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:
>>>
>
|
