Chapter IV: Of the Circumstances of This Special Case, United States Versus (2)

"In the mean time the United States Judge and Marshal were
busy in their vocation. It affirmed that the Grand-Jury was
packed in the most unblushing manner, until an inquest was
made up that would answer the purpose of the Government.
However this may have been, indictments were found in the
District Court, against Mr. Booth and several other persons.
A petty Jury selected with the same care that had been
bestowed on the composition of the Grand-Jury, convicted Mr.
Booth and Mr. Ryecraft. All the weight of the government was
thrown against the defendants. Special counsel were retained
to assist the District Attorney, the instructions of the
Court were precise and definite against them; all motions in
their behalf resting on the irregularities and injustices of
the proceedings were overruled. So were all motions
subsequent to the conviction for an arrest of judgment. They
were sentenced to fine and imprisonment--Mr. Booth to pay
one thousand dollars and costs, and to be imprisoned one
month, and Mr. Ryecraft to pay two hundred dollars, and to
be imprisoned for ten days. On these sentences they were
committed to jail. The public excitement in Milwaukee, and
throughout the State, was intense. It was with difficulty
that the people could be restrained from forcibly liberating
the prisoners. Fortunately there was no occasion for any
such extreme measures. They found protection, where it ought
to be found, in the constituted authorities of their State.
A writ of habeas corpus was issued in their behalf by the
Supreme Court, then sitting at Madison, the Capital of the
State, returnable before them there. Escorted by two
thousand of their fellow-citizens, thither, in charge of the
High Sheriff, they had a hearing at once. After full
deliberation, the Court unanimously ordered them to be
discharged. The majority of the Court made this decision on
the ground of the unconstitutionality of the fugitive slave
law, one Judge (Crawford) sustaining the law, but concurring
in the order on the ground that no offence, under that Act,
was charged in the indictment. So the prisoners were
discharged, and brought home in triumph."

Gentlemen, that matter will be carried up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and you may yet hear the opinion of the Hon. Associate Justice Curtis, for which let us wait with becoming reverence.

* * * * *

3. Here is the case of Mr. Sloane, which happened in the State of Ohio.

In October, 1852, several colored persons were about leaving Sandusky in a steamer for Detroit, when they were seized and taken before Mr. Follet, mayor of the city, and claimed as fugitive slaves. This seizure was made by the city marshal and three persons claiming to act for the owners of the slaves.

After the colored persons were brought before the mayor, their friends engaged Mr. Rush R. Sloane to act as counsel in their defence. He demanded of the mayor and the claimants by what authority the prisoners were detained. There was no reply. He then asked, whether they were in the custody of a United States Marshal or Commissioner. Again there was no reply. He next called for any writs, papers, or evidences by which they were detained. Still there was no answer. He then said to his clients, "_I see no authority to detain your colored friends._"

At that time some one near the door cried out, "Hustle them out," and soon the crowd and the alleged fugitives were in the street. Then one of the claimants said to Mr. Sloane, "I own these slaves; they are my property, and I shall hold you individually liable for their escape." _These were the first and only words he spoke to Mr. Sloane, and then not until the black men were in the street._

In due time Mr. Sloane was arrested for resisting the execution of the fugitive slave bill, though he had _only acted as legal counsel for the alleged slaves and had offered no resistance to the law, by deed, or word, or sign_.

He was brought to trial at Columbus. Before the jurors were sworn they were all asked "whether they had any conscientious scruples against the fugitive slave law, and would hesitate to convict under it." If they said "Yes," they were rejected. Thus a jury was packed for the purpose, and the trial went on. Thirteen unimpeached witnesses deposed to the facts stated before, while the slave claimant had no evidence but the _city marshal_ of Sandusky--the Tukey of that place--and _two of the three slave-catchers_--who swore that they had with them _powers of attorney for the seizure of twenty-four slaves_.

Gentlemen, such was the action of the court, and such the complexion of the packed jury, that Mr. Sloane was found "guilty." The Judge, Hon. Mr. Leavitt, refused to sign a bill of exceptions, enabling him to bring the matter before the Supreme Court. Mr. Sloane was sentenced to pay a fine of $3,000, and $930 _as costs of court_! Such was the penalty for a lawyer telling his clients that he saw no authority to detain them,--after having three times demanded the authority, and none had been shown!

* * * * *

4. Gentlemen of the Jury, I now come to cases which have happened in our own State,--in this city. Some alarm was felt as soon as Mr. Mason's fugitive slave bill was proposed in the Senate. But men said, "No northern man will support it. There is much smoke and no fire." But when on the 7th of March, 1850, Mr. Webster adopted the bill, and promised to defend it and the amendments to it, "with all its provisions to the fullest extent;" when he declared that Massachusetts would execute the infamous measure "with alacrity"--then not only alarm but indignation took possession of northern breasts. The friends of Slavery at Boston must do all in their power to secure the passage of the bill, the prosperity of its adoptive father, and its ultimate enforcement--the kidnapping of men in Massachusetts. Here are the measures resorted to for attaining this end.

i. A meeting was called at the Revere House, that Mr. Webster might defend his scheme for stealing his constituents and putting himself into the Presidency.

ii. A public letter was written to him approving of his attempts to restore man-stealing, and other accompaniments of slavery, to the free States. This letter declared the "deep obligations" of the signers "for what this speech has done and is doing;" "we wish to thank you," they say, "for recalling us to our duties under the constitution;" "you have pointed out to a whole people the path of duty, have convinced the understanding, and touched the conscience of the nation;" "we desire, therefore, to express to you our entire concurrence in the sentiments of your speech." This letter was dated at Boston, March 25th, 1850, and received 987 signatures, it is said.

iii. When the bill became an Act of government, a hundred cannons, as I have before stated, were fired on Boston Common in token of joy at the restoration of slavery to our New England soil.

iv. Articles were written in the newspapers in defence of kidnapping, in justification of the fugitive slave bill. The _Boston Courier_ and _Boston Daily Advertiser_ gave what influence they had in support of that crime against America.

v. Several ministers of Boston came out and publicly, in sermons in their own pulpits, defended the fugitive slave bill, and called on their parishioners to enforce the law!

