Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.misc
Subject: Slavery - legal technicalities
Message-ID: <1583@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 16:06:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1583
Posted: Wed Sep 18 16:06:27 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 06:32:23 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.legal:2360 net.misc:8601

Can someone point me to a reference that would answer this, or post the
actual info? (The books I've seen that touch on this subject do not go
into enough nit-picking detail to answer the query.)

Re slavery in pre-Civil War America, and in various British colonies
or former colonies, when slavery was legal: Was there some legal
specification that defined who could be a slave, and the process of
becoming a slave? Was there a specification that "slaves" could only be
members of certain races, or that people of certain races could *not* be
slaves? Or did the legal status of "slave" have no legal tie to race?
(Of course, as a practical matter, most slaves were either captured
African black people or their descendants, but was there any legal
requirement to that effect? Could a white become a slave? Or an American
Indian? Or an oriental? etc...)

What relation, if any, is there between the institution of slavery and
that of indentured servants? Did they have absolutely nothing to do with
each other, being completely independent legal concepts? 

A pointer to a source of factual detail will be welcomed.

Regards, 
Will Martin

UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin   or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com