Featuring: Larry Kenneth Alexander
Transcript:
Legislative acts taken by British officials without lawful authority or with corrupt intent were void ab initio and treated as if they had never occurred during colonial times. The acts of British officials carried the force of law only when performed within the bounds of English law. When British officials acted without legal authorization, they operated solely on personal will and power.
This legal framework is essential to understanding the unlawful origin of slavery in the British American colonies. It explains why colonial slave codes and Negro laws were void ab initio before the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Consider how Virginia’s colonial officials overstepped their legislative authority by enacting a slave code and the Negro law of partus sequitur ventrem in the early 1660s.
During this period, colonial Virginia was a financially struggling settlement located 3,000 miles from England. In response to this, Virginia’s House of Burgesses—the legislative assembly dominated by wealthy planters and merchants—passed a slave code in 1661, despite lacking the authority to do so under English law. This act violated Virginia’s colonial charter, as the legislature was bicameral, and the assembly served only as the lower house. Furthermore, any valid law in colonial Virginia required approval from the British monarch or Parliament. However, Virginia’s royal governor, William Berkeley, was out of the country at the time and did not veto the legislation. Still, this slave code was void ab initio under English law.
In 1662, the House of Burgesses sought to establish a hereditary system of slavery. They proposed a hereditary slave code designed to create a self-replenishing labor force for their fields by enslaving people of African ancestry. This was achieved by declaring a class of colonial women as slaves and ensuring their offspring were born into slavery, thereby reversing English common law. Although they knew such actions exceeded their legislative authority and violated English law, Governor Berkeley approved the scheme, prioritizing personal enrichment over legal obligations. Despite its unlawful foundation, the hereditary slave code—partus sequitur ventrem (status follows the mother)—was implemented in Virginia. This set a precedent that other colonies followed, enacting similar laws. Over time, these hereditary slave codes entrenched slavery throughout the colonies and beyond.
Parliament eventually reasserted its authority through the American Colonies Act of 1766. This legislation rendered all colonial American laws that questioned or denied Parliament’s supreme legislative authority null and void. The Act abolished all hereditary slave codes and Negro laws throughout the colonies, as they infringed upon Parliament’s sole legislative authority to enact the positive law required to legalize slavery in the kingdom. These codes also violated Parliament’s English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Additionally, the Somerset decision of 1772 further affirmed Parliament’s legislative supremacy. England’s Court of the King’s Bench ruled that slavery was not permitted in the kingdom under English law and could only be lawful if authorized by positive law—a power that Parliament alone possessed but never exercised. Thus, under English law, Virginia’s hereditary slave codes and similar colonial legislation were void ab initio. The Virginia Assembly had acted beyond its authority, rendering its laws invalid from the outset. Governor Berkeley’s failure to veto these laws underscored the corruption and overreach of Virginia’s colonial officials.
To delve deeper into this history, share this content and visit us at the Wells Center on American Exceptionalism. Stay tuned for more videos and insights.