Chapter VII: Part 7

Mr. Seward in a speech before the United States Senate, in the winter
of 1861, pointed out that in the decade during which the territories
of Utah and New Mexico had been open to slavery, only twenty-four
slaves had been carried into that vast dominion.[268]

"The whole controversy," says Mr. Blaine, "over the territories, as
remarked by a witty representative from the South, related to an
imaginary negro in an impossible place."[269]

CONGRESS ORGANIZES TERRITORIES

But despite these considerations, an acrimonious controversy had
continued with growing bitterness for years. The Republican Party had
at length been organized to maintain the tenet that Congress could and
must exclude slaves from the territories; and, finally, its candidates
for President and Vice-President had been elected to office. By the
withdrawal from Congress of the Senators and Representatives from the
Cotton States, the party found itself in January, 1861, controlling
both branches of the National Legislature. Despite, however, the
history and platform of the party, statutes were passed organizing the
territories of Colorado, Dakota and Nevada, without any provision
prohibiting slavery therein. Thus months before the date of Virginia's
secession, the Republican Party gave this unequivocal assurance of its
purpose to accord slaveholders the right to carry slaves into the
territories.

The Hon. James G. Blaine, writing twenty-five years after the
happening, thus characterizes the action of his party:

"When the Missouri Compromise was repealed, and the territories of
the United States north of the line 35 degrees, 30 minutes were left
without slavery inhibition or restriction, the agitation began which
ended in the overthrow of the Democratic Party and the election of
Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States. It will,
therefore, always remain as one of the singular contradictions in
the political history of the country, that after seven years of
almost exclusive agitation on this question, the Republicans, the
first time they had the power as a distinctive political
organization, to enforce the cardinal article of their political
creed, quietly and unanimously abandoned it. And they abandoned it
without a word of explanation."[270]

Mr. Blaine, in asserting that the Republican Party "unanimously
abandoned" this cardinal article of its political creed, probably
overstates the case. There were thousands of the party, and many of
its foremost leaders, who had not surrendered their contention. At all
events, the abandonment had not been made in such an authoritative and
formal way as to commend itself to men yearning for peace and desiring
an end of the controversy over the territories. This action, however,
of the Republican Congress, in organizing the territories of Colorado,
Dakota and Nevada without prohibitions as to slavery, constituted such
a recognition of the constitutional rights of the slaveholders and a
determination to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court, as to
render baseless the charge that Virginia seceded in order to establish
the right of her citizens to carry their slaves into the territories.
As we shall hereafter see, Virginia was willing to re-enact the
Missouri Compromise; make it a part of the constitution and thus
forever exclude slavery from all the territory north of the historic
line established by that settlement.

REPUBLICANS AND FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW

The position of the Republican Party, with reference to the Fugitive
Slave Law, presented some striking contradictions. Thus, in those
Northern States where statutes had been enacted to nullify the law,
the dominant political forces constituted the controlling element in
the membership of the party; yet the party itself, in its national
platform, demanded neither the repeal nor amendment of the Federal
statute. Again, there were men, prominent in its counsels, who, like
Salmon P. Chase, frankly acknowledged that the provision of the
constitution requiring the return of fugitive slaves, and the statute
of the Federal Government carrying this clause into effect, would not
be respected by one great element of the party and of the Northern
people. On the other hand, Mr. Lincoln, who defeated him for the
nomination to the Presidency, had counselled compliance with the
requirements of the constitution and the law. Time and again he
pointed out that it was the duty of citizens, and above all of public
officials, to observe the obligations of the constitution with respect
to this matter. "Stand with the Abolitionist in restoring the Missouri
Compromise, and stand against him when he attempts to repeal the
Fugitive Slave Law," was his declaration at Peoria, Illinois, October
16th, 1858.[271]

ATTITUDE OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN

While a member of Congress, Mr. Lincoln had, on the 16th of January,
1849, introduced a bill for the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia, with the consent of its voters and with compensation to
the slaveholders. The fifth section of this bill provided:

"The municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within
their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered and
required to provide active and efficient means to arrest and deliver
up to their owners all fugitive slaves escaping into said
district."[272]

It was because of the authorship of this proposed Fugitive Slave Law,
that, upon his nomination to the Presidency, Wendell Philips denounced
him, through the columns of _The Liberator_, as "the Slave Hound of
Illinois."[273]

In his inaugural address, after alluding to what he terms "the plainly
written" clause of the constitution relating to fugitive slaves, he
declared:

"It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those
who made it for the reclaiming of what we call 'fugitive slaves' and
the intention of the law giver is the law. All members of Congress
swear their support to the whole constitution—to this provision as
much as any other. To the proposition then that slaves whose cases
come within the terms of this clause 'shall be delivered up' their
oaths are unanimous....

"There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be
enforced by National or by state authority; but surely that
difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be
surrendered, it can be of little consequence to him or to others by
which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be
content that his oath should go unkept on a merely unsubstantial
controversy as to how it shall be kept?"[274]

-----

Footnote 267:

_Writings of Jefferson_, Ford, Vol. VII, p. 159.

Footnote 268:

_Life of W. H. Seward_, Lathrop, p. 220.

Footnote 269:

_Twenty Years of Congress_, Blaine, Vol. I, p. 272.

Footnote 270:

_Idem_, p. 270.

Footnote 271:

_Abraham Lincoln, Speeches, Letters and State Papers_, N. & H., Vol.
I, p. 202.

Footnote 272:

_Abraham Lincoln, Speeches, Letters and State Papers_, N. & H., Vol.
I, p. 148.

