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