_PRINCIPAL CASES FROM 1789 TO 1860._
Sec. 33. Change in character of cases.
Sec. 34. The first case of rescue (1793).
Sec. 35. President Washington's demand for a fugitive (1796).
Sec. 36. Kidnapping cases.
Sec. 37. Jones case (1836).
Sec. 38. Solomon Northrup case (about 1830).
Sec. 39. Washington case (between 1840 and 1850).
Sec. 40. Oberlin case (1841).
Sec. 41. Interference and rescues.
Sec. 42. Chickasaw rescue (1836).
Sec. 43. Philadelphia case (1838).
Sec. 44. Latimer case (1842).
Sec. 45. Ottoman case (1846).
Sec. 46. Interstate relations.
Sec. 47. Boston and Isaac cases (1837, 1839).
Sec. 48. Ohio and Kentucky cases (1848).
Sec. 49. Prosecutions.
Sec. 50. Van Zandt, Pearl, and Walker cases (1840, 1844).
Sec. 51. Unpopularity of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Sec. 52. Principle of the selection of cases.
Sec. 53. Hamlet case (1850).
Sec. 54. Sims case (1851).
Sec. 55. Burns case (1854).
Sec. 56. Garner case (1856).
Sec. 57. Shadrach case (1851).
Sec. 58. Jerry McHenry case (1851).
Sec. 59. Oberlin-Wellington case (1858).
Sec. 60. Christiana case (1851).
Sec. 61. Miller case (1851).
Sec. 62. John Brown in Kansas (1858).
=Sec. 33. Change in character of cases.=--The cases of escape which occur in
the period beginning with the formation of the Constitution, and ending
with the passage 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 classified 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.]
=Sec. 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 assembled; 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 passage
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
Massachusetts."[169]
=Sec. 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 emancipation 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.]
=Sec. 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.
=Sec. 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 assault
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 assurance 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]
=Sec. 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. Bass 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]
=Sec. 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 assume 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]
=Sec. 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.]
=Sec. 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.
=Sec. 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]
=Sec. 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 identity 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 participating in
it.[177]
=Sec. 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 circumstances.
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. Petitions 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 petition was prepared and sent to Congress, asking an
amendment to the Constitution. This was signed by fifty thousand people
in Massachusetts, 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 petition to Congress was not received. A
resolution from the Latimer committee, which proposed an amendment to the
Constitution 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]
=Sec. 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.]
=Sec. 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
municipal law of another.
=Sec. 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]
=Sec. 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.]
=Sec. 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.
=Sec. 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]
=Sec. 51. Unpopularity of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.=--The passage 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]
=Sec. 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.
=Sec. 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 passage 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.]
=Sec. 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
constitutional 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 Massachusetts. 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
mass meeting was held on the Common and in Tremont Temple. Wendell
Phillips and Theodore Parker addressed the assemblage, 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]
=Sec. 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 glass. 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 identity 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 multitude, 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.]
=Sec. 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]
=Sec. 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 assistance. 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 assist 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 constitutional
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 assumptions 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 entitled 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.]
=Sec. 58. Jerry McHenry rescue (1851).=--Later, a case occurred at Syracuse,
New York, which was a significant illustration 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 pass. 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 assembled, and
an assault 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 instituted, 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 unconstitutional, but a verdict of
not guilty was rendered.[210]
=Sec. 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]
[Sidenote: Castner Hanway. John Brown.]
=Sec. 60. Christiana case (1851).=--Occasionally the rescue of fugitives was
not accomplished by a sudden unorganized movement, but by a deliberate
armed defence on the part of the slaves and their friends. In the
Christiana case the affair was marked by violence and bloodshed, while
the fact that the Quakers Castner Hanway and Elijah Lewis were afterward
prosecuted made it notorious; and the further fact that the charge was
not, as usual, that of aiding a fugitive, but of treason, gave it still
greater interest.
In and about Christiana, Pennsylvania, there were many negroes who had
formerly been slaves, descriptions of whom were frequently furnished to
kidnappers by a band of men known throughout the country as the "Gap
Gang." A league for mutual protection had therefore been formed by the
colored people, and prominent among them for intelligence and boldness
was William Parker. Soon after the passage of the law of 1850, Edward
Gorsuch and a party came from Maryland to Christiana for a fugitive
slave. With United States officers from Philadelphia they went
immediately to the house of William Parker, where the man they were
seeking was sheltered. When their demand was refused, they fired two
shots at the house. This roused the people, and a riot ensued in which
the fugitive escaped. Mr. Gorsuch was killed, his son desperately
wounded, and the rest put to flight. Castner Hanway at the beginning of
the struggle was notified of the kidnappers' presence, and, though feeble
in health, hastened to the scene. When ordered by Marshal Kline to aid
him in accordance with the law, he refused; yet, far from leading in the
affair, he tried in every way to prevent bloodshed and bring about peace.
After it was over, Parker, with two other colored men, knowing that
arrest must follow, secreted themselves under piles of shavings in an old
carpenter's shop. At night they sent four wagons in different directions
as decoys for the detectives, and were carried safely away by a fifth.
Many negroes hid that night in the corn shocks, and under the floors of
houses, until escape could be made in safety.[212]
Castner Hanway was arrested, and arraigned before the United States court
on the charge of treason; but no proof of a conspiracy to make a general
and public resistance to the law could be found, and he was acquitted.
Afterward it was desired to try Hanway and Lewis for "riot and murder,"
but the grand jury ignored the bill, and all prisoners were released.
With these prosecutions the end of the affair was apparently reached,
though perhaps its influence may be traced in a succeeding case.
