CHAPTER X
THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD IN POLITICS
To set forth the political aspect of the Underground Railroad is not easy. Yet this side must be understood if the Underground Railroad is to appear in its true character as something more than a mere manifestation of the moral sentiment existing in the North and in some localities of the South. The romantic episodes in the fugitive slave controversy have been frequently described; but it has altogether escaped the eye of the general historian that the underground movement was one that grew from small beginnings into a great system; that it must be reckoned with as a distinct causal factor in tracing the growth of anti-slavery opinion; that it furnished object lessons in the horrors of slavery without cessation during two generations to communities in many parts of the free states; that it was largely serviceable in developing, if not in originating, the convictions of such powerful agents in the cause as Harriet Beecher Stowe and John Brown; that it alone serves to explain the enactment of that most remarkable piece of legislation, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850; and, finally, that it furnished the ground for the charge brought again and again by the South against the North of injury wrought by the failure to execute the law, a charge that must be placed among the chief grievances of the slave states at the beginning of the Civil War.
Even in colonial times there was difficulty in recovering fugitive slaves, because of the aid rendered them by friends, as is apparent from an examination of some of the regulations that the colonies began to pass soon after the introduction of slavery in 1619. The Director and Council of New Netherlands enacted an ordinance as early as 1640, one of the provisions of which forbade all inhabitants of New Netherlands to harbor or feed fugitive servants under a penalty of fifty guilders, "for the benefit of the Informer; 1/3 for the new Church and 1/3 for the Fiscal."[838] Other regulations for the same colony contained clauses prohibiting the entertainment of runaways; such are the laws of 1642,[839] 1648,[840] 1658,[841] and, after the Dutch had been supplanted by English control, those of 1702[842] and 1730.[843] An act of Virginia that went into force in 1642 was attributed to the complaints made at every quarter court "against divers persons who entertain and enter into covenants with runaway servants and freemen who have formerly hired themselves to others, to the great prejudice if not the utter undoing of divers poor men, thereby also encouraging servants to run from their masters and obscure themselves in some remote plantation." By way of penalty, to break up the practice of helping runaways, this law provided that persons guilty of the offence were to be fined twenty pounds of tobacco for each night's hospitality.[844] That the law was ineffectual is indicated by the increase of the penalty in 1655 by the addition to the twenty pounds of tobacco for each night's entertainment of forty pounds for each day's entertainment.[845] Similar acts were passed by Virginia in 1657,[846] 1666,[847] and 1726.[848] The last act required masters of vessels to swear that they would make diligent search of their craft to prevent the stowing away of servants or slaves eager to escape from their owners. An act of Maryland passed in 1666 established a fine of five hundred pounds of casked tobacco for the first night's hospitality, one thousand pounds for the second, and fifteen hundred pounds for each succeeding night.[849] A law of New Jersey in 1668 laid a penalty of five pounds in money and such damages as the court should adjudge upon any one transporting or contriving the transportation of an apprentice or servant;[850] while another law, enacted seven years later, declared that every inhabitant guilty of harboring an apprentice, servant or slave, should forfeit to his master or dame ten shillings for every day's concealment, and, if unable to pay this amount, should be liable to the judgment of the court.[851] Provisions are also to be found in the regulations of Massachusetts Bay,[852] Rhode Island,[853] Connecticut,[854] Pennsylvania[855] and North Carolina,[856] clearly intended to discourage the entertainment or the transportation of fugitives. It is interesting to note that in these early times Canada was a refuge for fugitives. In 1705 New York passed a law, which was reënacted ten years later, to prevent the escape of negro slaves from the city and county of Albany to the French in Canada. The reason given for the law was the necessity of keeping from the French in time of war knowledge that might prove serviceable for military purposes.[857]
[838] _Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands_, 32.
[839] _Ibid._
[840] _Ibid._, 104.
[841] _Laws of New Netherlands_, 344.
[842] _Acts of Province of New York from 1691 to 1718_, p. 58.
[843] _Ibid._, 193.
[844] _Statutes at Large_, Hening, _Laws of Virginia_, I, 253.
[845] _Ibid._, I, 401.
[846] _Ibid._, I, 439.
[847] _Ibid._, II, 239.
[848] _Ibid._, IV, 168.
[849] _Maryland Archives, Assembly Proceedings_, 147.
[850] _New Jersey Laws_, 82.
[851] _Ibid._, 109.
[852] _Charters and General Laws of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay_, 386, 750 (1707 and 1718 respectively).
[853] _Proceedings of General Assembly, Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Providence_, 177; _Records of Colony of Rhode Island_, 177.
[854] _Acts and Laws of His Majestie's Colony of Connecticut_, 229 (1730 probably).
[855] _Province Laws of Pennsylvania_, Philadelphia, 1725; _Province Laws of Pennsylvania_, 325.
[856] _Laws of North Carolina_, 89 (1741); _Ibid._, 371 (1779).
[857] _Acts of Province of New York_, 77 (1705); _Laws of Province of New York_, 218 (1715); Marion G. McDougall, _Fugitive Slaves_, 8.