Footnote 273:

_William Lloyd Garrison_, by his children, Vol. III, p. 503.

Footnote 274:

_Messages and Papers of the Presidents_, Vol. VI, p. 6.

XXVII

STATUS OF THE CONTROVERSY REGARDING SLAVERY,
AT THE TIME VIRGINIA SECEDED FROM
THE UNION (Concluded)

With respect to the institution of slavery, itself, in the Southern
States, the position of the Republican Party, as a party, was even
more reassuring. The platform of the party, upon which Mr. Lincoln was
elected President, gave the most explicit assurance of the purpose of
the incoming Administration to refrain from any interference with
slavery, in the states where it was recognized by law. "The
maintenance inviolate," declared that platform, "of the rights of the
states, and especially of each state, to order and control its own
domestic institutions, according to its own judgment exclusively, is
essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and
endurance of our political fabric depend."[275]

Mr. Lincoln was nominated chiefly because of his conservative position
with respect to slavery, over his more conspicuous opponents, Seward
and Chase, who were defeated because of their more radical
anti-slavery utterances.

While never concealing his strong antipathy to the institution, Mr.
Lincoln always declared his regard for the constitutional rights of
slaveholders, in the states where slavery existed. Time and again, he
said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with
the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I
have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do
so."[276]

After his election, Mr. Lincoln, under date of December 22, 1860,
wrote to Alexander H. Stephens, "Do the people of the South really
entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly or
indirectly interfere with the slaves, or with them about the slaves?
If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and I still hope
not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears."[277]

REPUBLICAN PARTY AND SLAVERY

The charge is often made that, despite the platform of the Republican
Party and the ante-election pledges of its candidate, the people of
the South were convinced that, with its advent to power, a movement
for the abolition of slavery would be inaugurated; and that, because
of this fear, the Cotton States seceded from the Union. No such charge
can be made with respect to Virginia. Over two months before her
secession, the Republican Party, as we have seen, acquired control of
both branches of Congress, and immediately proceeded to allay any such
apprehensions by the adoption of resolutions and the enactment of laws
of the most ultra pro-slavery type.

In January, 1861, a series of resolutions was adopted by the Senate
and the House of Representatives, among which was one declaring that
Congress recognized,

"Slavery as now existing in fifteen of the United States, by the
usages and laws of those states, and we recognize no authority,
legal or otherwise, outside of a state where it exists, to interfere
with slaves or slavery in such states."[278]

PRO-SLAVERY ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS

In February, 1861, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution
with but four dissenting votes wherein it was declared, "that neither
the Federal Government, nor the people, have a purpose or a
constitutional right to legislate upon or interfere with slavery in
any of the states of the Union."

"Resolved, That those persons in the North who do not subscribe to
the foregoing propositions are too insignificant in numbers and
influence to excite the serious attention or alarm of any portion of
the people of the Republic."[279]

Following these resolutions both Houses of Congress adopted by the
necessary two-thirds vote, a joint resolution proposing an amendment
to the Federal Constitution, as follows:

Article 13. "No amendment shall be made to the constitution which
shall authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or to
interfere within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof,
including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of
said state."

This amendment passed the House of Representatives February 28, 1861,
by a vote of one hundred and thirty-three to sixty-five, and the
Senate on the 2nd of March, 1861, by a vote of twenty-four to twelve.
Ohio and Maryland promptly ratified this proposed amendment to the
constitution, but the outbreak of the Civil War brought the movement
to a close.[280]

In his inaugural address, President Lincoln reiterated his previous
pledges and expressed his approval of the movement to adopt the
amendment to the constitution above referred to. Alluding to his oft
quoted declaration that he had neither the legal right nor the
inclination to interfere with slavery in the Southern States, he said:

"I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon
the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case
is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section
are to be any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration."

PRO-SLAVERY AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION

Continuing, he said,

"I understand a proposed amendment to the constitution—which
amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the
effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the
domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held
to service. To avoid misconception of what I have said, I depart
from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to
say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional
Law, I have no objection to its being made expressed and
irrevocable."

Even after the conflict of arms had occurred, the position of the
Administration was reiterated in the most solemn form. On the 22nd of
April, 1861, Mr. Seward, as Secretary of State, in an official
communication to Mr. Dayton, Minister to France, wrote:

"The territories will remain in all respects the same, whether the
revolution shall succeed or shall fail. The condition of slavery in
the several states will remain just the same, whether it succeed or
fail.... The rights of the states and the condition of every being
in them will remain subject to exactly the same laws and forms of
administration, whether the revolution shall succeed or whether it
shall fail. In one case the states would be federally connected with
the new Confederacy; in the other, they would, as now, be members of
the United States; but their constitutions and laws, customs, habits
and institutions, in either case, will remain the same."[281]

PLEDGE OF CONGRESS AS TO OBJECT OF WAR

On the 22nd of July, 1861, both houses of Congress, with but few
dissenting votes, adopted a joint resolution which declared:

"This war is not waged, on our part, in any spirit of oppression,
nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of
overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established
institutions of those states; but to defend and maintain the
supremacy of the constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all
the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired;
that, as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to
cease."[282]

Such were the attitude of the Republican Party, the avowals and
pledges of President Lincoln and the enactments of Congress, with
respect to slavery, at the time of Virginia's secession.

