Fugitive Slaves Part 8

=-- 46. Interstate relations.=--The spirit of opposition to the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law made itself felt, not only in popular demonstrations and in legislation, but in interstate relations. We have already noticed the Prigg case,[182] and its effect in relieving the States from any responsibility in the enforcement of the law. Other States took advantage of this decision, and of the general principle of international law, that one nation or state is not bound to enforce the munic.i.p.al law of another.

=-- 47. Boston and Isaac cases (1837-1839).=--In 1837 a runaway was found on the ship Boston, then on her homeward voyage from Georgia to Maine.

After landing, the slave succeeded in getting to Canada. The Governor of Georgia charged the captain with slave-stealing, and demanded his return as a fugitive from justice. The Governor of Maine would not comply with the request, because, as he said, the laws of that State recognized slaves not as property, but as persons. The indignant legislature of Georgia adopted resolutions calling upon Congress so to amend the laws that the Governor of Maine should be compelled to give up slave stealers as fugitives from justice. Resolutions were presented in the United States Senate, but no action was taken.[183]

The refusal to use State machinery against fugitives extended to the process of extradition against persons connected with the rescue of slaves. Thus in the Isaac case, in 1839, Virginia asked New York for the arrest of three colored men who were accused of abetting a slave's escape. The Governor of New York returned answer, that no State could demand the surrender of a fugitive from justice for an act which was made criminal only by its own legislation.[184]

=-- 48. Ohio and Kentucky case.=--Kentucky, in 1848, demanded from the Governor of Ohio the extradition of fifteen persons on the charge of aiding the escape of a fugitive. Governor Bell refused, on the ground that Ohio laws did not recognize property in man.[185]

[Sidenote: Prosecutions. Act of 1850.]

=-- 49. Prosecutions.=--The effects of the aid and protection thus given fugitives by Northern people or governments awakened among the slaveholders a feeling of wrong and indignation. The Fugitive Slave Law was clear, and they determined to carry it out to the letter. They began, therefore, energetically to prosecute people for aiding and harboring escaping slaves. The case just mentioned shows how difficult it was to secure prosecutions beyond the State boundaries. When the offence occurred within the bounds of a slave State, the judgments were most severe, and the heaviest possible fines and longest terms of imprisonment were inflicted for simple acts of charity.

=-- 50. Van Zandt, Pearl, and Walker cases.=--Mr. Van Zandt, returning into the country from Cincinnati one day in 1840, took nine fugitive slaves from Kentucky into his farm wagon. He was stopped by three persons, and all but two of the slaves were recaptured. Mr. Van Zandt was arrested, taken into court, and fined twelve thousand dollars, which exhausted his entire property.[186]

A still more severe penalty was that imposed upon Captain Drayton, of the schooner Pearl, in 1848. He took on board seventy-five fugitive slaves, and sailed up the Potomac. An armed steamer, sent in pursuit, overtook them and brought them back. Captain Drayton and another officer of the schooner were placed in prison, where they remained for twenty years, and at last were relieved only through the efforts of Charles Sumner.[187]

Another instance of the same sort is the case of Mr. Jonathan Walker, in 1844. With seven fugitives he embarked from Pensacola in an open boat for the Bahama Islands, but he received a sun-stroke and was obliged to leave the management of the craft in the hands of the negroes. On account of the accident, they were overtaken by two sloops, and both fugitives and their protector captured. Mr. Walker was twice tried, imprisoned, sentenced to stand in the pillory, and branded on the hand with the letters S. S., slave stealer.[188] The crime and the punishment have alike been glorified in Whittier's verses:--

"Then lift that manly right hand, bold ploughman of the wave!

Its branded hand shall prophesy 'Salvation to the Slave!'

Hold up its fire-wrought language that whoso reads may feel His heart swell strong within him, his sinews change to steel."

