37»
��THE GRANITE MONTHLY.
��in 1 792, in his history of the state, .gives it as his opinion that " slavery was not at that time prohibited by ex- press law." He says, ". negroes were never very numerous in New Hamp- shire. Some of them purchased their freedom during the late war [of the Revolution] by serving three years in the army. Others have been made free by the justice and humanity of their masters. In Massachusetts they are all accounted free by the first article of the bill of rights — ' All men are born free and equal.' In the bill of rights of New Hampshire the first article is expressed in these words, — ' All men are born equally free and independent ;' which, in the opinion of most persons, will bear the same construction. But others have de- duced from it this inference, that all who are born since the constitution was made, are free ; and that those who were in slavery before remain so still. For this reason, in the late census, the blacks in New Hampshire are dis- tinguished into free and slave. It is not in my power to apologize for this inconsistency. However, the condition of most of those who are called slaves is preferable to that of many who are free in the neighboring State. They are better provided with necessaries ; their labor is not more severe than that of the white people in general ; and they are equally under the pro- tection of the law."
Dr. Bouton, in the 9th volume of his State Papers, " submits the opinion that the first and second articles in the bill of rights virtually and in effect abolished slavery as it existed in the State," and that " Dr. Belknap was mistaken in the opinion which he seemed to favor that the bill of rights had only the effect to give freedom to those who should be born after the adoption of the constitution.' 1
Dr. Bouton admits that it may be a question whether the first and second articles in the bill of rights were orig- inally designed to abolish slavery, and were voted on and adopted by the people generally with that understand-
��ing ; but that this was the effect of their adoption can not be doubted, from the fact that in 1775 there were 657 slaves returned as living in the state, and by the census of 1790, only six years after the adoption of the state constitution, the number of slaves was returned as 158; while by the census of 1800 only 8 were returned, and by that of 18 10, none. He refers to the additional facts, as still " higher proof that the bill of rights abolished slavery," that previous to and up to the adoption of the constitution slaves had been for many years rated and taxed to their owners as horses, oxen and other kinds of property were taxed, and that when a new proportion was made in 1 788 the practice of taxing slaves was dropped. When this act became a law, he says, " slaves ceased to be known and held as property in New Hampshire. No after legislation recognized the existence of slavery. The institution was dead." The proper explanation of the fact that 158 slaves were returned as living in the state in 1 790, he considers to be that "although by the state constitution of 1 784 slav- ery was in fact terminated, and a very large portion of those held as slaves availed themselves of their liberty, or were discharged, yet as a portion of them still remained in the families where they had lived, and perhaps did not desire a change, they were inadvert- ently reckoned by the census takers under the head of ' slaves ' — no dis- crimination being made in regard to their condition, though in reality free." There can be no doubt from these facts that slavery came to an end through the operations of the consti- tution adopted in 1784, though it is a question, as Dr. Bouton admits, whether it was originally designed to abolish it, or was adopted by the peo- ple with that understanding. The journal of the convention which framed the constitution can not be found, and not a word of its debates, so far as known, has been preserved. What was said can only be conjectured from the character of the instrument which
�� �
