Fugitive Slaves Part 7

-- 34. The first case of rescue (1793).

-- 35. President Washington's demand for a fugitive (1796).

-- 36. Kidnapping cases.

-- 37. Jones case (1836).

-- 38. Solomon Northrup case (about 1830).

-- 39. Washington case (between 1840 and 1850).

-- 40. Oberlin case (1841).

-- 41. Interference and rescues.

-- 42. Chickasaw rescue (1836).

-- 43. Philadelphia case (1838).

-- 44. Latimer case (1842).

-- 45. Ottoman case (1846).

-- 46. Interstate relations.

-- 47. Boston and Isaac cases (1837, 1839).

-- 48. Ohio and Kentucky cases (1848).

-- 49. Prosecutions.

-- 50. Van Zandt, Pearl, and Walker cases (1840, 1844).

-- 51. Unpopularity of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

-- 52. Principle of the selection of cases.

-- 53. Hamlet case (1850).

-- 54. Sims case (1851).

-- 55. Burns case (1854).

-- 56. Garner case (1856).

-- 57. Shadrach case (1851).

-- 58. Jerry McHenry case (1851).

-- 59. Oberlin-Wellington case (1858).

-- 60. Christiana case (1851).

-- 61. Miller case (1851).

-- 62. John Brown in Kansas (1858).

=-- 33. Change in character of cases.=--The cases of escape which occur in the period beginning with the formation of the Const.i.tution, and ending with the pa.s.sage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, will be found, in comparison with those of colonial times, much more frequent, more complex in action, and more varied in detail. Instead of many colonies under governments independent one of another, there was now one government and one country; nevertheless, the extinction of the system of bondage and the rise of the antislavery sentiment in the Northern States brought into the cases new and difficult elements. No attempt will be made to mention the cases in their chronological order, or to describe them all. They will be cla.s.sified into cases of simple escape, of kidnapping, of rescue, and of State interference; and typical examples will be described in each category.

[Sidenote: The First Case of Rescue.]

=-- 34. The first case of rescue.=--The first attempt to enforce the act of 1793, of which any record has been discovered, immediately revealed its unfairness, and the indisposition of the North to carry it out.

Mr. Josiah Quincy, then a young lawyer, afterwards known as a public man and the President of Harvard College, has left an interesting account of his connection with the case. "He states that the process was issued by a justice of the peace, that he was retained as counsel for the alleged slave, that he prepared his brief, and went down loaded with all the necessary authorities. He found a great crowd of people a.s.sembled; but while he was in the midst of the argument, he heard a noise, and, turning around, he saw the constables lying sprawling on the floor, and a pa.s.sage opening through the crowd, through which the fugitive was taking his departure without stopping to hear the opinion of the court, and that was the last of that case, and that was the last of the law of 1793 in Ma.s.sachusetts."[169]

=-- 35. President Washington's demand for a fugitive.=--As has been noticed in a previous chapter, George Washington's boyhood was connected with white slavery. Now, at the zenith of his public life, we find one of his chattels the occasion of the first recorded refusal on moral grounds to return a slave. In 1796, President Washington wrote to Mr. Whipple, Collector of Portsmouth, N. H., to send back to him one of his slaves who had escaped to that place, if it could be done without exciting a mob.

This letter has been preserved, and the following extract gives us an insight into President Washington's opinions upon the rendition of fugitives:--

"However well disposed I might be to gradual abolition, or even to an entire emanc.i.p.ation of that description of people, (if the latter was in itself practicable,) at this moment it would neither be politic nor just to reward unfaithfulness with a premature preference, and thereby discontent beforehand the minds of all her fellow serv'ts, who, by their steady attachment, are far more deserving than herself of favor."[170]

Mr. Whipple answered, that any return would be impossible; public sentiment was too strong against it.

[Sidenote: Kidnapping.]

=-- 36. Kidnapping cases.=--The great number of cases of kidnapping throughout the period from 1793 to 1850 show what cruel and unjust deeds were possible under the existing system, and served as nothing else could to rouse people to the defence of negroes. Various were the methods by which, in spite of law, kidnappers were enabled to secure their prey.

Perhaps the most common practice, in places where the courts were known to be friendly to slavery, was to arrest a man on some false pretence, and then, when he appeared in court without opportunity to secure papers or witnesses, to claim him as a fugitive slave. Most of these cases occurred in communities bordering upon or near the Southern States. The risk and trouble of transporting slaves across free States were so great, that up to 1850 we seldom hear of kidnapping cases, and rarely of the capture of a genuine fugitive in the New England States.

