting in the 19th century

During most of the 19th century in America, the accounting profession was unorganised, underdeveloped, and not very well defined (Edwards, 1960; Lee, 2007; Wootten and Kemmerer, 1996). The last two decades of the 1800s mark the foundational change in the organization and regulation of the accounting profession in the United States. Nevertheless, the want for accounting services has always existed, as the need to compile, analyse, and interpret data has undoubtedly existed since the dawn of human enterprise (Abatino et al., 2011). The foundational events of the accounting profession include: the first accounting journal, The Bookkeeper in 1880 (Lee, 2007), the recognition of accounting as a discipline in a university at the Wharton School of Finance and Economy in 1881 (Lockwood, 1938), the formation of the American Association of Public Accountants in 1887 (Carey, 1969), and the first enacted CPA legislation in New York in 1896 (Miranti, 1996). These events have served as a historical starting point (Miranti, 1996) for researching the profession and professionals in a variety of ways.

No person is definitively recognised as the first to provide public accounting services in the United States. However, researchers document that public accountants were employed as early as the 1700s (Edwards, 1960; Previts, 1976) and provided services that often required both accounting and legal skills. The title of ‘public’ accountant was scarcely used prior to 1880 and there were very few practicing accountants that were qualified enough to be deemed ‘public accountant' (Lee, 2007). The role of a public accountant was expansive and defined in 1896 after the first regulations governing CPAs were established (Edwards, 1960). In part, public accountants in the 19th century were paid a fee to perform audits, verify financial transactions, prepare financial reports, and assist in any matters related to recording or certifying financial facts for clients who might use the information in order to obtain credit (Edwards, 1960; Fleischman et al., 2011). While the first CPA, Frank Broaker, was licensed around 1896, the first African-American CPA, John Cromwell, Jr., wasn't licensed until a quarter of a century later in 1921. Edwards (1960) asserts that the primary difference between an accountant and a public accountant was not within the work performed, but with the number of clients served: a public accountant had multiple clients, whereas an accountant (non-public) performed services for one employer (Anes, 2002). During much of the ante-bellum period, though, distinctions between accounting labels were even further convoluted because of the similar functions of those involved in bookkeeping (Lee, 2007).

In contemporary society and business operations, the difference between an accountant and a bookkeeper is incontrovertible. Accounting, however, has not always been perceived as a professional occupation distinguishably different from bookkeeping. Until the late 19th century, the labels bookkeeper and accountant were largely occupationally and socially equivalent (Wootten and Kemmerer, 1996). The founders of the Institute of Accountants and Bookkeepers of the City of New York (IABCNY, 1882), who were arguably the profession's elite at the time, consisted of eight (8) officers that self-identified as bookkeepers (Lee, 2007). During the early 1800's, there was little distinction between the duties of a bookkeeper compared to that of an accountant (Lee, 2007; Wootten and Kemmerer, 1996). Wootten and Kemmerer (1996) outline the role of a bookkeeper in the early 1800s as follows: recording transactions; recordkeeping; reporting to the owner; preparing statements; understanding all aspects of the owner's business; and manage/supervise operations. As a result of the high level of responsibility and close relationship with the business owner, bookkeepers were often quite respected and revered. Their multi-faceted roles required bookkeepers to be skilled in reading, writing, math, and social interactions (Holcombe, 1973). Thus, before the last quarter of the 1800s, bookkeepers and accountants were indistinguishable; accountants were bookkeepers who had responsibilities that extended beyond simple recordkeeping and the recording of transactions.

