Drag to reposition your photo

T Lee Horne III

Male. Lives in Pensacola, Florida, United States. Is single.

About Me

I retired when I turned 50 years old. I am working again at 72 years old.

I started back to work at A... View More

Liked Pages1

34 Likes

CSA II: The New Confederate States of America

Company, Organization, or Institution

T Lee Horne III

Report this User

Status Update

T Lee Horne III

April 17, 2026 8:44 pm

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SOUTHERN STATES Chet McAteer · · How Antebellum Courts Humanized Slavery in the South While the North Embraced Savage Chattel Tyranny and Brutal Public Executio... View MoreTHE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE SOUTHERN STATES Chet McAteer · · How Antebellum Courts Humanized Slavery in the South While the North Embraced Savage Chattel Tyranny and Brutal Public Executions In the antebellum era, the Southern legal system stood as a radiant beacon of enlightened paternalism, breathing humanity into the the horrid institution of slavery through landmark court decisions that repeatedly affirmed enslaved individuals as beings made in the image of their Creator, endowed with moral agency, personal rights, and judicial protections…while the barbaric North wallowed in a cold, unregulated chattel tyranny that reduced human souls to mere disposable livestock, stripped of any meaningful legal safeguards, dignity, or recourse against cruelty, and punctuated by spectacular public tortures that made clear the absolute power of masters and the State. Southern courts, rooted in English common law, Christian stewardship, and pragmatic duty, mandated food, clothing, shelter, medical care for the infirm, periods of rest, and limits on excessive violence, fostering a system of mutual obligation that preserved both workforce and moral order; by stark and horrifying contrast, Northern systems offered no such mercy, treating slaves as profit-driven chattel vulnerable to unlimited punishment, with no standing to sue, no right to self-defense, no shield against exploitation under harsh Black Codes that denied assembly, testimony against Whites, or basic defenses, enabling both systemic degradation and State-sanctioned gore during moments of White fear. Research leaves no doubt: Southern cases like Guardian of Sally v. Beatty (1792, South Carolina Supreme Court), where Chief Justice John Rutledge upheld a slave’s agency in purchasing and manumitting another named Sally, powerfully implied profound legal personhood and moral agency, reinforcing South Carolina’s slave codes that demanded provision of necessities and protection against excessive cruelty. Similarly, Hudgins v. Wright (1806, Virginia Supreme Court) freed enslaved woman Jackey Wright and her children based on Native American descent prohibited since 1705, acknowledging their full humanity through lineage and opening the door to judicial intervention in abuse, as later realized in Commonwealth v. Turner (1827), which convicted a slaveholder for cruelty, protections utterly absent in the North’s savage systems, where Pennsylvania offered no mechanisms for asserting freedom, leaving slaves defenseless under restrictive Black Codes. Harry v. Decker & Hopkins (1818, Mississippi Supreme Court) further shone with Southern commitment, declaring slave Harry free after residing in the slavery-banned Northwest Territory under the Ordinance of 1787, affirming his juridical personality and right to sue, while Mississippi’s codes enforced basic needs and humane treatment; in hypocritical contrast, Northern states like New York, despite gradual emancipation, lacked any legal recourse, permitting unlimited punishment via the 1702 statute and denying any standing. North Carolina v. Negro Will (1834, North Carolina Supreme Court), under the noble Judge William Gaston, ruled a slave’s self-defensive killing of an overseer as manslaughter rather than murder, explicitly granting the fundamental human right to self-defense against unlawful violence, with codes mandating welfare and court oversight for cruelty, a humane recognition that would have been unimaginable in the North’s oppressive regime, where New York’s 1712 slave revolt triggered executions of breathtaking brutality and the 1741 conspiracy scare unleashed even more spectacular terror. North Carolina v. Manuel (1838, North Carolina Supreme Court), also by Gaston, declared free Blacks born in the state as citizens with rights to property ownership, court access, and insolvency declaration…precedents later cited in Justice Benjamin Curtis’s Dred Scott dissent (1857), underscoring Southern inclusivity for former slaves; meanwhile, Northern hypocrites in New Jersey disenfranchised free Blacks in 1807, and Connecticut imposed discriminatory property qualifications, exposing their own restrictive bigotry. Even State v. Mann (1829, North Carolina Supreme Court), though prioritizing