• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

A question courtesy of some slightly foolish teachers.

Go to CruxDreams.com

KageKamen

Tribune
So those of you who follow the Odds and Ends thread may have already seen this

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/04/us/wisconsin-racially-insensitive-lesson-slavery-trnd/index.html

TLDR - some Wisconsin middle school history teachers figured that since the topic was Ancient Mesopotamia, questions about slavery were nice and family-friendly, right? Turns out, not so much... especially when they picked the first day of Black History Month. But this thread isn't about their mistake... rather, inspired by Loxuru, I'm reapproariating the question, which I think is probably better suited to the members of this board than to middle schoolers.

210204175501-02-wisconsin-school-slaves-assignment-exlarge-169.jpg


I know, it kind of gives the answer away, right? But you don't have to follow Hammurabi's Code - and if you do, you can always specify how. Oh, and even though the pronoun given is male, you can refer to a female slave in your answer!
 
The first question is : would Hammurabi foresee an independent enforcement of this law?

Does it simply allow the slave owner to execute the disrespectful slave, or punish the slave on his own terms (i.e. granting the slave owner the full ownership of the slave and the slave's life)?

Or does the law overrule the slave's ownership, and does it order a death penalty, because of a matter of protection of public social order? Would the disrespectful slave be taken away from the master, judged and executed by justice? The slave owner who would conceal such a crime from a slave, or resist seizure of the slave, then risks at least a fine?
 
As I understand it, Hammurabi's laws, having been written literally in stone, could not be revoked or over-ridden (anticipating the later 'Laws of the Medes and Persians'), and would have been enforced by a judge, representing the King. If a free man stole another man's slave, that was a capital offence, so a slave 'stealing herself' wouldn't have stood a chance. But I don't know how the death penalty was executed.
 
As I understand it, Hammurabi's laws, having been written literally in stone, could not be revoked or over-ridden (anticipating the later 'Laws of the Medes and Persians'), and would have been enforced by a judge, representing the King. If a free man stole another man's slave, that was a capital offence, so a slave 'stealing herself' wouldn't have stood a chance. But I don't know how the death penalty was executed.
According to this site:

A specified form of death penalty occurs in the following cases: gibbeting (on the spot where crime was committed) for burglary, later also for encroaching on the king’s highway, for getting a slave-brand obliterated, for procuring a husband’s death; burning for incest with own mother, for a vestal entering or opening a tavern, for theft at fire (on the spot); drowning for adultery, rape of a betrothed maiden, bigamy, bad conduct as wife, seduction of a daughter-in-law.

In other cases, the method of execution was not specified.


By the way, I'm not sure why the title says Egypt, rather than Mesopotamia...
 
According to this site:

A specified form of death penalty occurs in the following cases: gibbeting (on the spot where crime was committed) for burglary, later also for encroaching on the king’s highway, for getting a slave-brand obliterated, for procuring a husband’s death; burning for incest with own mother, for a vestal entering or opening a tavern, for theft at fire (on the spot); drowning for adultery, rape of a betrothed maiden, bigamy, bad conduct as wife, seduction of a daughter-in-law.

In other cases, the method of execution was not specified.


By the way, I'm not sure why the title says Egypt, rather than Mesopotamia...
Drowning for "bad conduct as wife"?
 
So those of you who follow the Odds and Ends thread may have already seen this

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/04/us/wisconsin-racially-insensitive-lesson-slavery-trnd/index.html

TLDR - some Wisconsin middle school history teachers figured that since the topic was Ancient Mesopotamia, questions about slavery were nice and family-friendly, right? Turns out, not so much... especially when they picked the first day of Black History Month. But this thread isn't about their mistake... rather, inspired by Loxuru, I'm reapproariating the question, which I think is probably better suited to the members of this board than to middle schoolers.

210204175501-02-wisconsin-school-slaves-assignment-exlarge-169.jpg


I know, it kind of gives the answer away, right? But you don't have to follow Hammurabi's Code - and if you do, you can always specify how. Oh, and even though the pronoun given is male, you can refer to a female slave in your answer!
But the answer appears to be wrong...

