Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
The Fugitive Slave Act was passed in 18th of September 1890 by the congress. It was part of the compromise between the Free Soilers in the northern states who were opposed to slavery and the slaveholding in the southern states who wanted to extend the slave power all over the United States. The Fugitive Slave Act was one of the most controversial acts in the 19th century as a result of the resultant fear that the southern slave powers would extend their influence in the northern states. This is because the act declared that all the runaway slaves who had sought refuge in the northern states should be returned to their masters in the southern states.
A similar act, the Fugitive Slave Act had been passed by the congress toward the end of the 18th century that forced the return of the runaway slaves to their masters. The laws forced the northern states administrators to return the runaway slave to their masters in the south. However, the move was opposed by the northern states that passed the personal liberty laws that required a jury trial before the runaway slaves could be returned to their masters. The northern states feared that the people of color could be kidnapped and enslaved as a result of misuse of the new law. In some states, the use of local jails or the local state officials being involved in the arrest and return of the runaway slaves was prohibited. In some areas, the locals fought any attempt to seize the runaway slaves and return them to their masters in the southern states.
The abolitionists spoke against the new laws especially in the states that were free of slavery. The court held that slaves who moved to the Free states through voluntary transportation by their masters with an intention of permanently residing there became free and was not subject to these laws. The Fugitive Slave Act in the 18th century was aimed at dealing with slaves who moved to the Free States without the consent of their masters. The courts had also ruled that the states were not obliged by the law to assist in the hunting and recapturing of the run away slaves. These stands by the courts greatly weakened the Fugitive Slave Act enacted in the 18th century and forced the southern states to push for the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Although the fugitive act of 1793 was enacted to curb the increased trend of the southerners losing their slaves, loss of property through runaway slaves was a major concern among the southerners. They also feared that the northerners antislavery ideologies were gaining influence in the United States. Fugitive slaves became a major problem in the first half of the 19th century which resulted into lots of complains from the southerner slave owners. It is estimated that over fifty thousand slaves attempted to escape from their owner annually. Some of these escapes were successful and the fugitive slaves found refuge in the Free states in the north. However, the number of runaway slaves was very low compared to the total population of the slaves in the southern states which was almost four million slaves. Despite the small percentage of the number of fugitive slaves, the loss of slave had severe impact on the southerners which forced that to push for another Fugitive Slave Act (Hummel Weingast, 2006).
The influence of the southern slave powers was threatened by among other factors the admission of a free state, California without a slave state to counter balance the effect. The political veto of the southern slave states reduced significantly in favor of the Free states. The situation was made worse by the increased movement of slaves out of the southern states in search of freedom. These threats set the stage for the approach of the southern slave powers in the 1850 compromise negotiations.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was therefore enacted in response to the weakening Fugitive Slave Act of the late 18th century. The act made the federal marshal and other states and federal official responsible for hunting and capturing runaway slaves. The new law stated that any official who declined to arrest a runaway slave was liable to prosecution and could be fined up to one thousands dollars. On the other hand, the public was also obliged to assist the federal and state officials to arrest the fugitive slaves, failure to which the individual would be prosecuted. The law required that once the runaway slave is arrested, he was supposed to be taken to the federal court or the commissioner. The slave would however not be tried by a jury nor could his or her testimony hold weight. The ruling of the federal court or the commissioner would largely depend on the evidence and testimony given by the alleged master of the captured fugitive slave. Moreover, the alleged owner of the slave was not required by the law to appear before the court or the commissioner (Campbell, 1970).
After the enactment of the law, all the law enforcers all over the United States was expected to capture any suspected runaway slave. The only evidence required by the law enforcers was a claim of ownership of the slave by a master. Any person suspected of aiding the escape of the slave or providing support without informing the authority was also subject to imprisonment and a fine. To encourage the federal and state officials and law enforcers to capture the runaway slaves, they were assured of benefits such as promotion or bonuses for capturing fugitive slaves. The alleged fugitive slave owner was required to present an affidavit to the relevant federal authority that would then hunt and capture the fugitive slave.
The law was basically designed to reduce the number of slaves that successfully ran away from their owners thus reducing the loss of property. The southerners wanted a law enacted that would ensure that all the slaves that had escaped from their masters at any time be returned to their masters. However, the northern legislators opposed the law and sought to defend the Black American population in the northern states against illegal kidnapping and enslavement. Despite the hot contest between the northerners and the southerners, the bill was passed into law. The final version that did not provide for jury trial of the runaway slave or indemnification of the slave owners was voted for by every representative from the southern states while the democrats in the northern states provided the victory margin. The congress created the commissioners in the federal law courts who were to assist the slave owners in recapturing their runaway slaves. This was one of the harshest moves against the fugitive slaves by the congress. The commissioners were to be appointed by the circuit courts had powers to issue arrest warrants, deploy federal marshals in the arrest of fugitive slaves, ignore witnesses and send any alleged offender to prison.
The northern states reacted violently against the fugitive slave act. In several states in the north, the act was nullified making it worthless to some extent. The northern states and abolitionists who were opposed to slavery were heavily opposed to the implementation of the law. The law was against their social ideologies since it converted them and their institutions to slavery laws enforcers. The northerners had no option but to defy or break the law consciously since they believed it was unjust. Wisconsin state through the state high court was the first state to declare the law unconstitutional in 1854. However, this ruling was later overruled by the United States Supreme Court. In some northern states, the law was enforced by the federal law enforcers which received a lot of objection from the public. The federal troops deployed to capture runaway slaves were confronted by threats from the northerners and in some cases violence erupted between the mobs and the law enforcers. Many runaway slaves found the northern Free states unsafe and opted to move into the neighboring Canada.
