Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)
_PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE COLLEGIATE INSTRUCTION
OF WOMEN_
Fay House Monographs
No. 3
FUGITIVE SLAVES
(1619-1865)
BY
MARION GLEASON McDOUGALL
PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, PH.D.
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY
IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY
BOSTON, U.S.A.
PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY
1891
_Copyright, 1891,_
BY THE SOCIETY FOR THE COLLEGIATE INSTRUCTION OF WOMEN.
University Press:
JOHN WILSON AND SON, CAMBRIDGE.
EDITOR'S PREFACE.
Every careful student of history is aware that it is no longer possible
to write the general history of any important country from the original
sources; on any period, the materials which accumulate in a year are more
than can be assimilated by one mind in three years. The general historian
must use the results of others' work. It is therefore essential that the
great phases of political and constitutional development be treated in
monographs, each devoted to a single, limited subject and each prepared
on a careful and scientific method.
This first number of the historical series of the Fay House Monographs
aims to discuss the single topic of Fugitive Slaves. Mrs. McDougall has
drawn together and compared many cases found in obscure sources, and has
perhaps been able to correct some commonly received impressions on this
neglected subject.
Even in its limited range this does not pretend to be a complete work in
the sense that all the available cases are discussed or recorded. The
effort has been made to use the cases as illustrations of principles, and
to add such bibliography as may direct the reader to further details. The
appendix of laws is as full as it was possible to make it from the
collections in the Boston Public and Massachusetts State Libraries. If
the monograph prove useful to the student of American history, it will
meet the expectations of author and editor.
ALBERT BUSHNELL HART.
CAMBRIDGE, April 2, 1891.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
The following monograph was written while the author was a student in the
"Harvard Annex" as a study in the Seminary course given by Professor
Albert Bushnell Hart. The work has continued during parts of the four
years since 1887. The effort has been to trace in some measure the
development of public sentiment upon the subject, to prepare an outline
of Colonial legislation and of the work of Congress during the entire
period, and to give accounts of typical cases illustrative of conditions
and opinions. Only a few of the more important cases are described
minutely, but a critical list of the authorities may be found in the
bibliographical appendix.
The thanks of the author are due first to Professor Hart, under whose
direction and with whose assistance and encouragement the monograph has
been prepared; then to Miss Anna B. Thompson, without whose careful
training in the Thayer Academy and continued sympathy, the work could not
have been undertaken. Many thanks are due also to the authorities of the
Library of Harvard College for the use, in the alcoves, of their large
and conveniently arranged collection of books and pamphlets on United
States History, and to the assistants in the Boston Public and
Massachusetts State Libraries for courteous aid. Colonel T. W. Higginson
has kindly examined the chapter on the cases from 1850 to 1860,
suggesting some interesting details; and Mr. Arthur Gilman has read the
whole in proof, and made many valuable suggestions.
MARION GLEASON McDOUGALL.
ROCKLAND, MASS. April 2, 1891.
CONTENTS.
Page
CHAPTER I.
_LEGISLATION AND CASES BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION._
Sec. 1. Elements of colonial slavery 1
Sec. 2. Regulations as to fugitives (1640-1700) 2
Sec. 3. Treatment of fugitives 3
Sec. 4. Regulations in New England colonies 4
Sec. 5. Escapes in New England: Attucks case 5
Sec. 6. Dutch regulations in New Netherlands 6
Sec. 7. Escapes from New Amsterdam 6
Sec. 8. Intercolonial regulations 7
Sec. 9. Intercolonial cases 8
Sec. 10. International relations 9
Sec. 11. International cases 10
Sec. 12. Relations with the mother country 11
Sec. 13. Regulation under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1788) 12
Sec. 14. Ordinance for the Northwest Territory (1787) 13
Sec. 15. The Fugitive question in the Constitutional Conventions 14
CHAPTER II.
_LEGISLATION FROM 1789 TO 1850._
Sec. 16. Effect of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution 16
Sec. 17. The first Fugitive Slave Act (1793) 16
Sec. 18. Discussion of the first act 18
Sec. 19. Propositions of 1797 and 1802 19
Sec. 20. Propositions from 1817 to 1822 21
Sec. 21. Period of the Missouri Compromise (1819-1822) 23
Sec. 22. Status of the question from 1823 to 1847 24
Sec. 23. Canada and Mexico places of refuge 25
Sec. 24. Status of fugitives on the high seas 26
Sec. 25. Kidnapping from 1793 to 1850: Prigg case 27
Sec. 26. Necessity of more stringent fugitive slave provisions 28
Sec. 27. Action of Congress from 1847 to 1850 28
Sec. 28. Slavery in the District of Columbia 29
Sec. 29. The second Fugitive Slave Act (1850) 29
Sec. 30. Provisions of the second Fugitive Slave Act 30
Sec. 31. Arguments for the bill 31
Sec. 32. Arguments against the bill 32
CHAPTER III.
