And I quote from your post 62, "They normally exceeded a year in length and some of the terms went on for decades, all of it involuntary." I paraphrased. So sue me. Your claim was still wrong.
And of course you can provide a link to the 1848 Constitution containing the mysterious missing article?
Interesting. One of your posts mentions the mysterious missing Article XIV, and the other post simply refers to a law preventing it and not a constitutional provision. So which was it? And how can this mysterious missing article be slipped in so neatly between Article XIII and the Schedule, both of which appear in the text of the 1848 constitution that I provided earlier? Looks like a conspiracy of massive proportions to me </sarcasm>.
You aren't reading carefully enough. Article XIV, as I previously wrote and as I documented in three separate links, was a separately ratified provision of the Illinois State Constitution in 1848 put before the voters and passed in 1848. The law preventing blacks from crossing the Illinois border was passed by the legislature in 1853 and in accordance with Article XIV of the 1848 Constitution.
And how can this mysterious missing article be slipped in so neatly between Article XIII and the Schedule, both of which appear in the text of the 1848 constitution that I provided earlier?
Considering that you now have both the text of Article XIV and three separate links detailing its nature, how you could consider it either mysterious or missing is beyond me. That said, it is with ease that they placed it where they did because Article XIII was the final provision of that nature. After all, where else were they to place Article XIV except for after Article XIII? Randomly inserted half way through Article III?
Looks like a conspiracy of massive proportions to me
A conspiracy to keep free blacks from living in Illinois and to severely penalize those few who did make it there anyway? Yeah. Pretty much.
Now this is strange...
... a document from 05/28/1855 in St. Clair County, IL for a mulatto "servant" named Abraham Kinney grants him his emancipation upon turning age 21. Remarks on the page however indicate he was "born free," or so to speak. 21 years is definately greater than 1 year, non-seq, and poor Mr. Kinney spent his first two decades of life as a servant of a Mr. John Thomas before being emancipated.
Here's another one. Mulatto "servant" James W. George was emancipated at age 12 on 04/05/1855. His former master, John O. Pierce, stated himself to have known the company of Young Mr. James "FOR ABOUT 12 YEARS." 12 years is also greater than a year, non-seq.
Here's another one from 10/02/1850 for Ishaw, described as "a negroe" age 27. He was determined emancipated on that day on the grounds that "HE CAME OF AGE SIX YEARS AGO" - meaning he spent the first 21 years of his life as John Reynolds' slave...er..."servant" in Illinois
Seems as if your "slave, but only for a year" provision wasn't practiced very much, non-seq.