ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

the present constitution.* According to the well known maxim of civil law, the child born of a female slave was held to be the property of her master. Yet, as the number of slaves in the state was never large, it is probable the practice of holding them, was never popular. Several negroes, born in the country of imported slaves, demanded their freedom of their masters by suits at law, and obtained it by a judgment of court. In these cases, however, the defence of the master is said to have been but faintly made; and probably a previous understanding between the parties existed: for such was the temper of the times, that a discontented slave was of little value; and when freedom was obtained by a legal process, the master was not held responsible for the support of the slave, in case he became poor. But, in the first action involving the right of the master, which came before the Supreme Judicial Court, after the adoption of the constitution, the judges declared that, by virtue of the first article of the declaration of rights, slavery no longer existed in the state. The principle adopted in this case, appears to have been, that the right of a reputed slave, to his personal freedom, was not created, but merely recognised by the declaration

The constitution of Massachusetts was agreed upon in "convention, begun on the 1st of September, 1779, and continued by adjournments to the 2d of March, 1780." One day after the passage of the Pennsylvania law.

The article alluded to is the following: "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in

of rights. For in an action, tried at Middlesex in 1796; the chief justice in charging the jury, stated as the unanimous opinion of the court, that a negro born in the state before the adoption of the present constitution, was born free, although the mother was a slave. It is certain, however, that the common usage had been opposed to this opinion.†

It is observable that the constitutional article upon which the extinction of slavery in the state of Massachusetts was founded, is nothing more than the echo and amplification of a part of the celebrated declaration of independence. The same article, almost word for word, is contained in the bill of rights connected with the constitutions of Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, the former of which was adopted in 1790, and the latter in 1792.

In Pennsylvania very considerable efforts were made to bring the constitutional existence of slavery before the legal tribunals of the state, but no decision of the question was ever obtained. The question here is now of no great practical importance, as slavery is fast melting away, under the operation of acknowledged laws: and in a few years must totally disappear. In New Hampshire, I understand a de

fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

* This was not an action for the attainment of freedom, but for the recovery of the expense incurred by the maintenance of a reputed slave, whom his supposed master had abandoned, and refused to support. The negro in question was born in 1773, of parents reputed and held as slaves, yet it was adjudged in 1796, that he was born free.

† Massachusetts Reports, Vol. 4, p. 128.

cision, similar to that in Massachusetts, put an end to slavery in the state. At what period this decision took place, I am not informed; but find that in 1810, no slaves were reported.

In the state of Vermont, an article similar to that contained in the Massachusetts declaration of rights, was prefixed to the state constitution established in 1793; yet there the construction of this article, as far as slaves were concerned, was not left to the courts of law, but set down in unequivocal terms as the necessary result of the principles assumed.* Slavery could, therefore, no longer exist in that state; and indeed, the number previously held was so small as to present no obstacle to an instantaneous emancipation of them.

The legislature of Rhode Island, in the year 1784, enacted, that no person born in that state on or after the 1st day of March of that year, should be deemed a slave, but that all servitude for life, or slavery of children, to be born as aforesaid, in consequence of the condition of their mothers, should be taken away and for

The first article of the Vermont declaration of rights is, "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which, are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety: therefore, no male person, born in this country or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law to serve any person as a servant, slave, or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives at the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent after they arrive to such age, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like.

VOL. I.-23

ever abolished. Children thus born were to be maintained till they should attain the age of twenty-one years, at the expense of the owners of their mothers, provided the mothers, durring that time, continued to be held in slavery.

By previous acts, slaves brought into the state were declared free. And any attempt on the part of a master, to transport his slaves beyond the limits of the state, was punished with a forfeiture of his claim; and the slave thus removed or attempted to be removed became free.*

In the state of Connecticut, slavery was never expressly and directly authorized by statute, but was tolerated in practice; and the numerous laws enacted for the regulation of slaves may be considered as indirectly establishing the legal right to hold them. In the year 1784, a law was passed, prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the state: and likewise an act, declaring that all children, born of slaves, after the 1st of March in the then current year, should be free upon their attaining the age of twenty-five years.

By subsequent acts, the removal of slaves beyond the bounds of the state, was prohibited; and penalties annexed to the crime of kidnapping free persons of colour, or those entitled to freedom at the age of twenty-five years.†

Next on the list is the state of New York. In the year 1799, a law was

* Laws of Rhode Island, published by authority, p. 442.

