{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_31191/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_31191","id":"gutenberg_31191","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31191","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - American","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Eliot, Samuel Atkins, 1798-1862","Fugitive slave law of 1850","Slavery -- United States"],"text":"Produced by Meredith Bach, Odessa Paige Turner and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n(This book was produced from scanned images of public\ndomain material from the Google Print project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  A\n  LETTER\n  TO\n\nTHE HON. SAMUEL A. ELIOT,\n\nREPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE CITY OF BOSTON,\n\nin reply to his\n\n  APOLOGY FOR VOTING FOR THE FUGITIVE\n  SLAVE BILL.\n\nBY HANCOCK\n\n\n  BOSTON:\n  WM. CROSBY & H. P. NICHOLS,\n  111 WASHINGTON STREET.\n  1851.\n\n\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE:\n\nMETCALF AND COMPANY,\n\nPRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY.\n\n\n\n\nA LETTER, &c.\n\n\nSIR;--\n\nAn English courtier procured a colonial judgeship for a young dependant\nwholly ignorant of law. The new functionary, on parting with his patron,\nreceived from him the following sage advice,--\"Be careful never to\nassign reasons, for whether your judgments be right or wrong, your\nreasons will certainly be bad.\" You have cause to regret that some\nfriend had not been equally provident of your reputation, and intimated\nthat it was only expected of you to vote for Mr. Webster's measures, but\nby no means to assist him in vindicating them. You did, indeed, vote\nprecisely as those who procured your nomination intended you should;\nyet, on your return home, you found your name had become a byword and a\nreproach in your native State. Another election approached, but you\ndeclined submitting your recent course to the judgment of the electors,\nand withdrew from the canvass. But although the people were thus\nprevented from voting against you, they persisted in speaking and\nwriting against you. Anxious to relieve yourself from the load of\nobloquy by which you were oppressed, in an evil hour you rashly appealed\nto the public through the columns of a newspaper, and gave the \"reasons\"\nof your vote for the Fugitive Slave Law. You had a high and recent\nexample of the kind of logic suited to your case. You might have\nindulged in transcendental nonsense, and talked about the climate,\nsoil, and scenery of New England and the wonders of physical geography,\nand, assuming that negroes were created free, you might have contended\nthat, in voting for a law to catch and enslave them, you had avoided the\nfolly of reenacting the law of God. Reasons of this sort, you and others\nhad declared, \"had convinced the understanding and touched the\nconscience of the nation.\" Instead of following an example so\nillustrious and successful, you assign \"reasons\" so very commonplace,\nthat the most ordinary capacity can understand them, and so feeble, that\nthe slightest strength can overthrow them.\n\nYour first \"reason\" is, that the delivery of fugitives is a\nconstitutional obligation. By this you mean, that, by virtue of the\nconstruction of a certain clause in the Constitution by the Supreme\nCourt, Congress has the power to pass a law for the recovery of fugitive\nslaves. Well, Sir, does this constitutional obligation authorize\nCongress to pass _any_ law whatsoever on the subject, however atrocious\nand wicked? Had you voted for a law to prevent smuggling, in which you\nhad authorized every tide-waiter to shoot any person suspected of having\ncontraband goods in his possession, would it have been a good \"reason\"\nfor such an atrocity, that the collection of duties was \"a\nconstitutional obligation\"? You are condemned for voting for an\narbitrary, detestable, diabolical law,--one that tramples upon the\nrights of conscience, outrages the feelings of humanity, discards the\nrules of evidence, levels all the barriers erected by the common law for\nthe protection of personal liberty, and, in defiance of the\nConstitution, and against its express provisions, gives to the courts\nthe appointment of legions of slave-catching judges. And your \"reason\"\nfor all this is, that the delivery of fugitives is \"a constitutional\nobligation\"! The \"obligation\" is not in issue. Please to understand,\nSir, that it is not denied. It is for the _manner_ in which you profess\nto have discharged the obligation that you are censured, and be it\nremembered, that not one of the obnoxious provisions of your law is\nrequired by the Constitution. You go on and attempt to enlighten your\nconstituents as to the history of this constitutional obligation. As the\nobligation affords you no apology for the iniquitous features of your\nlaw, its history is, of course, mere surplusage, and serves no other\npurpose than to divert the attention of your readers from yourself.\nAbout two thirds of your apology is occupied with an historical\ndisquisition, which has as much to do with your vindication as the\nquestion respecting the existence of a lunar atmosphere. I will not,\nhowever, withhold from you whatever benefit you may derive from either\nyour logic or your history, but will give each a fair and honest\nexamination. You inform the public that, at the time the Constitution\nwas formed,\n\n     \"Slavery had been abolished in some of the States, and still\n     existed in others. Here seemed an insurmountable incompatibility of\n     interests, and nothing perplexed the wise men of that day--and they\n     were _very_ wise men--so much as this topic. At last they agreed\n     that the new Constitution should have nothing to do with it; that\n     the word _slavery_ should not be mentioned in it, and that it\n     should be left to the States themselves to establish, retain, or\n     abolish it, just as much after the adoption of the Constitution as\n     before. But in order to secure the existence of the institution to\n     those States who preferred it, it was agreed that the persons\n     escaping from labor to which they were bound, in one commonwealth,\n     and found in another, should be returned to the State from which\n     they had fled. The provision was necessary for the preservation of\n     this interest _in statu quo_. It did not extend slavery. It kept it\n     where it already was, and where it could not have continued if\n     every slave who escaped North was at once free and irreclaimable.\n     The members of the confederacy from the South saw this distinctly,\n     and _deliberately declared_ that they could not and would not enter\n     a union with States who would tempt away their slaves with the\n     prospect of immediate and permanent freedom.... The Constitution\n     was adopted with this provision, and it could not have been adopted\n     without it.\"\n\nThus we learn from you, Sir, that when the Constitution was formed,\n\"slavery had been abolished in some of the States.\" It is a pity you did\nnot vouchsafe to tell us which of the States had thus early and\nhonorably distinguished themselves. Of the thirteen American States in\n1787, how many, Sir, had _by law_ abolished slavery? NOT ONE. Your \"some\nStates\" consisted of MASSACHUSETTS alone. And how was slavery abolished\nthere? Not by any express prohibition in her constitution, nor by any\nact of her legislature. Fortunately, her constitution, like that of most\nother States, contained a general declaration of human rights, somewhat\nsimilar to the \"rhetorical abstraction\" in the Declaration of\nIndependence. Two or three years before the Federal Convention\nassembled, a young lawyer, perceiving that the declaration in the\nconstitution had inadvertently made no exclusion of the rights of men\nwith dark complexions, brought an action for a slave against his master\nfor work done and performed. An upright and independent court, not\nhaving the fear of our Southern brethren before their eyes, decided that\nthe slave was a MAN, and therefore entitled to the rights which the\nconstitution declared belonged to _all_ men, and gave judgment for the\nplaintiff. In this way, Sir, was slavery abolished in Massachusetts, and\nhence the delegates from Massachusetts in the Convention were the only\nones who represented a _free_ State. And now, Sir, what becomes of your\n\"insurmountable incompatibility of interests\" arising from the fact that\n\"slavery had been abolished in some States and still existed in others,\"\nwhich you tell us so much perplexed the wise men of that day? We shall\nsee, Sir, that on questions touching human bondage the Massachusetts\ndelegation seem to have been slaveholders in heart, and did not partake\nof the perplexity which troubled the wise men. With the exception of\nthat delegation, there were not probably half a dozen members of the\nconvention who were not slaveholders.\n\nIt would seem from your historical review, that the clause in the\nConstitution respecting fugitive slaves was the grand compromise\nbetween the North and the South, without which \"the Constitution could\nnot have been adopted\"; and that to this clause we owe our glorious\nslave-catching Union. You fortify this wonderful historical discovery by\nappealing to the \"deliberate declarations\" of Southern members, that\nthey \"would not enter a union with States who would tempt away their\nslaves,\" &c. It is to be regretted that you have not deemed it expedient\nto refer to the records of these declarations, as other students of our\nconstitutional history are wholly ignorant of them. Suffer me, Sir, to\nenter into a few historical details, for the purpose of vindicating the\nliberty I take to differ with you as to the accuracy of your statements.\n\nThe Convention met in Philadelphia, 25th May, 1787. On the 29th of the\nsame month, Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, submitted a plan of government.\nIt contained no allusion to fugitive slaves. On the same day, Mr.\nCharles Pinckney, of South Carolina, submitted another plan. This last\nprovided for the surrender of fugitive criminals, but was silent about\nfugitive slaves. On the 15th of June, Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey,\nsubmitted a third plan. This also provided for the surrender of\nfugitives from justice, but not from bondage. On the 18th, Mr. Hamilton\nannounced his plan, but the fugitive slave found no place in it. On the\n26th of June, the Convention, having agreed on the general features of\nthe proposed Constitution in the form of resolutions, referred them to\n\"a committee of detail,\" for the purpose of reducing them to the form of\na Constitution. In these resolutions, there was not the most distant\nallusion to fugitive slaves. On the 6th of August, the committee\nreported the draft of a Constitution, and yet, strange as you may deem\nit, the provision without which, you tell us, the Constitution could not\nhave been adopted, was not in it, although there was in it a provision\nfor the surrender of fugitive criminals. For three months had the\nConvention been in session, and not one syllable had been uttered about\nfugitive slaves. At last, on the 29th of August, as we learn from the\nminutes, \"It was moved and seconded to agree to the following\nproposition, to be inserted after the 15th article: 'If any person,\nbound to service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into\nanother State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or\nlabor in consequence of any regulation subsisting in the State to which\nthey escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming\ntheir service or labor,' _which passed unanimously_.\" Really, Sir, I\nfind in this record but little evidence of the perplexity which\ndistressed our wise men, or of the great compromise between the North\nand South, on which you dwell. The 15th article, referred to above, was\nthe article providing for the surrender of fugitives from justice, and\nthis suggested the idea, that it would be well to provide, also, for the\nsurrender of fugitive slaves. In an assembly consisting almost\nexclusively of slaveholders, the idea was exceedingly relished; and\nwithout a word of opposition, the suggestion was unanimously adopted.\nFrom Mr. Madison's report we learn that, the day before, Messrs. Butler\nand Pinckney had informally proposed that fugitive slaves and servants\nshould be delivered up \"like criminals.\" \"Mr. Wilson [of Penn.]. This\nwould oblige the Executive of the State to do it at the public expense.\nMr. Sherman [of Conn.] saw no more propriety in the public seizing and\nsurrendering a slave or servant than a horse.\" (_Madison Papers_, p.\n1447.) The subject was here dropped. The next day the motion was made in\nform, and, as Mr. Madison says, \"agreed to, _nem. con._\" From the\nphraseology of the motion, and the objections of Messrs. Wilson and\nSherman, it was perfectly understood that the obligation of delivery was\nimposed on the States, and that no power was intended to be conferred on\nCongress to legislate on the subject. Messrs. Wilson and Sherman's\nobjections arose from no moral repugnance to slave-catching, but from\nthe inconvenience they apprehended the _State_ authorities would be\nsubjected to; and Mr. Wilson perhaps spoke from experience, as his own\nState had at that very time a law for catching and returning fugitive\nslaves from other States. The idea, therefore, that this agreement was a\n_compromise_ between the North and South is wholly imaginary, and you,\nSir, must have mistaken some recent fulminations from the Southern\nchivalry for the \"deliberate declarations\" which you suppose were made\nin the Convention. Believe me, Sir, no members of the Convention ever\ndeclared they would not enter into the Union, unless it was agreed to\nsurrender fugitive slaves, for the obvious reason, that the Northern\nslaveholders required no threats from their Southern brethren to consent\nto a compact convenient to both. It is very true, Sir, that there were\ncompromises, and that there were \"deliberate declarations,\" but they had\nno reference to the surrender of runaway slaves. I have pointed out your\nhistorical mistake, not because it has the remotest bearing on your\njustification, but because you seem to think that it has.