Topic for discussion - manumission

[epeeblade]

(I haven't done one of these in a while, so here goes...)

I was reading the latest bit of A Kept Boy last night when something occurred to me.

In it Jensen vehemently denies being part of any family, and denies any identity other than that of slave. He's not the only one raised from childhood to be the perfect slave.

So what would happen then if the abolitionist movement does pass a manumission clause? Now granted, it's probably not going to cause hundreds of people freeing their slaves en masse, but I can imagine wealthy owners "freeing their slaves" in their will after they pass. What happens to the slaves who can't imagine a life outside of slavery?

(And yes this would probably be AU like whoah, but it's something I'm interested in seeing explored in fic...)

Comments

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

(And yes this would probably be AU like whoah, but it's something I'm interested in seeing explored in fic...)

Another thought that I didn't address in my comment above is that, theoretically, it could be done on a state-by-state basis, similar to historical slavery in the U.S. So Montana, for instance, might decide to abolish slavery, even though it might not happen in California. If someone chose to write it this way, it would make be a little less "AU to the AU," I think.

[shalom]

And that state-by-state basis of abolishment would bring its own set of complications, as states that still had slavery and/or manumission did not recognize freed slaves.

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, and it would be even further complicated by federal government ownership of the slaves. How would that work? Under our current Constitution, the supremacy clause provides that federal law preempts state law. Does that mean that a slave is a slave even if the state government does not recognize such an institution? It could easily devolve into another civil war, though in this case it would be the federal government on the pro-slavery side.

[shalom]

Isn't this much what is happening with the recognition of same-sex marriage (and associated rights) in some states, and the constitutional banning of it in others.

Example....One of two Rhode Island men married in Connecticut died recently, and his spouse has no funeral arrangement rights in Rhode Island, although they were legally married in CT. A law allowing funeral rights for same sex partner was vetoed by the conservative RI governor.

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

In a way, it's the same thing in that marital rights vary state to state. But the major difference is that regulation of marriage has traditionally been a right reserved to the states, so there is (theoretically) no federal law on point with which the states who refuse to recognize same-sex marriage are clashing.

At least, that's the case as long as we continue to ignore the fact that the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to guarantee marriage as a fundamental right, but that's a whole other topic. ;)