+ Swift's System of the Laws of Connecticut, Vol. 2, p. 348.

A law of 1786, manumitted a number of slaves who had escheated to the state by the attainder or conviction of their holders.

passed, that children born of slaves, after the 4th of July of that year, should be servants to the legal proprietors of the mother, males until twenty-eight, and females until twenty-five years of age. Every such child was required to be registered within nine months from its birth, in the office of the clerk of the city or town where born. The person entitled to the service of such child, might within one year from its birth, abandon his claim; in which case the child was to be bound out as other paupers. A law dated 31st of March, 1817, directs, that children born of slaves after the passing of that act, should be held, as servants to the owner of the mother, until the age of twenty-one years, and no longer.

Persons entitled to the services of such children, were required, previous to their attaining the age of eighteen years, to cause them to be taught to read, so as to be able to read the Holy Scriptures, or to give them, between the ages of ten and eighteen years, four quarters schooling: upon neglect of this education, the claim to service was to cease at the age of eighteen, and the youths whose services were thus forfeited, to be immediately bound as apprentices by the overseers of the poor.

Any person coming into the state, with intent to reside permanently therein, was permitted to bring any slave born since the 4th of July, 1799; such slave to be held as a servant, if a male, to the age of twenty-eight, or if a female, to that of twenty-five years. Reasonable means were to be used to teach such servants to read, if under the age of twenty-one years.

No slave to be brought into the state, and held as such, (except under the limitations above stated,) and all

such as were brought in, contrary to the intention of the act, were declared free. To prevent the evasion of the act, it was declared, that no indenture or contract for personal service, made by a person who had been held as a slave, out of the state, should be obligatory within the state, but the same was declared void; and every such indenture or contract made since 30th of March, 1810, was also void; and the person so held and bound was declared free.

Any person convicted of the forcible confinement of a negro, mulatto, or mustee, with intent to cause his removal beyond the limits of the state, to be held as a slave, is subjected to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and to imprisonment at hard labour for a term not longer than fourteen years.

Every negro, mulatto, or mustee, within the state, born before the 4th of July, 1799, was declared free from and after the 4th of July, 1827.*

* This provision, if it related to any species of property except slaves, could not be supported on constitutional grounds. In 1799, the slaves were considered as the property of their holders; and if those holders, were then possessed of vested rights in the bones and sinews of other men, it would appear too clear to require discussion, that they could not on any acknowledged principle of law, be divested of those rights, without adequate compensation. But slavery is a peculiar case. The principles on which slaves are held, and the nature of the right possessed by their holders, compose an important part of the subject. In a state of nature all men are free and independent. The world is open alike to all the children of men. The only property which man, in his native state, can claim as exclusively his own, is his own person. Conse

[blocks in formation]

peared in its most repulsive garb. The slaves have generally been treated with lenity, and their wants com. fortably supplied. This may be assigned as a probable cause of the tardiness of her movements in the abolition of slavery.

In 1786, a law was enacted, imposing a penalty of £50 ($133,) for bringing into the state any slave imported from Africa since 1776. A penalty of £20 was imposed upon any person, except an emigrant settling in the state, who should bring in a slave, though such slave had not been im ported since 1776.

quently, the produce of his labour is exclusively his; but the earth and its spontaneous productions, are goods in common. This common property when improved and adapted to the uses of man, by the application of labour, becomes blended with the labour itself, and to secure the latter to its rightful proprietor, the former must be appropriated: hence this common property comes to be held in severalty. Thus the right of private property results from a natural and unalienable right to our own intellectual and physical powers. In a state of society, a part of our natural rights is given up for the sake of more effec-place of abode, without legal consent,

