Correct USBH project handling of a slave-owning trust

Question

In a previous G2G thread, I asked several questions about the handling of what was, in my mind, an unusual slave deed. Apparently it's not that uncommon. Several folks kindly replied and answered most of my questions. I've corrected the free-space profile containing information about the deed to reflect the comments I received. However, no one answered one of my questions, and I need an answer before I proceed. The question is about the policy or practice that the USBH project wishes to employ in this situation. I've left the actual question in the free-space profile, so if you go there you'll see the full context and the full question.

Comments

First, I had only recently seen a trust for handling slaves. In that case, the trust was given to a minister to ensure that the slaves were emancipated and properly settled. But your case is entirely different. If you are going to create profiles for the slaves, this page should tell you everything you need to know to do so:

US Black Heritage: Heritage Exchange Portal (wikitree.com)

If it was not your intention to create profiles yourself, you could add a category to the space page to bring it to the attention of the project: 

[[Category:County, State, Slave Owners]]

Answer 1

Hi Rudy - All the parties should be considered slave owners. (and sorry I didn’t see your question earlier!)

Answer 2

Thanks for replying, Lucy.

I do intend to create the profiles myself, and I know how to do that. But my question remains unanswered. In this peculiar situation, who should be listed as owning the slaves? This is a policy question for the US Black Heritage project. The answer might be the trustee, the beneficiary, or both. If this were a modern trust, the true owner would be the trust, and neither the trustee nor the beneficiary would be regarded as owning the slaves. But somehow I don't see descendents of slaves looking for ancestors named "Esther Harriote-McBride-Trust-Dated-May-17-1817". What should I do about the owner(s)?

Comments

Rudy, if you are uncertain which last name at birth to use for the enslaved ancestor profiles, we usually use the first known slave owner. In this case, it looks like Henderson would be the placeholder last name used since Mary Henderson is transferring ownership.

---

Thanks, Emma. I understand that part of the principle, but there's a new wrinkle. Mary Henderson was actually Mary Virginia (Hook) Henderson. Her husband died the year before the deed, and she died the year after. I'm guessing that your suggestion is correct in this case, since at the time of ownership of the slaves, her surname, and her husband's previous to that, was Henderson. But her birth name is Hook. Is Henderson still correct?

[LATER] Mary was Harriet's mother, BTW.

---

If Mary Henderson had ownership before she took on the name of Henderson, then Hook would be used, but if it was while she was a Henderson then it would be Henderson. The thing about this process is we recognize an enslaved person could have changed hands multiple times and we don't want to change the LNAB until a final name is found. Therefore, we use whichever slave owner is first known when we create the profile. If an earlier owner is found, we don't change the LNAB because the LNAB is only a temporary placeholder. We document the timeline on their profile and link to all the known people they were connected to in some way. I hope this helps.

---

OK, thanks.