[Vision2020] Aaaaaa! Slavery!
Joshua Nieuwsma
joshuahendrik@yahoo.com
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
--0-869162728-1066091911=:42055
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
For all you research-oriented Visioneers, esp. Ms. Huskey,
Here are some quotes from the Auburn Alabama University records of THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT ON SLAVES, rulings made during the 1800's on slaves and slavery issues. Website: http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/slaves.htm
I present these quotes to show that contrary to public opinion, there was often justice upheld for slaves, per the laws of each individual state (northern states included). And I summarize these quotes in bold text, as well as emphasizing within the quotes occasionally with bold text. Notice the various subjects that came up in Alabama court -murder of slaves, mistreatment of slaves, manumission of slaves. None of this is offered in defense of mistreatment of the slaves, which some of these quotes document.
Between statehood and the end of the Civil War, the Alabama Supreme Court rendered numerous decisions on slavery. Most of them pertained to slaves as property, for property they were. Nevertheless, the law recognized slaves as persons under some circumstances, most notably when they were victims or perpetrators of crimes. These notes on decisions, arranged in topical order, reflect the variety of legal issues regarding slaves. They do not necessarily represent the norm of slavery, but rather what the court thought the norm should be. Of course, the original cases appeared in the Alabama Reports and may be located there.This is not an exhaustive bibliography, but it does include most of the cases found in the Alabama Digest.For a more exhaustive list of cases, see Helen T. Catterall, Judicial Cases Concerning American Slavery, vol. III (Washington, 1926-1937), pp. 126-282.
Overseer Convicted of Murder: An overseer named Flanigin whipped Jacob and beat him with the whip handle. Shortly thereafter, Jacob died. The physician who performed the post mortem stated that the body evidenced stripes and blows inflicted "with great violence," which, altogether, could have caused death. The judge instructed the jury that they could find Flanigin guilty of first degree murder, which carried the death penalty, or second-degree murder, which carried a minimum prison term of ten years. The jury found Flanigin guilty of second-degree murder. Flanigin’s attorney objected that the charge to the jury implied that the judge considered the prisoner guilty of first degree, but would be satisfied with second degree. On appeal, Judge Collier affirmed the conviction. State v Flanigin, 5 Alabama 477 (1843).
Owner Accused of Failure to Provide Necessities: A Lowndes County grand jury indicted Randall Cheek for the mistreatment of his slaves, which carried a $25 to $1,000 fine under Section 3506 of the code. Specifically, the indictment charged him with failure to provide adequate food, clothing, and medical care. Cheek’s overseer testified that by the summer of 1858 no meat remained on the plantation. The defendant offered to prove that in December 1858, he had butchered thirty-two hogs to feed the plantation, but the court did not allow this evidence. For this reason, Judge A.J. Walker reversed and remanded the decision. Cheek v State, 38 Alabama 227 (1862).
Slave Dies After Knifing Temporary Master: Samuel Nelson hired a slave named Sam for the year 1850. One Saturday night, late in April, Sam requested a pass to visit his wife. Nelson instructed his overseer to have Sam wait until the next morning, as the creek was high and might be dangerous to cross at night. Sam left that night, anyway. When the overseer went into the field Monday morning, Sam picked up a club, put it under his arm, and returned to the home of his master, John F. Bondurant. Bondurant whipped Sam and had him returned to Nelson, who took him by the collar. Sam then pulled a knife and cut Nelson in several places. Nelson called for his wife to bring a rope, but Sam cut her in the face and attempted to stab a slave woman who came to her relief. Nelson then threw Sam to the ground, where his head struck a root or stump. Finally, Sam was bound hand and foot and whipped. All this took place on Monday morning. The following Sunday, Sam died. Several doctors testifi!
ed at the
trial. Those for Bondurant said that Nelson’s whipping could have killed him. Those for Nelson said the blow to the head could have done the same. The court charged the jury that if they believed Nelson’s whipping alone, or in combination with other injuries, killed Sam, who was then bound and helpless, then the defendant would be liable for his value. On appeal, Judge Goldthwaite remanded the case. Sam’s being bound was irrelevant. The question was whether or not the punishment was barbarous or cruel. Nelson v Bondurant, 26 Alabama 341 (1855).
