It is an interesting study for the psychologist/historian. Some may have had 
a relationship much like we presently have with our own beloved and faithful 
pets. Very strange to consider this concept, isn't it? But those who have 
know the love of a beloved and faithful pet might be able to understand the 
feeling that these slave holders might have formed with their life long 
slaves. I'm not trying to say that slavery was right or just or that human 
beings should be considered dogs or cats. But I think that some slave 
holders might have thought of their slaves in that way and formed a great 
affection for and attachment to them in the way we form an affection for and 
an attachment to our own pets today. How many of us grieve at the loss of a 
beloved pet? I wonder how many slave holders truely greived at the loss of a 
beloved slave in this same sort of way? It's weird to consider that slave 
holders may have loved their slaves on this relationship level. Because we 
know that society forbade them to consider their slaves as equal to 
themselves. They must have considered the slaves as lesser in some way. Yet 
still they must have loved them all the same as is depicted in this 
tombstone in Allegany County, MD. See, URL:
http://www.whilbr.org/itemdetail.aspx?idEntry=2707&dtPointer=0
"Aunt Judy", 1805-1866

Her tombstone reads
"A Faithful Friend and Helper
There is neither bond nor free for all are one in Christ Jesus."

Aunt Judy was a one-time local slave and later servant in the Robert Hall 
McCleave (1808-1886) household, in whose family plot she is buried. In 1860, 
there were a total of 8,000 slaves and 12,000 free blacks in Western 
Maryland. Of this, Allegany County was identified as having 666 slaves, 467 
free blacks and 27,215 whites.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kathleen Much" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:51 PM
Subject: Slaves in wills


>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:
>