\n\nThe first great compromise was between, not the North and the South, but\nthe small and the large States. The one claimed, and the other refused,\nan equality of suffrage in the national legislature. It was at last\nagreed, that the suffrage should be equal in one house, and according to\npopulation in the other. This was the first compromise. Then came the\nquestion, What should constitute the representative population? The\nSouthern States had more slaves than the Northern, and the former\ninsisted that slaves should be included in the representative\npopulation. This would have given the Southern States an unfair\npreponderance in Congress. Moreover, a portion of the Southern States\nwere engaged in the African slave-trade, and, of course, every slave\nlanded on their shores would increase their political power in Congress.\nTo reconcile the North to slave representation, it was offered that\n_direct taxation_ should be proportioned to representation. But the\nNorth was reluctant, and, as usual, was bullied into a compromise. Mr.\nDavie, of North Carolina, made a \"deliberate declaration\":--\"He was\nsure that North Carolina would never confederate on any terms that did\nnot rate them (the slaves) at least as three fifths. If the Eastern\nStates meant, therefore, to exclude them (the slaves) altogether, the\nbusiness was at an end.\" (_Madison Papers_, p. 1081.) This threat, and\nothers like it, settled the matter. The compromise, of three fifths of\nthe slaves to be included in the representative population, was accepted\non the motion of _a New England member_; and the consequence is, that\nthe slave States have now twenty-one members in the lower house of\nCongress more than they are entitled to by their free population. This\nwas the second compromise. There was still a third, far more wicked and\ndetestable, and effected by the \"deliberate declarations\" of Southern\nmembers. The \"committee of detail\" has been already mentioned. It\nconsisted of Messrs. Rutledge of South Carolina, Randolph of Virginia,\nWilson of Pennsylvania, Ellsworth of Connecticut, and Gorham of\nMassachusetts. This committee, it will be recollected, were to reduce to\nthe _form_ of a Constitution the resolutions agreed on by the\nConvention. Neither in the resolutions themselves, nor in the\ndiscussions which preceded their adoption, had any reference been made\nto a guarantee for the continuance of the African slave-trade.\nNevertheless, this committee, of their own will and pleasure, inserted\nin their draft the following clause:--\"No tax or duty shall be laid by\nthe legislature on articles exported from any State, _nor on the\nmigration or importation of such persons as the several States shall\nthink proper to admit, nor shall such migration or importation be\nprohibited_.\" To understand the cunning wickedness of this clause, it\nmust be recollected that Congress was to have power to regulate foreign\ncommerce, and commerce between the States; and hence it might, at a\nfuture time, suppress both the foreign and domestic commerce in human\nflesh, or it might burden this commerce with duties. Hence this artfully\nexpressed perpetual restriction on the power of Congress to interfere\nwith the traffic in human beings. As this grand scheme was concocted in\nthe committee, and not in the Convention, it may be interesting to\ninquire into its paternity.\n\nIn the debates which ensued on this clause, Mr. Ellsworth, one of the\ncommittee who reported it, \"was for leaving the clause as it now stands.\n_Let every State import what it pleases._ The morality or wisdom of\nslavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves. _What\nenriches a part enriches the whole_, and the States are the best judges\nof their particular interests. The old Confederation had not _meddled_\nwith this point, and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing\nit within the policy of the new one.\" \"As slaves multiply so fast in\nVirginia and Maryland that it is _cheaper_ to raise than to import them,\nwhilst in the _sickly_ rice-swamps foreign supplies are _necessary_, if\nwe go no farther than is urged [a proposal to permit the trade for a\nlimited time], we shall be unjust towards South Carolina and Georgia.\nLet us not intermeddle.\" (_Madison Papers_, pp. 1389, 1391.) This\ngentleman was one of your \"very wise men\"; and his mantle has recently\nfallen upon other wise men from the East. Mr. Wilson, another member of\nthe committee, objected. \"All articles imported,\" said he, \"are to be\ntaxed; slaves alone are exempt. This is, in fact, a bounty on that\narticle.\" The clause was referred to another committee, who modified it,\nby limiting the restriction to 1800. It was moved to guarantee the\nslave-trade for twenty years, by postponing the restriction to 1808.\nThis motion was _seconded_ by Mr. Gorham, another member of the\ncommittee. Mr. Randolph, also of the committee, was against the\nslave-trade, and opposed to any restriction on the power of Congress to\nsuppress it. Two of the committee, then, we find, were against the\ntrade, and three, Messrs. Rutledge, Ellsworth, and Gorham, for\nperpetuating it. And now, Sir, what were the inducements which prevailed\non the two wise men from the East to yield their consent to a\nproposition so wicked and abominable? We are, of course, not informed\nwhat passed in the committee, but we can well imagine, from the language\nused by the chairman and others in the Convention. Said Mr. Rutledge,\n\"If the Convention thinks North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia\nwill ever agree to this plan [the Federal Constitution] unless their\nright to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is VAIN. The people\nof those States will never be such fools as to give up so important an\ninterest.\" In other words, \"Gentlemen of the North, no Union without the\nAfrican slave-trade.\" Said Mr. Charles Pinckney, \"South Carolina can\nnever receive the plan [of the Constitution] if it prohibits the\nslave-trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that\nState has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the\nimportation of negroes.\" (_Madison Papers_, p. 1389.) Mr. Charles C.\nPinckney \"thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not\nthink South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short\ntime.\" Thus you see, Sir, that the \"deliberate declarations\" to which\nyou allude were made in reference to the continuance of the African\nslave-trade, and not, as you suppose, to the catching of fugitive\nslaves. Two New England gentlemen of the committee yielded to these\ndeclarations, and sacrificed conscience and humanity for the sake of the\nUnion, and the consideration that what enriched a part enriched the\nwhole. Happily, in this case, Southern bluster was met by Southern\nbluster, and it is owing to Virginia, and not to the virtue and\nindependence of New England, that the Constitution was rescued from the\ninfamy of granting a solemn and perpetual guarantee to an accursed\ncommerce.\n\nIn Virginia, the slaves, as Mr. Ellsworth remarked, multiplied so fast,\nthat it was _cheaper_ to raise than import them. She was then, as now, a\nbreeding State for the Southern markets. Hence, her delegates were as\nready to bluster for protection, as the South Carolina delegates were\nfor a free trade in men and women. Of course, the _motives_ assigned\nwere patriotic, not selfish. Mr. Randolph \"could never agree to the\nclause as it stands. He would sooner RISK THE CONSTITUTION.\" (_Madison\nPapers_, p. 1396.) Mr. Madison would not consent to the continuance of\nthe traffic till 1808. \"Twenty years will produce all the mischief that\ncan be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term\nwill be more dishonorable to the American character, than to say nothing\nabout it in the Constitution.\" (_Madison Papers_, p. 1427.) Mr. Mason\nfrom Virginia denounced the traffic as \"infernal.\" (_Madison Papers_, p.\n1390.) The result of all these threats on each side was, as usual, a\ncompromise, by which Congress was prohibited from suppressing the\nforeign and internal commerce in slaves for twenty years, and was left\nat liberty to do as it might see fit, after that period. After twenty\nyears the foreign trade was suppressed, and North and South Carolina and\nGeorgia remained in the Union! Virginia, as well as the other Slave\nStates, is greatly interested in the home slave-trade, and that has\n_not_ been suppressed, although Congress has full power over it.\n\nIt does not appear from Mr. Madison's report what reply was made in the\nConvention to the Virginia objections, but in his speech in the\nConvention of his own State, he tells us,--\"The gentlemen from South\nCarolina and Georgia argued in this manner: We have now liberty to\nimport this species of property, and much of the property now possessed\nhad been purchased or otherwise acquired in contemplation of improving\nit by the assistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence\nof hindering us in this point? The _slaves_ of Virginia would rise in\nvalue, and we should be obliged to go to your markets.\" (_Elliott's\nDebates_, III. 454.) Certainly, Sir, these South Carolina and Georgia\ndelegates were \"very wise men,\" and their predictions are now history,\nand the planters of Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana\nbuy slaves of the Virginia breeders. But what shall I say of the wise\nmen from the East? This horrible compromise, this guarantee of the\nAfrican slave-trade for twenty years, was carried by the votes of the\nMassachusetts and Connecticut delegates, and would have been defeated,\nhad they had the courage and virtue to have voted against it.\n\nI have indulged in this long digression, to show that the clause in the\nConstitution respecting fugitive slaves was not, as you represent it,\nthe great compromise of the Constitution, the key-stone of the Union,\nand that our slaveholding fathers were not, as you suppose, greatly\nperplexed, nor their consciences deeply wounded, by the existence of\nslavery in all the States of the confederacy with one exception. Having\ndisposed of your history, I return to your logic.\n\nWhether the constitutional injunction to surrender fugitive slaves was a\ncompromise or not, is of no practical importance. The clause speaks for\nitself, and prescribes no mode by which the title of the claimant shall\nbe ascertained, while it expressly implies that the title shall be\nestablished before the surrender is made. Hence, the fair presumption\nis, that the title to a MAN shall be proved, with at least as much\ncertainty and formality as the title to a horse. Had you, Sir, in your\nlaw, provided that a Virginian shall not come to Boston, and there seize\nand carry off a husband, wife, or child but by the same process, and on\nas strong evidence, as he may now seize and carry off a horse which you\nclaim as your own, instead of finding your name a byword and a reproach,\nyou would have been honored and applauded by your fellow-citizens, and\nreturned to Congress by a triumphant vote; nor is there a syllable in\nthe Constitution which prohibits or discountenances such a mode of\ndeciding the title to a human being. It is in vain, then, Sir, that you\nplead your \"constitutional obligation\" in justification of your most\ndetestable law. But, as if one wrong could justify another, you plead in\nyour excuse the law of 1793, and you ask in your simplicity of those who\ncondemn your law if they do not perceive that they are \"denouncing their\nfathers.\" Well, Sir, were our fathers infallible? Pity it is, Sir, that\nyou were not on the floor of Congress when that body declared the\nAfrican slave-trade to be PIRACY. You might then, Sir, have risen in\nyour place, and inquired, \"Do you not perceive that you are denouncing\nyour fathers, who were very wise men, and who guaranteed for twenty\nyears the very traffic which you now proclaim to be piracy?\" Pity it is,\nSir, that you did not stand by the side of your patron on Plymouth Rock,\nand whisper in his ear, \"Do you not perceive that you are denouncing our\nfathers?\" when he declared, \"In the sight of our law the African\nslave-trader is a PIRATE and a FELON, and in the sight of Heaven an\noffender beyond the ordinary depth of human guilt.\" Mr. Webster is\nbetter versed in constitutional history than you are, and he well knew\nthat some of our fathers \"deliberately declared they would not enter a\nUnion\" in which they were to be debarred from pursuing this piratical,\nfelonious, guilty traffic. Our fathers were mostly slaveholders, and yet\nyou, Sir, unconsciously denounce both their morality and intelligence,\nwhen you affirm the institution of slavery to be \"wrong and unwise.\" And\nyet all who presume to find fault with your cruel, unjust, wicked law\nare guilty forsooth of denouncing their fathers!\n\nYou tell us that the Convention of 1787 \"_agreed that the new\nConstitution should have nothing to do with slavery_.\" I have not been\nso fortunate as to find the record of this agreement, but if such a\ncompact was indeed made, then seldom, if ever, has a solemn covenant\nbeen more grossly and wickedly violated. Is it, Sir, in virtue of this\nagreement, that you voted to fine and imprison every conscientious,\nhumane citizen who may refuse, at the command of a minion of a\ncommissioner, to join in a slave hunt? Did this agreement confer on the\nholders of slaves an enlarged representation in Congress? Was it in\npursuance of this agreement that the importation of slaves was\nguaranteed for twenty years? Did this agreement authorize the Federal\ngovernment to enter into negotiations with Great Britain and Mexico for\na mutual surrender of runaway slaves? Was it in pursuance of this same\nagreement, that our government negotiated with Russia and Spain to\nprevent emancipation in Cuba,--a traitorous conspiracy with despots\nagainst the rights of man? How, Sir, was this agreement illustrated,\nwhen Daniel Webster, as Secretary of State under John Tyler of glorious\nmemory, made a demand on Great Britain for the surrender of the slaves\nof the Creole, who had gallantly achieved their liberty, and taken\nrefuge in the West Indies? How comes it, Sir, that under this agreement\nan act of Congress secures to the Slave States officers in the navy in\nproportion to the number of their slaves? How is it, that under this\nagreement colored men are seized in the District of Columbia, under \"the\nexclusive jurisdiction\" of the Federal government on the _suspicion_ of\nbeing slaves, and, when that suspicion is rebutted by the non-appearance\nof any claimant, are sold as slaves for life, to pay their jail-fees?\nPerhaps it would be denouncing our fathers, to say that Messrs. Webster\nand Cass may search the archives of Austria in vain for any act so\nutterly diabolical as this, perpetrated by a government which it was\nagreed \"should have nothing to do with slavery.