Gentlemen of the Jury, need I tell you of the feelings of the Philanthropists of Boston,--of the colored citizens who were to be the victims of this new abomination! Within twenty-four hours of its passage more than thirty citizens of Boston, colored citizens, fled in their peril to a man whose delight it is to undo the heavy burthens and let the oppressed go free. While others were firing their joyful cannon at the prospect of kidnapping their brothers and sisters, Francis Jackson helped his fellow Christians into the ark of Deliverance which he set afloat on that flood of Sin. Gentlemen, he is here to-day--he is one of my bondsmen. There are the others--this venerable gentleman [Samuel May], this steadfast friend [John R. Manley.]

vi. It was not long before the kidnappers came here for their prey.

(1.) I must dwell a moment on the first attempt. Gentlemen of the Jury, you know the story of William and Ellen Craft. They were slaves in Georgia; their master was said to be a "very pious man," "an excellent Christian." Ellen had a little baby,--it was sick and ready to die. But one day her "owner"--for this wife and mother was only a piece of property--had a dinner party at his house. Ellen must leave her dying child and wait upon the table. She was not permitted to catch the last sighing of her only child with her own lips; other and ruder hands must attend to the mother's sad privilege. But the groans and moanings of the dying child came to her ear and mingled with the joy and merriment of the guests whom the mother must wait upon. At length the moanings all were still--for Death took a North-side view of the little boy, and the born-slave had gone where the servant is free from his master and the weary is at rest--for _there_ the wicked cease from troubling. Ellen and William resolved to flee to the North. They cherished the plan for years; he was a joiner, and hired himself of his owner for about two hundred dollars a year. They saved a little money, and stealthily, piece by piece, they bought a suit of gentleman's clothes to fit the wife; no two garments were obtained of the same dealer. Ellen disguised herself as a man, William attending as her servant, and so they fled off and came to Boston. No doubt these Hon. Judges think it was a very "immoral" thing. Mr. Curtis knows no morality here but "legality." Nay, it was a wicked thing--for Mr. Everett, a most accomplished scholar, and once a Unitarian minister, makes St. Paul command "SLAVES, obey your masters!" Nay, Hon. Judge Sprague says it is a "precept" of our "Divine Master!"

Ellen and William lived here in Boston, intelligent, respected, happy. The first blow of the fugitive slave bill must fall on them. In October, 1850, one Hughes, a jailer from Macon, Georgia, a public negro-whipper, who had once beaten Ellen's uncle "almost to death," came here with one Knight, his attendant, to kidnap William and Ellen Craft. They applied to Hon. Mr. Hallett for a writ. Perhaps they had heard (false) rumors that the Hon. Commissioner was "a little slippery in his character;" that he was "not overscrupulous in his conduct;" that he "would do any dirty work for political preferment." Gentlemen, you know that such rumors will get abroad, and will be whispered of the best of men. Of course you would never believe them in this case: but a kidnapper from Georgia might; "distance lends" illusion, as well as "enchantment, to the view." But be that as it may, Mr. Hallett (in 1850) appeared to have too much manhood to kidnap a man. He was better than his reputation; I mean his reputation with Knight and Hughes, and would not (then) steal Mr. and Mrs. Craft. This is small praise; it is large in comparison with the conduct of his official brethren. But for the salvation of the Union another Commissioner was found who had no such scruples. This Honorable Court--Mr. Woodbury was then in the chief place, and Mr. Sprague in his present position--issued the writ of man-stealing. Two gentlemen of this city were eminently, but secretly, active in their attempt to kidnap their victim. I shall speak of them by and by. Somebody took care of Ellen Craft. William less needed help; he armed himself with pistols and a poignard, and walked in the streets in the face of the sun. He was a tall, brave man, and was quite as cool then as this Honorable Court is now, while I relate their "glorious first essay" in man-stealing. Public opinion at length drove the (southern) kidnappers from Boston. Then the Crafts also left the town and the country, and found in the Monarchical Aristocracy of Old England what the New England Democracy refused to allow them--protection of their unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Gentlemen, the Evangelists of slavery could not allow a Southern kidnapper to come to Boston and not steal his man: they were in great wrath at the defeat of Hughes and Knights. So they procured a meeting at Faneuil Hall to make ready for effectual kidnapping and restoring Slavery to Boston. "The great Union meeting" was held at Faneuil Hall November 26th, 1850,--two days before the annual Thanksgiving; it was "a preparatory meeting" to make ready the hearts of the People for that dear New England festival when we thank God for the Harvest of the Land, and the Harvest of the Sea, and still more for the State whose laws are Righteousness, and the Church that offers us "the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free," "the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God." Here are the Resolutions which were passed.

