Replies

Yes, when the 13th Amendment was ratified Your point?

You stated "Slavery ended in NJ in 1809." My point is that January 23, 1866 did not occur in 1809. The date of January 23, 1866 is linked and quoted from the official New Jersey state website.

What was your point in claiming slavery ended in New Jersey in 1809 when it didn't? 13A was ratified without New Jersey.

https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/legislating-slavery-in-new-jersey

Comprised of three short sections, the 1804 law declared children born to enslaved women after July 4, 1804 to be “free,” but required that they “shall remain the servant of the owner of his or her mother . . . and shall continue in such service, if a male, until the age of twenty-five years, and if a female until the age of twenty-one years.” The law effectively invalidated partus sequitur ventrem, or the rule that a child’s enslaved status followed their mother’s; the act itself, however, did not actually emancipate any slave. The law was first and foremost meant to protect the property rights of slaveholders, allowing them to continue to exploit the labor of any children enslaved women produced. The extended “apprenticeships” these children served differed little, if at all, from slavery and one historian has described them as “slaves for a term” rather than apprentices.
The gradual abolition act also contributed to the growth of the interstate slave trade, as slave-owners sold their human property down south in order to either covertly keep their property or profit off the institution before it ended in New Jersey.
[...]
It was not until April 18, 1846 that the state legislature passed “An Act to Abolish Slavery,” declaring:
That slavery in this state be and it is hereby abolished, and every person who is now holden in slavery by the laws thereof is made free, subject, however, to the restrictions herein after mentioned and imposed.
This act, like the Gradual Abolition Act of 1804, did not actually emancipate enslaved people in the state. It instead turned the remaining enslaved peoples into “apprentices for life.” Thus, "New Jersey retained slaveholding without technically remaining a slave state."

The New Jersey farce about eliminating slavery was like the Illinois farce. Illinois abolished slavery but instituted 99-year indentured servitude.

woodpusher: "The New Jersey farce about eliminating slavery was like the Illinois farce.
Illinois abolished slavery but instituted 99-year indentured servitude."

{sigh} Here we go, yet again, teaching simple lessons to deaf children...

First of all, gradual abolition was the ideal solution proposed and supported by nearly all of our Founders.
At the times of the Declaration and Constitution, only a very few in the North wanted immediate abolition and only a very few in the South opposed all forms of abolition.
Gradual abolition was seen as the compromise which could accomplish every goal with a minimum of unpleasant side effects.

Second, as practiced, gradual abolition began in states with the fewest slaves and proceeded, one by one, to states with ever more slaves.
In 1799 it was New York's "turn", in 1802 Ohio's new state constitution abolished slavery, in 1804 it was New Jersey's "turn", in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana, in 1827 New York freed any remaining slaves and in 1845 Illinois supreme court freed any remaining indentured ex-slaves.
Virginia's turn came in the 1830s, but by then our Founders had nearly all passed, there was a slave revolt (1831) and Virginians balked, refused to begin gradual abolition, broke the Founders' understandings and soon after, Southerners began to argue that slavery was not a necessary evil which should be abolished gradually, but rather that it was a positive good thing for everyone, including the slaves and so must be constantly expanded.

Today our Lost Causers hope to flip the tables entirely and claim that Southern slavery proves Southerners loved their slaves while Northern gradual abolition proves that Northerners hated African Americans!

Finally, indentured servitude was also abolished by the 13th Amendment, in 1865, but is a very different matter from African slavery, since something like half of immigrants from Europe arrived here under some form of temporary indenture.
So US census which did report the numbers of slaves did not report on indentured servants, or if any previous African slaves had been converted to an unlimited indenture.

What we know for certain is that Illinois' first census in 1820 reported 917 slaves, in 1840 331 and none after.
In the meantime, Southern slaves increased over 5 times, from 694,000 in 1790 to 3,950,000 in 1860.

But hey! So long as there was even one slave in the North, even if now an indentured servant, the South still holds the moral high ground here, according to our delusional Lost Causers, right?