\" Was it to carry out\nthis famous agreement that the Federal government officially declared\nthrough its Secretary, Mr. Calhoun, that Texas was annexed to preserve\nthe institution of slavery from the perils that threatened it?\n\nOnce more, Sir. We all know that the slaveholders regard the free blacks\nas dangerous to the subordination of their slaves, and are contemplating\ntheir forcible removal. Think you, Sir, Mr. Webster was mindful of the\nagreement you have discovered, when, on the 7th of last March, in his\nplace in the Senate, he proposed his magnificent scheme of taxing the\nwhole nation untold millions to give additional security to property in\nhuman beings? \"If,\" said the Massachusetts Senator, \"any gentleman from\nthe _South_ shall propose a scheme of colonization to be carried on by\n_this government_ upon a large scale, for the transportation of free\ncolored people to any colony or _any place in the world_, I should be\nquite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to accomplish the\nobject.\" The magnitude of the scheme, and the cost at which it is to be\naccomplished, are thus hinted:--\"There have been received into the\ntreasury of the United States EIGHTY MILLIONS of dollars, the proceeds\nof the sales of the public lands ceded by Virginia. If the residue\nshould be sold at the same rate, the whole aggregate will exceed TWO\nHUNDRED MILLIONS of dollars. If _Virginia and the South_ see fit to\nadopt any proposition to _relieve_ themselves from the free people of\ncolor among them, they have my free consent that the _government_ shall\npay _them_ any sum of money out of the proceeds which may be adequate\nfor the purpose.\" Will you, Sir, please to point out the article of the\nagreement of 1787, which, while it restricts Congress from having any\nthing to do with slavery, sanctions an appropriation not exceeding two\nhundred millions of dollars, for the purpose of strengthening the\ninstitution of slavery, by _relieving_ the slaveholders from the\npresence of free people of color, and forcibly transporting to any place\nin the world hundreds of thousands of native-born Americans, who have as\ngood a constitutional right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and\nhappiness on their native soil, as Mr. Webster himself? Mr. Webster, it\nseems, now views the subject of negro colonization in precisely the same\nlight that he did thirty years since, although his _intentions_ on this,\nas on various other points, have undergone marvellous changes. We learn\nfrom a Massachusetts paper (_Congregationalist_, 6 July, 1849), that\nthis gentleman was in 1822 appointed by a public meeting to draft a\nconstitution for the State Colonization Society. After considerable\ndiscussion in the committee he rose and said, \"I must leave. I\nunderstand the whole project. It is a scheme of the slaveholders to get\nrid of their free negroes. I will have nothing to do with it.\"\n\nAnd how, Sir, as a member of Congress, have _you_ fulfilled this\nagreement to have nothing to do with slavery? Not only have you required\n\"good citizens,\" when commanded, to hunt and catch slaves, but you have\neven fixed a money value on every slave. If a master fails to recover\nhis fugitive slave through the agency, \"direct or indirect,\" of any\ncitizen, you give him an action for damages. In all other cases of\ntrespass, the damages sustained by the plaintiff are assessed by a jury\naccording to the evidence. You kindly save the master the trouble of\nproving the value of his lost property, and give him out of the pockets\nof the defendant $1,000, no matter whether the slave was sick or well,\nyoung or old. If a woman escapes with a child at the breast, the master\nis to have $2,000! Recollect, Sir, this is for _damages_ to the\nslaveholder; the trespasser is to pay to the government, which was to\nhave nothing to do with slavery, another thousand dollars, and to be\nincarcerated six months. Either, Sir, you have wholly mistaken the\nnature of the \"agreement,\" or the slaveholders, through the aid of their\nNorthern auxiliaries, have, in defiance of the agreement, rendered the\nFederal government a mighty engine in protecting, extending, and\nperpetuating the stupendous iniquity of human bondage.\n\nYour first excuse for voting for the recent slave-catching law, after\nrelying on your \"constitutional obligation,\" is, that it is\n\"_practically more favorable to the fugitive than the law of 1793_\"!!!\nThe Southern lawyers, then, who drafted the bill, were a set of\nblunderers, and your constituents are blockheads for blaming you for\nlegislating against human rights, when, in fact, you were loosening the\nbonds of the oppressed, and facilitating escape from the prison-house.\nYour assertion may well excite astonishment at the South as well as the\nNorth, till your _proof_ is known, and then, indeed, astonishment will\nbe exchanged for ridicule. You tell us, \"the _evidence_ of such an\nassertion may be found in the fact, that by the old law every magistrate\nin Massachusetts, amounting to several hundreds, and so in the other\nStates, were authorized and required to cause the arrest of any\nfugitive, examine into his case, and deliver him to the claimant, if he\nwas proved to be a slave; while under the new law that power is\n_limited_ to the justices of the United States' courts, and to the\ncommissioners appointed by them, not exceeding, perhaps, on an average,\nsix or eight persons in each State.\" So it seems the slave-catchers had\nformerly no difficulty in finding a magistrate among hundreds to aid\nthem, but that now, before they hunt a slave, they must hunt and catch a\nUnited States judge, or a commissioner of six or eight in a whole State.\nTruly a hard case, and yet the slaveholders themselves set the very trap\nin which they have been caught, and thus it is that, through their\nfolly, and your generosity in not pointing out to them the blunder they\nwere committing, the new law is more favorable to the fugitive than the\nold one. Surely, Sir, it could not have been more perilous to the young\nWest Indian judge to meddle with \"reasons,\" than it is for you. Either,\nSir, you voted for the law without reading it, or you have forgotten its\nprovision. Be assured, the Southern lawyers were as well acquainted as\nyourself with the fact, that a few individuals, termed \"commissioners,\"\nhad been appointed by the United States courts to perform certain\nministerial acts; and that, as these men were now to be promoted to the\noffice of slave-catching judges, they would be wholly inadequate in\nnumber to lend efficient aid to the hunters of men. Hence, they inserted\nin the third section of the bill, the following enactment, which has\nstrangely escaped your recollection, viz.:--\"And it is further enacted,\nthat the Circuit Courts of the United States, and the Superior Courts of\n_each_ organized Territory of the United States, SHALL from time to time\nENLARGE THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS with a view to afford reasonable\nfacilities to reclaim fugitives from labor, and to the prompt discharge\nof the duties imposed by this act.\" So that, instead of six or eight\ncommissioners in a State, we are to have as many hundreds, if needed.\nNor is this all. By the second section, the power possessed by the\nCircuit Courts to appoint commissioners is for the first time conferred\non the _Territorial_ courts, so that there shall be no lack of\nslave-catching judges in Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico. Instead of your\nsix or eight commissioners in a State, your law contemplates that there\nshall be one or more in _each county_; for the fifth section provides,\nthat, \"the better to enable the said commissioners to execute their\nduties faithfully and efficiently, ... they are hereby authorized and\nempowered, within their _counties respectively_,\" to appoint one or more\npersons to execute their warrants. So it seems we are to have an\nunlimited number of judges and executioners. These executioners,\nexpressly appointed to catch slaves, and of course among the most\nworthless and degraded of the community, are one and all invested with\nthe power of a high sheriff to call out the _posse comitatus_, not\nmerely in his own county, but in every hamlet in the State, and require\n\"good citizens,\" under pain of fine and imprisonment, to join him in his\nexecrable hunt. Really, Sir, your \"evidence\" that the new law is more\nfavorable to the fugitive than the old one falls short of demonstration.\n\nYou thus apologize for not giving the alleged fugitive a trial by jury.\n\"There was no more trial by jury provided for under the old law than\nunder the new law. The claim of a jury trial is entirely _new_; never\nthought of till modern discussions of the subject begun. For fifty-seven\nyears our fathers and we have been living under the laws which provided\nno such thing, and now one which makes no such provision is denounced in\nunmeasured terms as cruel and inhuman. Where have we all been living for\nhalf a century?\" Surely, Sir, it is a most logical reason for not\nchanging a wicked law, that it has been in force for fifty-seven years.\nStrange that the legislators of Massachusetts did not perceive the force\nof this reasoning when they abolished the laws for hanging witches and\nwhipping Quakers. Permit me, Sir, to ask, Where had _you_ been living\nwhen _you_ declared it to be the _duty_ of Congress to give the fugitive\na trial by jury, although for fifty-seven years such a trial had been\ndenied him? You probably forgot, Sir, when giving the above \"reason,\"\nthat, not long before you took your seat in Congress, you had, as a\nmember of the Massachusetts Legislature, voted for the following\nresolution, viz.:--\"We hold it to be the duty of that body [Congress] to\npass such laws only in regard thereto as will be maintained by the\npublic sentiment of the free States, where such laws are to be enforced,\nand which shall especially secure all persons, whose surrender may be\nclaimed as having escaped from labor and service in other States, the\nright of having the validity of such claim determined by a jury in the\nState where such claim is made.\" So it seems that, while in Boston, you\nesteemed it the _especial duty_ of Congress to grant the fugitive a\ntrial by jury, but that in the atmosphere of Washington you acquired new\nviews of moral philosophy.\n\nSuffer me, Sir, also to inquire, Where had Mr. Webster been \"living for\nhalf a century,\" when, on the 3d of last June, he introduced into the\nSenate a bill amendatory of the act of 1793, granting the alleged\nfugitive a trial by jury whenever he shall make oath that he is not the\nslave of the claimant?\n\nAnother of your \"reasons\" is, that your law does _not_ suspend the\n_habeas corpus_, and in proof of its innocence in this respect, you\nrefer to the opinion of \"legal authority of the highest kind,\" viz. Mr.\nCrittenden, of Kentucky. It is very true that the words _habeas corpus_\nare omitted in your law, as the word _slave_ is in the Constitution, but\nin neither case is the omission of any practical importance. You must be\naware, Sir, that whenever a person is in the custody of another, if\nsufficient ground be shown to render it probable that the custody is\nillegal, the writ is granted as a matter of right. But why is it\ngranted? That the court may at its discretion, according to\ncircumstances, remand or discharge the prisoner. Take away from the\ncourt the discretionary power to discharge, and the writ is rendered an\nidle form. Your law, you say, does not suspend the _habeas corpus_; it\nis guiltless of such an enormity. A man who is carrying off one of our\ncitizens in chains, may indeed be served with the writ, and he brings\nhis prisoner before the court, and he produces a paper for which he paid\n$10, and reads from your law, that this paper, called a certificate,\n\"shall be conclusive,\" and \"shall prevent all molestation of said person\nor persons by any _process_ issued by any court, judge, or magistrate,\nor other person whomsoever.\" It is because the word _process_, instead\nof _habeas corpus_, is used, that your law does not suspend the writ of\nfreedom! In vain may the prisoner plead that he is not the person\nmentioned in the certificate; in vain may he offer to show that the\ncertificate is a forgery; in vain may he urge that the man who signed\nthe certificate was not a commissioner. The little piece of paper\ncosting ten dollars is to save the slave-catcher from \"all molestation,\"\nnot because the writ of _habeas corpus_ is suspended,--O, no! but in\nconsequence of the words \"any process\"!\n\nYou refer to two objections, which you say are made to your law, and\nendeavour to refute them; viz. the onerous obligations imposed upon the\nmarshal, and the penalties attached to an attempt \"to assist in the\nrescue of the slave after he has been proved to be such.\" You have\nevinced your discretion in confining yourself to only four objections\nmade to your law; viz. the denial of a jury trial, the suspension of the\n_habeas corpus_, the duties of the marshal, and the penalties imposed on\nan attempt to rescue the slave _after_ judgment. With what success, and\nwith what \"reasons,\" you have combated the first two has already been\nseen. As to the last two, they scarcely merit an answer, and hence you\nhave selected them. If the obligations of the marshal are onerous, he\nhas voluntarily assumed them by accepting the office. If, in a civilized\ncountry, a man attempts forcibly to rescue a prisoner in the custody of\nthe law, he must expect to be punished. There are many weighty\nobjections to your law which you have not thought it expedient to\nnotice. Permit me to supply your omission, and to tell you why your law\nis so intensely odious. And here let me again remind you of the true\nissue between you and the people. It is not now the constitutional power\nof Congress under the decision of the Supreme Court to pass a law for\nthe recovery of fugitive slaves,--this is conceded. The odium you have\nexperienced, and against which you have appealed to the public, is\ncaused by your having voted for a law which, in its details, violates\nthe Constitution, and outrages justice and humanity. Throughout your\nlong and labored apology, you avoid grappling with these charges. You\nvindicate the denial of a jury trial only on the ground that it has been\ndenied for fifty-seven years, and on the authority of Mr. Crittenden\naffirm that the _habeas corpus_ is not suspended; but you avoid the\nconstitutional and moral objections urged against your law.