R. Downing sent me a copy of this a few days ago and I sent back a private reply. Now that it is posted to this board, I am posting a copy of my reply below:

Hello:

The subject of whether to refer to slaves as "held" or "owned" is one that comes up from time to time with differing opinions expressed with considerable passion. An interesting thread of posts at the AfriGeneas slavery forum can be found at http://www.afrigeneas.com/forumd/index.cgi?read=2440 .
I did not start that thread but I posted in the thread the basis I used in deciding on the terminology I would use for my web site. Dispassionate scholars may have a valid point that slaves were "owned" by the man made laws of the time and place. However, for the reasons I set out in my post in the thread cited above, for my work I chose the term "held".

I do believe I was unmindful at the time of my post in the thread of the feelings of some descendants of slaves who feel that using "owned" more accurately reflects the demeaning depth of American slavery. A later post in the thread pointed out that feeling. Some descendants of slaves prefer the term "enslaved".

I certainly do not deny that some people in 1860 claimed they were legally entitled to own other human beings as property, nor do I deny that such claims took the depravity of slavery to even greater depths. But each person has to use the terminology that they honestly feel is best for their own purposes, and for me, doing my work in the 21st century, I personally was very uncomfortable using the "owner" terminology. I am sorry if my decision to use the term "slaveholder" upsets any descendant of a slave, though your criticism of my terminology choice is the first I recall receiving outside of the thread cited above. But I am truly happy that I have not received any letters from descendants of "slaveowners" thanking me for reminding everyone that the ownership of slaves at the time by their ancestors was perfectly legal.

Tom Blake