The divergence between the occupations of bookkeeper and accountant began in the late 1880s, primarily when women became more actively engaged in work outside of the home (Roberts, 2013; Wootten and Kemmerer, 1996). Previously, bookkeeping was predominantly the role of males, which changed significantly post-1880 (Wootten and Kemmerer, 1996). The myriad of functions and responsibilities previously held by bookkeepers were now distilled to the primary duty of recordkeeping, considered ‘a menial, repetitive task-based position' (Roberts, 2013: 143). The role of the accountant, on the other hand, was specifically delineated by the requirements to: analyse data; interpret and report facts; make suggestions/recommendations to management; and report the company's financial position (Anes, 2002; Roberts, 2013). Although accounting relies on the recording functions associated with bookkeeping, ‘… accounting proper begins after the routine transactions have been recorded. The art of accounting begins where bookkeeping leaves off; its purpose is explanatory' (Edwards, 1960, p. 33). As a result, contemporary accounting is based on interpretation and human relations as much or more than recorded data. ‘Accounting is, above all, a human practice, and like all human practices it is based on human interaction. Such interaction is grounded in what went before …' (Carnegie and Napier, 2012: 328). Silva (2014: 353) declared the potential for further study as ‘infinite' and encouraged scholars to continue to uncover ccounting practices within repressive environments. Managerial accounting should be considered as a ‘product of its environment' (Flesher and Flesher, 1979: 297), it is important to grasp the specific environment of slavery that dominated America during the ante-bellum period encompassing slavery and emancipation.

‘Accounting historians have recently discovered the subject of slavery, the slave trade and plantation accounting are topics that have lain relatively dormant' (Fleischman et al., 2011: 794). Rosenthal (2018) provides a rich discussion of the impact of slavery on accounting and the advanced methods used to account for slaves. While this sheds light on the ante-bellum period, little has been explored on slaves as practitioners of accounting. This underexplored era suggests the need for further scrutiny of the accounting practices, and practicing accountants, within the turbulent and dense context of ante-bellum plantations. Accounting practices and practitioners are ‘to a large extent the effect of their past' and the ‘settings in which they live and interact' (Carnegie and Napier, 2012: 328). It was into this oppressive environment that Ben Montgomery was born.

Therefore, to fully comprehend the life-stories (Shamir and Eilam, 2005) of Ben Montgomery requires a discussion of the critical influences of two more well-known historical figures within his environment – Joseph Davis and Robert Owen (Hayek et al., 2010; Hermann, 1990; Humphreys et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2012).

Conditions and constraints in acknowledging slave involvement in accounting history

We use the plural to acknowledge that while the case of Ben Montgomery may not be typical, there were undoubtedly other slaves on ante-bellum plantations that had similar skills and provided similar services. Montgomery himself alludes to this fact in a later published piece in The New York Times: Montgomery:

‘… but for thirty years I have written his business letters, looked after the affairs of the plantation, carried large sums of money to New Orleans and to Cincinnati for him, and have had his fullest confidence in every way.’

Not surprisingly, many slaves learned to read and write despite the oppressive laws that strictly prohibited such activities (Hammond, 2002; Stewart, 2010). Thus, Montgomery's statement, ‘… there are other such cases' is understandable. Historically, however, slaves have only been attributed with occupations that require physical labour (i.e. labour not fit for whites) and not occupations requiring any significant intellectual capacity or decision-making authority. Indeed, the challenges of acknowledging and allowing African-Americans as professional accountants persisted well into the 20th century (Hammond and Streeter, 1994).

In addition, examination of the accounting community in the late 19th century typically begins with an analysis of the U.S. Census data (Lee, 2007; Wootten and Kemmerer, 1996). Census data are the basis for a historical analysis of economic, occupational, and regional labour markets. Alas, from its inception in 1790 to 1850, census data primarily only accounted for white males, their names, and ages. The statistical data may have included the number of white females and the number of free people of color and even the number of slaves. However, prior to the 14th Amendment (1868) granting citizenship and equal rights to African-Americans and slaves, African-Americans were only counted as 3/5ths of a person. Thus, their contribution to society was viewed as insignificant. Names and other identifying information for individuals other than white males were routinely excluded. As a result, the early data were essentially a population count, with no supplemental data. In 1850, the census began to include the names of other white occupants in the household. It was only during 1850 that the census data began to include the category ‘Occupation.' Occupation, however, was not applicable to black slaves, only whites. Slaves were separately accounted for on Slave Schedules, a new initiative in 1850. These schedules were used to separately enumerate slaves but names or other identifying information was not required. The census data for 1860 and accompanying schedule followed the pattern of that from 1850. The first-time census data included the names of African-Americans was 1870. Although the occupational data were collected for the 1870 and 1880 census, the bureau did not separately tabulate occupation statistics by race until 1890. Since white males held political power, the economic or occupational contributions of all others (free men, women, slaves, or children) were considered irrelevant (Anderson, 1994).