\n\nBy the Constitution, fugitive slaves are to be restored to those, and\nthose only, who are legally entitled to their services. The means of\nascertaining whether a man is a slave, whether he has fled from his\nmaster, and whether the claimant is legally entitled to him, are not\ndefined by the Constitution. It is now intrusted to the discretion of\nCongress to specify these means, but of course that discretion ought to\nbe exercised in accordance with the Constitution, with justice, and with\nhumanity. The complaint against you is, that you have voted for a law\nwhich outrages them all, and against this complaint you have failed to\noffer the shadow of a vindication.\n\nA Virginian comes to Boston, and there seizes one of the inhabitants as\nhis slave. The man claimed declares the claim to be false and\nfraudulent. Here, then, is an issue both of law and of fact between two\nmen equally entitled to the protection of law; for the man claimed is on\nevery presumption of law and justice to be regarded as free, till the\ncontrary is proved. The issue between these two men is, I have said, one\nof fact and of law. Is the person seized the man he is said to be? This\nis a question of fact. Admitting his identity, is he a slave, and, if\nso, does he belong to the claimant? These are both questions of law,\nresting upon facts to be proved. Those familiar with the reports of\nSouthern courts know that the title to slaves is a frequent matter of\nlitigation, involving intricate questions respecting the validity of\nwills, the construction of deeds, the partition of estates, and the\nclaims of creditors. By carrying a slave into a free State, the owner\nforfeits his title to him while there, and cannot reclaim him; and hence\nthe acts of the claimant himself may be involved in the issue. And now,\nSir, I ask, have you ever known, or can you conceive of, any issue at\nlaw respecting the title to property so awfully momentous to a defendant\nas the one we are considering? Were your son or daughter the defendant\nin such an issue, would you not rejoice to purchase a favorable judgment\nby the contribution of the last cent of your great wealth? Let us, then,\nproceed to inquire what provision _you_, in the fear of God and the love\nof justice and humanity, have made for the trial of this tremendous\nissue,--an issue on the result of which all the hopes of a fellow-man\nfor the life that is, and for that which is to come, are suspended.\n\nIn the first place, What is the pecuniary value of the plaintiff's claim\nto _himself_?--for it would be an insult to humanity to estimate in\ndollars and cents the blessings of liberty and of the conjugal and\nparental relations to the unhappy defendant. You have yourself fixed the\nvalue of the plaintiff's claim at _one thousand dollars_. So far, then,\nthe issue is, by your own showing, within the constitutional guarantee\nof trial by jury in all suits at common law where the matter in\ncontroversy is of the value of _twenty_ dollars. But is the claim made\nby the plaintiff \"a suit at common law\"? What is a _suit_? The Supreme\nCourt thus answers the question:--\"We understand it [a suit] to be the\nprosecution or pursuit of some _claim_, demand, or request. In law\nlanguage, it is the prosecution of some demand in a court of justice.\"\n(6 _Wheaton_, 407.)\n\nIt seems, then, that the Virginian, in claiming an inhabitant of Boston\nas his slave, in fact brings _a suit_ against him for services due worth\none thousand dollars. Now remember, Sir, the fugitive is not to be\ndelivered up, as a mass of flesh, or inanimate matter, belonging to the\nclaimant, but as a debtor, in the phraseology of your own law, \"_owing_\nservice or labor.\" The suit is brought for service or labor _due_, and\nthe Constitution provides that the person so owing service or labor\nshall be delivered to him to whom the same is \"_due_.\" And now, is this\nsuit for service due \"a suit at _common law_\"? Again let the Supreme\nCourt answer. \"The phrase _common law_, found in this clause [the clause\nguaranteeing a jury trial], is used in contradistinction to equity and\nadmiralty and maritime jurisdiction. It is well known, that, in civil\ncauses in courts of equity and admiralty, juries do not intervene, and\nthat courts of equity use the trial by jury only in extraordinary cases,\nto inform the conscience of the court. When, therefore, we find that the\namendment requires that the right of trial by jury shall be preserved in\nsuits at common law, the natural conclusion is, that this distinction\nwas present to the minds of the framers of the amendment. By _common\nlaw_, they meant what the Constitution denominated, in the third\narticle, 'law'; not merely suits which the common law recognized among\nits old and settled proceedings, but suits in which legal rights were to\nbe ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where\nequitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were\nadministered.... In a just sense, the amendment, then, may be construed\nto embrace _all suits_ which are not of equity and admiralty\njurisdiction, _whatever may be the peculiar form_ which they may assume\nto settle legal rights.\" (3 _Peters_, 446.)\n\nIf there be meaning in words, these authorities settle the case, and\nyour law is in palpable violation of the amendment to the Constitution\nsecuring a trial by jury in suits at common law where the matter in\ncontroversy exceeds twenty dollars in value. Think not, Sir, that I am\nmisrepresenting the Supreme Court. I know well that the _dicta_ I have\nquoted have reference to _white_ men, and that they have been virtually\nset aside in decisions respecting black men. I well know, that, in our\nmodel republic, law and justice and morality are all cutaneous. But\nadmitting that the Supreme Court have stultified themselves, and\nvirtually denied, that, where a suit was brought for the services of a\n_black_ man, the Constitution required a jury trial, recollect, Sir,\nthat not in one single instance has the court decided that the\nConstitution _prohibited_ such a trial. But if not prohibited, then\nCongress are permitted to accord such a trial, and _both you and Mr.\nWebster have declared that Congress had a right to grant such a trial,\nand ought to grant it_. In voting, therefore, for a law denying such a\ntrial, you made a voluntary surrender to the slaveholder of the security\nwhich such a trial would have afforded to multitudes of your poor,\nignorant, oppressed fellow-men. For this act of cruelty and injustice,\ncommitted against your own late conviction of duty, what is your\njustification? Why, that the blacks had been already deprived of the\nright of trial by jury fifty-seven years!\n\nLet us now see what tribunal you have substituted for a jury in the\ntrial of one of the most momentous issues that can engage the attention\nof a court of justice. You have provided for the appointment of an\nindefinite number of judges, each of whom is to have exclusive\njurisdiction of these issues, and from whose judgment there is to be no\nappeal. The Constitution declares, \"The judges, both of the Supreme and\ninferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and\nshall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which\nshall not be diminished during their continuance in office.\" These\njudges are appointed by the Senate, on the nomination of the President.\nYour herd of judges, called commissioners, are appointed by the courts,\nand hold office during pleasure, and instead of receiving a salary, are\nrewarded by a rule the infamy of which, it is believed, belongs to your\nlaw exclusively,--a rule which doubles their compensation whenever they\ndecide in favor of the rich plaintiff, and _against_ the poor and\nfriendless defendant. But perhaps you will deny that these men are\njudges; for, if judges, their appointment is palpably unconstitutional.\nLet us hear the Supreme Court, at a time when it was deemed expedient to\nmaintain that the persons who executed the law of 1793 were _judges_.\n\"It is plain, that, where a claim is made by the owner out of possession\nfor the delivery of a slave, it must be made, if made at all, _against\nsome other person_; and inasmuch as the right is a right of property,\ncapable of being recognized and asserted by proceedings _before a court\nof justice between parties adverse to each other_, it constitutes, in\nthe strictest sense, a _controversy_ between parties, and a case arising\nunder the Constitution of the United States, within the express\ndelegation of judicial power given by that instrument.\" (16 _Peters_,\n616.) Hence your commissioners are, in the _strictest sense_, judges,\nexercising \"judicial power\" delegated by the Constitution.\n\nYou pronounce Mr. Crittenden \"legal authority of the highest kind.\" This\nlegal authority understands the sixth section of your law as providing\nthat each commissioner \"shall have judicial power and jurisdiction to\nhear, examine, and decide the case in a summary manner.\" Now, if a man,\nhaving judicial power and jurisdiction to decide controversies between\nparties adverse to each other, in controversies arising under the\nConstitution and within the express delegation of judicial power given\nby that instrument, is not a judge, do tell us who is one. Once more,\nSir, Mr. Crittenden says, \"The legal authority of every tribunal of\nexclusive jurisdiction, where no appeal lies, is of necessity\nconclusive upon every tribunal; and therefore the judgment of the\ntribunal created by this act is conclusive upon all other tribunals.\" So\nyour commissioner is not only a judge, but he constitutes a tribunal of\nexclusive jurisdiction, and his judgment is binding even upon the\nSupreme Court of the United States. And yet, Sir, you must deny that\nthis omnipotent commissioner is a judge, or you must admit, that, in the\nmode of his appointment, you have flagrantly violated the Constitution\nof your country.\n\nIt has been most wickedly asserted by our proslavery presses and our\nproslavery politicians, that the surrender of fugitives from labor and\nfugitives from justice are similar proceedings. The surrender of a\nfugitive slave involves two questions, that of identity and that of\nproperty; and the law makes the decision of the commissioner on both\npoints final and conclusive upon every State and Federal court in the\nland. The surrender of a fugitive criminal involves only the question of\npersonal identity. The Governor of the State issues his warrant for the\napprehension and delivery of a certain person proved to him to be\ncharged with felony. If the officer arrests the wrong person, he does it\nat his peril, and a writ of _habeas corpus_ would immediately release\nthe person wrongfully arrested. Again, it is most fraudulently\nmaintained, that, if the wrong person is by the commissioner adjudged a\nslave, he may sue for his freedom in a Southern court! Should he do so,\nthe exhibition of the commissioner's certificate is by law declared to\nbe conclusive _upon all tribunals_. But even supposing that a Southern\ncourt, in defiance of law, should go behind the certificate, how is a\nfree colored person from the North, working under the lash on a\nMississippi plantation, to prove his freedom? How is he to fee a lawyer?\nHow is he to get into court? If once there, where are his witnesses?\nThey are his friends and acquaintances of his own color residing in the\nNorth. How are they to be summoned to Mississippi? Should they venture\nto enter the State, they would be imprisoned, and perhaps sold into\nslavery; or even if permitted to enter the court-room, their testimony\nwould by law be excluded, against the claims of a white man. How\ndespicably profligate, then, is the assumption of the advocates of your\nlaw, that any injustice committed under it would be repaired by Southern\ncourts!\n\nIt was not enough, it seems, that the wretched defendant in this\nmomentous issue should be subjected to the jurisdiction of a judge\nunknown to the Constitution, holding his office by a prohibited tenure,\nincapable of being impeached, and bribed to decide in favor of the\nplaintiff by the promise of double fees, but the very trial allowed him\nmust be a burlesque on all the forms and principles of juridical\njustice. The plaintiff, without notice to the defendant, prepares\nhimself for trial, and when his affidavits or witnesses are all ready,\nhe seizes the unsuspecting victim in the street, and puts him\n_instanter_ on his defence. Had the wretched man been accused of some\natrocious crime, he might have demanded bail, and would have been\npermitted to go at large to seek for counsel, to look for witnesses, and\nto prepare for trial at some future day, of which he would have due\nnotice. But no such privilege is allowed a man who is accused of _owing\nservice_. One of your commissioners has already decided that the law\ndoes not permit him to bail the prisoner. The slave power rides in\ntriumph over all the barriers erected by the wisdom of ages for the\nprotection of human rights. The defendant is brought, generally in\nirons, before your commissioner judge, who is required \"to hear and\ndetermine the case of _the claimant_ in a summary manner.\" The law seems\nnot even to imagine the possibility of any defence being made on the\npart of the defendant. It makes no provision for such a defence,--no\nassignment of counsel, no summons for witnesses. We shall see presently,\nthat if the plaintiff makes out a _prima facie_ title, satisfactory to\nthe commission, it is all the law requires. Let me now call your\nattention to the practical working of your diabolical law. A man named\nRose was lately seized at Detroit, and brought before a commissioner as\na fugitive slave. I copy from the newspaper report. \"Mr. Joy (counsel\nfor defendant) moved a postponement of the trial to a future day, to\nenable Rose to produce his papers to establish his right to freedom,\nwhich papers he had _sworn_ were in Cincinnati. The counsel for the\nclaimant denied that the commissioner had any authority under the law to\ngrant a postponement. The commissioner agreed with the counsel for the\nplaintiff, that _he had no authority to postpone the trial_; and he\nfurther declared, that, _even were the papers by which Rose was\nmanumitted present, he could not under the law receive them in\nevidence_.