[189]

=-- 51. Unpopularity of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.=--The pa.s.sage of the new law probably increased the number of antislavery people more than anything else which had occurred during the whole agitation. Many of those formerly indifferent were roused to active opposition by a sense of the injustice of the Fugitive Slave Act as they saw it executed in Boston and elsewhere. Hence, in the cases of the period from 1850 to the outbreak of the Civil War, we shall find a new element. The antislavery party, grown strong, resisted the regulations, and instead of the unquestioned return of a fugitive, as in colonial times, or of prosecutions carried on under the simple conditions of the act of 1793, the struggle became long and complex. In fact during this time hardly an important case can be cited in which there was not some opposition to the natural course of the law. These exasperating effects were not at first apparent to the South, since before the famous rescues began several cases of rendition showed the power of the Executive. As the escapes grew more and more frequent yearly, increasing all the time in boldness, the slaveholders put forth greater efforts to punish the offenders, and prosecutions were numerous. But the "new law had no moral foundation,"

and against such an act public sentiment must sooner or later revolt, no matter how severe may be its provisions.[190] As Mr. James Freeman Clarke has said, "It was impossible to convince the people that it was right to send back to slavery men who were so desirous of freedom as to run such risks. All education from boyhood up to manhood had taught us to believe that it was the duty of all men to struggle for freedom."[191]

=-- 52. Principle of the selection of cases.=--The large number of cases occurring between 1850 and 1860 renders it impossible to present a detailed account of them all in a brief monograph. The selection, therefore, includes only such as are typical of the various phases of the agitation.

=-- 53. Hamlet case (1850).=--The first recorded action under the provisions of the law of 1850 took place on the 26th of September of that year, just eight days after the pa.s.sage of the act. James Hamlet, a free negro, who with his family had been living for several years in New York, was on that day arrested by a deputy United States Marshal as the fugitive slave of Mary Brown of Baltimore. After a hasty examination by Commissioner Gardiner, he was surrendered in accordance with the new law.

These proceedings were not sufficiently well known at the time to excite a mob, but when discovered they roused so strong a feeling that the money necessary to redeem Hamlet was almost immediately raised, and on the 5th of October he was brought back from slavery.[192]

[Sidenote: Sims and Burns.]

=-- 54. Sims case (1851).=--Another instance in Boston, often mentioned as the first under the law of 1850, but really six months later than the Hamlet case, is that of Thomas M. Sims. A common method of seizure was followed. Marshal Tukey arrested Sims on a false charge of theft. Mr.

Potter of Virginia then claimed him as his slave. Court Square was filled with people. The Marshal feared a popular outbreak while the matter was pending, and, to the indignation of the city, caused the court-house in which Sims was confined to be surrounded with chains. As these were but four feet from the ground, the judges as they went in and out from the sessions were forced, morning and night, to bow beneath them. The building was also strongly guarded by a company of armed men, ever afterward known as the "Sims Brigade." Robert Rantoul, Jr. and Samuel E.

Sewall conducted Sims's case. Commissioner Curtis overruled the const.i.tutional objections to the Fugitive Slave Law, and to the judicial functions of the Commissioners of the United States courts. Then, despite all efforts of the antislavery people in his behalf, the certificate which sent Sims back to Virginia was made out and signed by Commissioner Curtis.[193] The Liberator says of the popular sentiment: "One feeling was visible on almost every countenance, commiseration, humiliation,--commiseration for the victim, humiliation at the degradation of Ma.s.sachusetts. No man talked, no man thought, of violence.

Why? Because it is acquiesced in? No! no! Because it is approved? A thousand times, no! but because government is pleased to enforce the law, and resistance is hopeless."[194] Sims was taken from his cell in the early morning, observed only by a few faithful vigilants, and, amid platoons of armed men, conducted to the United States ship Acorn, which was detailed to carry him back to the South.[195]

The indignation of the antislavery people remained to be expressed, and a ma.s.s meeting was held on the Common and in Tremont Temple. Wendell Phillips and Theodore Parker addressed the a.s.semblage, and Phillips noticed the fact that hostile troops had not been seen in the streets of Boston since the redcoats marched up from Long Wharf.[196]

=-- 55. Burns case (1854).=--The rendition of Anthony Burns in 1854 was the last great fugitive slave case which occurred in Boston. Burns was the property of Charles F. Suttle of Virginia. He escaped in 1854, and came to Boston. One of the first things he did was to write a letter to his brother, still a slave in the South. Unfortunately, though this was mailed in Canada, by some oversight it was dated in Boston. Since a letter to a slave was always opened by the master, Burns's hiding place was discovered.[197] He was arrested upon the usual charge of theft.

Then, upon a warrant issued by Judge Loring, he was claimed as a fugitive slave by Suttle.

When the knowledge of the arrest began to circulate, the most intense excitement prevailed. Handbills asking all antislavery people to go to Boston were sent throughout the country. Public meetings held in Faneuil and Meionaon Halls were crowded with representatives from all the towns about.[198] One of the people who took part in the attempted rescue which followed one of these meetings thus describes it:--

"On the evening of the 26th of May, we went down to Faneuil Hall to hear Wendell Phillips. He counselled waiting until morning before any attempt to rescue Burns should be made, but the excited audience silenced him with shouts of 'No, no! to-night! to-night!'

