Notes on Northern Slavery

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
According to NJ, these people were "Apprentices for Life", not slaves. Since only one of them was under the age of 60, it seems likely they were.
Id use a less negatively-charged synonymous phrase too if I didn't want to look bad or was hiding something.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Id use a less negatively-charged synonymous phrase too if I didn't want to look bad or was hiding something.

Some owners signed slaves on for that deal as they were freed under the act of 1804. Given the ages of these people, they may actually have been being cared for after long service; lots of others were probably dumped after they became economically unuseful. Plus, most people died much earlier in life than 60.
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Id use a less negatively-charged synonymous phrase too if I didn't want to look bad or was hiding something.

Some owners signed slaves on for that deal as they were freed under the act of 1804. Given the ages of these people, they may actually have been being cared for after long service; lots of others were probably dumped after they became economically unuseful. Plus, most people died much earlier in life than 60.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
The causes of secession were different from the cause of the war. Whether the Confederate States would be allowed to remain an independent country was the cause of the war. Neither the CS or the US went to war over slavery in April 1861...

Go back over your own sources about that. Everybody, those sources included, has conceded prevailing accounts from the Antebellum and the CW, so can't avoid that the underlying cause of the CS and the US going to war was slavery. Of course the stated purpose of the U.S. in going to war was to "retain the Union," and of course the stated purpose of the secessionists (btw virtually the same thing as Confederates -- let's stay real) was to "achieve independence."

So those were euphemisms. In hindsight we don't buy it anymore, right? We know too much. We know now that those stated reasons fell apart by mid-war, exposing what was really going on. Despite U.S official claims, by then everyone knew the Union was about freeing slaves, and that the Confederacy was about slavery being torn from its cold dead hands. We know what was really going on is that Confederate soldiers and their families were actually only caring about their pards and themselves. Richmond, not so much.

Anymore everybody knows at some level that the CW was over slavery. The war simply would not have happened had chattel slavery not still existed the U.S., some Union states included. imho most Confederate apologists actually know in their hearts and subconscious that the CW was over slavery. Being intelligent has been darned inconvenient to "the cause."

The next step is self-examination -- why in this age of overwhelming reliable evidence there's a need to promote that the war wasn't about slavery? Why anyone feels the need to promote a mere and extinct political entity - a nation founded on slavery to boot? The Confederacy was a failed 4-year experiment in social engineering, obviously of less significance than the much longer and prouder history of Southerners generally (40% so black at the time) who endured and prevailed before and after those mere 4 years. Respect them!
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Read your sources about that. This is not 1990, everybody has ample access now to prevailing scholarship on the CW, everybody knows the underlying cause of the CS and the US going to war was slavery. Of course the stated purpose the U.S. went to war was to retain the Union, and of course the stated purpose of the secessionists (virtually the very same thing as the Confederates, don't kid yourself) was to achieve independence.

We have the advantage in hindsight, and documented scholarship, to see how those stated reasons fell apart by mid-war to expose what was really going on. The U.S. would free slaves, and the Confederacy would have slavery torn from its cold dead hands.

It's 2019 now. Everybody knows the war was over slavery. The next step is to ponder why someone would want it to be -- in this age of overwhelming reliable evidence -- that the war wasn't about slavery. Why someone would defend a mere 4-year miserable experiment in social engineering over the much prouder history of those who endured and prevailed before and after those miserable 4 years. The history of Southerners, including a major proportion of those black at the time, is what matters. Get real.

2019? Yeah right. Who are some the more prominent among the "everybody" saying it? Not everybody is saying it.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/clyde-wilson-library/why-the-war-was-not-about-slavery/
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...About half the slaves in the registrations at Gallatin County had not been residents of Illinois, but rather brought to Illinois from a slave state to be freed...Many of the other cases listed from Gallatin County here seem to be certifications of persons freed years earlier.

