Slaves vs. Modern Employees: A Controversial Comparison | Chapter 5
Slaves vs. Modern Employees
The Legal Chains: Dehumanization and the Property Status
The fundamental difference between a slave and any form of modern employee, no matter how exploited, lies in their legal status. A slave was, by definition, property – a piece of chattel, an object in human form. This legal reality was enshrined in codes and customs across slave-holding societies. In the Roman Empire, as discussed, a slave was legally a 'tool with a voice' (instrumentum vocale). In the American South, the legal codes were even more explicit and brutal in their dehumanization. Our scene shifts to a courtroom in Charleston, South Carolina, circa 1850.
The room is austere, filled with the murmur of lawyers and spectators. Before a stern judge stands a white plantation owner, Mr. Thompson, accused by a neighboring farmer of 'damaging property' – specifically, brutally whipping one of his own enslaved men, resulting in severe injury. The enslaved man, Jacob, is not present, nor would his testimony be admissible. He has no legal standing. The case is not about assault on a human being, but about the economic loss incurred by Mr. Thompson's excessive force, potentially reducing Jacob's value. The central legal tenet is 'dominium' – the absolute ownership of the master over the slave.
Southern slave codes meticulously detailed the rights of masters over their enslaved property, which included the right to their labor, their reproduction, and their very lives (though outright murder of a slave was theoretically punishable, enforcement was rare and weak). Slaves could not own property, enter into contracts, marry legally, or testify against a white person. Their children automatically inherited their mother's slave status, ensuring generational bondage. This created a self-perpetuating system of forced labor.
Imagine the dialogues in such a setting. The lawyers would discuss 'value,' 'depreciation,' and 'investment,' not human suffering. Mr. Thompson might argue, 'He was insolent, Your Honor. My property, and I have the right to manage it as I see fit to maintain discipline and productivity.' The arguments revolved around the preservation of the slave system and property rights, with no consideration for Jacob's pain, dignity, or inherent humanity. The law explicitly denied slaves their personhood, reducing them to mere commodities.
This legal framework had profound psychological effects. For the enslaved, it meant a constant, inescapable awareness of their utter powerlessness and vulnerability. Their existence was defined by the will of another. For slaveholders, it normalized the control and exploitation of human beings, fostering a culture where empathy was often suppressed in favor of economic gain and social status. The very language used – 'my Negroes,' 'the hands,' 'the stock' – reinforced this dehumanization. Even seemingly benign acts of kindness by a master were still within the context of absolute ownership, a gift bestowed by a superior, not an acknowledgment of inherent human dignity. This absolute legal status as property, with no recourse, no rights, and no recognition of individual autonomy, remains the starkest and most fundamental distinction when comparing historical slavery to any form of modern employment, no matter how oppressive.