You may have hit the dilemma of the wet nurse:  slave/servant/serf on the 
one hand;  surrogate mother on the other.  Find similar endearments and 
enterments for males slaves who do not have lactating breasts to better make 
the case.

Harold S. Forsythe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lonny J. Watro" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Slaves in wills


> How do we, then, explain the tombstone of 1860 found in Allegany County, 
> Maryland? If they did not hold feelings of endearment for their "Aunt 
> Sally" why was she buried in the family plot? She evidently was a house 
> slave and yet this slave holding family buried her with them as part of 
> their family. She was not buried, as was the custom, in the back of the 
> cemetary with a wooden cross or in an unmarked grave, with the other 
> slaves. There was some bond between Aunt Sally and her owners. Was it love 
> as we know it today between friends? Probably not. But still there was a 
> relationship of endearment that was felt at least by the slave owner. One 
> so strong that they were willing to honor her by placing her at rest in 
> the family plot. Was this unusual or common? I have no idea. I do find it 
> wonderful that Aunt Sally's grave site has been preserved.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 3:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Slaves in wills
>
>
>> Analogy regarding slaveholders' feelings toward their slaves may fail us 
>> here.  Eugene Genovese when he was at the height of his analytical powers 
>> thirty years ago argued that slaveholders thought of their estates as 
>> consisting of their family;  "white and black."  Perhaps rather than 
>> pets, slaveholders thought of their slaves as a kind of progeny, but 
>> consisting of children who would never (be allowed to) grow up.  Thus, 
>> affection mingled with absolute paternalistic control.
>>
>> The problem with pets as an analogy in a rural society is that pets 
>> generally were either specifically useful, as in hunting dogs or riding 
>> or carriage horses, or dinner, as in pigs, sheep, and cattle.  This idea 
>> of animals as non-working companions, fed and given health care, and 
>> buried with honor when they died is a 20th century, urban cultural 
>> phenomenon.
>>
>> Psychological aspects of the slaveholding relationship, on both sides, is 
>> a barely opened subject which should yield some very rich results.  But I 
>> suspect that both blacks and whites will generally resist this kind of 
>> speculation because of presentist concerns.  The asymmetrical discussion 
>> you all have been having on H-VA-Hist for the last ten days hints at this 
>> discomfort.
>>
>> Harold S. Forsythe
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Lonny J. Watro" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 1:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: Slaves in wills
>>
>>
>>> 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:
>>>>
>>