\"\n\nUtterly devilish as was this decision, it was sound law. The plaintiff\nhad proved his title satisfactorily, and this being done, the\ncommissioner was bound by the express words of the law to grant the\ncertificate. He had no right to admit rebutting evidence. It was\nsufficient to prove that the prisoner had been the slave of the\nclaimant's father, and that the claimant was the heir at law of his\nfather. This of itself was satisfactory, and therefore the commissioner\nhad no right to admit in evidence the very deed of manumission granted\nby the father to the slave. The framers of the law had been as explicit\nas they dared to be. \"Upon satisfactory proof being made by deposition\nor _affidavit_, to be taken and certified, &c., or by other satisfactory\ntestimony [of course, in writing, and _ex parte_], and with proof, also\nby affidavit, of the _identity_ of the person,\" &c., the defendant is to\nbe surrendered. Not a hint is given that any testimony may be received\nto rebut the _satisfactory_ proof given by the plaintiff. You have,\nmoreover, Sir, provided a species of evidence never before heard of in\nthe trial of an issue. By the tenth section, the claimant may go before\na judge or court in Texas, and there make proof by affidavit that _his_\nslave has escaped. Whereupon, the court or judge is to certify that the\nproof is satisfactory. A record of this satisfactory proof, together\nwith a description of the fugitive, is to be made, and a certified\ntranscript of this record, \"being exhibited to any judge, commissioner,\nor other officer authorized,\" &c., \"_shall_ be held and taken to be full\nand conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or\nlabor of the person escaping is _due_ to the party in such record\nmentioned.\" Here all defence is taken from the defendant. Should he\nsummon a host of witnesses to prove his freedom, not one could be heard;\nshould he offer a bill of sale from the claimant to another, it could\nnot be received; should he produce a deed of manumission, acknowledged\nand certified in a Southern court, it would be waste paper. And thus a\nman's freedom is to be sacrificed on an affidavit made a thousand miles\noff. What, Sir, would you think of a law that would authorize the\nseizure and sale of your property to satisfy a debt which any man in\nCalifornia might think proper to swear, before a Californian judge, was\n_due_ from you to him?\n\nSuch, Sir, is the _trial_ which you, the representative of Boston, a\ndescendant of the Pilgrims, and \"a gentleman of property and standing,\"\nhave accorded to the poor and oppressed. Did the Constitution require\nsuch a prostitution of justice, such an outrage of humanity, at your\nhands? I need not be told that some of your commissioners have not\nconstrued your law as strictly as did the Detroit functionary. Thanks to\nthe force of public opinion, and to the zeal of some benevolent lawyers,\nwhose hearts were not padded with cotton, in some instances defendants\nhave been permitted to call witnesses in their behalf; and some regard\nhas been paid to the ordinary principles of justice. But in all such\ninstances, the spirit of the law and the intentions of its framers have\nbeen frustrated.\n\nAnd now let us listen to your \"reason\" for justifying all the atrocities\nand abominations of your law. You gravely tell us, \"The entire\npopulation of the North has acquiesced in the law of 1793, without\nthinking itself exposed to the charge of barbarity, and I have only to\nsay, that I do not think the charge any more just now.\" Certainly, Sir,\nthe young colonial judge could not have given a reason less logical or\nsatisfactory. You must be an inattentive observer of passing events, if\nyou are ignorant that the law of 1793 has again and again been denounced\nas iniquitous, that some of the States have prohibited their officers\nfrom assisting in its execution, that numberless petitions have been\npresented to Congress for its repeal, and that you yourself, instead of\nacquiescing in it, solemnly declared it to be the duty of Congress so\nfar to alter the law, as to grant the alleged fugitive a trial by jury.\nYet the law of 1793, wicked as it was, was justice and mercy compared\nwith yours. The trials under that were almost invariably before judges\nof the State courts, not appointed like your commissioners for the vile\nand only purpose of reducing their fellow-men to bondage. There judges\nwere not confined to _ex parte_ evidence, were not compelled to receive\n\"as full and conclusive\" affidavits made in distant States, and by\nunknown persons. For the most part, they honestly endeavoured, by a\npatient investigation according to the ordinary rules of evidence, and\nby holding the plaintiff to strict legal proof, to supply the want of a\njury.\n\nDavid Paul Brown, Esq., of Philadelphia, in a letter of last November,\naffirms that for the last thirty years he has been engaged as counsel in\nalmost every important fugitive case brought before the judges and\ncourts of Philadelphia, and he tells us, \"thanks to those upright and\nimpartial and independent judges by whom the rights of the parties were\nfinally determined,\" he knows of no instance in which a colored person\nwas, in his opinion, wrongfully surrendered. But he adds, \"I have known\nHUNDREDS who have been illegally and unjustly claimed.\" This experienced\nlawyer, commenting on your law, justly says it allows \"_ex parte_\ntestimony to be received against the alleged fugitive, which, upon no\nprinciple known to the common law, could be received upon the claim to\na horse or a dog.\" About four weeks after the date of this letter, Mr.\nBrown was called to defend an alleged fugitive \"illegally and unjustly\nclaimed,\" not before one of the \"upright and impartial and independent\"\nPennsylvania judges, but before one of your ten-dollar slave-catching\njudges. I beg you to mark the result.\n\nOn the 21st of December, a colored man was arrested in the street in\nPhiladelphia, without warrant, and accused of stealing chickens. He was\nthrust into a carriage, driven to the State-House, carried into an upper\nroom, and handcuffed. In this state he was detained till a commissioner\narrived. The name of this executor of your law is worthy of remembrance.\nEDWARD D. INGRAHAM ought to be as much endeared to slave-catchers, as\nJudge Jeffries was to James the Second.\n\nBy some means, the arrest became known, and counsel appeared for the\nprisoner. Your commissioner was informed that the prisoner had only been\nseized an hour and a half before, and had not heard the charge against\nhim; that his counsel had had no time to learn the plaintiff's case, nor\nto prepare for the defence; that there were persons residing at a\ndistance, some in New Jersey and some in Wilmington, who would be\nimportant witnesses in his behalf. On these grounds, a motion was made\nfor a continuance. And what, Sir, do you suppose was the reply made by\nthe slave-catching judge to this motion? \"THE HEARING IS TO BE A SUMMARY\nONE: LET IT PROCEED.\" No doubt you fully participate in Mr. Webster's\nindignation against Austrian barbarity; but see no barbarity in this\naccursed proceeding against a _colored_ American. The hearing did\nproceed, and James S. Price, on behalf of the plaintiff, swore that the\nprisoner was Emery Rice, the man claimed, but knew nothing further about\nhis being a slave, except that he had seen him riding the claimant's\nhorse. Had _heard it said_ the prisoner was a slave. This was the amount\nof the testimony on behalf of the claimant. Any honest jury, nay, any\nhonest judge, would instantly have decided in favor of the prisoner.\nNot so MR. EDWARD D. INGRAHAM. The counsel for the defendant asked again\nfor a postponement, and founded the motion on the _oath_ of the\ndefendant, that he could procure six persons, naming them, to testify to\nhis freedom. A delay of ONE HOUR was asked for. This was refused, and\nthe judge(!) sent for a certificate to sign. During the delay thus\noccasioned, one of the six persons named by the defendant appeared, and\nswore that he had known the prisoner all his life. That he was not Emery\nRice, but Adam Gibson; that he was a freeman, having been manumitted by\nthe will of his late master. Mr. Brown produced a copy of the will of\nthe late master, and it so far confirmed the testimony of the witness.\nAnother person in the crowd now came forward, and swore that he also\nknew the prisoner, and that he was a free person, and that he was Adam\nGibson. But all was in vain. The commissioner signed the certificate,\nand, with an obtuseness of intellect which marked him as a fit subject\nfor a commission of lunacy, declared, \"He had no doubt of the identity\nof the prisoner with the slave Emery Rice, and that _all other\nproceedings must be before the courts of Maryland_, whither he would\nsend him.\"[1] And so the prisoner, without seeing his wife and children,\nwhom he had that morning parted from unsuspicious of danger and\nunconscious of crime, was hurried off at the expense of our glorious\nmodel republic, under an escort of officers, who delivered him, not to\nthe courts of Maryland, but to Mr. William S. Knight, the reputed owner.\nBut Mr. Knight told the officers, \"You have brought me a wrong man; this\nis not Emery Rice; this man is no slave of mine.\" And so Adam Gibson\nreturned to Philadelphia, and is now a living illustration of the\nabominable iniquity of one of the most accursed laws to be found in the\nstatute-book of any civilized nation.\n\n[1] See report in the _New York Tribune_, 25th December, 1850.\n\nYou do not think your law more barbarous than that of 1793. Let me\nfurther enlighten you. Judge McLean of the Supreme Court, in his opinion\ndelivered last May in the case of _Norris_ v. _Newton et al._,\nremarks,--\"In regard to the arrest of fugitives from labor, the law [act\nof 1793] _does not impose any active duties on our citizens generally_\";\nand he argues in defence of the law, that \"it gives no one a just right\nto complain; he has only to refrain from an express violation of the\nlaw.\" In other words, the law only required individuals to be passive\nspectators of a horrible outrage, and did not compel them to be active\nparticipators in other men's villany. Now, what says your law? Why, that\nevery commissioner may appoint as many official slave-catchers as he\npleases, and that each of these menials may \"summon and call to their\naid the _by-standers_ or _posse comitatus_ of the proper county, when\nnecessary to insure a faithful observance of the clause of the\nConstitution referred to in conformity with the provisions of this act,\nAND ALL GOOD CITIZENS ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO AID AND ASSIST in the\nprompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may\nbe required.\" And what is the fate you have provided for the \"good\ncitizen,\" who, believing slavery to be sinful, cannot, in the fear of\nGod, \"aid and assist\" in making a fellow-man a slave? Any person \"who\nshall aid, abet, or assist\" the fugitive \"directly or indirectly\"\n(cunning words) to escape from such claimant, as, for instance, refusing\nto join in a slave-hunt when required, shall be fined not exceeding\n$1,000, be imprisoned six months, and pay the claimant $1,000. I hope,\nSir, you are now able to perceive that your law has a preeminence in\nbarbarity over its predecessor. And now, Sir, please to recollect, that\nparty discipline, aided by the influence of Messrs. Webster and Clay,\nand the factory and cotton interest of Boston and New York, could not\nprocure for this atrocious law the votes of _one half_ the members of\nthe House of Representatives. Of two hundred and thirty-two members,\nonly one hundred and nine dared to place their names on an enduring and\nshameful record, while many basely deserted their seats, fearing alike\nto vote either for or against it. You, Sir, following Mr. Webster's\nadvice, \"conquered your prejudices,\" and in company with _two_ more\nNorthern Whigs, one of them a native of Virginia, cast your vote for\nthis bill of abominations. But, although you voted for the law, you do\nnot wish your constituents to suppose you approved of it. \"It will not,\nI trust, be inferred from any thing I have said, that I consider the law\nwhich has passed unexceptionable. There are amendments which I strongly\ndesire to be introduced into it.\" What are the exceptionable features of\nthe law, what are the amendments you desire, you refrain from\nspecifying. But you tell us that you would have labored for these\namendments \"had it been possible, but every body knows that it was\n_impracticable_.\" You allude to the _previous question_, which prevented\nboth discussion and amendments. But why, then, did you vote for an\nobjectionable bill which could not be amended? Here, again, we have one\nof your unfortunate reasons. \"I deem conformity to the design of the\nConstitution more important than the objectionable details of the bill.\"\nSo, by your own confession, had there been no previous question, you\nwould have swallowed the bill with all its objectionable details, out of\nreverence for the _design_ of the Constitution, although that design\nneither embraced nor required a single one of those details. Did you,\nSir, vote _against_ the previous question? On this point you are silent,\nand the minutes afford no information; but _if_ you did, your vote was a\nmost remarkable aberration from your proslavery course in Congress.\n_After_ the previous question had been seconded, it was moved to lay the\nbill on the table. Had this motion been carried, you might have\nintroduced another bill, omitting the \"objectionable details,\" but you\nvoted with the slaveholders. The slaveholders then moved that the bill\nbe read a third time. Had this been lost, there would have been a chance\nof correcting the \"objectionable details.\" Again you voted with the\nslaveholders, and a third time, also, on the main question.\n\nI will now, Sir, call your attention to the disastrous influence which\nyour law has exerted on the _moral sense_ of the community. Says\nColeridge, \"To dogmatize a crime, that is, to teach it as a doctrine, is\nitself a crime.\" Of this crime of dogmatizing crime, Mr. Webster, and\nmost of our cotton politicians, and, alas! many of our fashionable,\ngenteel divines, are guilty; nor are you innocent, Sir, who in your law\nrequire \"GOOD citizens\" to aid in hunting and enslaving their\nfellow-men.\n\nIn former years, and before Mr. Webster had undergone his metamorphosis,\nhe thus, in a speech at New York, expressed himself in regard to the\nantislavery agitation at the North. \"It [slavery] has arrested the\n_religious feeling_ of the country; it has taken strong hold of the\nconsciences of men. He is a rash man indeed, little conversant with\nhuman nature, and especially has he a very erroneous estimate of the\ncharacter of the people of this country, who supposes that a feeling of\nthis kind is _to be trifled with or despised_.