Question

Is this statement true from back in the day???
Southern states made it illegal to free slaves without permission from the state?

Answer 1

The slaves weren't allowed to do anything without their masters permission. (That was enforced by the state) So I guess you can say true because they weren't even really all that free after the war.

Answer 2

well the slaves could not do anything exept plants the crops and do anything that the master told them to do until the civil war ended

Answer 3

slaves had to plants the tobbaco crops and everything

Answer 4

Yes it is. But a better way of putting it is that Southern states made conditions under which a master could turn his slaves into free citizens. Keep in mind this was equivalent to allowing a private citizen to allow the "emigration" of a person to the the state in question, because the slatus of the slave changed from property -- with no legal rights of importance -- to a free citizen, who could vote, own property, sign contracts, and so forth. If Dred Scott v. Sanford had been decided otherwise -- if a freedmen *was* a citizen of the United States, it would have been flatly unconstitutional, as it would involve private persons having the power to grant American citizenship, a power clearly reserved to Congress.

Additionally there were fears for public order, in the sense that voters worried about what freed slaves would do with themselves, having generally no means of supporting themselves (it was uncommon to free a slave who could still work, except at the death of the master, for obvious reasons). This increased after some of the mid-18th century slave rebellions, and of course there were the underlying racist fears that free black men and women would somehow drag down Southern culture. It seems likely that these fears, more than anything else, kept the voters strongly inclined to believe manumission should be tightly regulated by the state.

Answer 5

Thank you all for your help!!! :)