282. If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear.
Sounds fair, I guess. :devil:
 
The first question is : would Hammurabi foresee an independent enforcement of this law?

Does it simply allow the slave owner to execute the disrespectful slave, or punish the slave on his own terms (i.e. granting the slave owner the full ownership of the slave and the slave's life)?

Or does the law overrule the slave's ownership, and does it order a death penalty, because of a matter of protection of public social order? Would the disrespectful slave be taken away from the master, judged and executed by justice? The slave owner who would conceal such a crime from a slave, or resist seizure of the slave, then risks at least a fine?

Traditionally, a slave's owner has the final word on punishment.

However, if the slave was to be tried in a court under Hammurabi's code, the slave would be judged innocent unless the prosecution could prove otherwise.

If found guilty, the judge would assign an appropriate punishment. If found not guilty, the judge may free the slave.
 
If found guilty, the judge would assign an appropriate punishment. If found not guilty, the judge may free the slave.
A verdict declaring the slave not guilty, leading automatically to the liberation of the slave, seems odd. It means that law expropriates the owner -which is different from the purpose of maintaining public order by punishing disrespectful slaves.

So, you got the opposite of what the law intends (protecting the interests of the slave owners, by imposing a general level of punishment,; over the authority of the slave owner, i.e. giving the slave owners, for the sake of public order, a responsability to keep their slaves at the leash).

Otherwise, it would be easy for the slave : behave disrespectful, and bet on an acquittal in court! Since the slave has little too loose, the authority of the slave owners would dwindle quickly!

So, a slave found innocent, should be returned to the owner.
 
A verdict declaring the slave not guilty, leading automatically to the liberation of the slave, seems odd. It means that law expropriates the owner -which is different from the purpose of maintaining public order by punishing disrespectful slaves.

So, you got the opposite of what the law intends (protecting the interests of the slave owners, by imposing a general level of punishment,; over the authority of the slave owner, i.e. giving the slave owners, for the sake of public order, a responsability to keep their slaves at the leash).

Otherwise, it would be easy for the slave : behave disrespectful, and bet on an acquittal in court! Since the slave has little too loose, the authority of the slave owners would dwindle quickly!

So, a slave found innocent, should be returned to the owner.
I think that you have missed my point. Disrespect is a relatively minor crime and, normally, the owner would deal would deal with it with an appropriate (or excessive) punishment.

However, if the slave was taken to court under Hammurabi's code, the slave would be judged innocent unless proved guilty. If the prosecution failed to prove guilt, it is up to the judge to decide what happened to the slave, He may free the slave; he may send the slave back to its owner, who may not treat the slave well; or he can demand that the slave is auctioned to a new owner.
 
In the slave states of the US, it was technically illegal for a master to willfully kill their slave. If the slave died under punishment that was considered an accident, but if the intent was to kill them that was a crime. Of course, getting a jury, which in those days would consist of white males, many of whom owned slaves, to convict was a difficult proposition, but there were occasional cases where the behavior was so egregious that the jury did convict.

 
Hammurabi was indeed really tough on false accusations ... false marking of slaves was also a concern ...

If a barber, without the knowledge of his master, cut the sign of a slave on a slave not to be sold, the hands of this barber shall be cut off.
If any one deceive a barber, and have him mark a slave not for sale with the sign of a slave, he shall be put to death, and buried in his house. The barber shall swear: "I did not mark him wittingly," and shall be guiltless.

This of course shows also that 'slavery' was not just one thing ..."slave to be sold" obviously being a very different condition from some others such as debt-slaves.
 
But the answer appears to be wrong...


Sounds fair, I guess. :devil:
Foolish teachers indeed...

In the slave states of the US, it was technically illegal for a master to willfully kill their slave. If the slave died under punishment that was considered an accident, but if the intent was to kill them that was a crime. Of course, getting a jury, which in those days would consist of white males, many of whom owned slaves, to convict was a difficult proposition, but there were occasional cases where the behavior was so egregious that the jury did convict.

Hmm... so then there are grounds for such laws in even the America of my modern setting...
 