It is not, however, to be concluded that the Republican Party had
renounced its hostility to slavery. The pledges referred to were
simply assurances of the purpose of the Federal administration to
respect the constitutional rights of states where the institution
existed, and of their slave-holding citizens. Nor is it claimed that
slavery itself had acquired, in Virginia, or elsewhere, in the Union,
an indefinite lease of life. The forces which had destroyed slavery in
other lands were ever at work. They were dynamic, and gathered ever
increasing influence from the economic, political and ethical
conditions of the times.

REPUBLICANS AND ABOLITIONISTS

Care must be taken not to confound the formally declared attitude of
the Republican Party with that of the Abolitionists. The exact
position of many of the leading anti-slavery men of the period is not
always easy to determine. Garrison and Phillips were, of course,
Abolitionists. Sumner and Chase might be classed as belonging to
either or both—Republicans and Abolitionists. "Yet," says Professor
A. B. Hart, "two such conspicuous champions of anti-slavery as John
Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln always said that they were not
Abolitionists."[283]

Alluding to the extra-constitutional measures advocated by the
Abolitionists, Mr. Lincoln in his speech at Quincy, Ill., October 13,
1858, said:

"If there be any man in the Republican Party who is impatient over
the necessity springing from its (slavery's) actual presence, and is
impatient of the constitutional guarantees thrown around it, and
would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with
us. He will find his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard,
so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these
things."[284]

So too with respect to armed invasions and the attempt of John Brown
and his abettors to precipitate servile insurrection.

Mr. Lincoln, in his speech at Cooper Union, New York, February 27th,
1860, said:

"You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny
it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown
was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single
Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise."[285]... Continuing, he
said: "John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave
insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt
among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact,
it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw
plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy,
corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the
assassination of kings and emperors."[286]

SLAVERY A DOOMED INSTITUTION

If it be urged that Mr. Lincoln's oft-quoted words uttered before his
nomination for the Presidency, that "The Government could not endure
half slave and half free," were at war with his assurances and that
Virginia was thus threatened in her "peculiar institution," yet it
must be remembered that Mr. Lincoln, time and again before his
election, disclaimed any such purpose and denied that his words were
susceptible of any such construction.

Morse, in his _Biography of Lincoln_, says: "Again and again Mr.
Lincoln called attention to the fact that he had expressed neither 'a
doctrine' nor an 'invitation'; nor any 'purpose,' nor 'policy'
whatsoever."[287]

To quote the language of Mr. Lincoln himself in meeting the charge in
his debate with Stephen A. Douglas:

"In the passage I indicated no wish or purpose of my own. I simply
expressed my expectations. Cannot the Judge perceive a distinction
between a purpose and an expectation? I have often expressed an
expectation to die, but I have never expressed a wish to die."[288]

Thomas Jefferson and other Virginia opponents of slavery had often
made similar predictions. Even as a prophecy of emancipation, it
involved no other suggestion than that slavery was an antiquated
institution at war with the genius of our government and the spirit of
the age and was doomed by forces world wide in their potency to
ultimate extinction.

-----

Footnote 275:

From Platform of National Republican Party, Chicago Convention, May,
1860.

Footnote 276:

From President Lincoln's Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

Footnote 277:

_Causes of the Civil War_, Chadwick, p. 143.

Footnote 278:

_Lincoln and Slavery_, Arnold, p. 695.

Footnote 279:

_Idem_, p. 695.

Footnote 280:

_Story on the Constitution_, Story, Vol. II, p. 670, Note 2.

Footnote 281:

_Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government_, Davis, Vol. I, p.
262.

Footnote 282:

Joint Resolutions adopted by Congress, July 22, 1861.

Footnote 283:

_Slavery and Abolition_, Hart, p. 175.

Footnote 284:

_Abraham Lincoln, Speeches, Letters and State Papers_, N. & H., Vol.
I., p. 463.

Footnote 285:

_Abraham Lincoln, Speeches, Letters and State Papers_, N. & H., Vol.
I., p. 607.

Footnote 286:

_Idem_, p. 609.

Footnote 287:

_Abraham Lincoln_, Morse, p. 123.

Footnote 288:

_Lincoln-Douglas Debates_, p. 59.

XXVIII

THE ATTITUDE OF CERTAIN NORTHERN STATES

The constitution of the United States provides: "2. A person charged
in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from
justice and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the
executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up,
to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another state, shall, in consequence of any law
or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or
labor may be due."[289]

ORIGIN OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW

The first of the foregoing clauses provides for the return of
fugitives from justice, and the second, of fugitive slaves.

The attitude of certain Northern States with reference to these two
provisions of the constitution was a subject of profound importance in
the years immediately preceding the Civil War, and constituted one of
the greatest grievances of the people of the slaveholding states.

At the time the constitution was adopted, slavery existed in every one
of the thirteen states except Massachusetts, though in some others
acts had been passed providing for its gradual abolition. It was
deemed essential, therefore, to the peaceful relations of the several
states as well as the legal rights of slaveholders that some provision
should be inserted in the Federal Constitution dealing with the return
of fugitive slaves as well as fugitives from justice. If a slave
could, by passing from New York into Massachusetts, absolve himself
from slavery with no remedy for the master except the grace of the
latter state, in which the institution was not recognized, then not
only were the rights of the slaveholding citizens of New York
dependent upon the laws of Massachusetts, but such conditions would
doubtless engender strife and reprisals between the different states
of the Union.

