In a message dated 2/3/06 7:48:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > Slaves could work [with the owner's permission] and > they could buy their freedom. Slaves actually fared better under Colonial > Louisiana than they did when Louisiana became a Territory and then a State Quite right Stanley but it was not the majority of Slaves that got the owner;s permission to work....and keep any money that they earned... what happened most often was that the slave was rented out and the money went straight to the owner. There were many entrepreneural slaves that managed to sand bag money that they made selling vegetables from their own gardens etc . Buying their own freedom was not as common as many would lead us to believe. Especially if one considers the number of those that bought their freedom ( or had the means to do so) against the huge number of those slaves that never even had a chance to do so. Saying that the Slaves of Louisiana actually fared better under Colonial rule than they did when it became a territory and then a state, Is a slippery way down an argument that compares apples and oranges. Many monographs have been written about that. The fate of slaves under French rule (at least on paper) gave slaves more options, and they often had children with their french masters willingly or unwilllingly , they would get monetary recognition, if not legal recognition. for their children, which often were manumitted. This practice never really left Louisiana in one form or another. The fact is that after France lost Louisiana its population grew considerably. That was true of the slave population as well. The slave codes of the US were harsher and more likely to be enforced. Making an argument that slavery under one regime is more benign that slavery under another , is probably the argument you mean. But the whole aspect of slavery is dehumanizing and vile no matter how lenient and beloved the slave master. What happened after slavery was abolished was indeed hard on the slave that had no skills. the field hands for instance. But I'll bet that most still found that Freedom to ;move out of Louisiana meant more to them than any thing. Not all did move , some could not , and some remained in virtual slavery for generations after as share croppers . Neither regime can boast honestly about their brand of slavery. It is interesting to look at the plight of indentured servants of various states. and how and when the laws changed. Yes it was a form of slavery,. but even the indentured person ( usually white) had a leg up on a slave (usually black) even when working side by side on the same job....you guessed it , the law protected the servant and rarely the slave That is why our Acadian ancestors in Mass. could seek recourse for their position , and could find some one to plead for them. They were not black and not slaves.....but suspect because they were Catholic and potential enemy combatants thanks for the comments Stanley... always good to discuss with you Fran Wilcox