Talk:Slavery at common law

Joseph Knight's case
Joseph Knight's case happened under the Scottish legal system, which is generally civil law rather than common law. LukeSurlt c 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cartwright's case - ethnicity of slave
I have reverted the deletion of the comment about Cartwright's slave possibly being African. I think it is generally acknowledged that we don't now know with any certain what ethnicity the slave had. However, given that many of the common law cases later focussed upon the "infidel" rationale on the basis that slaves were black, I don't think it is inapt to comment on the possibility that Cartwright's slave may also have been black. Conversely, I can't see any reason for commenting on the possibility (whilst acknowledging that it is certainly not a probability - the first serious wave of African slaves did not arrive until the 1700s). --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not really Wikipedia's place to comment on that possibility, unless other sources have already commented on that possibility. I'm not ruling out the Cartwright's slave might have been black (I was aware of Pushkin's ancestor previously), but it does seem a bit WP:SYNTHESIS-y to introduce that with a source. The preceding sentence isn't really sourced either, maybe we just shouldn't say anything about the slave's ethnicity? 106.69.250.123 (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is fair enough. Sorry, I had thought you had simply deleted without thinking. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Borderline WP:COPYVIO
The "African slave trade and the common law" section is not quite a verbatim copy-paste from John Baker's book, but is very close to it - for example: The courts at first held that trover would lie for negroes, as if they were chattels, apparently on the ground that they were infidels; but Holt CJ rejected this view, and also denied the possibility of bringing assumpsit on the sale of a negro in England:

Initially, the courts held that an action for trover would lie for blacks, as if they were chattels, but this was reasoned on the grounds that they were infidels rather than slaves, and lacked the rights enjoyed by Christians; (reasoning which would later find echoes in the U.S. case of Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)) but Judge Holt was to later reject this analysis, and also denied the possibility of bringing an assumpsit on the sale of a negro in England: I've added the appropriate template to the article. Tevildo (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the meaning of "lie" in the first sentence of both versions? I'd also like to know what those sentences mean. 2602:306:BC65:53A9:34D1:2453:D594:6131 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)