Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Slavery in NJ had been outlawed by gradual emancipation, just as it had been in NY and PA. The PA and NY laws were much quicker in freeing the slaves, and NJ took far too long. NJ being NJ there were a number of fairly underhanded political workarounds.
One of them involved allowing slaveowners to free their slave children and infants, at which point they became wards of the state and a burden on the public welfare. The local commissioner would then place them as foster children, usually back to the former owner, who would receive a stipend for raising these "abandoned" children until they reached 21. Naturally enough, since they were now his foster children, he got paid by the state while they worked for him. At one point, this was almost 40% of the state budget. It was, in effect, an unofficial form of compensated emancipation.
There were a few other workarounds, including some older former slaves who were "freed" and then were convinced by their masters to become "indentured-for-life".
NJ would tell you that all slaves were freed by the 1840s. The US Census disagreed, it seems. But in any case, it seems that in 1860 there were approximately 36 "slaves" left in the state, almost all of them in one county in the central part of the state.
NJ was closely associated with the slaveowning South on most issues in national politics, and Southern planters were far more likely to send their sons to Princeton than Harvard or Yale. NJ was also the only Northern state to send more emmigrants south of the Mason-Dixon Line than North of it in the 1840s-1850s. The only major issue on which NJ differed from the South was the Tariff. The strong manufacturing interests in northern NJ (Newark to Paterson) favored the Morrill Tariff in 1860.
In the 1860 election, NJ split its' Electoral vote, 4-3 for Lincoln. Lincoln won in the areas where the Douglas supporters refused to unite with the Bell and Breckinridge supporters, and lost where they did.
But in any case, it seems that in 1860 there were approximately 36 "slaves" left in the state, almost all of them in one county in the central part of the state.
Half that number, Tim. 18, and IIRC they were elderly "apprentices for life" [i.e., slaves] who no longer worked the fields. Hence the specific wording of my question.
Half that number, Tim. 18, and IIRC they were elderly "apprentices for life" [i.e., slaves] who no longer worked the fields. Hence the specific wording of my question.
I think it depends on which source you look at. Officially, the state said there were none. The US Census disagreed and came up with a number, and I have seen several different figures for 1860, all under 50, and all referring to elderly "apprentices for life" as far as I have ever been able to determine.
I think, perhaps, that the experience of NY-NJ-PA with gradual emancipation is what the slave states should have tried. It would have been workable in the Border States (certainly DE and MD, probably KY and MO as well). It is what Virginia was considering in the 1830s. If they ever had been a serious movement towards it in the 1850s, it had the possibility of changing the debate from "slavery/no slavery" to "Gradual Emancipation: how soon and how much will it cost".
I think it depends on which source you look at. Officially, the state said there were none. The US Census disagreed and came up with a number, and I have seen several different figures for 1860, all under 50, and all referring to elderly "apprentices for life" as far as I have ever been able to determine.
I have a copy of the 1860 Census here. It lists a total of 18 slaves, which New Jersey referred to as "apprentices for life" in its law.
Thre was 1 male slave between the ages of 60 and 70 and 3 female slaves between 70 and 80 in Hunterdon County; 1 female slave between 60 and 70 in Middlesex County; 1 female slave between 60 and 70 in Morris County; 1 female slave between 30 and 40 and 1 female slave between 70 and 80 in Passaic County; 2 male slaves between 60 and 70, 2 male slaves and 2 female slaves between 70 and 80, 1 male slave and 1 female slave between 80 and 90, and 1 female slave over 100 in Somerset County; and 1 female slave between 70 and 80 in Warren County.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I think, perhaps, that the experience of NY-NJ-PA with gradual emancipation is what the slave states should have tried. It would have been workable in the Border States (certainly DE and MD, probably KY and MO as well). It is what Virginia was considering in the 1830s. If they ever had been a serious movement towards it in the 1850s, it had the possibility of changing the debate from "slavery/no slavery" to "Gradual Emancipation: how soon and how much will it cost".
Regards,
Tim
Unfortunately, they weren't interested in emancipation. Lincoln offered compensated emancipation and was turned down flat.
Unfortunately, they weren't interested in emancipation. Lincoln offered compensated emancipation and was turned down flat.
Yes, that is so. I only mention it as a possible path that would have avoided the Civil War. The four Border States were in the same general range for percentage of slaves in the population as NY seems to have been in about the 1780s (DE and MD actually seem to have been less, KY a bit more).