Whatever the implications of that, the reality of that part of the state was something else. It was a hotbed of the "reverse underground railroad":

"the crime of seizing free blacks, running them south and selling them into slavery from this State, for a long time was quite common.... [P]ortions of southern Illinois for many years afforded a safe retreat to those kidnapping outlaws. We cannot cite the numerous cases of kidnapping..."n the majority of cases the poor ignorant blacks, by fraud and deceit, were inveigled [tricked] into a trip south on a flat boat, or other errand, and at some pre-arranged point on the river, they would be turned over to confederates, forcibly and rapidly taken to the interior and there sold into slavery... Another mode was to seize a black and forcibly convey him to a rendezvous either on the Ohio or Mississippi, but not out of the State, where a confederate would appear and carry him beyond." - Complete History of Illinois, 1876

and as typified in the Crenshaw house operation in Gallatin county:

"...The house was used as a pit stop to house captured escaped slaves and kidnapped free black slaves before selling them to back to the southern slave states. The third floor of the home had 12 rooms. These rooms were believed to have been where Crenshaw kept the slaves chained in a jail. Crenshaw was believed to be the master mind behind the capturing of these Blacks, because there was no way he could not have known the Blacks were being chained and housed on his property, although he owned several acres of land. Crenshaw was well-known and a very wealthy man during his time. Illinois was a free state, and no one was allowed to have slaves. However, there was an exception to Crenshaw because of his business in salt. The law permitted the use of slaves at the salt works since the labor was so arduous that no free men could be found to do it... Crenshaw was indicted in 1820 for operating the slave jail, and again in 1842..." - 1996 Jon Musgrave December 1996 issue of Springhouse Magazine
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...Sorry that sometimes I have a life and other commitments and can't read many prior posts. archieclement was kind enough to provide me with an explanation and link to back up his comment.

Not such a good back up. An Emancipation as late as 1863 was not an indication of endorsement or certification of freedom by the state of Illinois, but rather merely the recording of the status of a slave brought into the state by their slaveowner from a slave state. Per the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, Illinois had no authority to deny the rights of property dispensation of slaveowners who had brought their chattel into the state. A change in status was a proper thing for an Illinois County to record, but that was to benefit black residents who might be targeted by slave bounty hunters. Those slave catchers could not prevail before an Illinois judge if a record of emancipation resided on the County books.

So the attempt to cite an 1863 emancipation as "proof" of slavery being legally allowed in Illinois is disingenuous. The article and reference to it should be criticized for the attempt to imply that slavery was yet legal in Illinois, seemingly for the purpose of ameliorating the culpability of Southern slavery by "equating" it with a few irregular instances of virtual slavery in a Northern free state.

Was there a legal work-around in Illinois that allowed "contract indenture" as a euphemism that allowed slaves to be used in Illinois? Yes.
 
Last edited:

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
Whatever the implications of that, the reality of that part of the state was something else. It was a hotbed of the "reverse underground railroad":

"the crime of seizing free blacks, running them south and selling them into slavery from this State, for a long time was quite common.... [P]ortions of southern Illinois for many years afforded a safe retreat to those kidnapping outlaws. We cannot cite the numerous cases of kidnapping..."n the majority of cases the poor ignorant blacks, by fraud and deceit, were inveigled [tricked] into a trip south on a flat boat, or other errand, and at some pre-arranged point on the river, they would be turned over to confederates, forcibly and rapidly taken to the interior and there sold into slavery... Another mode was to seize a black and forcibly convey him to a rendezvous either on the Ohio or Mississippi, but not out of the State, where a confederate would appear and carry him beyond." - Complete History of Illinois, 1876

and as typified in the Crenshaw house operation in Gallatin county:

"...The house was used as a pit stop to house captured escaped slaves and kidnapped free black slaves before selling them to back to the southern slave states. The third floor of the home had 12 rooms. These rooms were believed to have been where Crenshaw kept the slaves chained in a jail. Crenshaw was believed to be the master mind behind the capturing of these Blacks, because there was no way he could not have known the Blacks were being chained and housed on his property, although he owned several acres of land. Crenshaw was well-known and a very wealthy man during his time. Illinois was a free state, and no one was allowed to have slaves. However, there was an exception to Crenshaw because of his business in salt. The law permitted the use of slaves at the salt works since the labor was so arduous that no free men could be found to do it... Crenshaw was indicted in 1820 for operating the slave jail, and again in 1842..." - 1996 Jon Musgrave December 1996 issue of Springhouse Magazine


Exactly. When I spoke earlier of a free black seeking documentation, operations such as Crenshaws are the reason such a person would always want to have it.

