Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Ahem ! Ahem ! While Dr. Phillip Barclay is correct in his assessment, as a generalization probably more right than wrong, it is not the whole story. My NY line had slaves from about 1730 until about 1830. All were given their "freedom," usually by the Master's will; sometimes before the owner died. The slaves, at least those associated with my line, just adopted the Barkley/Barclay surname when freed. Probably out of gratitude.
The "rape" syndrome was more evident in the history of the South than the North, and was a way of creating "homegrown capital" if you will as insensitive as that might sound.
Northern slaves, in the main, were treated much more decently, and often were treated as members of the family life as much as any one else. And less of a capital asset than in the South; hence the depersonalization evident in the South was not true in the North ...at least in my line.
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:No followups yet |
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/barclay/messages/1019.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|