fugitive slave claus

t Fugitive Sla

ssion of th

itions of 17

itions from

he Missouri Compr

the question f

and Mexico pl

f fugitives on

g from 1793 to

ore stringent fugiti

f Congress fro

in the Distric

nd Fugitive Sl

of the second F

uments fo

ents agains

reat step for the advancement of the interests of slavery had been taken. For this embodiment in the Constitution ever afterward formed a basis for the slavehol

terms which by implication continued the sixth article, including the rendition of slaves;59 and in the earliest treatie

Fugitive

t that the call for legislation came not from the South, but from a free State; and that it was provoked, not by fugitive slaves, but by kidnapper

ia, at the instigation of the Society for the Abolition of Slavery, asked the return of the three kidnappers; but the Gove

oviding the means by which persons charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, shall, on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State h

inted, consisting of Johnston, Calvert, and Read,66 and they submitted a bill, December 20, 1792.67 Unfortunately, we have no details of the debate; but on December 28, a third Senate committee was appointed by adding Taylor and Sherman to the committee of November 22, and to them the bill was recommitted with instructions to amend.68 At last, January 3, 1793, the bill was reported in a form not unlike that finally agreed upon.69 Of the amendments offered, the tex

1643 by the Articles of Confederation,74 and again in 1787 by the Constitution.75 From the scanty records, it is possible to discern only that there was serious difference of

s to have a protection through the requirement of a requisition, a protection denied to the man on trial for his liberty only. The act was applicable to fugitive apprentices as well as to slaves, a provision of some importance at the time. In

his master, or the affidavit of some magistrate in the State from which he came, certifying that such a person had escaped. Hindering arrest or harboring a slave was punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars. The law thus established a system allowing the greatest harshness to the slave and every favor to the mas

ns of 1797

ive act of that State had declared them slaves again, and they had fled to Philadelphia where they were arrested. January 30, 1797, they petitioned Congress for relief, and after an exciting debate the House by a vote of 50 to 33 refused to receive the petition.80 There is nothing in the scanty records which connects this case or pe

olored soldier of the Revolution was contemptuously denied reception.88 January 14 and 15, the bill was debated freely, and from the debate and sundry amendments the character of the bill may be inferred. Not only harboring, but employing a fugitive, was made punishable; and it was ordained that every black employed must be furnished with an official certificate, and that every person who employed a negro must publish a description of him. Southern members "considered it a great injury to the owners of that species of property, that runaways were employed in the Middle and Northern States, and even assisted in procuring a living. They stated that, when slaves ran away and wer

ns from 18

brought up again in 1817 by Pindall of Virginia, who for several years urged a revision of the act. A committee of which he was chairman was appointed, December 15, 1817, and reported a bill, December 29, 1817.92 This third proposition of general amendment led to a debate, January 26 and 29, 1818, in which for th

uaranteeing the possession of slaves, the Constitution did not authorize or require the General Government to go as far as the bill proposed to render this bill effectual; that the bill contained provisions dangerous to the liberty and safety of the free people of color in other sections of the Union."95 Mr. Rich of Vermont desired "that it might be so amended as to guard more effectu

hile Mr. Holmes of Massachusetts suggested that the operation of the writ of habeas corpus would render such acts of injustice improbable.98 Mason, of the same State, objected to a trial by jury, which had be

rially, by making "the judges of the State in which ... slaves are seized the tribunal to decide the fact of slave

ision in the Prigg Case.101 Mr. Whitman disapproved of the provision making it a penal offence for a State officer to refuse his assistance in execut

It was ordered that the title be "An Act to provide for delivering up persons held to labor or

gh Dagget's amendment to strike out the elaborate provision for the return of fugitives by executive requisition was not adopted,104 the Senate first voted to limit the bill to four years,105 a

he Missouri

793. December 17, 1818, a resolution of the Maryland legislature was laid before the House, calling for protection against the citizens of Pennsylvania

tory gained from France north of 36° 30'.110 In the prohibitory clause, however, it was provided "that any persons escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."111

l 3, an inquiry was set on foot into the provisions of a Pennsylvania act hindering the operation of the act of 1793,114 and the Secretary of State submitted a copy of the obnoxious act, April 18. On the day of the Secretary's report a proposition in the Senate to inst

bettors of the fugitives in Pennsylvania.116 He desired a special committee, but the question was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which reported

n owners. The first Indian treaty negotiated under the Constitution, that of April 7, 1790, with the Creeks, required the return of negroes held as prisoners of war.119 A similar clause appeared in the treaty made in 1814, at the end of the war with the Cr

aves or other private property."123 A large number of slaves had, during the war, been received on board British vessels, and the humane but specious plea was set up by the British government that the clause applied only to slaves received after the date of the peace. A convention of 1818 submitted the question t

