Abolitionists attempt to end a centuries old institution in New Jersey.
A New Jersey Reform Era Court Ruling
In May 1845 John Post of Passaic County and Edward Van Buren of Bergen County were ordered by the New Jersey Supreme Court to produce the following individuals1:
William, aged about 60, who was born before July 4, 1804
Mary Tiebout, aged about 19, who was born after July 4, 1804.
Both William and Mary were enslaved according to New Jersey’s 1820 law “An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery and Other Purposes Concerning Slaves”. They were chosen representatives of all enslaved persons in New Jersey.
Under this Act, anyone born to an enslaved mother in New Jersey after July 4, 1804 would be freed. Boys at age 25 and girls at age 21.
Anyone born before July 4, 1804 would remain enslaved for life.
Timeline of Events
View a brief summary of the exhibit in a timeline format.
New Jersey eliminates hereditary slavery.
However, enslavers continue to profit from slave labor as the law does not eliminate slavery.
The terms of this act were rolled into the April 18, 1820 An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery and other Purposes Concerning Slaves, referenced throughout the New Jersey Slave Case.
New Jersey ratifies a new state Constitution.
The new Constitution includes a Bill of Rights, and abolitionists believe the first Article’s wording eliminates slavery in New Jersey.
Does 1844 Constitution abolish slavery?
New Jersey slavery laws remain in effect after the 1844 Constitution is ratified. Abolitionists force the Supreme Court to interpret Article 1 Item 1 of the new Constitution.
Replace the word “slave” with “apprentice”
New Jersey’s “An Act to Abolish Slavery” changed a word, rather than changing the status of anyone enslaved in the state.
Abolitionists keep working to eliminate slavery in New Jersey.
New Jersey’s highest court rules in favor of slavery, despite the passage of the 1846 law.
![First page of Court of Errors and Appeals ruling from the New Jersey Supreme Court Reporter on the New Jersey Slave Case, January 1848. The Reporter contains a summary of the Supreme Court’s finding in the 1845 Post/Van Buren cases that “Slavery existed in New Jersey prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1844, and was not abolished by that Constitution”. A footnote to the summary elaborates that “Since this decision [the 1845 Supreme Court ruling] Slavery as such has been abolished by Statute, approved April 16, 1846; R.S. 382; but the old Slaves held to service. The distinguishing feature of this Statute is, that it abolishes all the odious disabilities of the Slave, while it leaves untouched the vested rights of the master to his services.”](https://www.njstatelib.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/State-v-Post-decision-Court-of-Errors-and-Appeals-Jan-1848.png)
New Jersey ratifies 13th Amendment to the US Constitution
The state finally eliminates slavery when forced by the federal government.
A new state Constitution went into effect, replacing the 1776 New Jersey Constitution.
The New Jersey State Anti-Slavery Society (NJSASS) believed that the first item of Article I of the 1844 Constitution abolished slavery in New Jersey by stating that “all men are by nature free and independent”. Members of this abolitionist organization hired attorneys to determine if the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed.
The New Jersey Slave Case, one of the most important human rights legal actions in state history, was about to begin.
The New Jersey Slave Case at the NJ Supreme Court
The New Jersey State Anti-Slavery Society hired Alvan Stewart, an attorney and member of the National Anti-Slavery Society to argue the cases against Post and Van Buren.
Stewart passionately spoke in front of the New Jersey Supreme Court for 16 total hours on May 21 and May 22, 1845.
He spent 11 hours on his initial argument and 5 hours on his rebuttals.
He accepted no compensation for his service. Instead he asked NJSASS to publish and distribute his argument.
Stewart’s argument was based on Natural Law:
Philosophical system of legal and moral principles deriving from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action; moral law embodied in principles of right and wrong2
Slavery violates natural, God-given rights: life, liberty, and property.
“Slavery is the exact converse of every proposition contained in the first article of your new Constitution.”
Click on a tab below to learn more about Stewart’s multi-pronged position against slavery in New Jersey from his published argument.
Lord Mansfield uses Natural Law to emancipate James Somerset
New Jersey’s colonial and state political structure originated from England. Alvan Stewart used many English legal examples supporting his position. Mansfield’s decision, he argued, meant that slavery in New Jersey could not exist because of Natural Law.