_PRINCIPAL CASES FROM 1789 TO 1860._
Sec. 33. Change in character of cases 34
Sec. 34. The first case of rescue (1793) 35
Sec. 35. President Washington's demand for a fugitive (1796) 35
Sec. 36. Kidnapping cases 36
Sec. 37. Jones case (1836) 36
Sec. 38. Solomon Northup case (about 1830) 37
Sec. 39. Washington case (between 1840 and 1850) 38
Sec. 40. Oberlin case (1841) 38
Sec. 41. Interference and rescues 38
Sec. 42. Chickasaw rescue (1836) 38
Sec. 43. Philadelphia case (1838) 39
Sec. 44. Latimer case (1842) 39
Sec. 45. Ottoman case (1846) 40
Sec. 46. Interstate relations 41
Sec. 47. Boston and Isaac cases (1837, 1839) 41
Sec. 48. Ohio and Kentucky cases (1848) 41
Sec. 49. Prosecutions 42
Sec. 50. Van Zandt, Pearl, and Walker cases (1840, 1844) 42
Sec. 51. Unpopularity of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 43
Sec. 52. Principle of the selection of cases 43
Sec. 53. Hamlet case (1850) 43
Sec. 54. Sims case (1851) 44
Sec. 55. Burns case (1854) 45
Sec. 56. Garner case (1856) 46
Sec. 57. Shadrach case (1851) 47
Sec. 58. Jerry McHenry case (1851) 48
Sec. 59. Oberlin-Wellington case (1858) 49
Sec. 60. Christiana case (1851) 50
Sec. 61. Miller case (1851) 51
Sec. 62. John Brown in Kansas (1858) 51
CHAPTER IV.
_FUGITIVES AND THEIR FRIENDS._
Sec. 63. Methods of escape 53
Sec. 64. Reasons for escape 54
Sec. 65. Conditions of slave life 55
Sec. 66. Escapes to the woods 56
Sec. 67. Escapes to the North 57
Sec. 68. Use of protection papers 58
Sec. 69. Fugitives disguised as whites: Craft case 58
Sec. 70. Underground Railroad 60
Sec. 71. Rise and growth of the system 60
Sec. 72. Methods pursued 61
Sec. 73. Colored agents of the Underground Railroad 62
Sec. 74. Prosecutions of agents 63
Sec. 75. Formal organization 63
Sec. 76. General effect of escapes 64
CHAPTER V.
_PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS._
Sec. 77. Character of the personal liberty laws 65
Sec. 78. Acts passed before the Prigg decision (1793-1842) 65
Sec. 79. Acts passed between the Prigg decision and
the second Fugitive Slave Law (1842-1850) 66
Sec. 80. Acts occasioned by the law of 1850 (1850-1860) 66
Sec. 81. Massachusetts acts 67
Sec. 82. Review of the acts by States 69
Sec. 83. Effect of the personal liberty laws 70
CHAPTER VI.
_THE END OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE QUESTION (1860-1865)._
Sec. 85. The Fugitive Slave Law in the crisis of 1860-61 71
Sec. 86. Proposition to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law 72
Sec. 87. Propositions to repeal or amend the law 73
Sec. 88. The question of slaves of rebels 73
Sec. 89. Slavery attacked in Congress 74
Sec. 90. Confiscation bills 75
Sec. 91. Confiscation provisions extended 75
Sec. 92. Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation (1863) 77
Sec. 93. Fugitives in loyal slave States 77
Sec. 94. Typical cases 78
Sec. 95. Question discussed in Congress 78
Sec. 96. Arrests by civil officers 80
Sec. 97. Denial of the use of jails in the District of Columbia 80
Sec. 98. Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia 82
Sec. 99. Regulations against kidnapping 82
Sec. 100. Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts 83
Sec. 101. Early propositions to repeal the acts 83
Sec. 102. Discussion of the repeal bill in the House 84
Sec. 103. Repeal bills in the Senate 85
Sec. 104. The repeal act and the thirteenth amendment 86
Sec. 105. Educating effect of the controversy 87
APPENDICES.
APPENDIX A.
Colonial laws relative to fugitives 89
APPENDIX B.
National acts and propositions relative to fugitive slaves
(1778-1854) 104
APPENDIX C.
National acts and propositions relating to fugitive slaves
(1860-1864) 117
APPENDIX D.
List of important fugitive slave cases 124
APPENDIX E.
Bibliography of fugitive slave cases and fugitive slave
legislation 129
INDEX. 139
CHAPTER I.
_LEGISLATION AND CASES BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION._
Sec. 1. Elements of colonial slavery.
Sec. 2. Regulations as to fugitives (1640-1700).
Sec. 3. Treatment of fugitives.
Sec. 4. Regulations in New England colonies.
Sec. 5. Escapes in New England: Attucks case.
Sec. 6. Dutch regulations in New Netherlands.
Sec. 7. Escapes from New Amsterdam.
Sec. 8. Intercolonial regulations.
Sec. 9. Intercolonial cases.
Sec. 10. International relations.
Sec. 11. International cases.
Sec. 12. Relations with the mother country.
Sec. 13. Regulation under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1788).
Sec. 14. Ordinance for the Northwest Territory (1787).
Sec. 15. The Fugitive question in the Constitutional Conventions.
