I'm sorry. I should not have worded it that way. It is not that any slave *could* be removed from their family at any time. The real problem is that they *were* removed, at any time, at the whim of the slaveholders. Twenty minutes or less at any court house will prove that to your satisfaction. Men left slaves to their children, gave gifts of slaves when children were born, sold them when they needed money, etc. Slaves are listed in inventories, along with the horses, cattle, and furniture. Slaves were often sold across state lines, which is also documented. But even if family was sold next door, slaves didn't have freedom of movement to just visit the next plantation over.
If you doubt slavery was as bad as people say, I would suggest reading the words written by slave owners in the 19th century. The first volume of the collected works of Louisa S. McCord [by Lowndes] will give you a really clear idea of the belief system that allowed slavery to exist. But that volume was work that meant for public consumption. The second volume is private letters. Each is several hundred pages of her thoughts, as a slaveowner. Court records speak for themselves.
Hum - accepted their role as property? Did they have a choice to accept or not to accept that role?
Langdon Hagen-Long
[log in to unmask] wrote:
I don't disagree with your analysis from a 21st Century perspective, but a
18th and 19th century perspective, including that of the slaves, was entirely
different. I wonder to what extent slaves accepted their role as human
property and the reality that their family members could be taken away and sold to
another owner?
**************************************
AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