While census records did not record occupations of slaves, researchers have found that slaves were engaged in a variety of positions. Most common among the positions, slaves were labourers or domestics, but also worked as artisans (i.e. blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. - Dari-Mattiacci, 2013). Because they held no power, though, their contributions to the development of various crafts have been all but washed away from our histories (Ruef, 2012).

Advancing beyond labour-intensive manual positions was also limited by the exclusionary context of racism. Literacy among slaves in some areas was a criminal offense. Slaveholding states had slave laws that specifically forbad slaves from learning to read or write. These legislated prohibitions against educating slaves limited literacy to a small fraction of the black population during the 1800s. Measuring literacy among this group is almost impossible because many of the efforts to educate slaves occurred in secret (Herman, 1984) or even deception. Ruef (2014) recounts one recorded instance: ‘It was only by trickery that I learned to read and write - if any slave learned to read and write, he was to be punished with 500 lashes on the naked back, and to have the thumb cut off above the second joint.'

The secrecy associated with their education lends to the lack of information about the level of literacy and intellectual acumen among African-Americans during the ante-bellum period. Fortunately, significant artifacts chronicling Montgomery's role as an accountant have survived and are now readily available for scholars. Sadly, artifacts of other influential and/or intellectual slaves may not be available.

The life-stories of Benjamin Thornton Montgomery (1819–1877)

Ben Montgomery was born as a slave in 1819 in the U.S. State of Virginia. In 1836 he was sold to a wealthy Southerner by the name of Joseph Davis (Hayek et al., 2010). Although Joseph Davis is perhaps best remembered as the brother of Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy (Hermann, 1990), he was also an attorney and the owner of a large plantation (Hurricane) located near Vicksburg, Mississippi (Jones et al., 2012). His practices of plantation management were unique, as he modeled them after Robert Owen’s (1827) transplanted practices of industrial management.

‘Although Owen is often regarded as the father of British socialism (Browne, 1936; Gorb, 1951), in America he is primarily remembered as a radical social “prophet” (Wilson, 1964: 168) for his visionary communal experiment (i.e., cooperatively harmonizing industrial and social life) at New Harmony, Indiana (Lockwood, 1905; Podmore, 1907/2004)’ (Humphreys et al., 2016). He promoted the concept of a cooperative system where ‘one man’s gain’ was not dependent upon ‘another man’s loss’ (Owen, 1827: 124).

Joseph Davis read Owen’s (1827) book, A New View of Society, and later met Owen in person, and was inspired to reform his plantation management system based upon harmonious cooperation (Hayek et al., 2010). Like Owen, whose communitarian philosophy was intended to benefit the human element in industry (Wren and Bedeian, 2009), Joseph Davis had ‘a conviction that all men, white and black, were capable of living harmonious, productive lives through rational cooperation’ (Hermann, 1990: 9). As a result, Jones et al. (2012) suggest that Davis was a genealogical link between Montgomery and histories of business practice.

Having received significant education and training from Davis, and having successfully taken advantage of the opportunities for learning and entrepreneurship that Davis had provided, Ben Montgomery acquired many business skills atypical to those possessed by most slaves in the ante-bellum period (Rosen, 2011). Accordingly, Jones et al. (2012) describe how he used his competencies to launch multiple entrepreneurial ventures, including a very successful convenience store, which ultimately produced enough revenue for him to purchase his freedom. However, as the conditions in Mississippi for freed slaves were poor, Montgomery chose to remain with Davis and manage the Hurricane plantation (Hayek et al., 2010). Eventually, Davis delegated total responsibility to Ben Montgomery to manage the entire plantation operation, as Davis was forced to leave because of the Civil War (ca. 1861-1865). In 1866 (post-emancipation), Montgomery purchased the Hurricane plantation for $300,000 (Hermann, 1990).