=Sec. 1. Elements of colonial slavery.=--By the middle of the seventeenth
century, the settlements made in America by the English, Dutch, and
Swedes were arranged for the most part in a line of little colonies
closely following the Atlantic coast. To the west, wide forests and
plains, broken only by the paths of the Indian, stretched on to the
Pacific; while long intervals of unpopulated country separated the
colonists on the north from the French in Canada, and on the south from
the Spaniards in Florida.
In all the colonies thus grouped together, the system of slavery had
already become well established, and with its institution the question of
the escape and return of the slaves had necessarily arisen. The
conditions of the country, both physical and social, gave unusual
facilities for flight. The wild woods, the Indian settlements, or the
next colony, peopled by a foreign race, and perhaps as yet without firmly
established government, offered to the slave a refuge and possibly
protection. Escape, therefore, as a peculiar danger, demanded peculiar
remedies. Though it is the purpose of this monograph not so much to study
the detail of legislation or escape in the colonies as to deal with the
period from 1789 to 1865, a slight sketch of the intercolonial laws and
provisions which preceded and in part suggested later legislation will
first be necessary.
Almost immediately after the introduction of slavery, in 1619, we begin
to find regulations made by the colonists upon this subject. At first
they applied solely to their own territory, but soon agreements were
entered into among several colonies, or between a colony and the Indians
or the French in Canada. These acts and agreements recognized not only
the negro, as at a later period, but also the white and the Indian slave.
There existed in some of the colonies of this time a peculiar class of
white people, who received no wages, and were bound to their masters.[1]
Usually these redemptioners were laborers or handicraftsmen, but
sometimes they were persons of education who had committed a crime, and
were sold according to law for a term of years, or for life. One of the
class is curiously connected with the education of no less a person than
George Washington. An unpublished autobiography of the Reverend John
Boucher, who from 1760 to the Revolution was a teacher and preacher in
Virginia, contains the following paragraph noticing the fact:--
"Mr. Washington was the second of five sons, of parents distinguished
neither for their rank nor fortune.... George, who, like most people
thereabouts at that time, had no other education than reading, writing,
and accounts, which he was taught by a convict servant whom his father
bought for a schoolmaster, first set out in the world as a surveyor of
Orange County."[2]
=Sec. 2. Regulations as to fugitives.=--The earliest regulation upon this
subject is found among the freedoms and exemptions granted by the West
India Company, in 1629, "to all Patroons, Masters, or Private Persons"
who would agree to settle in New Netherlands. The authorities promised to
do all in their power to return to their masters any slaves or colonists
fleeing from service.[3]
A little later, the Swedish colonists in Pennsylvania asked from their
government the same privilege of reclaiming fugitives.[4] The preamble of
an act against fugitives in East Jersey, in 1686, explains these
provisions. They found that "the securing of such persons as Run away, or
otherwise absent themselves from their master's lawfull Occasion," was "a
material encouragement to such Persons as come into this country to
settle Plantations and Populate the Province."[5] In many of the Southern
colonies, as Maryland and South Carolina, so severe were the acts against
this class of bound colonists that a runaway might be declared outlawed,
and might rightfully be killed by any person.[6]
[Sidenote: Treatment of Fugitives]
=Sec.3. Treatment of fugitives.=--From 1640 to 1700, laws were also passed
in New Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. It is not
necessary to follow out the provisions here,[7] but each of the Southern
colonies, as in later regulations, provided most minutely for all
possible cases. By a Virginia law of 1642, all persons who entertained
runaways, whether slaves or hired freemen, were to be fined twenty pounds
of tobacco for each night's hospitality. The fugitives were to add to
their tenure of service double their time of absence, and on a second
offence to be branded with the letter R.[8]
A curious regulation in 1660-1, in Virginia, provided that if a negro and
white bound servant ran away together, since the negro's time of
servitude was for life, and he was therefore incapable of making up his
lost time, the white servant's punishment should be doubled by adding the
negro's sentence to his own.[9] Another regulation, entitled "How to Know
a Runaway," commanded that all recovered fugitives have their hair "cutt"
close about their ears.[10]
Sometimes the penalties were even more severe, but the processes were
much the same. A person who found a slave or vagabond without a pass
usually took him before the next justice, who took cognizance of the
captor's good service, and certified it in the next Assembly: the runaway
was then delivered from constable to constable, until he was returned to
his master.