Stewart referenced the 1772 case of James Somerset, an enslaved African Englishman threatened with transportation and sale overseas. Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, ruled that slavery violated Natural Law:
“The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons… It is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law3 [law created by a human constructed legal system, see contrasting definition of natural law above].”
Mansfield’s conclusion was “…I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore [James Somerset] must be discharged.”4
Stewart summation of Somerset ruling: Slavery violates Natural Law in the American colonies.
“The great principles established in the Somerset Case awakened the philanthropy of England, and put forth its strength…finally in 1806, was successful in the abolition of the African Slave Trade by Parliament…This was the first great blow struck for the man in Africa, in the 300 years from the beginning of his American and West Indian enslavement.“ (p17)
“The foundation of slavery which sprang up in our colonies, had, as a general rule, nothing but the barbarous custom of a few inhuman planters, in its origin which custom was one within legal memory…It has not that common law authority for its support, which was supposed to be handed down from generation to generation in the libraries of judges and lawyers…they speak in the language of authority over this land they forbid in trumpet-tongues, the existence of this vile institution of slavery.“ (p19)
Founding Documents of our Country contain Natural Law
Steward argues that the wording in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, and New Jersey’s 1844 Constitution all uphold Natural Law through the statement of rights supporting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Stewart on Natural Law in each document
“A Constitution…imports a covenant made by the whole people, with each person, and each person with the whole people, to protect and defend their God-inherited rights of life, liberty, property and safety from violence and invasion. A Constitution is made for the defence of human rights and not for the destruction; a Constitution is the highest evidence of man’s weakness; and to combine society’s strength, for the defence of each individual. How is it possible that a Constitution…which was created on purpose for the protection of life, liberty, property and Safety, can exist and be entitled to the name, without overthrowing every institution…intending to cheat man out of life, liberty, property, safety and happiness?“ (p.24)
“The law of nature is taken up and recognized by the good people of New Jersey, in the most solemn form as a rule of action, in her organic law. This first section declares that amongst man’s unalienable rights are life, liberty, and the right of acquiring property…If slavery or semi-slavery, in the shape of children of slaves in this State continuing to be slaves, males until twenty-five and females until twenty-one years of age, and this operation is to pass under the name of being born free, and persons forty-one years old and upwards to be retained as slaves for life…then the first great section of your Constitution is converted into a vapid and senseless abstraction.“ (p. 23-24)
1823. From the National Archives.
“…the Declaration of Independence in asserting that all men are created free and equal is true as a proposition, and is not a rhetorical flourish, but a sublime estimate…that any accidental variance by the acquisitions of one, of more wealth than another, does not disturb the great result any more than the dust which may fall upon one of the scales shall change their general equipoise.” (p. 29)
Stewart used some surprising sources to show why slavery was a violation of Natural Law.
Click on the images below to read Stewart’s argument on how these revile the existence of slavery.
Stewart frames his argument in showing how slavery violates the Ten Commandments:
“He made these poor fugitive slaves [referring to Moses and his followers in the Book of Exodus] the Librarians and Custodians of the revelation of his will to mankind. Slavery treads this revelation under foot, and quotes the Bible to prove slavery, when there is the most incontestable evidence that there never would have been a revelation [of the Ten Commandments]…but the finishing stroke of those awful wonders and miracles, on the faith of which our religion rests, all originating, converging, and terminating in that great fundamental proposition, that God infinitely abhors slavery, because it supplants his direct authority over the will of His child, and throws His child…into the category of brute-beasts, thus for ever overthrowing the fundamental relation of God to man, of man to his neighbor, and of man to himself.”
Image courtesy of Library of Congress
Stewart examines the English Court’s legal treatment of serfs (also called villeins) during Feudal times, dating from the Norman Conquest in 1066 to the early 1600s:
“The courts of English law during this long period employed all the subtleties, fictions, and presumptions, in which the English law abounds in behalf of the liberty of these grossly injured men, so that at last, the sublime moral spectacle was presented to this world…the last bondman…of a mighty kingdom was enfranchised from captivity by force of England’s glorious judiciary alone. The king, and iron-mailed barons, the land owners, and man-holders, were foiled, and their prey taken from their power by the resolution of the judges, who, being determined, did administer justice through the law.”
