{"id":53,"date":"2021-06-14T19:47:37","date_gmt":"2021-06-14T19:47:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/?page_id=53"},"modified":"2021-09-10T18:06:07","modified_gmt":"2021-09-10T18:06:07","slug":"essay","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/essay\/","title":{"rendered":"Essay"},"content":{"rendered":"

Fighting the Fugitive Slave Act:\u00a0 A Movement in Stages<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils, but I bite my lip and keep quiet.\u201d[1]<\/a> This confession by Abraham Lincoln revealed his complex approach to the controversial Fugitive Slave Act. On the one hand, Lincoln loathed slavery, viewing it as a great social evil. Yet on the other, he always vowed to obey the law of the land. But this tricky balancing act made passionate abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass skeptical of Lincoln\u2019s commitment to antislavery. Douglass refused to obey the federal law on runaway slaves and committed to abolishing it as quickly as possible, calling it “the most cruel, unconstitutional, and scandalous outrage of modern times.”[2]<\/a> If these two men hated slavery as much as their rhetoric suggested, then it appears confusing– and perhaps in Lincoln\u2019s case hypocritical\u2014why their responses were so different. However, their contrasting responses illustrated complementary political interests within their shared movement.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Fugitive Slave Act Warning (History Channel)<\/p><\/div>\n

The question was who<\/em> antislavery forces should have appealed to most to ignite change and when<\/em> they should have taken action to ensure a positive outcome. Much like today, American politics was a balancing game between when to wait and when to act. If one acted too quickly, they risked losing all their progress. Yet, if one waited too long, they might have missed the only opportunity to make a more perfect union. Lincoln and Douglass shared the same values, but had different priorities in their fight for freedom. Whereas Douglass valued abolishing slavery over all else, Lincoln also wanted to preserve the union.\u00a0 Yet somehow, these profound differences complemented each other.<\/p>\n

Background on the Fugitive Slave Act <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Fugitive Slave Act was passed as part of the Compromise of 1850, but its origins trace back to the Constitution. Article 4, Section 2, guaranteed the right of slave owners to reclaim escaped slaves.[3]<\/a> However, because it was phrased in passive tense, it was unclear who was responsible for enforcing it.[4]<\/a> The clause\u2019s phrasing was not an accident but rather a reflection of the times. Slavery was already becoming a contested issue when the Constitution was drafted, thus any provision to protect it was likely the product of compromise.<\/p>\n

Due to the clause\u2019s ambiguity, it did not take long before another law was passed. In 1793, they passed the first Fugitive Slave Act.[5]<\/a> This initial act guaranteed slave owner\u2019s rights to recover runaways and deemed it criminal for anyone to be complicit.[6]<\/a> However, the law did little to deter runaways because it was not always enforced in the north. As the north and south became more contested over the issue of slavery in the coming decades, more fugitive slaves made their exoduses to freedom.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

Thus in 1850, the south demanded another Fugitive Slave Act be passed.[8]<\/a> This Act intensified the penalties outlined in the previous one, denying slaves due process rights, criminalizing housing fugitives, and increasing fines for complicity.[9]<\/a> The act was undoubtedly controversial, and caught the attention of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, who both had strong opinions on the issue.<\/p>\n

Douglass and Lincoln- Two Antislavery Perspectives on the Fugitive Slave Act <\/strong><\/p>\n

In many ways, Lincoln and Douglass shared the same view on the issue. Lincoln called the obligation to return runaway slaves a \u201cdirty and disagreeable job.\u201d[10]<\/a> Douglass thought it went against the very principles the United States was founded on. However, an important distinction is that whereas Lincoln hated the law, he still obeyed it, but Douglass did not. In fact, Douglass himself was a runaway slave.<\/p>\n

