• jqubed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    20 days ago

    I thought it was somewhat common for wills to state that the slaves should be freed upon the owner’s death, perhaps as a way to assuage their conscience for something deep down they knew to be wrong, but it was rare for the slaves to actually be freed by the heirs?

    • PugJesus@piefed.socialOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      Many wills put some form of provision on the freedom - such as, in this case, being within five years, rather than immediately. In most cases, however, the wills were carried out unless the heirs themselves found a strong reason to dispute them - even Lee here only asks for an extension, precisely because he does not have a strong legal basis to dispute the will on a fundamental level.

      At the end of the day, it depended on how adept the heir - and their lawyers - were at manipulating the legal system, and just how bad the legal system of their particular state was.

      Mass emancipation was unusual at this point in the South, though - slavery had become increasingly ideological in the South since the 1830s, with a whole bizarre system of philosophical justification for why brutalizing human beings was not only okay, but morally correct.