\" This gentleman has\nbecome the rash man shadowed forth in his speech, and is trifling with\nand despising the religious feeling of the North. In his street speech\nin Boston, in favor of slave-hunting, he avowed that he was well aware\nthat the return of fugitives \"is a topic that must excite prejudices,\"\nand that the question for Massachusetts to decide was, \"whether she will\nconquer her own prejudice.\" In his letter to the citizens of\nNewburyport, he sneeringly alludes to the \"cry that there is a rule for\nthe government of public men and private men which is superior to the\nConstitution,\" and he scornfully intimates that Mr. Horace Mann, who had\nobjected to your law as wicked, would do well \"to appeal at once, as\nothers do, to that high authority which sits enthroned above the\nConstitution and the laws\"; and he gives an extract from a nameless\nEnglish correspondent, in which the writer remarks, \"Religion is an\nexcellent thing except in politics,\" a maxim exceedingly palatable to\nvery many of our politicians. Aware that the impiety of this sentiment\nwas not exactly suited to the meridian of Massachusetts, he says his\nfriend undoubtedly meant \"a fantastical notion of religion.\" Of course,\nhe regards the religious prejudice against hunting and enslaving men as\nspringing from a fantastic notion of religion. Yet, with a strange\nfatuity, he confesses that \"the teaching of Christ and his Apostles is a\nsure guide to duty in _politics_, as in any other concern of life,\"\nutterly oblivious of the fact, that the \"higher law,\" which he\nridicules, was proclaimed in that very teaching. Christ taught, \"Fear\nnot them [magistrates] who kill the body, but are not able to kill the\nsoul, but rather fear HIM who is able to destroy both soul and body in\nhell.\" What taught the Apostles? \"We must obey God, rather than man.\"\nSuch teaching it was, that gave birth to \"the noble army of martyrs,\"\nand this very teaching will induce multitudes of Christians at the\npresent day to hazard fines and imprisonment rather than obey the wicked\ninjunctions of your law. It was this same teaching which, on the\npublication of your law, induced numerous ministers of Jesus Christ, and\nvarious ecclesiastical assemblies, to denounce it as wicked, and\nobedience to it as rebellion against God. This expression of religious\nsentiment alarmed both our politicians and our merchants. How could the\none expect Southern votes, or the other Southern trade, if the religious\npeople at the North refused to catch slaves? Hence arose a mighty outcry\nagainst the blending of religion with politics, and most fearful were\nthe anathemas against the parsons who desecrated the pulpit by preaching\npolitics, that is, preaching that people ought to obey God rather than\nthe Fugitive Slave Act. Such men were, in the language of one of the New\nYork commercial journals, \"clerical preachers of rebellion,\" and their\ncongregations were exhorted to \"leave them to naked walls.\" But the\nleaven was at work, and an antidote was greatly wanted. Supply of course\nfollows demand, and forthwith there was a sudden advent of cotton\nclergyman, preaching against rebellion, and cunningly confounding a\nconscientious, passive disobedience with forcible resistance. Their\nsermons, in which virtually\n\n    \"The image of God was accounted as base,\n    And the image of Caesar set up in its place,\"\n\nwere received with mighty applause by the very men who had been striving\nto save the pulpit from all contaminating contact with politics, and the\nreverend preachers of cotton politics were elevated into patriots, and\ntheir disquisitions against the \"higher law\" were scattered on the wings\nof the commercial press broadcast over the land.[2] The theology which\nholds that the allegiance we owe to civil government binds the\nconscience to obedience to its mandates, is the same with which\nShakspeare's assassin quieted his scruples when acting under the royal\ncommand,--\"If a king bid a man be a villain, he is bound by the\nindenture of his oath to be one.\"\n\n[2] In one of the most celebrated of these sermons, we find the\nfollowing broad assertion:--\"If God _has_ left to men the choice of the\n_kind_ of government they will have, he has _not_ left it to their\nchoice whether they will obey human government or not. He has\n_commanded_ that obedience.\" Our rulers command us, when required by a\ncommissioner's agent, to aid in hunting and seizing our innocent\nfellow-men, and delivering them into the hands of their task-masters.\nThat the reverend preacher would render a cheerful obedience to such a\nmandate, there is little doubt. We read that the Jewish rulers, \"The\nchief priests and Pharisees, had given a _commandment_, that, if any one\nknew where he (Jesus) was, he should show it, that they might take him.\"\nStrange is it, that of the college of Apostles there was but one \"good\ncitizen,\" who rendered obedience to the powers ordained by God; all the\nothers suffered death for their wilful, deliberate defiance of the laws\nand the magistrates of the land. As a specimen of the teaching of these\ncotton divines, I quote from this same admired sermon the following\nprecious piece of information, viz.:--\"Nor is it true that the _fugitive\nslave_ is made an _outlaw_, and on that ground justifiable for bloody\nand murderous resistance of law. He is under _the protection of law_;\nand if any man injures him, or kills him, the law will avenge him, just\n_as soon as it would you or me_.\" To deny the truth of this solemn\ndeclaration, made in the house of God, would be, in the reverend\ngentleman's estimation, but a portion of \"that perpetual abuse of our\nSouthern brethren\" of which he complains. He must, however, permit us to\ncall his attention to the following advertisements respecting a FUGITIVE\nSLAVE, published in the Wilmington Journal of the 18th of October last,\nin pursuance of a law of the State of North Carolina.\n\n\"_State of North Carolina, New Hanover County._--Whereas complaint upon\noath hath this day been made to us, two of the justice of the peace for\nthe State and County aforesaid, by Guilford Horn, of Edgecombe County,\nthat a certain male slave belonging to him, named HARRY,--a carpenter by\ntrade, about 40 years old, 5 feet 5 inches high, or thereabouts, yellow\ncomplexion, stout built, with a scar on his left leg (from the cut of an\naxe), has very thick lips, eyes deep sunk in his head, forehead very\nsquare, tolerably loud voice, has lost one or two of his upper teeth,\nand has a very dark spot on his jaw, supposed to be a mark,--hath\n_absented_ himself from his master's service, and is _supposed_ to be\nlurking about in this County, committing acts of felony or other\nmisdeeds: These are, therefore, in the name of the State aforesaid, to\ncommand said slave forthwith to surrender himself, and return home to\nhis master; and we do hereby, by virtue of the act of Assembly in such\ncase made and provided, intimate and declare that if the said slave\nHarry doth not surrender himself, and return home immediately after the\npublication of these presents, that any person or persons may KILL and\nDESTROY the said slave by such means as he may think fit, without\naccusation or impeachment of any crime or offence for so doing, and\nwithout incurring any penalty or forfeiture thereby.\n\n\"Given under our hands and seals, this 29th day of June, 1850.\n\n\"JAMES T. MILLER, J. P.\n\n\"W. C. BENTTENCOURT, J. P.\n\n\"ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS REWARD will be paid for the\ndelivery of said HARRY to me at Tonsott Depot, Edgecombe County, or for\nhis confinement in any jail in the State, so that I can get him; or one\nhundred and fifty dollars will be given for his HEAD. He was lately\nheard from in Newbern, where he called himself Henry Barnes (or Burns)\nand will be likely to continue the name or assume that of Coppage or\nFarmer. He has a free mulatto woman for a wife, by the name of Sally\nBozeman, who has lately removed to Wilmington, and lives in that part of\nthe town called Texas, where he will likely be lurking.\n\n\"GUILFORD HORN.\n\n\"_June 29, 1850._\"\n\nIt is amusing to observe with what awful reverence our merchants and\nbrokers regard the sanctity of human law, when it commands them to catch\nslaves; a reverence not always felt by them for the statute of usury\nwhen the money market is tight.\n\nA vast deal of nonsense and impiety has been recently thrown upon the\npublic in relation to the \"higher law,\" by men who had political and\npecuniary interests depending on the good-will of the slaveholders. The\nwhole subject is perfectly simple and intelligible, and has been\nintentionally misrepresented and mystified.\n\nHuman government is indispensable to the happiness and progress of human\nsociety. Hence God, in his wisdom and benevolence, wills its existence;\nand in this sense, and this alone, the powers that be are ordained by\nhim. But civil government cannot exist, if each individual may, at his\npleasure, forcibly resist its injunctions. Therefore Christians are\nrequired to _submit_ to the powers that be, whether a Nero or a\nslave-catching Congress. But obedience to the civil ruler often\nnecessarily involves rebellion to God. Hence we are warned by Christ and\nhis Apostles, and by the example of saints in all ages, in such cases,\nnot to obey, but to submit and suffer. We are to hold fast our\nallegiance to Jehovah, but at the same time not take up arms to defend\nourselves against the penalties imposed by the magistrate for our\ndisobedience. Thus the Divine sovereignty and the authority of human\ngovernment are both maintained. Revolution is not the abolition of human\ngovernment, but a change in its form, and its lawfulness depends on\ncircumstances. What was the \"den\" in which John Bunyan had his glorious\nvision of the Pilgrim's Progress? A prison to which he was confined for\nyears for refusing obedience to human laws. And what excuse did this\nholy man make for conduct now denounced as wicked and rebellious? \"I\ncannot obey, but I can suffer.\" The Quakers have from the first refused\nto obey the law requiring them to bear arms; yet have they never been\nvilified by our politicians and cotton clergymen, as rebels against the\npowers that be, nor sneered at for their acknowledgment of a \"higher\"\nthan human law. The Lord Jesus Christ, after requiring us to love God\nand our neighbour, added, \"There is none other commandment greater than\nthese\"; no, not even a slave-catching act of Congress, which requires us\nto hunt our neighbour, that he may be reduced to the condition of a\nbeast of burden. Rarely has the religious faith of the community\nreceived so rude a shock as that which has been given it by your\nhorrible law, and the principles advanced by its political and clerical\nsupporters. Cruelty, oppression, and injustice are elevated into\nvirtues, while justice, mercy, and compassion are ridiculed and\nvilified.\n\nBut lately, the business of catching slaves was regarded as one of the\nlowest grades of scoundrelism. Now, great pains are taken by our\ngentlemen of property and standing to ennoble it; and men of eminence in\nthe legal profession are stooping to take the wages of iniquity, and\nlending themselves to consign to the horrors of American slavery men\nwhom they know to be innocent of crime. Nay, we have seen in New York a\ncommittee of gentlemen actually _raising money by voluntary\ncontribution_ to furnish a slave-catcher with professional services\ngratis;--a free gift, not to mitigate human misery, but to aggravate the\nhardships of the poor and friendless a thousandfold. Can men of standing\nin the community thus openly espouse the cause of cruelty and\noppression, and, from commercial and political views, trample upon every\nprinciple of Christian benevolence, without corrupting the moral sense\nof the people to the extent of their influence? When gentlemen club\ntogether to hire a lawyer to assist a slave-catcher, no wonder that the\ncommercial press should teem with the vilest abuse of all who feel\nsympathy for the fugitive. One of the most malignant proslavery journals\nin New York is edited by your colleague and fellow-Whig, the Honorable\nMr. Brooks, and his brother. I copy, Sir, for your consideration, the\nfollowing article from the _New York Evening Express_, published during\nthe late trial in that city of Henry Long, an alleged fugitive:--\n\n\"Two fugitive cases are now before our courts; one that of the negro\nHenry Long, and the other that of three white Frenchmen, under the\nextradition treaty with France. The negro's case makes a great deal of\nnoise, because he is black; the three white Frenchmen are hardly heard\nof. The three white French people pay their own counsel: they may have\ncommitted a robbery in Paris, or may not; are perhaps innocent, though\npossibly guilty; but here they are on trial, with no chance of a trial\nbefore a jury! If they are sent back, and are convicted, they go to the\ngalleys, and are slaves for life. The negro, Henry Long, lucky fellow\nfor being black! lives in clover here, and has one of the best speakers\nin the city, on the best fee, interests all the Abolitionists in all\nquarters, who contribute money freely for his defence, and if he is\nreturned, leaves here canonized as a martyr, and goes back to the\ncondition he was born in, to fatten on hog and hominy, better fed and\nbetter clothed than nine tenths of the farm laborers in Great Britain.\nAnother consideration strikes us, and that is, the cost of defending\nLong will buy his freedom three times over. The very fee of his counsel\nwould purchase his freedom. But to buy him and pay for him, _not steal_\nhim, would leave no room for agitation. And where does this money come\nfrom, that cares for Long and neglects the three Frenchmen? From\nEngland, in the main, we believe. The Abolitionists here do not\n_contribute it_.\"\n\nIt would be difficult to find in the Satanic press a more clumsy piece\nof malignant falsehood. We have here, from the same pen, and in the same\narticle, the assertions, that the Abolitionists, in all quarters, we are\nassured, \"contribute money freely for his defence\"; and then the money,\nit is believed, comes mainly from England. \"The Abolitionists here do\nnot contribute it.