A fine document, which struck me as worth posting. Naturally, it was a compromise, like most laws are, and because of that it isn’t entirely consistent, nor as bold as one might have liked it to be: The sentiments in the introduction would logical counsel in favor of immediate abolition, not graduate abolition. Still, it was an important step towards liberty, and deserves to be remembered as such:
WHEN we contemplate our abhorrence of that condition to which the arms and tyranny of Great Britain were exerted to reduce us; when we look back on the variety of dangers to which we have been exposed, and how miraculously our wants in many instances have been supplied, and our deliverances wrought, when even hope and human fortitude have become unequal to the conflict; we are unavoidably led to a serious and grateful sense of the manifold blessings which we have undeservedly received from the hand of that Being from whom every good and perfect gift cometh. Impressed with these ideas, we conceive that it is our duty, and we rejoice that it is in our power to extend a portion of that freedom to others, which hath been extended to us; and a release from that state of thraldom to which we ourselves were tyrannically doomed, and from which we have now every prospect of being delivered.It is not for us to enquire why, in the creation of mankind, the inhabitants of the several parts of the earth were distinguished by a difference in feature or complexion. It is sufficient to know that all are the work of an Almighty Hand. We find in the distribution of the human species, that the most fertile as well as the most barren parts of the earth are inhabited by men of complexions different from ours, and from each other; from whence we may reasonably, as well as religiously, infer, that He who placed them in their various situations, hath extended equally his care and protection to all, and that it becometh not us to counteract his mercies.
We esteem it a peculiar blessing granted to us, that we are enabled this day to add one more step to universal civilization, by removing as much as possible the sorrows of those w ho have lived in undeserved bondage, and from which, by the assumed authority of the kings of Great Britain, no effectual, legal relief could be obtained. Weaned by a long course of experience from those narrower prejudices and partialities we had imbibed, we find our hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards men of all conditions and nations; and we conceive ourselves at this particular period extraordinarily called upon, by the blessings which we have received, to manifest the sincerity of our profession, and to give a Substantial proof of our gratitude. [Paragraph breaks added. -EV]
ChrisTS says:
Lovely. Thanks.
January 23, 2010, 5:31 pmAnonsters says:
I dunno, the bill itself is pretty damned conservative in how it goes about eliminating slavery (which, by the way, Pennsylvania wasn’t completely free from until ~1850).
Check out Richard Newman’s work if anyone’s interested in the legal work of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, for example his book, The Transformation of American Abolitionism: Fighting Slavery in the Early Republic. Talking pre-Garrisonian and American Anti-Slavery Society stuff. He focuses a bit too narrowly on legal work, but it’s an important addition to the larger narrative all the same.
January 23, 2010, 7:17 pmyankee says:
I concur. Vermont abolished slavery in its constitution of 1777, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declared it unconstitutional in 1783. Pennsylvania was the first state to pass a gradual emancipation act, but the children of slaves in Pennsylvania became free at a much higher age (28) than under other states’ gradual emancipation acts. The Connecticut act of 1784 freed the children of slaves at age 25; the 1784 Rhode Island act set them free at 18 for women, 21 for men. Connecticut reduced the age of freedom from 25 to 21 in 1797, but Pennsylvania never did. So I would not call the Pennsylvania act one of the greatest moments in the history of abolitionism.
* The importation of new slaves was prohibited, but those already there remained in bondage, as did (I think) their descendants.
January 24, 2010, 3:25 amTC says:
In states like PA with post-nati emancipation most of the slaves were sold south before the deadline.
January 24, 2010, 3:36 amJimmy says:
I am sure you probably already read it, but read Gary Nash’s “Forgotten Fifth” for a brief and easy read on abolition during this time period. It seeks to debunk the belief that the Founders held on to slavery for purely economic reasons. It goes through the class culture society, how slavery was more than just “property”, and how the Founders had the perfect opportunity to abolisih slavery in 1787, but chose not to.
January 24, 2010, 11:12 amA. Dude says:
In Argentina slavery was ended slowly in much the same way: all babies born in 1813 or later would be free men and women, while all slaves born before would remain slaves. Pretty clever, I think. Now I know it was tried here, and I’m guessing that this approach was a non-starter in the south.
January 24, 2010, 1:58 pmJPat says:
There’s more to this than mere emancipation, as John Woolman’s journal spells out more fully. Those wrong ideas they had “imbibed” had to be changed, and were, to the point where granting freedom brought with it provision for a start as free men, and even restitution for the servitude. It’s a moving story, and a challenge to us who, no doubt, are also mistaken about some things.
January 24, 2010, 2:49 pm