The natural consequence of such acts of outrageous violence was to rouse people to the forcible rescue of the captured negroes. In the earliest cases, colored people seem to take the leadership; later on, the whites joined, and became most active in the work.

=-- 37. Jones case.=--The following instance well exemplifies this form of oppression. George Jones, a respectable colored man, was arrested on Broadway, New York, in 1836, on the pretext that he had committed a.s.sault and battery. As he knew that no such charge could be sustained against him, he at first refused to go with his captors; but finally he yielded, on the a.s.surance of his employer that everything possible should be done for him. He was then placed in Bridewell, and his friends were told that when they were wanted they "would be sent for"; but, soon after one o'clock that same day, he was taken before the Hon. Richard Riker, Recorder of New York, and to the satisfaction of that magistrate was proved to be a slave. Thus, in less than two hours after his arrest he was hurried away as the property of the kidnappers: their word had been accepted as sufficient evidence, and he had not been allowed to secure the presence of a single friendly witness.[171]

=-- 38. Solomon Northup case.=--Sometimes, if they feared to enter their case in court, slave hunters could find opportunity, by watching a negro for a while, to carry out their plans through some small deception. One of the most striking of these cases is that of Solomon Northup, who has written an account of his experiences as freeman and as slave. He was born in 1808 in New York State. His father had been made a free man by the provisions of his master's will. Thus Solomon was brought up under the influences of freedom, and knew little of slavery. After his marriage, he lived for some years in Saratoga. Here he earned a comfortable livelihood. During the day he worked about the hotels, and in the evenings he was often engaged to play the violin at parties. One day, two men, apparently managers of a travelling circus company, met him and offered him good pay if he would go with them as a violinist to Washington. He consented. Their behavior seemed to him peculiar, but he remained in their service, only to find himself one morning in a slave pen in Washington. How he got there remained always a mystery, but it is evident that he must have been drugged. Resistance was useless. He was carried South and sold to Mr. Epps, a hard master, with whom he remained for twelve years.

After he had long given up all hopes of escape, a friend was found in a Northern man who was working on the same plantation. Mr. Ba.s.s consented, though at a great risk to himself, to write some letters, telling Solomon's story to his Northern friends. The letters reached their destination, and, under the law of 1840 against kidnapping, a memorial was prepared to the Governor of New York. He became interested, and immediately sent a man South to find Northrup. After a long search, the agent was directed to Mr. Epps's plantation. Much to the disappointment of the master, who used every means to prevent his return, Solomon was identified at last, and went back to New York again a free man. Efforts were made to prosecute the kidnappers; but as sufficient evidence could not be obtained, no case was made out.[172]

=-- 39. Washington case.=--So bold did these stealers of men become, that they sometimes resorted to simple force, without the slightest attempt at concealment. A case of this kind occurred in Washington, D. C., between 1840 and 1850. Three or four men seized a negro who was employed in a hotel near the Capitol, and dragged him away. Mr. Hall, proprietor of the house, after trying in vain to prevent the arrest, succeeded at last in compelling them to take the man before a magistrate. The justice declined to a.s.sume jurisdiction in such a case, and before any other protection could be provided, the man was hurried by the kidnappers into a hack, and taken across the Potomac into bondage.[173]

=-- 40. Oberlin case.=--Occasionally the result was less fortunate for the captors. In Oberlin, three slave hunters seized by force a negro man and his wife, and carried them to an inn for the night. In the mean time the people of the town decided that the negroes must have a trial. They therefore employed a lawyer, who discovered that the writ for the capture was illegal, and secured a hearing. The captives were placed in jail, but, aided by some undivulged agency, they managed to break the grates of their prison windows, and escaped to Canada before the day set for trial.[174]

[Sidenote: Interference and Rescues.]

=-- 41. Interference and rescues.=--After a kidnapping case had occurred in a Northern village or town, measures were frequently taken by the indignant citizens to prevent the recurrence of such acts. They organized vigilance committees, or the antislavery societies took it up as a part of their work. In a free community, public sentiment would not allow negro towns-people to stand entirely unprotected. Thus many of the cases of interference and rescue were the result of some organized movements on the part of the white people, though occasionally they came about through the unpremeditated action of a mob.