A law of 1788, provides that no slave who had resided one year last past in the state, should be removed out of it, with a view of changing his

tually securing the rest. Or more
properly our natural rights are partly
retained, and partly thrown into com-
mon stock. Allegiance and protection
are the price of each other. The au-
thority of governments is derived from
the consent, express or implied, of the
governed. Hence all who are bound
by the laws, are equally entitled to
the protection of law. Slavery is a
forced and unnatural state. As far as
it is a legal institution at all, it is
plainly an usurpation, not an exercise
of legal authority. It depends upon
no principle of right, but is the crea-
tion, or rather the spurious offspring
of law. A legislative enactment, de-
claring the protection of law with-bly by a single vote.†
drawn from the holders of a species
of property, which was originally ren-
dered such, by an act of usurpation,
is therefore, in reality, a repeal of
those laws which had grown up, in the
shape of statutes or usages, amidst vio-
lence and wrong, and in total repug-
nance to the principles of just legisla-
tion. And surely no constitutional ob-
jection can be raised to the repeal of
a law, how long soever it had existed,
which had no foundation in justice,
and which no legislature was compe-
tent to enact.

under a penalty of £20; except that
persons permanently removing from
the state had liberty to take their
slaves with them. Masters and mis-
tresses of negro and mulatto slaves
and servants, were enjoined to teach
them to read while under twenty-one
years of age; under a penalty of £5,
for neglect or refusal.* Some further
melioration of the laws respecting
slaves was made in 1798, and an
emancipating clause, in the act of that
year, was lost in the house of assem-

At length an act, dated February 15th, 1804, was procured for the gradual abolition of slavery; which provides that every child born of a slave

*

By act of 1798, this penalty was raised to one hundred and forty dollars; applying the requisition to children born after the 26th of November 1788.

† Minutes of the convention of delegates from Abolition Societies, 1798.

within the state after the 4th of July, then next ensuing, should be free; but remain as a servant to the owner of the mother, and the executors, &c. of such owner, if a male until the age of twenty-five years; and if a female, until the age of twenty-one years.

All the children so born to be recorded, within nine months after birth, in the books of the clerk of the county. Persons entitled to the service of such children, may at the end of the first year abandon their right; in which case the children are to be bound out, by the overseers of the poor till they attain the ages of twenty-five or twenty-one years, according as they are males or females respectively.

In 1818, a law was enacted, which provides, that no negro or other slave, or servant of colour, for life or years, should thereafter be removed out of the state, except in certain specified cases. The penalty for the violation of the law, was a fine of not less than one thousand, nor more than two thousand dollars, or imprisonment, at hard labour, for a term of not less than two years, nor more than four years, or both, at the discretion of the court. Slaves exported, or attempted to be exported, or sold, or transferred for the purpose of exportation, were declared free. The laws for the abo lition or melioration of slavery were revised and consolidated in 1820.

Thus the fabric of negro slavery, the work of ages, has during the last half century, been gradually crumbling away. We have now the consolation of certainly knowing, that this evil will not, in the eastern or middle states, be entailed on posterity, but must inevitably expire with the present generation. The philanthropist can hardly breathe a more ardent wish

than that our slave burthened breth ren of the south may, by the adoption of prudent and equitable measures, be speedily placed in the same enviable situation.

SLAVE TRADE IN EASTERN AFRICA.

I calculate the number of slaves sold annually in the market of Shendy, at about five thousand, of whom about two thousand five hundred are carried off by the Souakin merchants, and fifteen hundred by those of Egypt; the remainder go to Dongola, and to the Bedouins who live to the east of Shendy, towards the Albara and the Red Sea.

The slaves brought from Kordofan to Darfour, are, for the greater part, from the idolatrous countries of Benda, Baadja, Fetigo, and Fertit, to the south and southwest of Darfour, from twenty to forty days from Kobbe; each of these countries speaks a separate language. The Darfour mer chants trade with Fertit, which lies about twenty days from Kobbe, in a southerly direction; the country is mountainous, and the inhabitants are wholly ignorant of agriculture; but they have tasted the luxury of Dhourra and Dokhen, and are said, in cases of a dearth of these grains, to sell their own children to procure them.

Far the largest proportion of the slaves imported into Shendy are below the age of fifteen. All of them, both male and female, are divided by the traders, with reference to age, into three classes, namely: Khomasy, comprising those apparently below ten or eleven years; Sedasy, those above eleven and below fourteen or fifteen; and Balegh, or grown up, those of fifteen or upwards. The Sedasy are the most esteemed. When I was at Shendy, a male of this class was worth fifteen or sixteen dollars, provided he bore the marks of the small pox, without which a boy is not worth more than two thirds of that price; a female was worth from twenty to twenty-five Spanish dollars. The price of the male Khomasy was twelve; of the female fifteen dollars. The male Balegh seldom sells for more than eight

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »