2007-12-18 18:23:54 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If you mean in the U.S., this question is a little bit of a trick question. A slave had no right to habeas corpus but a free black person had a right to habeas corpus. Thus, a black person could petition for a writ of habeas corpus (whether he was a slave or free) but it would only be granted if he could prove that he was a free person.
It is important to remember that the traditional writ of habeas corpus is limited to determining the legality of a person's custodial status (i.e. are you legally in custody). Under the laws of many of the states, a slave was legally in the custody of the owner. As such, there was no basis for the granting of the writ.
2007-12-18 19:55:17 · answer #1 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In which country? If you mean in the US, in which State?
In the UK, a writ of Habeus Corpus could be applied to an African being held as a slave since slavery was illegal, and a writ could be used to force his purported owner to release him.
In the US, the same process could be used to force the freedom of a slave carried by his owner into a free State. However, if the writ was not served before the slave was taken back into a slave State, it became invalid.
Read the case of Dred Scott, who thought he was free when his owner brought him to Ohio, but failed in his attempt to be freed when he took him back to the South.
Richard
2007-12-19 02:33:30 · answer #2 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, they were seen as property, therefore they had no legal rights.
2007-12-19 02:26:17 · answer #3 · answered by ~~*Paradise Dreams*~~ 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no, they were property not people
2007-12-19 08:27:42 · answer #4 · answered by wolf 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