He had a venerable position as one who was formerly a slave and subsequently became the owner and overseer of a plantation. He recognized his stature and influence on the plantation as recorded in a writing from January 22, 1866 (in part), ‘I am satisfied that none of our people will leave unless I do and I have no idea of doing so.’ Rather than using his position and power to engage in exploitative practices, Montgomery demonstrated concern for his community and the laborers on the plantation. His ‘dream of a community was based on a belief in the ability of his fellow freedmen to improve through their own efforts’ (Hermann, 1999: 169). On November 15, 1866, Montgomery writes, ‘There are now parties on this land trying persuading the people that they can do better elsewhere. I am not disposed to persuade any one to remain who think they can do better.’ Better is what Montgomery sought for himself and others. While his writings do not state with specificity the extent to which others on the plantation benefitted, in two of his writings he thanked Davis for extending indulgences to him and others (March 4, 1869 and August 9, 1869). As a slave and subsequent plantation owner, Montgomery successfully managed the plantation’s growth, while implementing a communitarian vision. By 1872 Montgomery was one of the wealthiest plantation owners in the South. However, his health subsequently failed and he died in 1877 (Jones et al., 2012).

The historical documentation of many of Montgomery’s business practices has been preserved in letters that he wrote to Joseph Davis between the years of 1865-1870. In examining these letters from a management perspective, Jones et al. (2012) suggest that they represent the first documented evidence of emancipated African-American management. They argue that the letters are unique and valuable both for their content and symbolism because Ben Montgomery uses the term ‘management,’ which is likely the first recorded use of this term by an emancipated African-American manager and refutes Chandler’s claims that the plantation period could be excluded from the history of management (Chandler, 1977). Although these historical letters do not contain the term ‘accountant’ (Nor are we aware of any preserved documents that do – Fleischman, et al., 2011), we argue that they do clearly describe accounting functions consistent with accounting practice of the day. As such, they should be included in the annals of accounting history to confront the conceptual historicism surrounding the accounting discipline and inform a more balanced historical foundation of accounting practice in America.

The accounting practices of Ben Montgomery

During the 1800s, the diversity among occupations for African Americans was quite limited. Approximately 90 percent of the African American people were slaves who worked as field hands, craftsmen, carpenters, masons, seamstresses, and labourers (Dari-Mattiacci, 2013; Ruef, 2012, 2014). A prominent belief among whites of the time was that an educated slave would present a danger to the status quo. Thus, slave codes, laws strictly prohibiting educating slaves, served as a social control mechanism to ensure authoritative control and oppression (Schiller, 2008). In spite of the slave codes and the severe repercussions associated with violating them, some slaves learned to read, and write. One of these slaves was Ben Montgomery, as he was taught at an early age (Hermann, 1999) by his owner, Joseph Davis, who afforded Montgomery full access to his library (Hayek et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2012).

At the end of the 1700s, there were a number of books and textbooks that taught basic accounting and practical math skills (Edwards, 1960; Previts, 1976). Montgomery's ability to learn accounting and math was only limited by the depth of books in Davis’ library. His intellectual curiosity allowed him to develop significant technical and analytical skills, which even extended to mechanics, surveying land, and drawing architectural plans (Hermann, 1999). Shared perceptions of Montgomery indicate that he had a demonstrated command of legal, administrative, mathematical, leadership, and management skills, which he learned under the direct guidance of Joseph Davis (Jones et al., 2012). So much so, that these competencies engendered both Davis brothers to entrust Montgomery with managing their plantations (Hermann, 1999).

Montgomery's education in accounting was not dissimilar to that received by other accountants during that time. Because of the unstructured nature of the profession, accountants were trained either through apprenticeships, private instructions, high school courses (to a limited extent), and most prevalently accounting textbooks (Langenderfer, 1987; Previts and Merino, 1998; Previts and Sheldahl, 1977; Sampson, 1960). Montgomery's status as a slave precluded him from any form of formal training outside the Hurricane plantation. Thus, his training was fostered as a result of his close relationship with his paternalistic slave-owner and accessibility to appropriate reading materials (Hayek et al., 2010).

