Quaker trusteeship

Last updated

In the early nineteenth century, Quakers in North Carolina used trusts to free slaves. At the time, North Carolina had adopted laws restricting the ability of slaveowners to free their slaves. To get around these laws individual Quakers began entrusting their slaves to their church. The Quaker organization held on to the slaves in conditions of virtual freedom, until it could obtain the legal freedom of the slave. While this method of freeing slaves was initially popular, the practice fell into disuse as a result of demographic and political reasons.

Contents

Background

During the eighteenth century, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted tight restrictions on manumission. In 1723, the Assembly prohibited slave owners from freeing their slaves, unless as a reward for "meritorious service". [1] This restriction was reaffirmed in 1741, 1777 and finally in 1796. By the beginning of the nineteenth century it was the most restrictive law of its kind in the states of the Upper South. [2] As a result of these restrictive policies many North Carolinians interested in emancipation, especially Quakers, made active attempts to circumvent the law by emancipating their slaves. The Quakers of North Carolina committed themselves to rid their community of slave ownership. At the 1782 Yearly Meeting, the leaders of the community required their members to emancipate all their slaves. This policy of manumission ran into direct conflict with the laws of North Carolina. [1] As a result, the Quakers actively sought a way to emancipate slaves.

Using trusts to emancipate

Adoption of trustee device

In 1808 many North Carolinians were using trusts as a way to manumit slaves without breaking North Carolina's restrictive laws. A master simply entrusted his or her slave to a trustee, who was responsible for providing the slave with his or her freedom. The trust would specify the manner by which the trustee could fulfill his or her obligations. Some trusts required the trustee to remove the slave to a state with less restrictive manumission laws and where the slave could be formally emancipated. Others required the trustee to free the slave in North Carolina by proving "meritorious service" in the proper court. Finally, many trusts required the trustee to hold the slave until North Carolina law permitted emancipation. The end goal of all these efforts was to avoid improper manumission and the possibility of re-enslavement. [3]

At the 1808 Yearly Meeting the Quakers decided to use trusts to collect slaves. [1] A 1796, statute passed by the General Assembly, permitted religious organizations to appoint trustees to hold for the congregation any real estate and donations "of whatever kind". The Quakers interpreted this to include the holding of slaves in trust. [4] To support this conclusion, the North Carolina Friends asked the respected jurist, William Gaston for his legal opinion. According to Gaston, the "donations of property such as money, slaves, etc., may be received to any amount – such donations can not be set aside by any persons claiming under the donors, nor can they be impaired by anyone." [1] The Quakers, on the basis of this interpretation, appointed a number of trustees to accept donations of slaves from owners seeking to free their slaves.

Results

Over the next twenty years, the Quakers successfully used trusts to hold and free a number of slaves. [1] By 1814 they held nearly 350 slaves in trust. [2] A decade later the numbers held increased to over 500 slaves. At the apex of this program, in 1826, the Quakers held 600 slaves in trust. [1] Individual Quakers from all over North Carolina gave their slaves to the Quaker established trusts. Some members went further, purchasing slaves from non-Quakers for the Society to hold in trust. [4] Even some non-Quakers sought to assign their slaves to the Quaker trusts. The latter practice so worried the Quaker leadership that they prohibited it at the 1822 Yearly Meeting. [1]

Trustees fulfilled their obligations by granting entrusted slaves virtual freedom or transporting them to a state where freedom was available. Slaves held in trust in North Carolina often earned their own wages, ran their own families and owned their own property. [2] Quakers also opened schools for these quasi-freedmen as early as 1816. [1] Trustees sent other slaves to governments where the slave could be freed without violating the law. Popular destinations for entrusted slaves were Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and Ohio. [1]

Board of Trustees v. Dickinson

Quakers use of trusts proceeded unimpeded until 1829 when the issue came before the North Carolina Supreme Court. At issue in Trustees of the Quaker Society of Contentnea v. William Dickinson was an 1817 entrustment of a slave owned by William Dickinson to the Quakers of Contentnea. The terms of the conveyance required the Quakers to hold the slave in North Carolina until he could be freed in accordance with the laws of the State. While held, the slave was permitted to earn an income. [5]