The necessity, as well as the justice, of fugitive slave laws was
recognized almost contemporaneously with the introduction of slavery
into this country. Thus, in the Article of Confederation adopted in
1643, between the colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut and
New Haven, it was provided,

"If any servant runn away from his master into any other of these
Confederated Jurisdiccons, that in such case upon the Certyficate of
one Magistrate in the Jurisdiccon out of which the said servant
fled, or upon other due proofe, the said servant shall be delivered
either to his master or any other that pursues and brings such
certyficate or proofe."[290]

Provisions of like character were incorporated in many of the treaties
between the various colonies and the Indian tribes, and later between
the United States Government and the Indians.

The Ordinance of 1784, as adopted by Congress, contained no provision
for the return of fugitive slaves escaping into the territory
northwest of the Ohio River, and as we have seen, the provision
prohibiting slavery therein had been stricken out before its adoption.

On the 16th of March, 1785, Rufus King of Massachusetts presented a
resolution amending the Ordinance of 1784, so as to prohibit slavery
in the northwest territory, which resolution was referred to a
committee consisting of King, William Howell and William Ellery; the
last two members being from Rhode Island.

On the 6th of April, 1785, a report was presented from this committee
to Congress, providing for an amendment of the existing ordinance, so
as to exclude slavery from the northwest territory after the year
1800, "the resolution to be an article of compact" between the
thirteen original states and those created out of the territory. The
amendment so reported also made provision for the return to their
masters of fugitive slaves escaping into the territory from any of the
thirteen original states.[291]

No action was taken upon this report, but at the time the Ordinance of
1787 was under consideration, July 13th, 1787, a provision was
inserted prohibiting slavery in the northwest territory along with a
fugitive slave clause, by the unanimous vote of all the states
present.[292]

FUGITIVE SLAVES AND THE CONSTITUTION

The same year, the Constitutional Convention, in session at
Philadelphia, inserted a like fugitive slave clause in the Federal
Constitution.

On the 12th of February, 1793, Congress passed an act providing the
method for carrying into effect the section of the constitution
relating to fugitives from justice and fugitive slaves. Both subjects
are treated and provided for in the same act. It passed both houses of
Congress by practically unanimous votes—Washington approving the bill
with his signature.

RETURN OF FUGITIVE SLAVES

By this statute, the authorities of the several states were charged
with the duty of executing the law with reference to the return of
fugitives from justice.

With respect, however, to fugitive slaves, the authority and burden of
dealing with their return was placed upon officers of the Federal
Government as well as upon certain state officials. Despite the
somewhat cumbrous character of the law, the return of fugitives from
justice and of fugitive slaves was assured, and little controversy
arose until some forty years after its enactment. But with the rise of
the Abolitionists at the North difficulties in executing the law began
to appear—especially as to fugitive slaves.

THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD

William Lloyd Garrison began the publication of _The Liberator_ in
1831. The American Anti-Slavery Society was organized in 1833 and soon
thereafter the Underground Railroad commenced its operations. Under
the influence of these forces, not only was the execution of the law
with reference to fugitive slaves in many of the Northern States
greatly hindered but the slaves enticed or escaping from their masters
became much more numerous. The irritating effects of these conditions
upon Southern slaveholders were intensified by the suggestion that the
law was fairly enforced as long as there were slaves in the so-called
free states. In time, however, the Legislatures of many of the
Northern States adopted state laws which were undoubtedly designed to
defeat the execution of the Federal statute, and thus was added the
sanction of states through their law-making bodies to the illegal
attitude and acts of their citizens. This political action of these
states not only aroused the indignation of slaveholders, but enlisted
in their behalf the sympathies of their non-slaveholding fellow
citizens. The attitude of the Abolitionists and the action of the
Northern States above referred to were regarded by the people of
Virginia as a violation of the constitutional rights of their state,
as well as a wanton injury to the property interests of her
slaveholding citizens. The Abolitionists, by every form of suggestion
and appeal, incited and assisted slaves to desert their masters, while
the Underground Railroad provided increasing facilities for
accomplishing the result.

Professor A. B. Hart, of Harvard University, says:

"The Underground Railroad was not a route but a network; not an
organization, but a conspiracy of thousands of people banded
together for the deliberate purpose of depriving their Southern
neighbors of their property and of defying the Fugitive Slave Laws
of the United States."[293]

With such a system in active operation, it only became necessary, in
order to invest the whole movement with the dignity of state
usurpation and wrong, for states to enact the so-called Personal
Liberty Laws.

-----

Footnote 289:

Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Sub-section 2.

Footnote 290:

_Plymouth Colony Records_, IX, p. 5, and _Fugitive Slaves_, Boston,
1891, McDougall, p. 7.

Footnote 291:

_History of the Ordinance of 1787_, American Antiquarian Society,
new series, Vol. V, p. 315.

Footnote 292:

_Idem_, p. 335.

Footnote 293:

_Slavery and Abolition_, Hart, p. 228.

XXIX

THE ATTITUDE OF CERTAIN NORTHERN STATES
(Concluded)

THE PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS

Beginning in 1837, Massachusetts adopted the first of the so-called
Personal Liberty Laws, which were followed by others of like import
enacted by Vermont, New York and Connecticut. The ostensible object of
these statutes was to protect free negroes, but as no such laws were
necessary until the rise of the Abolitionists and the operations of
the Underground Railroad, they were generally accepted as efforts on
the part of these states to assist these agencies and defeat the
clause of the constitution of the United States which provided for the
return of fugitive slaves.

