## Facts

- Two habeas corpus proceedings were brought against alleged slaveholders to secure release of persons held in slavery or statutory servitude under New Jersey law.
- John A. Post returned that he held a man, William, and a woman, Flora, as slaves pursuant to a bill of sale and New Jersey statutes regulating slavery; the return was verified by affidavit.
- Edward Van Beuren returned that he held in servitude a child born to an enslaved mother after July 4, 1804 under New Jersey’s gradual abolition statutes.
- Relators argued that the 1844 New Jersey Constitution’s declaration that “all men are by nature free and independent” rendered slavery and related servitude unlawful.
- The relators demurred to the returns, asserting that even if the factual claims were true, the returns were legally insufficient because the constitution had abolished slavery.
- New Jersey had enacted a gradual abolition regime (1804, reenacted 1820) that preserved compelled service for children born to enslaved mothers until a specified age, reflecting legislative policy to end slavery gradually.
- The court considered the legal status of slavery in a state where slavery had existed and was regulated by positive law at the time of the 1844 Constitution’s adoption.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1844 New Jersey Constitution abolished slavery that existed by law at the time of its adoption.
2. Whether the 1844 Constitution ended the statutory involuntary servitude imposed on children of enslaved mothers under the gradual abolition statutes.

## Decision

- The court held that slavery had existed by law in New Jersey when the 1844 Constitution was adopted.
- The court held that the 1844 Constitution did not abolish slavery and did not invalidate existing statutes regulating slavery or servitude under the gradual abolition laws.
- The court treated the constitutional natural-rights clause as a general political statement, not a self-executing rule nullifying slavery.
- The demurrers to the returns were overruled, and the court declined to discharge the persons held under the challenged returns.

## Legal Principles

- General constitutional declarations of natural rights and liberty are not necessarily self-executing and do not impliedly repeal entrenched institutions recognized by existing positive law.
- Constitutional language is construed in light of the social and legal conditions existing at adoption; abolition of a legally established institution requires clear and definite constitutional text.
- Courts should not infer sweeping changes to legislatively structured policies—especially those affecting legally recognized property relations—absent explicit constitutional direction.
- Analogies to other foundational instruments that proclaimed liberty while coexisting with slavery supported reading broad liberty language as aspirational rather than automatically invalidating slavery.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the 1844 New Jersey Constitution’s general natural-rights declaration did not, without explicit language, terminate slavery or the statutorily authorized servitude created by the state’s gradual abolition framework, and therefore habeas relief was denied on demurrer to the slaveholders’ returns.


State v. Post, 20 N.J.L. 368 (N.J. 1845)