TIL that Rhode Island banned slavery in 1652, restricting the term of service for both black and white indentured servants to ten years. However, the law was largely ignored - most slave owners didn't let their "servants" go at the end of the term, and no one made them - and eventually, in 1703, the colonial assembly passed another law making black slavery legal. Rhode Island ultimately had the largest slave population in the north - 10 percent of the population were slaves in the mid-18th century, and plantation slavery was practiced - and, like the other northern colonies, didn't return to abolition until after the revolution.
Is there a way to get the 1652 law to stick? The courts already recognized the standing of slaves to sue for their freedom, so a slave held beyond the ten-year term would have a chance of prevailing in a lawsuit against his master. OTOH, given the economic importance of slavery in Rhode Island, this tactic would probably work only a few times before the colonial legislature changed the law. Making Rhode Island free soil in the 17th century would most likely require a thumb on the scale from London, and that commitment didn't exist at the time.
Alternatively, would it be possible for any part of British North America to abolish slavery during the colonial era? There were several efforts in Massachusetts just prior to the revolution - in 1773 and 1774, in the wake of the Somerset judgment, groups of slaves and free black people petitioned the General Court to declare freedom throughout the colony - but both the General Court and the governor had other things on their mind at the time, and nothing came of the petitions. Might there have been a different result if a case equivalent to Somerset were decided earlier - in the early 1760s, maybe, when tensions between the colonies and London weren't as high and the General Court might take the judgment more seriously? Could there also be a chance of abolition elsewhere in upper New England at this time (New Hampshire seems the most likely candidate), and if so, what effect if any would this have on slavery after the revolution or on the revolution itself?
Is there a way to get the 1652 law to stick? The courts already recognized the standing of slaves to sue for their freedom, so a slave held beyond the ten-year term would have a chance of prevailing in a lawsuit against his master. OTOH, given the economic importance of slavery in Rhode Island, this tactic would probably work only a few times before the colonial legislature changed the law. Making Rhode Island free soil in the 17th century would most likely require a thumb on the scale from London, and that commitment didn't exist at the time.
Alternatively, would it be possible for any part of British North America to abolish slavery during the colonial era? There were several efforts in Massachusetts just prior to the revolution - in 1773 and 1774, in the wake of the Somerset judgment, groups of slaves and free black people petitioned the General Court to declare freedom throughout the colony - but both the General Court and the governor had other things on their mind at the time, and nothing came of the petitions. Might there have been a different result if a case equivalent to Somerset were decided earlier - in the early 1760s, maybe, when tensions between the colonies and London weren't as high and the General Court might take the judgment more seriously? Could there also be a chance of abolition elsewhere in upper New England at this time (New Hampshire seems the most likely candidate), and if so, what effect if any would this have on slavery after the revolution or on the revolution itself?