In 1842, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that so much
of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 as authorized or required state
officials to assist in executing the law was unconstitutional, and
that upon Federal authorities must rest the whole burden.[294] This
decision was followed by a new series of statutes in Massachusetts,
Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.[295]

On the 18th of September, 1850, Congress passed another Fugitive Slave
Law amending the act of 1793 so as to charge Federal officials with
the whole duty of carrying into effect the clause in the constitution
providing for the return of fugitive slaves, and to remedy the
difficulties resulting from the action of the Abolitionists and the
acts passed by certain states as above referred to. This aroused fresh
antagonism to the constitution and the efforts of the Federal
Government to carry the same into effect. The constitutionality of the
new law was denied and though affirmed by the Supreme Court, its
execution in the foregoing states was much embarrassed by a new series
of state statutes. Laws of like import, with like results, were also
enacted by Wisconsin, Michigan, Connecticut and Maine.

In some instances, the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States affirming the constitutionality of the statute was challenged
by the legislative department of state governments, and the right of
the former tribunal to fix the obligations of states and citizens with
respect to the law strenuously denied.

Thus, in Wisconsin one Sherman M. Booth had been indicted in the
Federal Court for a violation of the Fugitive Slave Law enacted by
Congress, and, after trial and conviction, was sentenced for the
offense. An application for a writ of habeas corpus was presented by
Booth to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and his release prayed for on
the ground that the Federal statute was unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court of Wisconsin took cognizance of the case and discharged the
prisoner from the custody of the Federal authorities.[296]

An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States where
the constitutionality of the Federal statute was affirmed, the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed and Booth remanded
to custody.[297] Thereupon, the General Assembly of Wisconsin on the
16th of March, 1859, adopted a series of resolutions in which, after
denying the right of the United States Supreme Court to take
cognizance of the above mentioned case, they declared:

"That the government, formed by the constitution of the United
States, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the powers
delegated to itself: but that as in all other cases of compact among
parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to
judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure
of redress.

"That the principle and construction contended for by the party
which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the General
Government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers
delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the
discretion of those who administer the government, and not the
constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several
states which formed that instrument being sovereign and independent
have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction and that a
positive defiance by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts
done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument is the
right remedy."[298]

STATE DEFIANCE OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS

These outspoken and persistent attempts of great states to repudiate
their obligations to the constitution and to nullify the laws of
Congress had a most reactionary influence upon slaveholders and their
sympathizers in Virginia and the South and filled the minds of
thoughtful men with the gravest forebodings for the peace and
preservation of the Union.

President Buchanan in his message to Congress, December, 1860, refers
to the action of the states in nullifying the Fugitive Slave Law
enacted by Congress, as "the most palpable violation of constitutional
duty which has yet been committed."

Governor Banks in his address before the Legislature of Massachusetts
which assembled on the first Wednesday in January, 1861, referring to
the statute enacted in that state antagonistic to the act of Congress
for the return of fugitive slaves, and the consequent imputation which
it brought upon the loyalty of Massachusetts to the Union and its
constitution, said:

"It is because in the face of her just claims to high honor I do not
love to hear unjust reproaches passed upon her fame—that I say as I
do, in the presence of God and with a heart filled with
responsibilities that must rest upon every American citizen in these
distempered times, I cannot but regard the maintenance of a statute,
although it may be within the extremest limits of constitutional
power, which is so unnecessary to the public weal and so detrimental
to the public peace as an inexcusable public wrong. I hope by common
consent it may be removed from the statute book and such guarantees
as individual freedom demands be sought in new legislation."[299]

CONGRESS ON STATE INTERFERENCE

Congress, in February, 1861, adopted the report of the Committee of
Thirty-three of which Thomas Corwin of Ohio was chairman, which after
reciting "that all attempts on the part of the Legislatures of any of
the states to obstruct or hinder the recovery," of fugitive slaves,
"are in derogation of the constitution ... and dangerous to the peace
of the Union," resolved

"That the several states be respectfully requested to cause their
statutes to be revised, with a view to ascertain if any of them are
in conflict with or tend to embarrass or hinder the execution of the
laws of the United States ... for the delivery up of persons held to
labour by the laws of any state and escaping therefrom; and the
Senate and House of Representatives earnestly request that all
enactments having such tendency be forthwith repealed as required by
a just sense of constitutional obligations and by a due regard for
the peace of the Republic."[300]

President Lincoln in his inaugural address, referring to the clause of
the constitution providing for the return of fugitive slaves, and the
contention as to whether the same should be executed by Federal or
state officials, said: "If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be
of little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is
done. And should any one in any case be content that his oath should
go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be
kept?"

RHODE ISLAND ALONE ACCEDES

Despite these considerations, Rhode Island alone repealed the
obnoxious statutes, and great leaders of the Republican Party frankly
confessed that the constitution and the law would not be respected in
certain of the Northern States. Salmon P. Chase, speaking in the Peace
Conference at Washington, in February, 1861, alluding to the provision
of the constitution for the return of fugitive slaves, said: "The
people of the free states, however, who believe that slave-holding is
wrong cannot and will not aid in the reclamation, and the stipulation
becomes therefore a dead letter."[301]

Of the Personal Liberty Laws Mr. George Lunt of Boston in his work,
_Origin of the Late War_, says: "They constitute an extreme
exemplification of the broadest claim to state sovereignty, and put
the states which authorized them in direct hostility to the United
States. They were not one whit more defensible than the Rebellion
itself to which they had such a principal part in preparing the minds
of the seceding states."[302]

FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE

Closely associated with the controversies growing out of the return of
fugitive slaves and the action of certain Northern States, in
defeating the provision of the constitution in regard thereto, was the
attitude of many of the same states with respect to the provision for
the return of the fugitives from justice. A few notable instances will
suffice to illustrate the subject and its profound influence in
arraying Southern States, as states, against certain of their Northern
sisters.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTION

