Slave law: How far can a master go in disciplining a slave? Nix v. State – Texas, 1855 (13 Tex. 575); Callihan v. Johnson – Texas, 1858 (22 Tex. 596)
Slave law: Manumission cases Jones v. Laney – Texas, 1847 (2 Tex. 342); Purvis v. Sherrod – Texas, 1854 (12 Tex. 140)
| ![]() Former slave with field horn, Marshall, Texas (1939) - courtesy Farm Security Administration and Wikimedia Commons
“The laws of this state interfere as little as possible with the delicate and responsible relation of master and slave. Much is left to the master’s judgment, discretion, and humanity. But … it is the recognized policy of … this state, to give to the lives and persons of slaves the utmost protection that may be consistent with the proper restrain to which slaves must, of necessity, be subject … [The criminal code] treats the slave as a human being, though in a servile condition. It recognizes his right to live, until an overwhelming necessity shall deprive him of life.” – Justice James Bell, in Callihan
"Constitutions, as well as Acts of the Legislature, restraining the natural right of the owner to dispose of his property as he pleased, should be clearly expressed, the intention to do so should never be presumed ... Although a State by its laws may absolutely prohibit emancipation, or direct the particular mode in which it can only be done, yet a bequest of freedom, not to take effect until the slave is removed beyond the territorial limits of such State, is nevertheless a valid bequest." - Justice Abner Lipscomb, in Purvis |
EMPIRE OF LAWS - The Legal History of the 50 American States > 7. SOUTHWEST LEGAL HISTORY > 7.1 Southwest Legal History: The Frontier Era (1820-1875) > 7.1.1. Southwest Legal History (1820-1875): The Civil Law Tradition > 7.1.2 Southwest Legal History (1820-1875): The Clash Between Common Law and Civil Law > 7.1.3 Southwest (1820-1875): New Resource Use Rules for a New Region > 7.1.4 Southwest (1820-1875): Race Relations in the Free Southwest >