Illinois, especially the southern 1/3, being sandwiched between slave KY and slave MO, was an area where the binary "slave vs free" is very often not sufficient.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...Who are some the more prominent among the "everybody" saying it? Not everybody is saying it...abbeville institute...clyde-wilson-library

Oh, you mean Prof. Clyde Wilson, co-founder of the League of the South * …That guy.

But meh, even he concedes in his diatribe that "The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession." Not that his scholarship was in top form in that article anyway. For instance he states "it is significant that not one single slave joined Brown’s attempted blow against slavery." And well, that's just plain incorrect. Some slaves from local farms were enlisted by Brown's band at Harper's Ferry (we don't generally hear about it because they wisely slipped away when they figured out what a sham the raid really was. I recommend Tony Horwitz's 2011 book "Midnight Rising" to clarify that). I'd suggest staying away from authors with known strong agendas (like Wilson) if you're interested in knowledge of the CW.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* according to wikepedia or any other net search, The League of the South is a Neo-Confederate organization who's stated goal is still "a free and independent Southern republic" embuing the "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates." Apparently the League was a key organizer in the Pikeville Kentucky rally, the Unite the Right riots in Charlottesville, Virginia and the White Lives Matter rally in Shelbyville, Tenn. (google those). The League of the South also was part of the Nationalist Front and the former Vanguard America - now known as Patriot Front. In other words, legitimate organizations holding free-speech views, but the point being is that because they have such a definite agenda, not the first choice as an American History source.
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Meaning that the New England trade had ditched chattel slavery decades before the slave South went to war to protect it. Is there something that we're missing here?

“A new act of 1800 tightened the federal law making it technically illegal for resident and citizens of the United States to have any share in a share in a slave ship on its way to a foreign country. The Congress voted for this law overwhelmingly, the Senate by 67 to 4. The debate in the lower house was interesting for a speech by John Brown of Rhode Island, the famous merchant of Providence, who alleged that, in 1794, the members had been “drilled into [passing the act of that year] by certain members who would not take no for an answer.” He was certain that the existence of an act in the United States against the slave trade would not prevent the exportation of a single slave from Africa because shippers from other countries would take them. He believed: “We might as well enjoy that trade as leave it to others. It was the law of that country [Africa] to export those whom they held in slavery—who were slaves as much as those who were slaves in this country...The very idea of making a law against the trade, which all other nations enjoyed, was ill policy. He could further say that it [abolition] was wrong when considered in a moral point of view since, by the operation of the trade, the very people much bettered their condition...[In addition] all our distilleries and manufacturies were lying idle for want of an extended commerce [in slaves], New England rum was much preferred to the best Jamaican spirits...”

There was a moment when, despite the opposition of John Brown, it seemed that this act really might spell the end of the traffic from Rhode Island and elsewhere in New England; but the federal courts were still inactive, partly because of local threats of violence and bribery. The law seems to have had no effects at all on United States slaves trading to Cuba. Then, in 1804, as a result of skillfully conducted intrigues, an abolitionist Jonathan Russell, was removed from the decisive post of collector of customs at Bristol, Rhode Island, and substituted by Charles Collins, a brother-law of James de Wolf. This was a disastrous appointment, since Collins had not only once been a slave captain, but was still part-owner of the slave ships Armstadt and Minerva; the very day he was sworn in to his new post at Newport, the latter landed 150 slaves at Havana. Collins remained collector for twenty years. Not surprising. There were for the moment no more prosecutions in Rhode Island for breaking the law on trading slaves.”

Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade, The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade:1440-1870. pp. 544-545.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
“A new act of 1800 tightened the federal law ...in 1794, the members had been “drilled into [passing the act ...Then, in 1804...Collins...part-owner of the slave ships...was sworn in...

...again, an earlier age. New England and other Northern states had ditched chattel slavery decades before the slave South was forced to do it. Edited.
 
Last edited:

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
***Posted as Moderator***
Another reminder: this thread is intended to discuss "Northern Slavery".
Please limit posts to that topic.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Not such a good back up. An Emancipation as late as 1863 was not an indication of endorsement or certification of freedom by the state of Illinois, but rather merely the recording of the status of a slave brought into the state by their slaveowner from a slave state. Per the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, Illinois had no authority to deny the rights of property dispensation of slaveowners who had brought their chattel into the state. A change in status was a proper thing for an Illinois County to record, but that was to benefit black residents who might be targeted by slave bounty hunters. Those slave catchers could not prevail before an Illinois judge if a record of emancipation resided on the County books.

