Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction

[Leah's Choice]

Question is at what age were the children seperated from their mothers and sold. This could be somewhat a measure of humanity

I can't think that any forcible separating of families at any age, has any "humanity" involved in it at all. I've read of former slaves, after emancipation, spending the rest of their lives searching for their families. Middle-aged people moving around the country, hoping to find their children, their parents, their brothers and sisters, and expressing relief sometimes at even being able to find a grave.

How is this a measure of humanity?

[bama46]

I can't think that any forcible separating of families at any age, has any "humanity" involved in it at all. I've read of former slaves, after emancipation, spending the rest of their lives searching for their families. Middle-aged people moving around the country, hoping to find their children, their parents, their brothers and sisters, and expressing relief sometimes at even being able to find a grave.

How is this a measure of humanity?

Didn't say it was, said it could be.... now that is nitpicking.... what I really meant is that thwhile the forced breakup of any family is inhuman, the older the children are when this happens MIGHT be less inhuman than the breakup of a family with small children.

there was nothing even remotely nice about slavery as practiced in the US

[Leah's Choice]

Didn't say it was, said it could be.... now that is nitpicking.... what I really meant is that thwhile the forced breakup of any family is inhuman, the older the children are when this happens MIGHT be less inhuman than the breakup of a family with small children.

there was nothing even remotely nice about slavery as practiced in the US

Well, I do understand your point, Bama, and don't disagree with it as a concept, but when it comes to children and animals, I'm the quintessential bleeding heart.

And, by the way, I don't think that anyone on this board, northern or southern, is a defender of slavery, nor did I intend to imply that in my previous post. If that's the way it struck you, I do apologize.

[bama46]

Well, I do understand your point, Bama, and don't disagree with it as a concept, but when it comes to children and animals, I'm the quintessential bleeding heart.

And, by the way, I don't think that anyone on this board, northern or southern, is a defender of slavery, nor did I intend to imply that in my previous post. If that's the way it struck you, I do apologize.

That never occurred to me...

[ole]

A classic demonstration of resolving perceived difference. Refreshing.

Ole

[unionblue]

From the book, Slave Trading in the Old South, by Frederic Bancroft, Chapter IV. The Importance of Slave-Rearing, p. 68:

"But what did Southerners closely associated with slavery say about slave-rearing? It is their evidence that is decisive.

And advertisement in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1796, offereing fifty prime negroes for sale contained theses sentences: *** "they are not Negroes selected out of a larger gang for the purpose of a sale, but are prime, their present Owner, with great trouble and expense, selected them out of many for several years past. They were purchased for stock and breeding Negroes, and to any Planter who particularly wanted them for that purpose, they are a very choice and desirable gang." At all times "breeding slaves", "child bearing women", "breeding period", "too old to breed", etc. were familiar terms.

Slave-rearing early became the source of the largest and often the only regular profit of nearly all slaveholding farmers and of many planters in the upper South. Especially in Virginia, as Francis Corbin wrote in 1819, "miserabile dictur our principle profit depends" on the increase of our slaves. In a Virginia case in 1848, the Court said that "the scantiness of net profit from slave labor has become proverbial, and that nothing is more common than actual loss, or a benefit merely in the slow increase of capital from propagation."

(From pg. 75 of the same chapter)

The wife of a Georgia planter wrote that "many indirect inducements [are] held out to reckless propagation, which has a sort of premium offered to it in the consideration of less work and more food counterbalanced by none of the sacred responsibilities which hallow and ennoble the relation of parent and child; in short, as their lives are for the most those of mere animals, their increase is literally mere animal breeding, to which every encouragement is given, for it adds to the master's live-stock and the value of his estate."

The most careful planters everywhere considered slave-rearing of prime importance. One in Alabama, who was so liberal-minded, that he encouraged his negroes to read the Bible, described his own prosperity by saying that his slaves had been "generally healthy and very prolific, and their increase is no small matter in the item of profits." Another expressed the common opinion: "Well treated and cared for, and moderately worked, their natural increase becomes a source of great profit to their owner. Whatever therefore tends to promote their health and render them prolific, is worthy his attention." "With us the proprietor's largest source of prosperity is in the negroes he raises", said Secretary of the Treasury Howell Cobb, in 1858, when also president of the Georgia Cotton Planters' convention.

