Thread by @ASFleischman

Instead of reading Rich Lowry's terrible piece on slavery, I suggest everyone take a minute to read this 1851 case from the Supreme Court of Georgia, holding that killing a slave was not murder. /1

A man wanted to sue his neighbor for killing his slave. But the rule back then was that a man couldn't be made to pay for a civil wrong if he could have first been criminally tried. /2

So the defendant's job, ironically, was to establish that his killing of a slave had been a murder. And that it was the seriousness of that crime that put him beyond the reach of civil courts. /3

The defendant argued that contemporary slaves were much like "villeins," bonded servants in feudal society tied to the land. But the Court was skeptical--there didn't seem to be any direct laws setting their status. /4

If killing a villein was a murder, the defendant argued, so, too, was killing a slave.

But, the Court noted, by the time Georgia had been founded villenage had been all but abolished in England by the country's steady march toward liberty.

/5

So villenage was so obsolete that it's rules couldn't apply at the time of Georgia's founding. /6

And even if it WAS still in force, the Court reasoned, villeins were still people. Mistreated, bound to the land, sure. But he could go to court. Killing him was a crime. He had basic liberty. /7

By contrast, the Court reasoned, slaves did not and COULD NOT have rights, without unfairly infringing on the rights of his master to do with him what he liked. /8

There might be statutes against killing slaves, the court argued, but there was certainly no common-law against it because slaves had always been property from the moment of their capture. /9

The Court softens the blow a little by talking about how modern slave-holders had adopted laws to protect slaves and uphold their Christian duties. /10

Finally, with a flourish, the Court points out that no laws against hurting slaves would be necessary if they were people at common-law. /11

The irony of this opinion is that it may have been result-oriented. Perhaps the judge wanted to ensure that people would not hurt each other's slaves by ensuring that civil remedies might follow. /12

This is a thoughtful, maybe even compassionate opinion. Written by a smart man. And yet it endorses under the banner of Christianity the greatest evil in the history of our country.

/f

Oh, P.S., this judge knew damn good and well that most civilized countries had abolished slavery.