Slave hiring was common in the South. Slaves' mobility and intelligence helped them adapt to different jobs, locations, and supervisors, so masters could benefit from hiring out slaves when work was slow at home. Yet these same attributes tempted people to exploit hired slaves when unexpected needs or profit opportunities arose. And slaves, being only human, were sometimes careless and disobedient. Consequently, clashes between slave employers and masters often landed in Southern courts. In keeping with the twofold nature of slaves as property and as humans, antebellum judges drew upon principles established in two broad areas of law to design rules governing slave hiring: the law of hired chattels (especially animals) and the law of employers and employees. The result was a set of rules that enhanced the operation of slave-hiring markets.

But slave-hiring law not only reflected other areas of law, it also served as an important influence. Slave-hiring cases provided precedents for many lawsuits involving livestock or free workers. In other instances, Southern judges developed reasoning in slave cases that later appeared in other types of employment disputes. What follows is, first, an overview of the similarities and differences in laws. Next, the analysis turns to cases in which employers and property owners fixed the terms of their agreements. The chapter ends with a discussion of disputes where courts played a more active role in determining the intentions of parties involved in an employment relationship.

Perhaps the most important finding is this: Although slaves and free workers both faced legal duties to behave like “reasonable persons,” slaveowners recovered damages for injuries far more often than free workers. I offer two explanations for this finding.