Slave law: How far can a master go in disciplining a slave? Ex parte Boylston – South Carolina, 1846 (2 Strobhart 41); Gillan v. Senter – Alabama, 1846 (9 Ala. 395); Oliver v. State – Mississippi, 1860 (39 Miss. 526)
Slave law: The tide turns against slaves in “sojourn” cases Marie Louise v. Marot – Louisiana, 1836 (9 La. 473); Barclay v. Sewell – Louisiana, 1857 (12 La. Ann. 262); Shaw v. Brown – Mississippi, 1858 (35 Miss. 246); Mitchell v. Wells – Mississippi, 1859 (37 Miss. 235); Willis v. Jolliffe – South Carolina, 1860 (11 Richardson Equity 447)
| “The various negro Acts … contemplate throughout the subordination of the servile class to every free white person, and enforce the stern policy which the relation of master and slave necessarily requires … It must be presumed that the discretion of the Court will be wisely exercised, according to the circumstances of every case: distinguishing, for instance, between a case where a white person has, by familiarity, encouraged insolence, and a case where a rebellious temper has broken forth against one whose conduct as well as station was entitled to respect and submission.” – Justice David Wardlaw, in Boylston "[I]f the master … be resisted by his slave, then the master may use just such force as may be requisite to reduce his slave to obedience, even to the death of the slave, if that become necessary to preserve the master’s life, or to maintain his lawful authority. Unconditional submission and obedience to the lawful commands and authority of the master is the imperative duty of the slave, as well as the undoubted right of the master.” – Justice __, in Oliver “It is not consistent with … comity …, that the co-States should determine for South Carolina and the rest, that a sentient and intelligent thing shall not be deemed a chattel in the South, because it is likewise a person. The stipulation that the citizen of one State shall have all his privileges in all the States, has lost its savor and its vigor.” - Chancellor David Wardlaw, in Willis “I should feel myself degraded if, like some in Ohio and other abolition States, I trampled on law and const, in obedience to popular will.” – Chief Justice John B. O’Neall, reversing Wardlaw “[A]ll laws of other states … in opposition to our public policy, are void within the limits of Mississippi, whatever validity they may be allowed elsewhere … Suppose that Ohio …… afflicted with a negro-mania … claimed to confer citizenship on the chimpanzee or the orang-outang … are we to be told that ‘comity’ will require of the States not thus demented [by emancipation sentiment], to … lower their own citizens and institutions in the scale of being, to meet the necessities of the mongrel race thus attempted to be introduced into the family of sisters in this confederacy?” – Justice William Harris, in Mitchell |
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 6. DEEP SOUTH LEGAL HISTORY > 6.3 Deep South: The Antebellum Era (1831-1861) > 6.3.1 Deep South (1831-1861): The Nullification Crisis >