that for the sake of _an abstract right_ whose very exercise
were disastrous to the unprepared bondmen who inherit it,
would tear this blest confederacy in pieces, and deluge
these smiling plains in fraternal blood, and barter the
loftiest freedom that the world ever saw, for the armed
despotism of a great civil warfare! That religious principle
which, in disaster to man's last great experiment, would
fling the whole race back into the gloom of an older
barbarism--rearing out of the ruin of these free homes, the
thrones of a more adamantine despotism--freedom's beacons
all extinguished, and the whole race slaves. That religious
principle through which, losing sight of God's great purpose
of evangelizing the nations, [by American Slavery,] would
shatter the mightiest wheel in the mechanism of salvation,
and palsy the wing of God's preaching angel in its flight
through the skies.
"Alas--alas! ye that count as little this bond of blessed
brotherhood, wrought by our fathers' mighty hands and
bleeding hearts--we tell you, sorrowing and in tears, that
your pretence is foul hypocrisy. Ye have reversed the first
precept of the gospel, for your wisdom is a dove's, and your
harmlessness a serpent's. _Ye have not the first principle
within you either of religion or philanthropy, or common
human benevolence._ Your principle is the principle of Judas
Iscariot, and with the doom of the traitor ye shall go to
your own place."
"No, Sir--no, Sir," concludes the Senator thirsting for his
constituent's blood, "'There is no gospel in all this treasonable
fanaticism--for treason to my country is rebellion to my God.'"
Judge Grier charged the Jury;--but as _he stuck out from the
phonographer's report_--of which the proof-sheets were sent to
him--_the most offensive portion_, Gentlemen of the Jury, I shall not
be able to enlighten you with all the legal words of this "consummate
judge." So be content with the following Elegant Extracts.
"With the exception of a few individuals of perverted
intellect in some small districts or neighborhoods whose
moral atmosphere has been tainted and poisoned by male and
female vagrant lecturers and conventions, no party in
politics, no sect of religion, or any respectable numbers or
character can be found within our borders, who have viewed
with approbation or have looked with any other than feelings
of abhorrence upon this disgraceful tragedy."
"It is not in this Hall of Independence that meetings of
infuriated fanatics and unprincipled demagogues have been
held to counsel a bloody resistance to the laws of the land.
It is not in _this_ city that conventions are held
denouncing the Constitution, the Laws, and the Bible. It is
not _here_ that the pulpit has been desecrated by seditious
exhortations, teaching that theft [a man stealing his own
limbs and person from his 'lawful owner'] is meritorious,
murder [in self-defence killing a man-stealer] excusable,
and treason [opposition to the fugitive slave bill] a
virtue!"
"The guilt of this foul murder [the shooting of a kidnapper
by the men whom he intended for his victims, and whose
premises he invaded without due process of law, and with
armed force], rests not alone on the deluded individuals who
were its immediate perpetrators, but the blood taints with
even deeper dye the skirts of those who promulgated
doctrines subversive of all morality and all government,
[that is, of Slavery and the fugitive slave bill]."
"This murderous tragedy is but the necessary development of
principles and the natural fruit from seed sown by others
whom the arm of the law cannot reach," [such as the Authors
of the Declaration of Independence, and still more the
Author of the "Sermon on the Mount]."
"This [the slave clause of the Constitution] is the Supreme
law of the land, _binding ... on the conscience_ and conduct
of every individual citizen of the United States." "The
shout of disapprobation with which this [the fugitive slave
bill] has been received by some, has been caused ... because
it is an act which can be executed ... the real objection
... is to the Constitution itself, which is supposed to be
void in this particular, from the effect of some 'higher
law.' It is true that the number of persons whose
consciences affect to be governed by such a law [that is the
law of Natural Morality and Religion], is very small. But
there is a much larger number who take up opinions on
trust,--and have concluded this must be a very pernicious
and unjust enactment, for no other reason than because the
others shout their disapprobation with such violence and
vituperation."
