Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Negro Laws of South Carolina 1848

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Negro Laws of South Carolina 1848

    For context in the debate about the Civil War it is worthwhile to understand the conditions of society and there is no better starting place to start then South Carolina.
    These are laws under which Negros lived.

    https://archive.org/details/negrolawofsouthc00onea
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

  • #2
    New Alabama Constitution of 1861

    Section 1. No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country.

    Section 2. The humane treatment of slaves shall be secured by law.

    Section 3. Laws may be enacted to prohibit the introduction into this State, of slaves who have committed high crimes in other States or territories, and to regulate or prevent the introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise.

    Section 4. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, of a higher grade than petit larceny, the General Assembly shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petiti jury.

    Section 5. Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave.
    的 do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
    --Salmon P. Chase

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Savez View Post
      New Alabama Constitution of 1861

      Section 1. No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country.

      Section 2. The humane treatment of slaves shall be secured by law.

      Section 3. Laws may be enacted to prohibit the introduction into this State, of slaves who have committed high crimes in other States or territories, and to regulate or prevent the introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise.

      Section 4. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, of a higher grade than petit larceny, the General Assembly shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petiti jury.

      Section 5. Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave.
      So you could dismember slaves if they tried to become free.

      Interesting.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        So you could dismember slaves if they tried to become free.

        Interesting.
        Brand them, dismember them, lynch them, starve them.
        Some people still think of it as The Good Old Days",
        A scary thought.
        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
          Brand them, dismember them, lynch them, starve them.
          Some people still think of it as The Good Old Days",
          A scary thought.
          Some think of the owners as being 'kind'.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Savez View Post
            New Alabama Constitution of 1861

            Section 1. No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country.

            Section 2. The humane treatment of slaves shall be secured by law.

            Section 3. Laws may be enacted to prohibit the introduction into this State, of slaves who have committed high crimes in other States or territories, and to regulate or prevent the introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise.

            Section 4. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes, of a higher grade than petit larceny, the General Assembly shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petiti jury.

            Section 5. Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave.
            "Facts don't matter because slavery was bad."
            {}

            "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              So you could dismember slaves if they tried to become free.

              Interesting.
              No. Runaways were not dismembered.
              的 do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
              --Salmon P. Chase

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                Brand them, dismember them, lynch them, starve them.
                Some people still think of it as The Good Old Days",
                A scary thought.
                Obviously you could not dismember, lynch, or starve a slave. It was against the law.
                的 do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                --Salmon P. Chase

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                  "Facts don't matter because slavery was bad."
                  Yep.
                  的 do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                  --Salmon P. Chase

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Savez View Post
                    Obviously you could not dismember, lynch, or starve a slave. It was against the law.
                    Was anyone ever prosecuted for killing a slave in the South?

                    I remember a British slave owner in the Carabean was hung for killing one of his slaves in the early c19th.
                    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "...the Tennessee legislature moved to prevent a recurrence of vigilante action in any future insurrectionary panics. A law passed in March 1858 required circuit or criminal court judges to open court immediately, impanel a grand jury to hand down indictments, and proceed at once with regular trials of any blacks accused of revolutionary activity. Guilt or innocence was to be decided by a jury of twelve men."


                      "Black Ironworkers and the Slave Insurrection Panic of 1856" by Charles B. Dew, The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Aug., 1975), pp. 321-338
                      的 do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                      --Salmon P. Chase

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                        "Facts don't matter because slavery was bad."
                        The irony of this statement.
                        The muffled drums sad roll has beat the soldier's last tatoo. No more on life's parade shall meet that brave and fallen few.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's not that slavery wasn't oppressive and unrighteous, it's just the fact that simply throwing slave codes of one southern state out while ignoring those of others along with the black codes of Northern States and not examing slave law and cases singularly and over time.

