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?
![]()
Illinois abolished slavery but instituted 99-year indentured servitude."
{sigh} Here we go, yet again, teaching simple lessons to deaf children...
You couldn't teach anybody anything unless it appears Wikipedia.
https://www.propublica.org/article/slavery-existed-in-illinois-but-schools-dont-always-teach-that-history
But then as early as 1803, a loophole was created that [essentially] said: “Bring your slaves to Illinois. It’s fine. Just go through the formality of an indenture contract.” Some contracts were for 99 years. But most indentured people really weren’t given a choice. If your master, or someone who’s claimed to be your master, or has told you they were your master for, you know, 20, 30, 40 years, tells you to put your mark [signature] on a paper that says you’re willing to continue as my indentured servant, it’s not likely that someone would refuse.
The Illinois slaves were like Etheldred Scott. They worked in Illinois but were the slaves of another state. In other words, after Illinois proclaimed itself slave-free, slaves in Ilinois were sheep-dipped in another state.
https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/legislating-slavery-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."
At the outbreak of the Civil War, New Jersey slaveholders owned eighteen apprentices for life—or, as the federal census more accurately classified them, “slaves.” A Princeton professor, Albert B. Dod owned a slave as late as 1840, one of the last men in the state to do so.
Because of these limitations on emancipation, it was not until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865—which New Jersey reluctantly ratified in January of 1866—that the remaining sixteen slaves in the state were forever freed.
Perhaps you should have tried reading my linked paper from Princeton University. I know Princeton is not up to your usual Wikipedia standards, but some of us make do.
What I responded to was a claim that "Slavery ended in NJ in 1809." You could try to address the actual topic rather than just deposit your usual pile of bullsplat.
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.
A lifetime apprenticeship of New Jersey differed so little from African slavery that the official census ignored the bullflop and listed them as what they really were — slaves.
https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/legislating-slavery-in-new-jersey
At the outbreak of the Civil War, New Jersey slaveholders owned eighteen apprentices for life—or, as the federal census more accurately classified them, “slaves.”
- - - - -
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.
Not one of your alleged court cases was linked, cited, or quoted. It is very doubtful you even know what cases you are talking about, much less what is in them.
Of course, slaves in New Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, not to mention Washington, D.C., are inconvenient facts.
The fact that the 1860 census showed more free blacks in the slave states than in the free states gives the lie about the northern slaves having been set free. They were not living as free men in the North. They were sold South.
Another inconvenient fact is that the Underground Railroad ran all the way to Canada for some reason.
in 1820 the US Supreme Court freed any slaves in Indiana
Nonsense. Cite the U.S. Supreme Court decision that did this. Where did you cut and paste this crap from? Let me guess. Wikipedia? On what legal basis did the Federal U.S. Supreme Court free any slaves in Indiana? The fact is that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Let me help a brother out. Below is a link to a full copy of U.S. Reporter, Volume 18, which contains the official published opinion of every U.S. Supreme Court case in 1820. Select the one you think did what you claim.
https://www.loc.gov/collections/united-states-reports/?fa=partof:u.s.+reports:+volume+018