"Resolved, That the preservation of the Constitution and the
Union is the paramount duty of all citizens;--that the
blessings which have flowed from them in times past, which
the whole country is now enjoying under them, and which we
firmly believe posterity will derive from them hereafter,
are incalculable; and that they vastly transcend in
importance all other political objects and considerations
whatever.

"Resolved, That it would be folly to deny that there has
been and still is danger to the existence of the Union,
where there is prevalent so much of a spirit of disunion,
constantly weakening its strength and alienating the minds
of one part of the people of the United States from another;
and that if this spirit be not checked and restrained, and
do not give way to a spirit of conciliation and of patriotic
devotion to the general good of the whole country, we cannot
expect a long continuance of the political tie which has
hitherto made us one people; but must rather look to see
groups of rival neighboring republics, whose existence will
be a state of perpetual conflict and open war.

"Resolved, That all the provisions of the Constitution of
the United States--the supreme law of the land--are equally
binding upon every citizen, and upon every State in the
Union;--that ALL laws passed by Congress, in pursuance of
the Constitution, are equally binding on all the citizens,
and no man is at liberty to resist or disobey any one
constitutional act of Congress any more than another; and
that we do not desire or intend to claim the benefit of any
one of the powers or advantages of the Constitution, and to
refuse, or seem to refuse, to perform any part of its
duties, or to submit to any part of its obligations.

"Resolved, That the adjustment of the measures which
disturbed the action of Congress for nearly ten months of
its last session, ought to be carried out by the people of
the United States in good faith, in all the substantial
provisions; _because_, although we may differ with each
other about the details of those measures, yet, in our
judgment, a renewed popular agitation of any of the main
questions then settled, would be fraught with new and
extreme dangers to the peace and harmony of the country,
which this adjustment has happily restored.

"Resolved, That every species and form of resistance to the
execution of a regularly enacted law, except by peaceable
appeal to the regular action of the judicial tribunals upon
the question of its constitutionality--an appeal which ought
never to be opposed or impeded--is mischievous, and
subversive of the first principles of social order, and
tends to anarchy and bloodshed.

"Resolved, That men, who directly or indirectly instigate or
encourage those who are or may be the subjects of legal
process, to offer violent resistance to the officers of the
law, deserve the reprehension of an indignant community, and
the severest punishment which its laws have provided for
their offence; and that we have entire confidence that any
combination or attempt to fix such a blot upon the fair fame
of our State or city, will be promptly rebuked and punished,
by an independent and impartial judiciary, and by firm and
enlightened juries.

"Resolved, That we will at all times, in all places, and
under all circumstances, so far as our acts or influence may
extend, sustain the Federal Union, uphold its Constitution,
and enforce the duty of obedience to the laws."

A singular preparation for a Thanksgiving day in Boston! But on that festival, Gentlemen, three Unitarian ministers thanked God that the fugitive slave bill would be kept in all the land!

Several speeches were made at the meeting, some by Whigs, some by Democrats, for it was a "Union meeting," where Herod and Pilate were made friends. Gentlemen, I must depart a little from the severity of this defence and indulge you with some of the remarks of my distinguished opponent, Hon. Attorney Hallett: then he was merely a lawyer, and fugitive slave bill Commissioner, appointed "to take bail, affidavits," and colored men,--he was only an expectant Attorney. His speech was a forerunner of the "Indictment" which has brought us together. Hearken to the words of Mr. Hallett in his "preparatory lecture:"--

"We can now say that there is no law of the United States
which cannot be executed in Massachusetts. If there was any
doubt before, _there can be no doubt now_; and if there be
any wild enough hereafter to resort to a fancied 'Higher
Law' to put down law [that is, the fugitive slave bill],
they will find in your determined will a stronger law to
sustain _all the laws of the United States_." "The
threatened nullification comes from Massachusetts upon a law
[the fugitive slave bill] which the whole South insist is
_vital to the protection of their property and industry_
[much of their "property" and "industry" being addicted to
running away]. _And shall Massachusetts nullify that law?_"
"The question for us to-day is whether we will in good
faith abide by, and carry out these _Peace Measures_ [for
the rendition of fugitive slaves, the new establishment of
Slavery in Utah and New Mexico, and the restoration of it to
all the North] or whether we shall rush into renewed
agitation," etc. "Resort is had to a new form of _moral
treason_ which assumes by the mysterious power of a '_Higher
Law_' to trample down all law [that is, the fugitive slave
bill]. Some of our fellow-citizens have avowed that the
fugitive slave bill is to be treated like the _Stamp Act_,
and never to be enforced in Massachusetts. If that means any
thing, it means that which our fathers meant when they
resisted the Stamp Act and threw the tea
overboard--Revolution.[181] _It_ [opposition to the fugitive
slave bill] _is revolution, or it is treason. If it only
resists law, and obstructs its officers, it is treason; and
he who risks it, must risk hanging for it._"[182]

[Footnote 181: The learned counsel for the fugitive slave bill confounds two events. The Stamp Act was passed March 22d, 1765, and repealed the 28th of the next March. The tea was destroyed December 16th, 1773.]

[Footnote 182: Report in Boston Courier of November 27th, 1850.]

Gentlemen, that meeting determined to execute the fugitive slave bill "with all its provisions, to the fullest extent." It is dreadful to remember the articles in the Daily Advertiser and the Courier at that period. Some of the sermons in the Churches of Commerce on the following Thursday, Thanksgiving day, were filled with the most odious doctrines of practical atheism. The "preparatory meeting" had its effect. Soon the seed bore fruit after its kind. But some ministers were faithful to their Brother and their Lord.

