FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61  
62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   >>   >|  
to pretend that the colonial legislature had power, in 1753, to look back an hundred and thirty-three years, and arbitrarily reduce to slavery all colored persons that had been imported into, or born in the colony within that time. If they could not do this, then it follows that all the colored persons in Virginia, up to 1753, (only twenty-three years before the revolution,) and all their descendants to the present time, were and are free; and they cannot now be distinguished from the descendants of those subsequently imported. Under the presumption--furnished by the constitution of the United States--that all are free, few or no exceptions could now be proved. In North Carolina no general law at all was passed, prior to the revolution, declaring who might be slaves,--(See Iredell's statutes, revised by Martin.) In South Carolina, the only statutes, prior to the revolution, that attempted to designate the slaves, was passed in 1740--after slavery had for a long time existed. And even this statute, in reality, defined nothing; for the whole purport of it was, to declare that all negroes, Indians, mulattoes and mestizoes, _except those who were then free_, should be slaves. Inasmuch as no prior statute had ever been passed, declaring who should be slaves, _all were legally free_; and therefore all came within the exception in favor of free persons.[13] The same law, in nearly the same words, was passed in Georgia, in 1770. These were the only general statutes, under which slaves were held in those four States, (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia,) at the time of the revolution. They would all, for the reasons given, have amounted to nothing, as a foundation for the slavery now existing in those states, even if they had not been specially prohibited by their charters. [Footnote 9: "_Chastised._" An act passed in South Carolina in 1740, authorized slaves to sue for their liberty, by a guardian appointed for the purpose. The act then provides that if judgment be for the slave, he shall be set free, and recover damages; "but in case judgment shall be given for the defendant, (the master,) the said court is hereby fully empowered to inflict such corporeal punishment, not extending to life or limb, on the ward of the plaintiff, (the slave) as they in their discretion shall see fit." _Brevard's Digest, vol. 2, p. 130._ "_Baptised._" In 1712 South Carolina passed this act: "Since charity and th
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61  
62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Carolina

 

passed

 

slaves

 

revolution

 

statutes

 

slavery

 
persons
 

declaring

 

colored

 

general


Georgia
 

judgment

 

States

 

statute

 

descendants

 

imported

 

Virginia

 

Footnote

 
Chastised
 

authorized


appointed

 
guardian
 

liberty

 

charters

 

Brevard

 
discretion
 

reasons

 
amounted
 

plaintiff

 

prohibited


specially

 

states

 

foundation

 

existing

 

purpose

 

defendant

 

inflict

 
Baptised
 

master

 

empowered


corporeal
 
charity
 

extending

 
Digest
 
punishment
 
recover
 

damages

 

existed

 

distinguished

 

present