,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This piece by @kawulf has me thinking about historical language. The Roberts/Wolf gaffes rested on a failure to understand the historical meaning of words: abortion, death. All historians deal with this. What words have you had to unpack in your work? washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/0…
One I’ve had to unravel is the legal meaning of the word “trespass.” It’s a common word used in freedom suits in late 18/early 19c. Many enslaved people sued for freedom on actions of trespass. I initially thought it was just standard legalese. But there’s a deeper history to it:
Use of the word trespass in freedom suits began during the 1760s. Before this, slave suits usually involved action of “trover.” The difference between the two words is subtle but crucial. Trover is used in cases involving damages to goods or property. Trespass is an action ...
... that involves damages to property OR PERSONS. In English tort law, human beings and property alike can be damaged through actions of trespass. Abolitionist lawyers began shifting the language of claims from trover to trespass to establish that the humanity of enslaved people.
By the 1760s, English law students were debating whether cases involving enslaved people should be tried as actions of trover or trespass. They considered whether they should enter court as property or people. By the 1770s, most freedom suits involved actions of trespass.
You can read the entire story of the 18c transatlantic abolition movement through the use of a single word. Alone, the word “trespass” is just a word. Within a larger, historically-informed context, it shows how the law began to entertain the idea that slaves were actually people
Going deep into the historical meaning of words is one of the great joys of studying history and decoding archives.
What are your words?
What are your words?
