# Antebellum slave laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 31, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antebellum-slave-laws/548660 "2010-07-31T05:34:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antebellum-slave-laws/548660/1 "2010-07-31T05:34:14Z")
So SB1070 is on hold for the moment. As expected, the loser is appealing. Meantime the cat fighting and name calling on both sides goes on. One thing the radio talk show hosts and their callers keep repeating is that there is nothing in the bill about racial profiling. Well maybe not but it sure gives an out for those who would be inclined to do so. I’d be willing to bet a lot more people from south of Buckeye will be stopped “for reasonable cause” than Fountain Hills. But that’s something for GD to look at. The question I’m asking about pertains to slavery in the United States. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights nowhere has the word “slave” in them, yet there it was for more than eighty years after they were ratified. Can the same be said about the language that was in the slave codes of the US? Can anyone here say what the laws regarding slavery were in the South before the Civil War? Was there any phrasing aimed towards “persons of the negro race” or something similar to keep Huck Finn from finding himself on the block alongside Jim. Was there no mention of race at all and, as with our Constitution _everyone_ knowing who “certain persons” are, everyone knew who the slave codes applied to in reality without it being put on paper. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antebellum-slave-laws/548660/2 "2010-07-31T06:17:17Z")
It was all always written in terms of colour. Here’s the [wiki link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes) eg > [@](#): > > “All servants imported and brought into the Country…who were not Christians in their native Country…shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion…shall be held to be real estate.” We had a [related discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=554226) about this a few while back ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antebellum-slave-laws/548660/3 "2010-07-31T10:03:38Z")
One of the most controversial laws involving slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, never uses the word slave or mentions race. It only uses the phrases “people held to service or labor” or “fugitives” ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antebellum-slave-laws/548660/4 "2010-08-01T05:07:15Z")
> [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](#): > > It was all always written in terms of colour. Here’s the [wiki link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes) eg > > > [@](#): > > > > “All servants imported and brought into the Country…who were not Christians in their native Country…shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion…shall be held to be real estate.” > > We had a [related discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=554226) about this a few while back Thanks for the link, TD. I’d missed that one. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antebellum-slave-laws/548660/5 "2010-08-01T18:44:16Z")
The Confederate constitution allowed for “or other person held to service or labor”, but otherwise simply called the slaves slaves. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2010, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antebellum-slave-laws/548660/6 "2010-08-02T05:36:37Z")
The [Confederate Constitution](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp) also specifically referred to “negro slavery” in a couple of places, as in “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” So presumably if some Confederate state had tried to start enslaving white folks the Confederate Congress would have had the power to put the kibosh on it. That said, antebellum and Confederate-era slave state constitutions do sometimes simply refer to “slaves”, without bothering to spell out that they meant “black people”, as in the [1819 Constitution of Alabama](http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1819/1819_6.html#slaves). In other cases, as in the wording of the [1861 Georgia Constitution](http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/con1861.htm), it’s clear at least by implication that “negroes” and “slaves” are being used pretty much synonymously: > [@](#): > > [ARTICLE II], SECTION VII > > 1. The importation or introduction of negroes from any foreign country, other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America, is forever prohibited. > > 2. The General Assembly may prohibit the introduction of negroes from any State; but they shall have no power to prevent immigrants from bringing their slaves with them. > > 3. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves. > > 4. Any person who shall maliciously kill or maim a slave, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed on a free white person.