State v. Emmons, 289. Fields v., 86, 90. v. Fleming, 89. v. Hage, Mary, 273. v. Harris, Jas., 67. v. Hart, 261. v. Hill, 105, 295. v. Jarrott, 95, 273, 275. v. Jones, 5, 86. Kelly & Little v., 86, 94, 98. v. Kerr, 111. Macon v., 261. v. Maner, 90, 96. v. Mann, 83, 90. v. McDonald, 296. v. Muller, 67. v. Pemberton & Smith, 264. v. Peter, 269. v. Pitney, 289. v. Piver, 90, 95. v. Posey, 263, 265, 269. v. Prall's Admrs., 287, 304. v. Raines, 90, 96. v. Reed, 86. v. Samuel, a slave, 230, 231, 243, 245. v. Simes, 232. v. Singlebury, 292. v. Tackett, 86, 92. v. Thackam & Magson, 264. v. Van Waggoner, 66. Wash v., 91, 269. v. Weaks, 108. Whaley v., 232. v. Whyte and Sadler, 92. v. Will, 93, 94, 95, 274, 276. William v., v. Wilson, 99. Worley v., 86, 276. Stewart v. Williams, 297. Stephen, Wood v., 257. Stephens, Violet and another v., 253. Stiles v. Richardson, 304. Wall, Mullins v., 296. Wallingsford v. Allen, 279. Walls v. Hemsley et al., 254. Waring, Oatfield v., 280. Wash v. The State, 91, 269. Washington v. Blunt, 302. White v. White, 292. and wife, Bush's Repres. v., 216. Whitesides alias Prewitt, Winny v., 217. Whyte and Sadler, State v., 92. Will, Bodine's, 250. State v., 93, 94, 95, 274, 276. Willard v. The People, 126, 184, 198, 214. Willes, Madrazzo v., 179. Williams v. Brown, 177, 246, 304. Williams, Scott v., 67, 256. Stewart v., 297. Vaughan v., 204. Williamson and others v. Daniel and others, 68. Willis v. Bruce, 304. Willson, Cornish v., 298, 299, 300. Wilmot, Thompson v., 216, 242, 256, 304. Wilson v. Barnett, 295, 300, 301. Melvin v., 218. State v., 99. Winn, Admr., &c., v. Jones, 230. Thomas v., 294, 299, 301. Woolfork v. Sweeper, 256. Waters, Cleveland et al. v., 291, 298, Wooten v. Becton, 291. 302. Waugh, Scott v., 68, 77. Weaks, State v., 108. Weathersby v. Weathersby, 292. Welch's Heirs v. Welch's Admrs., 296. Wells, Arthur v., 92, 93, 276. v. Lane, 295. Susan v., 247. West, Isaac v., 77, 288, 294. Sidney v., 72, 73, 79, 80, 293. Wootten, Ben Jones V., Worley, Blair v., 91. 72. v. The State, 86, 276. Worthington v. Preston, 222. Wright v. Deacon, 222. Hudgins v., 65, 66, 68, 252, 253, 254, 257. v. Lowe, 292. Nancy v., 302. Wynn et al. v. Carroll et al., 74, 77, 283. Young v. Sylvester, 235. AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF SLAVERY. INTRODUCTION. PHILOSOPHY is the handmaid, and frequently the most successful expounder of the law. History is the groundwork and only sure basis of philosophy. To understand aright, therefore, the Law of Slavery, we must not be ignorant of its history. A detailed and minute inquiry into the history of slavery would force us to trace the history of every nation of the earth; for the most enlightened have, at some period within their existence, adopted it as a system; and no organized government has been so barbarous as not to introduce it amongst its customs. It has been more universal than marriage, and more permanent than liberty. All that we can propose for ourselves here, is a limited and brief glance at its existence and condition during the several ages of the world. Its beginning dates back at least to the deluge. One of the inmates of the ark became a "servant of servants;" and in the opinion of many the curse of Ham See Bancroft's United States, vol. i, ch. v. "Liberty and Tyranny have kept pace with each other. The helots at Sparta, the slaves at Rome, the villains of the feudal system, bear testimony to this melancholy truth." Brown's Civil Law, i, 97. |