The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-09-02

| Pinckney was not satisfied with IT. II
SEEMED to wish some provision should
included in favor of property in slaves bu
he made no proposition. Unwilling to shoc
the Convention and uncertain in his own mln'
! he only seemed to wish such a provision l.
\ this vague expression of vague desire IN
: idea first appeared. In this modest, hesltatln
phrase is the germ of the audacious, unheslt'
= ting Slave Act. Here is the little vapor wine
/ has since swollen. as in the Arabian tale, to I'll
y power and dimensions Of a giant. The mex
+ article under discussion provided for the SUI
o render of fugitiyes from Justice. Mr.. butte
, ! and Mr.. Charles Pinckney, both from Sout
4 Carolina. now moved openly to require "tug
tive slaves and servants to be delivered up Tx
. criminals" Here was no disguise. With Ham
] let il was now said in spirit
- .Sse1,. madam nay it is know not sans
T But the very boldness Of the effort drew AT
+ tention and opposition. Mr.. Wilson, OF Penp
sylyania, at once objected This would oDhg
the Executive of the State to do it at the pub
; lie expense" Mr. Sherman, Of Connecticut
saw no more propriety in the public sezlnt
and surrendering slave or servant thah
horse Under the pressure OF these objections
the offensive proposition was quietly WIN
drawn. The article for the surrender OF GRIM
inals was then adopted. On the next day
: August Goth, proftng by the suggestions al
ready made. Mr. Butler moved proposition
! substantially like that now found in the Con
stitution-not directly for the surrender Of
fugitive slaves as originally proposed, but
, of "fugitiyes from service or labor. which
without debate or opposition OF any KIND was
unanimously adopted.
The provision. which showed itself thus tar
div and was so slightly noticed in the Nation
al Convention, was neglected IN much OF the
c0ntcnporaneOus discussion before the people.
In the Conventions of South Carolina, North
Carolina, and Virginia, it was commended as
securing important rights though on this point
! there was a difference of opinion In the Vir-
| ginia Convention. an eminent character, MIR.
| George Mason. with others expressly declared
! that there was no security of property coming
within this section In the other Conventions
| it was diTegarded. Massachusetts while cx-
hibiting peculiar sensitiyeneSs at any respon-
sbity for Slavery seemed to view it with I'M
concern The Federalist, NO 40 in it's CLASH
lcatOn Of the powers of Congress, describes
and groups Il large number as those which
provide for the harmony and proper inter-
course among the States and therein speaks
of the power over public records, standing next
in the Constitution to the provision on fugitves
from labor: but it fails to recognise the latter
among the means of promoting that harmony
and proper intercourse ;" nor does it anywhere
allude to the provision.
The Indifference which had thus far attend
ed this subject still continued The earliest
act of Congress, passed in 1893, drew little at
tentiOn. 1t was not originally suggested by
any difficulty or anxiety touching Pugltives from
labor; nor is there any record of the times, in
debate or otherwise, showing that any special
Importance was attached to its provisions in
this regard. The attention of Congress had
been directed to fugitiyes from Justice, and
with little deliberation, it undertook in the
same bill to provide for both classes of cases.
In this accidental manner was legislation on
this subject first attempted.
There is no evidence that fugitives were often
seized under this act From a competent in
quirer we learn that twenty-six years elapsed
before n single slave was surrendered under it
in any Free State 1t is certain that, in case
at Boston, towards the close of the last century
illustrated by Josiah Quincy as counsel, the
crowd about the magistrate at the examination
quietly and spontaneously opened "A way for
the fugitive and thus the Act failed to be exc
cuted. 1t is also certain that in Vermont at
the beginning of the century a Judge of the
Supreme Court Of this State on application for
the surrender Of an alleged slave accompanied
by documentary evidence, refused to comply,
unless The master could hoW Il BIZ of Sale from
the almighty But even these cases passed
without public comment
In 1901, the subject was introduced into the
Of ntat l,,ya c,,.
other Act which, on consideration was reject
ed At later day in lSl7llS, though still
disregarded by the country, it seemed to excite
a short-Iiycd interest in Congress A bill to
provide more etiectualy :" for retaining ser
wants and slaves, escaping from one State into
another was introduced into the House of
Representatives by Mr. Pindall, of Virginia.
was considered for several days in Committee
Of the Whole amended and passed by this
body. In the Senate, after much attention and
warm debate, it was also passed with amend
mcnts. But on its return to the House for the
adoption of the amendments, it was dropped
This effort, which, in the discussions of this
subject has thus far been unnoticed, is chiefly
remarkable rs the earliest recorded evidence of
the unwarrantable assertion. now NO common,
that this provision was originally of vital i'm
portance to the peace and harmony of the
country.
At last. in 1850, we have another Act passed
by both Houses of Congress and approved by
the President Familiarity known AZ the FugI-
tive Slave Bill As read this statute | am
filled with painful emotions The masterly
subllety with which it is drawn, might chal-
lcnge admiration, if exerted for benevolent
purpose; but in an age of sensibiity and re-
fncment, IL machine of torture, however skihul
and apt cannot be regarded without horror
Sir, IN the name of the Constitution which it
violates; of my country which it dishonors of
Humanity which it degrades of Christianity
which it oiiends, arraign this enactment, and
now hold it up to the judgment Of the Senate
and the world Again shrink from no re-
sponsibility. ! may seem to stand alone but
all the patriots and martyrs of history, all the
Fathers Of the Republic, are with me Sir,
there is no attribute Of God which does not
unite against this Act.
But ! ann 10 regard il now chiefly as an in
lrngement Of the Constitution. And here It's
outrageS fragrant as manifold. assume the deep
est dye and broadest character only when We
consider that by its language it is not restrained
to any special race or class. TO the African OF
To the person with African blood but that any
nhabitdnt Of the United States, of whatever
complexion or condition, may be It's victim
Without discrimination of color even, anC
IN violation Of every presumption OF freedom
the Act surrenders all, who may be claimed a
owing service or labor" TO the same tyran
meal proceedings. If there be any, whose sym
patheS are not moved for the slave, who DO no
cherish the rights of the humble African. s,rug
Cling for divine Freedom, as warmly as thu
rights of the white man. let him consider wei
that the rights of all are equally assailed
Nephew" said Algernon Sidney in prison
on the night before his execution, " ] value no
my own life chip, but what concerns me i
that thr Lac which takes away my life ma!
hang every one of you, whenever it is though
convenient"
Though thus comprehensive in It's provision