Slave's Son Ruled Free: A resident of Delaware bequeathed freedom to a slave named Phillis, provided she remained in bondage until age thirty-one. She went to Tennessee during the period of her servitude and there gave birth to a child. Under the laws of Tennessee, the child would become free when the mother became free. Before that happened, however, the boy was sold and taken into Alabama. Judge Ormond honored the law of Tennessee, but noted that in Alabama the child would have remained a slave. Sidney v White, 12 Alabama 728 (1848).
Manumission Popular Among Owners of Slaves: Alabama’s 1819 Constitution empowered the legislature "to pass laws to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them." Under this provision, masters routinely petitioned the legislature to liberate individual slaves, normally for long, faithful, and meritorious service. By 1834 the demand had become so great that the legislature delegated this authority to the county courts, further providing that slaves so emancipated leave the state within one year, their freedom to take effect upon departure. link to essay: http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/manumission/manu-txt.htm
Slave's Rights Under Alabama Law: The law...treated slaves as persons when they were victims of crimes, such as assault, cruel punishment, and other forms of mistreatment, but as far as their civil status was concerned, they were "mere" property.
Read more at the website: http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/slaves.htm
cheers!
Joshua Nieuwsma
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
--0-869162728-1066091911=:42055
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>For all you research-oriented Visioneers, esp. Ms. Huskey,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here are some quotes from the Auburn Alabama University records of T<FONT size=2>HE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT ON SLAVES, rulings made during the 1800's on slaves and slavery issues. Website: <A href="http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/slaves.htm">http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/slaves.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I present these quotes to show that contrary to public opinion, there was often justice upheld for slaves, per the laws of each individual state (northern states included). And I summarize these quotes in bold text, as well as emphasizing within the quotes occasionally with bold text. Notice the various subjects that came up in Alabama court -murder of slaves, mistreatment of slaves, manumission of slaves. None of this is offered in defense of mistreatment of the slaves, which some of these quotes document. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0.5in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><EM>Between statehood and the end of the Civil War, the Alabama Supreme Court rendered numerous decisions on slavery. Most of them pertained to slaves as property, for property they were. <STRONG>Nevertheless, the law recognized slaves as persons under some circumstances, most notably when they were victims or perpetrators of crimes.</STRONG> These notes on decisions, arranged in topical order, reflect the variety of legal issues regarding slaves. <STRONG>They do not necessarily represent the norm of slavery, but rather what the court thought the norm should be.</STRONG> Of course, the original cases appeared in the Alabama Reports and may be located there.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN>This is not an exhaustive bibliography, but it does include most of the cases found in the Alabama Digest.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN>For a more exhau!
