Free Black Witnesses in the Antebellum Upper South

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY Law and History Review Pub Date : 2023-10-12 DOI:10.1017/s0738248023000408
Eric Eisner
{"title":"Free Black Witnesses in the Antebellum Upper South","authors":"Eric Eisner","doi":"10.1017/s0738248023000408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While every slave state except Louisiana limited free Black testimony in cases involving whites, and most barred it completely, several jurisdictions with slavery, including three in the Upper South—Delaware, Maryland, and D.C.—allowed at least some free Black testimony in cases involving whites at least some of the time. Historians and legal scholars have largely overlooked the phenomenon of free Black testimony in the South, outside of Louisiana. In this article, I argue that courts in the Upper South allowed some free Black testimony in cases involving whites in part because allowing (limited) Black testimony enabled courts to access the truth (slightly) more freely, thereby increasing the law's legitimacy. The exceptions to the general bar against Black testimony in cases involving whites also demonstrate the diversity of legal trends in the antebellum Upper South. In Maryland, the space for free Black testimony shrank. In D.C. and Delaware, it grew. But Southerners long contested the relationship between race and law. Competing pressures to administer a well-functioning legal system and to maintain racial hierarchy exerted force on the white elite. Southern elites, even before the great convulsion of the Civil War, sometimes divided on how best to administer a white supremacist legal regime.","PeriodicalId":17960,"journal":{"name":"Law and History Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and History Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0738248023000408","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract While every slave state except Louisiana limited free Black testimony in cases involving whites, and most barred it completely, several jurisdictions with slavery, including three in the Upper South—Delaware, Maryland, and D.C.—allowed at least some free Black testimony in cases involving whites at least some of the time. Historians and legal scholars have largely overlooked the phenomenon of free Black testimony in the South, outside of Louisiana. In this article, I argue that courts in the Upper South allowed some free Black testimony in cases involving whites in part because allowing (limited) Black testimony enabled courts to access the truth (slightly) more freely, thereby increasing the law's legitimacy. The exceptions to the general bar against Black testimony in cases involving whites also demonstrate the diversity of legal trends in the antebellum Upper South. In Maryland, the space for free Black testimony shrank. In D.C. and Delaware, it grew. But Southerners long contested the relationship between race and law. Competing pressures to administer a well-functioning legal system and to maintain racial hierarchy exerted force on the white elite. Southern elites, even before the great convulsion of the Civil War, sometimes divided on how best to administer a white supremacist legal regime.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
南北战争前南方北部的自由黑人见证人
除路易斯安那州外,所有实行奴隶制的州都限制黑人在涉及白人的案件中自由作证,而且大多数州完全禁止,而一些实行奴隶制的司法管辖区,包括南上州的三个州——特拉华州、马里兰州和华盛顿特区,在涉及白人的案件中至少在某些时候允许黑人自由作证。历史学家和法律学者在很大程度上忽视了路易斯安那州以外南方黑人自由作证的现象。在这篇文章中,我认为上南方的法院在涉及白人的案件中允许一些免费的黑人证词,部分原因是允许(有限的)黑人证词使法院能够(稍微)更自由地了解真相,从而增加法律的合法性。在涉及白人的案件中,一般禁止黑人作证的例外也显示了南北战争前南部北部法律趋势的多样性。在马里兰州,黑人免费作证的空间缩小了。在华盛顿特区和特拉华州,它增长了。但南方人长期以来一直对种族与法律之间的关系提出质疑。管理一个运作良好的法律体系和维持种族等级制度的竞争压力对白人精英施加了压力。甚至在南北战争的大动荡之前,南方的精英们有时就如何最好地管理一个白人至上主义的法律制度存在分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and History Review (LHR), America"s leading legal history journal, encompasses American, European, and ancient legal history issues. The journal"s purpose is to further research in the fields of the social history of law and the history of legal ideas and institutions. LHR features articles, essays, commentaries by international authorities, and reviews of important books on legal history. American Society for Legal History
期刊最新文献
Laura Flannigan, Royal Justice and the Making of the Tudor Commonwealth, 1485–1547 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. Pp. xv, 304. $110.00 hardcover (ISBN 978-1-009-37136-0). doi:10.1017/9781009371346 “Lost in Translation”: Extraterritoriality, Subjecthood, and Subjectivity in the Anglo–Yemeni Treaty of 1821 A Grand Jury Exhortation Witnesses for the State: Children and the Making of Modern Evidence Law The Cartojuridism of the British East India Company
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1