FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   36   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   >>   >|  
heir slaves,[9] and providing that baptism should not be considered, in law, an emancipation of them. Yet all the while no act had been passed declaring who might be slaves. Possession was apparently all the evidence that public sentiment demanded, of a master's property in his slave. Under such a code, multitudes, who had either never been purchased as slaves, or who had once been emancipated, were doubtless seized and reduced to servitude by individual rapacity, without any more public cognizance of the act, than if the person so seized had been a stray sheep. _Virginia._ Incredible as it may seem, slavery had existed in Virginia fifty years before even a statute was passed for the purpose of declaring who might be slaves; and then the persons were so described as to make the designation of no legal effect, at least as against Africans generally. And it was not until seventy eight years more, (an hundred and twenty-eight years in all,) that any act was passed that would cover the case of the Africans generally, and make them slaves. Slavery was introduced in 1620, but no act was passed even purporting to declare who might be slaves, until 1670. In that year a statute was passed in these words: "That all _servants_, not being Christians, imported into this country by shipping, shall be slaves for their lives."[10] This word "servants" of course legally describes individuals known as such to the laws, and distinguished as such from other persons generally. But no class of Africans "imported," were known as "servants," as distinguished from Africans generally, or in any manner to bring them within the legal description of "servants," as here used. In 1682 and in 1705 acts were again passed declaring "that all servants," &c., imported, should be slaves. And it was not until 1748, _after slavery had existed an hundred and twenty-eight years_, that this description was changed for the following: "That all _persons_, who have been or shall be imported into this colony," &c., &c., shall be slaves.[11] In 1776, the only statute in Virginia, under which the slaveholders could make any claim at all to their slaves, was passed as late as 1753, (one hundred and thirty-three years after slavery had been introduced;) all prior acts having been then repealed, without saving the rights acquired under them.[12] Even if the colonial charters had contained no express prohibition upon slave laws, it would nevertheless be absurd
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   36   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   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
slaves
 
passed
 
servants
 
Africans
 

generally

 

imported

 

persons

 

slavery

 

Virginia

 

statute


hundred

 

declaring

 

distinguished

 

existed

 

description

 

introduced

 

twenty

 
public
 
seized
 

baptism


providing

 

changed

 
manner
 

emancipation

 

individuals

 

describes

 
legally
 

considered

 

colony

 
colonial

acquired

 
saving
 

rights

 

charters

 
contained
 

absurd

 

prohibition

 

express

 

repealed

 

slaveholders


thirty

 
purchased
 
effect
 

designation

 

emancipated

 

multitudes

 

doubtless

 

purpose

 

Incredible

 
person