I haven't read as many Southern wills as Paul, who says he has read
thousands, but I've read scores. Some slaveowners indeed referred to
their slaves and their livestock in the same way, but others (usually
owners of few slaves) spoke quite fondly of one or more slaves. When I
first came upon wills giving slaves the right to choose their owners,
I was surprised. After I read several, I concluded that the decedent
wished to grant specially valued slaves some control over their own
lives (not, of course, the control that freedom would have brought) by
creating incentives for the new owner to treat the slave decently.
Typically, the owner grants the slave the right to choose from among
the decedent's children an owner for the coming year, on Christmas or
New Year's Day. If the new owner did not treat the slave well, the
slave could change owners next Christmas.

I hope this wrinkle will not stir up more defenses of slavery or
assertions that all slaveowners were evil. It merely permits another
shading of a past era. Some slaveowners recognized the humanity of
their slaves even while maintaining that they were chattels. Never let
it be said that humans can't hold contradictory ideas in one mind.

Kathleen
The Book Doctor

On 6/15/07, Paul Heinegg wrote:
> I believe the wills tell more about slavery in Virginia than any other
source. I have read over a thousand of them. Slaveowners almost exclusively
refer to their slaves in the same terms as their farm animals and other
property: