Fugitive Slaves Part 15

however limited and qualified, was the signal for hot discussion. The opposing party announced that "nothing will come of it but more irritation,"[317] and in each crisis statesmen should "observe all possible toleration, all conciliation, all liberality."[318] Mr. Wilson upheld the opposite opinion, and thought that the time had come when this government, and the men who are in arms under the government, should cease to return their fugitive slaves to traitors.

The bill pa.s.sed the Senate July 22, 1861. In the House it was amended so as to limit the negroes to be freed more strictly to those employed in military service.[319] The bill went back to the Senate, which concurred in the amendment,[320] and it received the signature of the President, August 6, 1861.[321]

[Sidenote: The Emanc.i.p.ation Proclamation.]

=-- 91. Confiscation provisions extended.=--Propositions more far reaching were introduced into the Senate in the session of 1861-62.[322] January 15, 1862, Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom the various propositions had been referred, reported an original bill, and asked that the committee be discharged from the consideration of others.[323] March 14, 1862, Mr. Harris introduced into the Senate a bill to confiscate the property of rebels and for other purposes.[324] These propositions were considered at length, but never came to a vote. It is not necessary to enter here into the discussion of confiscations and of the const.i.tutional right of Congress to free the slaves; in most of the bills there was a provision against the return of slaves to disloyal masters.

The Harris bill declared that, before any order for the surrender of fugitives should be given, the claimant must establish not only his t.i.tle to the slave, as was then provided by law, but also that he is and has been loyal to the United States during the Rebellion. Mr. Pomeroy objected to this because it would make it "obligatory on the government of the United States to surrender a person claimed to be indebted to another for service or labor, if the claimant proves that he is loyal to the government. Would not this re-enact the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850?"[325] An amendment was therefore adopted which so changed the law that any reference to the act of 1850 was avoided.[326] After several debates the proposition was recommitted, May 6.[327] Mr. Clark reported a bill, May 14, which retained the provision in regard to fugitives as at first offered.[328]

In the House, resolutions on confiscation and emanc.i.p.ation were offered on the first day of the session, but the final action was based upon one of several bills introduced by Mr. Eliot, May 14, 1862.[329] His first bill, upon the confiscation of the property of the rebels, need not be followed out here; but the second bill provided for the emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves of disloyal masters, and forbade their return as fugitives.

After various recommitments[330] a bill was brought in, according to which, in any suit brought by a claimant to recover the possession of slaves to enforce such service or labor, it was to be a sufficient bar to allege and prove that the master was disloyal to the government.[331] The bill then pa.s.sed the House by a vote of 82 to 54.[332]

When it came up in the Senate, June 23, 1862, Mr. Clark moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to insert a subst.i.tute which would again unite the confiscation and emanc.i.p.ation bills. This amendment was rejected by the House, and a conference committee was appointed which reported July 11 and 12. The fugitive from a disloyal master was by this compromise to be deemed a captive of war, and forever freed from servitude.[333] The report was adopted by both houses, and approved by the President, July 17, 1862.[334] From that date any slave of a disloyal master who could make his way into the territory occupied by the Northern troops was _ipso facto_ free. The fugitive was to become a freeman.

=-- 92. Effect of the Emanc.i.p.ation Proclamation (1863).=--The complete emanc.i.p.ation of the negroes within the Confederate lines was the next logical step, and was demanded as a war measure. It deprived the Confederacy of the aid of these slaves, and at the same time made it possible to arm and employ the former slaves against their masters.

September 22, 1862, President Lincoln issued his preliminary proclamation, by which he warned the South that, unless it should return to its allegiance, all persons held as slaves in the States in rebellion on the 1st of January, 1863, should be "thenceforth and forever free."

At the end of one hundred days the final and absolute Proclamation was put forth, January 1, 1863. It declared also that negroes might be received into the armed service of the United States; and henceforth throughout the war, the former slaves were enrolled as soldiers and did good service for the government.

The effect of this proclamation was to end slavery, and with it the return of fugitives, within the Confederate lines. But here the legal machinery of the government had no effect; the State laws relating to slavery might be considered suspended, but practically the laws and practices of the Confederacy prevailed. On the other hand, the Fugitive Slave Law yet existed upon the statute-book where the Union had power; the arrest and imprisonment of fugitives was yet legal, and many desired to see the law repealed as another step toward the final crushing out of the system.