Image courtesy of the British Library, Add. 42130
Stewart references the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812 between Great Britain and the United States.
Article 10 of the Treaty reads:
“Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object.”
Stewart admonishes the United States and New Jersey for not upholding this article:
“If slavery not only forbids and restrains a nation from performing its most solemn treaties, but violates them, and thus endangers the peace, prosperity and happiness of the whole people, can it be doubted that it contravenes the 1st Article of your [state] Constitution…Can safety, property and happiness be maintained by men or nations who violate faith, who are truce breakers? Is not that slavery which hazards the peace of a Nation by refusing obedience to the highest law of individual and national preservation, something that is contrary to the great law of nature?”
Image courtesy of the National Archives
Slaves and apprentices better off as they are: Zabriskie and Bradley oppose Steward
James P. Otis, a reporter from the New York Evening Express, recapped proceedings of the New Jersey Slave Case. Click on the newspaper pages below to learn more.
From the May 23, 1845 edition of the New York Evening Express, page 2.
Abraham Zabriskie, attorney for Edward Van Buren, enslaver of Mary Tiebout
Criticism of Social Reformers
Zabriskie names several groups, including abolitionists, that are "disturbers of the public peace and the good order of the community."
Article 1 Section 1 is an abstract proposal and agrumentum ad absurdum
Zabriskie states that the first article of the new Constitution of New Jersey "...was but a mere abstract proposition with the Convention who made and the people who adopted that Constitution. He elaborates further later.
He also intends to use the "argumentum ad absurdum" in his response to Steward. Most commonly called reductio ad absurdum, this logic disproves an argument by showing that it leads to an absurd consequence (Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th ed. rev., 1968 p.1444).
Even if Slavery Laws are all abolished, rights don't go away
In response to his own posed question "Even if the statutes [on the subjects of Slavery and Apprenticeship] are abolished do not the rights conveyed by these statutes remain?" Zabriskie contends that those rights "did, in full force". This leads us back to the original statement that the statement in Article 1 of the 1844 Constitution is an abstraction.
The convention did not intend to repeal slave law
Zabriskie turns to the proceedings of the 1844 Constitutional Convention to prove that the framers did not intend to abolish slavery. "It would be a judicial fraud, therefore, upon the people of New Jersey, were the Court to decided on such a construction of the new Constitution".
Slavery is not inconsistent with abridgement to personal and natural rights
Zabriskie states that "...slaves and apprentices are better off as they are, and that the repeal of the law would be worse for them". He also uses real life examples of natural rights and privileges that are legally abridged (minors not having certain rights until they become adults for instance).
The State Constitutions of Massachusetts and Virginia, where slavery was legally challenged show that slavery has been handled differently in each state. In Massachusetts, a judge ruled that the state constitution abolished slavery. In Virginia, a judge ruled that the state constitution did not abolish slavery.
Slave equals Apprentice in NJ
Zabriskie states "master and apprentice" relationships in New Jersey (as specified in P.L. 1820 page 74) are "...parallel with that of master and apprentices, elsewhere". He attempted to argue that enslaved people in New Jersey could "hold property and bring an action", which the court decried.
Unless the prosecuting attorney can prove that the first article of the 1844 State Constitution "applies particularly to slaves and not to any other relation of life...that the case must fall to the ground."
Rights remain and Natural Law
Zabriskie made two final points before the court adjourned for the morning session:
1. That rights remain even if laws changed. A change to the constitution does not change the rights of slaveholders.
2. The Antelope US Supreme Court case (1825) concluded that the African slave trade did violate natural law, but not the laws of nations. It upheld the rights of enslavers where the positive law of their countries allowed slavery. Zabriskie is incorrect that the US Supreme Court found "that slave-holding is not so opposed to the law of nature...".
Joseph P. Bradley, attorney for John A. Post, enslaver of William
New Jersey Slavery is different from definition
Joseph Bradley, attorney for John Post (William's enslaver), states that slavery by general definition does not exist in New Jersey. He also begins a point by point take-down of Alvan Stewart's argument, including his use of Exodus and the Ten Commandments to decry slavery. Bradley "denied that God, in the wonderful Exodus...intended to manifest his displeasure of slavery". He uses other Bible passages to show that slavery is sanctioned by the Christian religion.