In 1837 the Governor of Georgia made requisition upon the Governor of
Maine for the return to the former state of the captain of a ship
charged with aiding and abetting a slave to desert his master. The
Governor of Maine refused to comply with the requisition, alleging
that the laws of that state did not recognize slavery or the offense
complained of as an indictable one. Thereupon the Legislature of
Georgia petitioned Congress to enact some law to compel state
authorities to comply with this provision of the Federal Constitution.
No action, however, was taken by Congress, nor was the slave or his
abductor ever carried back to Georgia.[303]

In 1841 the Governor of Virginia made requisition upon the Governor of
New York for the return of two men indicted in the former state for
aiding and enticing slaves to leave their masters. William H. Seward
was at that time Governor of New York. He refused to honor the
requisition, alleging that the offense for which the parties were
indicted was not one deemed criminal by the laws of New York or the
nations of the world. A long and peace-destroying controversy in which
the Legislatures of the two states became involved followed; but the
fugitives were never returned, and the people of Virginia felt that
the highest law officer of a sister state had been recreant to his
obligations to the Federal Constitution and reckless of the rights of
their state.

In 1860, the Governor of Kentucky made requisition upon the Governor
of Ohio for the return to the former state of a fugitive from justice
indicted for the violation of a statute imposing penalties upon
persons aiding slaves to escape from their masters. The Governor of
Ohio refused to honor the requisition; thereupon the State of Kentucky
instituted a suit in the Supreme Court of the United States against
the Governor of Ohio, to compel him to comply with the provision of
the Federal Constitution above referred to and deliver up the fugitive
from justice.

The Governor of Ohio interposed as a defense the same reasons advanced
by Governor Seward. But the Supreme Court of the United States held
that the defense was insufficient, and that it was the constitutional
duty of the Governor of Ohio to deliver up the fugitive. The court
declared: "The objection made to the validity of the indictment is
altogether untenable."[304] The court also decided that the suit was
properly instituted, in the right forum, and that the Governor of Ohio
was under constitutional obligations to deliver up the fugitive to the
authorities of Kentucky, but that no judgment could be entered by the
court granting the relief prayed for. Chief Justice Taney, speaking
for the court, after alluding to the fact that the framers of the
constitution confidently believed that "A sense of justice and of
mutual interest would insure a faithful execution of the provision,"
declared: "If the Governor of Ohio refuses to discharge this duty
there is no power delegated to the General Government, either through
the judicial department or any other department, to use any coercive
means to compel him."[305]

EFFECTS IN VIRGINIA OF NULLIFICATION

This decision brought home to the people of Virginia the fact that the
authorities of certain of the Northern States were violating their
obligations under the Federal Constitution, and yet the Federal
Government was unable to remedy the wrong and maintain the rights of
the injured commonwealths.

These conditions and the attitude of the Northern States which thus
nullified the provisions of the Federal Constitution undoubtedly moved
thousands of Virginians and other citizens of the South to secession.
They refused to remain members of a Union in which the rights of their
states were thus violated by their sister commonwealths.

But the claim that Virginia seceded in order to avert pecuniary loss
resulting from the non-return of fugitive slaves is negatived by the
fact that by such action she surrendered all the benefits from the
Federal Constitution and statute. In the Union, some protection was
secured to the state with respect to the rights thus menaced. Outside
of the Union, every such benefit was lost, and the state stood
absolutely without redress.

-----

Footnote 294:

See Decision in Case of Prigg _vs._ Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539.

Footnote 295:

_Fugitive Slaves_, McDougall, p. 66.

Footnote 296:

_In re Sherman M. Booth_, 3rd Wisconsin Rep., p. 13.

Footnote 297:

_Ableman_ vs. _Booth_ and _United States_ vs. _Booth_, 21st Howard,
p. 506.

Footnote 298:

_Journal of the General Assembly of Wisconsin_, Session 1859, pp.
463 and 865.

Footnote 299:

_History of Massachusetts in the Civil War_, Schouler, Vol. I, p. 6.

Footnote 300:

See _Reports of Thirty-second Congress, and Twenty Years of
Congress_, Blaine, pp. 258-265.

Footnote 301:

_Debates in Peace Conference Convention_, Crittenden, p. 430.

Footnote 302:

_Origin of the Late War_, Lunt, p. 217.

Footnote 303:

_Fugitive Slaves_, Boston, 1891, McDougall, p. 41.

Footnote 304:

_Kentucky against Dennison_, 24th Howard, p. 107.

Footnote 305:

_Kentucky against Dennison_, 24th Howard, p. 109.

XXX

THE ABOLITIONISTS

We come now to consider the fourth force or factor with which Virginia
had to reckon, namely, the Abolitionists. These constituted a body of
earnest, tireless agitators—men and women who had devoted mind and
heart to the work of destroying slavery. No consideration of the
maintenance of law, the national peace, nor the preservation of the
Union availed to moderate their zeal or circumscribe their efforts.
Slavery was a sin against God—and to the King of kings they owed
their first allegiance. To counsels of moderation, to suggestions of
expediency, to appeals for law, they returned the oft reiterated
answer—_Delenda est Cathargo!_ The orderly processes of time—the
force of public opinion exerted through law, rather than against law,
were to them but the suggestions of cowardice and a means for
prolonging the life of an institution, the measure of whose sin cried
unto Heaven. Fight Slavery!—now and always—wherever found and by
every weapon known to the wit of man, was the burden of their message.
Keep it out of the territories? Yes! and for the contest depend not
alone upon the laws of Congress; but send armed men to the prairies of
Kansas and hold the land against the slaveholders and their slaves by
fire and the sword. Opposed to a Fugitive Slave Statute? Yes!—contest
its enactment by Congress and defeat its execution when it becomes a
law. Let the free states nullify this Federal statute by state laws;
let mobs rescue from Federal officials the fugitives in their custody;
and then cover the land with the conspiracy of the "Underground
Railroad" by means of which the slave might pass to the freedom which
awaited him beyond the Canadian border.