"Mr. Phillips saw that it was useless to try to go on, so he sat down and Mr. Theodore Parker began speaking. At first he advocated the same plan, but at last, as he found the crowd growing more and more eager and uproarious, he said, 'Well, if you will, let us go!' and led the way out of the hall. The people followed, and my friend and I were among the first to reach the court-house. There we found prepared for us long beams and boxes of axes. Five or six men seized one of these beams, and before its pressure the large door of the court-house crushed like gla.s.s. Mr. Higginson first stepped in, but just then a pistol shot was heard, and the mob fell back. Mr. Higginson looked around, and entreated them not to desert him, but the favorable moment was gone. The people should have lost no time in filling the house, for the marines had been ordered from the Navy Yard, and when they appeared nothing further could be done."[199] In this riot James Batchelder, one of the Marshal's guards, was killed.

At the trial, though Burns was ably defended by Mr. R. H. Dana and others, it was of no avail. His ident.i.ty was unfortunately established from the first. He had recognized and addressed his master, and also a Mr. Brant, who had once hired him. The order for his rendition was therefore at once given.[200]

Guarded by a large military force he was conducted through the streets, filled with an indignant mult.i.tude, to the United States cutter Morris, which had been ordered by the President to take him back.[201] Many buildings on the route were hung with black, and so great was the popular excitement, that Rev. J. F. Clarke, an eyewitness of the affair, has said: "It was evident that a very trifling incident might have brought on a collision, and flooded the streets with blood."

The difficulty of enforcing the act was shown in the precautionary measures immediately adopted by the government. The city police, the militia, the marines, and some regular troops, were ordered out to the task of guarding one poor fugitive. It cost the country one hundred thousand dollars to send this single slave back to his master.[202]

Not long after Burns's return, a sum of money, to which Charles Devens, United States Marshal at his trial, contributed largely, was raised in Boston and the vicinity for his purchase; but it was found impossible to effect it.[203]

Mr. Higginson, Wendell Phillips, and Theodore Parker, with others, were indicted for riot, but the indictment was quashed by Judge Curtis on technical grounds, and they were discharged.[204]

[Sidenote: Garner and Shadrach.]

=-- 56. Garner case (1856).=--Of all the cases of rendition, the saddest, and next to the Burns case probably the best known at the time, was that of Margaret Garner. In accounts of the Underground Railroad we are told that winter was the favorite season for flight in the section of the country south of the Ohio, since ice then covered the river, and the difficulty of crossing by boat did not arise. It was at this season that Simeon Garner, his son Robert, and their families, fled from Kentucky and crossed the frozen stream to the house of a colored man in Cincinnati.

They were soon traced thither, and after a desperate hand to hand struggle the house was entered. There the pursuers found that Margaret Garner, preferring for her children death to slavery, had striven to take their lives, and one lay dead. The case was immediately brought into court, where, despite the efforts made to save them, rendition was decided upon. On the way back, Margaret, in despair, attempted to drown herself and her child in the river; but even the deliverance of death was denied her, for she was recovered and sold, to be carried yet farther south.[205]

=-- 57. Shadrach case (1851).=--In the three typical cases just described, neither the law's delay, violent interference, nor the desperation of the slave, availed to prevent the return of the fugitive to the oppressor.

Let us turn from this group, and take up those more important cases wherein the law was not allowed to complete its course, but rescues were accomplished, either by free negroes or antislavery people. First in time and importance comes the case of Shadrach, which occurred in Boston in February, 1851.

In May, 1850, a slave named Frederic Wilkins had run away from Virginia and come to Boston, where he found employment as a waiter in the Cornhill Coffee House under the alias of Shadrach. He had been there not quite a year, however, when John De Bere, his master in Norfolk, sent some one in pursuit of him. A warrant was served and he was arrested while at work.

