Slavery, Federalism, and the Constitution - Essay Example

The Fugitive Slave Law was imposed by the U.S Congress in the late 18th and mid-19th century to support the handing back ofslaves who ran away from one state into another. The law also required that those who fled outside the United States territory be recaptured and handed back to their masters (Reis 24). Obtaining the return of fugitives was a form of recovering private property, since the law regarded slaves as part of the private property of slave owners and holders. In the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Southern states and other slave states strengthened the fugitive slave law in the following ways: First, the alleged fugitives were not allowed to attest during the hearings (Finkelman 7). Secondly, the law provided for double remuneration of commissioners if they awarded certificates permitting slave owners to take back their slaves. The Federal marshals were required to take a financial responsibility for allowing the fugitives to elope and also for not effectuating the warrants. Lastly, there was intensification of the severity of the penalties for those who got in the way of owners or tried to help the fugitives. The Fugitive Slave Law had fewer benefits to the slave owners and holders, mostly those in the Border States where there were many incidences of slaves running away into Free states. This paper will discuss how this law benefited a few slave owners and holders in the US, majority of the beneficiaries being from the states deep in the south. The law benefitted only the holders deep in the South since it failed to stop runaways, as it applied only to the captures fugitives (Rao 35). As a result, slave owners in the Border States suffered disappointment since the slaves in these states had shorter escape routes to Free states and Canada. It was difficult for slaves deep in the Southern states to elope since they were several miles away from the Free States, hence they could be easily recaptured in case they attempted to escape. As for the case of slave owners and holders in the Border States, they were hit hard since most runaways usually involved prime-age males (Cha-Jua 50). The implication of these runaways was a large markdown on the value of slaves in the Border States, since the slave owners were only left with the children, mothers and the elderly who were unable to run away. Escape of male slaves at their prime-age, at a time when their productivity was highest affected production in slave owners’ farms negatively hence decreased returns from their farms. It also affected pricing of slaves by their holders especially in the Border States. For instance, the young adult male slaves deep in the south were priced higher compared to their counterparts in the upper South that bordered the Free States (Morris and Monroe 30). From an economic point of view, holders in the upper South made huge losses from slave sales, whereas those deep in the South made a lot of profit from slave sales. The failure of the law to deal with the issue of runaways led to the steady decline of the population of slaves in the western counties of Virginia and other states like Maryland and Missouri, resulting in labor shortage in the farms. Studies indicate that large numbers of fugitives who escaped or attempted a runaway and got captured were returned, but few slave owners and holders got their property back since most of them did not chase the runaways afar (Jones 763). Another major loophole in this law was that the Northerners were not required by the law to pursue the fugitives, arrest them and take them to the Federal commissioners for trial on their own. This situation forced the southern states slave owners and holders to invade the northern states in search of their eloped slaves, which angered the Northerners. This situation further complicated the recapturing and returning of fugitives especially if they had eloped to the Northern States. Since the law did no compel the Northerners to pursue and recapture escaping slaves, most Northerners ended up assisting these fugitives escape to Free states and Canada. The famous Underground Railroad network led to the escaping of thousands of slaves to Free States, which made it necessary for the congress to revise Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 in order to combat the problem. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 received very strong criticism and resistance from states like Vermont and Wisconsin, to an extent of passing legislations aimed at ignoring and even nullifying the law (Maltz 83). The severity of this law led to abolitionists’ intensification the efforts to help the slaves run away to Canada, impacting negatively on the number of slaves in the Border States. The resistance this statute faced often resulted in chaos and revolts, as witnessed in the Boston courthouse in 1851 where a mob of antislavery activists rescued Shadrach Minkins from federal charge (Grodzins 20). There were several other rescues in such states as New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, making this law less beneficial to some slave owners. The resistance made it difficult to enforce the law in specific Northern states, which in turn sheltered the fugitives, or even provided routes for their escape to Canada. Due to this resistance, it is estimated that by 1860 about 330 out of thousands of slaves who run away had been returned to their masters in the south (Snyder 270).Therefore, even if some masters were successful in bringing back their slaves, others suffered