Although Montgomery was bought by Joseph Davis, he was a loyal slave to both Davis brothers: Hurricane Plantation (owned by Joseph E. Davis) and Brierfield Plantation (owned by Jefferson Davis). Montgomery had authority for all financial responsibilities, shipping cotton, depositing money, paying taxes, and purchasing supplies needed for both plantations (Hermann, 1999; New York Times, 1893; Wilson, 1902). Wilson (1902: 2) indicates that, ‘He knew more of the business of the Davis brothers, except themselves, than anyone else.'

In 1844, while a slave, Montgomery had full charge of the Brierfield Plantation during Davis’ absence in his service to Congress. ‘Every week Ben made a written report of the expenditures and receipts of the plantation, and wrote generally of all that had occurred there which would be interesting to its owner' (New York Times, 1893). While many Whites resented both the authority given to Montgomery and the business acumen that he possessed (Jones et al., 2012), others marveled at his intellect, as ‘… his plantation bookkeeping, in its simplicity and accuracy, was the envy and admiration of the countryside' (Wilson, 1902: 2).

After his emancipation, Montgomery was eventually legally and openly able to own land. With money that he had accumulated from his dry goods store and other entrepreneurial ventures, Montgomery was able to purchase the plantations from the Davis brothers in 1866 (Hermann, 1999). He remained in close contact with Joseph Davis and, through his writings, gave him an ongoing accounting of the affairs of the plantations. For example, on June 3rd, 1867, Montgomery explained the accumulation of costs:

In regard to the 2 mules. They were taken from me on the 8th of November last. Were valued at the time taken as ($150) one hundred and fifty dollars each making $300. and the loss of service to me is equivalent to $1.50 one dollar and fifty cents per day. being at the time the most valuable pair in my possession. I made two trips to Vicksburg on the occasion, which cost about $8 each trip. paid the expense of one trip of witness $8.

One month later, on July 4, 1867, he provided a concise summary of taxes paid:

Kind Sir:

He also had a firm grasp of how taxes impacted the organisation's overall functioning, say in an 1868 letter that, ‘the payment of taxes will be a sever[e] task and will materially interfere with our progress but we shall see what can be done in the matter.' On December 21, 1868, Montgomery writes that he will update Davis, ‘As soon as we can get through with other pressing business you may expect a statement of our plantation affairs for the present year.'

In addition to providing the bookkeeping service demonstrated by his letters, Montgomery exercised judgement and clearly demonstrated an understanding of the business environment. In his letter dated January 25, 1869, Montgomery discusses issues from outsourcing, ‘… it is now decided to get the job to a contractor who agrees to do a stipulated amount of work for the same of ($2000) two thousand dollars’, to labor rates, ‘The many flattering terms now being offered render labor in many instances unstable. Parties on the other side of the river are offering $15.00 per month for 5 days work per week, and rations with from 2 to 4 acres land and team to plow the same in addition to their wages.’ He understood not only how to manage the plantation at Hurricane, but also he understood the business environment, ‘the great probability of a non compliance with these extravagant offers is not likely to be properly considered by many of those it is intended to deceive.’

Montgomery handled every financial aspect of the plantations and had the role of a strategic manager (Jones et al., 2012). Jones et al. (2012) posit that this is perhaps the first documented account of African-American management, but is not simultaneously acknowledged as perhaps the first documented account of an African-American accountant. While credited with having bookkeeping responsibilities, we argue that his extended and relational duties lend credence to the characterization of Montgomery as an accountant. Of course, this begs the question as to why the Ben Montgomerys of the past have been excluded from our historical tracing of accounting practice in America.

Contributions, limitations, and future research

According to Carnegie and Napier (2012: 328), ‘The importance of historical understanding applies to accounting as much as to other fields of human endeavor. History can inform our appreciation of contemporary accounting thought and practice through its power of unifying past, present, and future.' In addition, Previts (1976) identified the dearth of analysis of accounting during the first three quarters of the 19th century as a weakness of accounting history research.

Accordingly, in this article, we revealed the accounting practices of an African-American plantation slave during the ante-bellum period in the United States – Benjamin Thornton Montgomery. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine and document the role of a slave performing the work of an accountant. Specifically, it addresses the gap in the accounting history literature of this era by presenting a biography of a member of a vastly underrepresented group of accountants. We intend that our effort challenges the conceptual historicism surrounding the accounting discipline and informs a more accurate and balanced historical foundation of the evolution of accounting practice in America.

