Roman Roots of the Louisiana Law of Slavery: Emancipation in American Louisiana, 1803-1857

Louisiana Law Review Volume 56 | Number 2 The Romanist Tradition in Louisiana: Legislation, Jurisprudence, and Doctrine: A Symposium Winter 1996 Roman Roots of the Louisiana Law of Slavery: Emancipation in American Louisiana, 1803-1857 Judith Kelleher Schafer Repository Citation Judith Kelleher Schafer, Roman Roots of the Louisiana Law of Slavery: Emancipation in American Louisiana, 1803-1857, 56 La. L. Rev. (1996) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol56/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact . Roman Roots of the Louisiana Law of Slavery: Emancipation in American Louisiana, 1803-1857 Judith Kelleher Schafer* The influence of Roman law on the Louisiana law of slavery between 1803 and 1857, especially after 1825, seems more profound than a closer look suggests. Prior to the Louisiana Purchase, France imposed the Code Noir on its colonies in 1685 and 1724, and Spain imposed the Codigo N6gro on Louisiana in 1777 and 1784. Both France and Spain borrowed from Roman law in writing their codes when it furthered the imperial ambitions of these two major European powers. When Louisiana became an American possession, the leading citizens of the new territory found themselves in a position to make their own laws, and they chose to protect the institution of slavery by using those aspects of Roman law that furthered the security of slavery and by discarding those that did not. Especially in the writing of laws concerning the manumission of slaves, they chose to include superficial elements of Roman law, while creating a fundamentally new system of slave law. The most important survival of Roman law in the law of slavery in antebellum Louisiana was the concept of redhibition. Originally developed by the Romans to protect purchasers of slaves from the shoddy practices of Roman slave traders, the implied warranty-a warranty of quality given to the purchaser-meant that buyers of slaves found not to be as represented at the time of the sale could have the sale legally rescinded and the slave returned to the seller or could have an adjustment of the price to reflect the diminished value of the slave.' Louisiana legislators retained redhibition throughout the antebellum period because Louisiana was a major slave importer in the domestic slave trade. Many slave sales involved two transactions-the initial sale by the slave owner to the trader and a subsequent sale by the dealer to a new owner. These two transfers often took place in different states. As expected, the law of slave sales favored the seller in exporting states, such as Virginia or Maryland, and favored Copyright 1995, by LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW. Associate Director, Murphy Institute of Political Economy, Tulane University, and Visiting Professor of Law, Tulane Law School. She is the author of Slavery, the Civil Law, and the Supreme Court of Louisiana (LSU Press, 1994), the winner of the General L. Kemper William Award of the Louisiana Historical Association and the Francis Butler Simkins Prize of the Southern Historical Association. The author thanks Professors A. N. Yiannopoulos and Shael Herman for including her in this symposium. She would also like to thank John R. Kramer, Dean of the Tulane Law School, for his encouragement and support. This author has chosen to use an alternative form for citation in some instances in order to give the reader more information regarding the particular document cited. 1. The definitive work on the Roman law of slavery is William W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery (1908). On redhibition, see Judith Kelleher Schafer, Guaranteed Against the Vices and Maladies Prescribed by Law: Consumer Protection, the Law ofSlave Sales, and the Supreme Court in Antebellum Louisiana, 31 Am. J. Legal Hist. 306-21 (1987). For a new interpretation of the French and Spanish slave codes, see Thomas N. Ingersoll, Slave Codes and Judicial Practice in New Orleans, 1718-1807, 13 L. and Hist. Rev. 23-62 (1995). LOUISIANA LA W REVIEW [Vol. 56 the purchaser in slave importing states, such as Louisiana. The number of slaves brought into Louisiana greatly exceeded those sent elsewhere for sale during the antebellum period, and, therefore, state lawmakers retained the Roman-law heritage in slave sales because it benefitted the interests of the slaveholding class. Other features of Roman slave law, such as those that granted slaves the capacity to own inherited property, make loans, and pay debts, were inconsistent with the interests of Louisiana slave owners, and therefore lawmakers never integrated them into territorial or state law after the Louisiana Purchase.' Roman and Louisiana slave law differed in a fundamental way. While slaves at Roman law might have been of any race or ethnicity--originally they were captives taken in the wars of the Roman Empire-in American Louisiana race and slave status became inseparably intertwined. Thus, although there was a higher percentage of slaves as compared to free people in Rome-thirty-five to forty percent at the end of the Republic to about thirty-three percent in the American South at the height of slavery-the two systems of bondage had vastly different theoretical foundations. While in Rome, slave status had little to do with race, background, or education-'a misfortune that could happen to anyone" -skin color had become the crucial factor in determining slave status in Louisiana by 1803. The association of race with slave status in Louisiana insured that regulations and restrictions upon emancipation would develop very differently, making manumission much more difficult than in Rome. Although Louisianians had made slaves of American Indians in the Spanish period, by the time of the Louisiana Purchase the law presumed Indians to be free. In 1820, Judge Frangois-Xavier Martin, the presiding judge of the Supreme Court of Louisiana wrote the decision of Ulzere v. Poeyfarri,4 declaring that Indians could not be enslaved in Louisiana. His decision confirmed what was already a fact: that slave status in Louisiana included only those of African origin, although not all of African origin were slaves. The Superior Court of the Territory of Orleans had held in the 1809 decision of Adele v. Beauregardthat a legal presumption existed that mulattoes were presumed to be free and Negroes were presumed to be slaves unless proven otherwise.' . Slaves in Rome were often well educated by Roman standards, and many worked as doctors, artisans, and businessmen. Allowing education and 2. Andrew Fede, Legal Protection for Slave Buyers in the U S. South: A Caveat Concerning Caveat Emptor, 31 Am. J. Legal Hist. 322 (1987); Buckland, supra note 1, at 190-91; Leonard Oppenheim, The Law of Slaves-A Comparative Study of the Roman and LouisianaSystems (...truncated)