Yes, as noted on many boards and many threads, the South (or at least its leadership) had no interest in emancipation, compensated or not. In fact, they proved their complete opposition to ending slavery, by its willingness (even eagerness) to break the Union rather than even contemplate the end of slavery in the US, no matter how far in the future.
The Leaders of the South could not (and/or would not) concieve of a Southern society Not based on slavery.
One need only read, that mostly forgotten document, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, to see the intent on slavery.
Slavery was now not only a right conveyed by state constitution, the new "federal" document of the Confederate States guaranteed the right of slaveholding and forbad "states rights" states from overturning that right.
"... or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed."
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired."
The right of property in slaves could be impaired by neither the Confederate Congress, nor the state legislatures. Only by constitutional amendment could any legal legislature end slavery. So much for the future intent on emancipation by the Confederacy.
The right of property in slaves could be impaired by neither the Confederate Congress, nor the state legislatures. Only by constitutional amendment could any legal legislature end slavery. So much for the future intent on emancipation by the Confederacy.
Er, it was taken from the US constition that does the same thing, they just removed the hidden by jargon aspect of the US Constition.
Art1, sec 10, has a clause that no state shall pass any bill, attainer ex post fact law, impairing the obligations of contracts,ie a contract between slave and master was for life long labour contract, and NO state could pass any law to remove that contract, gaurenteed in the US Constition.
Art 4 sect 2 no person held to service or laour in one state under the laws therof, escaping into another shall in consequence of any laws therin, shall be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claims of the party to which the service may be due" states that any states must return any such person held under the labour contract protected in the above must be returned to the state requesting.
NJ indentured for life were finaly made free by the 13th, they had been contracted for life, with forfiture off all cost of training them should they depart from there place of work with was gaurenteed to them for life, this was based on the UK mines policy of providing work for life, but requiring generations to be tied to working in the mines for life, and had been a UK law for holding people to life long servitude while abolishing slavery.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Hidden or explicit, both Constitutions protected slavery. The difference being that there was growing evidence that the majority of US citizens were coming around to accepting the idea that Slavery was to be put on the road to extnction, whereas the Confederate Constitution reflects the assumption that slavery is right and proper and to be protected for future generations.
The signers of the original Constitution had enough moral sense to be unhappy with accepting slavery, but at least they knew enough to be ashamed of the fact and hid the object of their shame by not mentioning it, something the southern founders of the Confederacy certainly had no compuction about.
Hidden or explicit, both Constitutions protected slavery. The difference being that there was growing evidence that the majority of US citizens were coming around to accepting the idea that Slavery was to be put on the road to extnction, whereas the Confederate Constitution reflects the assumption that slavery is right and proper and to be protected for future generations.
Couple of things, there where no US citizens until Congress passed legislation post war to make them, before then there was only citizens in states who had equal rights while there state was in the union. the US naturlizations laws prevent any but free whites from being a citizen of the US, but stsate laws allow white and black to be citizens of states.
The evidence was that many northern citizens wanted it contained with a specific geogrphical, where it was hoped it would die by natural causes, but its extension was to be prevented, so to have the west for free whites.
So yes both constitons make the negro property and unable to be citizens and unable to be prevented from moving anywhere in the Union of states.
Quote:
The signers of the original Constitution had enough moral sense to be unhappy with accepting slavery, but at least they knew enough to be ashamed of the fact and hid the object of their shame by not mentioning it, something the southern founders of the Confederacy certainly had no compuction about.
Well the original draft of the DOI contained a reference to slavery and was removed when GA AL NE objected to its inclusion, as they made it clear tht all men did not include the negro, so those hidding it away come from all over the land, not just the south.
When the Constition was framed, it was hidden away in lagal wording because of comprimise between pro and anti slavery member states, when only pro states made the CSA Constition, no such comprimise was any longer necessary.
When who was to be allowed to be citizens of this Union, Pickeny of SC headed the committe, and he was explict that no negro was intended to be a citizen in the new Union while doing so and got his way when drafting the legislation.
Naturalization Act of 26 March 1790:
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled,
That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens;
Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States;
Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed
Asians, negros etc could not be citizen under the constition till post war legilslation chaged the law as to who could be a citizen.
In the run up to the war, the moral fulcrum of social change in North in who could be a citizen in the Union, was used to move a politcal lever.
They had tried the legal means of doing so and found that the law was firmly on the side of whites only.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Slavery in NJ 
Linear Mode
