00000322 |
Previous | 322 of 866 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENTS. 291
versy on the subject of slavery; the South resisting the excessive flow of
blacks into their section, and New England persisting in the importation for
the profits of the trade. Such was the state of things to the year 1767,
when a bill was offered in the Lower House of Assembly " against the importation of negroes," but owing to the exciting times, no action was taken upon
it until some years after.
In the meantime, anti-slavery sentiments were making wonderful progress
in the province. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, slavery
existed in all the States. Vermont framed a State Constitution in 1777, and
embodied in it a Bill of Rights, whereof the first article precluded slavery.
Massachusetts framed a constitution in 1780, wherein was embodied a Declaration of Rights, affirming that—
"Ail men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and inalienable
rights, among which are the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, and
that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property."
Chief Justice Parker, of the Supreme Court of that State, in declaring
his opinion upon the first case arising before his court, which involved the
question of slavery, decided that this provision had abolished slavery.1
New Hampshire was, in like manner, held to have abolished slavery by
her constitution, framed in 1783. Pennsylvania passed a Gradual Emancipation Act, March 1st, 1783. All persons born in that State after that day,
were to be free at the age of twenty-eight. Rhode Island provided by-laws
that all persons born in that State after March, 1784, should be free. Connecticut, in 1784, passed an Act providing for gradual abolition. She had
still two thousand seven hundred and fifty-nine slaves in 1780. New York
provided for gradual emancipation in 1799. In 1817, a further Act was
passed, decreeing that there should be no slavery in the State after the 4th of
July, 1827. New Jersey passed an Act in 1804, designed to put an end to
slavery. It was so very gradual in its operation, that the census of 1840
reported six hundred and seventy-four slaves as still held in that State.2
At the April session of the General Assembly of Maryland in 1783, " an
Act to prohibit the bringing slaves into this State," was passed. By this law
1 The alleged intention of the convention to erty nor dispose of any without the consent of
abolish slavery, by the declaration in the Bill of his master. His settlement in the town with his
Rights, is not well founded and will not stand master was not for his benefit; but to ascertain
•the test of historical criticism. Mr. Moore says: what corporation should be charged with his
■"We have made diligent inquiry, search and maintenance in case his master should become
examination, without discovering the slighest unable to support him, or should die, leaving
trace of positive contemporary evidence to him a charge to the community. We think he
showthatthis opinion is well founded." Besides, had not the capacity to communicate a civil
this opinion was considerably in advance of that relation to his children, which he did not enjoy
which he delivered in the case of Andover himself, except as the property of his master."
vs. Canton, in Essex, November Term, 1816, 13 Mass., p. 550. Vide Bred. Scott Decision.
in which he clearly recognized the doctrine of a Slavery, however, was finally abolished by
slave's incapacity for civil rights in Massachu- statute in Massachusetts on the 26th of March,
setts." "Theslave," said Justice Parker, "wasthe 1788, by an Act of the Legislature. See Moore's
property of his master as much as his ox or his History of Slavery in Mass., p. 227.
horse: he had no civilrights but that of protec- 2 American Conflict, i., p. 108.
tion against cruelty; he could acquire no prop-
| Title | History of Maryland - 3 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000322 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENTS. 291 versy on the subject of slavery; the South resisting the excessive flow of blacks into their section, and New England persisting in the importation for the profits of the trade. Such was the state of things to the year 1767, when a bill was offered in the Lower House of Assembly " against the importation of negroes," but owing to the exciting times, no action was taken upon it until some years after. In the meantime, anti-slavery sentiments were making wonderful progress in the province. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, slavery existed in all the States. Vermont framed a State Constitution in 1777, and embodied in it a Bill of Rights, whereof the first article precluded slavery. Massachusetts framed a constitution in 1780, wherein was embodied a Declaration of Rights, affirming that— "Ail men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which are the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, and that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property." Chief Justice Parker, of the Supreme Court of that State, in declaring his opinion upon the first case arising before his court, which involved the question of slavery, decided that this provision had abolished slavery.1 New Hampshire was, in like manner, held to have abolished slavery by her constitution, framed in 1783. Pennsylvania passed a Gradual Emancipation Act, March 1st, 1783. All persons born in that State after that day, were to be free at the age of twenty-eight. Rhode Island provided by-laws that all persons born in that State after March, 1784, should be free. Connecticut, in 1784, passed an Act providing for gradual abolition. She had still two thousand seven hundred and fifty-nine slaves in 1780. New York provided for gradual emancipation in 1799. In 1817, a further Act was passed, decreeing that there should be no slavery in the State after the 4th of July, 1827. New Jersey passed an Act in 1804, designed to put an end to slavery. It was so very gradual in its operation, that the census of 1840 reported six hundred and seventy-four slaves as still held in that State.2 At the April session of the General Assembly of Maryland in 1783, " an Act to prohibit the bringing slaves into this State," was passed. By this law 1 The alleged intention of the convention to erty nor dispose of any without the consent of abolish slavery, by the declaration in the Bill of his master. His settlement in the town with his Rights, is not well founded and will not stand master was not for his benefit; but to ascertain •the test of historical criticism. Mr. Moore says: what corporation should be charged with his ■"We have made diligent inquiry, search and maintenance in case his master should become examination, without discovering the slighest unable to support him, or should die, leaving trace of positive contemporary evidence to him a charge to the community. We think he showthatthis opinion is well founded." Besides, had not the capacity to communicate a civil this opinion was considerably in advance of that relation to his children, which he did not enjoy which he delivered in the case of Andover himself, except as the property of his master." vs. Canton, in Essex, November Term, 1816, 13 Mass., p. 550. Vide Bred. Scott Decision. in which he clearly recognized the doctrine of a Slavery, however, was finally abolished by slave's incapacity for civil rights in Massachu- statute in Massachusetts on the 26th of March, setts." "Theslave," said Justice Parker, "wasthe 1788, by an Act of the Legislature. See Moore's property of his master as much as his ox or his History of Slavery in Mass., p. 227. horse: he had no civilrights but that of protec- 2 American Conflict, i., p. 108. tion against cruelty; he could acquire no prop- |