John C. Reed--also a Georgian, graduated from Princeton in 1854 and afterward a lawyer in his native State--had rare knowledge of social condition and was clear and frank in his convictions. He wrote: "Although the profits of slave-planting were considerable, the greates profit of all was what the master thought of and talked of all the day long,--the natural increase of his slaves, as he called it. His negroes were far more to him than his land." *** "Really the leading industry of the South was slave-rearing. The profit was in keeping the slaves healthy and rapidly multiplying. This could be done at little expense in agriculture where even the light workers were made to support themselves." Accordingly, he said, "many of these older sections turned, from being agricultural communities, into nurseries, rearing slaves for the younger States where virgin soil was abundant."

More to follow.
Unionblue

To All,

Thought this should bear some repeating, as slave-breeding was a fact.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Continued from the book, Slave Trading in the Old South, by Frederic Bancroft, Chapter IV, The Importance Of Slave-Rearing, p. 76.

"Other Southerners went much further, saying that in several States slaves were reared for sale rather than for their labor. Moncure D. Conway, whose father was a slaveholder near Fredericksburg, Virginia, wrote: "As a general thing, the chief pecuniary resource in the border States is the breeding of slaves; and I grieve to say that there is too much ground for the charges that general licentiousness among the slaves, for the purpose of a large increase, is compelled by some masters and encouraged by many. The period of maternity is hastened, the average age youth of negro mothers being nearly three year earlier than that of any free race, and an old maid is utterly unknown among the women."

The stock-farmer indifferent to enlarging his herd would be no more of an anomaly than was the planter that did not keep close count of his pickaninnies and rejoice in the profit that grew with them. They were his pride and appealed to his imagination. "All the little darkies by natural increase were net profit!" exclaimed an old lawyer in Natchez, the son of a rich ante-bellum planter. This was because on a farm or plantation the neccessary outlay for their support (from birth until they reached 6 or 8 years of age, when hey began to work and were readily salable or hired out) was hardly appreciable. Their food and scant clothing were the simplest and cheapest possible, and an ample average allowance was one-third as much as was given to a fieldhand, whose entire maintenance, according to liberal estimates, cost not more than $30 per year."

Unionblue

More to follow,

Unionblue

[unionblue]

A bit more back on track with the main subject of this thread.

"Men otherwise careless and spendthrift were eager to multiply their slaves, realizing that by keeping the natural increase the whole number would rapidly augment like money at a high rate of compound interest. If the master could manage to live from the labor of his negroe, the equivalent of riches was only a matter of time. Ten young slaves (of which five or six were girls) worth hardly $5,000 in 1840, might treble their number by 1855, when the value of the thirty of all ages was fully $20,000--an enormous gain without counting any surplus from labor and crops. In two or three decades a small planter, starting in a fertile region with 15 or 20 young slaves, might, by industry, economy and purchasing girls and boys, easily become a "large planter", with a gang of 40 or 50 sturdy fieldhands and more than that many children. Twice all that was possible in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, if one gav the closest attention to slave-rearing, raising crops and buying more negroes to make new plantations out of cheap and fertile virgin soil;--it was possible, but rare, only because enterprise and thrift were rare and extravagance and carelessness common.

Thus, next to the great and quick profit of bringing virgin soil under cultivation, slave-rearing was the surest, most remunerative and most approved means of increasing agricultural capital. It was advised and practised by the wisest rural slaveowners. A young female slave, unless skilled or comely, was, as Olmsted said, most prized for breeding qualities, and he quote a Virginia planter who was proud of the fact that "his women were uncommonly good breeders; he did not suppose there was a lot of women anywhere that bred faster than his; he never heard of babies coming so fast as they did on his plantation; it was perfectly surprising; and every one of them, in his estimation, was worth two hundred dollars, as negroes were selling now, the moment it drew breath."

(Note: Planters often had to pay their lawyers in slaves. John C. Reed's grandfather said that Robert Toombs welcomed such payments, usually bought the interests of his associates and sent the negroes to this Chattahoochee plantation; that the associates were likely soon to spend the cash, while Toombs became rich. "'John, get as many young breeding-women as you can. Hire them out where they will not be abused, and after a while you can collect them on a good plantation of your own. The increase of your negroes will make you rich.' I had talked this all over many times with my sweetheart and that was our plan. The plantation was to be in the Mississippi valley or in Texas, as my grandfather advised."--J.C. Reed to the author, Aug. 15, 1908.)