I think that you have missed my point. Disrespect is a relatively minor crime and, normally, the owner would deal would deal with it with an appropriate (or excessive) punishment.

However, if the slave was taken to court under Hammurabi's code, the slave would be judged innocent unless proved guilty. If the prosecution failed to prove guilt, it is up to the judge to decide what happened to the slave, He may free the slave; he may send the slave back to its owner, who may not treat the slave well; or he can demand that the slave is auctioned to a new owner.
I understand your point very well. Mine is (besides specific legislation from King Hammurabi), who has authority over a disrespectful slave (the latter should also be described by law)? It is perfectly sound reasoning, that a judge may not only acquit a slave, but give the slave freedom, on condition that the latter verdict is allowed by law. The slave owner, or justice. Law should either be clear about that, if the owner has unlimited powers, or if in some circumstances, specified by law, justice takes over.

Also keep in mind that, in an economy with a substantial contribution of slave labor, law and justice will protect the interests of common wealth, i.e. by tending to be at the side of the slave owners. Rights of slaves will be statutory limited, and verdicts against slaves will be harsher than against free people, that’s the essentials of the system. So, I doubt whether any law would pass that makes it possible that a judge can ‘reward’ a rebellious slave by linking an acquittal to a liberation, on risking that the social and economical fundamentals risk to fall apart. The slave ought to be returned to the owner anyway.
 
I understand your point very well. Mine is (besides specific legislation from King Hammurabi), who has authority over a disrespectful slave (the latter should also be described by law)? It is perfectly sound reasoning, that a judge may not only acquit a slave, but give the slave freedom, on condition that the latter verdict is allowed by law. The slave owner, or justice. Law should either be clear about that, if the owner has unlimited powers, or if in some circumstances, specified by law, justice takes over.

Also keep in mind that, in an economy with a substantial contribution of slave labor, law and justice will protect the interests of common wealth, i.e. by tending to be at the side of the slave owners. Rights of slaves will be statutory limited, and verdicts against slaves will be harsher than against free people, that’s the essentials of the system. So, I doubt whether any law would pass that makes it possible that a judge can ‘reward’ a rebellious slave by linking an acquittal to a liberation, on risking that the social and economical fundamentals risk to fall apart. The slave ought to be returned to the owner anyway.
Of course you are correct. In a society that depended on slave labour, the slave would not have recourse to the courts. It would be the slave owner's choice to punish the slave or sell the slave to another owner -- this choice would depend upon the availability of replacement slaves.
 
I understand your point very well. Mine is (besides specific legislation from King Hammurabi), who has authority over a disrespectful slave (the latter should also be described by law)? It is perfectly sound reasoning, that a judge may not only acquit a slave, but give the slave freedom, on condition that the latter verdict is allowed by law. The slave owner, or justice. Law should either be clear about that, if the owner has unlimited powers, or if in some circumstances, specified by law, justice takes over.

Also keep in mind that, in an economy with a substantial contribution of slave labor, law and justice will protect the interests of common wealth, i.e. by tending to be at the side of the slave owners. Rights of slaves will be statutory limited, and verdicts against slaves will be harsher than against free people, that’s the essentials of the system. So, I doubt whether any law would pass that makes it possible that a judge can ‘reward’ a rebellious slave by linking an acquittal to a liberation, on risking that the social and economical fundamentals risk to fall apart. The slave ought to be returned to the owner anyway.
I guess this all depends on how several things come together ...

... is here a notion of "responsible use of property" or is there a kind of absolutist propertarianism - i.e. if you own something, that comes with no customary or legal responsibility toward society to put it to use in a 'proper' and 'productive' way that contributes collectively.

... is slavery always unconditional or is it sometimes conditional (as in the examples of debt slaves who are enslaved for a set period of time)

... and what is the default state of a person, if a master has been found to fail at his responsibilities of ownership, are there situations where the slave defaults to freedom, or does one say 'this slave must be owned by someone'

The judicial system interfering with, and punishing 'bad' slave owners might be something that the majority of owners who see themselves as 'well-behaved' wouldn't oppose ... the bad owners would be seen as shirking responsibilities that the good ones have to shoulder, and/or reaping short term profits that the good ones have to forego.