discipline by overturning a conviction for shooting a fleeing slave named Lydia, saw Judge Thomas Ruffin acknowledge slaves as “human beings” with “feelings and sensibilities,” while mandating welfare and boundaries. Judge Nathan Green of Tennessee, born on May 16, 1792, in Amelia County, Virginia, and a towering figure on the Tennessee Supreme Court from 1831 to 1852 (after serving as state senator in 1827 and chancellor of East Tennessee from 1827 to 1831), embodied this paternalistic framework in rulings that elevated the enslaved above brute property. In Ford v. Ford (1846), involving a will freeing slaves and bequeathing them property after the death of yeoman farmer Loyd Ford in 1842, Green affirmed their legal right to sue to probate the will, declaring with thunderous moral clarity: “a slave is not in the condition of a horse or an ox…[He] is made after the image of the Creator…He has mental capacities and an immortal principle in his nature that constitute him equal to his owner but for the accidental position to which fortune has placed him.” Additional Southern gems reinforced the pattern: State v. Cynthia Simmons and Lawrence Kitchen (1794, South Carolina), where Judge Waites asserted, “Negroes are under the protection of the laws, and have personal rights, and cannot be considered on a footing only with domestic animals… They have wills of their own, and capacities to commit crimes,” affirming moral agency and allowing intervention in abuse through fines or owner transfers; Tennent v. Dendy (1837, South Carolina), by Judge John Belton O’Neall, emphasized slaves as deserving guards against violence, likening the master-slave bond to a parent-child relationship of benevolent stewardship. Creswell’s Executor v. Walker (1861, Alabama Supreme Court) upheld will-based manumission, recognizing enslaved capacity for legal benefits, with codes enforcing humane care. Collectively, these cases from Guardian of Sally to Creswell’s Executor paint the South’s more enlightened framework: granting legal personhood for suits and freedom assertions (as in Ford and Harry), self-defense (Negro Will), free Black citizenship (Manuel), and humanity with moral agency (Ford’s immortal principle). All this unfolded under slave codes grounded in Christian duty and economic pragmatism that required provision, rest, family visits, and lenient anti-literacy rules for Bible reading, preserving healthy workers and fostering obligation. Even as Dred Scott (1857) tested Black citizenship federally, Southern precedents like Manuel and Ford had already demonstrated earlier inclusivity, affirming the South’s moral and legal superiority in forging a stable, humane society even under the vileness of the system of institutional Slavery. By cruel and unregulated contrast, the North’s profit-driven disposability provided none of these safeguards. Northern slave codes (such as New York’s 1702 statute and post-1712 expansions) granted masters absolute authority: slaves could not testify against Whites, sue for freedom in most cases, assemble freely, own firearms, or travel without passes. Free Blacks faced parallel Black Codes denying voting, court access, or equal testimony (e.g., New Jersey’s 1807 disenfranchisement). Courts prioritized property rights and fugitive returns over protection, most infamously in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Pennsylvania’s personal liberty law and upheld the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, allowing slave-catchers to seize alleged runaways without due process. Rare prosecutions for abuse, like the 1817 New York trial of Amos and Demiss Broad, only reached court because of public outrage and the New York Manumission Society: the Broads starved and beat enslaved Betty and her toddler Sarah, whipped them publicly with a cow-skin lash, threw knives causing a “so large a gash” requiring a doctor, forced them to eat salt then denied water, exposed them naked to freezing winter cold (throwing water on them outdoors), locked Sarah in an unheated storeroom until her feet were frostbitten “so that she was hardly able to crawl,” and kicked them repeatedly, yet such cases were common occurrences in the Northern States. The most gory horrors erupted in responses to perceived resistance. In the New York Slave Revolt of 1712, after enslaved Africans killed nine Whites, authorities executed twenty-one in spectacular public agony: twenty were burned alive at the stake (one slowly over eight to ten hours until reduced to ashes); one was broken on the wheel (limbs smashed and left to die); one was hung alive in chains in the town center without food or water until he starved to death; a pregnant woman was kept alive until she gave birth, then executed. Governor Robert Hunter reported it as “the most exemplary punishment inflicted that could be possibly thought of,” leading to stricter codes. In the 1741 New York Conspiracy