Team 4 Case Study

Hey Team 4,

Here is what we have so far for the case study report on Maryland slave codes. The actual document is avaiable in our dropbox folder in philosophy of law/case studies/case study 1/reports due on 24.2.2014/team 4/report. I'll go through the blog post on my computer and insert the proper indentations later today. Tell me if there are any edits you want to make to the report.

Team 4  

Slaves faced extreme oppression in Maryland during the colonial era. In most cases, slaves were treated as a sort of “conscious commodity”. They were never given enough rights to stand up for rights that the US hold to be unalienable today, but were instead subjugated to harsh punishments if they tried to acquire or express those rights. Punishment was also given those who attempted to grant slaves those rights.  

The “protections” that slaves had were surprisingly minimal. A master could be charged with neglect if the slave was not fed enough or otherwise rendered to a state where they could no longer work. However, this did not prevent the slave master from beating or abusing the slave in any way they saw fit, only from doing it to “excess”. The only other “protection” would be a slave being returned to the slave master if the slave were found outside of the owner’s property.  

The slave codes of Maryland echo with the incredible fear that the slave masters and other white male members of society had of an alternative way of life where slavery was nonexistent. For example, if a slave traveled more than 10 miles from the owner’s property without a note, they would be apprehended and returned. If someone (slave or free man) convinced a slave to run away, and the slave did, the person who convinced them would have to pay the price of the slave to the owner to make up for the “lost property”. 

These trends carried over into the courts as well. If a slave refused to give a testimony, they would receive 39 lashings across the back. If a slave gave a testimony and someone else claimed that they slave was providing a false testimony, then the slave’s ears would be sliced off. Furthermore, if the slave did anything illegal, the slave was held responsible, though not the owner. This means that if an owner ordered a slave to commit an illegal act, threatened with death if they did not comply, then the slave would still be punished since the slave master can claim that they never gave any such order to the slave. The only way that a slave master could be held accountable for their act is if the slave owner confessed to the court, which would rationally never happen. 

These laws and views of slaves painted them as a form of criminal menace. Similar caricatures could be seen in the German nationalist depiction of jews, the American depiction of communism during the years of the cold war, or even the American depiction of Middle Eastern extremists in the recent years. In fact, many colonials saw slave uprisings in the same way that modern day US citizens see acts of terrorism. This ensured that people living in the colonies adapted to this mode of thinking lest they suffer at the hand of the court. For example, if a free man tried to smuggle slaves out of the colonies on their boat without an official release note from the owner, the free man would be fined and the slaves returned to the master. 

Another imbalance in treatment can be seen at this point: if a slave was punished, it was brutal and physical (e.g. slicing off their ear or being lashed), whereas a free person would only be fined. This fine would either be a flat fine (such as five pounds or shillings) or a fine based on the length of time the slave was absent in order to make up for the time that they could have been working. 

With all these factors in mind, it is hard to see slaves having any form of legal representation, either for and by themselves or by someone else. They were not allowed to bring cases to court on their own behalf since they were not considered citizens (or people in most cases), and no one could fairly represent them without being subjugated to harsh treatment either from the court or the people of the town. As such, they did not have the power to be a legal principals. The slave could also only be given as much agency as the slave own bestowed upon. For example, if the slave were trained in economics, they could be entrusted with the master’s financial documents and allowed to handle the master’s financial affairs, but nothing else. The master would then be liable for what they call upon the slave to do so long as the master testifies to giving the slave that permission (which, as stated earlier, is a testimony that may never happen if the master wanted to avoid punishment). These types of laws were typically derived from Roman law where slaves would be trained and educated in certain fields in order to serve the master in those respective fields. 

All in all, slaves were held under incredible oppression from every possible angle. Slave masters were “entitled” to their “property” and granted protection of that “property”, whereas slaves were taught through harsh treatment that they were nothing more than “property” and not human beings. This way of living circulated the system of having white, land owning men as the highest class of society and enslaved african men and women as the lowest class, as well as enforcing unto other members of society that this was “the correct and justified way of living.”