No, that sentence did not free the slaves. The judges said the 'all men are free' line was just a general, philosophical idea, not a specific command to end slavery right away. They argued that if the writers of the constitution had wanted to abolish slavery, they would have written a very clear rule like 'Slavery is now illegal.' Also, another part of the constitution protected people's existing property, and at that time, the law unfortunately treated enslaved people as property.

No, it did not. This judge added that the 'all men are free' idea was about how people are in a 'state of nature,' before governments are formed. He said if you took it literally, it would also mean kids don't have to listen to their parents, which would be chaos. He also pointed out that other states like Virginia had similar words in their constitutions but still had slavery, so it couldn't have been meant to be an automatic ban.

One judge disagreed with the decision, but the case text doesn't explain his reasons.

No, the constitution does not end slavery because it doesn't specifically say it does. The constitution talks about general freedoms, but it doesn't clearly say that it's changing the specific laws that allowed slavery in New Jersey. The rights of slave owners are still protected by the constitution unless a new law is made to end slavery.

The first part of the constitution is just an introduction with general ideas. It doesn't actually end slavery. Other states have similar language in their constitutions, but they didn't interpret it as ending slavery. In Massachusetts, slavery was never legally allowed in the first place, which is different from New Jersey where slavery has been allowed for a long time. Ending slavery through this court decision would go against what the people who made and approved the constitution intended.

Justice Carpenter agreed with the result and general reasoning of Justice Nevius' opinion.

Chief Justice Hornblower disagreed with the court's decision, but the details of his disagreement are not provided.

No, the first article of the New Jersey Constitution of 1844 does not abolish the legal institution of slavery. The constitutional declaration that 'all men are by nature free and independent' is an abstract political proposition regarding men's rights in a social state, not a self-executing legal enactment intended to interfere with established domestic relations or property rights. Slavery was a legally recognized institution in New Jersey before 1844, and had the constitutional convention intended to abolish it, it would have used clear and definite language to do so. Furthermore, another provision of the constitution explicitly states that all 'claims and rights of individuals... shall continue as if no change had taken place,' which preserves the master’s pre-existing property right in his slave. The judicial precedents from Massachusetts are unpersuasive because slavery was never as legally entrenched there, whereas constitutions in states like Virginia contain similar language and have not been interpreted to abolish slavery.

No, the clause does not abolish slavery. This declaration is part of a preamble setting forth general principles, not a mandatory legal command. The convention's choice of words—'by nature' free and independent, rather than 'born equally' free—indicates an intention to describe man's condition in a state of nature, not to alter existing social and legal conditions. A literal interpretation would absurdly dissolve all societal bonds, including parent-child and husband-wife. The constitution's schedule explicitly preserves all existing 'claims and rights of individuals,' which protects the master's rights. The gradual abolition act of 1804 demonstrates the state's deliberate and cautious approach, which a radical judicial interpretation of this abstract clause would wrongly subvert.

The Chief Justice dissented from the court's decision without providing a written opinion explaining his reasoning.

No, the constitution does not abolish slavery by implication because the language, while declaring general political rights, does not specifically address the private, individual, or domestic capacity of persons, nor does it enact a clear provision to abolish slavery. The historical context and legal precedents show that slavery was a recognized legal institution in New Jersey. The rights of masters to their slaves are considered legal rights preserved by the constitution unless explicitly revoked by legislative action.

The first clause of the constitution is merely a preamble setting forth general abstract principles and does not have the effect of abolishing slavery. Other states with similar clauses in their constitutions, such as Virginia and Vermont, have not interpreted them as abolishing slavery. The decisions in Massachusetts are distinguishable because slavery never legally existed there, unlike in New Jersey where it has been recognized and regulated since colonial times. Abolishing slavery through judicial interpretation would be contrary to the intent of the framers and adopters of the constitution.

Justice Carpenter concurred in the result of the opinion delivered by Justice Nevius and in the general tenor of the reasoning on which it is founded.

Chief Justice Hornblower dissented from the decision of the court. The details of his dissenting opinion are not provided in the case text.

State v. Post

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot