§ 83. Effect of the personal liberty laws.—Since the avowed purpose of these laws was to obstruct the execution of one of the United States statutes, national and State legislation were thus brought into direct conflict; but the Fugitive Slave Law was held constitutional by the Supreme Court, and any attempt to prevent its enforcement by positive means, however righteous from an ethical standpoint, must be considered an infraction of the Constitution, and of the common understanding between the States, on which the Union was founded.[298] The provisions denying the use of State institutions and officers, though distinctly unfriendly, were not unconstitutional. Many of the Abolitionists, however, held the national law to be unconstitutional, and at the same time morally so repugnant that it ought never to be executed.[299] The State laws were brought up by South Carolina, in her declaration of the causes of secession, as one of the chief grievances against the North; and President Buchanan, in his Message of 1860,[300] said they were "the most palpable violations of constitutional duty which had yet been committed." They must certainly be classed in principle with the Nullification Ordinance of 1832. Indeed, the legislature of Wisconsin, after the Supreme Court had overridden the decision of the State courts in the case of Ableman v. Booth that the national law was contrary to the national Constitution, passed some resolutions in which a "positive defiance is urged as the 'rightful remedy'" against such legislation.[301]

CHAPTER VI. THE END OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE QUESTION (1860-1865).

§ 85. [The Fugitive Slave Law in the crisis of 1860-61.]
§ 86. [Propositions to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law.]
§ 87. [Propositions to repeal or amend the law.]
§ 88. [The question of slaves of rebels.]
§ 89. [Slavery attacked in Congress.]
§ 90. [Confiscation bills.]
§ 91. [Confiscation provisions extended.]
§ 92. [Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation (1863).]
§ 93. [Fugitives in loyal slave States.]
§ 94. [Typical cases.]
§ 95. [Question discussed in Congress.]
§ 96. [Arrests by civil officers.]
§ 97. [Denial of the use of jails in the District of Columbia.]
§ 98. [Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.]
§ 99. [Regulations against kidnapping.]
§ 100. [Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts.]
§ 101. [Early propositions to repeal the acts.]
§ 102. [Discussion of the repeal bill in the House.]
§ 103. [Repeal bills in the Senate.]
§ 104. [The repeal act and the thirteenth amendment.]
§ 105. [Educating effect of the controversy.]

§ 85. The Fugitive Slave Law in the crisis of 1860-61.—If the number of interesting fugitive slave cases falls off in the latter part of the decade from 1850 to 1860, it is not because the law was better enforced, but because it was little enforced. The continued interference of the friends of the slave had proved that a fugitive could not safely be recovered in Massachusetts, and that no punishment could be secured for those who helped him to his freedom. The personal liberty bills added serious legal obstacles. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin even went so far as to declare the national act of 1850 unconstitutional.[302] In 1859 John Brown, in his Harper's Ferry raid, attempted to establish a centre to which fugitives might flock; and although he was defeated, he had the sympathy of a large number of persons in the North, including some public men.

In the violent debates of 1860-61, one of the frequent charges brought by the southern members against the North was its persistent refusal to execute the Fugitive Slave Act, or to permit it to be executed.[303] Even Republican members disclaimed responsibility for their party, and urged that the personal liberty bills should be repealed.[304] Other bolder spirits seized the opportunity to urge a repeal of the act, and in the various compromise propositions introduced were several attempts to modify the existing constitutional provision on the subject.

Enforcement. Slaves of Disloyal Men.

§ 86. Propositions to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law.—In the crisis of 1860 the South seemed to expect a general settlement of the slavery question like that of 1850, and therefore demanded a more effective act for the return of fugitives. President Buchanan, in his message of December 4, 1860, recommended "explanatory" constitutional amendments which should recognize the master's right to the recovery of his fugitive slaves, and the validity of the Fugitive Slave Law. He recommended also a declaration against State laws impairing the right of the master, as being violations of the Constitution, and consequently null and void.[305] This recommendation was followed, December 12, 1860, by no less than eleven resolutions upon the subject in the House.[306] Of these five were constitutional amendments. Several provided, as a pacific measure, that the town, county, or State, guilty of neglect to return a fugitive, might be sued by the owner of the slave for the amount thus lost to him.[307] The most arbitrary proposition was that of Mr. Hindman. It denied representation in Congress to any State which should hold in force laws hindering the delivery of fugitives.[308]

Another resolution inquired into the expediency of declaring it felony to resist an officer of the United States in the execution of the law, or to attempt to rescue a runaway.[309]

§ 87. Propositions to repeal or amend the law.—On the other hand, antislavery members insisted that the provision for the return of fugitives was already too severe; but only one of the resolutions proposed any amendment in favor of the slave. Mr. Kilgore proposed to give a trial by jury before a fugitive should be returned.[310]

As early as 1860 Mr. Blake had introduced into the House a bill to repeal the law of 1850. It was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, from whom it was never reported.[311] At that time Congress, in alarm at the state of the country, was vainly striving to mend matters by making the Fugitive Slave Law even more effective. March 1, 1861, the select committee of thirty-three brought in a bill for the amendment of the law of 1850; it allowed an appeal to the Circuit Court of the United States where jury trial was to be given. The bill passed the House the same day; but in the Senate it never got beyond the first reading.[312]