So the attempt to cite an 1863 emancipation as "proof" of slavery being legally allowed in Illinois is disingenuous. The article and reference to it should be criticized for the attempt to imply that slavery was yet legal in Illinois, seemingly for the purpose of ameliorating the culpability of Southern slavery by "equating" it with a few irregular instances of virtual slavery in a Northern free state.

Was there a legal work-around in Illinois that allowed "contract indenture" as a euphemism that allowed slaves to be used in Illinois? Yes.

??? If you read my post you'd know I said slavery was technically illegal before 1863

The NPR Illinois link says slavery continued unofficially in Illinois afterwards, If you have an issue with NPRIllinois you should be more clear thats who you have the issue with...…

And havent seen anyone actually provide any evidence whatsoever if the 1863 emancipation was from an in state resident, or an out of state resident...…nor any of the other post 1848 emancipations...…are these just assumption's, or do you have evidence?
 
Last edited:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...havent seen anyone actually provide any evidence whatsoever if the 1863 emancipation was from an in state resident, or an out of state resident...…nor any of the other post 1848 emancipations...…are these just assumption's, or do you have evidence?

Solid evidence. Illinois wasn't a slave state at that time. Slavery was illegal for Illinois citizens, so of course they could not emancipate a slave that they could not have owned to begin with. That means that any emancipation entered into the County record was to record the act of a legal slaveowner from another state, per the rules of that state, which because of the Fugitive Slave Act Illinois was bound to respect. The point is though that no Illinois court was itself granting the emancipation.*





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* But I understand the confusion. One could logically suppose that the day the record was entered by the County recorder represented the emancipation itself.

But to clarify: since all blacks in Illinois could be required to show verification of their status, it was prudent that a document either of known status as a free black or of legal Emancipation was on file at the County seat. But like anything Antebellum or CW, it was more involved than that. For instance, a former slave in my area was emancipated in 1839 and followed his former Master to Illinois to work for him (per a handshake agreement he would reimburse his value as a slave within 3 years). Things were hunky-dory as long as the former master was there to provide verification, but when the master left the area by 1842 it was necessary for the first time to enter a document of emancipation into the local county record before he left. Local histories and newspaper accounts then came up with the article "Only Slave in the County" without explaining that the man was never a slave in the County. Not nearly as interesting.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Solid evidence. Illinois wasn't a slave state at that time. Slavery was illegal for Illinois citizens, so of course they could not emancipate a slave that they could not have owned to begin with. That means that any emancipation entered into the County record was to record the act of a legal slaveowner from out of state, per the rules of that state, which because of the Fugitive Slave Act were bound to be respected. The point is that no Illinois court was itself granting the emancipation.*

The only evidence in this thread of out of state emancipations is the Gallitan county ones.......whoever they are pre-1848........so it makes sense as anyone in state or out of state would have to record it as slavery was legal in Illinois.

Once slavery is illegal it would be as unnecessary for an out of stater moving to Illinois as it would for an in stater, as the slave wouldn't remain a slave in Illinois whether one emancipated him or not....... so see little reason to assume some out of state origin, NPR states slavery continued in Illinois past 1848, I'm wondering what you have to refute the NPR assertation. Would think if the NPR Illinois story is false, someone would have wrote a editorial or rebuttal of it. NPR seems the type of source wouldnt think would go unchallenged if they were being false
 
Last edited:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...anyone in state or out of state would have to record it as slavery was legal in Illinois.

Slavery was not legal in Illinois. Slave catching was legal in Illinois per the Fugitive Slave Law.

Once slavery is illegal it would be as unnecessary for an out of stater moving to Illinois as it would for an in stater, as the slave wouldn't remain a slave in Illinois whether one emancipated him or not...

For the sake of a former slave who had been brought into Illinois, it was necessary to record that he or she had been legally emancipated, the reason Illinois counties or cities recorded emancipations. Illinois courts didn't do emancipations because slavery wasn't legal in the state to begin with. That's how we know the emancipations originated out-of-state. This is not that hard to grasp.