[Illustration: GERRIT SMITH, M.C.,
the multi-millionnaire, whose mansion in Peterboro, New York, was a station.]
[Illustration: JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS, M.C.,
who kept a room in his house in Jefferson, Ohio, for fugitives.]
[Illustration: CHARLES SUMNER,
THE CHAMPION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.]
[Illustration: RICHARD H. DANA, Jr.,
COUNSEL FOR COLORED REFUGEES IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.]
The group of enactments just considered together with many other early measures relating to the subject of fugitives makes it clear that the question of extradition of runaway slaves had also arisen in colonial times. A stipulation for the return of fugitives had been inserted in the formal agreement entered into by Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Haven at the time of the formation of the New England Confederation in 1643,[858] and may be supposed to have remained in force for a period of forty years. In the first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation adopted in 1781, no such provision was made. This omission soon became serious through the action of the states of Vermont, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island between 1777 and 1784 in taking steps toward immediate or gradual emancipation; for the first time the question of the status of fugitives in free regions was now raised.
[858] _Plymouth Colony Records_, IX, 5; Marion G. McDougall, _Fugitive Slaves_, 7.
When, in 1787, the question arose of providing a government for the territory northwest of the Ohio River, the difficulty was felt; and the Northwest Ordinance included a clause for the reclamation of fugitives from labor. A proposition made by Mr. King in 1785 to prohibit slavery in this region without any provision for reclaiming fugitives had gone to committee, but was never afterwards called up in Congress. In the discussion of 1787 an amendment was offered by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, the first clause of which excluded slavery from the territory, and the second clause provided for the rendition of fugitives. The previous delay and the prompt and unanimous approval of the compromise measure of Mr. Dane give force to the contention of a special student of the Ordinance, that the stipulation forbidding slavery could not have been adopted without the provision for the recovery of runaways.[859]
[859] Peter Force, on the Ordinance of 1787, in the _National Intelligencer_, 1847. See also E. B. Chase's volume, entitled _Teachings of Patriots and Statesmen, or the "Founders of the Republic" on Slavery_, 1860, pp. 155, 160, 161, 169.
About six weeks after the incorporation, by the Continental Congress, of the fugitive slave clause in the Northwest Ordinance, a similar provision was made a part of the Constitution of the United States by the vote of the Federal Convention at Philadelphia.[860] In the case of the Constitution, as of the Ordinance, the clause was probably necessary for the acceptance and adoption of the instrument, and the action of the legislative body was unanimous.[861]
[860] E. B. Chase, _Teachings of Patriots and Statesmen ... on Slavery_, p. 9.
[861] Alexander Johnston's careful survey of the subject in the _New Princeton Review_, Vol. IV, p. 183; J. H. Merriam, _Legislative History of the Ordinance of 1787_, Worcester, 1888; M. G. McDougall, _Fugitive Slaves_, p. 64.
The settlement reached in regard to fugitives appears to have excited little comment in the various state conventions called to ratify the work of the Philadelphia Convention. It would be interesting to know what was the nature of the discussion on the point in the North. In the South the tone of sentiment concerning the matter is illustrated by the remarks of Madison in the Virginia convention, and of Iredell and Pinckney in the conventions of North and South Carolina respectively.[862] Madison asserted of the fugitive clause that it "secures to us that property which we now possess." Iredell explained that "In some of the Northern states they have emancipated all their _slaves_. If any of our slaves go there and remain there a certain time, they would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern states; and to prevent it this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the word _slave_ is not mentioned, this is the meaning of it." Pinckney declared: "We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering the circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would have made better if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think them bad."[863]
[862] These views are quoted by E. B. Chase, in his _Teachings of Patriots and Statesmen ... on Slavery_.
[863] _Ibid._ See also Elliot's _Debates_, Vol. III, 182, 277.
The constitutional provision was, of course, general in its terms, and, although mandatory in form, did not designate any
## particular officer or branch of government to put it into execution.
Accordingly the law of 1793 was enacted. This law, however, was of such a character as to defeat itself from the beginning. Before the close of the year in which the measure was passed a case of resistance occurred, which showed that adverse sentiment existed in Massachusetts,[864] and three years later another case--especially interesting because it concerned an escaped slave of Washington--demonstrated to the first President that there was strong opposition in New Hampshire to the law.[865] The method of proof prescribed by the measure was intended to facilitate the recovery of fugitives, but it was so slack that it encouraged the abduction of free negroes from the Northern states,[866] and thus, by the injustice it wrought, stirred many to give protection and assistance to negroes.[867] The number of cases of kidnapping that occurred along the southern border of the free states between 1793 and 1850 helps doubtless to explain the development of numerous initial stations of the Underground Railroad during this period.
[864] Appendix B, p. 367, 6. First recorded case of rescue (Quincy's case, Boston).
[865] Appendix B, p. 367. Washington's fugitive, October, 1796.
[866] Chapter II , p. 22;