=Sec. 61. Miller case (1851).=--A noted kidnapper from Maryland, in 1851,
seized a free negro girl living at the house of Mr. Miller, in
Nottingham, Pennsylvania, and took her to Baltimore. Mr. Miller followed
them, and succeeded in getting her freed. He then started back, but never
reached home. Search was made, and his body found upon the way. It was
thought that the murder was committed in revenge for the part he had
taken in the Christiana riot.[213]
=Sec. 62. John Brown in Kansas (1858).=--It was during this period also that
John Brown was endeavoring to put into execution his famous plan for
freeing the slaves. This is interesting, not only as typical of organized
efforts to free the slaves on the plantations, but also because of its
connection with other phases of the slavery question, into which we shall
not attempt to enter here. His idea was first to gather as large a force
as possible, then, when his men were properly drilled, to run off the
slaves in large numbers; to retain the brave and strong in the mountains,
and to send the weak and timid to the North by the "Underground
Railroad."[214]
In December, 1858, Brown divided his forces into two divisions, and went
into Missouri. Here he succeeded in freeing eleven slaves, and, though
pursued by a far superior number of Missourians, took them safely into
Kansas. The affair, by its boldness, created great excitement throughout
the South. The Governor of Missouri offered three thousand dollars
reward, and the President of the United States two hundred and fifty
dollars, for Brown's capture; within a very short time he had succeeded
in conveying himself and his eleven fugitives safely into Canada, and the
horses which he had appropriated from the slaveholders in order to carry
his proteges out of Kansas were afterward publicly sold by him in
Ohio.[215]
[Footnote 169: Mr. Quincy also states, that "about a fortnight elapsed,
when I was called upon by Rufus Green Amory, a lawyer of eminence at the
Boston bar in that day, who showed me a letter from a Southern
slaveholder, directing him to prosecute Josiah Quincy for the penalty
under the law of 1793, for obstructing the agent of the claimant in
obtaining his slave under the process established by that law. Mr. Amory
felt, no less than myself, the folly of such a pretence; and I never
heard from him, or from any one, anything more upon the subject of
prosecution. This fact, and the universal gratification which the fact
appeared to give to the public, satisfied my mind, that, unless by
accident, or stealth, or in some very thin settled part of the country,
the law of 1793 would be forever inoperative, as the event has proved in
Massachusetts."--Meeting at Faneuil Hall to protest against the Fugitive
Slave Law, letter read from Josiah Quincy, Boston Atlas, Oct. 15, 1850;
Goodell, Slavery and Antislavery, 232; Appendix D, No. 12.]
[Footnote 170: Appendix D, No. 13.]
[Footnote 171: Appendix D, No. 19.]
[Footnote 172: Appendix D, No. 16.]
[Footnote 173: Appendix D, No. 42.]
[Footnote 174: Appendix D, No. 26.]
[Footnote 175: Appendix D, No. 20.]
[Footnote 176: Appendix D, No. 22.]
[Footnote 177: Appendix D, No. 35.]
[Footnote 178: See post, Sec. 81.]
[Footnote 179: _Ante_, Sec. 25.]
[Footnote 180: Appendix D, No. 28; see _post_, Sec. 81.]
[Footnote 181: Appendix D, No. 34.]
[Footnote 182: _Ante_, Sec. 25.]
[Footnote 183: Appendix D, No. 21.]
[Footnote 184: Appendix D, No. 24.]
[Footnote 185: Appendix D, No. 37.]
[Footnote 186: Appendix D, No. 25.]
[Footnote 187: Appendix D, No. 40.]
[Footnote 188: Appendix D, No. 31.]
[Footnote 189: Liberator, Aug. 15, 1845, "The Branded Hand."]
[Footnote 190: Von Holst, IV. 10, 11.]
[Footnote 191: J. F. Clarke, Antislavery Days, 92.]
[Footnote 192: Appendix D, No. 43.]
[Footnote 193: Appendix D, No. 48.]
[Footnote 194: Liberator, April 17, 1851.]
[Footnote 195: Daily Morning Chronicle, April 26, 1851.]
[Footnote 196: Liberator, April 17, 1851.]
[Footnote 197: Appendix D, No. 57.]
[Footnote 198: Boston Journal, May 29, 1854.]
[Footnote 199: Personal statement of Mr. Elbridge Sprague, made to the
writer. Col. T. W. Higginson suggests a few minor corrections in Mr.
Sprague's narrative. The first person to step in was an unknown negro:
the beam used was found in Court Square; none were prepared beforehand;
there was but one box of axes.]
[Footnote 200: Boston Daily Advertiser, 1854, Worcester Spy, May 31,
1854, Argument of Mr. R. H. Dana.]
[Footnote 201: Liberator, Aug. 22, 1854.]
[Footnote 202: Von Holst, V. 64.]
[Footnote 203: Appendix D, No. 57.]
[Footnote 204: Commonwealth, June 26, 1854.]
[Footnote 205: Appendix D, No. 58.]
[Footnote 206: See post, Sec. 81.]
[Footnote 207: Appendix D, No. 47.]
[Footnote 208: 31 Cong. 2 Sess., Senate Journal, 187; Congressional
Globe, 580.]
[Footnote 209: Von Holst, III. 25.]
[Footnote 210: Appendix D, No. 51.]
[Footnote 211: Appendix D, No. 62.]
[Footnote 212: Appendix D, No. 49.]
[Footnote 213: Appendix D, No. 50.]
[Footnote 214: Sanborn, Life and Letters of John Brown, 420; Douglass,
Life and Times of John Brown, 279, 282.]
[Footnote 215: Von Holst, John Brown, 104.]