"This law is Constitutional." "The question of its
Constitutionality is to be settled by the Courts, [fugitive
slave bill courts,] and not by conventions either of laymen
or ecclesiastics." "_We are as much bound to support this
law as any other._" "The jury should regard the construction
of the Constitution as given them by the court as to what is
the true meaning of the words _levying war_." "In treason
all are principals, and a man may be guilty of aiding and
abetting, though not present."
He spoke of those "associations, or conventions, which occasionally or
annually infest the neighboring village of West-Chester, for the
purpose of railing at and resisting the Constitution and laws of the
land [that is the fugitive slave bill and other laws which annihilate
a man's unalienable right to his liberty], and denouncing those who
execute them as no better than a Scroggs or a Jeffreys;--who stimulate
and exhort poor negroes to the perpetration of offences which they
know must bring them to the penitentiary or the gallows."
But he thought refusing to aid the deputy marshal in kidnapping was
not an act of levying war, or treason against the United States. "In
so doing he is not acting the part of an honest, loyal citizen [who
ought to do any wickedness which a bum-bailiff commands]; he may be
_liable to be punished for a misdemeanor for his refusal to
interfere_."
"But he thought the government was right "in procuring an
indictment for Treason." For "meetings had been held in many
places in the North, denouncing the law, and advising a
traitorous resistance to its execution: conventions of
infuriated fanatics had invited to acts of rebellion; and
even the pulpit had been defiled with furious denunciations
of the law, and exhortations to a rebellious resistance to
it.
"The government was perfectly justified in supposing that
this transaction was but the first overt act of a
treasonable conspiracy, extending over many of the Northern
States, to resist by force of arms the execution of this
article of the Constitution and the laws framed in pursuance
of it. In making these arrests, and having this
investigation, the officers of government have done no more
than their strict duty.
"The activity, zeal, and ability, which have been exhibited
by the learned Attorney of the United States, in endeavoring
to bring to condign punishment the perpetrators of this
gross offence, are deserving of all praise. _It has given
great satisfaction to the Court also, that the learned
Attorney-General of Maryland, and the very able counsel
associated with him_ [Senator Cooper of Pennsylvania] _have
taken part in this prosecution_."
In about fifteen minutes the Jury returned a verdict of "NOT
GUILTY."[180]
[Footnote 180: See Report of Trial of Castner Hanway, Phil. 1852.]
* * * * *
(4.) On the 29th of April, 1852, a man named William Smith was
arrested by Commissioner McAllister of Columbia, Pennsylvania, on
complaint of one Ridgeley of Baltimore. While in the custody of the
officers, Smith endeavored to escape, and Ridgeley drew a pistol and
shot him dead. The murderer escaped. No serious efforts were made by
the State authorities to bring that offender to justice. "He has the
same right to repossess his slave here as in his own State;" the same
right to kill him if he attempts to escape! Mr. Toombs is modest--but
we shall soon see the slaveholder not only sit down with his slaves at
the foot of Bunker Hill Monument, but _shoot them if they attempt to
run away_! Nay, Gentlemen, we shall see this Court defending the
slave-hunter's "privilege."
(5.) Here is another case, Gentlemen of the Jury, in which this same
Judge Grier appears, and with his usual humanity. This is a brief
account of the case of Daniel Kauffman. In 1852 he allowed a party of
fugitive slaves to pass the night in his barn, and gave them food in
the morning. For this he was brought before Judge Grier's court and
fined $2,800! It was more than his entire property. Gentlemen, there
are persons in this room who gave money to Mr. Kauffman, to indemnify
him for his losses; were not they also guilty of treason, at least of
a "misdemeanor?" They "evinced an express liking" for Freedom and
Humanity, not Slavery and bloodshed.
