D
doublelucky14
Guest
Formally a law was passed in New Jersey abolishing slavery in 1846. However, slaves were still kept as "apprentices for life" and listed on the federal census as slaves. The 1846 law did not affect property rights, thus, those owning slaves, retained their slaves.
See quote from historian Edgar McManus
"New Jersey's emancipation law carefully protected existing property rights. No one lost a single slave, and the right to the services of young Negroes was fully protected. Moreover, the courts ruled that the right was a 'species of property,' transferable 'from one citizen to another like other personal property...New Jersey retained slaveholding without technically remaining a slave state."
Source:McManus, Edgar J., Black Bondage in the North
With these facts in mind, how can one argue that slavery did not exist in New Jersey at the start of the Civil War? It is common knowledge that Delaware and Maryland retained their slave state status, why is New Jersey overlooked?
See quote from historian Edgar McManus
"New Jersey's emancipation law carefully protected existing property rights. No one lost a single slave, and the right to the services of young Negroes was fully protected. Moreover, the courts ruled that the right was a 'species of property,' transferable 'from one citizen to another like other personal property...New Jersey retained slaveholding without technically remaining a slave state."
Source:McManus, Edgar J., Black Bondage in the North
With these facts in mind, how can one argue that slavery did not exist in New Jersey at the start of the Civil War? It is common knowledge that Delaware and Maryland retained their slave state status, why is New Jersey overlooked?