In early 19th-century North Carolina judicial opinion about this question, of the limits of a master's authority over his slaves, was largely divided in two. While several judges were reluctant to admit that a slave had any rights whatsoever, others found that a master did not have the power to murder a slave for either sport or punishment.

In State v. Boon (1802, 1 N.C. 191) Judge Hall wrote: "a slave in a pure state of slavery has no rights...Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries, Vol. I., 423, define pure slavery to be, that whereby an absolute power is given to the master, over the life and fortune of the slave...Slaves in this country possess no such rights; their condition is more abject; they are not parties to our constitution; it was not made for them."

This sentiment was echoed by Justice Ruffin in State v. Mann (1829, 13 N.C. 263), who acknowledged a theoretical bound on the master's power, but declined to have the courts draw any enforceable line. "That there may be particular instances of cruelty and deliberate barbarity, where, in conscience the law might properly interfere, is most probable. The difficulty is to determine, where a Court may properly begin...We cannot allow the right of the master to be brought into discussion in the Courts of Justice. The slave, to remain a slave, must be made sensible, that there is no appeal from his master".

A mere five years later, in State v. Will (1834, 18 N.C. 121), Justice Gaston moved the North Carolina Supreme Court in another direction by reiterating the rule that a master may not deliberately kill his slave, even as part of a slave's punishment. "[U]nlimited power is, in general, the legal right of the master. Unquestionably there are exceptions to this rule...There is no legal limitation to the master's power of punishment, except that it shall not reach the life of his offending slave."

Ruffin, edging back somewhat from his earlier position five years after that in State v. Hoover (1839, 20 N.C. 500), elaborated then on the restriction on killing in relation to punishment. "But the master's authority is not altogether unlimited. He must not kill. There is, at the least, this restriction upon his power: he must stop short of taking life...If death unhappily ensue from the master's chastisement of his slave, inflicted apparently with a good intent", the court would attempt to excuse the master's conduct. But a death resulting from "[p]unishment...immoderate and unreasonable...accompanied by other hard usage and painful privations of food, clothing and rest" would suggest that the master intended murder, and be unacceptable to the courts.

In 12 Years a Slave, Solomon Northup mentions that in Louisiana, where he was enslaved, if a slave master is found to be mistreating his slaves, they can be seized from him and sold, and the profits from the sale given to the master. He did not specify what sort of mistreatment could cause this. I mean, he describes some truly horrific treatment at the hands of his master, Epps, who enjoyed whipping his slaves daily. Raping your slaves was totally normal and accepted, too.