\"Frederick<\/a>

Frederick Douglass (Library of Congress)<\/p><\/div>\n

While a slave, Douglass became a committed abolitionist who made it his life\u2019s goal to end slavery, but he realized that to best fight for the cause, he needed to be free. He escaped from slavery on the underground Railroad in Maryland in 1838 and subsequently traveled to New York. There, he learned from William Lloyd Garrison to adopt the mentality that slavery degraded everyone and everything it touched.[11]<\/a> Over time, Douglass adopted nuanced arguments from Gerrit Smith, who taught him to believe the Constitution was an anti-slavery document. Accordingly, it was the duty of the government to abolish slavery because the Preamble guaranteed the \u201cblessings of liberty\u201d for all<\/em> men.[12]<\/a> From then on, he urged all American\u2019s who believed in the United States\u2019 founding principles to fight against slavery. He soon became an active leader in the National Colored Citizens Conventions, where he debated ways to defy the Fugitive Slave Act, assist runaways, and protect northern blacks. Douglass viewed any compromise as threatening to the progress of the antislavery movement.[13]<\/a> Perhaps this was the reason Douglass was so weary of Abraham Lincoln at first.<\/p>\n

Abraham Lincoln took a much less radical approach to the antislavery movement, arguing that to outright abolish slavery would threaten the union\u2019s future.[14]<\/a> In the early 1850s, Lincoln became a Republican figure who tried to stop the spread of slavery by building an anti-slavery coalition. He hoped that once he achieved this goal, people would see voluntary abolition of slavery as the next logical step. He was worried that the fugitive slave crisis would distract from his end goal because it was scaring away moderates.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n

Lincoln also viewed the union and the Constitution as inseparable. Since he saw one as contingent on the other, to preserve the union, he had to follow all provisions outlined in the Constitution, including the Fugitive Slave Clause and by extension the Fugitive Slave Act. This approach may appear as though Lincoln prioritized his commitment to the union over his antislavery efforts, but that was not the case. He thought if he tried to accomplish too much at once, he would lose the moderates and the whole antislavery effort would collapse. Though his end goal may have been more radical than he led on, he understood the need to be conservative and patient in his efforts. It is important to note that Lincoln’s fight for freedom occurred at different times and on different platforms than Douglass’s because their priorities were not the same.<\/p>\n

Douglass made his grievances known about the Fugitive Slave Act from the beginning. He did so on a public<\/em> platform in 1852 when he gave his \u201cFifth of July\u201d speech. In the speech, he called out the hypocrisy of the American people who failed to live up to the values outlined in the Declaration of Independence, saying, \u201cAmerica is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.\u201d[16]<\/a> Later in the speech, he called out slaveholders who \u201chunt them with dogs\u201d as morally corrupt.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

Only a month later, in his \u201cFugitive Slave Law\u201d speech, Douglass went even further. He argued that to \u201ccommand respect\u201d for slaves, words alone were not enough. To show that the Fugitive Slave Act was a dead letter, Douglass advocated to \u201cmake half a dozen or more dead kidnappers.\u201d[18]<\/a> He justified it saying it \u201cis perfectly right as long as the colored man has no protection.\u201d[19]<\/a>\u00a0In Douglass\u2019s view, slaves did not have to abide by laws that provided them with no protection or liberty.<\/p>\n

Lincoln approached the issue in a much different way. He tried to avoid speaking about it\u2014especially in public\u2014because it was<\/p>\n

\"Abraham<\/a>

Abraham Lincoln (Library of Congress)<\/p><\/div>\n

divisive to antislavery opponents. Though radicals such as Douglass wanted to immediately dismantle the law, Republican moderates felt they were obliged to enforce the clause and the laws out of loyalty to the Constitution. Thus, he kept his sentiment rather private despite loathing it. In his 1855 letter to Joshua Speed, for example, he expressed acknowledgement of his rights and obligations under the Constitution yet described every aspect of slavery as \u201ctorment\u201d and said it made him \u201cmiserable.\u201d[20]<\/a> Later in the letter, he explained how northerners had to \u201ccrucify their feelings\u201d to maintain loyal to the union.[21]<\/a><\/p>\n