[Sidenote: Fugitives from Loyal Slave States.]

=-- 93. Fugitives in loyal slave States.=--From the beginning of the war one of the most embarra.s.sing questions which had come before Congress was, How shall the slaves of loyal owners be treated? The necessity of holding the Border States firm for the Union disposed many to support only the most conciliatory measures; but these States were a part of the theatre of war. Northern armies now occupied parts of the Confederacy as well, and among the great numbers of blacks who flocked to the Union camp it was impossible to separate the slaves of the loyal from the disloyal.

Moreover, it was necessary that there should be some uniformity of method. Without specific law, the reception given to fugitives from loyal masters must vary with the views of each commanding officer with whom they sought refuge.

=-- 94. Typical cases.=--Cases began to occur very early in the struggle.

In 1861 a slave called Wisdom ran away from Georgetown, and was taken in by some wagoners belonging to the Northern army. He soon found work, but his master succeeded in tracing him, and came to camp to claim him. He demanded the slave of Captain Swan, officer of the day. Captain Swan hoped the man might be smuggled away, and so delayed the search as long as possible. The master then went to Colonel Cowden, who immediately ordered the slave to be surrendered, without the form of proceedings prescribed by the act of 1850, and in disregard of the fact that the master was not provided with the necessary certificate. When the facts became known in Ma.s.sachusetts and elsewhere, there was great indignation.

The Colonel was hung in effigy in Boston, with the following inscription: "Colonel Cowden, of Burns rendition notoriety, is now practising his tricks at kidnapping in Washington."[335]

Major Sherwood of the 11th West Virginia Regiment had, in 1861, employed a colored refugee as his servant. The owner sent a United States marshal to Brigadier General Boyle, who gave an order for his rendition. Major Sherwood sent a message that he would give up his sword, but, while he was in command, no fugitive should be returned. He was placed under arrest for disobedience, to await court-martial; but General Staunton ordered General Boyle's order revoked, and Major Sherwood was never tried. In the mean time the boy had been sent away concealed under the seat of an ambulance, and reached Canada in safety.[336]

=-- 95. Question discussed in Congress.=--As early in the war as 1861, a number of resolutions were brought into Congress, designed to meet this difficulty,[337] and Mr. Lovejoy introduced a bill making it a penal offence "for any officer or private of the army or navy to capture or return, or aid in the capture or return" of fugitive slaves.[338] The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which reported adversely upon it, April 16, 1862.[339] December 16, 1861, Mr. Hale had offered a resolution, which was adopted, looking toward a uniform method of dealing with the slaves of rebels.[340] Mr. Sumner brought in another on December 17, which forbade the employment of the armies in the surrender of fugitives.[341] "I ask, sir," said the writer of a letter read by Mr. Sumner, "shall our sons, who are offering their lives for the preservation of our inst.i.tutions, be degraded to slave catchers for any persons loyal or disloyal? If such is the policy of the government, I shall urge my son to shed no more blood for its preservation."[342]

Another protest came from two German companies in one of the Ma.s.sachusetts regiments, who, when they enlisted, entered the service with the understanding that they should not be put to any such discreditable service. They complained, and with them the German population generally throughout the country.[343]

Some proof that the owner of the slave was at least loyal to the government seemed necessary, if rendition were to be made at all; though antislavery men were determined to admit no return of fugitives under any circ.u.mstances. December 20, 1861, a resolution of Mr. Wilson's was adopted, for an additional article of war forbidding officers from returning fugitives under any consideration.[344] A bill was introduced, discussed, and somewhat amended, but never pa.s.sed.[345]

Mr. Blair's bill, of February 25, 1862, from the Committee on Military Affairs in the House, was to the same purpose.[346] This, however, was successfully carried in both houses, and signed by the President, May 14, 1862. In the discussion, Mr. Mallory opposed the bill, because it seemed to him that it would prevent the President of the United States from sending a military force into a State to aid the authorities in enforcing a national law which stands upon the statute-book.[347] Mr. Bingham answered this objection by saying that it simply determined that for the future, as in the past, the army and navy should not exercise functions which belong solely to the civil magistrates.[348]

=-- 96. Arrests by civil officers.=--The act of May 14, 1862, applied only to army officers. Notwithstanding the opportunities then offered for escape, wandering negroes were still liable to be seized by civil authorities and placed in jail. In this way numbers of negroes, many of them really free, were arrested, on the supposition of being runaways, and were imprisoned without trial for an indefinite length of time. An advertis.e.m.e.nt in 1863 shows the method then in use.

