Though the Heavens May Fall: The Landmark Trial That Led to the End of Human Slavery
Steven M Wise
To me, the most fascinating thing about the Somerset case is that it happened at all. I knew, of course, that slavery was outlawed in England long before (1772) it was abolished in the USA (1865). If you read much history or even historical fiction, you know that for much of the 19th century the English navy attempted to suppress the slave trade. (It's rather astonishing, when you think about it, that the English felt they had the right to forcibly interrupt the trade of other sovereign nations, although that trade was legal by the laws of those other nations. But Britannia ruled the waves -- the English Navy could say "You are not going to trade slaves". They couldn't quite make it stick, but they could at least make the slavers uncomfortable.)
Before reading Though the Heavens May Fall, I assumed that England abolished slavery in much the same way that the USA eventually did -- through legislative actions of elected government (the 13th amendment to the US Constitution). It didn't happen that way. Slavery was outlawed in England, against vocal opposition by wealthy and powerful people, through a single trial, even though it was customary and there was no law on the books against it. The judge, Lord Mansfield, wrote,
The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.
In effect, he said, "This is wrong -- we will not allow it any more. I don't care how many of you it bankrupts".
How could this happen? Going back to ancient times England had a tradition of "common law". As Rudyard Kipling describes it in Puck of Pook's Hill
His Saxons would laugh and jest with Hugh, and Hugh with them, and—this was marvellous to me—if even the meanest of them said that such and such a thing was the Custom of the Manor, then straightway would Hugh and such old men of the Manor as might be near forsake everything else to debate the matter—I have seen them stop the Mill with the corn half ground—and if the custom or usage were proven to be as it was said, why, that was the end of it, even though it were flat against Hugh, his wish and command. Wonderful!
That decision written, it set a precedent and was the law. (I'm simplifying, and in any case IANAL, so take my explanation with a whole dump-truck full of salt.)
The account I have given gives far too much credit to Mansfield. He deserves credit, but James Somerset, the slave, deserves more. He fought for his freedom, and for the freedom of other English slaves. He knew exactly what he was doing and was a savvy litigant and propagandist. I say propagandist, because Somerset knew well he needed the public on his side and published broadsides to accomplish that as well. Though the Heavens May Fall tells of that, as well as the trial itself.
Readers less ignorant than me might find this less interesting than I did. But I was fascinated.
Comments
Post a Comment
Add a comment!