From the National Park Service and Dickinson College

Category: Finkelman Page 1 of 2

(1772) Somerset Case

Citation

Somerset v. Stewart, June 22, 1772, FULL TEXT via CommonLII


Excerpt

portrait man in wig, turned to side

Lord Mansfield ruled in freedom seeker James Somerset’s favor (National Portrait Gallery, UK)

…The power of a master over his slave has been extremely different, in different countries. The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory : it’s so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.


Related Sources


Related Essays

(1780) Pennsylvania Gradual Abolition

Citation

1780 Gradual Abolition Act, March 1, 1780, FULL TEXT via Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission


Excerpt

Be it enacted and it is hereby enacted by the Representatives of the Freemen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met and by the Authority of the same, That all Persons, as well Negroes, and Mulattos, as others, who shall be born within this State, from and after the Passing of this Act, shall not be deemed and considered as Servants for Life or Slaves; and that all Servitude for Life or Slavery of Children in Consequence of the Slavery of their Mothers, in the Case of all Children born within this State from and after the passing of this Act as aforesaid, shall be, an hereby is, utterly taken away, extinguished and for ever abolished.

Pennsylvania’s 1780 Gradual Abolition Act (Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission)

Provided always and be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every Negroe and Mulatto Child born within this State after the passing of this Act as aforesaid, who would in Case this Act had not been made, have been born a Servant for Years or life or a Slave, shall be deemed to be and shall be, by Virtue of this Act the Servant of such person or his or her Assigns, who would in such Case have been entitled to the Service of such Child until such Child shall attain unto the Age of twenty eight Years, in the manner and on the Conditions whereon Servants bound by Indenture for four Years are or may be retained and holden; and shall be liable to like Correction and punishment, and intitled to like Relief in case he or she be evilly treated by his or her master or Mistress; and to like Freedom dues and other Privileges as Servants bound by Indenture for Four Years are or may be intitled unless the Person to whom the Service of any such Child Shall belong, shall abandon his or her Claim to the same, in which Case the Overseers of the Poor of the City Township or District, respectively where such Child shall be so abandoned, shall by Indenture bind out every Child so abandoned as an Apprentice for a Time not exceeding the Age herein before limited for the Service of such Children.


Related Sources


Related Essays

(1787) Fugitive Slave Clause

Citation

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, US Constitution, 1787, FULL TEXT via The Avalon Project, Yale Law School


Excerpt

Constitution front page image

US Constitution (National Archives)

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.US C


Related Sources


Related Essays

(1793) Fugitive Slave Act

Citation

1793 Fugitive Slave Act, February 12, 1793, FULL TEXT via A Century of Lawmaking, Library of Congress


Excerpt

engraving of room, lit by fireplace, kidnapping scene

Abolitionist illustration criticizing the activities of slave catchers under the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act (Jesse Torrey, A Portraiture of Domestic Slavery in the United States, 1817 )

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the executive authority of any State in the Union, or of either of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, shall demand any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any such state or territory to which such person shall have fled, and shall moreover produce the copy of an indictment found, or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any state or territory as aforesaid, charging the person so demanded, with having committed treason, felony or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged, fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which such person shall have fled, to cause him or her to be arrested and secured, and notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear: But if no such agent shall appear within six mouths from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged. And all costs or expenses incurred in the apprehending, securing, and transmitting such fugitive to the elate or territory making such demand, shall be paid by such state or territory.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent or attorney when so arrested pursuant to the authority herein given or declared: or shall harbor or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor, as aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars. Which penalty may be recovered by and fur the benefit of such claimant, by action of debt, in any court proper to try the same; saving moreover to the person claiming such labor or service, his right of action for or on account of the said injuries or either of them.


