How did black slave owners treat black slaves? Were they harsh or kind to them?

Question

If no one knows, where could I be able to find information about it on the net? Thanks.

Answer 1

there are cases of both, but overall keeping anyone in slavery is an unkind act. so you could say all slaves were treated unkindly

Answer 2

It all depends on the character the people( owners and or slaves) had. Way back slaves were both black and white, so maybe they treated them the same. It again depends on their characters.
I know G. Washington's dad had a slave from England that had been a convict over there, but he was given a new life when he was bought and taken to Virginia. Many slaves( at a very early time) were slaves because they couldn't sustain themselves or their family. But then again many more were slaves because their skin was black, which was unjust.

Answer 3

You probably won't find any exact information on that subject. It is one of those things in history that few want to talk about. I would surmise that some treated their slaves harshly because that was the conditioning of the Black mind back then. It was thought to be OK to mistreat those "below" you and many Blacks thought less of themselves and their race because of the abusive nature of the slave institution as a hold (it led to the conditioning of that sort of mindset). More than likely, the Black slave owner wanted to be above his slave in order to obtain a certain social status with the abusive white slave owner which might make the Black slave owner less likely to be mistreated in society. You know, its like the issue of the lighter Black versus the darker Black during those times.

Answer 4

Some treated them harshly, some treated them kindly. Few actually killed or maimed them. The reason is that the slaves were there to work, and severely injuring them wouldn't serve the purpose of the owner. Slaves were property, often very valuable property.

Being a slave is, in and of itself, an abuse. But in many instances, recent immigrants in the south were treated far more harshly. They weren't property, were somewhat abundant, and therefore they often were given jobs that could easily result in death or severe injury. If that happened, they were easily replaced at no cost.

Answer 5

As with any historical subject that applied to large numbers of individuals, the treatment of salves had a wide range of usage. To make some sense of it is difficult when viewing it from a social phenomena, but viewing it from a business perspective which it was (i. e., a business), it becomes clearer. The foundation to this is that people had slaves, not because they like to have a slave, but due to business need of that time, and that place, and that industry.

Capital investment in purchasing a slave wasn’t an inexpensive undertaking in the antebellum-South. In 1850’s dollars slaves (on average cost about $1,200 or in the high 20,000s in today’s dollars. More over, this varied a great deal with a skilled tradesman (such as a blacksmith) brining about 55% more than the average and a someone disabled of unreliable being around a 65% discount. Young, healthy females brought about 80% of young healthy males.

In addition there was the maintenance of a slave. In 1860 dollars this would be about $30 per annum. Looking at this from a business perspective the owner (business person) would have to realize a reasonable net return (slave cost, land cost, crop cost, etc.) on investment and maintenance. In this it had to be at least the equivalent of Northern factory owners and in that they were quite equal in realizing 8% to 12% per annum.

To continue with the analogy, as a northern factory owner would not smash his machines or beat his workers because that would be ruining his investment, the Southern slave owner would treat his investment with equal care. Yes, in both the North and the South, then and today, there are business owners who are dumber than rocks and deplete their investment by ruining it via poor treatment and upkeep, but that is not the rule.

This is not to say that the life of a slave was ideal in today’s standards, it wasn’t. However, to make such judgments using today’s standards and ethics is as dumb as those who were the proverbial Simon Lagree characters of the South. The treatment of the slaves by the reasonable owner was not terrible for those times. I suspect that those who are now reading this would not relate to living in a house with no running water, with no electricity, no telephone, heating & cooking with wood, making clothes and sheets from flour sacks, farming by hand or horses, and using an outhouse privy & pots under the bed, and yet, that is the farm house I lived in not even 70 years ago and that was little different from the world of the slave owner of 80 odd years prior to that time.

Even so, freedom is always preferable to slavery and as byway of illustration I’ll end with a short story that once was told: An escaped slave from Kentucky was brought before an Indiana justice of the peace and the judge question the slave:

Judge: “Were you unhappy there?”
Slave: “On no. I had a good life there.”
Judge: “Were you mistreated?”
Slave: “No. Old masa and me was the greatest of friends. Fished and hunted together.”
Judge: “Did you have good food and housing?”
Slave: “Sure enough. Ham and ‘taters. Molasses. My little cabin had roses over the door.”
Judge: “I don’t understand. Why did you run away.?’”
Slave “Well your Honor, the situation is still open down there if you’d like to apply for it.”




A great deal of research has been done on this and similar questions. Some sources if you want to do your own checking:

“Time on the Cross” Volume V Issue 2 Evidence and Methods – A supplement” - Robert William Fogel and Stnley L. Engerman.

One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of Emancipation – Roger L. Ransom and Richard Sutch.

“The Slave Exploitation” – Richard K. Vedder.

“American Economic History” – Jonathan Hughes.

Answer 6

Most treated they poorly. But few of them treated their slaves nicely, You could say that slave owners at least fed their slaves and stuff like that ,but only because they thought they needed their slaves.

Answer 7

They kept slaves for cheap labour, so to make more profit for themselves, at the expense of other peoples freedom. There may have been 'kind' slave owners, who kept their charges well fed, clothed and educated, but they were still slaves, and this was still the most shameful period of USA history.

Answer 8

Its an issue of the individual, not a race.

Its hard to find accounts of it, but Ive seen it both ways for white, black, and indian slave owners-all races had nice owners and cruel owners.

Answer 9

unquestionably. i think of their darkish complexion had lots to do with them being chosen as slaves. How else can one justify making use of yet another man or woman for his or her very own financial earnings. Sorry to decrease this short, my grasp is coming. lol.

Answer 10

they were very kind and genorous :)