Slavery and Bankruptcy in America

By Professor Rafael I. Pardo, Robert T. Thompson Professor of Law, Emory Law (Atlanta, GA)


By Phil Lamos, Chief Legal Counsel, Office of the Chapter 13 Trustee Lauren A. Helbling (Cleveland, OH)

Slavery and Bankruptcy in America – Summary

Professor Rafael Pardo has written an extensive and fascinating article to be published in an upcoming Vanderbilt Law Review. He has given us a sneak peek.

Professor Pardo specializes in bankruptcy and commercial law, is an elected member of the American Law Institute and has testified as a bankruptcy expert before both houses of Congress.  In 2015, he received the Emory Williams Distinguished Teaching Award, the highest university honor for teaching given by Emory University to a full-time faculty member in recognition of a record of excellence in teaching.

Slavery and Bankruptcy in America discusses the passage by Congress of the Bankruptcy Act of 1841 which was a momentous occasion in the nation’s Bankruptcy history. The Bankruptcy Act of 1841 was one of the earliest attempts by Congress to regulate and legislate the Bankruptcy process, and it was the first piece of Bankruptcy legislation which allowed individuals to seek bankruptcy relief voluntarily, rather than having it forced upon them by their creditors. Important as this piece of legislations was, it led to one of the darkest periods in the nation’s Bankruptcy history. For a brief period of time in the middle of the nineteenth century, the federal district courts of this country, as part of their jurisdiction over the Bankruptcy process, managed and oversaw the sale of slaves.

Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1841, if a jury found that a debtor was entitled to bankruptcy relief, the Court would issue an order requiring the U.S. Marshalls to gather all of the debtor’s nonexempt assets and deliver them to a court-appointed receiver. This court-appointed receiver would sell the assets with the proceeds going to the bankrupt’s creditors. As we are painfully aware, in the South before the Civil War, one such possible asset would have been a debtor’s slave holdings. Court-administered slave sales took place from New Orleans to Richmond, with thousands of slaves being sold in court-administered liquidations arising in cases filed between 1841 and the repeal of the Act in 1843. Slaves who had been seized by the U.S. Marshall were jailed until they could be sold. The standard Bankruptcy forms and schedules of the time had a place for a debtor to list slave holdings, and even the rights to recapture slaves who had run away and could not be located were subject to auction.

Per Professor Pardo’s research, and history as we know it, slavery was an entrenched part of the antebellum South’s financial and cultural structure.

Professor Pardo’s article concludes that we must never forget that the 1841 Act, the forbearer of modern bankruptcy law, caused great harm and suffering to bankrupt slaves.


Doing the Unpleasant Parts of the Job – Commentary

Reading this article, makes one wonder if someone, somewhere charged with conducting and/or administering these bankruptcy cases found the sale of human beings abhorrent? Yet the sales went forward.

In today’s bankruptcy courts, of course, no one sells human beings. But how do we do the things that are a necessary component of our jobs, but that we find repulsive? Maybe what we find repulsive is something that we can all agree is difficult, like moving to dismiss the case of the sweet old lady who hasn’t made a plan payment in six months or objecting to a motion for a hardship discharge filed by a deserving debtor who hasn’t yet paid as much to their unsecured creditors as they would have received in a Chapter 7. Perhaps it is something on which seemingly reasonable minds may disagree, like the administration of cases filed by same-sex married couples.

One could say that we do these things because we’re paid to do them, but I think we’re more sophisticated than that. Unlike the selling of humans, I think we do them because we all recognize that doing these distasteful tasks serve a purpose larger than any one particular case. We are the protectors of the Bankruptcy system, and protecting the integrity of the system sometimes means doing things that we might find repugnant or hard to swallow. We have responsibilities to all parties involved, creditors as well as debtors, and while our heart might bleed for the sweet old lady, we have obligations to the creditors as well and it’s not within our purview to favor one over the other. Allowing the sweet old lady who’s not paying to stay under the protection of the Bankruptcy Code is not fair to the debtors who are paying (and it drives up costs for all debtors as well), so honoring our responsibilities to the system as a whole requires us to move to dismiss the cases which are failing, no matter our feelings. Giving a break to (or punishing) someone because of our particular ethics makes it okay for someone else to give a break to (or punish) someone because of their particular ethics, and eventually rules and laws have no meaning.

