By Jordan Meadows
Staff Writer
Last Wednesday, the State Archives of NC’s America 250 held a panel discussion offering a detailed examination of how colonial and early state laws shaped the lives of African Americans in North Carolina. The panel, titled “Bound by Law: Limits to Emancipation during the Revolution” revealed deep contradictions between revolutionary ideals of liberty and the legal system that restricted Black freedom.
Hosted as a lunch-and-learn program, the event spotlighted a research initiative connected to the state’s official commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the United States’ founding in 1776. The program was held in recognition of Black History Month and focused on legislation that restricted the emancipation of enslaved individuals in early North Carolina.
Archives staff Adrienne Berney and Alana Gomez examined the legal landscape from the late seventeenth century through the Revolutionary era, beginning with what was described as “The foundations of Racialized Law,” when race became formally tied to legal status and inheritable lifetime servitude. The panel traced these developments to the 1669 Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, which declared enslaved people to be property and granted enslavers absolute authority.
Olivia Cody, a junior from Fayetteville majoring in teaching at Winston-Salem State University, contributed to the project through historical research and digital interpretation. Interning with the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Archives Division as part of the America 250 NC team, she helped develop an interactive digital timeline and instructional materials designed to make complex legal history more accessible to educators and the public.
“My philosophy is that access to history means more than opening the archive, it means helping people understand what they find there,” Cody said.
By the early 1700s, laws in neighboring Virginia limiting the rights of free Black residents influenced similar legal structures in North Carolina, culminating in statutes by 1741 that reinforced racial hierarchy and further restricted Black mobility and autonomy. During the early to mid-1700s, North Carolina enacted a growing body of laws designed to protect enslaved people primarily as labor property, requiring passes for travel, restricting gatherings for worship or community without white supervision, and obligating white citizens to pursue and return runaway enslaved individuals.
Panelists emphasized that even seemingly protective legislation reflected economic motives rather than humanitarian concern. By 1774, North Carolina outlawed the willful and malicious killing of enslaved people, but the law functioned largely to preserve the stability of the plantation economy rather than recognize enslaved people’s humanity, notably including an exception when an enslaved person was deemed in “willful resistance.” As revolutionary sentiment grew, these legal contradictions became more visible.
The Halifax Resolves of 1776 revealed anxieties among colonial leaders about British promises of freedom to enslaved people who supported the Crown, exposing the tension between the rhetoric of independence and the reality of slavery in North Carolina’s cash-crop economy.
Central to the program was the 1777 statute, “An Act to prevent domestic Insurrections, and for other Purposes,” which sharply limited emancipation and established one of the only legal pathways to freedom through the recognition of “meritorious services.” Under this law, county courts were required to evaluate whether an enslaved person’s extraordinary acts of loyalty, service or devotion justified a recommendation for emancipation to the General Assembly.
To illustrate how these laws operated in practice, the panel highlighted the story of John Jasper White, known as “Currituck Jack,” whose experience demonstrated both the physical and legal battles required for freedom in Revolutionary North Carolina. In 1780, Jack was aboard the schooner Polly, owned by Henry White of Currituck County, when it was captured by British privateers. After persuading his captors to unchain him, Jack helped the crew retake the ship and deliver the captured privateers to Annapolis and the Continental Congress.
Jasper later wrote that Jack “received the thanks of the Congress of the United States . . . and a recommendation to his master to liberate him.” Despite this recognition and his injuries, Jack remained enslaved and was subjected to abuse until the North Carolina General Assembly granted his freedom in 1792.
The program also examined the life of Edward “Ned” Griffin, a multiracial man in Edgecombe County during the Revolution. First documented in a 1770 probate record as “mulatto Ned,” Griffin was passed between enslavers before being sold in 1781 and sent into Continental service as a substitute in exchange for a promise of freedom. Griffin served as a private for twelve months and was honorably discharged in July 1782. However, upon his return, Kitchen reneged on the agreement and sold him again, prompting Griffin to petition the Edgecombe County court for his emancipation.
The North Carolina General Assembly ultimately passed “An Act for Enfranchising Ned Griffin, Late the Property of William Kitchen” in 1784, declaring that “Ned Griffin… shall forever hereafter be in every respect declared to be a freeman; and he shall be, and he is hereby enfranchised and forever delivered and discharged from the yoke of slavery.” Griffin lived as a free person of color in Edgecombe County until his death in 1802.
Throughout the discussion, presenters stressed that the restrictive legal framework did not eliminate resistance among enslaved people.
Reflecting on the research behind the exhibit, Cody noted, “I think what surprised me the most is the resistance that still took place. Although these legislations were set up against enslaved people, enslaved people were still working to either gain their freedom or ensure their continued attempts to do so–making sure they’re still resilient.” She added, “I read stories of resistance, stories of revolt with everything set against them. Much like how we are now, they did not die and disappear.”
