A slave owner may want a slave who had lost hope because they would be less likely to resist or attempt to escape. A slave who has lost hope may also be easier to control and manipulate, making them more compliant and submissive. Additionally, a slave with no hope may be seen as less of a threat to the slave owner's authority and power.
Probably not all that different to how I feel now. I consider myself a slave; I always have done. I am in a consentual Master/slave relationship (a totally different thing to legal slavery).
Slaves were treated as property. They were given new names, not allowed to speak their native languages,and often beaten. I would not want to live that way.
The slave owners so mean to slave because of their skin color that's why and they thought they were different. Also beating the slaves showed power and dominance over them. And beating slaves, and pushing them to their maximum efforts proved for them to be cheap and efficient. Another reason why a slave owner would be cruel to a slave would be to take out some anger or for hobby/sport, or for some other emotional to psychological reason.
A slave would need qualities such as obedience, loyalty, resilience, and adaptability to survive and fulfill the demands placed upon them by their enslavers.
the just loved it
It would be property of the slave's owner.
how did former slave owners feel about Jim crow laws
the slave owner would make sure to keep the slave only in his property.
they went a brought it home. If they went by carriage the slave would walk.
Slave owners wives were often embarrassed and took the anger out on the innocent children.
A master is the owner of a slave.
A slave owner may want a slave who had lost hope because they would be less likely to resist or attempt to escape. A slave who has lost hope may also be easier to control and manipulate, making them more compliant and submissive. Additionally, a slave with no hope may be seen as less of a threat to the slave owner's authority and power.
no john Adam was not a slave owner
A slave owner would likely prefer to use slaves, as they have no restrictions on their labor and are considered property. Indentured servants have contracts with set terms and conditions, making them less controllable compared to slaves.
He was the kind of slave owner that would rape his slaves and murder them after, sadly but true confessedby him on his first speech"I was once a slave owner but now I regret what I did" And I Suckk Dick God bless afganistan!
Yes, but if the slave was incapacitated he may have to pay the owner of the slave for a replacement.