United States Commissioner Riley then took him to the court-house, where Mr. List, a young lawyer of antislavery sympathies, offered his aid as counsel, and Messrs. Charles G. Davis, Samuel E. Sewall, and Ellis Gray Loring also came to his a.s.sistance. Mr. List obtained some delay in the proceedings; but since, by the act of 1843,[206] the use of State jails had been denied for fugitives, the officers were obliged to keep the prisoner in the court-room until another place of confinement could be found. By this time a large number of people had gathered about the building, and were trying to force an entrance. For a long time they were unable to enter, but at last opportunity was given as Mr. Davis opened the door to leave the court-room. In spite of all efforts on the part of the officers to close the door, a body of colored people under the lead of Lewis Hayden rushed in and seized the prisoner. They carried him triumphantly out of the court-room on their shoulders, and soon saw him safely started for Canada. Mr. Davis and others were prosecuted for aiding in the rescue, but nothing was proved against them. Intense excitement prevailed in the city, and finally throughout the country, since Congress took up this infringement of the law.[207]

Mr. Clay, February 17, 1851, introduced a resolution which requested the President to send to Congress "any information he may possess in regard to the alleged recent case of a forcible resistance to the execution of the laws of the United States in the city of Boston," and communicate to Congress "what means he has adopted to meet the occurrence," and "whether, in his opinion, any additional legislation is necessary to meet the exigencies of the case."[208] President Pierce then issued a proclamation announcing the facts to the country, and calling on all people to a.s.sist in quelling this and other disturbances. The Senate's request was also answered in an Executive message to Congress, which announced to them that the President would use all his const.i.tutional powers to insure the execution of the laws. Such unusual national interference gave the case wide celebrity, and, as Von Holst says, "The pretensions and a.s.sumptions of the South were encouraged in a very unwise way, by the fact that, by such a manner of treating the matter, people seemed to recognize that it was ent.i.tled to hold the whole North responsible for every violation of the compromise, which could properly be laid at the door of only a few individuals. The proclamation and the message placed the compromise in a far more glaring light than the liberation of Shadrach."[209]

[Sidenote: Rescues.]

=-- 58. Jerry McHenry rescue (1851).=--Later, a case occurred at Syracuse, New York, which was a significant ill.u.s.tration of the successful action of a vigilance committee. Jerry McHenry, a respectable colored man who had lived for several years in that city, was arrested in October, 1851, as a fugitive slave. At the examination, which took place at two o'clock in the afternoon, he found opportunity to break away from the officers and escape through the crowd, which opened to allow him to pa.s.s. He was, however, immediately pursued and recaptured. It so happened that an Agricultural Fair and a convention of the Liberty Party were going on at that time in Syracuse, and the city was unusually full of people. When the alarm bell gave notice to the vigilance committee that a negro had been seized, Mr. Gerrit Smith, who was attending the meetings, and Rev.

Samuel J. May, with others, hastened to the scene. The Commissioner, after the capture, had again taken up the trial, but such a disturbance was made by the crowd which gathered outside that he was forced to adjourn. Meanwhile, Mr. Smith with the committee had planned a rescue, and at about half-past eight fully two thousand people had a.s.sembled, and an a.s.sault was begun upon the court-house. They broke doors and windows, overpowered the officers, and at last bore Jerry away in triumph.

He remained in the home of a friend until he could be sent to Canada.

Prosecutions were immediately inst.i.tuted, and eighteen persons indicted for taking part in the rescue, but nothing came of the case. On the other side, Henry W. Allen, Marshal in the case, was tried for kidnapping. The judge declared the Fugitive Slave Act unconst.i.tutional, but a verdict of not guilty was rendered.[210]

=-- 59. Oberlin-Wellington rescue (1858).=--Sometimes, however, general sentiment was so strong that the rescue became, not an action instigated and carried through by three or four determined men, but the indignant uprising of a whole town. Such was the Oberlin-Wellington case, celebrated for the great number of prosecutions and the high character of those engaged in it. Two kidnappers from Kentucky induced an Oberlin boy, by a bribe of twenty dollars, to entice away a negro named John Rice on pretence of giving him work. Having taken him to a lonely spot, he was seized and carried about eight miles across country to Wellington, there to await the south bound train.

On the way the party was overtaken by an Oberlin College student, who at once gave the alarm. A crowd gathered and followed the kidnappers to the railway station. There, by placing a ladder upon the balcony they succeeded in rescuing John from the upper story of the house in which he was confined. For this violation of the law thirty-seven citizens of Oberlin and Wellington were indicted. This produced the greatest excitement all over the country, and the case grew more and more complicated, until the proceedings had lasted several months. Public meetings to express sympathy with the prosecuted were held in many places. Some of them were imprisoned to await the trial, but no severe sentences were imposed.[211]