Harold wrote, "Psychological aspects of the slave-holding 
relationship, on both sides, is a 
barely opened subject which should yield some very 
rich results," and Lonny wrote, "It is an interesting 
study for the psychologist/historian". 

Too bad it can't be discussed without our preconceived ideas
getting in the way of an honest exchange of ideas, as Harold is
right, it could yield some rich results.    Years ago
I read Gen. Elias "Frank" Paxton's letters to his wife during the 
Civil War  and  they  still haunt me.  How could an apparent
"good man" fool himself into believing (1) that the war
had nothing to do with slavery, and (2) society was designed
for some to be slaves and some owners?   It's too easy to just put
a label on him, e.g. hypocrite, but the question is still there.
Would love to discuss it in depth, but as Harold warns, the last week 
or so on this list "hints at the discomfort" --and anger?-- this would cause
many.  

For those not familiar with Gen. Paxton's letters, they are
online courtesy of UNC/Chapel Hill 
http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/paxton/paxton.html  

Joanne



Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 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" 
To: 
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" 
> To: 
> 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:
>> 

  
       
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.