Let's try an analogy: when was there ever a law against gay "marriage"?
Never, because it was always understood that marriage was between a man & woman, no other laws necessary.
Likewise, once the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled their Constitution made slavery illegal, no further laws were considered necessary.
So I don't "get" why you think this is a big deal.
After the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Vermont was the first state to take action against slavery, in 1777, and Massachusetts the second, in 1783.
Yes, it appears that no Northern state abolished slavery overnight, but certainly by 1860 slavery was pretty much just a bad memory in all Northern states.
And your problem with this is what, exactly?
Massachusetts legislature never had the courage/fortitude/or whatever to vote on slavery. I’ll say it again, Massachusetts never passed any laws against slavery.
It’s very much like Massachusetts and gay marriage. They never passed laws against it. It was Maggie Marshall (born in South Africa) who ruled from the Supreme Court who allowed it.
Here is a very interesting website. I think we will both find it interesting.
http://slavenorth.com/massemancip.htm
Since Christianity took over Western Culture. It's common law, not statutory law.
Never, because it was always understood that marriage was between a man & woman, no other laws necessary.
What you said.
Likewise, once the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled their Constitution made slavery illegal, no further laws were considered necessary.
But it didn't. That was merely a Judicial interpretation from Activist Judges. The court's simply twisted that answer out of the words chosen, and in fact, words inspired by the Declaration of Independence, which also didn't really mean that.
What Massachusetts did is simply another example of deliberate Judicial Activism. Had the Delegates of Massachusetts clearly written that they wished to Abolish Slavery, there is a good possibility that such a clause would have been stricken, but they sneaked in some words that gave the Liberal Judiciary enough room to stretch the meaning.
So I don't "get" why you think this is a big deal.
I don't think it's a big deal. I'm merely pointing out that you were wrong in your characterization of it. Court Action is not Legislative Action. It is more of the same sort of extra legal dictatorship imposed by courts with which we have been plagued mostly since Roosevelt, and regarding which most conservatives have little approval.
Judicial activism is a thing conservatives Generally Hate, because we are the ones mostly abused by it.
After the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Vermont was the first state to take action against slavery, in 1777, and Massachusetts the second, in 1783. Yes, it appears that no Northern state abolished slavery overnight, but certainly by 1860 slavery was pretty much just a bad memory in all Northern states.
Not all. Delaware, New Jersey, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri all still had slavery. 1/4th of the Union states still had slavery.
And your problem with this is what, exactly?
That you aren't looking at the history accurately. That you are equating one thing with another, and ignoring the distinctions and the legalities involved. That you use such false equivalences as rationalization for your arguments regarding subsequent history.
That is what my problem with that is.