But it was slavery in its citadel—the existence of the institution in
the slave states—that aroused their fiercest antagonism and rallied
their forces to a battle which should never end but with its complete
destruction. From this body of militant agitators and reformers, the
slaveholders of Virginia could expect no quarter, and the commonwealth
no surcease from the agitations so destructive of her peace.

GARRISON AND PHILLIPS

William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips were the foremost leaders
of this great fellowship, and in no year of grace were their demands
more insistent and their assaults more aggressive than in the
troublous days immediately preceding the Civil War. Amid all appeals
for the maintenance of law and the preservation of peace might be
heard their voices like fire-bells at night, denouncing the Union and
the constitution and demanding the immediate abolition of slavery. But
by none of these things was Virginia moved to secession. As declared
by Henderson, the English military critic, "The wildest threats of the
'Black Republicans,' their loudly expressed determination in defiance
of the constitution, to abolish slavery, if necessary, by the bullet
and the sabre, shook in no degree whatever her loyalty to the
Union."[306]

SECESSION NO PROTECTION

For none of Virginia's grievances nor those of her slaveholders
against the Abolitionists was secession a cure. Within the Union and
under the _Ægis_ of the constitution was to be found her surest
defense against all their assaults. By secession she would surrender
her interest in the territories and all claim of right to introduce
slaves therein. By secession she would forfeit all the benefits of the
Fugitive Slave Law. By secession she would lose the strong arm of the
National Government to defend her against assaults, whether by lawless
bands or the legislative enactments of hostile states. Even with
respect to servile insurrections her withdrawal from the Union would
in no way abate the danger but only lessen her power to cope with the
problem. John Brown and his band were captured by United States
soldiers and the flag of the Union carried protection to the inmates
of every lonely manor house and cabin throughout her borders, whether
menaced by the slaves themselves or the emissaries of those who
plotted against her peace. Of all these facts the Abolitionists had
the profoundest appreciation. Hence for years they advocated disunion
as a condition precedent to the attainment of their great end—the
abolition of slavery.

-----

Footnote 306:

_Stonewall Jackson_, Henderson, Vol. I, p. 122.

XXXI

THE ABOLITIONISTS AND DISUNION

The disunion sentiments and efforts of the Abolitionists may be traced
through the declarations of their leaders and the platforms of their
societies, enunciated from time to time, during a long series of years
antedating the Civil War. Thus in January, 1843, the Massachusetts
Anti-Slavery Society adopted the following resolution:

"That the compact which exists between the North and the South is a
covenant with Death and an agreement with Hell—involving both
parties in atrocious criminality, and should be immediately
annulled."[307]

These sentiments were affirmed and reiterated by the American
Anti-Slavery Society at its tenth anniversary meeting in New York
City, May, 1844, where among other declarations the Federal
Constitution was denounced as "a covenant with Death and an agreement
with Hell," and the motto adopted "No Union with Slaveholders."[308]

In 1854, William Lloyd Garrison declared, "There is but one honest,
straightforward course to pursue if we would see the slave power
overthrown—the Union must be dissolved."[309] And Wendell Phillips
re-echoed the sentiment in the no less explicit declaration, "As to
disunion, it must and will come. Calhoun wants it at one end of the
Union, Garrison wants it at the other. It is written in the counsel of
God."[310]

Mr. Schouler, referring to the foregoing declaration of Mr. Garrison
and the occasion, says: "And such was the general tenor of anniversary
speeches and resolutions through the next six years, whenever and
wherever meetings were held of our Anti-Slavery Societies."[311]

WORCESTER DISUNION CONVENTION, 1857

These disunion sentiments continued with growing insistence in the
declarations of leading Abolitionists and in the platform of their
societies. On the 15th of January, 1857, there assembled at Worcester,
Mass., the "Disunion Convention." This body adopted, among other
resolutions, one demanding the immediate dissolution of the Union, and
declaring that "The sooner the separation takes place, the more
peaceful it will be; but that peace or war is a secondary
consideration in view of our present perils. Slavery must be
conquered, peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must."[312] This
convention appointed a State Committee of seven, of which the Rev.
Thomas Wentworth Higginson was made chairman, to direct the propaganda
of the new movement and a general convention composed of delegates
from all the free states was recommended. A call for the latter
convention was accordingly issued in July, 1857, signed by Mr.
Higginson, Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, and other leading
Abolitionists. Cleveland, Ohio, was selected as the place for the
convention, because a majority of the signers to the call, some seven
hundred in number, were citizens of that state. The 28th of October
was fixed as the date for the meeting of the convention. This body,
however, failed to assemble because of the terrible financial panic
which began in September of that year,—the leaders deciding to
postpone the "projected Northern Convention until a more auspicious
period."[313]

GARRISON URGES DISUNION

In his speech before the "Disunion Convention" at Worcester, Mass.,
above referred to, William Lloyd Garrison said:

"Again, I am for the speedy overthrow of the Union because, while it
exists, I see no end to the extension of slavery. I see everything
in the hands of the Slave Power now—all the resources of the
country,—every dollar in the Treasury, the Navy, the Judiciary,
everything in its grasp; and I know that with all these means and
facilities and the disposition to use them, nothing can successfully
contend against it.

