Year: 1867

The motive for introducing the historical facts
contained in this chapter is the following That
the credit Of Virginia as slaveholding State is re-


latvely illustrated by the conduct Of her partners
in the confederation touching the same matter. =
Virginia never passed general act of emaucipa-
ton; on the contrary, she forbade masters to free
their slaves within her borders, unless they also
provided for their removal to new homes. But
what was it which the Northern States actually
did2 The general answer to this question cannot
be better given than in the words Of the Hon. A.
II. H. Stuart of Virginia, in his report to the
General Assembly, as chairman Of its joint COM
mittee on the Harper's Ferry odtrages. He says:


cat the date of the declaration Of our national
independence, slavery existed in every colony Of
the Confederation. 4 :'


'Shortly after the Declaration of Independence,
the Northern States adopted prospective measures
to relieve themselves of the African population -
But it is great mistake to suppose that their pol
icy in this particular was prompted by any spirit
of philanthropy or tender regard for the welfare Of
the negro race. On the contrary, it was dictated
by an enlightened selfnterest, yielding obedience
to overruling laws of social economy Experience
had shown that the African race were not adapted
to high northern latitudes, and that slave labor
could not compete successfully with free white Ia
Dor in those pursuits to which the industry Of the
North was directed The discovery having been
made, the people of the North, at an early day,
began to dispose of their slaves by sale to citizens
of the Southern States, whose soil, climate, and
productions were better adapted to their habits and
capacities; and to the legislation Of the Northern
States, following the course Of public opinion, was
directed, not to emancipation, but to the removal
of the slave population beyond their limits. To
effect this object, they adopted system of laws
which provided, prospectively, that all slaves born
of female slaves within their jurisdiction, after
certain specified dates, should be held free when
they attained given age. No law can be found
on the statute book of any Northern State, which
conferred the boon of freedom on single slave in
being. All who were slaves remained slaves
Freedom was secured only to the children Of slaves
born after the days designated in the laws and it
was secured to them only in the contingency that
the owner of the female slave should retain her
within the jurisdiction of the State until after the
child was born. To secure freedom to the after
born child therefore, it was necessary that the con-
sent of the MASTER indicated by his permitting the
mother to remain in the State, should be superad-
ded to the provisions of the law. Without such
consent, the law would have been imperative be-
cause the mother, before the birth of the child,
might, at the will of the master, be removed be.
yond the jurisdiction of the law. There was no
legal prohibition of such removal, for such pro-
hibtion would have been at war with the policy of
the law, which was obviously removal, and not E.
Emancipation The effect of this legislation was as
might have readily been oroeeon, to induce the
owners of female slaves to sell them to the plant
ers of the South, before the time arrived when the
forfeiture of the offspring would accrue. By these
laws, wholesale slave trade was inaugurated, un-
der which large proportion of the slaves of the
Northern States were sold to persons residing south
of Pennsylvania; and it is an unquestionable fact
that large number of the slaves Of the Southern
States are the descendants of those sold by Nor
thern men to citizens of the South with covenants
of general warranty Of title to them and to their
increase"


Thus wrote Mr.. Stuart, after thorough research.
A brief recital of the enactments of the Northern
slaveholding States will show that his general rep
resentation is correct. We begin with Massachu-
setts. No law against slavery, (which had been
long legally established in the colony,) was ever
passed by her Legislature; and in that sense, the
right to hold slaves may be said to have formally
existed, until it was extinguished by her adoption
of the constitutional amendment" in 1861
Practically, slavery was gradually removed after
$780, by the current of the legal decisions against
it, grounded upon clause in the new bill Of rights,
adopted by the State in that year. This clause
asserted, nearly in the words Of the Declaration of
independence, the native equality and liberty of
men. In 1871 slave of N. Jennison, Of Wor-
cester County, recovered damages of his master for
beating. This decision, if sustained, Of course
implied the cessation of slavery. Although the
Legislature of the State was moved in 1888, by
this Jennison and others, to declare that slavery
did not exist legally, so that the doubt might be
ended, that body refused to act; nor did it ever
after abolish slavery But judicial decisions after
the example of the Jennison case were made from
time to time, until, in 1896, the Supreme Court OF
Massachusetts, in the case of Littleton Us. Tutte,
gave its countenance to the doctrine that the bill
Of rights virtually made slavery illegal. That all
this was glaring instance of judicial abuse am
plianda jurisdictionens, is manifest from many
facts: That the Massachusetts Statesmen who
adopted the same proposition in the Declaration OF
Independence, neverdreame ed of its possessing any
force to abolish slavery in the United States which
set it forth That the convention which drew up
the bill of rights for Massachusetts, did not think
of such an application; That this document de-
clared mo part of any citizens property could be
taken from him without his own consent" That
slaves continued to be bought and sold, and ad.
vertsed as before And that the abolitonists, still


in the minority, continued after l7SO to demonstrate
against slavery as sin still legalized. But such
mode of determining the question was well adapted
to the meddlesome and crooked temper Of that
people By this judicial trick the envious non
shareholders were enabled to attack their richer
slaveholding neighbors, andrender them so uneasy
as to insure their disposing Of their slaves while
still there was neither law nor public opinion preva


lent enough to procure legal act of emancipation.


New Hampshire and Vermont embodied the
principle of prospective emancipation in their new
constitutions. In 1890 there were l5S slaves in
New Hampshire. In 1S4O there was still one
Rhode Island passed a law in 1884, that no person
born after that year should continue slave. Con-
necticut embodied in the revision OF her laws, in
1884, law providing that all children born Of slave
parents after March lst of that year, should be
free at TWENTY-FIVE wears of age In 1857 the term