Mexico Plac

al Assembly of Kentucky, protesting against the kindly reception of fugitives in Canada, and asking for negotiation with Great Britain on the subject.125 In 1826, Mr. Clay, Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Gallatin, United States Minister at the Court of St. James, to propose the "mutu

er the expediency of entering into an arrangement with Great Britain for the arrest of fugitive slaves charged with

fter 1830, that the "freedom and equality granted blacks by the Mexican Constitution and law of 1829, was at

ay plunged a knife into Mr. Diggs's heart. His captor dead, Anderson hastened on to Canada.129 There he lived a quiet and industrious life until 1860, when the American government called upon Canada, under the extradition treaty, to give up Anderson for punishment. He was arrested, but applied to the Toronto court for a writ of ha

United States to another were repeatedly driven or conveyed into British ports, and the slaves were there treated as ordinary fugitives, that is, as free men. Thus the Comet in 1830,133 and the Encomium in 1834,134 were cast away on the Bah

ery.137 Elaborate resolutions introduced by Calhoun, March 4, 1840, and passed, April 15, by a unanimous vote of the Senate, condemned the British principle.138 But when, in the next year, the slaves on board the American ship Creole rose and by force carried her into Nassau,139 the British government refused to return them either as slaves or as murderers.140 Webster, as Secretary of State, strenuously urged the s

rom 1793-185

manifest injustice and cruelty, that first aroused the sympathies of the people.143 The border States like Pennsylvania were often the scene of these acts. The neighboring white families first began to try to protect the negroes settled near them, and a little later to give a helping hand to those escaping from slavery, and at last, in

nd convicted in the county court. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sustained the decision. Thence the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. There the counsel for Mr. Prigg argued that the statute of Pennsylvania on which the indictment was founded was unconstitutional, since it conflicted with the law of 1793. Justice Story delivered the opinion of the court, and upon this decision all future judgments were based. He announced that the law must be carried out through national authorities alon

inadequacy of the law of 1793. After the Prigg decision the provisions made for its execution through national powers were entirely insufficient. Underlying all these acts

over their slaves when they escaped into non-slaveholding States,149 gave rise to a bill from the Committee on the Judiciary.150 The bill provided "for the more effectual execution of the third clause of the second section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution."151 It passed only

ails on the ground that they were fugitives; and that a free negro so confined might be sold for his jail fees. Resolutions for an investigation of the condition of the jails were offered in 1848 by Mr. Giddings;153 and Mr. Hall also introduced more sweeping propositions to repeal all laws of Congr

Fugitive

the Judiciary, January 16, 1850. Two additional amendments were soon offered by Mr. Mason. The first imposed a fine of one thousand dollars and imprisonment for twelve months upon any one who should obstruct the execution of the law. The second provided that the t

y movement, contained a fugitive slave clause, though not so severe in its provisions as Mr. Mason's.157 This bill, however, was not debated as a who

, when it was passed by the Senate, and a few days later by the House;158 the signatur

ssue a writ, and were liable for the value of any slave escaping from them. The testimony required for rendition was the official declaration of the fact of the escape of a slave by two witnesses, and the establishment of his identity by oath. The testimony of the accused could not be admitted. The right of trial by jury was not affirmed, and was therefore practically denied. A sheriff might call upon any bystander for help in executing the law, and the penalty for harboring

ts for

1 Mr. Mason thus presented the evils with which the law must cope. He stated that the border States had found it an impossibility to reclaim a fugitive when he once got within the boundaries of a non-slaveholding State; "and this bill, or rather the amendments, ... have been framed with a great deal of consideration, to reach, if practicable, the evils which this experience has demonstrated to exist,

slaveholder.163 As an illustration of the extent to which this disregard of law was carried, Mr. Yulee, one of the most extreme of the Southern men, instanced a convention which was then in session in New

bserve, maintain, and defend it." He said it was the handiwork of sages and patriots, and resulted from intelligent concessions, for the benefit of all.165 Many speeches were filled with prophecies, more or less openly expressed, of the dissolution of the Union. Mr. Soulé said the South must fight for its rights, since it is the weaker of the two sections.166 It had come down to the question, How could the Union be preserved?167 Some concessions must be ma

against

other statutory right. "Claims of right in the services of individuals found under the protection of the laws of a free State must be investigated in the same manner as other claims of right. If the most ordinary controversy involving a contested claim of twenty dollars must be decided by jury, surely a controversy which involves the right of a man to his liberty should have a similar trial.... It will not do for a man to go into a Stat