he slaves had actually passed in a _bona-fide_ sale.
Until such time their slaves were contemplated by the law as chattels.
In case a master died without lawful heirs, his slaves did not
escheat, but were regarded as other personal estate or property. Slave
property was liable to be taken in execution for the payment of
debts, and was recoverable by a personal action.[159]
The only apology for enslaving the Negroes we can find in all the
records of this colony is, that they "were heathen." Every statute,
from the first to the last, during the period the colony was under the
control of England, carefully mentions that all persons--Indians and
Negroes--who "are not Christians" are to be slaves. And their
conversion to Christianity afterwards did not release them from their
servitude.[160]
The act making Indian, Mulatto, and Negro slaves real property, passed
in October, 1705, under the reign of Queen Anne, and by her approved,
was "explained" and "amended" in February, 1727, during the reign of
King George II. Whether the act received its being out of a desire to
prevent fraud, like the "Statutes of Frauds," is beyond finding out.
But it was an act that showed that slavery had grown to be so common
an institution as not to excite human sympathy. And the attempt to
"explain" and "amend" its cruel provisions was but a faint precursor
of the evils that followed. Innumerable lawsuits grew out of the act,
and the courts and barristers held to conflicting interpretations and
constructions. Whether complaints were made to his Majesty, the king,
the records do not relate; or whether he was moved by feelings of
humanity is quite as difficult to understand. But on the 31st of
October, 1751, he issued a proclamation repealing the act declaring
slaves real estate.[161] The proclamation abrogated nine other acts,
and quite threw the colony into confusion.[162] It is to be hoped that
the king was animated by the noblest impulses in repealing one of the
most dehumanizing laws that ever disgraced the government of any
civilized people. The General Assembly, on the 15th of April, 1752,
made an appeal to the king, "humbly" protesting against the
proclamation. The law-makers in the colony were inclined to doubt the
king's prerogative in this matter. They called the attention of his
Majesty to the fact that he had given the "Governor" "full power and
authority with the advice and consent of the council" to make needful
laws; but they fai
|