If a slave owner decided to stay in Illinois as an Illinois resident, there would be no point for him to attempt to invoke his slave property rights under the FSL for the simple reason nobody could legally own a slave in Illinois anyway. However, if a slave owner was just visiting there would be a point for him to invoke his slave property rights, because he could legally own a slave where he was a resident. On a practical level, all a slave owner had to do was revert (declare) residence in a slave state to have the FSL work for him once more.

.... so see little reason to assume some out of state origin...

How 'bout a big reason then: we know all the emancipations were enacted out of state because Illinois wasn't performing emancipations, rather merely recording them in local civic records. If it helps, let's put it another way: Illinois courts didn't perform emancipations because they were the slave state's venue, not the free state of Illinois' venue.

The system wasn't hunky-dory, most folks in Illinois hated it because per the FSL Illinois was bound to respect whatever status some slave state could legally provide about a black in Illinois. At least it was up to the slaveowner to prove legal ownership, just as it was up to the former slave or any black person to disprove legal ownership. That brings us right back to why it was so important that emancipations were recorded in local Illinois civic records.

NPR states slavery continued in Illinois past 1848, I'm wondering what you have to refute the NPR assertation.

Nothing to refute there. Virtual slavery did continue in Illinois past 1848 because of legal dodging: grandfathering pre-statehood ownership of slaves, designating "indentured servitude" to avoid the intent of the law, personal restraint in rural areas beyond the reach of regular legal enforcement, and outright stripping of legal papers from legally-emancipated former slaves or even free blacks (which once again brings us back to why it was so important that emancipations were recorded in Illinois civic records).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Slavery was not legal in Illinois. Slave catching was legal in Illinois per the Fugitive Slave Law.



For the sake of a former slave who had been brought into Illinois, it was necessary to record that he or she had been legally emancipated, the reason Illinois counties or cities recorded emancipations. Illinois courts didn't do emancipations because slavery wasn't legal in the state to begin with. That's how we know the emancipations originated out-of-state. This is not that hard to grasp.

If a slave owner decided to stay in Illinois as an Illinois resident, there would be no point for him to attempt to invoke his slave property rights under the FSL for the simple reason nobody could legally own a slave in Illinois anyway. However, if a slave owner was just visiting there would be a point for him to invoke his slave property rights, because he could legally own a slave where he was a resident. On a practical level, all a slave owner had to do was revert (declare) residence in a slave state to have the FSL work for him once more.



How 'bout a big reason then: we know all the emancipations were enacted out of state because Illinois wasn't performing emancipations, rather merely recording them in local civic records. If it helps, let's put it another way: Illinois courts didn't perform emancipations because they were the slave state's venue, not the free state of Illinois' venue.

The system wasn't hunky-dory, most folks in Illinois hated it because per the FSL Illinois was bound to respect whatever status some slave state could legally provide about a black in Illinois. At least it was up to the slaveowner to prove legal ownership, just as it was up to the former slave or any black person to disprove legal ownership. That brings us right back to why it was so important that emancipations were recorded in local Illinois civic records.



Nothing to refute there. Virtual slavery did continue in Illinois past 1848 because of legal dodging: grandfathering pre-statehood ownership of slaves, designating "indentured servitude" to avoid the intent of the law, personal restraint in rural areas beyond the reach of regular legal enforcement, and outright stripping of legal papers from legally-emancipated former slaves or even free blacks (which once again brings us back to why it was so important that emancipations were recorded in Illinois civic records).
Slavery was not legal in Illinois. Slave catching was legal in Illinois per the Fugitive Slave Law.
No thats the primary fallacy of this emancipation argument in being somehow only out of state. Illinois didnt free all its slaves, they continued as indentured servants, Now the children of these indentured servants were required to emancipated by Illinois residents, girls at 18 and boys at 24, so this notion the only emancipation's in Illinois were from out of state is false. This shouldn't be hard to grasp

So you can say "Virtual slavery did continue in Illinois past 1848 because of legal dodging: grandfathering pre-statehood ownership of slaves, designating "indentured servitude" to avoid the intent of the law, personal restraint in rural areas beyond the reach of regular legal enforcement, and outright stripping of legal papers from legally-emancipated former slaves or even free blacks" The children of those you just noted as exceptions, however were still required to be emancipated by Illinois residents upon coming of age. So Illinois residents would be still emancipating slaves as well, or indentured servants by birth if you find that somehow more palatable.....
 
