Misconceptions About the Sundry Free Moors Act of 1790

50 years after the Negro Act of 1740, and just four years after the Treaty of Peace and Friendship was signed, Francis, Daniel, Hammond and Samuel filed a petition to the South Carolina legislature on behalf of themselves and their wives, Fatima, Flora, Sarah and Clarinda. The men were citizens of Morocco, turned prisoners of war. Per the treaty, they were delivered to a European captain. But instead of delivering them back to Morocco, he sold them back into slavery in South Carolina. After they had bought their freedom, they filed a petition to be tried as Moroccan citizens, as opposed to negro, black and colored slaves, tried under the Negro laws.

The result of that petition is the Sundry Free Moors Act of 1790. The act determined that "no Law of this State can in its Construction or Operation apply to them, and that persons who were subjects of the Emperor of Morocco being Free in this State are not triable by the Law for the better Ordering and Governing of Negroes and other Slaves." Even though the act was never made into law, it did serve as an advisory opinion. Coincidentally, 1790 also seen the development of the first immigration and naturalization acts.

The misconception had by many Moors is that it was ratified into law and that it somehow has some legal standing. Even if it did have some legal standing, it was a South Carolina law which does not apply to anyone outside of South Carolina. Additionally, the story behind the Sundry Moors Act demonstrates the willfulness of the Europeans to violate the Treaty of Peace and Friendship. They were Moroccans and still were not delivered to Morocco in accordance with the treaty. They say that it is the longest unbroken treaty. However, the story behind the Sundry Free Moors Act demonstrates that the treaty was broken at least 8 times. Therefore, it should be no surprise to those who try enforce the treaty as if it were law.

Back