1691 marked the first effort of the Gen. Asssembly to address
manumission. An act provided that "no Negro or mulatto be after the end
of this present session of assembly set free by any person or persons
whatsoever, unless such person or persons... pay for the transportation
of such Negro or Negroes out of the country within six months..."
1705 "all negro, mulatto, and Indian slaves..." are "adjudged, to be
real estate (and not chattels)" "all servants imported and brought into
this country... who were not Christians in their native country... "
shall be slaves
1723 "no negro, mulatto, or Indian slaves, shall be set free, upon any
pretense whatsoever, except for some meritorious services to be adjudged
and allowed by the Governor and Council"
1782 "it shall hereafter be lawful for any person..." by last will and
testament, or other instrument in writing, to "emancipate and set free
his or her slaves.."
1805 any slave hereafter emancipated shall not remain within this
Commonwealth more than 12 months
1815 provided for General Assembly to grant permission to stay in
Virginia upon showing acts of "extraordinary merit"
1837 transferred approval of manumission to county or corporation court
1852 Virginia Constitution provided that General Assmbly could impose
conditions on owner emancipation; it also provided that the "General
assembly shall not emancipate any slave, or the descendant of any slave,
either before or after the birth of such descendant."
Prof. Finkelman was referring to the 1851 Constitutional convention. The
efforts of owners to manumit did continue but the courts never
established a consistent procedure.
Richard Dixon
Editor Jefferson Notes
571-748-7660
On 5/29/2012 7:22 PM, Craig Kilby wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I am confused by this statement of yours. There are plenty of manumissions in Virginia long before 1851. Think even Thomas Jefferson's will for example, Or Robert "Councilor" Carter in 1791, to use just two more well know cases. Unless manumission is different than emancipation.
>
> Craig
>
> On May 29, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Finkelman, Paul<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> The master could manumit the child (but not in VA after 1851 except by act of the legislature for "meritorious service" which of course was not an option for an infant).
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
|