(2.) February 15th, 1851, a colored man named "Shadrach" was arrested under a warrant from that Commissioner who had been so active in the attempt to kidnap Mr. and Mrs. Craft. But a "miracle" was wrought: "where sin abounded Grace did much more abound," and "the Lord delivered him out of their hands." Shadrach went free to Canada, where he is now a useful citizen. He was rescued by a small number of colored persons at noonday. The kidnapping Commissioner telegraphed to Mr. Webster, "It is levying war--it is treason." Another asked, "What is to be done?" The answer from Washington was, "Mr. Webster was very much mortified."

On the 18th, President Fillmore, at Mr. Webster's instigation, issued his proclamation calling on all well disposed citizens, and _commanding all officers_, "civil and military, to aid and assist in quelling this, and all other such combinations, _and to assist in recapturing the above-named person_" Shadrach. General orders came down from the Secretaries of War and the Navy, commanding the _military and naval officers to yield all practicable assistance_ in the event of such another "_insurrection_." The City Government of Boston passed Resolutions regretting that a man had been saved from the shackles of slavery; cordially approving of the President's proclamation, and promising their earnest efforts to carry out his recommendations. At that time Hon. Mr. Tukey was Marshal; Hon. John P. Bigelow was Mayor; Hon. Henry J. Gardner, a man equally remarkable for his temperance, truthfulness, and general integrity, was President of the Common Council.

It was not long, Gentlemen, before the City Government had an opportunity to keep its word.

(3.) On the night of the 3d of April, 1851, Thomas Sims was kidnapped by two police officers of Boston, pretending to arrest him for theft! Gentlemen of the Jury, you know the rest. He was on trial nine days. He never saw the face of a jury, a judge only once--who refused the _Habeas Corpus_, the great "Writ of Right." That judge--I wish his successors may better serve mankind--has gone to his own place; where, may God Almighty have mercy on his soul! You remember, Gentlemen, the chains round the Court House; the Judges of your own Supreme Court crawling under the southern chain. You do not forget the "Sims Brigade"--citizen soldiers called out and billeted in Faneuil Hall. You recollect the Cradle of Liberty shut to a Free Soil Convention, but open to those hirelings of the Slave Master. You will never forget the Pro-Slavery Sermons that stained so many Boston pulpits on the "Fast-day" which intervened during the mock trial!

Mr. Sims had able defenders,--I speak now only of such as appeared on his behalf, others not less noble and powerful, aided by their unrecorded service--Mr. Sewall, Mr. Rantoul, men always on the side of Liberty, and one more from whose subsequent conduct, Gentlemen of the Jury, I grieve to say it, you would not expect such magnanimity then, Mr. Charles G. Loring. But of what avail was all this before such a Commissioner? Thomas Sims was declared "a chattel personal to all intents, uses, and purposes whatsoever." After it became plain that he would be decreed a slave, the poor victim of Boston kidnappers asked one boon of his counsel, "I cannot go back to Slavery," said he, "give me a knife, and when the Commissioner declares me a slave I will stab myself to the heart, and die before his eyes! I will not be a slave." The knife was withheld! At the darkest hour of the night Mayor Bigelow and Marshal Tukey, suitable companions, admirably joined by nature as by vocation, with two or three hundred police-men armed, some with bludgeons, some with drawn swords and horse pistols, took the poor boy out of his cell, chained, weeping, and bore him over the spot where, on the 5th of March, 1770, the British tyrant first shed New England blood; by another spot where your fathers and mine threw to the ocean the taxed tea of the oppressor. They put him on board a vessel, the "_Acorn_," and carried him off to eternal bondage. "And this is Massachusetts liberty!" said he, as he stepped on board. Boston sent her Delegates to escort him back, and on the 19th of April, 1851, she delivered him up to his tormentors in the jail at Savannah, where he was scourged till human nature could bear no more, while his captors were feasted at the public cost. Seventy-six years before there was another 19th of April, also famous!

(4.) Then came the examination and "trial" of the Shadrach Rescuers in February and the following months. Some of these trials took place before his Honor Judge Peleg Sprague. Therefore, you will allow me, Gentlemen, to refresh your memories with a word or two respecting the antecedents of this Judge--his previous history.

In 1835 the abolition of Slavery in the British West Indies and the efforts of the friends of Freedom in the Northern States, excited great alarm at the South, lest the "peculiar institution" should itself be brought into peril. Fear of a "general insurrection of the slaves" was talked about and perhaps felt. The mails were opened in search of "incendiary publications;" a piano-forte sent from Boston to Virginia, was returned because the purchaser found an old copy of the "Emancipator" in the case which contained it. Public meetings for the promotion of American Slavery were held. There was one at Boston in Faneuil Hall, August 21, 1835, at which a remarkable speech was made by a lawyer who had graduated at Harvard College in 1812, a man no longer young, of large talents and great attainments in the law. He spoke against discussion, and in behalf of Slavery and Slaveholders: he could see no good, but only unmixed evil "consequent upon agitating this subject here." He said:--

"When did fear ever induce a man to relax his power over the
object that excited it? No, he will hold him down with a
stronger grasp, he will draw the cords tighter, he will make
the chains heavier and sink his victim to a still deeper
dungeon."

