Abstract
Excerpted From: Evan Matthew Gelobter, Law, Race, and Power: The Legal Foundations of Slavery in South Carolina, 12 Lincoln Memorial University Law Review 97 (Summer, 2025) (220 Footnotes) (Full Document)
The system of laws governing slavery in South Carolina offers a window into the complex interplay between law, race, and power in antebellum America. Through statutes and judicial opinions, South Carolina courts and lawmakers navigated the inherent contradictions of treating enslaved individuals as both persons and property. The judicial and legislative records reveal not only the mechanisms by which slavery was maintained but also the principal ideologies that justified and perpetuated the institution. By examining how laws categorized individuals based on race, how courts addressed the dual identity of enslaved people, and how legal protections were selectively applied, we gain insight into the ways the law reinforced both the humanity and commodification of enslaved individuals in the state.
In addition to formal laws, the ideological justification of slavery in South Carolina relied on rhetorical narratives that reframed its origins and moral implications. This is evident in the preface to Volume 7 of The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, where the editor employed a defensive rhetorical strategy to frame the state's history of slavery in a manner that absolved it of moral culpability. He emphasized that the laws governing slavery from 1690 to 1751 were enacted during the colonial period under British rule, explicitly characterizing these statutes as "British, not American."1 This framing sought not only to shift blame for the perceived harshness and injustice of these laws away from South Carolina's free citizens and onto the colonial administration, but also to establish a foundation for slavery as an institution that was accepted and sanctioned by the British Empire. By presenting these laws as rooted in a colonial context and aligned with British legal norms, the editor reinforced the notion that slavery was not an innovation of South Carolina but rather an inheritance of a broader imperial system, thereby legitimizing its continuity in the post-Revolutionary period.
The editor further asserted that the "free people of South Carolina have no cause to blush" at any post-Revolutionary enactments, suggesting that the state's later pro-slavery laws were justifiable and even honorable.2 This language aligned with the prevailing ideology of white supremacy in the antebellum South, portraying the state's legal history as a continuation of a rational and defensible institution. The editor made a reference to the "false philanthropist of the day," dismissing abolitionists and their criticism of slavery as misguided and hypocritical.3 This phrasing clearly shows the editor's disdain for the growing abolitionist movement and reflects a broader effort to justify slavery as a legitimate institution in the face of external criticism.
By portraying slavery as an inevitable legacy of the British colonial system and as morally justified under South Carolina's later laws, the editor reinforced the pro-slavery ideology dominant in 1840. His framing positioned slavery not as a source of shame but as a natural and necessary institution rooted in historical and economic contexts, aligning with broader efforts to preserve and defend slavery within the state.
An Act of 1740, one of the key statutes referenced by the editor, helped codify the institution of slavery in South Carolina, delineating the extent of power owners and overseers held over enslaved individuals while nominally attempting to limit excessive cruelty. It established that people of African, Native American, or mixed descent were deemed "absolute slaves" and subject to their owners as property, with their obedience enforced through the law.4 The Act prescribed harsh punishments for enslaved people, including death for offenses such as striking a white person or committing a homicide, unless in defense of their owner.5 However, it also acknowledged that cruelty was "odious in the eyes of all men" and set penalties for those who willfully murdered a slave, including a fine of 700 and disqualification from holding public office.6 These provisions emphasize the Act's dual role in codifying the commodification of enslaved individuals while nominally addressing extreme abuses, highlighting the contradictions inherent in South Carolina's legal framework for slavery.
Building on the legal framework established by statutes such as the Act of 1740, the judicial system played a pivotal role in defining the boundaries of freedom and enslavement. South Carolina courts, particularly the Court of Appeals of Law and Equity, shaped the lived realities of slavery by interpreting statutes and resolving disputes about racial identity, property rights, and personal protections. These judicial opinions show the ways in which the courts attempted to balance the economic imperatives of slavery with a limited recognition of the humanity of enslaved individuals.
This article will explore the development and application of these laws, focusing on four critical aspects. First, it examines how South Carolina's legal system defined who could be enslaved, with racial classifications often rooted in ancestry, appearance, and even reputation. Second, it analyzes how the courts navigated the paradoxical status of enslaved people as both persons and property, highlighting the legal protections afforded to slaves while reinforcing their commodification. Third, it examines the power granted to masters7 and the judiciary's role in enabling brutalities against enslaved individuals, demonstrating how the courts sanctioned extreme violence while maintaining the facade of legal limits. Finally, it analyzes the stringent legal constraints placed on emancipation, revealing how courts and legislatures collaborated to close off nearly all pathways to freedom and ensure the permanence of slavery. Together, these elements illustrate how South Carolina's legal system perpetuated the institution of slavery while grappling with its inherent contradictions.
[ . . . ]
The legal system of South Carolina was the cornerstone in the maintenance and perpetuation of slavery, weaving together statutes and judicial interpretations that upheld racial hierarchies and economic exploitation. By codifying enslaved individuals as both persons and property, the law created a framework riddled with contradictions, acknowledging their humanity only to the extent that it served to reinforce their commodification. This dual status allowed the courts to balance minimal protections for enslaved people with the broader imperative to safeguard the master's authority and economic interests.
The judicial reluctance to define terms like "excessive cruelty" or to provide consistent standards for punishment left enslaved individuals vulnerable to systemic violence. Laws and court rulings often deferred to community standards and jury discretion, embedding the prevailing biases of a slaveholding society into legal decisions. Even when protections were extended, such as recognizing the killing of an enslaved person as homicide or requiring masters to care for their enslaved property, these measures were driven by the economic value of enslaved individuals rather than their inherent rights as human beings.
The South Carolina legal framework exemplified how laws and courts operated as tools to sustain and legitimize the institution of slavery. The court's willingness to leave critical determinations, such as the limits of correction or the scope of a master's authority, undefined enabled systemic abuse and shielded perpetrators of violence under the guise of lawful discipline. This ambiguity not only facilitated horrific acts against enslaved individuals but also ensured the continued subjugation of a population whose humanity was systematically denied.
Ultimately, South Carolina's judiciary was an active participant in the perpetuation of the institution of slavery. By embedding racial subordination into every aspect of the law, the courts reinforced a social and economic order that treated human beings as property. While the courts occasionally acknowledged the contradictions within this system, they consistently prioritized the preservation of slavery over justice, morality, or humanity. This legacy highlights the enduring relationship between law, power, and racial inequality, offering a sobering reminder of the ways legal systems can be weaponized to uphold oppressive institutions.
Evan Matthew Gelobter is an Assistant Professor of Academic Support and Academic Counselor. He holds a B.S., cum laude, from Liberty University (2008), and a J.D., cum laude, from Southern University Law Center (2019).
