CHAPTER II. LEGISLATION FROM 1789 TO 1850.
§ 16. [Effect of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution.]
§ 17. [The first Fugitive Slave Act (1793).]
§ 18. [Discussion of the first act.]
§ 19. [Propositions of 1797 and 1802.]
§ 20. [Propositions from 1817 to 1822.]
§ 21. [Period of the Missouri Compromise (1819-1822).]
§ 22. [Status of the question from 1823 to 1847.]
§ 23. [Canada and Mexico places of refuge.]
§ 24. [Status of fugitives on the high seas.]
§ 25. [Kidnapping from 1793 to 1850: Prigg case.]
§ 26. [Necessity of more stringent fugitive slave provisions.]
§ 27. [Action of Congress from 1847 to 1850.]
§ 28. [Slavery in the District of Columbia.]
§ 29. [The second Fugitive Slave Act (1850).]
§ 30. [Provisions of the second Fugitive Slave Act.]
§ 31. [Arguments for the bill.]
§ 32. [Arguments against the bill.]
§ 16. Effect of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution.—By obtaining in the Constitution the insertion of a clause requiring the return of fugitives, a great step for the advancement of the interests of slavery had been taken. For this embodiment in the Constitution ever afterward formed a basis for the slaveholder's argument that the Constitution recognized and defended slavery, and was a justification to Northern men in their support of the later fugitive slave laws.
Although the clause did not in terms apply to the Territories, the Ordinance of 1787 was, on August 7, 1789, confirmed in terms which by implication continued the sixth article, including the rendition of slaves;[59] and in the earliest treaties made by the United States with Indian tribes, under the new Constitution, the return of negroes was expressly required.[60]
The First Fugitive Slave Act.
§ 17. The first Fugitive Slave Act (1793).—For some time, however, the provision of the Constitution remained unexecuted; and it is a striking fact that the call for legislation came not from the South, but from a free State; and that it was provoked, not by fugitive slaves, but by kidnappers. The case seemed to suggest that an act of Congress was necessary, more definite in conditions and detail than the provision of the Constitution.
A free negro named John was seized at Washington, Pennsylvania, in 1791, and taken to Virginia. The Governor of Pennsylvania, at the instigation of the Society for the Abolition of Slavery, asked the return of the three kidnappers; but the Governor of Virginia replied that, since there was no national law touching such a case, he could not carry out the request.[61]
On the matter being brought to the notice of Congress by the Governor of Pennsylvania,[62] a Committee, consisting of Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Bourne of Massachusetts, and Mr. White, was appointed in the House of Representatives to bring in a bill or bills "providing the means by which persons charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, shall, on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime; also providing the mode by which a person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."[63]
A bill prepared by the House committee, of which Mr. Sedgwick was chairman, was reported, November 15, 1791;[64] but for some reason which does not appear, it was dropped, and a Senate committee, of which Calvert was chairman, was appointed, March 30, 1792, "to consider the expediency [of] a bill respecting fugitives from justice and from the service of their masters."[65] Nothing was done during this session, and, November 22, 1792, a second Senate committee was appointed, consisting of Johnston, Calvert, and Read,[66] and they submitted a bill, December 20, 1792.[67] Unfortunately, we have no details of the debate; but on December 28, a third Senate committee was appointed by adding Taylor and Sherman to the committee of November 22, and to them the bill was recommitted with instructions to amend.[68] At last, January 3, 1793, the bill was reported in a form not unlike that finally agreed upon.[69] Of the amendments offered, the text of only one is preserved in the Journals; it was for the insertion of a less sum than five hundred dollars as the penalty for harboring a fugitive, or resisting his arrest.[70] It was not adopted. After two debates, of which we have no record, the bill passed the Senate, January 18.[71] In the House it seems to have elicited little discussion, and it passed, February 5, by a vote of 48 to 7.[72] The bill became law by the signature of the President, February 12, 1793.[73]
In thus uniting with the clause providing for the extradition of fugitives from justice one requiring the return of fugitive slaves, Congress was but following examples set in 1643 by the Articles of Confederation,[74] and again in 1787 by the Constitution.[75] From the scanty records, it is possible to discern only that there was serious difference of opinion in the Senate, and that the measure finally adopted was probably a compromise. In the one amendment stated, there is a faint protest against the harshness of the law.[76]