A mutual insurance company operates as a self-funded enterprise owned entirely by its policyholders, rather than outside investors. This business model dates back to late 17th-century England, where it was developed to mitigate fire-related losses. In the U.S., Benjamin Franklin established the first mutual insurance company in 1752—the Philadelphia Contributionship for the Insurance of Houses From Loss by Fire. Over time, the model expanded beyond property protection into more controversial areas, including the insuring of enslaved individuals—a reflection of slavery’s deep entwinement with American economic systems.
One industry that quickly saw the utility of mutual insurance was slavery. High risks such as disease, death during forced transport, and reproductive exploitation made enslavers eager for financial protection. Specialized policies, often known as "future insurance," were marketed especially for enslaved girls entering puberty—referred to in brutal period slang as “bud’n out.” These young girls, typically aged 8 to 12.5, were considered valuable not only for labor but also for forced reproduction or sexual exploitation. Their appearance in slave auction advertisements frequently noted features like “comeliness,” further reflecting their objectification.
Among the early insurance firms to offer such policies was the Nautilus Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York. Founded in 1841, it began as a joint stock company focused on fire and marine insurance. Its first president, James de Peyster Ogden, had strong ties to commerce that was adjacent to the slave economy. He worked with firms like LeRoy, Bayard, and McEvers, who supplied Caribbean plantations with provisions for enslaved laborers. Ogden also served in Liverpool—a city key to outfitting ships that continued the slave trade even after it was outlawed in 1808—where he held the position of U.S. consul and played a largely passive role in enforcement.
Upon his return to New York, Ogden helped develop the Brooklyn harbor as president of the Atlantic Dock Company. While never directly engaged in slave trading, his deep familiarity with related industries made him a strategic leader for Nautilus as it entered the slave insurance market.
By 1843, Nautilus had raised the required $300,000 to begin offering life insurance. On April 12, 1845, a powerful board of trustees was established, composed of prominent New York merchants. In 1846, the company exited the marine insurance business to focus on life insurance. Just one year later, a third of its first 1,000 life insurance policies covered enslaved individuals. The company officially changed its name to New York Life Insurance Company on April 5, 1849, and ceased issuing policies on enslaved lives in 1848.
Today, New York Life is the third-largest insurer in the United States and the largest mutual life insurance company in the country. Yet, for much of its history, the company’s involvement in insuring enslaved individuals went unmentioned in public narratives. A 2017 article by The New York Times helped bring this little-known history to light.
New York Life has since acknowledged this chapter in its history, issuing a public statement of regret: “As a 180-year-old company, New York Life’s history is interwoven with our nation’s history, including its worst periods. For two years, between 1846–1848, New York Life sold policies on the lives of enslaved people. Our company has publicly acknowledged and is deeply sorry for this period of our history.”
Other companies also participated in selling such insurance, including Aetna and U.S. Life. In 2000, Aetna issued a formal apology, though it stopped short of a full admission, stating, “Aetna has long acknowledged that for several years shortly after its founding in 1853 that the company may have insured the lives of slaves. We express our deep regret over any participation at all in this deplorable practice.”
These acknowledgments, while a step forward, are a reminder that much of America’s economic infrastructure—including some of its most respected institutions—was built, in part, on the exploitation and suffering of enslaved people.
0 Comments