Ethics: Regarding slave owners and those they owned.

Question

If a family is known to have been Slave owners, would it be ethical to add them to your tree if your ancestors were owned by them, and if they are known to be part of your ancestry?  (Actual blood relative)

Asking because:

1.  Do not want to surprise any who may not have known their families were Slave owners.

2.  Oftentimes the ancestry is not through traditional marriages, etc...

Thanks!

Betty

Answer 1

If there is not a biological link then perhaps a better way to document this would be to create a link in the biography text section. There you can link directly to the slave owner's profile like this:

Mr X was a slave who was owned by [[Doe-30|John Doe]].

Comments

That is a good idea too!!!  Thank you Eugene!

Answer 2

I'd say it should be added. It's part of your family history, regardless of how you may personally feel about it.

Comments

Thanks, Kerena.  Cynthia just wants to make sure it is ok.  She has the families in their own gedcoms files, but wasn't sure how people would react that might come across the names and find out they were slave owners.   Being cautious.  I agree with you!  Part of the history! :)

Answer 3

I don't fully understand the question - "if your family was owned by the slaves"? Do you mean if your ancestors were slaves owned by the slave owner?

Does the ethical issue arise because the profile being added was a slave owner, because the profile would not be a direct family member or because the profile being added might be an unacknowledged ancestor?

A profile should be added only if the person adding it has sufficient information and interest in advancing the research on the indivdual. Beyond that, it need not be a family member. As to noting the fact that someone was owned by / owned others, if there is sufficient credible information to document the facts, it seems central enough to someone's life to do so. As to whether there might be a biological relationship, again, credible sources and documentation is a necessity, but if it is there it seems to me it should be noted.

Acknowledging the wound of slavery, at least with respect to slavery in the United States it seems these facts should be sufficiently in the past that they can be added without compromising current privacy. At some point, history is what it is.

Comments

Yes, Ellen.  If your ancestors were slaves owned by the slave owner. Ethical in both senses that you spoke about.  :)  I think it all comes down to history myself.  It is what it is, as you say.    I think I will rephrase my question tho. :)

---

I wholeheartedly echo Betty on this.  I have a friend from high school who is a descendant of a master.  It' s incredible the work she has done.  My family owned slaves, sorry to say.  I say make it public in as big a way as you can.  Think how many could learn about thier family if only we drop a few skeletons from our closets.

-Mags

Answer 4

Great question Betty!

My approach to this is going to be based on the evidence.  

I have not found slave owners in my research as of yet.  However, in my tree, my gr-gr-gr-grandfather was born in Virginia in 1806 - so I suspect that I may one day find evidence of ancestors in who were slave owners.

And, in the case of my brother-in-law's family, I have traced several of his relatives back to the 1870 Census - the first record of them being free from slavery. Thus, it is definitely possible that I could find them in earlier records when they were enslaved.

While these are still possibilties, my expectation is that I will find documents stating slave ownership (for example - Chancery Court cases in Virginia often contain lists of slaves that are connected to an estate).  So, for example, if I find a Chancery Court document from 1823 which states that an ancestor of mine owned 10 slaves, I would create profiles for each of the 10 slaves and then add a .jpg picture of the document as a photo to my ancestor's profile.  In the Wikitree picture of this document, I would link to the profiles of the 10 slaves.  And, as Eugene mentioned, I could also list the slave owner/slave relationship in the respective profile biographies.

The closest example I have to this format in my research is this interesting marriage record that I found for my gr-gr-gr-aunt, which lists the Pastor who officiated the marriaage ceremony.  The pastor had an interesting background, so I created a profile for him (even though he is not related to my family):

   http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bell-5669

I then created a picture with a .jpg image of the marriage record and linked this to the profiles of my gr-gr-gr-aunt, her husband and the Reverend A.K. Bell - with a comment explaining this connection. 

Comments

My ancestors were Southern slave owners, and I have records in which slaves were sold, left in a will to other family members, and also given as gifts, for example to a daugher who was getting married.

I do not think this information is offensive:  It reflects the reality of life back in those times.  I would rather know the facts/truth, and share the facts/truth, rather than disguising the truths with lies or omissions.

Doesn't the search for family history include the good, the bad, and the downright evil?  Those with cleft palates and club feet?  In one family history book I have, it specifically states that "so and so" never tasted liquor, never fornicated, and never told a lie.

I would far rather know everything rather than hide behind a pretense of niceties!

---

Thanks for all the input. I have started family trees for 2 of my ancestor's slave owners. I did so for a couple of reasons.  One was hoping that it may draw attention to one of there family members who may have more information in the form of documents. Another reasons is because my DNA tests (I tested my sister, cousin and myself) matched me with unfamiliar surnames with European orgins.  These could only be from the slave owners.  By tracing the owners, I have access to more possible surname links.  None of them have panned out so far, but I've only resently started the research into the names in their tree. My evidence of them being the correct slave owners are the slave narratives in which my ggguncle named the owner and his wife. Further, the 1880 census show my ggrandmother along with my grandfather still living next door to the mistress. For the other slave owner, I have the plantation inventory document inwhich my other gggrandmother along with her siblings were included.So the evidence indicates that these are the correct owners, in both cases. My concern, and I do feel better about it now, was that I would be exposing someone elses information.  But, like someone said... it is history.  Thanks again.