1. Look at Section 1 of the law. (just the 1st paragraph) What is the intent of the law as you
interpret it? Now look at that second little bit of Section 1. (begins with Provided....) Does that
change the intent at all?
The intent of the law was to extend the ability to enslave people to the entire black and mixed
population. At this point in time, literally no one could be lawfully proven as not mixed, so It
made it impossible for this first section of the black codes to not apply. Although on surface level
it may seem like the court is doing a good thing, they are just expanding the pool of who can be
legally enslaved. The black codes state that if they themselves or their parents/guardians couldn’t
provide or support them, it would be up to the court to find a “suitable person” to then take care
of them. Even though former slaves were the ones who actually knew how to provide and
support other people, black people and people of mixed race were denied the ability to even have
a chance because in order to have the ability to provide, one needed wealth, in this case land.
They were never being given the means to expand their status, so the law created in the black
codes could be applied to anyone of the courts choosing, in fact, it was like a guarantee that
former slaves, people of mixed race, and any other group mentioned in the law could not
provide. The second little bit only further stakes in what the first paragraph was saying. It almost
literally says that the former owner can choose, can make his preference when deemed suitable
by the court, and of course he would be deemed a suitable person because the former slave
owner is the one with the means, the money, the land to “provide”. On top of this the court could
only find a suitable person that may be someone else provided with a suitable previous slave
owner, and why would he choose something else except to keep the slave as his, which means
that this law only really benefitted the slave owners and not the freed slaves at all.
2. Look at Section 2 of the law. What is the intent of that part of the law? Specifically, look at the
two highlighted parts of that section. Why the extra bond payment to the state of Mississippi and
why the specific reference to the age of 15? What reasons could explain why there is a gap in age
for men versus women?
The intent of the law is to support the expansion of the pool of people that can become slaves.
The government owes you for owning literal slaves if he or she shall furnish said minor with
sufficient food and clothing; to treat said minor humanely; furnish medical attention in case of
sickness. But it’s probably relative and the owner gets to decide what “sufficient” means, maybe
it just means that they’re alive and that’s sufficient enough. On top of that, because of the
requirement to pay bonds to the government for owning slaves, the government then owes
interest payments which will only benefit the slave owners. I feel that the ages are just there to
throw us off, since at the time, many if not all previous slaves/freedmen could not prove their age
for they had no birth certificate or anything like that. This would force them into legal contracts
with previous slave owners which would basically just mean slavery all over again since this law
does not abolish slavery.
3. What is the intent of the highlighted part of Section 3?
The highlighted part of section 3 literally makes it legal to beat your slaves, get away with it, and
at the same time made it impossible for there to be rebellion against the owner. So, even if the
slaves bound by contract were to severely beat by their owners, they could not complain because
in a court, the owner could say it was because they misbehaved, and this was just punishment for
that. Furthermore, acting out against your owner would most likely be considered an act of
defiance, and then that action could justify another beating or punishment, which sadly would be
totally legal. I doubt that punishments would go as far as whippings, or as bad as they were pre
civil war, but there are plenty of things that could be done to inflict pain that would be
considered what a father or guardian may do to his or her child.
4. What is the intent behind Section 4? Why the use of the term "employment" and the second
highlighted part of that section dealing with "apprentices" who refuse to "return to their
employment?"
The intent behind section 4 was to further bind the people referred to in the first paragraph (those
being basically the entire black and mixed race population) to their providers, in other words
making it impossible for them to escape from their owners, for it was the only choice they had.
The use of the word employment is to reference the legal contract to which the person is bound
the “provider” and to sugarcoat the fact that it wasn’t really employment, but slavery disguised in
new words. The inclusion of the part of refusing to return to their employment emphasizes that
they had two options, incarceration, or slave. This highlighted part of section 4 made it the law
that “employers” could chase after their “employees” and force them back into their contract,
just like how before, slave owners could chase their slaves even in the northern states, almost
like they’re the exact same things but just framed differently. It is not only enhanced by the
highlighted part, but also near the end where it states from time to time be provided for until the
agreement to return. This means that it was almost better to be in the “employment” of someone
else because at least there, they were required to provide for you constantly and not just from
time to time. This made it so that all freedmen, black people, and people of mixed race only had
1 choice, slavery but defined in sugarcoated words. The other “option” was incarceration, but
that really just led to the former choice.