A definition of slavery according to Bradley
Bradley is "not in favor of slavery", but considers a New Jersey enslaved person "nothing more than a servant for life, in this State". He expresses concern that formerly enslaved people "shall be turned out adrift upon the world." Lord Mansfield, whose Somerset ruling played an important part of Alvan Stewart's argument, is employed in support of Bradley's definition: "slavery was different in different places".
How is slavery different in New Jersey?
Building off of the Mansfield quote, Bradley shows how he believes that slavery is different in New Jersey: "The relation in this state...is just the relation between an ordinary master and apprentice, under the law regulating that relation...". Stewart's portrayal of slavery in his argument does not apply to the institution that exists in New Jersey, and further Stewart does not prove "the inexpediency of its existence or the expediency of abolishing it". Bradley's conclusion, based on how different he believes New Jersey slavery to be, is that: "The slaves of New Jersey are better off as they are than they would be free."
Slaves are like children to owners
Bradley states the following: "They live among the farmers, in their families, like their children; and it is a lible to draw any other inference or argument from the existence of slavery in New Jersey".
Natural law wording in founding documents is political formula
Bradley describes the founding documents in Stewart's arguments as having "no reference to slavery; never had; never intended to have". Their words are instead "political formula". Using the Declaration of Independence, Bradley describes the intent and purpose of the words used: "they had reference to the new relations assumed by the people of the United States....towards Great Britain; their apology for breaking off from that country and repudiating its government. This was the meaning, and the sole meaning of the declaration."
Slavery as a contract in the 1844 Constitution
Bradley states that the New Jersey Constitution provides vested rights to all involved in slavery. He cites Section 7 Article 3 of the 1844 Constitution (incorrectly listed in the newspaper as Article 4): "The legislature shall not pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or depriving a party of any remedy for enforcing a contract which existed when the contract was made." He interprets Article 3 as saving "vested rights, contracts, forms of remedy."
Bradley on the enslaved: "They have vested rights to a support in the families in which they live, to clothing and food and shelter all the days of their life, in sickness as in health." Enslavers also have vested rights because they "spent monies and given considerations, and come under obligations in consequence of the relation." Bradley says that separating the vested rights of the enslaved and the enslaver would "violate contracts, and this the Constitution of New Jersey will not allow, nor this Court decide."
Slavery is unrepealed law of the land in New Jersey
During his argument, Alvan Stewart called slavery in the American colonies "nothing but the barbarous custom of a few inhuman planters" and stated that "It has not that common law authority for its support." Bradley concludes his argument, in direct refutation of Steward, by giving legal examples of slavery's existence from the founding of New Jersey and called it "the settled, un-repealed law of the land".
Slavery is the law of the land in New Jersey: Supreme Court ruling
Four justices heard the New Jersey Slave Case, and in a three to one vote, maintained that the 1844 Constitution did not abolish slavery. Instead it was decided:
“First, That the relation of master and slave existed by law, at the adoption of the constitution in 1844.
Secondly, That the constitution has not destroyed that relation, or abolished slavery.
Thirdly, That the colored man William should be remanded to the custody of the defendant [Post], and for similar reason, I think a like order should be made in the case of The State v. Van Buren; which is the case of a colored apprentice, under the act of 1820, for the gradual abolition of slavery.”
Click a tab below to learn more about the presiding Judges’ opinions on this case.
Slavery legally exists and nothing in Declaration or Constitution affects owners’ property rights
Judge James S. Nevius wrote a lengthy opinion in response to Stewart’s arguments. His analysis largely focused on positive law regarding slavery in New Jersey. He acknowledges natural law in Constitutions, but states that this does not negate slavery.
The US Constitution included slavery (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 ) and natural law (Preamble) and they do not contradict each other, according to previous rulings of both State and Federal courts.
The Justice states:
“How far these laws have been wise, politic, or just; or how far they are consistent with the principles of humanity and natural and inherent right, it is not our province, nor are we now called upon to decide.”