From the book, Slave-Trading In The Old South, by Frederic Bancroft, Chapter IV, The Importance Of Slave-Rearing, pg. 80-81.

Unionblue

More to follow,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

More on the thread topic:

"The most careful buyers kept informed as to new arrivals and went to the jails to inspect them. Then, and when the slaves were brought to the auction-mart, they were plied with such questions as: "How old are you?" "What can you do?" "Who raised you?" "Why are you sold?" "Anything wrong with you?" Hands were opened and shut and looked at inside and out. Arms and legs were felt of as a means of deciding whether they were muscular and regular. Backs and buttocks were scrutinized for the welts that heavy blows with a whip usually left. Necks were rubbed or pinched to detect any soreness or lumps. Jaws were frasped, fingers were run into negroes' mouths, which were widely opened and peered into. Lips were pressed back so that all the teeth and gums could be seen. This performance closely resembled that of an expert reading of a horse's age. If there was any suspicion that one eye might not be good, a strange hand was clapped over the other and the slave was asked what object was held before him. The hearing was likewise tested. All such inquiries were made with equal freedom whether the slave was man, woman, boy or girl. The descriptions of many observers substantially agree with what Chambers saw:

"About a dozen gentlemen crowded to the spot while the poor fellow was stripping himself, and as soon as he stood on the floor, bare from top to toe, a most rigorous scrutiny of his person was instituted. The clear black skin, back and front, was viewed all over for sores from disease; and there was no part of his body left unexamined."

Anybody that was interested,--or merely wished to appear so, as some always did, for they thought it gave them importance,--might join in the inspection. When scars or any irregularities or signs of disease were found, there were significant nods and an exchange of knowing glances.

It was both less common and less essential thoroughly to inspect the women and the girls, although it was not rare to do so. In any case, it was considered important to know how many children a young women had borne and what the probabilities were to as the future. If a girl was more than 18 or 19 years old and had borne none, it lessened her market value."

(Note: A New Yorker traveling in the South happened to visit these marts the same morning as artist Crowe, Mar. 3, 1853. In his account occurs this passage: "I saw full twenty men stripped this morning and not more than three or four of them had what they termed 'clean backs', and some of them--I should think full one-quarter of them--were scarred with the whip to such an extent as to present a frightful appearance; one in particular was so cut that I am sure you could not lay your finger on any part of his back without coming in contact with a scar. These scars were from the whip and were from two inches to one foot in length. These marks damaged his sale; although only about 45 to 50 years old he only brought $460; but for these marks he would have brought $750 to $800."--N.Y. Tribune, Mar. 10, 1853, p. 6.)

Taken from the book, Slave Trading In The Old South, by Bancroft, Chapter V, Virginia And The Richmond Market, pg. 106-108:

Unionblue

And a bit more,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

"...Children from one year to 18 months old are now worth about $100. That little fellow there", pointing to a boy about 7 or 8 years old, "I gave $400 for. That fellow", pointing to one about 18, "I gave $750 for last night after dark..."

"...The stock-farmer indifferent to enlarging his herd would be no more of an anomaly than was the planter that did not keep close count of his pickaninnies and rejoice in the profit that grew with them. They were his pride and appealed to his imagination. "All the little darkies by natural increase were net profit!" exclaimed an old lawyer in Natchez, the son of a rich ante-bellum planter. This was because on a farm or plantation the necessary outlay for their support (from birth until they reached 6 or 8 years of age, when they began to work and were readily salable or hired out) was hardly appreciable. Their food and scant clothing were the simplest and cheapest possible, and an ample average allowance was one-third as much as was given to a fieldhand, whose entire maintenance, according to liberal estimates, cost not more than $30 per year. In 1823, Madison expressed this opinion: "The annual expense of food and raiment in rearing a child, may be stated at about 8, 9, or 10 dollars; and the age at which it begins to be gainful to its owner, about 9 or 10 years. It was still less on a plantation in the lower South where the children were brooded by an old nurse.

Add to this petty cost the loss because the mother did not work for a month or two on account of child-bearing and there still remained room for an enormous per cent of profit on each child reared under favorable circumstances. Between 1830-1860, according to the year and the region, each babe in arms added from $100 to $200 or more to the value of its slave mother...