Key Cases under the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act


Related Essays

(1796) Ona Judge Escape

Ona Judge defies President George Washington and the new federal fugitive slave law to seize freedom


Date(s): escaped May 21, 1796

Location(s): Mount Vernon, Virginia; Philadelphia; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Greenland, New Hampshire

Outcome: Freedom

Summary:

newspaper runaway advertisement

The Washingtons advertised for Judge’s recapture in Philadelphia papers (Encyclopedia Virginia)

Ona Judge, or “Oney” as the Washington family called her, was born into enslavement in Virginia and became Martha Washington’s personal maid at the age of 10. When George Washington became president, he brought Judge and seven other enslaved people with him to New York, and then to Philadelphia once the nation’s capital moved there. But Pennsylvania’s 1780 Gradual Abolition Act forbade slaveholders from residing in the state with enslaved people longer than six months. To work around the state law, the Washingtons quietly cycled Judge and other enslaved people back between Philadelphia and Mount Vernon. While in Philadelphia, Judge continued her duties for Martha Washington, though her presence in Philadelphia was much more conspicuous than ever before. Judge was given expensive clothing and encouraged occasionally to attend events such as plays and the circus. Judge also seized the opportunity to make connections with Quaker abolitionists and free African Americans in the city.  When Judge learned that the Washingtons planned to send her back to Virginia as a wedding gift, Judge decided to take her chances and escape on May 21, 1796, traveling aboard the ship Nancy to New Hampshire. Judge apparently received assistance from the ship’s captain, John Bolles, never disclosing his name until after his death to ensure he would not face punishment.

Only months after Judge’s arrival in New Hampshire, however, Martha’s youngest granddaughter Nelly Parke Custis spotted the freedom seeker, and soon after, Washington sent the Portsmouth customs collector, Joseph Whipple, to convince her to return to Philadelphia. Judge agreed on the condition that she would be freed after the Washingtons’ deaths and would not be passed on to serve anybody else. Washington blatantly denied this request and continued his efforts to return Judge through Whipple via the federal 1793 Fugitive Slave Act. However, Washington informed Whipple that he had to tread lightly for fear of antagonizing antislavery Northerners. In any case, Whipple was unsuccessful and in 1793, Judge married Jack Staines, a free black sailor, with whom she had three children. In 1799, Washington requested the help of Burwell Bassett, jr., Martha Washington’s nephew, in returning Judge using the same inconspicuous method that he had once advised Whipple to use. When Bassett first found her in Portsmouth and was unable to convince her to return, he informed New Hampshire senator John Langdon that he planned to seize Judge by force. Langdon secretly warned Judge, who was able to evade Bassett and escape to nearby Greenland. After Washington died in 1799, Judge never was bothered by the family again, though she and her children remained legally vulnerable to capture by the Custis’. Judge went on to outlive her husband and two of her daughters. She was known to still be living in Greenland in the 1840s, when remarkably she was interviewed by the abolitionist Reverend Benjamin Chase.


Related Sources


Related Essays

(1842) Prigg v. Pennsylvania

Citation

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 1842, FULL TEXT via Justia


Excerpt

…The clause of the Constitution of the United States relating to fugitives from labor manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave which no state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control, or restrain. Any state law or regulation which interrupts, limits, delays, or postpones the rights of the owner to the immediate command of his service or labor operates pro tanto a discharge of the slave therefrom. The question can never be how much he is discharged from, but whether he is discharged from any by the natural or necessary operation of the state laws or state regulations. The question is not one of quantity or degree, but of withholding or controlling the incidents of a positive right.

The owner of a fugitive slave has the same right to seize and take him in a State to which he has escaped or fled that he had in the State from which he escaped, and it is well known that this right to seizure or recapture is universally acknowledged in all the slaveholding States. The Court have not the slightest hesitation in holding that, under and in virtue of the Constitution, the owner of the slave is clothed with the authority in every State of the Union to seize and recapture his slave wherever he can do it without any breach of the peace or illegal violence. In this sense and to this extent, this clause in the Constitution may properly be said to execute itself, and to require no aid from legislation, state or national….


Related Sources


Related Essays

(1847) Carlisle Fugitive Slave Case

Vigilance activists rescue two freedom seekers and fatally injure Maryland slave catcher James Kennedy in Carlisle, Pennsylvania on June 2. A jury acquits Dickinson College professor John McClintock on charges of inciting a riot, but sentences 11 Black residents to the state penitentiary for their role in the rescue, before the state’s supreme court ultimately overturns their convictions.

