Southern Slavery: Legal Or Criminal?

The Southern Argument for Slavery was a set of justifications for the practice of slavery, which was primarily located in the South by 1830. Southern slaveholders used biblical passages, economic arguments, historical precedent, and legal rulings to justify slavery. They also claimed that African Americans were biologically inferior and that slavery was a 'positive good' that brought Christianity to the 'heathen'. The Slave Codes, which were developed by all of the colonies, aimed to limit African social, economic, and political autonomy, as well as control the growth of a free African population. These laws, which were enforced by violence, defined slaves as property and restricted their freedom of movement, right to assemble, and ability to own firearms, among other things. While slavery was a national institution that benefited both the North and the South, it was the Southerners who championed federal institutions and expected the federal government to support slavery.

Were there any laws that protected slaves?

In the United States, the laws regarding slaves were referred to as "slave codes". These were enacted state by state and had been previously used by the British in the Caribbean. The slave codes were based on the concept that slaves were property, not persons. While slaves were expensive investments, there were some laws that protected slaves from their owners.

Initially, slaves had no protection from their owners. Killing a slave was not recognised as a crime until 1774 in North Carolina. The only protection a slave could claim was the legal right of the owner to seek compensation for their slave if they were killed. However, this was not intended as a punishment.

In 1774, North Carolina enacted a law that recognised the murder of a slave as a crime. On the first conviction of killing a slave, a person could be imprisoned for 12 months. A second conviction was punishable by death. In 1791, the law was changed to:

> "if any person shall hereafter be guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave such offender shall . . . suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free man."

However, this law did not provide for different classifications of homicide, namely murder and manslaughter. It wasn't until 1817 that the law was changed to properly provide legal protection to a slave's life.

Despite this legislation, extenuating circumstances and the judgement of the court made every case different. For example, in State v. Weaver in 1798, the murder of a slave was justified as the master was attempting to enforce obedience. Forty years later, in 1839, the court ruled that murder was not justified if it occurred through excessive punishment. The court qualified this by saying that while punishment was necessary, if a slave owner was found to have used "barbarous and immoderate" punishment, they would be found guilty.

In less extreme cases, the North Carolina State Supreme Court ruled that "a Party having no authority over the Negro" could be indicted for assault. This protected slaves from being attacked by white men who were not their owners. Their owners could not be indicted for assaulting slaves, unless they killed them, in which case it became excessive punishment.

In summary, while slaves were considered property and there were few legal protections for them, there were some laws in place that offered some protection from their owners.

Did slave owners break the law by separating families?

Slave owners in the United States did break the law by separating families. While there was no law that explicitly prohibited the separation of enslaved families, slaves were considered property, and as such, their owners were legally obligated to respect the sanctity of the slave's marriage bed. However, this was not always the case, and slave owners frequently separated families by selling members away from their spouses, parents, and children. This practice was a direct violation of the basic human rights and family bonds that are inherent to all people, regardless of their legal status.

The separation of enslaved families was a common occurrence in the United States, with an estimated 10 to 20 percent of slave marriages being destroyed by the sale of one or both spouses. In many cases, slave spouses lived apart, as large slaveholders often owned multiple plantations and frequently shifted their slaves between them. Even when spouses were not sold away from each other, they often resided on separate plantations and were only able to visit each other at the discretion of their respective owners.

The vulnerability of slave families to separation was exacerbated by the fact that slave marriages and family ties were not recognized by American law. This meant that slave owners had no legal obligation to keep families together and could sell them away from each other with impunity. As a result, over a third of all slave children grew up in households where one or both parents were absent, and about a quarter grew up in single-parent households, usually with their mothers.

The separation of enslaved families had devastating consequences for those affected. Children who were separated from their parents at a young age often struggled to form secure attachments and experienced significant emotional trauma. Spouses who were sold away from each other were left grieving and struggling to cope with the loss of their partner. The constant threat of separation also took a toll on the mental health and well-being of enslaved people, as they lived with the perpetual fear of losing their loved ones.