This would be less based on any idea of punishing masters for violating 'equal human rights' of slaves, but rather punishing them for failing to fulfill their duty to the greater society. And by definition a master's misbehavior would have to go far beyond 'the usual'. But I don't see that 'annulling slave ownership' couldn't be a possible sanction used against irresponsible masters in a slave-owning society.
 
Last edited:
I understand your point very well. Mine is (besides specific legislation from King Hammurabi), who has authority over a disrespectful slave (the latter should also be described by law)? It is perfectly sound reasoning, that a judge may not only acquit a slave, but give the slave freedom, on condition that the latter verdict is allowed by law. The slave owner, or justice. Law should either be clear about that, if the owner has unlimited powers, or if in some circumstances, specified by law, justice takes over.

Also keep in mind that, in an economy with a substantial contribution of slave labor, law and justice will protect the interests of common wealth, i.e. by tending to be at the side of the slave owners. Rights of slaves will be statutory limited, and verdicts against slaves will be harsher than against free people, that’s the essentials of the system. So, I doubt whether any law would pass that makes it possible that a judge can ‘reward’ a rebellious slave by linking an acquittal to a liberation, on risking that the social and economical fundamentals risk to fall apart. The slave ought to be returned to the owner anyway.
I guess this all depends on how several things come together ...

... is here a notion of "responsible use of property" or is there a kind of absolutist propertarianism - i.e. if you own something, that comes with no customary or legal responsibility toward society to put it to use in a 'proper' and 'productive' way that contributes collectively.

... is slavery always unconditional or is it sometimes conditional (as in the examples of debt slaves who are enslaved for a set period of time)

... and what is the default state of a person, if a master has been found to fail at his responsibilities of ownership, are there situations where the slave defaults to freedom, or does one say 'this slave must be owned by someone'

The judicial system interfering with, and punishing 'bad' slave owners might be something that the majority of owners who see themselves as 'well-behaved' wouldn't oppose ... the bad owners would be seen as shirking responsibilities that the good ones have to shoulder, and/or reaping short term profits that the good ones have to forego.

This would be less based on any idea of punishing masters for violating 'equal human rights' of slaves, but rather punishing them for failing to fulfill their duty to the greater society. And by definition a master's misbehavior would have to go far beyond 'the usual'. But I don't see that 'annulling slave ownership' couldn't be a possible sanction used against irresponsible masters in a slave-owning society.
Of course, "annulling ownership" - whether as punishment or just to protect the slave from extra-judicial retribution - doesn't have to mean freedom. The slave could be resold, or become state property. (They might even be given a choice.)
 
I guess this all depends on how several things come together ...

... is here a notion of "responsible use of property" or is there a kind of absolutist propertarianism - i.e. if you own something, that comes with no customary or legal responsibility toward society to put it to use in a 'proper' and 'productive' way that contributes collectively.

... is slavery always unconditional or is it sometimes conditional (as in the examples of debt slaves who are enslaved for a set period of time)

... and what is the default state of a person, if a master has been found to fail at his responsibilities of ownership, are there situations where the slave defaults to freedom, or does one say 'this slave must be owned by someone'

The judicial system interfering with, and punishing 'bad' slave owners might be something that the majority of owners who see themselves as 'well-behaved' wouldn't oppose ... the bad owners would be seen as shirking responsibilities that the good ones have to shoulder, and/or reaping short term profits that the good ones have to forego.

This would be less based on any idea of punishing masters for violating 'equal human rights' of slaves, but rather punishing them for failing to fulfill their duty to the greater society. And by definition a master's misbehavior would have to go far beyond 'the usual'. But I don't see that 'annulling slave ownership' couldn't be a possible sanction used against irresponsible masters in a slave-owning society.
I suppose that my response is due to my loathing of the concept of slavery, Although, biblically, the priest Eli says that slavery is normal and acceptable. But Eli also said that men should never cut their hair ,,,
 
Back
Top Bottom