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

be riven, and we shall therefore offer some re-
marks upon it, The agitators allege that, in
their view. the law is immoral, and therefore
il 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;
"Resolued, That we consider this law immoral, in
that it forbds the exercise of hospitality the in
nocent wayhrer, and requires to become
hounds upon the track of the wronged and hunted
fugitive. Therefore,
"Resolred, That consider this law not bind
ing and void, and hold ourselves bound not only
not to obey, but positively to disobsy it,"
Now these resolutions assume that runaway
slave is an innocent wayfarer, !" TO whom ''the
exercise Of hospitality is due, and, when pur-
sued by the Marshal, by virtue of warrant
for his arrest, is a ''wronged'' as well as a
"huuIed" 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 ''disobeyed."
Now the Constitution and the law do not re-
gard runaway slave as an innocent wayfarer,
as a wronged fugitive. Not so did the trainers
of the Constitution, the makers of the act OF
l793-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 to return TO him
to whom ''the service OF labor is due Now
he who refuses to discharge the '.service and
labor which he ''owes''-who, in order to
avoid the performance Of this duty, runs away
from the person to whom they are "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 'wronged and
hunted fugitive" but is fugitive whose re
capture is right because his flight was wrongful
1t 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-
Understanding decisive and captivating in
the arrangement Of the terms ''wronged and
of hospitalty,' calculated to rouse. in those who
are guided by impulse rather than reason, a feel
ing OF resentment against law denounced as
''immoral'-we propose to disentangle and re-
flute the sophistry of the resolutions. and to
show that the doctrine Of the Rochester meet
ing, legtimately carried out, would render
all property insecure, and ehectually deprive
Of all authority the public Will 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:
/. All laws which IRE consider immoral, we
have a right 10 resist.
Butwe consider the fugitive slave law i'm
moral; therefore, we have right to resist it.
2 Laws which we have a right to resist be
can~e they are immoral, we are bo1Hd to re-
sist
But we have right to resist the Fugitive
Slave law on that ground,
Therefore we are bound TO resist it.
9. We have a right to exercise hospitality L.
an innocent wayfarer.
But he is an innocent wayiarer whom we
consider such.
Therefore. we have right to exercise hos
pitality TO whomsoever we consider an innocent
wayiarer.
4. Laws which forbid the exercise Of hosp-
tali,y 10 those whom IRE consider innocent way
farcrs are immoral and void.
But we consider fugitive slaves to be such
waylarers.
Therefore, the law which forbids the excr-
else Of hospitality to such fugitive is immoral
and void.
Now, il is most evident that all this-rea-
s1ning shall we call it-rests upon the assump-
tion that whether laws are binding or void
may be rightfully resisted or not-depends upon
the opinion Of him who resists or obeys. Blu,
iithe right OF duty TO resist depends upon the
opinion Of the individual that law is void
and whether it is void depends on his opinion
that it is immoral-it follows that none can
rghully resist but those only who entertain
the opinion that the law is immoral. Hence a
law on its face providing rule Of conduct for
all, may be rightfully binding upon one person
or class and not upon another; and one person
OF class. in resisting 1t, 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 10
some, or even ignominious punishment.
We presume the Rochester meeting claims no
ercisire right 70 Judge Of the immortality Of
laws, or to determine for all the world what
classes Of persons deemed by the law to be-
proper subjects Of arrest, or confinement, or
punishment. are nevertheless wrOnged and
hunted fugitives, and therefore entitled to hos
piiaIity as innocent waylarers. We presume
that meeting claims no monopoly Of resistance
10 the laws, but leaves common freedom. As
well in the theory as the practice Of eedition,
20 al our people.
Let as. then, see how their doctrine will
work in the hands Of others, and applied 10 other
SUBJECTS than the Fugitive Slave law.
The laws Of every State and Territory in the
Union (uulcss the Mormon settlement Of L tab
be 800 exception prohi5ita plurality Of wives