{"title":"Bonds of Empire: The English Origins of Slave Law in South Carolina and British Plantation America, 1660–1783 by Lee B. Wilson (review)","authors":"Justin Roberts","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2022.0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The preamble to the first comprehensive English slave code—passed in Barbados in 1661—justified the creation of this set of laws by arguing that in all of the “Lawes of England” there was “noe tract to guide us where to walke, nor any rule sett us, how to governe such Slaves.”1 This would suggest, as some colonial American historians have surmised, that slavery constituted a radical departure from English legal traditions. Lee B. Wilson’s Bonds of Empire offers a counterpoint. By looking at a more comprehensive set of legal practices undergirding slavery in the British Atlantic, Wilson is able to stress the continuity of English legal systems in the development of colonial slave law. She argues that colonial slave law was not “a legal aberration” (3) or “beyond the pale of English imperial legal history” (5); rather, it “was a natural extension” of the English “legal system” (10). Bonds of Empire is nominally about slave law in South Carolina, but it is really much broader and more ambitious because Wilson extends her analysis to the Caribbean colonies—particularly Jamaica—and to the maritime world. Her book follows a loose chronological trajectory from the late seventeenth century through the end of the eighteenth century. The chapters trace that arc while remaining thematically organized around the concepts embedded in private law sources such as the conditional bonds used to transfer enslaved property, the records of the Vice-Admiralty Courts, and the records of the Board of Police, which governed Charleston during the American Revolution. Wilson relies on her legal training to shed light on how these records, which most scholars have overlooked, illuminate practices related to slavery. By focusing on such sources, Wilson offers a deeper appreciation of the ways in which English law buttressed the colonists’ “commercial need to treat slaves as things” (261). Bonds of Empire clearly demonstrates that the prescriptive slave codes that have drawn so much attention from slavery historians were only a narrow subset of a far more expansive body of slave law. “Bloody and punitive,” the slave codes addressed the slaves as potential criminal actors in need of social control, and they focused on “stripping enslaved people of the rights” (10) of freeborn English people. The “viscerally shocking” nature of these","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2022.0029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The preamble to the first comprehensive English slave code—passed in Barbados in 1661—justified the creation of this set of laws by arguing that in all of the “Lawes of England” there was “noe tract to guide us where to walke, nor any rule sett us, how to governe such Slaves.”1 This would suggest, as some colonial American historians have surmised, that slavery constituted a radical departure from English legal traditions. Lee B. Wilson’s Bonds of Empire offers a counterpoint. By looking at a more comprehensive set of legal practices undergirding slavery in the British Atlantic, Wilson is able to stress the continuity of English legal systems in the development of colonial slave law. She argues that colonial slave law was not “a legal aberration” (3) or “beyond the pale of English imperial legal history” (5); rather, it “was a natural extension” of the English “legal system” (10). Bonds of Empire is nominally about slave law in South Carolina, but it is really much broader and more ambitious because Wilson extends her analysis to the Caribbean colonies—particularly Jamaica—and to the maritime world. Her book follows a loose chronological trajectory from the late seventeenth century through the end of the eighteenth century. The chapters trace that arc while remaining thematically organized around the concepts embedded in private law sources such as the conditional bonds used to transfer enslaved property, the records of the Vice-Admiralty Courts, and the records of the Board of Police, which governed Charleston during the American Revolution. Wilson relies on her legal training to shed light on how these records, which most scholars have overlooked, illuminate practices related to slavery. By focusing on such sources, Wilson offers a deeper appreciation of the ways in which English law buttressed the colonists’ “commercial need to treat slaves as things” (261). Bonds of Empire clearly demonstrates that the prescriptive slave codes that have drawn so much attention from slavery historians were only a narrow subset of a far more expansive body of slave law. “Bloody and punitive,” the slave codes addressed the slaves as potential criminal actors in need of social control, and they focused on “stripping enslaved people of the rights” (10) of freeborn English people. The “viscerally shocking” nature of these
1661年在巴巴多斯(Barbados)通过的第一部全面的英国奴隶法典的序言为这一套法律的制定辩护说,在所有的“英格兰法律”中,“没有一条路指引我们走到哪里,也没有一条规则规定我们如何管理这些奴隶”。正如一些殖民时期的美国历史学家所推测的那样,这意味着奴隶制彻底背离了英国的法律传统。李·b·威尔逊(Lee B. Wilson)的《帝国债券》(Bonds of Empire)提供了一个对应的观点。通过对英属大西洋地区支持奴隶制的一整套更全面的法律实践的考察,威尔逊能够强调英国法律体系在殖民地奴隶法发展中的连续性。她认为,殖民奴隶法不是“法律上的偏差”(3)或“超出了英国帝国法律史的范围”(5);相反,它是英国“法律体系”的“自然延伸”(10)。《帝国的枷锁》名义上讲的是南卡罗来纳的奴隶法,但实际上它的范围更广,也更有野心,因为威尔逊将她的分析扩展到了加勒比殖民地——尤其是牙买加——以及海洋世界。她的书从17世纪晚期到18世纪末期,按时间顺序大致展开。这些章节追溯了这条弧,同时围绕私法来源中嵌入的概念进行主题组织,例如用于转让奴隶财产的有条件债券,副海军部法院的记录,以及美国独立战争期间管理查尔斯顿的警察委员会的记录。威尔逊依靠她的法律训练来阐明这些被大多数学者忽视的记录是如何阐明与奴隶制有关的做法的。通过对这些来源的关注,威尔逊对英国法律如何支持殖民者“将奴隶视为物品的商业需要”(261)提供了更深入的认识。《帝国的束缚》清楚地表明,引起奴隶制历史学家如此多关注的规范性奴隶法典,只是奴隶法的一个狭窄的子集。《奴隶法典》“血腥而严厉”,将奴隶视为需要社会控制的潜在罪犯,重点是“剥夺被奴役的人”与出生自由的英国人的权利。这些“发自内心的震惊”的本质