The majority opinion, written by Judge Taylor denied the ability of the Quakers to hold slaves in trust. Taylor narrowly interpreted the 1796 law allowing religious organizations to hold property in trust. The law, he concluded, only allowed a religious organization to hold property for its own benefit, not for the benefit or "other persons". The Quakers, Taylor noted, harbored a religious and moral aversion to slavery, and sought slaves only to rid humanity of the sin of slave ownership. [3] He further noted that the slaves held in trust were slaves in name only, and were given extensive freedoms. These facts lead him to conclude that the trust was, in reality, for the benefit of the slaves. He, therefore, rejected the ability of Quakers to hold slaves in trust for the purpose of freeing them in state. [6]

The majority opinion also made note of the consequences of these trusts, if the Court found them valid. While freely admitting the right of individuals to hold slaves and do with them as they wished, the Court rejected the Quakers' actions as "fraudulent". The Court warned that "mischief" would ensue if those actions were upheld. According to Judge Taylor, the quasi-emancipated individuals working for their own benefit in sight of the enslaved "would naturally excite in the latter discontent with their condition, encourage idleness and disobedience, and lead possibly in the course of human events to the most calamitous of all contests, a bellum servile (slave revolt)." [6] As a result, he concluded, the "duty of self-preservation" required the court overturn the law. [3]

In dissent, Judge Hall found that statute and its application clear. All that was required of any person or incorporated society claiming use of some property was a title proclaiming their rights in that property. [3] He argued that nothing in the 1796 law or in Quaker doctrine prohibited the possession of slaves. He countered the majority's self-preservation argument by noting that that consideration was for the legislature to decide. [6]

Declining use

The decision prohibited Quaker trusts from holding slaves in North Carolina under conditions of virtual freedom. Subsequent decisions in the North Carolina Supreme Court reinforced this decision. The court did not, however, prohibit the use of trusts for the express purpose of sending slaves to be emancipated in other states; rather its major concern was with the conditions of virtual freedom given to slaves held in trust in the state. [3] As a result, those Quakers still committed to the emancipation of slaves increasingly sent their entrusted slaves to northern states or states with lenient laws against manumission.

Nevertheless, the practice of Quaker trusteeships fell into disuse by the 1830s. This decline occurred for a number of reasons. First, significant portions of the Quaker population migrated from North Carolina west to states like Ohio, thereby diminishing the political clout and anti-slavery passions of the community. [3] Second, the prevailing attitude towards slavery in the South generally and North Carolina specifically changed drastically in the half century preceding the Civil War. [2] As a result, there was increased political support for enforcing the restrictive policies against manumission. While some individual North Carolinians and Quakers continued to use trusts as means of freeing their slaves, the organized community has largely abandoned such efforts in the 1830s. [1]

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Weeks, Stephen Beauregard, Southern Quakers and Slavery: A Study in Institutional History, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, (1896), p.217-244
  2. 1 2 3 4 Berlin, Ira, Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South, Oxford University Press, London and New York, (1974) p.29-35; 140-144
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cover, Robert, Justice Accused: Antislavery and the Judicial Process, Yale University Press, New Haven and New York, (1975), p.75-82
  4. 1 2 Franklin, John H, The Free Negro in North Carolina, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, (1971) p. 10-25
  5. ↑ Bassett, John S., Slavery in the State of North Carolina, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, (1899), p. 65-68
  6. 1 2 3 Morris, Thomas, Southern Slavery and the Law 1619-1860, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London, (1996) p. 400-404

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abolitionism</span> Movement to end slavery

Abolitionism, or the abolitionist movement, is the movement to end slavery and liberate enslaved people around the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Manumission</span> Act of a slave owner freeing their slaves