After 1700 the process grows yet more elaborate; for example, take a
North Carolina law of 1741. The securer of a runaway was to have seven
shillings and sixpence proclamation money, and for every mile over ten
which he conducted the fugitive threepence extra. When seized, runaways
were to be whipped and placed in the county gaol. If the owner was known,
he was notified and went for his slave; if not, a notice describing the
runaway must be placed upon the door of the court-house, and sent to the
clerk or reader of each church or chapel within the county. They were
required to post all such notices every Lord's day for two months in some
convenient place near the church. At the end of this time, should no
claimant appear, the slave must be sent from constable to constable, till
the public gaol of the government was reached. There, upon consent of the
court or of two justices, he might be sold to hire by the gaoler.[11] The
Maryland Archives record that in 1669 ten thousand pounds of tobacco were
appropriated to build one of these log-house gaols wherein fugitive
servants might be lodged.[12]
=Sec. 4. Regulations in New England colonies.=--Let us turn now to the New
England colonies. Here we must expect to find but few provisions, since
the class of slaves and bound servants was so small that it could easily
be controlled. The first law in Massachusetts Bay was passed in 1630, and
was entitled, "An Act respecting Masters, Servants, and Laborers." In
accordance with the arbitrary methods of government then pursued, it
included not only runaway servants, but also any persons who should
"privily go away with suspicion of evil intention," and ordered the
magistrate "to press men, boats, or pinnaces," and "to bring them back by
force of arms." A humane provision, usually wanting in Southern laws,
though also found in New Netherlands, declared that, whenever servants
fled on account of the tyranny of their masters, they should be protected
until measures for their relief could be taken.[13]
In Connecticut and New Hampshire similar laws were passed, and in 1707
Massachusetts Bay, in regulating the free negro population, enacted that
every freeman or mulatto who should harbor a negro servant in his house
without his owner's consent should pay five shillings for the use of the
poor of the town.[14]
In those days, when bridges were few, the ferrymen were apparently much
relied upon as agents to detect and apprehend runaways. In 1714 we find
that several negro slaves had been carried over ferries, and thus escaped
out of Rhode Island. The Assembly therefore enacted that "no ferryman or
boatman whatsoever, within this colony, shall carry or bring any slave as
aforesaid over their ferries, without a certificate under the hands of
their masters or mistresses, or some person in authority, upon the
penalty of paying all costs and damages their said masters or mistresses
shall sustain thereby: and to pay a fine of twenty shillings for the use
of the colony for each offence, as aforesaid." All persons were also
commanded to take up any slave they might find travelling about without a
pass.[15]
[Sidenote: Escapes in New England.]
=Sec. 5. Escapes in New England: Attucks case.=--Although we do not find
records of fugitive slave cases tried at this time within the New England
colonies, advertisements of runaways exist in sufficient numbers to prove
that escapes were common. It seems probable, therefore, that the return
of a slave when within his own colony was taken as a matter of course,
and roused so little opposition, and required so simple a process at law,
that matters concerning it would seldom find mention in the chronicles of
the time. Here is a typical advertisement:--
"Ran away from Samuel Gilbert of Littleton, an indentured Servant Boy,
named Samuel Gilson, about 17 years old, of a middling Stature for his
Age, and wears black curled Hair, he carried away with him a blue cloth
Coat, a light colored Jacket with sleeves, one pair of worsted
Stockings, two striped woolen Shirts, and one good linnen Shirt. He
went away in company with a short thick set Fellow, who wore a green
coat and a green Jacket double breasted, also a pair Indian green
Stockings. Whoever shall take up and secure, or give information of
said runaway, so that his master may find him again, shall receive a
Reward of two dollars and all necessary charges from
SAMUEL GILBERT.
"All masters of vessels and others are cautioned against harboring,"
etc.[16]
Again a case interesting not only as an illustration of the customs of
the time, but also because the fugitive himself bears a name known to
history in another connection, is noticed in the Boston Gazette of 1750.
Here is advertised as escaping, October 2, 1750, from his master, William
Browne of Framingham, Massachusetts, "A molatto fellow about twenty-seven
years of age, named Crispus." After describing his clothing and
appearance, a reward of ten pounds, old tenor, is offered for his return,
and "all masters of vessels and others are cautioned against concealing
said servant on penalty of law."[17] Tradition has it, however, that he
was never arrested, but returned of his own accord after a short time,
and was for the next twenty years a faithful servant.[18] Then, in 1770,
presumably while in town upon one of the expeditions he often undertook
to buy and sell cattle for his master, he was drawn into the Boston
Massacre of March 5.[19]
A somewhat famous case, which also occurred in Massachusetts, though many
years later, may here be mentioned. About 1769 one Rotch, a Quaker, and
therefore probably opposed to slavery, received on board the whaler
Friendship a young negro boy named Boston, belonging to the heirs of
William Swain. At the end of the voyage his master, John Swain, brought
action in the court of Nantucket against Captain Folger for the recovery
of the slave; the jury, whether from lack of evidence or from sympathy
cannot be determined, returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.[20]
[Sidenote: Dutch and Intercolonial Regulations.]
=Sec. 6. Dutch regulations in New Netherlands.=--The early New Netherlands
regulations furnish many interesting provisions concerning fugitive
servants. Apparently the servile class was numerous, and hard to govern.
In the words of the ordinance of 1640, "many servants daily run away from
their masters, whereby the latter are put to great inconvenience and
expense; the corn and tobacco rot in the field, and the whole harvest is
at a standstill, which tends to the serious injury of this country, to
their masters' ruin, and to bring the magistracy into contempt." It was
therefore ordained that runaways must, at the end of their term of
indenture, serve double the time of their absence, and make good all loss
and damage to their masters; while persons harboring fugitives were
obliged to pay a fine of fifty guilders.[21]
=Sec. 7. Escapes from New Amsterdam.=--Within these Dutch colonies there is
recorded a case of escape as early as 1659. Four menservants of Cornelis
Herperts de Jager, of New Amsterdam, ran away to Manhattan. One of them
soon returned, and in accordance with the regulation made in 1630 by the
West India Company,[22] requiring the return of fugitives in their
various settlements, one of the officers of the colony sent to Manhattan
an order to arrest and bring back the remaining three in chains.[23]
=Sec. 8. Intercolonial regulations.=--It will be seen that most of the
colonies considered some provision against runaways necessary to the
welfare of the settlements. To secure such legislation in a single colony
was a comparatively easy matter; but the unorganized and sparsely settled
condition of the country rendered any intercolonial regulations
difficult.