...In the spring of 1852, before the excitement over prices was general, an announcement that the slaves of a deceased planter in Wilcox county, Alabama, had been sold at auction for an average cash price of $700 and that an old slave above sixty years of age brought more than $1,000, was capped by this triumphant climax: "N*i*g*g*e*r*s are n*i*g*g*e*r*s now, especially the Atwood n*i*g*g*e*r*s." Two years later the Mongomery Journal reported what it called "the highest prices which we have ever noticed" for common fieldhands and children of the McLemore estate: 18 slaves, ten of whom were children of from 2 months to 7 years of age, sold for $14,195; a boy of 7 brought $760; one of 12, $710; a youth of 17, $1,374, and a woman of 37, with six children, from 2 to 7 years, $5,000...

From the book, Slave-Trading In The Old South, by Bancroft.

Unionblue

And more,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

"But what did Southerners closely associated with slavery say about slave-rearing? It is their evidence that is decisive.

An advertisement in Charleston, SC, in 1796, offering fifty prime negroes for sale contained these sentences:

"...they are not Negroes selected out of a larger gang for the purpose of a sale, but are prime, their present Owner, with great trouble and expense, selected them out of many for several years past. They were purchased for stock and breeding Negroes, and to any Planter a very choice and desirable gang." (U. B. Phillips (editior), 2 Plantation and Frontier, pg. 57)

At all times "breeding slaves," "child-bearing women," "breeding period," "too old to breed," etc., were familiar terms.

Slave-rearing early became the source of the largest and often the only regular profit of nearly all slaveholding farmers and of many planters in the upper South. Especially in Virginia, as Francis Corbin wrote in 1819, "miserabile dictu our principal profit depends" on the increase of our slaves. In a Virginia case in 1848, the Court said that "the scantiness of net profit from slave labor has become proverbial, and that nothing is more common than actual loss, or a benefit merely in the slow increase of capital from propagation..."

...From the Charleston Mercury of May 16, 1838, contained an advertisement the main features of which were as follows:

"A GIRL about 20 years of age (raised in Virginia, and her two female children, one 4 and the other 2 years old.) She is *** remarkably strong and healthy, never having had a day's sickness, with the exception of the small pox, in her life. The children are fine and healthy. She is very prolific in her generating qualities, and affords a rare opportunity for any person who wishes to raise a family of strong and healthy servants for their [his] own use. Sold at no fault"

A newspaper of high standing would not have accepted such an advertisement if there had been much sentiment against slave-breeding for profit...

Source: Slave-Trading In The Old South, by Bancroft.

Unionblue

And still more,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

From the book, Slave Trading in the Old South, by Frederic Bancroft, Chapter XVII, The Status Of Slave-Trading:

"In the Old South, slave-trading was as lawful as any other business. To have stopped it in any State would have made slavery there moribund. If the National Government had at any time before 1861 forbidden the interstate slave-trade, secession would have been precipitated in every Southern State, except Delaware. This was because such a prohibition would have been considered destructive of what was generally regarded as a vital part of the social and economic organization of the South. Slave-trading and slavery were mutually necessary.

The Charleston Mercury's assertion--that "slaves * * * are as much and as frequently articles of commerce as the sugar and molasses which they produce"--and Dr. Wyeth's opinion--that "the selling and buying of negroes was as common in the cotton-belt of the South at this period as the buying or selling of horses or cattle, or any other merchantable live product."--these truly described the general prevalence of slave-trading."

The rest of the chapter goes on to describe slave-traders as being looked upon as honest businessmen. "The business is conducted by him, and by other regular traders, in such a manner, that there is never any suspicion of unfairness in regard to their mode of acquiring slaves." Another line from the book states, "The most successful large slave-traders held their heads high, confidently proclaiming their own virtues and admitting no sins."

"When traders prospered, were honest, thrifty and bought plantations, like Forrest, the Woolfolks, Isaac Franklin and many others, they enjoyed the esentials of respectability."