"There was committed to the jail of Warren County, Kentucky, as a runaway slave, on the 29th September, 1862, a negro man calling himself Jo Miner. He says he is free, but has nothing to show to establish the fact. He is about thirty-five years of age, very dark copper color, about five feet eight inches high, and will weigh about one hundred and fifty pounds. The owner can come forward, prove property, and pay charges, or he will be dealt with as the law requires.

"R. J. POTTER, J. W. C.

"March 16, 1863. 1 m."[349]

[Sidenote: District of Columbia.]

=-- 97. Denial of the use of the jails in the District of Columbia.=--Several efforts were made to remedy this state of things, at least in the territory over which Congress had exclusive control.

December 4, 1861, Mr. Wilson, who had been investigating the condition of the District of Columbia jail in Washington, offered a joint resolution for the release of all fugitives from service or labor therein held.[350]

It appeared that some sixty persons were imprisoned solely because they were suspected of being runaways, and had been allowed no opportunity to prove the contrary. A free boy from Pennsylvania came to Washington with the 5th Pennsylvania Regiment. He was found in the streets and sent to jail. Another boy, who was working for the soldiers on the railroad, was also taken up and placed there.[351]

Mr. Wilson struck at the root of the matter by a resolution, which was agreed to, looking to the revision of all the laws in the District of Columbia providing for the arrest of persons as fugitives from service or labor, and to consider the expediency of abolishing slavery in the District.[352]

On December 9, 1861, Mr. Bingham introduced a resolution for the repeal of all acts in force in the District of Columbia which authorized the commitment of runaways and suspected runaways to the jail; it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.[353] Mr. Fessenden asked that the Committee on the District of Columbia investigate and report upon the condition of the jail; this was agreed to.[354]

A few weeks later, December 30, 1861, Mr. Grimes presented a bill in the Senate in regard to the administration of criminal justice in the District. This was read and referred to the committee, which reported it, January 6, 1862.[355] Efforts were immediately made to prevent fugitive slaves from being included in the general jail delivery contemplated by the bill. Mr. Powell, in the debate upon his amendment to that purpose, urged that so long as the inst.i.tution of slavery existed in the South, no such measure ought to prevail.[356] Mr. Grimes supported his measure by giving some examples of exceedingly unjust cases which had occurred. "A young colored fellow, who came as a servant of an officer from the vicinity of Pittsburg, was thrown into this jail in August last. The regiment to which he was attached went forward toward the face of the enemy. There was n.o.body here to look after him. There is no doubt as to his being a free boy, yet he was there on the first day of this month."

To such cases he desired to have the law apply. "They have here in this District and in Maryland what they call an apprehension fee. They have a law which declares that if any slave wanders a certain distance from the residence of his master, he may be taken up as a fugitive. There are persons in this vicinity, I am credibly informed, who are lying in wait all around your city and the surrounding country, in hope that they can find some poor colored man or woman who is out picking berries and visiting a friend, and who will wander a little further than the distance established by law from the residence of the master."[357] The opinion that such injustice ought to be corrected prevailed, and the amendment was rejected. After much discussion the bill pa.s.sed the Senate, January 14, 1862,[358] and it was approved by the President on the same day.

Thenceforward the Fugitive Slave Law was practically a dead letter at the seat of government, since the necessary machinery was lacking, and the spirit of the administration was opposed to it. The new act was in effect a national personal liberty bill.

=-- 98. Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.=--The work contemplated by all the propositions was finally accomplished in one act.

On December 16, 1861, Mr. Wilson had offered a bill in the Senate for the total abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. It was reported with amendments a few weeks after the pa.s.sage of the act denying the use of jails, and on February 24, 1862, Mr. Wilson presented a supplementary bill.[359]

The debates upon this proposition were long and interesting. The South regarded it as "an entering wedge of something more comprehensive and radical,"[360] as preparatory to the abolition of slavery in the whole country by Congress. The antislavery party rejoiced that at last an opportunity had come for freeing the national capital from the disgrace of slavery. The bill pa.s.sed both houses, and was approved April 16, 1862.[361] By the final section of the act the black code of Maryland was wiped out, and the severe local provisions against fugitives, which had not been repealed by the previous act, were at last taken away. It remained only to attack the last stronghold of the system,--the two acts of 1793 and 1850.

