Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T20:29:13.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“As if the Injury was Effected by the Natural Elements of Air, or Fire”: Slave Wrongs and the Liability of Masters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Thomas D. Morris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Discussion about slavery and law has been raised recently to a high level of abstraction, but important aspects of the relationship remain unexamined. Under what circumstances were masters held liable for the damage that resulted from the wrongs of slaves? The question of distributing the burdens of accidents is a matter of policy, and involves important questions of power and responsibility. But, within an historical context, the range of choices open to a society is neither infinite nor static. This study suggests that legal traditions, styles of reasoning, and, above all, social relationships and perceptions (including those between slaveholders and nonslaveholders) help unravel the policy choices Southerners made in the years before the Civil War.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , 1982 , pp. 569 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author wishes to thank Joel Grossman, Stewart Macaulay, and the unknown readers of earlier drafts of this article. Their acute criticisms and suggestions helped give it sharper focus and greater clarity. Their assistance has been much appreciated.

References

References

BARNEY, William L. (1972) The Road to Secession: A New Perspective on the Old South. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
BLACKSTONE, Sir William (1771-1773) Commentaries on the Laws of England (4 vols.). Philadelphia: Robert Bell Publisher.Google Scholar
BUCKLAND, William Warwick (1908) The Roman Law of Slavery: The Condition of the Slave in Private Law from Augustus to Justinian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
BURDICK, Francis M. (1911-1912) “Is Law the Expression of Class Selfishness,” 25 Harvard Law Review 349.Google Scholar
CALABRESI, Guido (1970) The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
CHANNING, Steven A. (1970) Crisis of Fear: Secession in South Carolina. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
CLARK, Blanche Henry (1942) The Tennessee Yeoman, 1840-1860. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
COBB, COBB Thomas Read (1858) An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United States of America. New York: Negro Universities Press.Google Scholar
EATON, Clement (1954) A History of the Southern Confederacy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
EHRLICH, Walter (1979) They Have No Rights: Dred Scott's Struggle for Freedom. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
FOUCAULT, Michel (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
FLANIGAN, Daniel J. (1974) “Criminal Procedure in Slave Trials in the Antebellum South,” 40 Journal of Southern History 537.Google Scholar
GENOVESE, Eugene D. (1974) Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
GENOVESE, Eugene D.(1975) “Yeoman Farmers in a Slaveholders' Democracy,” 49 Agricultural History 331.Google Scholar
HELPER, Hinton Rowan (1857) The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It. New York: A. B. Burdick.Google Scholar
HINDUS, Michael S. (1976) “Black Justice Under White Law: Criminal Prosecutions of Blacks in Antebellum South Carolina,” 63 Journal of American History 575.Google Scholar
HINDUS, Michael S. (1980) Prison and Plantation: Crime, Justice, and Authority in Massachusetts and South Carolina, 1767-1878. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
HOLMES, Oliver Wendell (1963) The Common Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. (Edited by Mark De Wolfe Howe.).Google Scholar
HORWITZ, Morton J. (1977) The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HOWINGTON, Arthur (1975) “‘Not in the Condition of a Horse or an Ox‘”: Ford v. Ford, the Law of Testamentary Manumission, and the Tennessee Courts Recognition of Slave Humanity,“ 34 Tennessee Historical Quarterly 249.Google Scholar
HURD, John Codman (1858-62) The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States (2 vols.). New York: Negro University Press.Google Scholar
JENKINS, Iredell (1980) Social Order and the Limits of Law: A Theoretical Essay. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KIER NASH, A. E. (1979) “Reason of Slavery: Understanding the Judicial Role in the Peculiar Institution,” 32 Vanderbilt Law Review 7.Google Scholar
MILLER, Perry (1962) The Legal Mind in America: From Independence to the Civil War. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
MILSOM, Stroud F. C. (1969) Historical Foundations of the Common Law. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
MOONEY, Chase C. (1957) Slavery in Tennessee. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
PROSSER, William L. (1964) Handbook of the Law of Torts. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
REID, John Phillip (1967) Chief Justice: The Judicial World of Charles Doe. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STAMPP, Kenneth (1965) The Era of Reconstruction, 1865-1877. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
STAMPP, Kenneth (1956) The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
SHUGG, Roger W. (1939) Origins of Class Struggle in Louisiana: A Social History of White Farmers and Laborers during Slavery and After, 1840-1875. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
STANFORD LAW REVIEW (1980) “Note: Strict Liability in Hybrid Cases,” 32 Stanford Law Review 391.Google Scholar
STONE, Julius (1966) Social Dimensions of Law and Justice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
TAYLOR, Orville W. (1958) Negro Slavery in Arkansas. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
TRAYNOR, Roger J. (1958) “Fact Skepticism and the Judicial Process,” 106 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 635.Google Scholar
TUSHNET, Mark (1975) “The American Law of Slavery, 1810-1860: A Study in the Persistance of Legal Autonomy,” 10 Law & Society Review 119.Google Scholar
TUSHNET, Mark (1981) The American Law of Slavery, 1810-1860: Considerations of Humanity and Interest. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
UPTON, Wheelock S. and Needier R., JENNINGS (1838) Civil Code of the State of Louisiana. New Orleans: Johns.Google Scholar
WEAVER, Herbert (1945) Mississippi Farmers, 1850-1860. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
WEBER, Max (1967) On Law in Economy and Society. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
WHEELER, Jacob D. (1837) A Practical Treatise on the Law of Slavery. New York: Negro Universities Press.Google Scholar
WHITE, G. Edward (1978) Patterns of American Legal Thought. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill.Google Scholar
WHITE, G. Edward (1980) Tort Law in America: An Intellectual History. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Boulard v. Calhoun, 13 La. Ann. 100, 1860.Google Scholar
Brandon v. Planter's & Mercant's Bank, 1 Stew. 320 Ala., 1828.Google Scholar
Campbell v. Staiert, 6 N.C. 286, 1818.Google Scholar
Cawthorn v. Deas, 2 Port. 279 Ala., 1835.Google Scholar
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peter 420, 1837.Google Scholar
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 150 P.2d 436, 1944.Google Scholar
Ewing v. Thompson, 13 Mo. 132, 1850.Google Scholar
Gaillardet v. Demaries, 18 La. 491, 1841.Google Scholar
Garrett v. Freeman, 50 N.C. 89, 1857.Google Scholar
Leggett v. Simmons, 7 Smedes & Marsh. 348 Miss., 1846.Google Scholar
Maille v. Blas, 15 La. Ann. 100, 1860.Google Scholar
McConnell v. Hardeman, 15 Ark. 157, 1854.Google Scholar
O'Connell v. Strong, Dudley 267-68 S.C., 1838.Google Scholar
Parham v. Blackwelder, 30 N.C. 326, 1848.Google Scholar
Snee v. Trice, 2 Bay 349 S.C., 1802.Google Scholar
Snee v. Trice, 1 Brevard 179 S.C., 1802.Google Scholar
State v. Mann, 2 Devereaux 263 N.C., 1829.Google Scholar
White v. Chambers, 2 Bay 70 S.C., 1796.Google Scholar
Wingis v. Smith, 3 McCord 400 S.C., 1825.Google Scholar
Wright v. Weatherly, 7 Yerger 367 Tenn., 1835.Google Scholar