The first formal agreement of this kind was arranged by the New England
Confederation of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven, in
1643. In their Articles of Confederation was a clause which promised: "If
any servant runn away from his master into any other of these
confederated Jurisdiccons, That in such Case vpon the Certyficate of one
Majistrate in the Jurisdiccon out of which the said servant fled, or upon
other due proofe, the said servant shall be deliuered either to his
Master or any other that pursues and brings such Certificate or
proofe."[24] This clause contains the earliest statement of the
principles regarding the treatment of fugitive slave cases, afterward
carried out in the United States statutes of 1787, 1793, and 1850. There
was no trial by jury, but the certificate of a magistrate was sufficient
evidence to convict the runaway.
It is probable, also, that the rendition of fugitives was considered a
duty incumbent upon all colonies, whatever their relation to each other,
since about this time we find an agreement made for the mutual surrender
of fugitives between the Dutch at New Netherlands and the English at New
Haven.[25]
Not only did the slaves of the Dutch escape to the English colonies, but
they often fled to the forests, where recovery must have been almost
impossible unless the Indians could be induced to hunt them out. Curious
rewards were sometimes offered. Maryland, in 1669, ordered that any
Indian who shall apprehend a fugitive may have a "match coate," or its
value.[26] Virginia would give "20 armes length of Roanoke," or its
value,[27] while in Connecticut "two yards of cloth" was considered
sufficient inducement.[28] We have record of several conferences upon
this subject. Governor Burnett of New York asked his Indians to exert
themselves in behalf of the Governor of Virginia, who had written to him
about the escape of several of his negro servants to the mountains. The
Indians promised their help in this and any other search; but as they
seldom seem to have succeeded, it is probable that their sympathy was
with the fugitives.[29] Again Governor Burnett demanded the restoration
of a certain Indian slave whom they had kidnapped from the English. The
Indians acknowledged the fact, but they said that he was then sold to
others, and nothing further could be done.[30]
Canada even in these early times seems also to have been a haven for
fugitives. In 1705 New York passed an act, which was renewed in 1715, to
prevent slaves running away from frontier towns like Albany to Canada,
because it was of great importance, they said, in time of war, "that no
Intelligence be carried from the said city and county to the French in
Canada."[31]
During all this time the Southern colonies, especially the Carolinas and
Georgia, were also making many complaints in regard to the difficulty
they had in recovering the fugitives, both Indian and negro, who were
escaping in large numbers into Florida. There, among the Creek Indians
and the Spanish at St. Augustine, they easily found refuge.[32] This
difficulty was, however, not remedied in colonial times, but continued
long after the formation of the Federal Union, and in fact until the
close of the Seminole war, in 1845.
[Sidenote: Intercolonial Cases.]
=Sec. 9. Intercolonial cases.=--When, as was often the case, no agreement
upon the return of fugitives had been arranged between the colonies, the
rendition of a slave depended wholly upon the state of feeling existing
between the two peoples, and sometimes became an important question.
Between the New England colonies no cases have been found recorded,
although we infer that there must have been reason for the insertion of
a fugitive slave clause in the Articles of Confederation of 1643.[33]
Of other early cases one of the most interesting is the escape from
Virginia of four Englishmen belonging to the class of bound servants.
They rowed in a small boat up the coast as far as Cape May, where they
landed.[34] They soon found themselves objects of suspicion with the
people, and, as was a common practice, took refuge among the Indians.
About a year afterward their masters tracked them to their place of
refuge, and captured two of them, but the others were again beyond reach.
The Indians, who evidently did not always befriend runaways, had just
sold one of them, William Browne, to a Swede, and Browne, learning of his
former master's appearance, had found opportunity to escape. The fourth
of the fugitives was still among the Mantas, and could not be secured. Of
the two recaptured, one was returned without trouble, but the other,
Turc, who had just entered the service of a certain Pieter Aldrich,
resisted his captors. A struggle took place upon the boat in which they
were carrying him away. After wounding three of his guards, he succeeded
in making his escape, only to be recaptured almost immediately. When
tried for the deed at New Amsterdam, he received a death sentence.[35] In
this case, one of the most complete in detail left to us, may be found,
in the incidents of escape, pursuit, resistance, and final rendition, all
the features of the later fugitive slave cases. It is also an example
wherein the laws of the period, which required the rendition of a bound
white man in the same manner as a negro slave, were strictly carried out:
and in the diverse fates of the four men we find instances probably
typical of the fortunes of most fugitives of the time.