(6.) But here is yet one more,--which you shall have in the language
of another:--
"In a case of attempted Slave-catching at Wilkesbarre, in
Pennsylvania, the Deputy Marshal, Wyncoop and his
assistants, had behaved with such atrocious and abominable
cruelty, that the citizens felt that justice demanded their
punishment for the outrage. They were, accordingly, arrested
on a warrant issued by a most respectable magistrate, on the
oath of one of the principal inhabitants of the place. A
writ of habeas corpus was forthwith sued out, returnable
before Judge Grier. When the District Attorney, Ashmead,
moved the discharge of the relators, (which, it is needless
to say, was ordered,) Judge Grier delivered himself to the
following effect. 'If _habeas corpuses_ are to be taken out
after that manner, _I will have an indictment sent to the
United States Grand-Jury against the person who applies for
the writ, or assists in getting it, the lawyer who defends
it, and the sheriff who serves the writ_, to see whether the
United States officers are to be arrested and harassed
whenever they attempt to serve a process of the United
States.'"
2. Gentlemen of the Jury, you might suppose that love of liberty had
altogether vanished from the "Free" States, else how could such men
ride over the local law as well as natural justice? But I am happy to
find one case where the wickedness of the fugitive slave bill courts
was resisted by the people and the local judges--it is a solitary
case, and occurred in Wisconsin:--
"About the middle of March, 1854, a man named Joshua Glover,
was seized near Racine, in Wisconsin, as a Fugitive Slave.
His arrest was marked by the circumstances of cruelty and
cowardice which seem to be essential to the execution of
this Law above all others. He was brought, chained and
bleeding, to Milwaukee, where he was lodged in jail. As soon
as the news spread, an indignation, as general as it was
righteous, prevailed throughout the city. A public meeting
was forthwith called, and held in the open air, at which
several of the principal citizens assisted. Stirring
speeches were made, and strong resolutions passed, to the
effect that the rights of the man should be asserted and
defended to the utmost. Counsel learned in the law
volunteered, and all necessary process was issued, as well
against the claimant for the assault and battery, as in
behalf of the man restrained of his liberty. A vigilance
committee was appointed to see that Glover was not secretly
hurried off, and the bells were ordered to be rung in case
any such attempt should be made. But the people were not
disposed to trust to the operation of the Slave Law,
administered by United States Judges or Commissioners, and
they stepped in and settled the question for themselves in a
summary manner. A hundred men arrived, in the afternoon,
from Racine, the town from which the man had been kidnapped,
who marched in order to the jail. They were soon reinforced
by multitudes more, and a formal demand was made for the
slave. This being denied, an attack was made upon the door,
which was soon broken in, the man released, and carried back
in triumph to Racine, whence he was afterwards conveyed
beyond the jurisdiction of the star-spangled banner. A mass
convention of the citizens of Wisconsin was afterwards held
to provide for similar cases, should they occur, and a most
sound and healthy tone of feeling appears to have pervaded
that youthful commonwealth.
"After the rescue had been effected, the United States
Marshal arrested several persons for the offence of
resisting an officer in the discharge of his duties. Among
these was Mr. Sherman M. Booth, the editor of the Free
Democrat. When brought before a Commissioner, in the custody
of the Marshal, a writ of habeas corpus was sued out on his
behalf, and he was brought before Judge A.D. Smith, of the
Supreme Court. After a full hearing, Judge Smith granted him
his discharge, on the ground that the fugitive slave law
was unconstitutional. The Marshal then had the proceedings
removed by a writ of certiorari before a full bench of the
Supreme Court, when the decision of Judge Smith was
confirmed, and Mr. Booth discharged from custody.
Immediately afterwards, Judge Miller, of the United States
District Court, issued another warrant for the arrest of Mr.
Booth, making no mention of the fugitive slave act, but
directing his arrest to answer to a charge for abetting the
escape of a prisoner from the custody of the United States
Marshal. Another writ of habeas corpus was sued out, but it
was denied by the Supreme Court, on the ground that there
was nothing on the face of the record to bring it within
range of their former decision."
"In the mean time the United States Judge and Marshal were
busy in their vocation. It affirmed that the Grand-Jury was
packed in the most unblushing manner, until an inquest was
made up that would answer the purpose of the Government.
However this may have been, indictments were found in the
District Court, against Mr. Booth and several other persons.
A petty Jury selected with the same care that had been
bestowed on the composition of the Grand-Jury, convicted Mr.