In addition to the emotional toll, the separation of enslaved families also had practical consequences. Enslaved people who were separated from their families often had to take on additional work to make up for the lost labour, further exacerbating the exploitation and dehumanization they endured. Furthermore, the separation of families disrupted the social and cultural fabric of enslaved communities, making it more difficult for them to resist and rebel against their oppressors.

While some slave owners may have been reluctant to separate families, economic needs or the death of an owner often led to the sale of spouses, parents, or children. The practice was driven by the financial interests of slave owners, who viewed their slaves as commodities to be bought and sold for profit, without regard for the human rights and family bonds that should have been respected.

Did slave owners break the law by restricting slaves' freedom of movement?

Slave owners did break the law by restricting slaves' freedom of movement. In the 17th century, slaves in Virginia could take their masters to court over disputes, but this changed with the introduction of slave codes in 1705. These slave codes, or "Black Codes", were developed by all colonies to establish and maintain dominance over African members of society. They aimed to limit African social, economic, and political autonomy, as well as to control the growth of a free African population.

The slave codes of 1705 stated that slaves were the property of their owners and could be punished or killed without legal repercussions. They also meant that slaves could not leave their owner's premises without permission. Slave owners could legally prevent slaves from assembling unless a white person was present, and they could not own firearms. Curfews were also imposed on slaves, and vigilante committees patrolled the roads, dispensing summary justice to wayward slaves.

Slave owners' ability to restrict the movement of slaves was further supported by the Fugitive Slave Act, which required the return of runaway slaves. This was justified by the Bible, which was used by Southern preachers to defend the morality of slavery.

Did slave owners break the law by preventing slaves from striking a white person?

The "Slave Codes", "Black Codes", and "Code Noir" were bodies of law developed by all of the colonies to establish and maintain dominance over African members of society. These laws aimed to limit African social, economic, and political autonomy, as well as to control the growth of a free African population.

In the Southern colonies, the rights of Africans were sharply reduced. Through a series of increasingly restrictive slave codes and the prevention of private manumission, slaveholders slowly consolidated their control over the unpaid African labor force. The transformation of Negro servants into Negro slaves was completed with the Virginia General Assembly's passage of the Slave Codes of 1705, which removed any uncertainty and sealed the fate of Africans and their progeny for generations to come.

The Slave Codes of 1705 stated that:

> "All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resist his master...correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened."

Under these codes, slaves were considered property and were treated as such. They could not testify in court against a white person, make contracts, leave the plantation without permission, strike a white person (even in self-defense), buy and sell goods, own firearms, gather without a white person present, possess any anti-slavery literature, or visit the homes of whites or free blacks.

Therefore, slave owners did not break the law by preventing slaves from striking a white person. In fact, this was a specific provision included in the Slave Codes to maintain the dominance of whites over Africans and to protect the property of slave owners.

Did slave owners break the law by treating slaves as property?

The treatment of slaves as property was a foundational aspect of the American slave system. Slave owners did not break the law by treating slaves as property, as a variety of laws and social customs were created to establish and maintain dominance over African members of society. These laws, known as "Slave Codes," "Black Codes," and "Code Noir," aimed to limit African social, economic, and political autonomy, as well as control the growth of a free African population.

The premise of chattel slavery in America was that slaves were property, not persons, and that the law must protect the property and the property owner from the danger of violence. The Slave Codes made slavery a permanent condition, inherited through the mother, and defined slaves as the property of their owner. As property, slaves could not own property, enter into contracts, or have any legal standing. They were subject to the complete control of their owners and could be bought, sold, or traded at will.

The treatment of slaves as property was enforced by violence, both actual and threatened. Slaves who defied their owners or attempted to escape faced brutal punishments, including whippings, torture, mutilation, imprisonment, and even death. The killing of a slave was rarely regarded as murder, and the rape of a slave woman was treated as a form of trespassing.

The Southern slave system was built on the idea that slaves were property, and this was enforced through a combination of legal codes, social customs, and violence. While individual slave owners did not break the law by treating slaves as property, the institution of slavery itself was a violation of the fundamental human rights and dignity of the enslaved people.

Frequently asked questions