In making this contribution, we also reason that our study answers the calls of those seeking more particularistic and micro-history in accounting research (Hammond and Streeter, 1994; Parker, 1999). We think this is valuable given the opening quote from Flesher and Flesher (2003: 97) noting that the history of accounting as a discipline ‘cannot be separated from the biographies of those individuals that made that history.'

In creating that history as a social actor, Ben Montgomery was confronted with racial meanings that undoubtedly influenced his relational actions. Race-ethnicity not only shapes ones’ psychological makeup and relationships, it is also intrinsically a part of the larger social structures through which actions emerge (Ospina and Foldy, 2009; Rosette et al., 2008). Consequently, we suggest that our study also contributes to the literature regarding ‘race-ethnicity’ (Yanow, 2003) as a social reality in the denial of slaves within the evolution of accounting. Specifically, this paper provides evidence of the often overlooked inclusion of African-Americans as accountants. We provide evidence that while slaves and African-Americans were limited to generally physical labor occupations, they were capable of engaging in occupations typically reserved for white males. It also points to the vital role of social context, which is not just relevant background (Humphreys, 2005) for understanding the evolution of the field.

We do acknowledge the primary limitation of interpretive case studies and make no claims to generalisability. The documented accounting practices of Ben Montgomery by definition are exceptional and intended to provide a ‘concrete example' (Siggelkow, 2007: 22) that situates an African-American slave into the evolution of accounting practice in America.

We note the emerging historical scholarship concerning Isaiah and Thornton Montgomery, the sons of Ben Montgomery. Novicevic et al. (2017) recently examined the collective leadership exhibited by these men in the founding and development of the first African-American town in Mississippi (i.e. Mound Bayou). Consequently, an analysis of the accounting skills and function of Isaiah Montgomery could further the genealogical history of accounting emerging from plantation slavery through emancipation.

Conclusion

Scholars still know little about the various business and management roles played by slaves during the plantation era in United States. Upon reviewing the literature regarding the history of accounting, it seems that accounting historians have likewise been relatively silent regarding the specific involvement of African-American slaves from the American ante-bellum period. With our analysis of the case of Ben Montgomery, we have attempted to fill this void. This redemptive approach seeks to move past accounting history's silence about the era, and the institution of slavery, to provide a positive and compelling example of the role an African-American slave played in the functional development of the field. Viewing Montgomery's practices in the context of slavery during the plantation period, we argue for his place in providing a more accurate and balanced historical foundation of the evolution of accounting practice in America.

In summary, Ben Montgomery was born a slave and purchased by the Davis family. He learned to read and write through the paternalistic leadership of his owner, Joseph Davis. Montgomery then learned general bookkeeping through access to the Davis library. His intellect and trustworthiness encouraged the Davis family to entrust him with the record keeping and management of the family plantations. During the Civil War, Montgomery managed the plantations and a store while the patriarchs were away from the property. Montgomery would eventually purchase a plantation from the Davis family, rent land to other freedmen, and manage the entire plantation operation.

Through an examination of the correspondence between Montgomery and Joseph Davis, and news articles, we demonstrate that a slave acted not only as a bookkeeper, but also as an accountant. Ben Montgomery provided detailed accounts of plantation activities, reported the financial position of the activities, analyzed, and interpreted the state of the cotton market and surrounding plantations, and provided suggestions and recommendations to the owners. While there was little distinction between bookkeepers and accountants during this era, Montgomery's activities are clearly in line with those of accountant as defined after the divergence into two separate occupations.

Ben Montgomery's work as an accountant is impressive given that most accountants in the later portion of the 19th century were white males (Roberts, 2013). As a slave, Montgomery should not have been afforded the opportunity to become literate. However, the Davis family provided him access to their library, where he was able to learn how to read, write, and prepare basic bookkeeping entries. His intellect and work experience allowed him to go beyond recording entries and provide valuable insight as an accountant.