Manumission, or enfranchisement, is the act of freeing slaves by their owners. Different approaches to manumission were developed, each specific to the time and place of a particular society. Historian Verene Shepherd states that the most widely used term is gratuitous manumission, "the conferment of freedom on the enslaved by enslavers before the end of the slave system".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Slavery in the colonial history of the United States</span> Slavery in colonies that became the United States

Slavery in the colonial history of the United States refers to the institution of slavery as it existed in the European colonies which eventually became part of the United States. In these colonies, slavery developed due to a combination of factors, primarily the labour demands for establishing and maintaining European colonies, which had resulted in the Atlantic slave trade. Slavery existed in every European colony in the Americas during the early modern period, and both Africans and indigenous peoples were victims of enslavement by European colonizers during the era.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Slavery in the United States</span>

The legal institution of human chattel slavery, comprising the enslavement primarily of Africans and African Americans, was prevalent in the United States of America from its founding in 1776 until 1865, predominantly in the South. Slavery was established throughout European colonization in the Americas. From 1526, during the early colonial period, it was practiced in what became Britain's colonies, including the Thirteen Colonies that formed the United States. Under the law, an enslaved person was treated as property that could be bought, sold, or given away. Slavery lasted in about half of U.S. states until abolition in 1865, and issues concerning slavery seeped into every aspect of national politics, economics, and social custom. In the decades after the end of Reconstruction in 1877, many of slavery's economic and social functions were continued through segregation, sharecropping, and convict leasing.

The Black Codes, sometimes called the Black Laws, were laws which governed the conduct of African Americans. In 1832, James Kent wrote that "in most of the United States, there is a distinction in respect to political privileges, between free white persons and free colored persons of African blood; and in no part of the country do the latter, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites, in the exercise of civil and political rights." Although Black Codes existed before the Civil War and although many Northern states had them, the Southern U.S. states codified such laws in everyday practice. The best known of these laws were passed by Southern states in 1865 and 1866, after the Civil War, in order to restrict African Americans' freedom, and in order to compel them to work for either low or no wages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free Negro</span> Emancipated people of color

In the British colonies in North America and in the United States before the abolition of slavery in 1865, free Negro or free Black described the legal status of African Americans who were not enslaved. The term was applied both to formerly enslaved people (freedmen) and to those who had been born free.

Antebellum South Carolina is typically defined by historians as South Carolina during the period between the War of 1812, which ended in 1815, and the American Civil War, which began in 1861.

The New-York Manumission Society was an American organization founded in 1785 by U.S. Founding Father John Jay, among others, to promote the gradual abolition of slavery and manumission of slaves of African descent within the state of New York. The organization was made up entirely of white men, most of whom were wealthy and held influential positions in society. Throughout its history, which ended in 1849 after the abolition of slavery in New York, the society battled against the slave trade, and for the eventual emancipation of all the slaves in the state. It founded the African Free School for the poor and orphaned children of slaves and free people of color.

A freedman or freedwoman is a formerly enslaved person who has been released from slavery, usually by legal means. Historically, slaves were freed by manumission, emancipation, or self-purchase. A fugitive slave is a person who escaped enslavement by fleeing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of slavery in Pennsylvania</span>

When the Dutch and Swedes established colonies in the Delaware Valley of what is now Pennsylvania, in North America, they quickly imported enslaved Africans for labor; the Dutch also transported them south from their colony of New Netherland. Enslavement was documented in this area as early as 1639. William Penn and the colonists who settled in Pennsylvania tolerated slavery. Still, the English Quakers and later German immigrants were among the first to speak out against it. Many colonial Methodists and Baptists also opposed it on religious grounds. During the Great Awakening of the late 18th century, their preachers urged slaveholders to free people their slaves. High British tariffs in the 18th century discouraged the importation of additional slaves, and encouraged the use of white indentured servants and free labor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elizabeth Key Grinstead</span> Enslaved person in colonial America (1630–1665)

Elizabeth Key Grinstead (or Greenstead) (1630 – January 20, 1665) was one of the first black people of the Thirteen Colonies to sue for freedom from slavery and win. Key won her freedom and that of her infant son John Grinstead on July 21, 1656, in the colony of Virginia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery</span>

