“The most marked peculiarity of the revolution,” continues the able historian, Hildreth, to whom we are so largely indebted, “was the public recognition of the theory of the equal rights of man”—a theory set forth in the declaration of colonial rights, made by the first congress at Philadelphia; solemnly reiterated in the Declaration of Independence; and expressly or tacitly recognised as the foundation-principle of all the new governments. This principle however, encountered, in existing prejudices and institutions, many serious and even formidable obstacles to its general application, giving rise to several striking political anomalies. Of these the most startling was domestic slavery, an institution inconsistent with the equal rights of man. That this anomaly was felt at the time, is clearly enough evinced by the fact that no distinct provision on the subject of slavery appears in any State constitution, except that of Delaware, which provided “that no person hereafter imported from Africa ought to be held in slavery under any pretence whatever; and that no negro, Indian, or mulatto slave ought to be brought into this state for sale from any part of the world.” Prior to the revolution the anti-slavery struggle had begun in New England; and in 1777, a number of slaves on board a prize-ship taken by an American privateer and brought into Salem for sale, were at once set at liberty by the interference of the General Court, and yet the provisional congress of Massachusetts at the same time forbade any negro to enlist into the army. Its Bill of Rights declared all men to be born free and equal, and this was considered by the Supreme Court to prohibit slavery. The assembly of Pennsylvania in 1708 forbade the further introduction of slaves, and gave freedom to all persons thereafter born in the state. The most enlightened and illustrious citizens of Virginia and Maryland responded to the feelings which led New England and Pennsylvania to abolish slavery in their states, and they too forbade the further introduction of slaves and removed the restrictions on emancipation, though slavery as an institution was retained. New York and New Jersey followed the example of Virginia and Maryland, forbidding also the introduction of slaves from other states. The Quaker population of North Carolina strongly advocated the same Christian line of conduct, but were not supported by the legislators of the state. South Carolina and Georgia made no alteration whatever in their laws regarding slavery. The importation of “indented servants,” so numerous in some of the states, and who were slaves in a modified sense, ceased with the war of the revolution. But in Connecticut, even to within the present century, debtors unable to meet the claims against them might be legally sold by their creditors into temporary slavery.