"The language and measures of the abolitionists clearly tend
to insurrection and violence." "They [the slaves] hear that
their masters have no legal or moral authority over them.
That every moment's exercise of such dominion is sin, and
that the laws that sanction it are morally void: that they
are entitled to immediate emancipation, and that their
masters are to be regarded as kidnappers and robbers for
refusing it." "It is deluding these unfortunate beings to
their own destruction, we should not aid them. The
Constitution provides for the suppressing of insurrections
... we should respond to its call [if the slaves attempted
to recover their liberty]; nay, we should not wait for such
a requisition, but on the instant should rush forward with
fraternal emotions to defend our brethren from desolation
and massacre."

"The South will not tolerate our interference with their
slaves, [by our discussing the matter in the newspapers and
elsewhere]." "The Union then, if used to disturb this
institution of Slavery, will be then as the 'spider's web; a
breath will agitate, a blast will sweep it away forever.'"

"If, then, these abolitionists shall go on ... the fate of
our government is sealed.... And who will attempt to fathom
the immeasurable abyss of a dissolution of the Union?"

"Tell the abolitionists this; present to them in full array
the consequences of their attempts at immediate
emancipation, and they meet all by a cold abstraction. They
answer, '_We must do right regardless of consequences._'"
"They assume that such a course [undoing the heavy burthens
and letting the oppressed go free, and loving your neighbor
as yourself] _is_ right. When that is the very point in
controversy, and when inevitable consequences demonstrate
that it must be wrong."

"They [the abolitionists] insist upon immediate,
instantaneous emancipation.... No man, say they, can be
rightfully restrained of his liberty except for crime."
"They come to the conclusion that no laws that sanction or
uphold it [Slavery] can have any moral obligation. The
Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. It does
sanction, it does uphold Slavery; and if this doctrine be
true, that sacred compact has always been [so far] morally
null and void." "He [Washington] THAT SLAVEHOLDER ... came
with other Slaveholders to drive the British myrmidons from
this city and this Hall. Our fathers did not refuse to hold
communion with him or with them. With Slaveholders they
formed the Confederation ... with them they made the
Declaration of Independence." "And in the original draft of
the Declaration was contained a most _eloquent passage upon
this very topic of negro Slavery, which was stricken out in
deference to the wishes of members from the South_."
"Slavery existed then as now." "Our fathers were not less
devoted friends of liberty, not less pure as philanthropists
or pious as Christians than any of their children of the
present day." [Therefore _we_ must not attempt to emancipate
a slave!]

Here is the passage which the speaker thought it so praiseworthy in the Revolutionary Congress to strike out from the Declaration of Independence:--

"He [the king] has waged cruel war against human nature
itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty
in the persons of a distant people who never offended him,
captivating and carrying them into slavery in another
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their
transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the
opprobrium of INFIDEL nations, is the warfare of the
CHRISTIAN King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a
market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has
prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative
attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.
And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of
distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to
rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which
he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he
also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed
against the LIBERTIES of one people with crimes which he
urges them to commit against the LIVES of another."

Mr. Jefferson says, "It was struck out in _compliance to South Carolina and Georgia_, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under it, for though their people have very few slaves themselves, yet they have been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

* * * * *

But the orator went on protesting against righteousness:--

"I would beseech them [the Abolitionists] to discard their
dangerous abstractions [that men are endowed by their
Creator with certain natural, equal, and unalienable
Rights--to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness]
which they [in common with the Declaration of Independence]
adopt as universal rules of human conduct--without regard to
time, condition, or circumstances; which _darken the
understanding and mislead the judgment_, and urge them
forward to consequences from which they will shrink back
with horror. I would ask them to reflect that ... the
religion they profess is not to be advanced by forgetting
the precepts and the example of their Divine Master. Upon
that example I would ask them to pause. He found Slavery,
Roman Slavery, an institution of the country in which he
lived. Did he denounce it? Did he attempt its immediate
abolition? Did he do any thing, or say any thing which could
in its remotest tendency encourage resistance and violence?
No, his precept was, 'Servants (Slaves) obey your
Masters.'"[183] "It was because _he would not interfere with
the administration of the laws, or abrogate their
authority_."

[Footnote 183: The learned counsel for the slaveholders probably referred to Eph. vi. 5; or Coloss. iii. 22; or Tit. ii. 9; or 1 Pet. ii. 18.]

Gentlemen of the Jury, this alleged precept of the "Divine Master" does not occur in any one of the four canonical Evangelists of the New Testament; nor have I found it in any of those Spurious and Apocryphal Records of old time. It appears originally in the Gospel according to the Hon. Peleg Sprague. "Slaves, obey your masters," "a comfortable Scripture" truly; a beatitude for the stealers of men!

Gentlemen of the Jury, that was the language of Mr. Peleg Sprague at the time when the State of Georgia offered $5,000 for the head of Mr. Garrison; when the Governors of Virginia and other Slave States, sent letters to the Governor of Massachusetts asking for "penal statutes" to prohibit our discussion in Boston; it was the very year that a mob of "Gentlemen of Property and Standing" in Boston broke up a meeting of women assembled to endeavor to abolish Slavery. Gentlemen of the Jury, Mr. Sprague had his reward--he sits on the bench to try me for a "misdemeanor"--"obstructing, resisting, and opposing an officer of the United States," "while in the discharge of his duty" to steal a man in Boston, that his "owner" might sell him in Richmond. The "chief commandment" of the New Testament is, "Slaves, obey your masters;" on that commandment he would now hang all the law, and the Abolitionists.

