e expression or provision, and it consistently
held that the term should be construed as embracing slaves.[300]
Gradually the personal property conception began to secure even legal
precedence over that of real estate when the two interpretations came
into close conflict. This was accomplished by placing more stress on
the proviso in the original slave code, which placed slaves in the
hands of the administrator as assets for the payment of debts. This
led to increasing power for the executor who could even defeat the
title of the heirs, though the property may have been specifically
devised. Hence it was not surprising that in the Revised Statutes of
1852 it was provided that slaves should thereafter be deemed and held
as personal estate. Coming after all doubt of the personalty of slaves
had been removed by the decisions of the highest tribunal in the
State, this law meant little more than the repeal of the old statute
making slaves real estate.

The wonder is that Kentucky should have chosen to hold to an
antiquated legal conception for fifty years after Virginia had proved
its fallacy by her experience in the eighteenth century. While it did
little harm, it had few advantages. The existence of the theory was
chiefly noticeable in the frequent legal battles over technicalities
in the settlement of estates. In the popular mind slaves were always
considered personal property, and the spirit of the slave code itself
embodied that conception as regarded all things save the question of
inheritance.

With respect to the liberty of the slaves the code of 1798 clearly
shows that the existing type of slavery was purely rural, for the
restrictions on slaves concerned only the plantation Negroes. Strictly
understood, the slave was not to leave the farm of his owner without a
pass from his master, the main purpose being to keep the Negroes from
congregating on any one farm. Later when emissaries from the North
became unusually active the rights and privileges of the slaves were
further restricted. This change was due to the current belief that
these foreign individuals were bent upon stirring up strife among the
slaves and inciting them to insurrection. Once started such a scheme
would have resulted in anarchy especially in the towns. The real
curbing provisions were not started until along in the thirties when
these outside forces had begun to make their appearance in the urban
communities.[301]

In some parts of the State w