Replies

jeffersondem: "The time you spent spot-welding Vermont into a discussion of the 13 original states would have been better spent reading, rather than skimming, my post."

Vermont, our 14th state, was actually the first to make abolition law.
So I think they deserve a place of honor in this discussion.

jeffersondem: "And did you know that the 'abolition' of slavery which you claim occurred in Pennsylvania 'by the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention' was actually more like gradual emancipation."

Sure, it's why I chose my words carefully: abolition was law in all those states -- some accomplished abolition more rapidly than others.

jeffersondem: "By some accounts, the Pennsylvania law was written so that it was possible for a slave descendant to remain in slavery until 1848."

Here are the actual numbers: in 1790 the US had about 700,000 slaves, 94% in the South.
Of the 40,000 Northern slaves, 10% were held in Pennsylvania in 1790.
1840 was the last census reporting any Pennsylvania slaves -- 64.

Gradual abolition was the model expected and practiced by our Founders at the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention.

So the facts remain just as I posted: "by the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention abolition was law in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Abolition was also dictated by Congress in 1787 in what were then called the 'Northwest Territories' -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois & Wisconsin."

Further, five states including North Carolina allowed freed slaves to vote, meaning Crazy Roger Taney was completely out of his mind in his 1856 Dred Scott ruling.

Taney’s Ruling also went far beyond slavery/abolition, into ground where those of African descent and free could not be citizens, could not become citizens, and could not have recognized human rights.

It is also a far different thing to say that a slave had no place within the nation where he could “tag” to evade ownership, from saying that an owner willingly conveying the slave to a place known to prohibit slavery could pay no heed to the local laws - and further, that someone no longer bound to slavery could not, nor anyone on their behalf, protest an attempt to reassert the ownership.