scare (fueled by fires and panic over an alleged plot), over two hundred Blacks and some Whites were arrested; trials produced thirteen Blacks burned at the stake, seventeen to eighteen hanged, and dozens sold into harsher Caribbean slavery, with bodies displayed as warnings…all chronicled in Judge Daniel Horsmanden’s own Journal of the Proceedings (1744). Urban slavery meant grueling domestic or dock work with no mandated rest or medical care, contributing to high mortality and post-emancipation destitution, while vagrancy laws funneled free Blacks into forced labor and race riots (such as 1834 New York and Philadelphia anti-Black violence) targeted their communities. Northern savagery offered no courtroom shield, no recognition of personhood, only profit-driven disposability and, when fear struck, theatrical state terror. In Liberty and Eternal Vigilance, C.M. McAteer August 4, 2019 Updated 2024 References Southern Key Court Cases • Guardian of Sally v. Beatty (1792, South Carolina Supreme Court): A slave owned by Beatty purchased and manumitted another slave, Sally; Chief Justice John Rutledge upheld the manumission, recognizing the enslaved person’s agency. • State v. Cynthia Simmons and Lawrence Kitchen (2 Bay 180, 1794, South Carolina): Involved enslaved individuals charged with a crime; the court recognized their moral agency and legal protections. • Hudgins v. Wright (1806, Virginia Supreme Court): Freed Jackey Wright and her children based on Native American descent, as Indian slavery was prohibited in Virginia since 1705. • Harry v. Decker & Hopkins (1818, Mississippi Supreme Court): Freed a slave who resided in the Northwest Territory, affirming legal standing under the Ordinance of 1787. • Commonwealth v. Turner (26 Va. 678, 1827, Virginia): Convicted a slaveholder for excessive cruelty, reinforcing protections against abuse. • State v. Mann (13 N.C. 263, 1829, North Carolina Supreme Court): Overturned a conviction for violence against a slave but acknowledged enslaved individuals as “human beings” with feelings; often cited as affirming owner authority, though the essay emphasizes the humanity aspect. • North Carolina v. Negro Will (1834, North Carolina Supreme Court): Ruled a slave’s killing of an overseer in self-defense as manslaughter, not murder, recognizing limited self-defense rights. • Tennent v. Dendy (1 Speers 184, 1837, South Carolina): Emphasized protections for enslaved individuals, likening the master-slave relationship to parent-child. • North Carolina v. Manuel (1838, North Carolina Supreme Court): Recognized free Blacks as citizens with constitutional rights. • Ford v. Ford (26 Tenn. 92, 1846, Tennessee Supreme Court): Allowed enslaved individuals to sue to probate a will for freedom, affirming their humanity beyond mere property. • Creswell’s Executor v. Walker (37 Ala. 229, 1861, Alabama Supreme Court): Upheld manumission through a will, recognizing legal capacity for enslaved individuals. Northern Incidents, Codes, and Court Judgments • New York Slave Revolt of 1712: Primary account in Governor Robert Hunter’s letter to the Lords of Trade (June 23, 1712), reprinted in E.B. O’Callaghan, ed., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, Vol. V (1885), pp. 341–345. Details of executions (burnings alive, breaking on the wheel, hanging alive in chains) confirmed in multiple colonial records. • New York Conspiracy of 1741: Primary source Daniel Horsmanden, A Journal of the Proceedings in the Detection of the Conspiracy Formed by Some White People, in Conjunction with Negro and Other Slaves (1744); modern edition edited by Thomas J. Davis (Beacon Press, 1971). Executions: 13 Blacks burned at the stake, 17–18 hanged. • Trial of Amos and Demiss Broad (1817, New York Court of General Sessions): Court records and accounts preserved by the New York Society for the Manumission of Slaves; detailed in contemporary police reports and Manumission Society papers (see Gotham Center for New York City History analysis, 2019). • Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842): U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Pennsylvania’s personal liberty law and upholding the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 (full opinion in official reports). • Northern Slave Codes and Black Laws: New York 1702 and 1712 codes (The Colonial Laws of New York); Pennsylvania “Act for the Better Regulation of Negroes” and gradual abolition act (1780); New Jersey 1704 and 1713 statutes; general Black Codes documented in state session laws and secondary analyses such as “Repressive Legislation: Slave Codes, Northern Black Laws, and Southern Black Codes” (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, 2020). • Additional context on Northern Black Codes, vagrancy laws, and post-emancipation restrictions drawn from colonial statutes and 19th-century legal compilations.

View Less

Recent Photos

View More Photos