=-- 99. Regulations against kidnapping.= In the act of April 16, 1862, were included regulations against kidnapping,--a practice made easy by the unsettled state of the country. It seems to have been largely carried on not only by Southerners, but also by unprincipled soldiers connected with the Union army. The Liberator of March 27, 1863, notices such a case. Some men from the 99th Regiment of New York Volunteers kidnapped a free colored man at Norfolk, Virginia. They took his horse, cart, and the provisions which he had just bought, and offered him for sale to be sent South. During the absence of his captors for a few moments, the man was able to work off his bonds and to escape in the darkness. He immediately went before a provost marshal, told his story, and recognized one of his captors who was just entering the door. What the consequences of this meeting were the "Liberator" does not tell us; but the impression is given that the negro was saved from his pursuers.[362]

[Sidenote: Repeal of the Acts proposed.]

=-- 100. Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts.=--By the successive acts of Congress and the President, the legal effect of the Fugitive Slave Laws was now confined practically to the limited area of the Border States. No officer, civil or military, could return a fugitive into the Confederate lines. Slavery was forbidden in the District of Columbia, and there could be no escapes thence; and Congress forbade the use of the jails of the District for the confinement of fugitives from slaveholding regions. In the free States the rendition of slaves, though still legally required, had long since ceased. The final step was delayed till 1864.

=-- 101. Early propositions to repeal the acts.=--Repeal, however, was preceded by many earlier propositions. The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred Mr. Howe's bill, presented December 26, 1861,[363] did not report until 1863, and then with the opinion that it ought not to pa.s.s. In introducing his repeal measure, Mr. Howe spoke of the bill of 1850 as one "which has probably done as much mischief as any other one act that was ever pa.s.sed by the national legislature. It has embittered against each other two great sections of the country."[364] To take away the law of 1850 would leave in force the act of 1793, which was "good enough."

June 9, 1862, soon after the pa.s.sage of the acts on the District of Columbia, Mr. Julian presented in the House another repeal bill, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.[365] As the war progressed, and the antislavery sentiment began to outweigh all others, it became evident that the old law could not much longer obtain.

Nevertheless the question was set aside during the session of 1862-63, but in 1863-64 five bills were introduced looking to the repeal of the acts.[366]

Mr. Morris, from the committee to whom all bills for repeal had been referred, reported a subst.i.tute for them, June 6, 1864, and this was the basis of the final action of Congress.[367]

[Sidenote: Discussion of Repeal Bills.]

=-- 102. Discussion of the repeal bill in the House.=--Had the country been divided simply into two parts, the slaveholding Southern Confederacy and the free loyal North, little discussion could have arisen. The third element, the slaveholding States which remained firm for the Union, rendered the question far more complex. The bill therefore aroused much indignation. Mr. Mallory demanded, as an act of justice to his State, that "the Fugitive Slave Act be permitted to remain on the statute-book.

If you say it will be a dead letter, so much less excuse have you for repealing it, and so much more certainly is the insult and wrong to Kentucky gratuitous. This act, by which you declare your intention not to obey the injunction of the Const.i.tution is wanton and useless, except for the purpose of bravely exhibiting your contempt for that instrument."

"The framers of the Const.i.tution gave us the right to reclaim fugitive slaves. It was conceded not as a favor, but as a right." "Kentucky has remained true to her faith pledged to the government, and I warn you not to persevere in inflicting on her insult and outrage."[368]

Again, one of the reasons for the departure of the Southern States, was the "bad faith of the Northern States,--the fatal infringement of this part of the Const.i.tution. It was because of Personal Liberty bills, John Brown raids, and general denunciation and intermeddling with slavery."[369] Many members urged that there could be no more reckless action than to show to the Border States an apparent disregard of the Const.i.tution. Mr. c.o.x considered the law the only refuge left to a certain cla.s.s of citizens to protect their "rights." It would be like saying to them, We place the penalty of the treason of the revolted slaveholders on your innocent heads. "We add to your calamities the ingrat.i.tude and treachery of the government to which you have adhered."[370]

The final discussion, June 13, opened with a long speech by Mr. King. The old arguments from the Const.i.tution, the far-seeing wisdom of the fathers, the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Prigg case, and the harm done the Border States, were again rehea.r.s.ed.[371]