To your final question, the answer is probably no! No, he did not advocate anything beyond private acts of good will. Louise's comment is correct that thousands of masters in the South, between 1872 and 1861 free their own slaves, but these were drops in the bucket and had no affect on the institution and little on the growth of the slave population or the spread of slavery.
Paul
-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Justin Lipkin wrote:
I find Paul's explanation, as well as Keith's (and I'm sure I'm leaving out others--for which I'm sorry) to be very helpful. However, one problem (for me) lingers. If John Marshall believed slavery should be abolished but not by governmental action, what did he mean by this and how did he think it would operate? Paul's four repossess to slavery all seem to require government action of one kind or another. Abolition, outright or gradual, allowing private manumission, or prohibiting all in-state manumissions, all require law. If so, Marshall could not, if he was committed to non-governmental emancipation, embrace any of these. Moreover, what non-governmental emancipation is even conceivable? More importantly, at least for my present purposes, did Marshall (or others) advocate some intelligible form of non-governmental action for freeing slaves, other than the good will of slave owners?
Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
