This statute is wide enough to drive a load of hay through.  It is not the work of a novice, but the labored and skilful product of great law learning.

     “The law must be interpreted in the light of contemporaneous
     facts of history.  At the time it was made (1641), what had
     its authors to provide for?

     “1.  Indian slaves—­their captives taken in war.

     “2.  Negro slaves—­their own importations of ‘strangers,’
     obtained by purchase or exchange.

     “3.  Criminals—­condemned to slavery as a punishment for
     offences.

“In this light, and only in this light, is their legislation intelligible and consistent.  It is very true that the code of which this law is a part ’exhibits throughout the hand of the practised lawyer, familiar with the principles and securities of English Liberty;’ but who had ever heard, at that time, of the ‘common-law rights’ of Indians and Negroes, or anybody else but Englishmen?

“Thus stood the statute through the whole colonial period, and it was never expressly repealed.  Based on the Mosaic code, it is an absolute recognition of slavery as a legitimate status, and of the right of one man to sell himself as well as that of another man to buy him.  It sanctions the slave-trade, and the perpetual bondage of Indians and Negroes, their children and their children’s children, and entitles Massachusetts to precedence over any and all the other colonies in similar legislation.  It anticipates by many years any thing of the sort to be found in the statutes of Virginia, or Maryland, or South Carolina, and nothing like it is to be found in the contemporary codes of her sister colonies in New England."[280]

The subject had been carefully weighed; and, lacking authority for legalizing a crime against man, the Mosaic code was cited, and in accordance with its humane provisions, slaves were to be treated.  But it was authority for slavery that the cunning lawyer who drew the statute was seeking, and not precedents to determine the kind of treatment to be bestowed upon the slave.  Under it “human slavery existed for nearly a century and a half without serious challenge;"[281] and here, as well as in Virginia, it received the sanction of the Church and courts.  It grew with its growth, and strengthened with its strength; until, as an organic institution, it had many defenders and few apologists.[282]

“This article gives express sanction to the slave-trade, and the practice of holding Negroes and Indians in perpetual bondage, anticipating by many years any thing of the sort to be found in the statutes of Virginia or Maryland."[283]

And it is rather strange, in the light of this plain statute establishing and legalizing the purchase of slaves, that Mr. Washburn’s statement, unsustained, should receive the public indorsement of so learned a body as the Massachusetts Historical Society!