=Sec. 10. International relations.=--The proximity of the French, Spanish,
and Dutch settlements led to escapes from the colonies of one power into
those of another. All were slaveholding communities, and there was no
disposition to shield a slave because his lot was a hard one; but the
distrust and enmity between neighboring colonies owing allegiance to
different sovereigns caused such escapes to lead to petty quarrels. There
was no system of extradition treaties; in fact, there was as yet little
international law. Fugitives were demanded as an act of comity, and
sometimes their delivery was refused. It was hardly a subject on which
the home governments bestirred themselves. The colonies were left to make
their own agreements, or to settle their own disagreements.
[Sidenote: International Cases]
=Sec. 11. International cases.=--Thus far only those cases have been noticed
which arose within and between colonies of the same nation. Let us now
consider a very early case of disagreement between colonies of different
nations, which occurred in 1646. The commissioners of the United Colonies
made complaint to the Governor of New Netherlands that his Dutch agent at
Hartford was harboring one of their Indian slaves. Soon after, Governor
Stuyvesant was refused the return of some of his runaway servants from
New Haven. Thereupon the angry Lords of the West India Company issued a
proclamation commanding that there should be no rendition of fugitive
slaves to New Haven. This provision continued in effect until Governor
Elton sent back some of the fugitives to New Netherlands. It was then
annulled, and a mutual agreement to return the runaways was entered into
by the United Colonies and the Dutch.[36] Governor John Winthrop, in his
History of New England, refers to the case, and says that Massachusetts
Bay endeavored to bring about a reconciliation, and wrote to the Governor
of New Netherlands intimating to him that "at their request he might send
back the fugitives without prejudice to their right or reputation."[37]
Maryland also found difficulty, from the readiness with which her
servants could flee north to New Netherlands. In the State Archives may
be found a letter sent by the authorities to the Governor of New
Netherlands, as follows:--
"SIR,--Some servants being lately fledd out of this colony, into yours,
as is supposed, we could not promise ourselves from you that justice &
faire correspondence betweene the two governments so neerly bordering &
which are shortly like to be nearer neighbors in delaware bay, as to
hope that vpon the receiving of these Outres & the demand of the
parties interessted you will remand to us all such apprentice servants
as are or shall run out of this government into yours; and will compell
such other persons, as shall flie to you without a passe, being
indebted or otherwise obnoxious to the justice of this place, to make
such satisfaction to the parties endamaged by their unlawful departure,
upon their complaints and proofe thereof, as you shall find justice to
require. And you may promise yourself the like helpe and concurrence
from this governm't in that or any other thing as shalbe in the power
of it: And so we bid you heartilly farewell & rest.
"To the hon'ble the Governor of the New Netherlands."[38]
In 1659 the Dutch had occasion to ask the same favor of Maryland. Whether
there had been trouble between the colonies since the earlier letter we
do not know, but the spirit of the communication was quite different.
Instead of assurances of good will, and expressions of a belief in the
certainty of peaceful return, the Dutch threatened, if their servants
were not secured to them, "to publish free liberty, access and recess to
all planters, servants, negroes, fugitives, and runaways which may go
into New Netherland."[39]
Trouble was also constantly arising between the French and English, or
French and Dutch, in regard to the many runaways who fled from the
Eastern colonies northward to Canada. In 1750 there was a dispute about a
certain negro belonging to the English, but at that time in possession of
the Sieur de la Corne St. Luc; and, in a letter to a friend, one of the
officers of the colony makes the following explanation concerning them:
"In regard to the negro in possession of Sieur de la Corne St. Luc I
thought proper not to send him back every negro being a slave wherever he
be. Besides, I am only doing what the English did in 1747. Ensign de
Malbronne on board Le Screux had a negro servant who was at first taken
from him; I took pains to reclaim him, but the English refused to
surrender him on ground as above."[40]
=Sec. 12. Relations with the mother country.=--With only one country across
the sea was any question of fugitives likely to arise. In England white
slavery had long since died out, except as a punishment for crime;
villeinage ceased about the time the colonies were settled. But the
status of black slaves who were taken from the colonies to England was in
practice unchanged.
The principle thus apparently established by custom was overthrown by a
succession of legal decisions, culminating in the famous Somersett Case.