great losses as1850 legislation in particular made the activities of the Underground Railroad more efficient. Since this enactment victimized all blacks, free or slaves, they had to escape to Canada in order to avoid being forced back into slavery by unscrupulous whites. The result was slave owners and holders suffering losses of large numbers of slaves, especially the productive young-adult slaves, which in turn shook their economy. Slave owners and holders in the states bordering the Free States had little to smile about this law due to the uncooperative nature and hostility of the Free States. For instance, slave owners and holders in Maryland, which bordered Pennsylvania, a free state suffered big losses as a result of fleeing slaves. The reason was that Pennsylvanians opposed the law and instead assisted enslaved persons fight for their freedom and since it was strategically located, it provided the best escape route to Canada. This uncooperativeness and abolition of Free states like Pennsylvania boosted the black slaves’ confidence in fighting for their rights to an extent of confronting the slave owners. In 1851, a slave holder from Maryland was killed as a result of a confrontation with fugitive slaves in Pennsylvania despite calling for help from local white men, who failed to assist him recapture his slaves (Newman 420). There was a decline in numbers of slaves in the slave states neighboring the Free States, and consequently frustration of the slave owners and holders, since the abolitionist states failed to comply with the law. The severity of the Fugitive Slave Law accelerated the rise of anti-slavery movements in the Free states in the northern part of the union. Fugitives like Frederick Douglass who had fled from Maryland became a renowned abolitionist leader and speaker. States like Massachusetts became very hostile impossible for the slave owners hence it was impossible to depend on local courts to endorse their property rights, hence they could not benefit from this law if their slaves fled to Massachusetts. Since the Fugitive Slave Law amendment of 1850 came as a result of the Great Compromise, both the northern and the southern states felt betrayed by either side. The northerners on one hand felt that the issues of slavery went against the rights of their states while the southerners on the other hand felt betrayed in the sense that the northerners failed to cooperate in recapturing of the fugitives. This affected the economy of the southerners since they largely depended on slaves as a source of labor for their farms. Majority of the unsatisfied southerners were slave owners and holders, especially those in the upper south who suffered great losses, making a negative impact on their psychology. The Fugitive Slave Law gave a lot of powers and advantage to states and slave owners over their slaves, but the loopholes in this law made it difficult for some slave owners and holders to benefit from it. Since it failed to address the issue of runaways, it became difficult for the slave owners to reclaim their property especially in the Border States but instead benefitted those deep in the south. Abolitionists on the other hand ensured that some free states passed legislations that abolished the Fugitive Slave Law, making it difficult for the slave owners to depend on local courts in these states to endorse their property rights. Instead of this law abolishing runaways as it was initially intended, it facilitated runaways through the Underground Railroad. The slave owners and holders in the Border States were the most affected by large slave losses in terms of their numbers and also their pricing whereas biggest gainers of this law were the slave owners and holders deep in the south, due to proximity of the region. The slave owners’ gain deep in the south can be reflected in their high pricing of slaves and relatively constant numbers of slaves in these states, implying that there were minimal cases of runaways. Works Cited Cha-Jua, Sundiata Keita. ""The New Nadir: The Contemporary Black Racial Formation." The Black Scholar (2010): 38-58. Finkelman, Paul. ""John McLean: Moderate Abolitionist and Supreme Court Politician."." Vanderbilt Law Review 62.2 (2009): 90-02. Grodzins, Dean. " "“Slave Law” versus “Lynch Law” in Boston: Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Theodore Parker, and the Fugitive Slave Crisis, 1850-1855." Massachusetts Historical Review 12 (2010): 1-33. Jones, Bernie D. " "Southern Free Women of Color in the Antebellum North: Race, Class, and aNew Womens Legal History."." Akron Law Review 41 (2008): 763. Maltz, Earl M. ""Slavery, Federalism, and the Constitution: Ableman v. Booth and the Struggle Over Fugitive Slaves."." Clev. St. L. Rev. 56 (2008): 83. Morris, Jerome E. and Monroe Carla. ""Why study the US South? The nexus of race and place in investigating Black student achievement.". Educational Researcher 38.1 (2009): 21-36. Newman, Richard S. ""‘Lucky to be born in Pennsylvania’: Free Soil, Fugitive Slaves and the Making of Pennsylvanias Anti-Slavery Borderland." Slavery & Abolition 32.3 (2011): 413-430. Rao, Gauthman. "The Federal Posse Comitatus Doctrine: Slavery, Compulsion, and Statecraft in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America." Law and History Review 26.01 (2008): 1-56. Reis, Ronald A. African Americans and the Civil War. New York City: Infobase Publishing, 2009. Print. Snyder, Christina. "Conquered Enemies, Adopted Kin, and Owned People: The Creek Indians and Their Captives."." The Journal of Southern History (2007): 255-288. Read More