 
| Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Date: |
Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:21:59 -0400 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
|
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
| Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
It was not a ban on manumission. It was a conditioned manumission left up to local courts to enforce. True, it was the law. True, it was a constant threat. But it did not "ban" manumission. I'm not sure what "people" I :have been talking about" as the thread started off on a very different course. The people I was mainly talking about were sent to Liberia, which renders this particular subject moot.
On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Paul Finkelman wrote:
> True enough, but for your purposes this provision is a ban on manumission because the people you have been talking about wanted to stay and did stay. Before this local courts and the legislature gave exemptions. After 1851 they could not
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|
