| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aps2148/Quaker_trusteeship |
| | Southern Quakers and Slavery: http://books.google.com/books?id=DguMLrwnlmoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (p. 225 provides Gaston's interpretation of the 1796 law legalizing religious trusts) |
|
<
< | Below, I am adding some material exploring the the conflicts that arose between the North Carolina Assembly and the Quakers in North Carolina over laws restricting manumission. |
>
> | Below, I am adding some material exploring the the conflicts that arose between the North Carolina Assembly and the Quakers in North Carolina over laws restricting manumission, and the decline in Quaker efforts towards avoiding those laws. |
| | Manumission in North Carolina |
| | The conflict between the Quakers and the General Assembly continued over the next two decades. In response to a 1787 Quaker petition to repeal the restrictive laws on emancipation, the Assembly re-affirmed its previous policy and voiced its displeasure with the Quakers. The Assembly explicitly condemned persons of "religious motives" who, in violation of the law, "liberate their slaves, who are now going at large to the terror of the people of this State." (Franklin p. 10) A few years later, the Quakers again petitioned for an adjustment in the state's manumission policy. In 1796 they sought recognition of their right to legally emancipate their slaves on conscientious grounds. (Weeks p.221) In defiance of this request, the General Assembly re-cemented its restrictive policy. The 1796 act stated "that no slave shall be set free in any case or under any pretense whatever, except for meritorious services, to be adjudged or and allowed by the County Court, and license first had and obtained therefor." (Weeks p. 222) |
|
<
< | While these laws were restrictive of manumission, enforcement during the eighteenth century was lenient. Many slave owners in North Carolina simply ignored the state's restrictive laws in freeing their slaves. (Berlin p. 31) When the county courts did hear petitions for manumission, they generally freed slaves without requiring proof of "meritorious service". (Cover p.76) In addition, local opinion typically frowned upon attempts by sheriffs to enforce the laws. When sheriffs arrested improperly freed slaves in the face of this community pressure, the slave was often turned over to his or her former owner, who promptly freed the slave again. (Berlin p.32) This inability of government officials to effectively enforce the restrictive laws attests to the liberal attitude towards manumission common throughout many local Carolinian communities. (Berlin p.31). |
>
> | While these laws were restrictive of manumission, enforcement during the eighteenth century was lenient. Many slave owners in North Carolina simply ignored the state's restrictive laws in freeing their slaves. (Berlin p. 31) When the county courts did hear petitions for manumission, they generally freed slaves without requiring proof of "meritorious service". (Cover p.76) In addition, local opinion typically frowned upon attempts by sheriffs to enforce the laws. When sheriffs arrested an improperly freed slave in the face of this community pressure, the slave was often turned over to his or her former owner, who promptly freed the slave again. (Berlin p.32) This inability of government officials to effectively enforce the restrictive laws attests to the liberal attitude towards manumission common throughout many local Carolinian communities. (Berlin p.31). |
| | |
|
<
< | The General Assembly continued frustration with these practices lead it to take steps to strengthen its restrictions. As already noted, the Assembly reaffirmed its policies in 1741, 1777 and 1796. (Berlin p.31) In addition, the Assembly passed a statute in 1801 requiring owners seeking to free slaves to enter into a bond to ensure that the manumitted slave would not become a charge on the state. (Weeks p.224). Finally, in 1818, the Assembly stripped county courts of the power to determine "meritorious service" and vested that power in regionally based superior courts. (Cover p.75). This continual struggle between owners seeking to free their slaves and the General Assembly seeking to restrict manumission lead many, especially the Quakers, to adopt new methods for emancipation. |
>
> | The General Assembly's continued frustration with these practices lead it to take steps to strengthen its restrictions. As already noted, the Assembly reaffirmed its policies in 1741, 1777 and 1796. (Berlin p.31) In addition, the Assembly passed a statute in 1801 requiring owners seeking to free slaves to enter into a bond to ensure that the manumitted slave would not become a charge on the state. (Weeks p.224). Finally, in 1818, the Assembly stripped county courts of the power to determine "meritorious service" and vested that power in regionally based superior courts. (Cover p.75). This continual struggle between owners seeking to free their slaves and the General Assembly seeking to restrict manumission lead many, especially the Quakers, to adopt new methods for emancipation. Among the methods adopted was the use of trusts by the religious community to hold slaves until they could be freed. |
| | |
|
<
< | -- AjaySaini - 04 Apr 2012
In addition to the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision in Board of Trustees against Dickinson, discussed at length in the Wikipedia Article, there were a number of other causes leading to the disuse of trusteeships by Quakers. |
>
> | This method arose among Quakers in the early nineteenth century. The Quakers achieved some success in freeing a number of slaves through the 1820s. In 1829, however, the Supreme Court of North Carolina restricted the ability of Quakers to use trusts as a means of virtually freeing slaves. |
| | Declining Use |
|
<
< | For a number of reasons the practice of Quaker trusteeships fell out of use by the end of the 1820s. First, significant portions of the Quaker population migrated from North Carolina west to states like Ohio, thereby diminishing the political clout of the constituency. (Cover p.75) Second, the prevailing attitude towards slavery in the South generally and North Carolina specifically changed drastically in the half century preceding the Civil War. (Berlin p. 141) This resulted in increased government action to tighten efforts against emancipation. |
>
> | Even before the decision in Dickinson, however, the use of trusts by the Quaker religious establishment was falling into disuse. There were a number of reasons for this declining use. First, significant portions of the Quaker population migrated from North Carolina west to states like Ohio, thereby diminishing the political clout of the constituency. (Cover p.75) Second, the prevailing attitude towards slavery in the South generally and North Carolina specifically changed drastically in the half century preceding the Civil War. (Berlin p. 141) This resulted in increased government action to tighten efforts against emancipation. |
| | Quaker Migration |
| | Pro-slavery Sentiment |
|
<
< | A second major reason for the diminished efforts was a shift in the general attitude of North Carolinians. Over the course of the nineteenth century the southern states grew more committed to slavery as an institution. (Berlin 141) The primary reason for this shift was the spread of cotton culture across the southwest including North Carolina. (Weeks p. 244) The demand for slaves increased with advent of the cotton gin, and, as a result, many across the state disregarded doubts they once harbored about the morality of slavery. (Berlin p. 141) The potential heirs of emancipators began regularly challenging the manumission of slaves by will, in order to ensure their rights in valuable property. (Id.) Emancipation was frowned upon, both by the state and by the populace. In this atmosphere, events like Nat Turner's rebellion served to further entrench proslavery opinions. |
>
> | A second major reason for the diminished efforts was a shift in the general attitude of North Carolinians. Over the course of the nineteenth century the southern states grew more committed to slavery as an institution. (Berlin 141) The primary reason for this shift was the spread of cotton culture across the South. (Weeks p. 244) The demand for slaves increased with advent of the cotton gin, and, as a result, many across the state disregarded doubts they once harbored about the morality of slavery. (Berlin p. 141) The potential heirs of emancipators began regularly challenging the manumission of slaves by will, in order to ensure their rights in valuable property. (Id.) Emancipation was frowned upon, both by the state and by the populace. In this atmosphere, events like Nat Turner's rebellion served to further entrench proslavery opinions. |
| | The government in North Carolina took advantage of these cultural changes to stifle the Quakers' actions. After the Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia, North Carolina swiftly passed laws outlawing the education of slaves. (Weeks p. 231) This law effectively shut-down the schools Quakers set up to educate the slaves held in trust. |