Race and the Law Outline

 
Race Outline
Spring Quarter 2013
Hutchinson
 
Antebellum Period
Background
·         Because there was no NC supreme court until 1818, these first cases were decided by judicial counsel—judges getting together to consider self-certified appeals.
·         Issues were criminal liability of whites killing slaves, to what extent would/must the NC judges develop a common law of slavery?
·         Slavery was extrajudicial
·         Strangers to the bond forced judges to change.
·         Point is law is dynamic—judges are always changing for strategic reasons.
 
Two tests for these cases:
·         Which white man wants case adjudicated?
·         If case had been between 2 whites, what would the result have been?
Slave Law in the SC of NC
State v. Weaver (1798)
Category: White -> Slave (Overseer/hirer)
Synopsis: Owner wants recompense from Weaver, who was a judgment proof day hirer
·         Statute of 1774 said the second killing of a slave is a capital offense; the first is a year in prison
·         Statute of 1791 kind of revokes earlier statute and provides in section 3, death penalty for first offense.  Though note that ambiguous language monkeys up judges in Boone.
There’s an underlying assumption that slave brought it on himself. 
·         The common law is different for slaves.
Holding: Emphasized hirer’s need for discipline.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Majority opinion judge: Haywood.
Dissenting judge(s): None
Type of reasoning: Paternalistic re: slaves can’t control themselves, must protect self and property.
 
State v. Piver (1798)
Category: White -> Slave (Stranger)
Synopsis: A slave was walking down the road, and a thirteen-year-old boy threatened to shoot him. The slave shoved the boy, and the boy shot him. The boy is acquitted because it is manslaughter.
Holding: Slight Provocation Sufficient.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Majority opinion judge: Per curiam.
Dissenting judge(s): None
Type of reasoning: Paternalistic. Slaves cannot control themselves, interchange slave and negro
 
State v. Boon (1801)
Category: White -> Slave
Synopsis: Statute clearly calls for murder of slave to be judged by same standards as murder of a white person.
Holding: Slight provocation OK. In a seriatim opinion, the court concludes that different standards apply to the murder of a slave.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Majority opinion judge: Hall.
Concur: Johnston. Killing a helpless slave is worse than killing a white person, because that’s bad paternalism. But the statute is ambiguous.
Dissenting judge(s): Macay. There is no law for the killing of a free man under this statute – thus no punishment may be inflicted.
·         Taylor. The killing of a slave, if accompanied with the circs that would make it murder, makes it a crime – the same as killing a free man.
Type of reasoning: Positivism – takes a really strict and formal reading, and says the statute is ambiguous. In the face of ambiguity, take the more lenient standard.
 
State v. Tackett from Wake (1820)
Category: White -> Slave  (Master)
Synopsis: Daniel’s CL wife was a free negro. Rumor that Tackett raped Daniel’s wife. Daniel threatened him, Tackett shot Daniel.
Holding: The legal issue is whether evidence of Daniel’s general turbulence against whites should be considered when the court evaluates provocation. The NC Supreme Court says evidence of general turbulence is admissible.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Majority opinion judge: Taylor. General turbulence is an issue for the jury to decide. Jury should concude the effect of a slave’s general turbulence on the degree of provocation caused by the white person.
Dissenting judge(s): None.
Type of reasoning: Paternalistic. Prosystemic slavery.
 
State v. Reed from Hertford (1823)
Category: White -> Slave (Hirer/Overseer)
Synopsis: White person indicted for murder of a slave.
Holding: Extended CL to slaves. Taylor says the CL provided a sufficient basis for indicting the hirer.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Majority opinion judge: Taylor and Henderson.
Dissenting judge(s): Hall – CL is inapplicable. Consistent with Hall in Boon.
·         Henderson – thinks there should be a life/limb exception. Master does not own the life/limbs of a slave. Masters cannot kill gratuitously. Correction must stop short of dismemberment.
Type of reasoning: Paternalistic. Formal reading of the statute. Started line-drawing and weird policing.
 
State v. Hale from Cumberland (1823)
Category: White -> Slave (Stranger)
Synopsis: Indictment of a white stranger with CL assault on a slave.
Holding: Preserves master’s monopoly over violence. Cannot allow white strangers to kill another man’s slave.
·         Retains a lower standard of provocation for slave/white ineractions.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Majority opinion judge: Taylor.
Concur: Hall. It would be highly improper if every assault/battery of a slave were an indictable offense.
·         Henderson also concurred.
Dissenting judge(s): None.
Type of reasoning: Paternalistic. Formal(ish) – still a distinction between slaves and whites.
 
State v. John H. Roane from Burke (1828)
Category: White -> Slave (Stranger)
Synopsis:  Roane was indicted for murder of Levin, slave of McIntire. Some suspicion that Levin had been breaking into neighborhood houses.
·         Shot Levin as he was leaving.
Holding: Even with a state of alarm, Roane cannot be said to be protecting his property, since Levin was retreating.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Majority opinion judge: Henderson, per curiam.
Dissenting judge(s): None.
Type of reasoning: This is an unfortunate case, because the defendant indicted himself basically – he could have lied. There was no intent to kill. Therefore manslaughter.
 
State v. John Mann from Chowan (1829)
Category: Slave -> White (Overseer/Hirer, not Master)
Synopsis: A temporary slave was fleeing from a hirer, and the hirer shot the fleeing slave.
Holding: The court held that this was legal.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Majority opinion judge: Ruffin. Distinguishes from Hale, because this case involves a de facto master, and there are no limits on the control of a true master.
Dissenting judge(s): None. Per curiam.
Type of reasoning: Paternalistic – wan