ommitted by slaves were prosecuted by the court and if a slave was murdered, the case was prosecuted by the court as if the victim had been a free man. The law also made a more concerted attempt to protect the slave against mistreatment by his master. Mistreatment of a slave could lead both to the freedom of the slave and to the imprisoning of the master. Point Three: The slave in British North America could not own property and had absolutely no civil rights. The law clearly stated that he could neither own, inherit, nor will property, couldn't engage in buying or selling anything except at the pleasure of his master. In contrast, the slave in Brazil could own property, could engage in buying and selling, and was also guaranteed Sundays, holidays, and other times which to work for his own advancement. In short, the law implied that while the master could own a man's labor, he could not own the man as a person.In conclusion, it is not easy to make a comparison between the two slave systems. Brazilian slave masters often evaded the law and could be exceedingly brutal and British North American masters were often much more lenient than the law required. Conditions were usually more severe in Brazil and this may have worsened the actual material situation of the Brazilian slave. In North America the slave was treated like a thing and in Brazil there was some attempt to treat him as a man. This fact made a profound difference in the way the two systems affected the slave as an individual and in the way in which they impinged upon the development of his personality....