It was first decided by Thomas Grahame, judge in the Admiralty Court,
Glasgow, that a certain negro who had been brought into Great Britain
must be liberated, on the ground that a guiltless human being taken into
that country must be free.[41] In 1762 occurred another similar case. A
bill had been filed in equity by an administrator to recover money given
by his intestate to a negro brought to England as a slave. The suit was
dismissed by Lord Northington, who said that as soon as a man set foot on
English ground he was free.[42]
The Somersett case came ten years later. The circumstances were as
follows. A Mr. Stewart, accompanied by his slave Somersett, left Boston
on the 1st of October, 1769, and went to London, where he kept his slave
until October 1, 1771. Then Somersett ran away, but his owner soon
secured him and had him placed on board a vessel bound for Jamaica,
probably with the intention of selling him as a slave. A writ of habeas
corpus was then served upon the captain of the ship, and on the hearing
Lord Mansfield decided that Somersett must be discharged. In England, he
said, slavery could exist only by positive law; and in default of such
law there was no legal machinery for depriving a man of his liberty on
the ground that he was a slave. The importance of the case for the
colonies lay not in the assertion of the principle that slavery depended
on positive law, for the American statute-books were full of positive law
on slavery; the precedent thus established determined the future course
of England against the delivery of fugitives, whether from her colonies
or from other countries.[43]
=Sec. 13. International regulations under the Articles of Confederation
(1781-1788).=--When, on March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation went
into effect, the only action taken by the United States on the subject of
fugitives had been the negotiation of a treaty with the Delaware Indians,
August 7, 1778, by which the parties bound themselves not "to protect in
their respective States criminal fugitives, servants, or slaves, but the
same to apprehend, secure, and deliver."[44] In seven of the eight other
treaties negotiated with Indian tribes from 1784 to 1786, clauses were
introduced for the return of black prisoners, or of "negroes and other
property."[45] The States affected were chiefly Southern; but the article
on the same subject in the Treaty of Peace in 1782 and 1783, was intended
as much to protect the slaveholders of New York as those of Virginia. It
was distinctly agreed that the British should not carry away "any negroes
or other property."[46] The failure to abide by this agreement led to
reclamation by the American government, but no indemnity was ever
secured.[47]
[Sidenote: English Law. Northwest Ordinance.]
=Sec. 14. Ordinance for the Northwest Territory.=--Since all the thirteen
colonies recognized slavery, the Revolution made no difference in any
previous intercolonial practice as to the delivery of slaves; in framing
the Articles of Confederation no clause on the subject was thought
necessary. The precedent of the New England Confederation was forgotten
or ignored. But the action of the States of Vermont, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, in taking steps toward
immediate or gradual emancipation, from 1777 to 1784, brought up a new
question,--the status of fugitives in free regions. Before the change of
conditions in the States was completely understood, the same question had
arisen in the Western territories. Jefferson, in 1784, proposed to draw a
north and south line through the mouth of the Kanawha, west of which
there should be no slavery after 1800.[48] The next year a Northern man
proposed a similar limitation in the territory north of the Ohio, and
added a clause for the return of fugitive slaves to the original slave
States.[49] Neither of these two propositions was carried, but the
principles both of exclusion of slavery and of the return of fugitives
appear in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the first legislation by
Congress looking toward the surrender of fugitives by any Territory or
State. In providing a government for the new Territory, it was enacted,
July 13, 1787, that "any person escaping into the same from whom labor or
service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such
fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming
his or her labor or service as aforesaid."[50] The fugitive clause seems
to have provoked no discussion, but to have been accepted as a reasonable
condition of the limitation of slavery.
[Sidenote: Fugitive Question in Constitutional Conventions.]
=Sec. 15. The Fugitive question in the Constitutional Conventions.=--While
the Northwest Ordinance was passing through Congress, the Philadelphia
Convention was framing a new Constitution, and the return of fugitives
was again eagerly insisted upon by the slave States. The necessity of
some positive stipulation that fugitives should be returned was felt to
be even more necessary in a Constitution meant permanently to bind
together a free and a slaveholding section. The only debate of which we
have a record occurred August 28, 1787. Mr. Butler of North Carolina
pressed the point in behalf of the Southern States. To his first
proposition, "that fugitive slaves and servants be delivered up like
criminals,"[51] Mr. Wilson objected; he saw no reason for obliging the
state to arrest fugitives at public expense, while Mr. Sherman saw no
more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant
than a horse.[52] Mr. Butler therefore withdrew the proposition. He soon
introduced a more particular provision, which was accepted and inserted
in the Constitution, as follows:--
"NO PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOUR IN ONE STATE, UNDER THE LAWS
THEREOF, ESCAPING INTO ANOTHER, SHALL, IN CONSEQUENCE OF ANY LAW OR
REGULATION THEREIN, BE DISCHARGED FROM SUCH SERVICE OR LABOUR, BUT
SHALL BE DELIVERED UP ON CLAIM OF THE PARTY TO WHOM SUCH SERVICE OR
LABOUR MAY BE DUE."[53]
In the various Constitutional Conventions, there was little discussion
upon the matter. The Southern States in general considered the clause
sufficient to protect their property. General Charles C. Pinckney, in
South Carolina, said: "We have obtained the right to recover our slaves
in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we
have not had before. In short, considering all circumstances, we have
made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was
in our power to make. We would have made better if we could, but on the
whole I do not think them bad."[54] In North Carolina, Mr. Iredell
explained to the Convention that the Northern delegates, owing to their
peculiar scruples on the subject of slavery, did not choose the word
"slave" to be mentioned; but since the present laws were so prejudicial
to the inhabitants of the Southern States, some such clause was
necessary.[55] In Virginia, Mr. Grayson discussed the provision giving
Congress exclusive legislation over ten square miles surrounding the
capital. It seemed to him that, unless the ten miles square be considered
a State, "persons bound to labor who shall escape thereto will not be
given up. For they are only to be delivered up after they shall have
escaped into a State."[56] This objection, though perfectly good at the
time, was later overcome by the adoption by Congress of the laws of
Maryland for the regulation of the District of Columbia, whereby it was
made slave territory. Mr. Mason did not think the clause provided
sufficiently for the protection of their slaves,[57] but Mr. Madison
urged its adoption, as a better security than anything they then had.[58]
In the North, there was apparently no discussion upon this article.
