This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Copeland, R. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Nomenclature of Enslaved Africans as Real Property or Chattels Personal: Legal Fiction, Judicial Interpretation, Legislative Designation, or Was a Slave a Slave by Any Other Name

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: cwlaw02{at}bellsouth.net.

	Abstract

The enslaved Africans’ attachment to the land on which they toiled was multifaceted. Beyond their classification as slaves, the question of whether or not they should be deemed chattel property or real property did little to detract from the moral repugnance of enslavement. The classification of slaves by courts and legislatures reflected how those institutions sought to maximize the value of slaves to their owners. As slavery became the foundation of the South’s economy and the value of slave labor increased, courts and legislatures became less inclined to annex slaves to the land. Slaves were deemed transitory, thereby allowing slaveholders to lease the enslaved’s labor. The emphasis was thus focused on the slaves’ value as "things," and as such the humanity of the enslavement of Black people was never a factor in the opinions of the courts or in the statutory enactments of legislatures.

First published on August 7, 2008
Journal of Black Studies 2008, doi:10.1177/0021934708320578


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?