Your point about Perrone and the legal structures is important

You asked:

“I think legal structures were abolished, so what does it mean that Perrone discusses dismantling legal structures?”

You're right to question that.

The core legal institution of chattel slavery was abolished.

Therefore, we should not say:

“The legal structure of slavery continued unchanged after 1865.”

That would be wrong.

The better distinction is:

Before emancipation

slavery existed as a legally recognized institution.

After emancipation

that legal institution was abolished.

But afterward

courts, lawmakers, and communities still had to resolve numerous legal questions arising from the transition away from slavery.

Those questions could concern:

• labor contracts;
• property;
• family relationships;
• citizenship;
• civil rights;
• obligations created under slavery;
• the legal consequences of emancipation.

That is why Perrone's post-1865 litigation is relevant.

So instead of:

“the legal structures of slavery continued,”

I would write:

The legal institution of slavery was abolished, but legal disputes concerning the rights, obligations, relationships, and consequences inherited from slavery continued after emancipation.

That is much more precise.