Is that not a clue, that the case is an outlier, abnormal, mis-judged?
Regardless, this case effectively only says one thing: it recognizes the existence of slavery at the time, as lawful under certain conditions within Pennsylvania.
It says nothing, nothing about the states-right of Pennsylvania to gradually abolish slavery in Pennsylvania, or put legal restrictions on how long slave-holders like President Washington could keep their slaves in Pennsylvania without freeing them.
Finally, I note with approval that our Jim 0216 does seem to have learned something from his experience posting here, only wish we could say the same for poor DiogenesLamp.
Not really. If you look into the matter more deeply, you find that all the records from that time period were lost/destroyed. Not just this case, but many other cases from that court during that time period. Apparently whoever was responsible for keeping the records safe, didn't do their job. I think I had read that some were destroyed by water leaking into them from a bad roof.
It says nothing, nothing about the states-right of Pennsylvania to gradually abolish slavery in Pennsylvania, or put legal restrictions on how long slave-holders like President Washington could keep their slaves in Pennsylvania without freeing them.
It says as of 1802, Flora was a slave. One does not need to do a lot of contemplation to grasp the significance of this ruling. Again, slavery continued *in* Pennsylvania till at least 1840.