Hi, everyone,   I was reseaching about a particular branch of my family and discovered that in the 1840s through 1860s they owned slaves that were included in their census records. The slaves were listed as ""other relations" which sounds more like their slaves were relatives rather than property. Owning slaves is pretty reprehensible. Do I want to list the slaves as part of my family tree? No. However, should they be included because that was just the way it was at that time in history?   Your thoughts?   Thanks in advance,   Dean

Dean, I think you list them in the name of historical accuracy, but as to how to list them, I do not know. Have you checked other census records of that time and area to see how others handled this? Cathy Patterson Sent from my iPad On Apr 19, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Dean Micha Desman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > I was reseaching about a particular branch of my family and discovered that in the 1840s through 1860s they owned slaves that were included in their census records. The slaves were listed as ""other relations" which sounds more like their slaves were relatives rather than property. Owning slaves is pretty reprehensible. Do I want to list the slaves as part of my family tree? No. However, should they be included because that was just the way it was at that time in history? > > Your thoughts? > > Thanks in advance, > > Dean > > > ----------------------------------------- > NORCAL ARCHIVES: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/ > Enter NORCAL. Browse by month. > Or click the "Search all archives" link to search by keyword. > ----------------------------------------- > To post a message to the NORCAL mailing list, send an email to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In some Southern households, the slaves were indeed considered like family. I recently transcribed letters written by a former Southerner who was living in California in 1865 to his relatives in Mississippi. In addition to asking his southern relatives about "white" family members and how they'd survived the war, the man also asked about the family of one of their slaves. The slave father had come to California with the white family in the 1850s, and was freed when the family learned California was a free state. Both parties kept in touch with one another out here, and the white man wrote letters on behalf of his former slave so the latter could find out what happened to his kinfolk during the Civil War. One of the southern relatives was very upset about the bad treatment one of his former slaves had received at the hands of reconstructionists. Slavery was reprehensible but some southerners really did consider their slaves like members of the family. I would include them at least as a footnote. Hope this helps, Anita C. Monterey County Dean Micha Desman wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > I was reseaching about a particular branch of my family and discovered that in the 1840s through 1860s they owned slaves that were included in their census records. The slaves were listed as ""other relations" which sounds more like their slaves were relatives rather than property. Owning slaves is pretty reprehensible. Do I want to list the slaves as part of my family tree? No. However, should they be included because that was just the way it was at that time in history? > > Your thoughts? > > Thanks in advance, > > Dean >

Having read the previous comments I would lean towards including the individuals who were slave as part of the family and include as much information as I could. This should help those researcher who are looking for their ancestor who were slaves. Eugene

I was searching for my husbands "back family" in Georgia and South Carolina. I found them...some by census and others from the National Archives. I found lists of slaves...names, ages, etc, and to whom they "belonged" or were freed by. It was not surprising to find they were slaves owners...even ministers! If you can, I would print out the slave information...screen print, etc,..and attach it to your family data. History, whether beautiful or ugly, is still fact and history! Can't change it...l Regards, Judie Cook On Apr 19, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Dean Micha Desman wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > I was reseaching about a particular branch of my family and discovered that in the 1840s through 1860s they owned slaves that were included in their census records. The slaves were listed as ""other relations" which sounds more like their slaves were relatives rather than property. Owning slaves is pretty reprehensible. Do I want to list the slaves as part of my family tree? No. However, should they be included because that was just the way it was at that time in history? > > Your thoughts? > > Thanks in advance, > > Dean > > > ----------------------------------------- > NORCAL ARCHIVES: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/ > Enter NORCAL. Browse by month. > Or click the "Search all archives" link to search by keyword. > ----------------------------------------- > To post a message to the NORCAL mailing list, send an email to [email protected] > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message