• About
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   Institutional Repository Home
    • Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    •   Institutional Repository Home
    • Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of Institutional RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDepartmentThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDepartment

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Litigating the Lash: Quaker Emancipator Robert Pleasants, the Law of Slavery and the Meaning of Manumission in Revolutionary and Early National Virginia.

    Hardin, William Fernandez
    : https://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/etd-03292013-113550
    http://hdl.handle.net/1803/11711
    : 2013-04-16

    Abstract

    This dissertation seeks to throw open the courtroom doors and show how ordinary people—black and white, free and enslaved—shaped the law of manumission at a critical moment in American history. It is a detailed legal, cultural and family history of the Virginia case of Pleasants v. Pleasants (1799), in which Robert Pleasants sued his nieces, nephews, siblings and cousins for the freedom of over four hundred slaves in the Virginia Court of Appeals, the state’s highest tribunal in the largest manumission case in American history. The court upheld Pleasants’s claim that his father’s and brother’s wills had set the slaves free. During the dispute, the family members advanced legal arguments and notions of property that found their way into the legal proceedings. The background of the case—Quaker antislavery, the events of the Revolution, the actions of the enslaved, and popular understandings of law and justice—became the context in which judges had to apply the law. Formalistic property concerns helped to mask considerations of race and freedom, but could not completely cover the judges’ uncertainty as to the ambiguous relationship between law and slavery. The legal elite had to disentangle property rights from the principles of equality and by doing so, they fashioned the legal ligaments necessary for a slaveholding republic by defining manumission in terms of a master’s property interest, rather than a slave’s right to freedom.
    Show full item record

    Files in this item

    Icon
    Name:
    HardinWF.pdf
    Size:
    1.235Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    View/Open

    This item appears in the following collection(s):

    • Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    Connect with Vanderbilt Libraries

    Your Vanderbilt

    • Alumni
    • Current Students
    • Faculty & Staff
    • International Students
    • Media
    • Parents & Family
    • Prospective Students
    • Researchers
    • Sports Fans
    • Visitors & Neighbors

    Support the Jean and Alexander Heard Libraries

    Support the Library...Give Now

    Gifts to the Libraries support the learning and research needs of the entire Vanderbilt community. Learn more about giving to the Libraries.

    Become a Friend of the Libraries

    Quick Links

    • Hours
    • About
    • Employment
    • Staff Directory
    • Accessibility Services
    • Contact
    • Vanderbilt Home
    • Privacy Policy