stive
list of cases, see Helen T. Catterall, Judicial Cases Concerning American Slavery, vol. III (Washington, 1926-1937), pp. 126-282.</EM></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Overseer Convicted of Murder:<EM> </EM></STRONG><EM>An overseer named Flanigin whipped Jacob and beat him with the whip handle. Shortly thereafter, Jacob died. The physician who performed the post mortem stated that the body evidenced stripes and blows inflicted "with great violence," which, altogether, could have caused death. <STRONG>The judge instructed the jury that they could find Flanigin guilty of first degree murder, which carried the death penalty, or second-degree murder, which carried a minimum prison term of ten years</STRONG>. The jury found Flanigin guilty of second-degree murder. Flanigin’s attorney objected that the charge to the jury implied that the judge considered the prisoner guilty of first degree, but would be satisfied with second degree. On appeal, Judge Collier affirmed the conviction. State v Flanigin, 5 Alabama 477 (1843). </EM></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><STRONG>Owner Accused of Failure to Provide Necessities: </STRONG><EM>A Lowndes County grand jury indicted Randall Cheek for the mistreatment of his slaves, which carried a $25 to $1,000 fine under Section 3506 of the code. <STRONG>Specifically, the indictment charged him with failure to provide adequate food, clothing, and medical care.</STRONG> Cheek’s overseer testified that by the summer of 1858 no meat remained on the plantation. The defendant offered to prove that in December 1858, he had butchered thirty-two hogs to feed the plantation, but the court did not allow this evidence. For this reason, Judge A.J. Walker reversed and remanded the decision. Cheek v State, 38 Alabama 227 (1862). </EM></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><STRONG>Slave Dies After Knifing Temporary Master: </STRONG><EM>Samuel Nelson hired a slave named Sam for the year 1850. One Saturday night, late in April, Sam requested a pass to visit his wife. Nelson instructed his overseer to have Sam wait until the next morning, as the creek was high and might be dangerous to cross at night. Sam left that night, anyway. When the overseer went into the field Monday morning, Sam picked up a club, put it under his arm, and returned to the home of his master, John F. Bondurant. Bondurant whipped Sam and had him returned to Nelson, who took him by the collar. <STRONG>Sam then pulled a knife and cut Nelson in several places.</STRONG> Nelson called for his wife to bring a rope, but Sam cut her in the face and attempted to stab a slave woman who came to her relief. <STRONG>Nelson then threw Sam to the ground, where his head struck a root or stump.</STRONG> Finally, Sam was bound hand and foot and whipped. All this took place on Monday mornin!
g. The
following Sunday, Sam died. Several doctors testified at the trial. Those for Bondurant said that Nelson’s whipping could have killed him. Those for Nelson said the blow to the head could have done the same. The court charged the jury that if they believed Nelson’s whipping alone, or in combination with other injuries, killed Sam, who was then bound and helpless, then the defendant would be liable for his value. On appeal, Judge Goldthwaite remanded the case. Sam’s being bound was irrelevant. <STRONG>The question was whether or not the punishment was barbarous or cruel.</STRONG> </EM><A href="http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/hire/nelson.htm"><EM>Nelson v Bondurant, 26 Alabama 341</EM></A><EM> (1855). </EM></P></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Slave's Son Ruled Free: </STRONG><EM>A resident of Delaware bequeathed freedom to a slave named Phillis, provided she remained in bondage until age thirty-one. She went to Tennessee during the period of her servitude and there gave birth to a child. Under the laws of Tennessee, the child would become free when the mother became free. Before that happened, however, the boy was sold and taken into Alabama. Judge Ormond honored the law of Tennessee, but noted that in Alabama the child would have remained a slave. Sidney v White, 12 Alabama 728 (1848). </EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Manumission Popular Among Owners of Slaves: </STRONG><EM>Alabama’s 1819 Constitution empowered the legislature "to pass laws to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them." Under this provision, masters routinely petitioned the legislature to liberate individual slaves, normally for long, faithful, and meritorious service. <STRONG>By 1834 the demand had become so great that the legislature delegated this authority to the county courts, further providing that slaves so emancipated leave the state within one year, their freedom to take effect upon departure.</STRONG> </EM>link to essay<STRONG>:</STRONG> <A href="http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/manumission/manu-txt.htm">http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/manumission/manu-txt.htm</A></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Slave's Rights Under Alabama Law: </STRONG><EM><STRONG>The law...treated slaves as persons when they were victims of crimes</STRONG>, such as assault, cruel punishment, and other forms of mistreatment, but as far as their civil status was concerned, they were "mere" property</EM>.</P>
<DIV>Read more at the website: <A href="http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/slaves.htm">http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/slaves.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>cheers!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joshua Nieuwsma</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://shopping.yahoo.com/?__yltc=s%3A150000443%2Cd%3A22708228%2Cslk%3Atext%2Csec%3Amail">The New Yahoo! Shopping</a> - with improved product search
--0-869162728-1066091911=:42055--