All are slaves to the Goddess, in whom all are free. If in one cycle the soul needed to be born a slave, it is presumptuous of the relatives of that slave to "free" it after it has moved on to the next phase of its cycle. It might even be harmful to its progress to do so. Therefore, manumitting a dead slave is impossible under Lunar laws.
Under Dara Happan law, freeing a slave is probably a bit dicey too; if Yelm's Justice made the slave a slave, who are they to change it? If one can prove that the slave was *unjustly* placed in that status, of course, that is a different matter. Therefore, the descendents of a dead slave have a great interest in proving the injustice of the dead one's enslavement, but they cannot just purchase its freedom.
Thus, the ruling in the RW Amistad case is quite compatible with Yelmic justice. On the other hand, Dred Scott probably is, as well.
Lunar law would recognize post-mortem re-evaluations of status like this, as well, although it would not matter as much to them. At best, it would be a cheap way to free an entire family (unless the now never-was-a-slave had its children with a proper slave, in which case they are still slaves).
> Or, consider the case of a slave who has been accumulating the capital to
> purchase his freedom, but dies before he has quite enough. Can a portion of
> his "freedom fund" be used to secure the slave a higher status in the
> after-life? (and provide some compensation to the slave-owner for the loss
> of his property.)
What makes you think that the slave could pass along its capital? This would imply that the slave could properly keep property from its owner, which is absurd on the face of it. When a horse dies, does its foal get its tack, or is it the master's property to use on whichever horse he deems best?
Also, quite a few slaves are non-Dara Happans, who would not care a rat's ass about the Dara Happan afterlife. They and their family would expect to go to whatever place their gods have for them.
Powered by hypermail