It Was Against The State Of Law In The South
because if you were under the age of 21 you weren't free so owners killed slaves to keep them as slaves
u suk
Yes, slave owners could choose to free their slaves by granting them emancipation. This was done through legal documents or sometimes by setting them free in person. However, many slave owners chose not to do so due to economic, social, or ideological reasons.
The term you are looking for is Manumission- the owner of a slave might free the slaves that he owned.
No. There were free blacks who were slave owners, and Indians too.
slave owners supported their use of slaves by saying they were good for the economy and because they were doing them a favor by letting them as slaves because they actually got a house and food for free unlike factory workers who had to rent it
because the slaves can make plans to rebel against their owners, and try and get free.
because the slaves can make plans to rebel against their owners, and try and get free.
No a slave catcher could come and take them back but in Canada they were free
Slaves work for free, and this allowed farmers to have slaves cultivate and reap the land, causing a high net profit.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required all states to help slave owners recapture their runaway slaves, even if those states did not practice slavery. This law allowed slave owners to pursue escaped slaves into free states and required citizens to assist in their capture.
The Compromise of 1850 APEX! >:D