SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 409.23-1.0%Jan 7 4:00 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: arun gera who wrote (21174)8/13/2007 8:22:40 PM
From: Slagle  Read Replies (1) of 219096
 
Arun,
Yes, you are right about that, mostly. But not entirely. Most states had laws, maybe indifferently enforced, that gave the slave some legal rights. Some states didn't allow slavery at all. And, in each of the states, there was a single system of law for all the people, including the slaves.

Under the British Crown, a noble was a person protected and the common law of the people mostly didn't apply to him. For a noble to murder a slave or a commoner was a very different thing than one noble murdering another, or a slave or commoner committing some offense against a noble. There was a sort of separate legal process for the nobles, so even a slave was probably better off after the Revolution.

Speaking of the Revolution, it is about time for another one.
Slagle
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News