It would take a long time to tell the dark, sad tale of the trial of the Shadrach Rescuers; how the Judge constructed and charged the Jury; how he constructed his "law." It was the old story of the Stuart despotism, wickedness in the name of the law and with its forms. Gentlemen, in that trial you saw the value of the jury. The Judges of Massachusetts went under the chain which the kidnappers placed about the Court House in 1851. The Federal Judges sought to kidnap the citizens of Boston and to punish all such as opposed man-stealing. The Massachusetts Judges allowed the law, which they had sworn to execute, to be struck down to the ground; nay, themselves sought to strike it down. The Federal Judges perverted the law to make it an instrument of torture against all such as love mankind. But the jury held up the Shield of Justice, and the poisoned weapons of the court fell blunted to the ground. The government took nothing by that motion--nothing but defeat. There was no conviction. One of the jurors said, "You may get one Hunker on any panel; it is not easy to get twelve. There was no danger of a conviction." But still it is painful to think in what peril our lives and our liberties then were.

(5.) At length came the "Burns case." You know it too well. On the night of Wednesday, May 26, 1854, in virtue of Commissioner Loring's warrant, Anthony Burns was arrested on the charge of burglary, and thrust into jail. The next morning he was brought up for condemnation. Two noble men, Mr. Dana and my friend Mr. Ellis, defended Mr. Burns. There was to be no regular trial before Commissioner Loring.

On the evening of Friday, May 28th, there was a meeting at Faneuil Hall, and an attack on the Court House where Mr. Burns was illegally held in duress. In the attack a Mr. Batchelder was killed,--a man hired to aid in this kidnapping, as he had been in the stealing of Mr. Sims. To judge from the evidence offered before the Grand-Jury of the Massachusetts Court, and especially from the testimony of Marshal Freeman, it appears he was accidentally killed by some of his own confederates in that wickedness, and before the door of the Court House was broken through. But that is of no consequence: as Mr. Dana has said, "He went in for his pay, and has got his _corn_." On Friday, June 4th, Mr. Burns was declared a slave by Commissioner Loring and delivered up to eternal bondage.

It seems to be in consequence of my connection with this case that I am indicted; so you now approach the end of this long defence. I come to the last part of it.

* * * * *

(III.) Of the Indictment against Theodore Parker.

I am indicted, gentlemen, for "resisting an officer" who was engaged in kidnapping Mr. Burns; and it is charged that I, at Boston, May 26th, "with force and arms did knowingly and wilfully, obstruct, resist, and oppose, ... Watson Freeman, then and there being an officer of the United States, to the great damage of the said Watson Freeman; to the great hinderance and obstruction of justice, [to wit, of the kidnapping of Anthony Burns,] to the evil example of all others in like case offending, against the peace and dignity of the said United States and contrary to the form of the statute made and provided."

It is also charged that "one Theodore Parker of Boston, ... with force and arms in and upon the said Watson Freeman, then and there, in the peace of the said United States being, an assault did make, he the said Freeman also then and there being an officer of the said United States, to wit, Marshal of the United States, ... and then and there also being in the due and lawful discharge of his duties as such officer" [to wit, stealing and kidnapping one Anthony Burns]. These and various other pleasant charges, Mr. Hallett, in the jocose manner of indictments, alleges against me; wherefrom I must defend myself, as best I may.

* * * * *

Now, Gentlemen, that you may completely understand the accusation brought against me, I must go back a little, and bring up several other matters of fact that have straggled away from this long column of argument which I have led into the field thus far;--and also rally some new forces not before drawn into the line of defence. I must speak of the Hon. Justice Curtis; of his conduct in relation to Slavery in general, to this particular prosecution, and to this special case, _United States_ vs. _Theodore Parker_.

First, Gentlemen, let me speak of some events which preceded Mr. Curtis's elevation to his present distinguished post. To make the whole case perfectly clear, I must make mention of some others intimately connected with him.

There is a family in Boston which may be called the Curtis family. So far as it relates to the matter in hand, it may be said to consist of six persons, namely, Charles P. Curtis, lawyer, and Thomas B. Curtis, merchant, sons of the late Thomas Curtis; Benjamin R. Curtis, by birth a kinsman, and by marriage a son-in-law of Charles P. Curtis, late a practising lawyer, now this Honorable Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, and his brother, George T. Curtis, lawyer, and United States Commissioner for the District of Massachusetts; Edward G. Loring, a step-son of the late Thomas Curtis, and accordingly step-brother of Charles P. and Thomas B. Curtis, lawyer, Judge of Probate for Boston, United States Commissioner, and, until recently, Lecturer at the Cambridge Law School; and also William W. Greenough, son-in-law of Charles P. Curtis, merchant.

This family, though possessing many good qualities, has had a remarkably close and intimate connection with all, or most, of the recent cases of kidnapping in Boston. Here are some of the facts, so painful for me to relate, but so indispensable to a full understanding of this case.

1. In 1836 Charles P. Curtis and Benjamin R. Curtis appeared as counsel for the slave-hunters in the famous case of the girl Med, originally a slave in the West Indies, and brought to Boston by her mistress. Med claimed her freedom on the ground that slavery was not recognized by the laws of Massachusetts, and could not exist here unless it were in the special case, under the Federal Constitution, of fugitives from the slave States of this Union. The Messrs. Curtis contended with all their skill--_totis viribus_, as lawyers say--that slavery might, by legal comity, exist in Massachusetts--that slaves were property by the law of nations; and that an ownership which is legal in the West Indies continued in Boston, at least so far as to leave the right to seize and carry away.