An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, passed by the Fifth Pennsylvania General Assembly on 1 March 1780, prescribed an end for slavery in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the United States. It was the first slavery abolition act in the course of human history to be adopted by a democracy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of slavery in Maryland</span>

Slavery in Maryland lasted over 200 years, from its beginnings in 1642 when the first Africans were brought as slaves to St. Mary's City, to its end after the Civil War. While Maryland developed similarly to neighboring Virginia, slavery declined here as an institution earlier, and it had the largest free black population by 1860 of any state. The early settlements and population centers of the province tended to cluster around the rivers and other waterways that empty into the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland planters cultivated tobacco as the chief commodity crop, as the market for cash crops was strong in Europe. Tobacco was labor-intensive in both cultivation and processing, and planters struggled to manage workers as tobacco prices declined in the late 17th century, even as farms became larger and more efficient. At first, indentured servants from England supplied much of the necessary labor but, as their economy improved at home, fewer made passage to the colonies. Maryland colonists turned to importing indentured and enslaved Africans to satisfy the labor demand.

William Ellison Jr.(April 1790 – December 5, 1861), born April Ellison, was a USA cotton gin maker and blacksmith in South Carolina, and former African-American slave who achieved considerable success as a slaveowner before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the wealthiest property owners in the state. According to the 1860 census, he owned up to 68 black slaves, making him the largest of the 171 black slaveholders in South Carolina. He held 63 slaves at his death and more than 900 acres (360 ha) of land. From 1830 to 1865 he and his sons were the only free blacks in Sumter County, South Carolina to own slaves. The county was largely devoted to cotton plantations, and the majority population were slaves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom suit</span> Enslaved persons lawsuits for freedom

Freedom suits were lawsuits in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States filed by slaves against slaveholders to assert claims to freedom, often based on descent from a free maternal ancestor, or time held as a resident in a free state or territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-literacy laws in the United States</span>

Anti-literacy laws in many slave states before and during the American Civil War affected slaves, freedmen, and in some cases all people of color. Some laws arose from concerns that literate slaves could forge the documents required to escape to a free state. According to William M. Banks, "Many slaves who learned to write did indeed achieve freedom by this method. The wanted posters for runaways often mentioned whether the escapee could write." Anti-literacy laws also arose from fears of slave insurrection, particularly around the time of abolitionist David Walker's 1829 publication of Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World, which openly advocated rebellion, and Nat Turner's slave rebellion of 1831.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abolitionism in the United States</span> Movement to end slavery in the United States

In the United States, abolitionism, the movement that sought to end slavery in the country, was active from the late colonial era until the American Civil War, the end of which brought about the abolition of American slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of slavery in Florida</span>

Slavery in Florida is more central to Florida's history than it is to almost any other state. Florida's purchase by the United States from Spain in 1819 was primarily a measure to strengthen the system of slavery on Southern plantations, by denying potential runaways the formerly safe haven of Florida.

The Guardian of Sally v. Beatty was a 1792 court case decided in the Supreme Court of South Carolina. A jury charged by Chief Justice John Rutledge held that a slave who had been bought and manumitted by another slave was free, not the other slave's owner's property.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of slavery in North Carolina</span> Aspect of history

Slavery was legally practiced in the Province of North Carolina and the state of North Carolina until January 1, 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Prior to statehood, there were 41,000 enslaved African-Americans in the Province of North Carolina in 1767. By 1860, the number of slaves in the state of North Carolina was 331,059, about one third of the total population of the state. In 1860, there were nineteen counties in North Carolina where the number of slaves was larger than the free white population. During the antebellum period the state of North Carolina passed several laws to protect the rights of slave owners while disenfranchising the rights of slaves. There was a constant fear amongst white slave owners in North Carolina of slave revolts from the time of the American Revolution. Despite their circumstances, some North Carolina slaves and freed slaves distinguished themselves as artisans, soldiers during the Revolution, religious leaders, and writers.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.