A poorly written rambling article which relies on an obscure provision which seemed to be limiting slavery to war captives. The article tries to disprove the 1619 project by claiming Massachusetts legalized slavery before Virginia.
I’m not aware that Massachusetts has any significant history of legalized slavery and the article fails to give any historical overview.
This is a stupid article.
The real point about Massachusetts and slavery is that the state outlawed slavery. America never had slavery in the North.
There were some times when slavery was legal in the North after the US was formed, but not for long, nor was it widely practiced as opposition to it was the greatest. Massachusetts’ Supreme Court actually banned it in the early 1780s declaring it unconstitutional under their state’s constitution.
The 1619 Project’s basic premise is that this country was built on slavery. That’s obviously false - slavery actually stifled economic progress where it was practiced. The North vastly outperformed the South in every economic aspect - including in agriculture - without slavery there was far more innovation and commerce in the North. The North was the country’s economic engine. That is a major reason the South was not able to prevail - it simply did not have the resources and the wealth of the North.
“...an obscure provision which seemed to be limiting slavery to war captives.”
Since you don’t seem to be disputing the author’s writing - that the MA colony had a slavery provision in law before VA - apparently it existed. Your objection, the way I read it, is that despite said provision existing in 1641, its contribution/impact to slavery in the US was limited or not significant. But was still legal nonetheless, no?
While beyond the scope of author’s writing, it would be interesting to find out, if possible, if this law’s existence was considered by subsequent colonies that subsequently became slave states.
“America never had slavery in the North”.
Untrue, as a quick web search shows.
Example:
The northern states largely abolished slavery by 1804, but the practice clearly existed in the north before independence and for a generation after.
Most of the “slaves” in MA were “manservants” or indentured hands.
Agriculture in MA at the time was not big enough to feed abundant slaves. Any industry was too small and highly skilled.
There were slaves, but not many.
Indentured Servitude and many types of apprenticeship are just another form of slavery.
New York, or New Amsterdam at the time, had African slaves imported in 1626 according to what I’ve found online. They didn’t completely outlaw slavery until 1827 but even then they didn’t acquire full civil rights.
Do a little research and you will find your attitude and beliefs don’t hold up.
“America never had slavery in the North”
Not true.
There were many slaves in Massachusetts. One of my ancestors in Lexington was one of the last slave owners. He had enough money to pay for the food and housing of that person.The slave did not have the skills or land to support himself.
The legislature in the colonies or early Massachusetts never outlawed slavery with a law or laws. It was the courts that freed individual slaves that petitioned their freedom. Can any knowledgeable person comment?
By the way, if a white person in Massachusetts couldn't support themselves and their family, they were auctioned off by the town to someone with money. They were enslaved to that family until they were able to support themselves. Of course, if they had no land, how would they feed and house their family?
It outlawed slavery in 1780. (Four Years after the United States was formed in 1776.)
And it did not do so by legislation or public referendum. Anti-slavery kooks asserted that because the Newly written Massachusetts constitution said "All men are created free and equal", this meant that slavery was abolished.
They took it to court, and a Judge decided that because the drafters of the Massachusetts constitution put that in there, slavery was instantly abolished.
This is a bullsh*t argument, and what they did is "Judicial activism." They redefine laws by judicial decree rather than by legislation.
Massachusetts has long been insane nut country starting with the Puritans and their witch trials and even into the present with their "first in the nation" gay marriage bullsh*t.
The United States would have been much better off if Massachusetts had stayed with England.
Massachusetts has seemingly always been full of insane Massholes.
Not true, and northern shipbuilders and owners were more than willing to transport slaves.