VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
J D Deal <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:29:44 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
As Mick Nicholls has observed, if slave husbands and wives belonged to different owners, the husbands would not appear (or be enumerated) on the census schedules along with their wives. The plantation with a equal number of adult male and adult female slaves was rare indeed.

Why else might males appear to be missing?
1) running away (most runaways were males);
2) hired out (most slaves hired out to employers in nearby towns [or elsewhere] were likely to be skilled males).

If we add all three reasons together, a sizable number of households with no adult male slaves would not be that unusual. 

Doug Deal
History?SUNY Oswego

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US