Slave Laws of the Period:
A Relaxed Approach to Emancipation in the Frontier Southwest Harry v. Decker - Mississippi, 1818 (1 Miss. 36); Lunsford v. Coquillon – Louisiana, 1824 (2 Martin N.S. 401)
Who Is Free, Who A Slave in Louisiana? The Saga of Adelaide Metayer Beard v. Poydras – Louisiana, 1816 (4 Martin O.S. 348); Metayer v. Noret – Louisiana, 1818 (5 Martin O.S. 566); Metayer v. Metayer – Louisiana, 1819 (6 Martin O.S. 16)
| “Would … not [refusal to recognize that slaves who go to a free state become free] defeat the great object of the general government? … Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in matters of doubt, is it not an unquestioned rule, that courts must lean in favorem vitae et libertatis.” – Mississippi Supreme Court, in Harry “It [freedom] can work injury to no one, for the principle acts only on the willing [owners].” – Justice Francois-Xavier Martin, in Lunsford“[N]o foreign court will presume to pronounce that unlawful which, through a course of political events, has been sanctioned by the supreme authority of the country [Haiti]… [We will not] enter … into this very delicate subject [emancipation] any further.” – Justice Pierre Derbigny, in Metayer v. Metayer |
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 6. DEEP SOUTH LEGAL HISTORY > 6.2 Deep South: The Early Republican Era (1803-1831) > 6.2.1 Deep South (1803-1831): Common Law Versus Civil Law >