"I am sure of another thing—that when the North shall withdraw from
the Union, there will be an end to Southern filibustering and
schemes of annexation. Then the tables will be turned and we shall
have the slaveholders at our doors crying for mercy. Rely upon it,
there is not an intelligent slaveholder at the South who is for a
dissolution of the Union. I do not care what the folly or insanity
of the Southern Nullifiers may be; ... not one of them is willing to
have the cord cut and the South permitted to try the experiment. If
it be otherwise, God grant that she may soon take this step and see
whether she will be able to hold a single slave one hour after the
deed is done."[314]

No opportunity was neglected to inculcate sentiments of disloyalty to
the Union, hatred of the constitution, and disregard of the statutes
enacted by the Federal Government bearing upon slavery. Sometimes the
Abolitionists would emphasize their position and lend a touch of
realism to their sentiments by burning before the multitudes copies of
the constitution and obnoxious laws passed by Congress.

ABOLITIONISTS' ASSAULTS ON EMINENT MEN

Thus at Framingham, Mass., on the fourth of July, 1854, at the
open-air celebration of the day by the Abolitionists, William Lloyd
Garrison burned copies of the constitution, the Fugitive Slave Law,
and the opinions of several Judges of the Federal Courts in
Massachusetts. _The Liberator_ records that Mr. Garrison, "holding up
the United States constitution branded it as the source and parent of
all the other atrocities—a covenant with Death and an agreement with
Hell—and consumed it to ashes on the spot, exclaiming, 'So perish all
compromises with Tyranny,' and 'Let all the people say Amen,' and a
tremendous shout of 'Amen' went up to Heaven in ratification of the
deed."[315]

No eminence of public station nor personal worth availed to shield
from the assaults of these Abolition leaders. William Lloyd Garrison
alluding to Webster's eulogies upon the constitution declared, "Let
Daniel Webster, the greatest and meanest of his countrymen, exhaust
his powers of eulogy upon it if he will; the effort will but render
his character base and contemptible with posterity."[316]

Wendell Phillips, referring to the "Defender of the Constitution,"
said: "God gives us great scoundrels for texts to anti-slavery
sermons. See to it, when nature has provided you a monster like
Webster, that you exhibit him—himself a whole menagerie—throughout
the country."[317] Subsequently in an article in _The Liberator_ on
Mr. Lincoln—then but recently nominated for the Presidency, headed
"Abraham Lincoln, the Slave Hound of Illinois," Wendell Phillips
wrote: "We gibbet a Northern hound to-day side by side with the
infamous Mason of Virginia."[318]

ABOLITIONISTS AND SLAVE INSURRECTIONS

Theodore Parker alluding to the Federal judges and officials in Boston
who bore a part in the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, addressing
the "Spirits of Tyrants" and apostrophising Cain, Herod, Nero, and
Torquemada, proceeds as follows: "Come up, thou heap of wickedness,
George Jeffreys! Thy hands deep purple with the blood of thy murdered
fellow men!... What! Dost thou shudder? Thou turn back? These not thy
kindred? It is true, George Jeffreys. And these are not thy kin....
Thou wouldst not send a man into bondage for two pounds. I will not
rank thee with men who in Boston for ten dollars would enslave a negro
now."[319]

Even the patriotic enthusiasm of Longfellow in his "Ode to the Union,"
aroused Garrison's ire, who denounced it as "a eulogy dripping with
the blood of imbruted humanity," and for the poet's conception of the
"Ship of State" he substituted:

... "'Perfidious bark!
Built i' th' eclipse and rigged with curses dark.'...

Destined to go down full many a fathom deep, to the joy and exultation
of all who are yearning for the deliverance of a groaning
world."[320](_a_)

(_a_): Note: The author has not cited any examples of the terms
employed by the leaders of the Abolitionists in referring to the
Southern people. If Webster were denounced as a "monster" and
Lincoln as a "slave-hound" because, in their devotion to the Union
and their respect for law, they would protect the constitutional
rights of slaveholders, the reader may readily imagine the
denunciations poured upon the citizens of the slaveholding states.
For twenty-five years the people of the South, their civilization
and morality were arraigned by orators and editors, preachers and
poets, dramatists and novelists, in terms without parallel in
polemic literature.

ABOLITIONISTS APPLAUDED JOHN BROWN

But the Abolitionists did not confine their efforts to denunciations of the constitution and its defenders, or in devising schemes for the overthrow of the Union. They actually secured the enactment by many Northern Legislatures of so-called Personal Liberty Laws, designed to nullify the Fugitive Slave Law passed by Congress. In like manner many of them were the apologists, if not the instigators, of servile insurrections, of which John Brown's venture was at once the fell offspring, and the dread sign of more to follow. William Lloyd Garrison declared that Brown deserved "to be held in grateful and honorable remembrance, to the latest posterity, by all those who glory in the deeds of a Wallace or a Tell, a Washington or a Warren."[321] Theodore Parker said: "No American has died in this century whose chance of earthly immortality is worth half so much as John Brown's."[322] Wendell Phillips speaking in Plymouth Church declared: "John Brown violated the law. Yes. On yonder desk lie the inspired words of men who died violent deaths for breaking the laws of Rome. Why do you listen to them so reverently? Huss and Wycliffe violated laws. Why honor them? George Washington, had he been caught before 1783, would have died on the gibbet for breaking the laws of his sovereign."[323]