The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-10-28
The Fugitive Slave Law-The Morality OF
resisting 10.


marks upon it. The agitators allege thar, in
o their view, the law is immoral, and therefore
it not only may, but should, be resisted. That
the reader may be certain that we neither mis-
take nor misrepresent their position, we give
the formal declaration of their sentiments in two
resolutions Of the Rochester convention.
"ResoIped, That consider this law immoral, in
that il forbids the exercise of hospitality the in
'nocent wayfarer, and requires to become
hounds upon the track of the wronged and hunted
fugitive. Therefore,
''RcSored, That consider this law not bind
ing and void, and hold ourselves bound not only
not to obey, but positively TO disobey it."
Now these resolutions assume that runaway
slave is an innocent wayfarer," TO whom ssthe
exercise of hospitality is due, and, when pur-
sued by the Marshal, by virtue of warrant
for his arrest, is ''wronged" as well as
"hunted' fugitive; and concludes that the law
which recognises his apprehension, and forbids
his being secreted and harbored, is therefore
immoral" and being immoral is ''void,' and
ought to be ''disobeyedn
Now the Constitution and the law do not re-
gard runaway slave Innocent wayfarer,
rs wronged fugitive. Not so did the trainers
of the Constitution, the makers Of the act of
l193-the Judges of the State and Federal
courts-regard him. On the contrary, by these,
he is regarded as one who loves service and
labor to another, from whose just authority he
has escaped, and who ought 10 return 10 him
TO whom ''the service or labor is due" Now
he who refuses to discharge the '.service and
labor which he ''owes''-who in order to
al &c -. l,,,,.
from the person TO whom they are E'due''--is
not an innocent wayfarer, but is a wrong-doer
and when pursued by him from whose Just do
mnion he has escaped, is not a''wronged and
hunted fugitive" but is a fugitive whose re
capture is right because his flight was wrongful
II is plain then, that this entire subject is consd-
cred by the fundamental law, by the municipal
law, by the whole public authority of the nation,
in one light, and by the Rochester meeting in an
other and very different light. And since there
Is something specious in the form of the reso-
Misunderstanding decisive and captivating in
the arrangement of the terms sSwronged and
hunted = 'nnocent way farer," and ''exercse
of hospitality," calculated to rouse in those who
are guided by impulse rather than reason, feel
ing Of resentment against law denounced as
Immoral" we propose TO disentangle and re-
flute the sophisTy of the resolutions and tc
show that the doctrine Of the Rochester meet
ing, legitimately carried out, would render
all property insecure, and ef1ectually deprive
Of all authority the public viii of society en-
bodied and declared by its fundamental law
The true scope and bearing Of the doctrine
in question will be best understood by throw
ing it into the syllogistic form. Thus stated
it will give US the following logical formulas:
l. All laws which are consider immoral, we
have a right 10 resist.
But we consider the fugitive slave law i'm.
moral; therefore, we have right to resist it.
.. Laws which we have right 10 resist he
cause they are immoral, we are Louad TO re-
s!st.
But We have right to resist the Fugitive
Slave law on that ground,
Therefore we are bound TO resist IT,
3. We have a right to exercise hospitality to
an innocent wayiaTer.
But he is an innocent wayiarer whom we
consider such.
Therefore. we have right to exercise hos
pitalty 10 whomsoever we consider an innocent
wayfarer
!. Laws which forbid the exercise of hosp-
tolty 10 those whom IRE consider innocent way
farcrs are immoral and void.
But we consider fugitive slaves TO be such
wayfarers.
Therefore, the law which forbids the excr
else Of hospitality to such fugitive is immoral
and void.
Now, it is most evident that all this-rea-
soning shall we call it-rests upon the assump-
tion that whether laws are binding or void
may be nghnully resisted OF nOt-depends upon
the opinion Of him who ressts or obeys But
ifthe right or duty to resist depends upon the
opinion Of the individual that law is void
and whether it is void depends on his opinion
tina, it is immoral-it follows that none can
righuully resist but those only who entertain
the opinion that the law is immoral Hence a
law on It's face providing rule Of conduct for
all, may be rightfully binding upon one person
or class and not upon another; and one person
or class, in resisting it, will discharge high
duty. and be entitled to applause and reward.
while another, by resistance to the same law.
will commit crime. and be justly subject to
some, or even ignominous punishment
We presume the Rochester meeting claims no
srcipsirc right to Judge Of the immortality Of
laws, or 20 determine for all the world what
classes Of persons deemed by the law to De
proper subjects Of arrest or confinement or
punishment, are nevertheless wrOnged and
hunted fugitives, and therefore entitled to hos
ptality as innocent wayiarers. We presume
tia, meeting claims no monopoly Of resistance
to the laws, but leaves common freedom. As
well in the theory as the practice Of sedition,
TO all our people.
Let MS. then, see how their doctrine will
work in the hands Of others, and applied to other
subjects than the Fugitive Slave law.
The laws Of every State and Territory in the
Union lunlcss the Mormon settlement of L tab
Doe au chcepton) prohibit plurality Of wives.