[This post is still under construction, more forthcoming in 2023]

(1847) Jones v. Van Zandt

Citation

Jones v. Van Zandt, 1847, FULL TEXT via Library of Congress


Excerpt

painting man facing forward

Supreme Court justice Levi Woodbury wrote the majority opinion in Jones v. Van Zandt affirming the constitutionality of the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act (House Divided Project)

…That, under the fourth section of the act of 12th February, 1793, respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their master, on a charge for harbouring and concealing fugitives from labor, the notice need not be in writing by the claimant or his agent, stating that such person is a fugitive from labor, under the third section of the above act, and served on the person harbouring or concealing such fugitive, to make him liable to the penalty of five hundred dollars under the act….


Related Sources


Related Essays

(1850) Fugitive Slave Act

Citation

1850 Fugitive Slave Act, September 18, 1850, FULL TEXT via The Avalon Project, Yale Law School


Excerpt

cartoon showing people fighting, caricatures

Political cartoon attacking the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law (Library of Congress)

SECTION 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the District Court of the United States for the district in which such offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the District or Territorial Courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have been committed.


Related Sources


Related Essays

(1851) Christiana Resistance

Vigilance leaders and freedom seekers resist the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act at Christiana, killing a Maryland slaveholder and evading punishment from federal authorities


Date(s): escaped 1849, resistance September 11, 1851

Location(s): Christiana, Pennsylvania

Outcome: Freedom, slaveholder Edward Gorsuch killed

Summary:

In 1849, four enslaved men, Noah Buley, Nelson Ford, George Hammond, and Joshua Hammond, escaped from Maryland slaveholder Edward Gorsuch and settled near Christiana in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Two years later in September 1851, Gorsuch discovered the whereabouts of his runaways with the help of a local spy and made arrangements in Philadelphia with the fugitive slave commissioner to organize a posse that would try to apprehend the four freedom seekers under the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. But operatives from the Philadelphia Vigilance Committee learned of these plans and quickly notified a vigilance group in Christiana, led by Black couple William and Eliza Parker.

Colorized Christiana

Illustration of the 1851 Christiana Resistance, colorized by Gabe Pinsker (House Divided Project)

Gorsuch’s posse arrived at the Parker stone farmhouse (where at least some of the runaways were hiding) just after dawn on September 11, 1851, but William Parker stubbornly refused them entrance.  Eliza Parker then blew a horn to help alert their neighbors and local vigilance supporters to the unfolding confrontation. Violence erupted.  Black activists shot Gorsuch dead and wounded his son.  The federal officers fled the scene. Pro-slavery forces from across the country immediately denounced the resistance but government officials moved too slowly and the Parkers and the four young freedom seekers escaped to Canada.  Federal prosecutors eventually charged 38 local men with treason, to send a stern political message, but the trial, held in Philadelphia in late November and early December, proved to be a political catastrophe for the Fillmore Administration.  The jury acquitted the first defendant, a white farmer named Castner Hanway, in about fifteen minutes.  Prosecutors then released the rest of the accused.    There were other violent fugitive slave rescues in 1851, most notably in Boston, Massachusetts and Syracuse, New York, but the Christiana resistance was the most dramatic and decisive victory for the abolitionist forces in their escalating campaign to undermine the federal Fugitive Slave Law.


Related Sources


Related Sites

The Parker “riot” house in Christiana, as it was originally known, is no longer standing, but there are some existing structures and historic sites within the NPS Network to Freedom which can help commemorate this episode, including the Gorsuch Tavern in Verona, Maryland, Eliza Parker’s escape site at Belle Vue Farm in Havre de Grace, Maryland, and Zercher’s Hotel in the town of Christiana, Pennsylvania, where government authorities first conducted the inquest in the aftermath of the violence on September 11, 1851.  To view more details about these sites and their level of accessibility to the public, consult our various Network to Freedom maps in this online handbook.


Related Essays

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén