THE SOUTH SUSTAINS THE COMPROMISE OF 18 50. 211 status of negroes. The Compromise ry S. Foote for Governor-Mr. Foote, had taken no money from their pock- as Mr. Davis's colleague, though he ets; it had imposed upon them no demurred to Mr. Clay's programme pecuniary burdens; it had exposed at the outset, having supported the them to no personal and palpable Compromise to the extent of his abildangers it had rather repelled the ity. The election occurred early in gaunt specter of Civil War and Dis- November, 1851; when the "Union" union (habitually conjured up when party won a complete triumph-the Slavery had a point to carry), and vote being the largest ever yet polled, increased the facilities for making and Mr. Foote elected by over 1,000! money, while opening a boundless majority. The rest of the "Union" vista of National greatness, security, State ticket, with a strongly "Union" and internal harmony. Especially Legislature, succeeded by still larger by the trading class, and the great majorities. Alabama, likewise, chose majority of the dwellers in seaboard a "Union" Legislature, and a "Unicities, was this view cherished with on" majority of Congressmen. Louiintense, intolerant vehemence. siana, this year, elected a "Whig" Auditor and Legislature—meaning much the same thing. And even South Carolina-having been summoned by her chieftains (Mr. Calhoun being now dead) to elect a Convention, whereby her course in the exigency should be determinedgave a "Coöperation" majority of over 7,000 on the popular vote, electing 114 "Coöperationists" to 54 unqualified "Secessionists." In other words, she voted not to attempt Secession without the concurrence and support of her Southern sistersthis being the shape wherein she could, with least sacrifice of pride or consistency, indicate her disposition not to rush madly upon the perils of Disunion and Civil War. union and Civil War. Thus the triumph of the Compromise in the Slave States was complete; for it was felt to be preposterous to make the issue in any other States if it could not be upheld in these. 2 The Compromise had been violently opposed alike from the South and from the North-of course, on opposite grounds. The "Fire-Eaters," or disciples of Mr. Calhoun, regarded it as surrendering the substance of all that was in dispute the newly acquired territories-to the North, while amusing the South with a mere shadow of triumph in the waiver of any positive, peremptory exclusion of Slavery therefrom. They resolved not to submit to it, but to rouse their section at first to theoretical, ultimately to forcible, resistance. To this end, a direct issue was made against the Compromise in Mississippi-next to South Carolina, the most intensely Pro-Slavery State in the Union-by nominating a "State Rights" ticket, headed by Jefferson Davis for Governor-Mr. Davis having opposed the Compromise in the Senate with determined pertinacity. His adversaries accepted the chal- In the North, likewise, the acquilenge, and nominated a "Union" "Union" escence in the Compromise was genticket in opposition, headed by Hen-eral and decisive; though here, too, 1 Foote, 28,738; Davis, 27,729. 17,796. These totals are obtained by adding up 2 For Coöperation, 25,098; for Secession, the votes for delegates in the several "parishes.” 5 from a Slave State who voted at all, voting Yea, with 28 Democrats and 3 Whigs from Free States. From the Free States 33, from the Slave States 15 members were absent, or withheld their votes; and, as the vote in the Senate stood 27 for to 12 against it, with 21 absent, it is note by the votes of a decided minority of the members thereof. Still, it is hardly probable that, had every member been present and voted, it would have been defeated. This measure, so inconsiderately adopted, was specially objectionable to the humaner instincts of the Free States in these particulars: some of its cardinal provisions pro- | was ordered to a third reading by voked strenuous opposition. The 109 Yeas to 75 Nays-every member new Fugitive Slave Law proved especially obnoxious, both in principle and practice, to a large and earnest minority. It had been originally drafted by Senator Mason, of Virginia—a man conspicuously charged with that pro-Slavery venom which has since made him a leading Rebel-and who had already signal-worthy that it passed either House ized himself by his efforts to render the maintenance of the Union impossible on any other terms than those of the most utter and abject devotion, on the part of the North, to the most extreme Pro-Slavery aspirations and policy of the South. He opposed, as we have seen, Mr. Clay's programme of compromise, as entirely too favorable to the North; he had been among the foremost of the Southern ultras in defeating that programme in its primitive shape; and he had stubbornly resisted the admission of California as a Free State, unless and until paid for by concessions on the part of the North. Yet his draft of a Fugitive Slave Law was adopted by the great Compromise Committee, and ultimately rushed through the two Houses with little consideration and less scrutiny. When it was reached in its order in the lower, Judge James Thompson obtained the floor 1-doubtless by prearrangement with Speaker Cobb-and spoke in favor of the measure as just and necessary, closing his remarks by a demand of the Previous Question. This was sustained by a majority; and the bill-with all its imperfections on its head, and without afford 3 1. It directed and provided for the surrender to the claimant of each alleged fugitive from Slavery without allowing such alleged fugitive a trial by jury; though the Federal Constitution expressly provides that 6 "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved:" So that, while