In other letters written that year, Lincoln spoke of the United States\u2019 failure to uphold the liberty of man, explaining that when they were the \u201cpolitical slaves\u201d of King George and wanted to be free, Americans thought the maxim \u201call men are created equal\u201d was \u201ca self-evident truth,\u201d but now that they were no longer slaves but masters, they called the same maxim a \u201cself-evident lie.\u201d[22]<\/a> He understood the hypocrisy of the time, knew it was wrong, and gradually built a coalition of people who believed the same thing.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today, Douglass and Lincoln\u2019s different approaches to the antislavery movement and Fugitive Slave Act show how difficult it can be to unify people around a political movement. To Douglass and Lincoln, the question of when to fight for freedom was one of opinion, based on the same values but different priorities. For Lincoln, it was about gradual change so that he would not lose the union during his fight for freedom. For Douglass, it was about rapid change so that no one would have to wait any longer to be free.<\/p>\n

In modern times, there is still a difference of opinion over the best approach to ignite change. It can be controversial and uncomfortable to talk about — especially when people’s lives are on the line. Sometimes, it can feel like there is a moral hierarchy where the only meaningful action is fast action, or that slowly building a coalition means that one is not as committed to the cause. Lincoln’s approach shows that this is not necessarily the case. Sometimes, fighting for a cause is all about timing. Since people are creatures of habit, it is important to let them adjust to an idea before putting it in full force. Of course, that is hard to accept when people are the constant victims of an unjust system. Douglass’s approach shows that passion might be necessary to bring awareness about inequality. It shows that while some are comfortably adjusting to an idea, other people are dying. However, it is hard to say with confidence whether fast action will yield the intended result.\u00a0 The joint efforts of Lincoln and Douglass show that there are many complex factors that can go into creating change in public opinion, and that sometimes allies can lose track of their different roles and complementary priorities. Their lessons should serve as a reminder that we should not be too quick to judge– good people can fight together from many angles in order to build successful movements.<\/p>\n

By: Jordyn Ney<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n

______________________________________________<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> James Oakes, The Radical and the Republican<\/em> (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007), 64.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a>\u00a0“Call for a Colored National Convention,” Frederick Douglass’ Papers (1853). [Accessible Archives<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Andrew Delbanco, The War Before the War <\/em>(Penguin Press, 2018), 19.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Delbanco, 19.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Matthew Pinsker, \u201cInterpreting the Upper-Ground Railroad,<\/a>\u201d The Dickinson Survey of American History (2021).<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Pinsker.<\/a><\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Pinsker.<\/a><\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Oakes, 5.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Oakes, 5.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Oakes, 64.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Oakes, 8-9.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Oakes, 18-20.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Oakes, 26.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Oakes, 43.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Pinsker.<\/a><\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> \u201cFrederick Douglass\u2019s Fifth of July Speech (1852)<\/a>,\u201d excerpted in Knowledge for Freedom Seminar hosted by Dickinson College (2021).<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> \u201cFrederick Douglass\u2019s Fifth\u2026<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> \u201cThe Fugitive Slave Law, speech to the National Free Soil Convention at Pittsburg, August 11, 1852.\u201d Frederick Douglass\u2019 Papers (1852). [Accessible Archives<\/a>].<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> \u201cThe Fugitive Slave Law\u2026<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> \u201cLincoln\u2019s Private Letters on Sectional Crisis (1855),<\/a>\u201d excerpted in Knowledge for Freedom Seminar hosted by Dickinson College (2021).<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Oakes, 64.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> \u201cLincoln\u2019s Private Letters\u2026<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fighting the Fugitive Slave Act:\u00a0 A Movement in Stages Introduction \u201cI confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils, but I bite my lip and keep quiet.\u201d[1] This confession by Abraham Lincoln revealed his complex approach to the controversial Fugitive Slave Act. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":118,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-53","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/53","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/118"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/53\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":483,"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/53\/revisions\/483"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/housedivided.dickinson.edu\/sites\/teagle-ney\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}