Mr. Charles P. Curtis had already appeared as counsel for a slave-hunter in 1832, and had succeeded in restoring a slave child, only twelve or fourteen years of age, to his claimant who took him to Cuba with the valuable promise that he should be free in the Spanish West Indies.[184]

[Footnote 184: Daily Advertiser, Dec. 7th, 1832. Mr. Sewall, the early and indefatigable friend of the slave, asked the Court to appoint a guardian _ad litem_ for the child, who was not 14, who should see that he was not enslaved. But the slaveholder's counsel objected, and the Judge (Shaw) refused; yet to his honor be it said in a similar case in 1841, when Mr. Sewall was counsel for a slave child under the same circumstances, he delivered him to a guardian appointed by the Probate Court. 3 Metcalf, 72.]

In the Med case Mr. Benjamin R. Curtis made a long and elaborate argument to show that "a citizen of a slaveholding State, who comes to Massachusetts for a temporary purpose of business or pleasure and brings his slave as a personal attendant, may restrain that slave for the purpose of carrying him out of the State and returning him to the domicil of his owner." To support this proposition, he made two points:--

"1. That this child by the law of Louisiana is _now_ a slave."

"2. That the law of Massachusetts will so far recognize and give effect to the law of Louisiana, as to allow the master to exercise this restricted power over his slave." That is, the power to keep her here as a slave, to remove her to Louisiana, and so make her a slave for ever and her children after her.

To prove this last point he says by quotation, "we always _import_, together with their persons, _the existing relations of foreigners between themselves_." So as we "import" the natural relation of husband and wife, or parent and child, in the Irish immigrants, and respect the same, we ought equally to import and respect the unnatural and forcible relation of master and slave in our visitors from Cuba or Louisiana.

"It will be urged," he said, "that though we claim to
exercise only a qualified and limited right over the slave,
namely the right to remove him from the State, yet if this
is allowed, all the rights of the master must be allowed,
... and thus Slavery will be introduced into the
Commonwealth. To this I answer,

"(1.) There is no practical difficulty in giving this
qualified effect to the law of Louisiana, [allowing the
master to bring and keep his slaves here and remove them
when he will]. The Constitution of the United States has
settled this question. That provides for and secures to the
master, the exercise of his right to the very extent claimed
in this case."

"(2.) Neither is there any theoretical difficulty."

To do this, he thinks, will "promote harmony and good feeling, where it is extremely desirable to promote it, encourage frequent intercourse, and soften prejudices by increasing acquaintance, and tend to peace and union and good-will." "It will work no injury to the State [Massachusetts], by violating any public law of the State. The only law in the statute-book applicable to the subject of Slavery is the law against kidnapping." "It will work no direct injury to the citizens of this State for, ... it respects only strangers." "It is consistent with the public policy of Massachusetts, to permit this ... right of the master." "_It may be perfectly consistent with our policy not only to recognize the validity and propriety of those institutions_ [of Slavery] _in the States where they exist_, but _even to interfere actively to enable the citizens of those States to enjoy those institutions at home._" That is, it may be the duty of Massachusetts, "to interfere actively" in Louisiana for the establishment and support of Slavery there!

Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, he adds, have made laws allowing the slaveholder this right: "The legislatures of those States are the legitimate and highest authority in regard to their public policy; what they have declared on this subject, must be deemed to be true.... We are not at liberty to suppose that it is contrary to their public policy, that the master should exercise this right within their territory. I respectfully ask what difference there is between the policy of Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, and the policy of Massachusetts, on the subject of Slavery."

"I shall now attempt," he adds, "to prove that _Slavery is not immoral_." How do you think he proved that? Did he cite the Bible? No, he left that to lower law divines. Did he manufacture Bible? No, the Hon. Peleg Sprague had sufficiently done that a year before. He took a shorter cut--he denied there was any morality but Legality. "I take it to be perfectly clear," said this young man in all the moral enthusiasm of his youth, "that the Standard of Morality by which Courts of Justice are to be guided is that which the law prescribes. Your Honors' Opinion as Men or as Moralists has no bearing on the question. Your Honors are to declare what the Law deems moral or immoral."

Gentlemen, that needs no comment; this trial is comment enough. But according to that rule no law is immoral. It was "not immoral" in 1410 to hang and burn thirty-nine men in one day for reading the Bible in English; the Catholic Inquisition in Spain was "not immoral;" the butchery of Martyrs was all right soon as lawful! There is no Higher Law!

It was "not immoral" for the servants of King Pharaoh to drown all the new-born Hebrew boys; nor for Herod's butchers to murder the Innocents at Bethlehem. Nay, all the atrocities of the Saint Bartholomew Massacres, Gentlemen, they were "not immoral," for "the Standard of Morality" is "that which the law prescribes." So any legislature that can frame an act, any tyrant who can issue a decree, any court which can deliver an "opinion," can at once nullify the legislation of the Universe and "dissolve the union" of Man and God: "Religion has nothing to do with politics; there it makes men mad." Is that the doctrine of Young Massachusetts? Hearken then to the Old. In 1765 her House of Representatives unanimously resolved that "there are certain essential Rights ... which are founded on the Law of God and Nature, and are the Common Rights of Mankind, and that the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to these essential Rights in common with all men, and _that no law of Society ... can divest them of these Rights_." No "Standard of Morality" but Law! A thousand years before Jesus of Nazareth taught his Beatitudes of Humanity, the old Hebrews knew better. Hearken to a Psalm nearly three thousand years old.