any person, of whom ing any opportunity for amendment-mentous war; but, if any one chooses 3 Democrat, of Erie, Pa. 4 September, 12th. 5 Samuel A. Eliot, Massachusetts, John L. Taylor, Ohio, Edward W. McGaughey, In- JOHN VAN BUREN'S VIEWS. to swear that he is a slave who has escaped from his owner's service, he cannot require a trial by jury of the issue so raised, although the judge or commissioner before whom the claimant sees fit to bring him may be in league with that claimant to get him out of the protection of the law and into the power of his deadly enemies. And it is specially provided by this act that 7 "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence." 2. It did not even allow him a hearing before a judge; but authorized the captor to take him at once before any commissioner appointed to take depositions, etc., by a Judge of the Federal Courts, who was clothed by this act with plenary power in the premises; on whose rendition and certificate he might be hurried off at once into Slavery, without stay or appeal. 3. Said commissioner was to receive $10 for his services in case he directed the surrender of the alleged fugitive, but only $5 in case he, for any cause, decided against the claimant. The act thus, in effect, offered him a bribe to decide against the person charged with owing "service or labor." 8 4. The persons charged with the duty of arresting the alleged fugitives were, in every instance, authorized and empowered by the act to "summon and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of the proper county," to aid them in their work; and all good citizens are 7 Sec. 6. 66 8 The reason, or, at least, the excuse, offered for this, imported that the labor of making out the necessary papers was greater in case of a rendition than in the alternative. 213 hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law." Mr. John Van Buren, in a letter" to a Massachusetts Convention of opponents of this law, while admitting the right to reclaim and the duty of surrendering fugitives from Slavery, condemned the enactment in all its more important features: first, as an assumption by Congress of a duty properly devolving on the States," and to be rightfully executed by State laws, tribunals, and functionaries. The demurrer that the Supreme Court had decided" adversely Buren as follows: to this position was met by Mr. Van "By this decision, judges in determining be concluded. But, in a popular discussion the question of authority would probably of the propriety of a law, with a view to its repeal or modification, I suppose we are at liberty to believe in opposition to a decision of the Supreme Court. of the Supreme Court. Even the executive and legislative departments deny its authority to bind them. The Supreme Court decided that the Alien and Sedition Law was constitutional, and Matthew Lyon was imprisoned under it. The President, Mr. Jefferson, decided that it was not, and pardoned Mr. Lyon. The Supreme Court decided that Congress could constitutionally charter a Bank of the United States, and that the propriety and necessity of doing so were to be judged by Congress. The President, Gen. Jackson, decided that such an act was unconstitutional, and vetoed it. With these examples before me, I feel authorized to express the opinion which I entertain, that the Fugitive Slave Act is unconstitutional, because Congress has no power to legislate upon the subject." With regard to the denial by this act of all semblance of a jury trial to persons claimed under it as fugitive slaves, Mr. Van Buren was equally 9 Dated New York, April 4, 1851. 10 This view was also taken by many Southrons of the "State Rights" school, especially by several eminent South Carolinians. 11 In the case of Prigg against Pennsylvania. decided and forcible, as is evinced by these further extracts from his letter: "But, to those who regard the decision of the Supreme Court as conclusive, it is important to consider other objections to the act. Conceding the power of Congress to legislate upon this subject, I think the act in question is unconstitutional, because it does not give the person seized a trial by jury at the place where he is so seized, and before he is put in the custody of the claimant, with a warrant to transport him. *** "In my judgment, the claim of service secured by the Constitution, if it requires a law to enforce it, and if Congress can pass such a law, can only be provided for by an act which secures the trial of a question in a regular suit before a jury. The seventh amendment to the Constitution provides that, in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,' etc. This amendment, as well as the fifth, which declares that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,' grew out of the opposition manifested to the adoption of the Constitution, because it did not, in terms, provide for the trial by jury in civil cases. It is needless to remind an American of the anxiety with which this institution has been watched. It is well described by Mr. Justice Story, in the case of Parsons vs. Bedford, 3 Peters, 446. Justice Story also explains what is meant by a suit at common law,' in the section quoted. It covers all suits except those of equity, admiralty, or maritime jurisdiction; and the Judiciary Act of 1789 (chapter 20, sections 9, 12, and 13), carries this construction into practical operation. It will hardly be claimed that Congress can take a case which entitles a party to a jury, and deprive him of a jury by converting it into a summary proceeding, or that they can, in the same way, deprive him of his liberty or property without due process of law. If they could do this, the trial by jury and the due process of law secured by the Constitution become a