Despite the high opposition from the northern antislavery states, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the new Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was legally operative until the mid 1860s when the congress repealed the act.
A similar act, the Fugitive Slave Act had been passed by the congress toward the end of the 18th century that forced the return of the runaway slaves to their masters. The laws forced the northern states administrators to return the runaway slave to their masters in the south. However, the move was opposed by the northern states that passed the personal liberty laws that required a jury trial before the runaway slaves could be returned to their masters. The northern states feared that the people of color could be kidnapped and enslaved as a result of misuse of the new law. In some states, the use of local jails or the local state officials being involved in the arrest and return of the runaway slaves was prohibited. In some areas, the locals fought any attempt to seize the runaway slaves and return them to their masters in the southern states.
The abolitionists spoke against the new laws especially in the states that were free of slavery. The court held that slaves who moved to the Free states through voluntary transportation by their masters with an intention of permanently residing there became free and was not subject to these laws. The Fugitive Slave Act in the 18th century was aimed at dealing with slaves who moved to the Free States without the consent of their masters. The courts had also ruled that the states were not obliged by the law to assist in the hunting and recapturing of the run away slaves. These stands by the courts greatly weakened the Fugitive Slave Act enacted in the 18th century and forced the southern states to push for the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Although the fugitive act of 1793 was enacted to curb the increased trend of the southerners losing their slaves, loss of property through runaway slaves was a major concern among the southerners. They also feared that the northerners antislavery ideologies were gaining influence in the United States. Fugitive slaves became a major problem in the first half of the 19th century which resulted into lots of complains from the southerner slave owners. It is estimated that over fifty thousand slaves attempted to escape from their owner annually. Some of these escapes were successful and the fugitive slaves found refuge in the Free states in the north. However, the number of runaway slaves was very low compared to the total population of the slaves in the southern states which was almost four million slaves. Despite the small percentage of the number of fugitive slaves, the loss of slave had severe impact on the southerners which forced that to push for another Fugitive Slave Act (Hummel Weingast, 2006).
The influence of the southern slave powers was threatened by among other factors the admission of a free state, California without a slave state to counter balance the effect. The political veto of the southern slave states reduced significantly in favor of the Free states. The situation was made worse by the increased movement of slaves out of the southern states in search of freedom. These threats set the stage for the approach of the southern slave powers in the 1850 compromise negotiations.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was therefore enacted in response to the weakening Fugitive Slave Act of the late 18th century. The act made the federal marshal and other states and federal official responsible for hunting and capturing runaway slaves. The new law stated that any official who declined to arrest a runaway slave was liable to prosecution and could be fined up to one thousands dollars. On the other hand, the public was also obliged to assist the federal and state officials to arrest the fugitive slaves, failure to which the individual would be prosecuted. The law required that once the runaway slave is arrested, he was supposed to be taken to the federal court or the commissioner. The slave would however not be tried by a jury nor could his or her testimony hold weight. The ruling of the federal court or the commissioner would largely depend on the evidence and testimony given by the alleged master of the captured fugitive slave. Moreover, the alleged owner of the slave was not required by the law to appear before the court or the commissioner (Campbell, 1970).
After the enactment of the law, all the law enforcers all over the United States was expected to capture any suspected runaway slave. The only evidence required by the law enforcers was a claim of ownership of the slave by a master. Any person suspected of aiding the escape of the slave or providing support without informing the authority was also subject to imprisonment and a fine. To encourage the federal and state officials and law enforcers to capture the runaway slaves, they were assured of benefits such as promotion or bonuses for capturing fugitive slaves. The alleged fugitive slave owner was required to present an affidavit to the relevant federal authority that would then hunt and capture the fugitive slave.
The law was basically designed to reduce the number of slaves that successfully ran away from their owners thus reducing the loss of property. The southerners wanted a law enacted that would ensure that all the slaves that had escaped from their masters at any time be returned to their masters. However, the northern legislators opposed the law and sought to defend the Black American population in the northern states against illegal kidnapping and enslavement. Despite the hot contest between the northerners and the southerners, the bill was passed into law. The final version that did not provide for jury trial of the runaway slave or indemnification of the slave owners was voted for by every representative from the southern states while the democrats in the northern states provided the victory margin. The congress created the commissioners in the federal law courts who were to assist the slave owners in recapturing their runaway slaves. This was one of the harshest moves against the fugitive slaves by the congress. The commissioners were to be appointed by the circuit courts had powers to issue arrest warrants, deploy federal marshals in the arrest of fugitive slaves, ignore witnesses and send any alleged offender to prison.
The northern states reacted violently against the fugitive slave act. In several states in the north, the act was nullified making it worthless to some extent. The northern states and abolitionists who were opposed to slavery were heavily opposed to the implementation of the law. The law was against their social ideologies since it converted them and their institutions to slavery laws enforcers. The northerners had no option but to defy or break the law consciously since they believed it was unjust. Wisconsin state through the state high court was the first state to declare the law unconstitutional in 1854. However, this ruling was later overruled by the United States Supreme Court. In some northern states, the law was enforced by the federal law enforcers which received a lot of objection from the public. The federal troops deployed to capture runaway slaves were confronted by threats from the northerners and in some cases violence erupted between the mobs and the law enforcers. Many runaway slaves found the northern Free states unsafe and opted to move into the neighboring Canada.
Despite the high opposition from the northern antislavery states, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the new Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was legally operative until the mid 1860s when the congress repealed the act.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment