Holmes viewpoints on Legal

I found Holmes viewpoints on Legal Principals and Legal Agents to be quite intriguing. How come it’s fair for the slaves to be dependable enough to be legal agents when it comes to business matters but cant be a legal principal because the law?

I also do agree that when it comes to the law, Holmes is a pragmatist. When needed to be swapped, of those who demanded their services, according to Holmes, that is when legal agents are sent out.  When a service needed to be fulfilled or anything of that sort, then the slaves were considered “legal agent.” But keep it mind, this was only for some of the slaves, not all.

When the slave owners would send out their slaves to fulfill their duty, it’s all because of their contract. These slave owners had so much trust in the contract thinking it would hold them some sort of legitimacy that the slave could be considered their “legal agent,” just so they can deal with all their business responsibilities for them.

Overall, I don’t agree with anything because I don’t believe in the word “slave” anyways. This topic is something I’m very passionate about and think its just a shame overall. It’s a shame to know how life was like back then. No one deserves to be a slave or considered as one. We are all one, we are all humans, and we are all the same. We all should be treated equally and have equal rights.