mockery. Treating this as a mere question of property exceeding twenty dollars in value, I entertain no doubt that it is a case where a jury trial is secured by the Constitution. "It may be said that a person seized can try the question of his right to freedom by a jury at the place whence he fled. This is a consolation, to be sure, to a man whose freedom has been destroyed by seizure and transportation from his home; and, if he could get his witnesses to the place where the claimant concludes to take him, he could have a trial. But the act in question provides no jury trial anywhere; there is no obligation on the claimant to take the person he seizes to any particular place; and if I have a right to try the question of title to property I hold at the place where the property is, and where the demand is made, how can it be argued that I have no such right when the demand made is for my thews and sinews? "It is urged that juries would not render verdicts in favor of claimants, where the right was established. This does not correspond with my observation of jury trials. On the contrary, whatever prejudice jurors may feel against the law, I have hardly ever known them to fail in obeying the directions of the Court upon a point of law. "It is also suggested, that the expense of recovering a fugitive by this mode would amount to a destruction of the right. If such an evil exists, it is incident to this unfortunate relation. It certainly furnishes no reason why the Constitution should be violated, and a safeguard broken down in reference to the liberty of a human being, which is secured to him in defending a horse or a bale of cotton." That the provisions of this act were harsh and cruel is certain; but that any act providing for the recovery of fugitives from Slavery could have been at once humane and efficient, is not obvious. And, as the capture and rendition of alleged slaves under this act claimed a large share of public attention during the three or four years immediately following its passage, while the residue of the Compromise measures evoked no special excitement, and had none other than a noiseless, passive operation, it is not remarkable that greater success in slave-hunting, with greater alacrity on the part of the Free States in ministering to such success, seemed to the general Northern mind the sum and substance, the being's end and aim," of the Compromises of 1850. And, as the Federal Administration, whereof Mr. Fillmore remained the official head, and Mr. Webster became the animating soul, gave prominence and emphasis to the exertions of its sub 66 SLAVE-HUNTING IN FULL BLAST. ordinates in aid of slave-catching, the alienation from it of anti-Slavery Whigs became more and more decided and formidable. 13 Numerous arrests of alleged fugitives were made in various parts of the country, but not with uniform success. In New York City, Philadelphia, and other marts largely engaged in Southern trade, no serious resistance was offered; though in one case a black man remanded to Maryland as a fugitive was honorably rejected and set at liberty by the claimant, as not the slave for whom he had been mistaken. In Boston, serious popular repugnance to rendition was repeatedly manifested; and in one case a negro known as Shadrach, who had been arrested as a fugitive, was rescued and escaped. In other cases, however, and conspicuously in those of Thomas Sims 2 and Anthony Burns, the State and City authorities, the Judiciary, the Military, the merchants, and probably a decided majority of the citizens, approved and aided the surrender. There were cases, however, wherein the popular sentiment of the country was on the side of the hunted blacks—as was evinced at Syracuse," N. Y., in the rescue of Jerry Loguen, an alleged fugitive, from the hands of the authorities, and his protection by alternately hiding and forwarding him until he made his escape into Canada. At Christiana, Lancaster Co., Pa.,15 where a considerable number of negroes were compactly settled, Edward Gorsuch, a Maryland slaveholder, who attempted, with two or three accomplices, to seize his alleged slaves, four in num13 May 27, 1854. 12 April 12, 1851. 215 ber, was resisted by the alarmed, indignant blacks, and received a ball from a musket fired by one of them which proved fatal; and his son, who had accompanied him, was wounded. And in Milwaukee, Wis., Sherman M. Booth having been convicted in the U. S. District Court of aiding in the rescue of Joshua Glover, a fugitive from St. Louis, the Supreme Court of that State, on a habeas corpus sued out in his behalf, decided the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional and void, and set him at liberty. This decision was overruled, however, by the Supreme Court of the United States in a unanimous decision affirming the validity of the Fugitive Slave Law, and directing that, though a State Court might properly grant a habeas corpus in behalf of a person imprisoned under Federal authority, yet that the custodian in such case had only to make return that he was so held, and that this return, being proved truthful, must be accepted by the State Court as sufficient and conclusivethe Federal and State jurisdictions. being each sovereign within its proper sphere, and each entitled to entire respect from the other, though operative over the same territory. And this remains to this day the adjudicated law of the land. The activity and universality of slave-hunting, under the act of 1850, were most remarkable. That act became a law on the 18th of September; and, within ten days thereafter, a negro named James Hamlet had been seized in the city of New York, and very summarily dispatched to a woman in Baltimore, who claimed 14 October 1, 1851. 15 September 11, 1851. |