Last edited:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...The children of those you just noted as exceptions, however were still required to be emancipated by Illinois residents upon coming of age. So Illinois residents would be still emancipating slaves as well...

Those exceptions were not legally slaves. As mentioned earlier indentured servitude was a work-around which enabled held persons (and their children) to be treated as slaves. That's called virtual slavery. Those held in that manner could not be emancipated by any Illinois civic entity because they were not considered slaves to begin with. That means Illinois residents would not still be emancipating slaves. Freeing a virtual slave under the terms of indentured servitude was not emancipation.

Non-residents could emancipate their slaves while visiting Illinois, though a legal proceeding like that would be a hassle so far from their home state where the emancipation took effect.

Regarding the other exception mentioned: grandfathering of pre-statehood slave ownership; well, that's a case where Illinois had officially surrendered its oversight. From then on the status of the slave was solely between the master and slave, including when the master chose to emancipate his slave -- a private proceeding and document. Not an Illinois document of emancipation.

Regarding the other exception mentioned: the holding of people against their will in areas of the state where there was no regular enforcement of Illinois' statutes -- well, that was simply a crime under Illinois law. When people held in that circumstance were freed it was under an Illinois court order, but that was not an emancipation. It simply was a resolution of a suit brought by the state against convicted criminals. Not an Illinois document of emancipation.

Bottom line: One can't equate what remained of slavery in Antebellum Northern free states -- virtual slavery -- with the ongoing full-up slavery of the Antebellum South.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Those exceptions were not legally slaves. As mentioned indentured servitude was a work-around which enabled held persons (and their children) to be treated as slaves. That's called virtual slavery. Held as such, they could not be emancipated in Illinois because slavery was not legal in Illinois to begin with. So Illinois residents would not still be emancipating slaves, if visiting slaveowners could. If an Illinois resident freed their virtual slaves they were doing so under the terms of indentured servitude. No Illinois document of emancipation.

Regarding the other exception mentioned: grandfathering of pre-statehood slave ownership; well, in that case Illinois had effectively surrendered its authority. From then on the status of the slave was solely between the master and his slave, including when the master chooses to emancipate his slave -- a private document of emancipation. No Illinois document of emancipation.

Regarding the other exception mentioned: the holding of humans against their will in areas of the state where there was no regular enforcement of Illinois' statutes -- well, that was simply a crime under Illinois law. True enough when those held in that circumstance were freed it would be under an Illinois local court order, but it was not an emancipation. It simply was a resolution of a suit brought by the state against convicted criminals. No Illinois document of emancipation.

We understand what's going on though. If the idea can be sold that what remained of slavery in Illinois or any other free state in the Antebellum -- virtual slavery -- can be equated with slavery in the slave South, then the slave South, including the Confederacy, was no more culpable for retaining and expanding slavery than the free Northern states were (sub text: the war wasn't over slavery).
Again you seem to ignore the fact that the slaves were grandfathered in, their children were also in bondage, required to be emancipated upon coming of age by Illinois residents. a slave grandfathered in could be held for life if the owner chose, and children born to such a slave, even after 1818 also held until coming of age, when they were required to free. Note the clause saying children born hereafter have to have the date of birth recorded, because they could also be held in bondage to coming of age

From the Illinois 1818 constitution

3. Each and every person who has been bound to service by contract or indenture in virtue of the law of Illinois territory heretofore existing, and in conformity to the provisions of the same, without fraud or collusion, shall be held to a specific performance of their contracts or indentures; and such negroes and mulattoes as have been registered in conformity with the aforesaid laws, shall serve out the time appointed by said laws: Provided however, that the children hereafter born of such person , negroes or mulattoes, shall become free, the males at the age of 21 years, the females at the age of 18 years. Each and every child born of indentured parents, shall be entered with the clerk of the county in which they reside, by their owners, within six months after the birth of said child.

If you held a grandfathered slave, who fathered a son in 1842...…that son would be free, or emancipated in 1863...…by an Illinois owner and resident........
 
Last edited:
Top