tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8872220190320311355.post7813279132833015691..comments2023-06-08T09:25:17.078-07:00Comments on African American History, Fall 2012 : Status Through "Unfreedom"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8872220190320311355.post-27359874483144971032012-10-02T23:34:36.488-07:002012-10-02T23:34:36.488-07:00I think it depends on the salveholder’s relationsh...I think it depends on the salveholder’s relationship with the neighbor as to wheter they would be happy that their neighbor’s slave ran away or if it would cause them to become worried that their slave would also run away. I’m sure it would differ based on the amount of respect that one neighbor had for the other. For instance, if the slaveowner only had one slave and that slave ran away, then perhaps a slaveowner with multiple slaves would consider the owner to be less white and therefore have less respect for them. However, I believe that for the most part if a neighbor’s slave ran away they would not blame the master, lose respect for them or consider them to be a bad owner, they would just consider the slave to be mentally ill. So, possibly the only fear that the situation would instill would be that their slave would become “ill” too. This point then brings me to the next question of whether staus over fellow slaveholders was more important or if status over their slaves was. I think status over slaveholders was more imporant. Owners were so concerned with proving their whiteness and their status to one another that they went as far as creating mental illnesses to show that they weren’t bad owners or any less white for not being able to keep a slave. This level of desperateness shows just how concerened white people were with defending their status. Allycia Kleinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01951213829120806475noreply@blogger.com