tire emancipation of that description of
people, if the latter was itself practicable at this moment, it would
neither be expedient nor just to reward unfaithfulness with a
premature preference and thereby discontent beforehand the minds of
all her fellow servants who by their steady attachment are far more
deserving than herself of favour."

This is the familiar pretext of the master, private or state. Those
who rebel against oppression and wrong are not to be given any
relief--that would be unjust to those who tamely submit. That very
argument was advanced by the ruler across the sea against the
proposition to come to terms with Washington and his party who had
ventured to oppose the would-be master.

And it is to be noted that Washington did not free those "who by their
steady attachment are far more deserving ... of favour" till he had
had all the advantage he could from their services--he did indeed free
them by his will, but only after the death of his wife.

Sumner cannot be said to minimize his merits when he says "He was at
the time a slaveholder--often expressing himself with various degrees
of force against slavery, and promising his suffrage for its
abolition, he did not see this wrong as he saw it at the close of
life." (Sumner's _Works_, Vol. III, pp. 759 sq.)

[18] Vermont excluded slavery by her Bill of Rights (1777),
Pennsylvania and Massachusetts passed legislation somewhat similar to
that of Upper Canada in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784,
New Hampshire by her Constitution in 1792, Vermont in the same way in
1793: New York began in 1799 and completed the work in 1827, New
Jersey 1829; Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa were
organized as a Territory in 1787 and slavery forbidden by the
Ordinance, July 13, 1787, but it was in fact known in part of the
Territory for a score of years. A few slaves were held in Michigan by
tolerance until far into the nineteenth century notwithstanding the
prohibition of the fundamental law (_Mich. Hist. Coll._, VII, p. 524).
Maine as such, never had slavery having separated from Massachusetts
in 1820 after the Act of 1780, although it would seem that as late as
1833 the Supreme Court of Massachusetts left it open when slavery was
abolished in that State (Commonwealth _v._ Aves, 18 Pick. 193, 209).
(See Cobb's _Slavery_, pp. clxxi, clxxii, 209; Sir Harry H. Johnston's
_The Negro in the New World_, an exceedingly valuable and interesting
work bu