Download Fugitive Slave Acts (1793, 1850) By Arthur G

Fugitive Slave Acts (1793, 1850)
By Arthur G. LeFrancois
By the middle of the nineteenth century, the issue of slavery had caused a deep division between
North and South. Slavery was an important part of the Southern way of life, and slave labor was a
significant aspect of the Southern states' economy. Northerners opposed slavery yet were concerned that
the political, economic, and ideological conflict with the South over slavery could threaten a civil war
between the two sides.
The conflict intensified over the issue of fugitive, or escaped, slaves. Because slaves were treated
as property in the South, slave owners felt it was their right to seek out and recapture slaves who had
escaped to free Northern states. Northerners tended to view this practice as kidnapping. Many wondered if
officials in the free states had a duty not to interfere with the slave owner or in fact had the power to
declare the slave a free person. Article 4, section 2 of the Constitution stated that slaves who escaped to
free states had to be surrendered to their owners upon demand. But although the Constitution recognized
the institution of slavery and the rights of slave owners, it was still unclear just what the law required of
the people and officials in free states in regard to the matter of fugitive slaves. In other words,
enforcement of the Constitution on this matter was a gray area decades before the Civil War.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT OF 1793
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 (1 Stat. 302) was an effort to provide a means to enforce the
constitutional clause concerning escaped slaves. The act allowed a slave owner to seize an escaped slave,
present the slave before a federal or local judge, and, upon proof of ownership, receive a certificate
authorizing the slave to be retaken. It also established a penalty of 500 dollars for obstructing an owner's
efforts to retake a slave, or for rescuing, harboring, or concealing a fugitive slave.
Some Northerners saw the act as providing an excuse for the kidnapping of free blacks. Others
resented the ability of slave owners to reclaim slaves who might have escaped many years ago and who
had new lives in the North. As a result, Northern states responded to the act by passing "personal liberty"
laws, which protected alleged fugitive slaves in various ways. Southerners saw these laws as
objectionable efforts to get around the act and the Constitution.
In 1842, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania's personal liberty law
of 1826 was unconstitutional. Edward Prigg had been convicted of kidnapping for taking a black woman
and her children from Pennsylvania (a free state) to Maryland (a slave state). The Supreme Court
overturned his conviction, holding that state laws could not permissibly interfere with the rights of slave
owners reclaiming fugitive slaves. In 1847 the Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the 1793 act in
Jones v. Van Zandt.
Opponents of slavery resented these decisions, which sparked protest, resistance, and new laws
and policies making the retaking of fugitive slaves more difficult and costly. Abolitionists effectively used
the 1793 act and the court decisions upholding it to call attention to the evils of slavery. Southerners grew
ever angrier and pressed for legislation that would more strongly protect their right to reclaim fugitive
slaves.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT OF 1850
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (9 Stat. 462) was an important part of the Compromise of 1850.
On one side, Southerners sought to strengthen the fugitive slave law. On the other side, Northerners
sought to respect the Constitution's fugitive slave clause and thereby preserve the Union by
accommodating Southern anger over the fugitive slave issue. The act represented this effort to hold the
country together.
Much longer than its 1793 predecessor, the 1850 act provided for federal commissioners to conduct
hearings to grant or deny certificates permitting slave owners to retake fugitive slaves. Slave owners could
either seize the person suspected to be a fugitive slave or procure a warrant directing a federal marshal to
arrest the alleged fugitive before taking the person before a commissioner for a hearing. Under the act:

The alleged fugitive was not allowed to testify at the hearing.

Commissioners received twice as much compensation (ten dollars) for granting certificates
as for denying them.

Federal marshals were financially liable for not trying to execute the warrants and for
allowing fugitives to escape.

Penalties were increased for obstructing slave owners or helping fugitives, and included
imprisonment.
Northerners saw this act as substantially more intrusive than the act of 1793, and their reaction
was swift. Many people resisted and defied the law. In 1851, for example, Frederick Wilkins, known as
Shadrach, a fugitive slave from Virginia, was rescued from a Boston courtroom and helped to escape to
Canada. In some areas it was difficult to find people willing to do the duties required of commissioners
under the act. Juries ignored evidence and acquitted people accused of violating the act. In June 1851
Harriet Beecher Stowe began publishing her influential antislavery novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, in weekly
installments in the National Era magazine. Shortly afterward it was published in book form and sold
widely, increasing Northerners' opposition to slavery.
In 1860 South Carolina seceded from the Union, and within months other states followed suit. The
Civil War began in 1861. Three years later, in 1864, the Fugitive Slave Acts were repealed.
AN UNSUCCESSFUL ACCOMMODATION
The acts of 1793 and 1850 highlighted the uneasy accommodation between North and South on
the issue of slavery. The acts offended Northern sensibilities that had turned against slavery. Northern
social and legal reactions against the acts were threatening and insulting to Southerners. Southerners felt
that some abolitionists in the North—and even some Northern legislatures—were encouraging slaves to
revolt, a possibility that many Southerners greatly feared.
The Fugitive Slave Acts failed as part of an effort to hold the Union together. Instead, they
highlighted differences on the issue of slavery. The acts also raised important issues about what it means
to follow the rule of law and pursue justice under a Constitution that both promoted freedom and allowed
slavery
Fugitive Slave Acts 1793 and 1850 Chart
Fill out the chart below using the above reading and your book
What things did the Fugitive
How did the Northerners react Supreme Court Cases that had
Slave Act of 1793 do?
to this act and how did they try to do with the 1793 Fugitive
to thwart it from going into
Slave Act and rulings
action or protest it?
Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1842 -
Jones v. Van Zandt 1847-
What things did the Fugitive
Slave Act of 1850 do?
How did the Northerners react
to this act and how did they try
to thwart it from going into
action or protest it?
Supreme Court Cases that had
to do with the 1850 Fugitive
Slave Act and rulings
Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857
(page 199)-