If their fellow slaves had run away then the slave owner would not allow his or her other slaves to assist them, because they might have led the owner in a wrong direction to make sure the runaway wasn't ever brought in to justice.
In short, no, because they couldn't trust the other slaves not to mislead them.
Bloodhounds were commonly used to pick up the scent of slaves and to track them down. Slave owners somtimes hired mercenaries or Bounty Hunters to retreive slaves.
Slave maker ants steal the larvae of other ants to keep as slaves for home building and hunters for food. These slave maker ants are crucial to the survival of other ants, that are unable to do anything but fight.
Disfigurement was used as a means of marking slaves as belonging to a particular owner. That would be useful to help recover runaway slaves and to discourage other masters from stealing slaves.
The simple answer for this question would be Slave hunters or Slave catchers..
the slave owner would make sure to keep the slave only in his property.
someone who hunts slaves
Slave catchers
fugitive slave act
no.slaves can not own other slaves!
Bloodhounds were commonly used to pick up the scent of slaves and to track them down. Slave owners somtimes hired mercenaries or Bounty Hunters to retreive slaves.
If a slave was important enough it was likely that he or she did own personal slaves
No. They sold slaves for money or other slaves (conning an unhealthy slave for a healthy one).
The Fugitive Slave Act.
If they tried to escape in the day there slave masters would see them and call for help to catch the slave
Slave masters needed to catch more slaves to make more money. They sold slaves for money. Their wealth was decided by the number and quality of slaves they had in stock. Sometimes, if they had farms, the more slaves that worked on the farms, the better.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
You could catch diesels from the slaves that you are trading!