Everywhere, however, it was thought that without such a clause the
Southern States would not consent to the Union, and, in a spirit of
compromise, the provision was accepted.
[Footnote 1: Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, I. 295.]
[Footnote 2: Nation, April 18, 1889.]
[Footnote 3: Appendix A, No. 1.]
[Footnote 4: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, XIII. 211.]
[Footnote 5: Appendix A, No. 45.]
[Footnote 6: Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, I. 295.]
[Footnote 7: The texts will be found post, Appendix A.]
[Footnote 8: Appendix A, No. 6.]
[Footnote 9: Appendix A, No. 23.]
[Footnote 10: Appendix A, No. 20.]
[Footnote 11: Iredell, 90; Appendix A, No. 73.]
[Footnote 12: Maryland Archives, II. 224.]
[Footnote 13: Appendix A, No. 2.]
[Footnote 14: Appendix A, No. 53.]
[Footnote 15: Appendix A, No. 57; Appendix D, No. 6.]
[Footnote 16: Boston Gazette, Jan. 1, 1770.]
[Footnote 17: Boston Gazette, Oct. 2, 1750; G. W. Williams, History of
the Negro Race in America, I. 330.]
[Footnote 18: Liberator, March 16, 1860.]
[Footnote 19: W. C. Nell's Address at the Nineteenth Anniversary of
Boston Massacre.]
[Footnote 20: Moore, Slavery in Massachusetts, 117.]
[Footnote 21: Appendix A, No 3; Appendix D, No. 10.]
[Footnote 22: See _ante_, Sec. 2.]
[Footnote 23: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, XIII. 238; Letter from Jacob
Aldrich to Director Stuyvesant of New Netherlands, New Amstel, 14 May,
1659; Documentary History of N. Y. Colony, II. 556; Appendix D, No. 2.]
[Footnote 24: Appendix A, No. 8, Gilman, History of the American People,
605.]
[Footnote 25: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, I. 342; Doyle, English in
America, I. 391.]
[Footnote 26: Maryland Archives, II. 523.]
[Footnote 27: Appendix A, No. 37.]
[Footnote 28: Acts and Laws of Connecticut, 229.]
[Footnote 29: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, V. 637; Appendix D, No. 4.]
[Footnote 30: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, V. 793.]
[Footnote 31: Appendix A, Nos. 50, 59.]
[Footnote 32: Giddings, Exiles of Florida, 281; Wilson, Rise and Fall of
the Slave Power in America, I. 122.]
[Footnote 33: _Ante_, Sec. 8.]
[Footnote 34: Letter from William Beekman to Director Stuyvesant, in N.
Y. Colonial Manuscripts, XIII. 346; Appendix D, No. 3.]
[Footnote 35: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, XIII. 346.]
[Footnote 36: Moore, Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts,
28; Doyle, English in America, I. 391; compare Appendix A, No. 14.]
[Footnote 37: John Winthrop, History of New England from 1630 to 1649,
p. 383; Appendix D, No. 1.]
[Footnote 38: Archives of Maryland, Proceedings of Council, 1636-1667,
pp. 134, 135.]
[Footnote 39: Archives of Maryland, Proceedings of Council, III. 472.]
[Footnote 40: Letter from M. de la Jonquiere to M. de Rouille, in N. Y.
Colonial Manuscripts, X. 209; Appendix D, No. 5.]
[Footnote 41: Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Third
Series, IX. 2; Appendix D, No. 7.]
[Footnote 42: J. Quincy, Reports of Cases, 96; Appendix D, No. 8.]
[Footnote 43: Moore, Slavery in Massachusetts, 117; T. R. Cobb,
Historical Sketch of Slavery, 2, Law of Negro Slavery, 164;
Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Third Series, IX. 2;
Josiah Quincy, Reports of Cases, 96; Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage,
II.]
[Footnote 44: Appendix B, No. 1.]
[Footnote 45: Appendix B, Nos. 3, 5.]
[Footnote 46: Appendix B, No. 2.]
[Footnote 47: Post, Sec. 22.]
[Footnote 48: Randall, Jefferson, I. 397-400; Winsor, VII. 528; Journals
of Congress, IX. 153-156.]
[Footnote 49: Appendix B, No. 4; Journals of Congress, X. 79; Bancroft,
History of the U. S. (last rev.), VI. 132-134; Bancroft, Constitution,
I. 178-180; Hildreth, III. 458.]
[Footnote 50: Appendix B, No. 6. On the Northwest Ordinance in general,
see Winsor, VII. 538; J. H. Merriam, Legislative History of the
Ordinance of 1787 (Worcester, 1888); Lalor's Cyclopaedia, III. 30-34.]
[Footnote 51: Elliot's Debates, V. 487.]
[Footnote 52: Ibid., V. 487.]
[Footnote 53: Appendix B, No. 7.]
[Footnote 54: Elliot's Debates, III. 277.]
[Footnote 55: Ibid., III. 182.]
[Footnote 56: Ibid., III. 401.]
[Footnote 57: Ibid., III. 428.]
[Footnote 58: Ibid., III. 335.]