\" To contribute money for the legal defence of a\nfugitive is _stealing him_. The cost of defending Long amounted to three\ntimes the price that would be asked for him. Long, after his return,\nsold in Richmond for $750; of course his defence cost $2,250. To whom,\nand for what, was this money paid? Long could not be bought in New York,\nall advances for the purpose being peremptorily repulsed. His counsel's\nfee was $300, being all contributed in New York, and about $100 of it\nbeing raised by the free colored people. While $300 were thus raised to\ngive Long the chance of a legal defence, gentlemen of the New York Union\nSafety Committee, of which your colleague has the honor of being a\nmember, contributed $500 to aid the slave-catcher in reducing to bondage\na man unaccused of crime!\n\nI am inclined to believe, Sir, that you have little cause to\ncongratulate yourself, that, in voting for the Fugitive Slave Law, you\nhave advanced the cause of truth, justice, humanity, or religion.\n\nA refusal to _obey_ your wicked law has been artfully represented as a\ndetermination to _resist_ its execution. Very few of our white\npopulation have intimated the most distant intention of resorting to\nillegal violence. Very many ecclesiastical bodies have denounced your\nlaw as so iniquitous, that they could not in conscience obey it; but I\nchallenge you to point to a _single instance_ in which such a body has\nrecommended forcible resistance. To the vast accumulation of impiety\nuttered in support of your law has been added a fiendish ridicule of the\nbenevolent and Christian feeling arrayed against it. It is true, that\nsome of our free blacks and fugitives have declared, that they would, at\nthe hazard of their lives, defend themselves against the kidnapper.\nWhatever may be thought of the wisdom of such a determination, be\nassured it will tax your logical powers to the utmost to prove that God\nhas conferred the right of self-defence exclusively upon white men. The\nslave is a prisoner of war, and instead of being protected by law, he is\nsubjected by it to every conceivable outrage. When murdered, his owner\nseeks in the courts _damages_ at the hands of the murderer, as he would\nfor the death of his horse. For no possible injury committed on his\nperson, either by his owner or others, can he receive compensation,\nalthough the law may profess to punish cruelty to him as to other\nanimals. Now it has never been regarded as immoral, by those who admit\nthe right of self-defence, for a prisoner of war to effect his escape by\nslaying his guard. All this, I know, will horrify a certain class of\nour divines and politicians. But let them be patient. I am not laying\ndown a doctrine, but stating _facts_, which they may disprove if they\ncan. Let them remember, that all the slavery which they delight to find\nin the Bible was the slavery of _white_ men, and that the Roman slaves\nin the time of Christ, whose bondage, we are told, he and his Apostles\napproved, were held by the _right of war_. White Americans have been\nheld as slaves by the same holy and Scriptural tenure. Let us, then,\ninquire how the escape and resistance of white slaves have heretofore\nbeen regarded. In 1535, the _white_ slaves in Tunis alone amounted to\ntwenty thousand. Cervantes, who had himself been a slave in Algiers,\nsays in his writings, \"For liberty we ought to risk life itself; slavery\nbeing the greatest evil that can fall to the lot of man.\" Acting upon\nthis precept, he himself, while a slave, planned a general insurrection\nof the slaves. Yet Cervantes was recognized as a faithful son of the\nChurch, and the license prefixed to his works declares they contain\nnothing contrary to the Christian religion. The Annual Register for 1763\nannounces, that, \"last month, the Christian slaves at Algiers, to the\nnumber of four thousand, rose and killed their guards, and massacred all\nwho came in their way.\" The insurrection was suppressed, but no one in\nEurope denounced the insurgents as bloodthirsty wretches, nor regarded\ntheir effort as an impious and anti-Christian rebellion against the\npowers ordained of God. In the reign of Elizabeth, one John Fox, a slave\non the Barbary coast, slew his master, and, effecting his escape with a\nnumber of his fellow-slaves, arrived in England. The queen, instead of\nlooking upon him as a murderer, testified her admiration of his exploit\nby allowing him a pension.[3]\n\n[3] For the facts on this subject, see the admirable work by Charles\nSumner, entitled \"White Slavery in the Barbary States.\"\n\nWashington Madison performed a similar exploit on board an American\ncoast slaver, and arrived, with a large number of his fellow-slaves, in\nthe British West Indies. Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State,\nofficially demanded of the British government the surrender of this\nheroic man as a MURDERER.\n\nIn 1793, there were one hundred and fifteen American slaves in Algiers,\nheld by as perfect and Scriptural a tenure as any slave is now held in\nany part of our wide republic. Had one of these slaves made his escape\nby killing his Algerine master, would any of our patriotic divines,\nwould any gentleman of the \"New York Union Committee of Safety,\" would\neven Mr. Webster himself, have pronounced him a murderer? Had the\ncaptain of a British ship favored his escape, and given him a passage to\nBoston, would your colleague, the Honorable Mr. Brooks, have accused him\nof slave-stealing? Is it not possible, Sir, that, with very many of our\ncasuists and moralists, questions of conscience are decided according to\nthe tincture of a skin?\n\nI will now ask your attention to some of the political consequences\nresulting from the late measures in which you rejoice, and for which you\nvoted. No sooner had Congress made the required concessions to the slave\npower, than the advocates of those measures claimed the glory of having\ngiven peace to the country, and perpetuity to the Union. Mr. Webster, as\none of the chief agents in this blessed consummation, received the\ncongratulations of a crowd in Washington. In his reply he\nobserved,--\"Truly, gentlemen, the last two days have been great days. A\nwork has been accomplished which dissipates doubts and alarms, puts an\nend to angry controversies, fortifies the Constitution of the country,\nand strengthens the bond of the Union.\n\n    'Now is the winter of our discontent\n    Made glorious summer;....\n    And all the clouds that lowered upon our house\n    In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.'\"\n\nThe glorious summer anticipated by the orator proved cold and brief, and\nif the lowering clouds were indeed buried in the ocean, the sea has\ngiven up its dead. Never before, since the organization of the\ngovernment, has such a tempest of indignation swept over the land. Never\nbefore, in a single instance, has there been manifested throughout the\nreligious portion of the community, of all creeds and names, such a\nsettled determination in the fear of God to withhold obedience to a law\nof the land. The sentiments of the great mass of the people of the free\nStates, exclusive of the commercial cities, are briefly but emphatically\nembodied in a resolution of the Common Council of Chicago, viz.:--\"The\nFugitive Slave Act recently passed by Congress is revolting to our moral\nsense, and an outrage on our feelings of justice and humanity, because\nit disregards all the securities which the Constitution and laws have\nthrown around personal liberty, and its direct tendency is to alienate\nthe people from their love and reverence for the government and\ninstitutions of our country.\"\n\nHow far the clouds which hovered over our house have been dissipated,\nlet the recent rout of Mr. Webster's party in Massachusetts testify. Let\nhis own declaration, a month after the _peace_ measures were adopted,\nthat the Union was passing through a _fiery trial_, testify.[4] How far\nthe work of the two days has fortified the Constitution, let the recent\nlaw of Vermont, denounced as an utter nullification of the Constitution,\nbecause it rescues the alleged fugitive from the hands of the\ncommissioner, and gives him a jury trial before a State court, testify.\nWhen rumors were rife that Mr. Webster intended to repudiate his own\nthunder, the Wilmot Proviso, the _New York Herald_, the chief Northern\norgan of the slaveholders, promised that, if the Senator would indeed\npursue a course so patriotic, a grateful country would, at the next\nelection, place him in the Presidential chair. But scarcely had the acts\nadvocated by Mr. Webster been consummated, than the _Herald_, with\nsardonic malice, announces,--\"The predictions of Mr. Clay, that the\nCompromise Bill would speedily conciliate all parties, and restore the\nera of good feeling, were exactly the reverse of the actual\nconsequences. Mr. Webster has been cast overboard in Massachusetts.\nGeneral Cass has been virtually condemned in Michigan. Mr. Dickinson,\nthe President, and his cabinet, have been routed in New York. Mr. Phelps\nhas been superseded in Vermont. Whilst in Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, and\nWisconsin, the Free-Soilers have carried off the booty.\" And he winds up\nwith declaring, that the next President \"can't be Fillmore nor Webster.\"\n\n[4] Letter to Union Meeting in New York, 28th Oct., 1850.\n\nIf the \"peace measures\" have strengthened the bond of the Union, what\nmean all the meetings lately held to _save the Union_? Why is the tocsin\nnow sounded by the very authors and friends of the measures? How comes\nit that, in Boston itself, the chairman of a Union meeting contradicts\nthe exulting and jubilant shout of triumph uttered by the Secretary of\nState, and makes the following doleful announcement:--\"The Union, and\nconsequently the existence of this nation, is menaced, and unless there\nis a great and general effort in their support, we may soon behold the\nmighty fabric of our government trembling over our heads, and\nthreatening by its fall to crush the prosperity which we have so long\nand happily enjoyed.\" So relaxed has become the bond of our Union, that\none hundred gentlemen of property and standing in New York have, under\nthe style and title of \"The New York Union Committee of Safety,\" assumed\nthe onerous task of taking it into their safe-keeping. \"Committees of\nsafety\" are associated with times of peril and anarchy, and are never\nwanted when alarms have ceased, angry discussions ended, the\nConstitution fortified, and the bond of union strengthened.\n\nIn this universal panic, in this dread entertained, especially in\nBoston, by Mr. Webster's friends, of soon seeing the mighty fabric of\nour government trembling over their heads, it may, Sir, be consolatory\nto you and others to know how so dire a calamity may be averted. The\nchivalric Senator from Mississippi--the gentleman who threatens to hang\none Senator if he dare place his foot on the soil of Mississippi, who\ndraws a loaded pistol on another, and for a third bears a challenge to\nmortal combat--was lately in the city of New York. The Committee of\nSafety found him out, and lauded him for his fearless discharge of duty,\nand his fervor and devotion to the Union, and welcomed him to the\ncommercial emporium in the name of all who appreciate the blessings we\nenjoy, and are willing to transmit them to their children. The worthy\nand conciliatory gentleman very appropriately communicated to the\ncommittee having the Union in charge the conditions on which alone it\ncould be saved, notwithstanding its bond had so recently been\nstrengthened. These conditions are, we learn, four in number.\n\n1. \"The Fugitive Slave Bill passed by Congress shall remain the law of\nthe land, and be faithfully executed.\"\n\nBoth you and Mr. Webster admit that the Constitution permits a jury\ntrial to the fugitive. Should Congress, in its wisdom, and in obedience\nto the wishes of the great mass of the Northern population, and in the\nexercise of its constitutional power, elevate property in a human being\nto the same level with that in a horse, and permit a jury to pass upon\nthe title to it,--_the Union must be dissolved_.\n\n2. \"The Wilmot Proviso, that monstrous thing, shall not be revived.\" It\nwas not courteous, certainly, in Mr. Foote thus to characterize Mr.\nWebster's thunder. The claim to this thunder was made in his speech,\nSeptember, 1847, at the Springfield Convention, which nominated him for\nPresident; and the Convention, in his presence, thus declared their\ndevotion to his missile. \"The Whigs of Massachusetts now declare, and\nput this declaration of their purpose _on record_, that Massachusetts\nwill never consent that Mexican territories, however acquired, shall\nbecome a part of the American Union, unless on the _unalterable_\ncondition that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,\notherwise than in punishment for crime.\" The next year Mr. Webster\nlaunched his thunder over the Territory of Oregon, and thus in his\nspeech (10th August, 1848) vindicated it from the character now given to\nit by Mr. Foote:--\n\n\"Gentlemen from the South declare that we invade their rights when we\ndeprive them of a participation in the enjoyment of territories acquired\nby the common services and common exertions of all. Is this true? Of\nwhat do we deprive them? Why, they say that we deprive them of the\nprivilege of carrying their slaves as slaves into the new territories.\nWell, Sir, what is the amount of that? They say, that in this way we\ndeprive them of going into this acquired territory with their property.\nTheir property! What do they mean by this 'property'? We certainly do\nnot deprive them of the privilege of going into those newly acquired\nterritories with all that, in the general estimate of human society and\ncommon and universal understanding of mankind, is esteemed property. Not\nat all. The truth is just this. They have in their own States peculiar\nlaws which create property in persons.... The real meaning, then, of\nSouthern gentlemen, in making this complaint, is, that they cannot go\ninto the territories of the United States carrying with them their own\npeculiar law, a law which creates property in persons.\"\n\nSo the Wilmot Proviso was no monstrous thing at all, as applied to\nOregon. When the question came up of applying this same Proviso to New\nMexico and California, Mr. Webster discovered in these Territories a\ncertain peculiarity of physical geography and Asiatic scenery which he\nhad not discovered in Oregon, and which, he found, rendered it a\nphysical impossibility for Southern gentlemen to carry there \"a law\nwhich creates property in persons,\" and he therefore gave them full\nliberty to carry their law into those vast regions, if they could. But\nat the very moment of giving this liberty to Southern gentlemen, he\ncourageously warned them that his thunder was good constitutional\nthunder, and would be used whenever necessary. \"Wherever there is an\n_inch of land_ to be stayed back from becoming slave territory, I am\nready to insert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. I am pledged\nto that from 1837,--pledged to it again and again, and I will perform\nthose pledges.