Among the assemblies of the great,
A Greater Ruler takes his seat;
The God of Heaven, as Judge, surveys
Those Gods on earth, and all their ways.
Why will ye, then, frame wicked laws?
Or why support the unrighteous cause?
When will ye once defend the poor,
That sinners vex the Saints no more?
Arise, oh Lord, and let thy Son
Possess his universal Throne,
And rule the nations with his rod;
He is our Judge, and he our God.

"By the _law of this Commonwealth_," added Mr. Curtis, "_Slavery is not immoral._ By the Supreme law of this Commonwealth Slavery is not only recognized as a valid institution, but to a certain extent is incorporated into our own law. Before you [the court] rise from your seats, you may be called upon by the master of a fugitive slave, to grant a certificate ... which _will put the whole force of the Commonwealth at his disposal, to remove his slave from our Territory_."

Gentlemen of the Jury, that was conquering his prejudices "with alacrity;" it was obeying the fugitive slave bill fourteen years before it was heard of.

He adds still further, by quotation, "I have no doubt but the citizen of a Slave State has a right to pass, upon business or pleasure, through any of the States attended by his slaves--and his right to reclaim his slave would be unquestioned. An escape from the attendance upon the person of his master, while on a journey through a free State, should be considered as an escape from the State where the master had a right of citizenship."

Mr. Charles P. Curtis thus sustained his kinsman:--

"Is that to be considered immoral which the Court is bound
to assist in doing? _It is not for us to denounce as_
legally _immoral a practice which is permitted_ and
sanctioned _by the supreme law of the land_!" "It is said
the practice of Slavery is corrupting in its influence on
public morals. But the practice of bringing slaves here was
much more common thirty years ago than now. If this practice
be so corrupting, why is it tolerated in other States?"...
"The law of New York allows even foreigners to go there with
their slaves; and have the morals of that State suffered in
consequence? In Pennsylvania the law is similar, but where
is the evidence of its pernicious influence?" "As to the
_right to using them_, [the slaves voluntarily brought here
by their masters,] _notwithstanding the supposed horror at
such an admission_, the legislatures of New York and
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and New Jersey, have actually
enacted statutes allowing precisely that privilege."[185]

[Footnote 185: Med. Case, 1836.]

But the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held otherwise. Med was declared free. Chief Justice Shaw covered himself with honor by his decision. And soon after, (Aug. 29,) the Daily Advertiser, the "organ" of the opinions of this family, said:--

"In some of the States there is ... legislative provision
for cases of this sort, [allowing masters to bring and hold
slaves therein,] and it would seem that _some such provision
is necessary in this State_, unless we would prohibit
citizens of the Slave States from travelling in this State
with their families, and unless we would permit such of them
as wish to emancipate their slaves, to throw them, at their
pleasure, upon the people of this State."

Gentlemen, Mr. Curtis in 1836 contended for all which Mr. Toombs boasts he shall get--the right of the slaveholder to sit down at the foot of Bunker Hill monument with his slaves! Nay, Mr. Curtis granted more: it may be the duty of Massachusetts "to interfere actively," and establish slavery in Louisiana, or in Kansas. It may be said, this was only a lawyer pleading for his client. It was--a lawyer asking the Supreme Court of Massachusetts to establish slavery in this Commonwealth. Is it innocent in a lawyer to ask the court to do a wicked thing, to urge the court to do it? Then is it equally innocent to ask the Treasurer of a Railroad to forge stock, or an editor to publish lies, or a counterfeiter to make and utter base coin, or an assassin to murder men. Surely it is as innocent to urge men to kidnap blacks in Africa as in Boston.

Gentlemen, That declaration--that the Statute supersedes natural Justice, and that the only "Standard of Morality" by which the courts are to be guided is "that which the law prescribes"--deserves your careful consideration. "He that squares his conscience by the law is a scoundrel"--say the proverbs of many nations. What do you think of a man who knows no lawgiver but the General Court of Massachusetts, or the American Congress: no Justice but the Statutes? If Mr. Curtis's doctrine is correct, then Franklin, Hancock, Adams, Washington, were only Rebels and Traitors! They refused that "Standard of Morality." Nay, our Puritan Fathers were all "criminals;" the twelve Apostles committed not only "misdemeanors" but sins; and Jesus of Nazareth was only a malefactor, a wanton disturber of the public peace of the world!

The slave child Med, poor, fatherless, and unprotected, comes before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, claiming her natural and unalienable Right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,--if not granted she is a slave for ever. In behalf of her wealthy "owner" Mr. Curtis resists the girl's claim; tells the court she "is now a slave;" there is "no practical difficulty" in allowing the master to keep her in that condition, no "theoretical difficulty;" "slavery is not immoral;" it may be the duty of Massachusetts not only to recognize slavery at home, but also "even to interfere actively" to support slavery abroad; the law is the only "Standard of Morality" for the courts; that establishes slavery in Massachusetts! Gentlemen, what do mankind say to such sophistry? Hearken to this Hebrew Bible: "Wo unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed, to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the Right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and _that they may rob the fatherless_." Let the stern Psalm of the Puritans still further answer from the manly bosom of the Bible.

"Judges who rule the world by laws,
Will ye despise the righteous cause,
When the injured poor before you stands?
Dare ye condemn the righteous poor
And let rich sinners 'scape secure,
While Gold and Greatness bribe your hands?