In America Did A Slave Owner Have Power Of Life And Death Over His Slaves?

Question

I know punishments could be inflicted but could a slave owner kill his slave with impunity or were there some laws protecting them?

Answer 1

Yes thee were restraints. The source links is to a site which list the laws for each State and following is an example.

CHAPTER XIV.
OF LAWS CONCERNING THE MURDER AND KILLING OF SLAVES.
The structure of the Laws, and the condition of the Slaves, render adequate protection impossible.
WE come now to consider the laws purporting to restrain and punish the murderers of slaves.
The revelations of the last chapter establish clearly the principle and the fact that the authority of the master is unlimited, and that he is not indictable, and never has been indicted and punished for the “cruel and unreasonable battery of his slave.” It seems difficult to conceive how, in such a condition of the statute book, the judiciary, and the community, there could be any effectual restraints upon the murderers of slaves, or how they could be convicted and punished, at least where the offenders were owners or hirers of the slaves they had murdered. If a man is not protected from cruel and unreasonable battery at the pleasure of his assailant, how can he be protected from the liability to be killed by such battery? And if the law permits the optional battery of a man, what power can it retain to punish him for the natural effects of such battery? Will the law allow one man to beat another as much as he pleases, or shoot him, (as in the case last cited,) and then punish him because the man is thus killed?
In former times, the murder of a slave in most, if not all the slaveholding regions of this country, was, by law, punishable by a pecuniary fine only. At present, the wilful, malicious, and deliberate murder of a slave, by whomsoever perpetrated, is declared to be punishable with death, in every State. (See Stroud's Sketch, p. 36..) The exclusion of all testimony of colored persons, bond or free, is a feature sufficient, of itself, to render these laws nugatory. The “owner” or “overseer” may command the slave to attend him to any secret spot, and there murder him with impunity. Or he may do it openly, (it has often been done,) in the sight of many colored persons, with equal impunity. But let us examine some of these laws.
SOUTH CAROLINA, 1740.—The Act, in its preamble, sets forth that “cruelty is not only highly unbecoming those who profess themselves Christians, but is odious in the sight of all men who have any sense of virtue or humanity.” [Therefore:] “To restrain and prevent barbarity being exercised towards slaves, Be it enacted, that if any person shall wilfully murder his own slave, or the slaves of any other person, every such person [i. e., the offender] shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay the sum of seven hundred pounds, current money, and shall be rendered for ever incapable of holding, exercising, &c., any office, &c. And in case any such person shall not be able to pay the penalty and forfeiture hereby inflicted and imposed, every such person shall be sent to any of the frontier garrisons of the Province, or committed to the workhouse in Charleston for the space of seven years, &c., &c., at hard labor.” (2 Brevard's Digest, 241.)
Another provision of the same Act is as follows “If any person shall, on a sudden heat or passion, OR by undue correction, kill HIS OWN SLAVE, or the slave of any other person, he shall forfeit the sum of three hundred and fifty pounds, current money.” (Ib., 241.)
For this latter offense there seems to have been no incapacity to hold office.
The greater part of cases, especially in the absence of colored testimony, would come under this latter provision. To shoot down a slave deliberately would incur the heavier fine, and the civil disability. To beat out his brains with a club, or whip him to death, would cost £350; that is, if any free WHITE person should witness the act, and see fit to institute proceedings.
This Act continued in force till 1821, when the wilful murder of a slave was made punishable with death, without benefit of clergy; while the penalty for killing in “sudden heat,” or “undue correction,” was reduced to five hundred dollars, but authorizing an imprisonment for six months. This latter sum, therefore, in South Carolina, may be considered the price

Answer 2

A slave was property...pure and simple. A slave master had the right to dispose of his property in any way he saw fit. The only law protecting slaves from genocide was the law of commerce...slaves were expensive, and to kill one would be like burning money. This is very sad, but absolutely true.

Answer 3

In the Virginia Slave Code of 1705, owners were to be free from all punishment if a slave died accidentally while being corrected/punished. I don't know what laws were or weren't in effect in other places, but in Virginia the owners were absolved. Note, it is worded accidentally... I don't think anywhere it was written that cold murder was ok - but an owner could, if he desired.

Answer 4

Slave codes authorized, indemnified or even required the use of violence and were long criticized by abolitionists for their brutality.


Violence against slaves
Virginia, 1705 -- "If any slave resist his master...correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened."

Answer 5

Well since slaves were considered property at the time, I would imagine that you have the right to do what ever you wanted with your "property" as long as you didn't hurt others (white people).

Answer 6

in 1630 a law protecting slaves from abusive owners is enacted in Mass.

Answer 7

Yes. The same as in England with their slaves.

You owned them as property, but killing them would be akin to throwing away money.

If the slave was unproductive, better to sell them at a loss than kill them.



-K

Answer 8

It depended on the state. It was generally accepted, however, that if a slave was killed, even if it was illegal, the law would look the other way.

Answer 9

Laws varied from state to state but essentially the same attitude existed that we would apply to cruelty to animals. You could get away with a lot of abuse,but there were limits. However there was no systematic oversight,so enforcement was entirely based on reportage from outraged citizens.
Actually,for a slave-owner with an unusually cruel overseer,the real concern was the clergy. Although it is rarely explored in contemporary historical accounts of the American slavery era,there was in fact a kind long-running,low-intensity war between slave-owners and Christian clergy over a variety of issues,and this could periodically flare up to fever-pitch. The two were constantly at loggerheads and it wasn't over the legality of slavery,which was unchallenged by southern clergy,(unlike their counterparts in the north,who essentially started the Abolitionist movement). Down south the major points of contention were 1) slaves should be educated,so they could understand services and read the scripture. Owners were usually bitterly opposed to educating slaves,for any reason; 2) separating husband and wife (whether legally married or not) for purposes of separate sale,this being a particularly odious practice to the clergy if it involved children being separated from their mother; and 3) wanton cruelty: the clergy had no objection to severe corporal punishment being used for discipline,but the job of an overseer was unattractive to normal personalities and they more often likely to be unstable individuals with intrinsic sadistic tendencies; besides,it wasn't considered a respectable profession by anyone; like slave-dealers,the overseer was at best viewed as a regrettable neccessity. With these three points of conflict,the local clergy were more often than not "at war" with a local plantation . Some owners refused to attend church in retaliation. Others yielded to clerical imprecations and even accommadated the expense of a small plantation chapel. The clergy considered it their duty to report extreme or persistant cruelty outright to the sheriff,and to demand enforcement of existing codes,such as they might be. Many clergy were derelict in this responsibility,but most were apparently not,since the level of friction on this score was always high. The education issue was never resolved. A small percentage of slaveowners tolerated some education for house slaves and also for establishing (I kid you not) a black clergy - a minister who was a slave but assigned to operate a plantation chapel.Most owners however were generally adament is their opposition to education of slaves. Clergy supported it and when they got their way with owners at all,it was usually due to the influence of the owner's wife,particularly if she was highly religious and therefore unusually responsive to the clergy's point of view on all of the above.
Nobody likes to discuss this now,because Baptists are ashamed of their lack of oppposition to slavery itself,and the larger Protestant denominations like to pretend everybody was an abolishionist. The story of the "war" between clergy and slaveowners - the endless conflict over these issues,but never touching on the basic immorality of slavery itself - has never been the object of comprehensive study,although there are many essays dating from the 1880's and 90's.
When I was a teenager I always thought it would be cool to run for office on a pro-slavery platform,basically just for laughs. I mean,nobody's done it since since 1860. My dad thought this would be in fairly poor taste,even as political satire. Nobody ever seems to appreciate my particular sense of humor.