\" So, should we get another slice of Mexico, or annex Cuba\nor St. Domingo, Mr. Webster would revive the Wilmot Proviso, and then\n_he_ will be the means, if he succeeds, of dissolving the Union!\n\n3. The next condition announced to the Safety Committee is,--\"No attempt\nshall be made in Congress to prohibit slavery in the District of\nColumbia.\"\n\nNow it is the opinion of Mr. Webster, that Congress has the\nconstitutional right, not merely to attempt, but actually to effect, the\nexclusion of slavery in _all_ the Territories of the United States. The\nDistrict of Columbia being placed by the Constitution expressly under\n\"the exclusive jurisdiction\" of Congress, the _constitutional_ right to\nabolish slavery there has rarely been questioned; but it has been\ncontended that good faith to the States which ceded the District forbids\nsuch an act of constitutional power. Hence, in 1838, a resolution was\nintroduced into the Senate declaring that the abolition of slavery in\nthe District would be \"a violation of good faith,\" &c. What said Mr.\nWebster? \"I do not know any matter of fact, or any ground of argument,\non which this affirmation of plighted faith can stand. I see nothing in\nthe act of cession, and nothing in the Constitution, and nothing in the\ntransaction, implying any limitation on the authority of Congress.\"[5]\n\n[5] On the 10th of January, 1838, Mr. Clay moved in the Senate the\nfollowing resolution, viz.:--\"Resolved, that the interference by the\ncitizens of any of the States with a view to the abolition of slavery in\nthis District, is endangering the rights and security of the people of\nthis District; and that any act or measure of Congress designed to\nabolish slavery in this District would be a violation of the faith\nimplied in the cession by the States of Virginia and Maryland, a just\ncause of alarm to the people of the slaveholding States, and have a\ndirect and inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the\nUnion.\"--Passed, 38 to 8, Mr. Webster voting in the negative. _Senate\nJournal_, _2 Sess. 25 Cong._, p. 127.\n\n4. The last condition on which the Union can be preserved is,--\"No State\nshall be prevented from coming into the Union on the ground of having\nslavery.\" This is an unkind cut at Mr. Webster, since he has again and\nagain pledged himself against the admission of slave States. Even so\nearly as 1819, he advocated, in a public meeting at Boston, a resolution\ndeclaring that Congress \"possessed the constitutional power, upon the\nadmission of any new State created beyond the limits of the original\nterritory of the United States, to make the prohibition of the further\nextension of slavery or involuntary servitude in such new State a\ncondition of admission. That, in the opinion of this meeting, it is just\nand expedient that this power should be exercised by Congress upon the\nadmission of all new States created beyond the original limits of the\nUnited States.\" In his New York speech, in 1837, he averred, \"When it is\nproposed to bring new members into the political partnership, the old\nmembers have a right to say on what terms such new partners are to come\nin, and _what they are to bring along with them_.\" In his Springfield\nspeech, he insisted, \"There is no one [he forgot Mr. Foote and his other\nSouthern friends] who can complain of the North for resisting the\nincrease of _slave representation_, because it gives power to the\nminority in a manner inconsistent with the principles of our\ngovernment.\" So late as 1848, he proclaimed on the floor of the Senate,\n\"I shall oppose all such extension [slave representation] at all times\nand under all circumstances, even against all inducements, against all\ncombinations, against all compromises.\"\n\nThe State of Georgia, in her convention of December last, added a\n_fifth_ condition to those stated by Mr. Foote as indispensable to the\npreservation of the Union, viz.:--\"No act suppressing the slave-trade\nbetween the slaveholding States.\" Unfortunately for Mr. Webster, he is\nhere, for the fifth time, virtually held up as a disorganizer, and an\nenemy of the Union; for in his speech in the Senate (6th February, 1837)\nhe remarked,--\"As to the point, the right of regulating the transfer of\nslaves from one State to another, he did not know that he entertained\nany doubt, because the Constitution gave Congress the right to regulate\ntrade and commerce between the States. Trade in what? In whatever was\nthe subject of commerce and ownership. If slaves were the subjects of\nownership, then trade in them between the States was subject to the\nregulation of Congress.\"\n\nMr. Webster declared, that the work of the two days in which he rejoiced\nhad fortified the Constitution, and strengthened the bond of the Union;\nand yet we are now solemnly warned, by the very men and party with whom\nhe is acting, that the bond is to be severed, should Congress pass any\none of five laws, all and each of which he, the great expounder,\ndeclares the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass. So it seems the\ngreat peril to which we are exposed, the course which is to make the\nfabric of our government to tremble over the heads of the people of\nBoston, is, not the violation of the Constitution, nor the breach of its\ncompromises, nor the invasion of the rights of the South, but the\nexercise by Congress of powers which Mr. Webster declares to be\nundoubtedly constitutional. The Abolitionists supposed they were\nfollowing a safe guide when they confined themselves, in their petitions\nto Congress for legislative action against slavery, exclusively to such\nmeasures as they were assured, by the eminent expounder, were strictly\nconstitutional. The Abolitionists have sympathized with this gentleman\nin the obloquy he incurred, in common with themselves, for holding\nopinions unpalatable to the slaveholders, and for maintaining the\nconstitutional rights of Congress. Because he insisted, in the Senate,\non the power of Congress over slavery and the slave-trade in the\nDistrict of Columbia, Mr. Rives, of Virginia, was so unkind as to say,\nthat the gentleman from Massachusetts, \"if it so pleased his fancy,\nmight disport himself in tossing squibs and firebrands about this hall;\nbut those who are sitting upon a barrel of gunpowder, liable to be blown\nup by his dangerous missiles, could hardly be expected to be quite as\ncalm and philosophic.\" Because he presented antislavery petitions, and\ninsisted on the duty of Congress to consider them, Mr. King, of Alabama,\naffirmed that the course which the Senator from Massachusetts had taken\nhad \"placed him at the head of those men who are inundating Congress\nwith their petitions.\" Strange as it may now seem, Mr. Cuthbert, of\nGeorgia, told Mr. Webster to his face in the Senate, \"The gentleman had\nuniformly been opposed to all those measures which tended to quiet the\ncountry and heal those sectional dissensions which distract the\nUnion.\"[6] Surely, when the Abolitionists have so long made Mr. Webster\ntheir polar star in all constitutional questions, and have incurred with\nhim the accusation of tossing squibs and firebrands, and of opposing\nmeasures which tended to quiet the country and settle sectional\ndissensions, they had a right to expect from his friends a larger share\nof compassion and forbearance than they have experienced.\n\n[6] Speech, June 8, 1836.\n\nIt would seem, Sir, that, in the late treaty of peace between the North\nand the South, it has been agreed and understood, that every power\ngranted by the Constitution, whereby slavery can be protected, extended,\nand perpetuated, is to be actively enforced; and that every power which\nmight be used for curtailing human bondage, however unquestionable may\nbe its grant, shall for ever remain dormant, under the penalty of an\nimmediate dissolution of the Union. This, Sir, is the treaty which our\ncommercial cities are glorifying; this is the treaty which has turned\nour \"winter of discontent\" into \"glorious summer.\" And think you, Sir,\nthat the slaveholders, having eyes, see not, and having understandings,\nperceive not, the haberdashery patriotism which rejoices in such a\ntreaty, and denounces as \"fanatics,\" \"vipers,\" and \"woolly-headed\nphilanthropists,\" all who do not confess it to be a glorious\nconsummation? The Southern papers tell us that our Union meetings are\ngot up to \"sell a little more tape and flannel\"; and they remark, \"It is\nvery queer that Union meetings are held only in places which trade with\nthe South.\" Out of regard to their Southern brethren, a member of the\nBritish House of Commons was insulted in Faneuil Hall by a portion of\nthe Boston people, and forthwith the _New Orleans Delta_, instead of\ngratefully acknowledging the compliment, remarks, that their \"good\nUnion-loving friends in Boston are now solacing the South with\nsugar-plums in the shape of resolutions and speeches, and spice in the\nform of a row, got up on the occasion of the first appearance of George\nThompson, an imported incendiary and hireling agitator. Such\nmanifestation possesses an advantage which doubtless constitutes no\nsmall recommendation with our good brethren of Boston,--it is very\ncheap. The _cottoncratical_ clerks and warehousemen may raise a hubbub\nin Faneuil Hall, but the fanatics can slay them at the _polls_.\"\n\nIt is some consolation to those who are now suffering all the contempt\nand opprobrium which can be thrown both upon their heads and their\nhearts, because they have refused to follow Mr. Webster in the devious\npaths in which it has lately been his pleasure to walk, that they have\nby their constancy and firmness extorted from their Southern antagonists\na tribute which is not paid to their revilers. Said Mr. Stanley, of\nVirginia, in his speech in the House of Representatives last March,\nspeaking of a certain class of Northern politicians,--\"I would say, with\na slight alteration of one of Canning's verses,--\n\n    'Give me the avowed, erect, and manly foe,\n    Open I can meet, perhaps may turn, his blow;\n    But of all the plagues, great Heaven, thy wrath can send,\n    Save, O, save me from a _dough-face friend_!'\"\n\nIn closing this long letter, permit me to advert to the opinion\nexpressed abroad of your Fugitive Law. Mr. Webster thought it convenient\nto quote the sentiment of a nameless correspondent, as to the\nmischievous mixture of religion with politics. Possibly the opinion of\nDr. Lushington, one of the Lords of the Privy Council, Judge of the\nVice-Admiralty Court, and the negotiator, on the part of Great Britain,\nof a recent treaty with France, may be entitled to at least equal\nweight. This gentleman, in a private letter to an English friend, and\nnot intended for publication, thus speaks of your law:--\"No one can feel\nmore sincerely than myself, abhorrence of the Fugitive Slave Bill,--a\nmeasure as cruel and unchristian as ever disgraced any country.\" An\nIrish liberal, writing from Dublin, says,--\"I long looked to your\ncountry as the ark of the world's liberties. I confess I hope for this\nno longer. The Fugitive Slave Bill is a shocking sample of the depravity\nof public sentiment in the United States. So atrocious a measure could\nnot have passed into a law, if the majority of the people had not\nactively assented, or passively consented. Here, by the preponderating\ninfluence of our aristocracy, a small, but compact body, measures are\noften carried into laws that are very distasteful to multitudes; but\nsuch a mean, vile law as the Fugitive Slave Bill could not pass in\nEngland.\"\n\nThe English press, Whig, Tory, and Radical, is indignant at the\natrocities of your law. The taunt of our slaveholders, that the English\nhad better reform abuses at home, is thus met by a radical journal (_The\nPeople_):--\"The Americans laugh at us when we speak of American slavery,\nso long as so many of our fellow-subjects in England and Ireland are\nperishing from starvation through monarchical and aristocratical\ntyranny. We answer, that the Americans _know_ that the men and women who\nlift up their voices against American slavery are the enemies of British\ntyranny and oppression.\"\n\nYour law, Sir, degrades the national character abroad; its excessive\nservility to Southern dictation excites the contempt of the slaveholders\nfor the easy, selfish virtue of their Northern auxiliaries, while its\noutrages upon religion, justice, humanity, and the dearest principles of\npersonal freedom, under pretence of preserving the Union, weaken the\nattachment of conscientious men for a confederacy which requires such\nhorrible sacrifices for its continuance. All these evils might have been\neasily avoided by a law satisfying every requirement of the\nConstitution, and yet treating the alleged fugitive as a MAN, and\ngranting him the same protection as is accorded to an alleged murderer.\nGod gave you, Sir, an opportunity for which you ought to have been\ngrateful, of illustrating your Puritan descent by standing forth before\nthe nation as an advocate of justice and freedom, and of the rights of\nthe poor and oppressed. Through a blind devotion to a political leader,\nyou rejected the palm which Providence tendered to your acceptance, and\nhave indelibly associated your name with cruelty and injustice. Had you\nretired from the notice of the public, as you did from the suffrages of\nthe electors, you had acted wisely. In an evil hour for yourself, you\nstood forth as the champion of the Fugitive Slave Law. Its enemies\nrejoice in your rashness, for your feeble apology has rendered its\ndeformities more prominent, and, by failing to vindicate, you have\nvirtually confessed its abominations. May you live, Sir, to deplore the\ngrievous error you have committed, and, by your future efforts in behalf\nof human freedom and happiness, atone for the wound they have received\nat your hands.\n\nHANCOCK.\n\nFebruary, 1851.","title":"A Letter to the Hon. Samuel A. Eliot, Representative in Congress From the City of Boston, In Reply to His Apology For Voting For the Fugitive Slave Bill.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":19489}