Booth and Mr. Ryecraft. All the weight of the government was
thrown against the defendants. Special counsel were retained
to assist the District Attorney, the instructions of the
Court were precise and definite against them; all motions in
their behalf resting on the irregularities and injustices of
the proceedings were overruled. So were all motions
subsequent to the conviction for an arrest of judgment. They
were sentenced to fine and imprisonment--Mr. Booth to pay
one thousand dollars and costs, and to be imprisoned one
month, and Mr. Ryecraft to pay two hundred dollars, and to
be imprisoned for ten days. On these sentences they were
committed to jail. The public excitement in Milwaukee, and
throughout the State, was intense. It was with difficulty
that the people could be restrained from forcibly liberating
the prisoners. Fortunately there was no occasion for any
such extreme measures. They found protection, where it ought
to be found, in the constituted authorities of their State.
A writ of habeas corpus was issued in their behalf by the
Supreme Court, then sitting at Madison, the Capital of the
State, returnable before them there. Escorted by two
thousand of their fellow-citizens, thither, in charge of the
High Sheriff, they had a hearing at once. After full
deliberation, the Court unanimously ordered them to be
discharged. The majority of the Court made this decision on
the ground of the unconstitutionality of the fugitive slave
law, one Judge (Crawford) sustaining the law, but concurring
in the order on the ground that no offence, under that Act,
was charged in the indictment. So the prisoners were
discharged, and brought home in triumph."
Gentlemen, that matter will be carried up to the Supreme Court of the
United States, and you may yet hear the opinion of the Hon. Associate
Justice Curtis, for which let us wait with becoming reverence.
* * * * *
3. Here is the case of Mr. Sloane, which happened in the State of
Ohio.
In October, 1852, several colored persons were about leaving Sandusky
in a steamer for Detroit, when they were seized and taken before Mr.
Follet, mayor of the city, and claimed as fugitive slaves. This
seizure was made by the city marshal and three persons claiming to act
for the owners of the slaves.
After the colored persons were brought before the mayor, their friends
engaged Mr. Rush R. Sloane to act as counsel in their defence. He
demanded of the mayor and the claimants by what authority the
prisoners were detained. There was no reply. He then asked, whether
they were in the custody of a United States Marshal or Commissioner.
Again there was no reply. He next called for any writs, papers, or
evidences by which they were detained. Still there was no answer. He
then said to his clients, "_I see no authority to detain your colored
friends._"
At that time some one near the door cried out, "Hustle them out," and
soon the crowd and the alleged fugitives were in the street. Then one
of the claimants said to Mr. Sloane, "I own these slaves; they are my
property, and I shall hold you individually liable for their escape."
_These were the first and only words he spoke to Mr. Sloane, and then
not until the black men were in the street._
In due time Mr. Sloane was arrested for resisting the execution of the
fugitive slave bill, though he had _only acted as legal counsel for
the alleged slaves and had offered no resistance to the law, by deed,
or word, or sign_.
He was brought to trial at Columbus. Before the jurors were sworn they
were all asked "whether they had any conscientious scruples against
the fugitive slave law, and would hesitate to convict under it." If
they said "Yes," they were rejected. Thus a jury was packed for the
purpose, and the trial went on. Thirteen unimpeached witnesses deposed
to the facts stated before, while the slave claimant had no evidence
but the _city marshal_ of Sandusky--the Tukey of that place--and _two
of the three slave-catchers_--who swore that they had with them
_powers of attorney for the seizure of twenty-four slaves_.
Gentlemen, such was the action of the court, and such the complexion
of the packed jury, that Mr. Sloane was found "guilty." The Judge,
Hon. Mr. Leavitt, refused to sign a bill of exceptions, enabling him
to bring the matter before the Supreme Court. Mr. Sloane was sentenced
to pay a fine of $3,000, and $930 _as costs of court_! Such was the
penalty for a lawyer telling his clients that he saw no authority to
detain them,--after having three times demanded the authority, and
none had been shown!
* * * * *
4. Gentlemen of the Jury, I now come to cases which have happened in
our own State,--in this city. Some alarm was felt as soon as Mr.
Mason's fugitive slave bill was proposed in the Senate. But men said,
"No northern man will support it. There is much smoke and no fire."