"If honest and well-mannered traders had been hated, a judge of the highest character in Mississippi would hardly have volunteered the information that he had bought a slave of Forrest; nor would a judge in another State have written to the author: "He [a famous trader] was a personal friend of my father and first came to my attention * * * when he purchased * * * my nurse Emaline, which intensely excited my childish indigation." Nor ould those Virginia churches have paid their pastors for more than half a century by the hiring out of purchased slave girls and their numerous offspring. Nor would auctioneers, general agents, brokers and commission merchants so eagerly have engaged in slave-trading; nor would factors, bankers, investors and merchants, in their different ways, have been so ready to associate themselves with its financial operations. And how could it have been hateful to trade honestly in the most coveted and prestige-giving property, which guardians and trustees, by order of the courts, brough for widows and orphans? Moreover, if slave-trading, apart from the "n*i*g*g*e*r-trading" type had been hateful, how could there have been such widespread curiosity about high prices and such eagerness to speculate by buying slaves on credit, confident that the rapid rise in price together with the natural increase would produce an enormous percentage of profit?

...No less conclusive was the attitude of Southern newspapers. "The printer" or "the editor" was a willing intermediary, a mediating agent, and, for small sales, was often preferred to the regular trader or the formal agent when secrecy and economy were desired. The leading journals gratefully received and conspicuously displayed advertisements of regular traders and others to sell, buy or hire out slaves. All favorable phases of slave-trading were of prime interest to readers and, therefore, were welcome subjects for the ready editorial pen...

Where such things were possible, frequent and passed without causing comment, honest traders without offensive personal qualities could not have been hated. It all came to virtually to this: whatever respectable persons thought needful in buying or selling slaves was not viewed as having any taint of "hated" slave-trading; yet it early became a fully credited tradition, implicitly accepted generation after generation, that "all traders were hated.""

Submitted for your consideration,
Unionblue

For your further consideration,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

To All,

A few websites on the topic I would like to share.

Breeding a Nation, by Pamela D. Bridgewater.

http://www.southendpress.org/2007/items/87781

Slavery and the Old South.

http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/liba1...e_families.pdf

The Illicit Slave Trade.

http://multiracial.com/site/index2.p...o_pdf=1&id=461

Gynecological Resistance Within the Plantation Community.

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/ava...linethesis.pdf

Enjoy,
Unionblue

[ole]

Painful stuff to read, Blue. But thanks anyway.

Ole

[cash]

However the slave population was transferred where is the evidence for slave breeding?

Where is the supposed surplus of new births among slaves showing up at?

They're not in the 1850 census.

15 Southern States

Free
Females, ages 15-39.............1,255,537
Children under 1 yr of age.........186,517
Children (under 1) to Number of Females (ages 15-39) 14.86%

Slave
Females, ages 15-39................641,085
Children under 1 yr of age...........80,538
Children (under 1) to Number of Females (ages 15-39) 12.56%

http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-l...en.pl?year=850

You're only looking at one part of the equation. It's like you're looking at the number 7 and saying, "How is it that you get 10 out of that?" while ignoring the "+ 3" portion.

You have to look at how many slaves were needed in the labor force. Virginia had a surplus of slaves when compared to the number needed, which is why Virginia had a very lucrative part in the interstate slave trade.

Regards,
Cash

[sf46]

Yeah, Jimmy the Greek got in trouble for saying it, but it did happen. Slaves in some parts were treating very much like cattle to some extent. The traits of a big strong worker were preferrable.

[Scribe]

Didn't say it was, said it could be.... now that is nitpicking.... what I really meant is that thwhile the forced breakup of any family is inhuman, the older the children are when this happens MIGHT be less inhuman than the breakup of a family with small children.

there was nothing even remotely nice about slavery as practiced in the US

Rather than any humanity involved, I would think that the age a slave was sold was a function of demand side economics. Why would a planter want to buy a 1-year-old or a 5-year-old to feed while getting no work out of him? Better to wait till he's at least 11 or 12, big enough to be set to chopping cotton or whatever to contribute to the planter's bottom line.

[cash]

Rather than any humanity involved, I would think that the age a slave was sold was a function of demand side economics. Why would a planter want to buy a 1-year-old or a 5-year-old to feed while getting no work out of him? Better to wait till he's at least 11 or 12, big enough to be set to chopping cotton or whatever to contribute to the planter's bottom line.

