ment of the soil beyond recovery and
the decrease in the economic value of the slave to its owner. This
argument is fallacious, for the very blue-grass region which held most
of the slaves is today the most fertile section of the State.

As long as a slave conducted himself in accordance with the spirit of
the slave code there was little chance of his owner selling him
against his will. The president of the Constitutional Convention of
1849 stated that in the interior of the State, where slaves were the
most numerous, very few Negroes were sold out of the State and that
they were mostly those whose bad and ungovernable disposition was such
that their owners could no longer control them[250]. A true picture of
the average master's attitude has been given us by Prof. N. S. Shaler.
"What negroes there were," said he, "belonged to a good class. The
greater number of them were from families which had been owned by the
ancestors of their masters in Virginia. In my grandfather's household
and those of his children there were some two dozen of these blacks.
They were well cared for; none of them were ever sold, though there
was the common threat that 'if you don't behave, you will be sold
South.' One of the commonest bits of instruction my grandfather gave
me was to remember that my people had in a century never bought or
sold a slave except to keep families together. By that he meant that a
gentleman of his station should not run any risk of appearing as a
'negro trader,' the last word of opprobrium to be slung at a man. So
far as I can remember, this rule was well kept and social ostracism
was likely to be visited on any one who was fairly suspected of buying
or selling slaves for profit. This state of opinion was, I believe,
very general among the better class of slave owners in Kentucky. When
negroes were sold it was because they were vicious and intractable.
Yet there were exceptions to this high-minded humor."[251]

When a master had a bad Negro about the only thing that could be done
for the sake of discipline was to sell him. If the owner kept the
slave, the latter would corrupt his fellows and if he were set free,
the master would reward where he ought to punish. The human interest
which the owner took in his servant when the demands of the
institution necessitated his sale is shown in the case of the Negro
Frank, owned by A. Barnett, of Greensburg. Witness these words of the
master in a runaway advertisement: "His tr