An Act to Abolish Slavery ends hereditary slavery, which will gradually end slavery altogether:
In 1804, New Jersey became the last northern state to pass some kind of court ruling, Constitutional amendment, or law to either completely or gradually end slavery. An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery was passed in February 1804 and its provisions for apprenticeship and manumissions were maintained in the 1820 law An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery and other Purposes Concerning Slaves referenced through the New Jersey Slave Case.
Judge Joseph F. Randolph, a delegate to the 1844 Constitutional convention, characterizes the law as an attempt to end slavery altogether:
No published opinion, just agreement with Nevius.
“Carpenter, J., concurred in the result of the opinion delivered by Justice Nevius, and in the general tenor of the reasoning on which it is founded.”
(New Jersey Law Review v. 20 p.386)
Author of landmark slavery decision’s dissent never recorded?
Joseph P. Hornblower was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a delegate to the 1844 Constitutional Convention. His landmark 1836 opinion in the Alexander Helmsley case lead to 1837 revisions5 of New Jersey fugitive slave law.
Hornblower gave a verbal dissent in the New Jersey Slave Case, or as the New Jersey Freeman said in the February 11, 1846 edition “…gave his voice in favor of liberty”. However, no one seems to have summarized or recorded his thoughts on this case.
Abolish and Appeal: NJSASS continues quest for liberty
An Act to Abolish Slavery, passed April 18, 1846
Although the law calls everyone free:
- Only children born after the Act was passed were fully emancipated.
- The 1846 law ceased using the word “slave”. Anyone currently enslaved became an apprentice with no fixed terms of service.
- “Apprentices” could legally address grievances against their enslavers.
- Illegal to sell “apprentices” out of state
- Financially solvent “apprentices” could be released from service
- Prosecution and penalties increased for those who aided runaways
- Non-resident enslavers’ property rights upheld by this law.
New Jersey Slave Case, Court of Errors and Appeals, January 1848
By publication of the February 5th edition of the New Jersey Freeman, the Court of Errors and Appeals already ruled on the New Jersey Slave Case. Mary Tiebout, who was born after July 4, 1804, turned 21 in 1847. So, only the Post case was heard, as William was born prior to 1804. Errors and Appeals judges upheld the Supreme Court verdict in a 7-1 vote.
Slavery’s Choke Hold on New Jersey
Did anything change after 1846? From James Gigantino’s “The Ragged Road to Abolition”:
- John Berdan, of Bergen County, died in 1846. His executors valued “five persons of color born under the act for the gradual emancipation of slavery” at between $10 and $50.
- Catherine, enslaved by John Hagaman, was 67 years old in 1856. She was sold to Charles Sutphin.
- In 1855, the estate of Abraham Ackerman valued “a male servant of color” at $1006
Nineteen people were listed as slaves in New Jersey in 1860 Census data. They remained in bondage until January 23, 1866, when the state ratified the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which truly abolished slavery in New Jersey and the United States.
The 212th New Jersey State Legislature apologized for the institution of slavery through Concurrent Resolution Number 270, passed in 2008.
Questions for Discussion:
- Do you agree with defense attorneys and Judges Nevius and Randolph that slavery in New Jersey is different from slavery elsewhere?
- The Passaic County woman on the 1860 census is between 30 and 40 years old. She should not be enslaved according to the Gradual Abolition law. Why do you think she is able to be enslaved in New Jersey?
- How would you have fought against slavery in 1840s New Jersey?
Share your thoughts with us on New Jersey history.
Footnotes
- State v. Post, 1845, New Jersey Supreme Court Case files, New Jersey State Archives ↩︎
- Black’s Legal Dictionary, 10th ed., 2014 ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- Digital Exhibit The Somerset v. Stewart case, English Heritage, Kenwood, History and Collections https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/kenwood/history-stories-kenwood/somerset-case/ ↩︎
- A further supplement to an act entitled, “An act concerning slaves”, passed February 15, 1837 (Acts of the 61st New Jersey General Assembly, First sitting, page 134-136). Sections 1 and 2 of the law have the amended process for handling a fugitive slave accusation. ↩︎
- Gigantino, James The Ragged Road to Abolition, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015. p.235 ↩︎