Depends on the price difference, wouldn't you say? For example, if a 5-year-old could be had for $100 while a 12-year-old cost $500, that's a good purchase, since it only cost $20 a year to keep him alive, you pay $100 for the initial price plus $140 to get him to age 12 = $240, thus saving $260. Don't hold me to the purchase prices. They are arbitrary and used only for illustration. The $20 per year is accurate, though.

Regards,
Cash

[larry_cockerham]

Yeah, Jimmy the Greek got in trouble for saying it, but it did happen. Slaves in some parts were treating very much like cattle to some extent. The traits of a big strong worker were preferrable.

Yep, even though a young attractive potential mother could perhaps bear several children and make for a long-term return on investment, the work hand was much more highly valued on the market. This horrible activity was a business proposition, not a hobby. Shame on us all.

[Battalion]

You're only looking at one part of the equation. It's like you're looking at the number 7 and saying, "How is it that you get 10 out of that?" while ignoring the "+ 3" portion.

No, I'm looking at the entire equation. All 15 states with slaves. And note that the overall birthrate among slaves is lower (12.56 to 14.86) than that of the free population. Not much evidence for slave breeding.

If the slave birthrate was in the 20+ range you might have something...but you don't.

[OpnOlympic]

Well then,if K Hale's answer was insufficient, I repeat, from where were coming the slaves that fueled the explosive increase in the number of slaves in the West, compared to the older slave states in the East?

[cash]

No, I'm looking at the entire equation. All 15 states with slaves. And note that the overall birthrate among slaves is lower (12.56 to 14.86) than that of the free population. Not much evidence for slave breeding.

If the slave birthrate was in the 20+ range you might have something...but you don't.

The birth rate doesn't establish it. It's the amount of surplus slaves. You're looking at the wrong variable.

Regards,
Cash

[OpnOlympic]

It goes against good economic sense to Not include the value of ones slaves in the market place, in the normal business operations of slave owners in a slave based economy.
It is not good economics to let excess production capacity lay fallow., especially if there is a market for it somewhere else.

[dvrmte]

It seems if there were organized slave breeding for profit, it would've been more efficient to run them like puppy mills. I know it's appalling to think about but did it happen on that scale?
I raised hunting beagles for sale and sport. Some hear may know the lingo among hunting dog breeders. When speaking of good breeding bit*ches and the effeciency of stud dogs it sounds similiar to some of the postings here on slave breeding. When puppies are born, if a puppy seems slow, undersized or deformed, some breeders kill them immediately. I could never bring myself to do it unless to prevent unnecessary suffering of a hopeless case. I always gave away the runts or puppies that weren't up to par.
Most beagle breeders were humane in their treatment of the dogs. I know several who are not. They starve them prior to the running season to make them lean and hungry. Some have run their dogs to death or shot them for chasing deer.
I consider myself a breeder of healthy beagles with a quality hunting bloodline. I am poor at training them for hunting as I don't care if they run rabbit, deer, foxes, coyotes, or house cats. I just like to hear them run. I rarely take a gun and only do if I want a rabbit for the pot.

Just some food for thought.

Sincerely,
dvrmte

[cash]

It seems if there were organized slave breeding for profit, it would've been more efficient to run them like puppy mills. I know it's appalling to think about but did it happen on that scale?
I raised hunting beagles for sale and sport. Some hear may know the lingo among hunting dog breeders. When speaking of good breeding bit*ches and the effeciency of stud dogs it sounds similiar to some of the postings here on slave breeding. When puppies are born, if a puppy seems slow, undersized or deformed, some breeders kill them immediately. I could never bring myself to do it unless to prevent unnecessary suffering of a hopeless case. I always gave away the runts or puppies that weren't up to par.
Most beagle breeders were humane in their treatment of the dogs. I know several who are not. They starve them prior to the running season to make them lean and hungry. Some have run their dogs to death or shot them for chasing deer.
I consider myself a breeder of healthy beagles with a quality hunting bloodline. I am a poor at training them for hunting as I don't care if they run rabbit, deer, foxes, coyotes, or house cats. I just like to hear them run. I rarely take a gun and only do if I want a rabbit for the pot.

Just some food for thought.

Sincerely,
dvrmte

Off topic, but maybe of interest, there's a great book by Karen Pryor called _Don't Shoot the Dog._ It's about training, and its concepts can be used for training anything and anyone, from dogs and cats to human beings. I do a lot of training people in my work, and I found the book to be excellent.

Regards,
Cash