                          "...between 1776 and 1830 the slaves of North Carolina received many valuable privileges before the law. Among these were the privileges of trial by jury, challenge of jurors, and appeal;protection by statute law from homicide; personal security under the provisions of the common law; appeal to the Governor for clemency in capital convictions; and benefit of clergy. It is to the credit of the people of North Carolina that these privileges were not taken from the slaves even during the years 1845 to 1860, when the national debate over slavery became increasingly bitter. During these years the lower courts displayed a tendency toward stricter enforcement of the code, but the number of reversals of lower court decisions by the State SupremeCourt testifies to the fact that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of the slaves before the law throughout the ante-bellum period. Probably by 1860 the Supreme Court was more generoustoward slaves than was the society in which the Court functioned.
                          The severity of the slave code is often attacked as unreasonable and as proof of the condition of fear in which the white people of the South lived. Certainly the slave code canvassed the activities of slaves thoroughly. By 1860 slaves in North Carolina could not legally bear arms, be taught to read or write, assemble without written permission, or leave their place of residence without permission from the master. But it is true that most provisions of the code were not regularly enforced. The people of North Carolina enforced only as much of the slave code as seemed necessary at a given time. This was due in part to the difficulty of enforcement. The State was sparsely settled, and nothing short of chains could have prevented the unauthorized as sembling of slaves in the woods and byways of the countryside. More over, enforcement officers were not given to over-exertion when there was not unusual need for rigorousenforcement of the law. General dis content among the slaves was rare and violent uprisings few. Usually the slaves went about their tasks in their slow and inefficient way. If by night they left the plantation without a pass to visit a friend on a nearby farm, or congregated in a patch of pines for a "social bout," this only served to keep them contented and required no enforcement of laws against such activities. The intense individualism of the average Carolina farmer alsomade enforcement of the code difficult. If a master needed a slave who could read, he would instruct one of them without much regard for the law. This was true of any task or trade which the master wished his slaves to learn. The master felt that his farm was his own domain, and the instruction of his slaves a private concern. This individualism served in some instances to prevent the full operation of laws designed to protect slaves. A master often meted outpunishment in such measure as hethought necessary, and if it were excessive and cruel, the privacy of the act often protected him from prosecution. There was much oppression and brutality in the slave regime although one may say with U. B. Phillips, "where in the struggling world are these absent?" The sweeping statements that Negroes had no rights in the Old South, or that white men were rarely punished for crimes against slaves can no longer be accepted. At least in antebellum North Carolina these statements do not apply, and the time has come to turn from generalizations to a study of the legal documents available throughout the area which comprised the slaveholding South."
                          Clark, Ernest James. 鄭SPECTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SLAVE CODE, 1715-1860.*The North Carolina Historical Review39.2 (1962): 148164
                          Last edited by Savez; 24 Mar 16, 08:16.
                          的 do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                          --Salmon P. Chase

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Texas Constitution 1845

                            ARTICLE VIII.

                            Slaves.

                            SEC. 1. The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, nor without paying their owners, previous to such emancipation, a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to this State from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any of the United States, so long as any person of the same age or description shall be continued in slavery by the laws of this State: Provided, That such slave be the bona fide property of such emigrants: Provided, also, That laws shall be passed to inhibit the introduction into this State of slaves who have committed high crimes in other States or Territories. They shall have the right to pass laws to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and preventing them from becoming a public charge. They shall have full power to pass laws which will oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity; to provide for their necessary food and clothing; to abstain from all injuries to them, extending to life or limb; and, in case of their neglect or refusal to comply with the directions of such laws, to have such slave or slaves taken from such owner and sold for the benefit of such owner or owners. They may pass laws to prevent slaves from being brought into this State as merchandise only.

                            SEC. 2. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes of a higher grade than petit larceny, the legislature shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by a petit jury.

                            SEC. 3. Any person who shall maliciously dismember, or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed upon a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection by such slave
                            的 do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                            --Salmon P. Chase

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by hellboy30 View Post
                              The irony of this statement.
                              Yeah its always 'Slavery was Bad. BUT.....

                              Then its either an attempt to try to side-step the issue or minimize the bad in the face of overwhelming proof of the utter horror of the institution.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X