Sometimes our jobs are not easy. Sometimes we are forced to do things that we might think are repellant. But as odious as we might find these tasks, the only way the Bankruptcy process succeeds for all parties involved is if we carry these tasks out fairly and efficiently.


pardoProfessor Rafael Pardo specializes in bankruptcy and commercial law, and his scholarship has been published in numerous law journals, including the Alabama Law Review, the Iowa Law Review, the Florida Law Review, the UCLA Law Review, the Vanderbilt Law Review, the Washington Law Review, the Washington and Lee Law Review, and the William and Mary Law Review.

Professor Pardo received his JD from New York University School of Law, where he served as an executive editor of the New York University Law Review and was a recipient of the Judge John J. Galgay Fellowship in Bankruptcy and Reorganization Law.  He is an elected member of the American Law Institute and has testified as a bankruptcy expert before both houses of Congress.  In 2015, he received the Emory Williams Distinguished Teaching Award, the highest university honor for teaching given by Emory University to a full-time faculty member in recognition of a record of excellence in teaching.

Education: JD, New York University School of Law; BA, Yale College


IMG_2424Phil Lamos has been an attorney for the Chapter 13 Trustee since 1997, and has been the Trustee’s Chief Legal Counsel since 2003. A graduate of John Carroll University and the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Phil lives in Painesville, Ohio with his wife, son, and daughter.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

September 20, 2020
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) A Non-Governmental Private Student Loan Obligation is not always excepted from discharge by § 523(a)(8). (Holmes) McDaniel v. Navient Solutions, LLC, 2020 WL 5104560 (August 31, 2020) Case Summary Bryon and Laura McDaniel filed a Chapter 13 petition in 2009. They acknowledged that, among...
April 17, 2022
Mark Leffler, of the Boleman Law Firm in Virginia and also the current President of the Academy for Consumer Bankruptcy Education, begins a series of articles describing his firm’s development of a broader practice on behalf of consumer debtors. Look for subsequent parts of this series over the next few weeks. My fellow self-described consumer bankruptcy lawyers: you wield more...
June 14, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Attorney sanctioned for filing identical schedules in two cases without updating financial information. The same attorney represented a debtor in two cases filed sixteen months apart, but the attorney filed essentially identical schedules in both cases, violating Rule 9011 by failing to make reasonable inquiry before filing the second case. The schedules in...
July 24, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Wonk Alert This Part 2 wraps up some suggestions about how the parties to residential mortgages may avoid or minimize problems in the structuring and administration of these loans, with a discussion of subsection 1111(b) of Bankruptcy Code.1 This discussion may seem arcane, as indeed many experienced Chapter 11 practitioners...
October 20, 2019
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Claim allowed after reopening of no-asset case. The Chapter 7 case filed as no-asset was reopened after discovery of assets for distribution, and debtors objected to a claim on basis of statute of limitations. Affirming, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the time to commence action on the claim had been tolled under...
December 19, 2021
Introduction Following Part 1's review of the December 1, 2021 changes in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Part 2 and
November 3, 2019
Kristina Stanger is an attorney and shareholder at Iowa’s Nyemaster Goode, P.C. She is also a combat-experienced Lieutenant Colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard. She is currently one of Iowa’s highest ranking females and is the Chief of Plans and Operations for the Iowa Army National Guard. Jessica Hopton Youngberg is Senior Staff Attorney for Veterans Legal Services in...
February 3, 2019
By Edward C. Boltz, The Law Offices of John T. Orcutt (Durham, NC) (Originally published in pertinent part at, December 19, 2018) With the publication of Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, author Matthew Desmond has brought increasing attention both nationwide and in North Carolina to the growing eviction crisis. With . . . It looks like...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
December 4, 2022
Chapter 13 plan which provided a specific amount to be cured on a reverse mortgage under § 1322(b)(5) would be controlled by the specific term of the plan provision and not by the larger proof of claim filed by the creditor. (Baer) In re Edelstein, 2022 WL 16730027 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. November 7, 2022) Case Summary The Edelsteins filed Chapter...
December 20, 2020
By Cathy Moran, Esq., Moran Law Group (Redwood City, CA) On its face, Diaz (Diaz v. Viegelahn, No. 19-50982 (5th Cir. Aug. 26, 2020)) is a pretty straightforward decision that struck down a local form plan as violating a below-median income debtor's right to use her tax refund to finance necessary expenses for maintenance and support. On a deeper level,...