But when on the 7th of March, 1850, Mr. Webster adopted the bill, and
promised to defend it and the amendments to it, "with all its
provisions to the fullest extent;" when he declared that Massachusetts
would execute the infamous measure "with alacrity"--then not only
alarm but indignation took possession of northern breasts. The friends
of Slavery at Boston must do all in their power to secure the passage
of the bill, the prosperity of its adoptive father, and its ultimate
enforcement--the kidnapping of men in Massachusetts. Here are the
measures resorted to for attaining this end.
i. A meeting was called at the Revere House, that Mr. Webster might
defend his scheme for stealing his constituents and putting himself
into the Presidency.
ii. A public letter was written to him approving of his attempts to
restore man-stealing, and other accompaniments of slavery, to the free
States. This letter declared the "deep obligations" of the signers
"for what this speech has done and is doing;" "we wish to thank you,"
they say, "for recalling us to our duties under the constitution;"
"you have pointed out to a whole people the path of duty, have
convinced the understanding, and touched the conscience of the
nation;" "we desire, therefore, to express to you our entire
concurrence in the sentiments of your speech." This letter was dated
at Boston, March 25th, 1850, and received 987 signatures, it is said.
iii. When the bill became an Act of government, a hundred cannons, as
I have before stated, were fired on Boston Common in token of joy at
the restoration of slavery to our New England soil.
iv. Articles were written in the newspapers in defence of kidnapping,
in justification of the fugitive slave bill. The _Boston Courier_ and
_Boston Daily Advertiser_ gave what influence they had in support of
that crime against America.
v. Several ministers of Boston came out and publicly, in sermons in
their own pulpits, defended the fugitive slave bill, and called on
their parishioners to enforce the law!
Gentlemen of the Jury, need I tell you of the feelings of the
Philanthropists of Boston,--of the colored citizens who were to be the
victims of this new abomination! Within twenty-four hours of its
passage more than thirty citizens of Boston, colored citizens, fled in
their peril to a man whose delight it is to undo the heavy burthens
and let the oppressed go free. While others were firing their joyful
cannon at the prospect of kidnapping their brothers and sisters,
Francis Jackson helped his fellow Christians into the ark of
Deliverance which he set afloat on that flood of Sin. Gentlemen, he is
here to-day--he is one of my bondsmen. There are the others--this
venerable gentleman [Samuel May], this steadfast friend [John R.
Manley.]
vi. It was not long before the kidnappers came here for their prey.
(1.) I must dwell a moment on the first attempt. Gentlemen of the
Jury, you know the story of William and Ellen Craft. They were slaves
in Georgia; their master was said to be a "very pious man," "an
excellent Christian." Ellen had a little baby,--it was sick and ready
to die. But one day her "owner"--for this wife and mother was only a
piece of property--had a dinner party at his house. Ellen must leave
her dying child and wait upon the table. She was not permitted to
catch the last sighing of her only child with her own lips; other and
ruder hands must attend to the mother's sad privilege. But the groans
and moanings of the dying child came to her ear and mingled with the
joy and merriment of the guests whom the mother must wait upon. At
length the moanings all were still--for Death took a North-side view
of the little boy, and the born-slave had gone where the servant is
free from his master and the weary is at rest--for _there_ the wicked
cease from troubling. Ellen and William resolved to flee to the North.
They cherished the plan for years; he was a joiner, and hired himself
of his owner for about two hundred dollars a year. They saved a little
money, and stealthily, piece by piece, they bought a suit of
gentleman's clothes to fit the wife; no two garments were obtained of
the same dealer. Ellen disguised herself as a man, William attending
as her servant, and so they fled off and came to Boston. No doubt
these Hon. Judges think it was a very "immoral" thing. Mr. Curtis
knows no morality here but "legality." Nay, it was a wicked thing--for
Mr. Everett, a most accomplished scholar, and once a Unitarian
minister, makes St. Paul command "SLAVES, obey your masters!" Nay,
Hon. Judge Sprague says it is a "precept" of our "Divine Master!"