=-- 42. Chickasaw rescue.=--The first case which has been found occurred in 1836. A writ of habeas corpus was served against Captain Eldridge of the brig Chickasaw, for holding two colored women in his ship with the intention of carrying them South. As both presented free papers at the hearing, the judge ordered them discharged; but the agent of John B.

Morris of Baltimore, who demanded their return, declared that he would soon have sufficient evidence to prove them fugitives. Thereupon the colored people rushed in, took the women to a carriage, and carried them away to safety.[175]

=-- 43. Philadelphia and Kennedy cases.=--A similar but unsuccessful attempt was made in Philadelphia in 1838. A slave had been delivered to the man claiming to be his master. As the captors were about to take him away, a crowd of colored people gathered and attempted to rescue him. It was not so simple a matter in a large city as in a country town. A body of police soon appeared, protected the slaveholders, and finally arrested some of the leaders among the free blacks.[176]

A few years later, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, three negroes were arrested and their ident.i.ty established as the slaves of Messrs. Kennedy and Hollingsworth of Maryland. The colored people of the neighborhood had caused a writ of habeas corpus to be issued and a second hearing was held. Judge Hepburne decided that the magistrate first employed had no right to commit the alleged fugitives, but he himself remanded them. A riot ensued, and some thirty-six persons were tried for partic.i.p.ating in it.[177]

=-- 44. Latimer case.=--In the Latimer case, the first of that series of famous fugitive slave trials which took place in Boston, was strongly developed the feeling against kidnapping, or in fact against the rendition of a slave under any circ.u.mstances.

In 1842, George Latimer was seized in Boston without a warrant, at the request of James B. Grey of Norfolk, Virginia. Latimer's counsel, Samuel E. Sewall and Amos B. Merrill, sued out a writ of habeas corpus, but after argument Chief Justice Shaw denied it. Mr. Grey asked for time to procure evidence against Latimer from Virginia. The judge ruled that the request should be granted, and that Latimer should for the time being be kept in the custody of the city jailer, Nathaniel Cooledge. A writ of personal replevin, under the act of 1837 securing trial by jury,[178] was then sworn out, but Justice Shaw decided that, according to the decision by the Supreme Court in the Prigg case, the law was illegal.[179]

The proceedings aroused great indignation throughout the city and State.

Meetings to devise means of aiding Latimer were held in Faneuil Hall and Belknap Street church. Stirring speeches were made by Wendell Phillips and others, and resolutions condemning the proceedings of the authorities, and remonstrating against the return of Latimer, were adopted. Bands of ruffians strove to break up the meetings, and succeeded in greatly disturbing them. To rouse the people, to give expression to public sentiment, and to spread the news from day to day, Dr. H. I.

Bowditch and Dr. W. F. Channing edited a paper called "The Latimer Journal and North Star." This was published for a number of weeks by the friends of the fugitive. Pet.i.tions were sent to the sheriff to remove the jailer, and to the Governor asking the removal of the sheriff if he did not accede to their demand. Thereupon Latimer's custodian agreed to give him up for a sufficient payment. The sum of four hundred dollars was accordingly raised, the proceedings came to an abrupt termination, and Latimer was released.

The excitement produced, however, did not die out immediately, and some of the results were far-reaching. So intense was the public excitement, that, soon after, a pet.i.tion was prepared and sent to Congress, asking an amendment to the Const.i.tution. This was signed by fifty thousand people in Ma.s.sachusetts, and presented in the House by Mr. Adams. Another, signed by sixty-five thousand people, was sent to the legislature. The effect was the act of 1843, forbidding all officers to aid in the recapture of a fugitive slave, or to permit the use of State jails for their imprisonment. The pet.i.tion to Congress was not received. A resolution from the Latimer committee, which proposed an amendment to the Const.i.tution so as to base representation on "free persons," brought about much discussion, and was not received in the House. In the Senate it excited even more violent opposition, and the resolutions were laid on the table and not printed.[180]

=-- 45. Ottoman case.=--Similar indignation was felt in Boston over the case of Captain Hannum of the brig Ottoman. He had found a runaway concealed on board, but had set sail to return, evidently with the intention of taking the man back into captivity. A steamer was sent out to rescue the slave, but the Ottoman managed to elude it, and the man was lost. At a meeting held September 24, 1846, a committee was appointed for the purpose of preventing similar outrages.[181]

[Sidenote: Interstate Relations.]