.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
En 中文
This Article excavates unfamiliar stories about contracts doctrine and the violence of slavery. One such story begins with six-year-old Martha, whose bill of sale warranted her to be sound. When Martha's purchaser found her unable to perform the duties that might be reasonably assigned to a child, however, he sued for breach of warranty, alleging that Martha was absolutely an idiot, and of no value. In response, Martha's vendor claimed that she was in fact sound and that her dullness was merely the result of having been badly treated. Cases like Martha's-decided in Tennessee and published as Belew v. Clark-were common in the antebellum South, as purchasers of slaves routinely sued vendors for breach of warranty. These warranties drew courts into the very heart of slavery's violence, where they were called upon to answer questions about how much violence was necessary and acceptable for the slave regime to work. Questions such as: How much violence did an enslaved child need to endure before her injuries constituted a breach of warranty? Through an analysis of 152 appellate cases heard in five Southern states (Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), this Article finds that warranties of soundness were one of the few sites where the law intervened in the violence of slavery. By changing the risks and incentives associated with slaveowners' violence, warranties of soundness also shaped the very forms that said violence took.
Keywords:
LIFE-INSURANCE
SLAVERY
RACE
LAW
INTERSECTIONALITY
PROPERTY
CONTRACT
WHITE