Personal liberty laws

Last updated

In the context of slavery in the United States, the personal liberty laws were laws passed by several U.S. states in the North to counter the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. Different laws did this in different ways, including allowing jury trials for escaped slaves and forbidding state authorities from cooperating in their capture and return. States with personal liberty laws included Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Vermont.

Contents

Overview

The personal liberty laws were a series of legislative acts that were implemented in the United States between the 1800s and the beginning of the Civil War. These laws were a direct response to the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and of 1850. The Personal Liberty Laws were designed to make the legal system more fair for all people and to ensure the safety of freedmen and escaped slaves without employing the controversial tactic of nullification. [1] The reasoning behind this decision was simply to avoid more feuding between the northern and southern states. Only two states, New Jersey, and California, gave direct official sanction or assistance to the forced return of fugitive slaves, but Indiana, Illinois and Oregon, did so indirectly, by prohibiting the entrance within their borders of black people either slave or free[ clarification needed ]. However, the United States would still endure a tense and strained relationship between the Northern and Southern states in the years leading up to the civil war. [2]

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 did not provide for trial by jury. Indiana (1824) and Connecticut (1828) enacted laws making jury trials for escaped slaves possible upon appeal. In 1840 Vermont and New York granted fugitives the right of jury trial and provided them with attorneys. After 1842, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled[ citation needed ] that enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act was a federal function, some Northern state governments passed laws forbidding state authorities to cooperate in the capture and return of fugitives. In the reaction to the Fugitive Slave Act contained in the Compromise of 1850, most Northern states provided further guarantees of jury trial, authorized severe punishment for illegal seizure and perjury against alleged fugitives, and forbade state authorities to recognize claims to fugitives. [3] These laws were cited as a justification for secession by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas in 1860–1. [4]

Causes

The Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 were grossly unfair to the accused. The intended purpose of the laws was to give slave owners the legal protection when dealing with the problem of escaped slaves. In reality, the Fugitive Slave Laws actually expanded the slave trade. These laws provided the opportunity for slave owners to go into northern states and reclaim previously freed slaves. The laws gave any slave owner the ability to seize an alleged escaped slave, present the slave to a federal or local judge, and, upon proof of ownership, have the slave legally returned to their service. However, the only proof that was required was the testimony of a witness. This meant that many freedmen were taken back into slavery because of rigged courts and injustice. [1] Another reason that the Fugitive Slave Laws created the need to be counteracted by the Personal Liberty Laws, was the threat to those who tried to help a fugitive. The Fugitive Slave Laws placed a five hundred dollar fine on anyone who helped an escaped slave or obstructed a slave owner's attempt to retake a slave. This made it extremely daunting for those who wanted to end slavery by assisting those slaves seeking their freedom. [5] The Personal Liberty Laws sought also to protect the rights of those who didn't want to turn in escaped slaves. In 1850, amendments were made to the Fugitive Slave Laws, which made them even more onerous. These amendments decreed that the alleged fugitive was not allowed to testify at the hearing and federal marshals were financially liable if they did not execute the warrants or if they allowed fugitives to escape. The 1850 amendments also provided Commissioners with twice as much compensation, ten dollars verses five dollars, for granting certificates of ownership as for denying them. Furthermore, penalties were increased for obstructing slave owners or helping fugitives, and included imprisonment. [2] These laws were blatantly unfair, intrusive, and prompted some northern states to introduce the Personal Liberty Laws preemptively to offset the infringements to personal liberties the Fugitive Slave Laws allowed.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

The case between Edward Prigg and Margret Morgan demonstrated one of the complications that arose out of the fugitive slave laws. The case began when Margret Morgan, a slave to John Ashmore, was granted her freedom. This was not a formal change, merely a promise that she could do as she pleased. After her former owner's death, Ashmore's heirs hired Edward Prigg, a slave catcher, to go to Pennsylvania and bring Margret Morgan, and her children, back with him to Maryland. It was his plan to reinstate them as slaves. The Personal Liberty Law of 1826 decreed that no person could be taken out of the state of Pennsylvania to be held as a slave. [6] Prigg was arrested and tried upon his return to the state with Margret and her family. Prigg argued in front of the Supreme Court that the Personal Liberty Laws were unconstitutional. He argued that the crime that he was being charged for was a perfectly legal act under the constitution. In the end, the Court held that the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause granted Congress authority to pass the Fugitive Slave Act, and that Prigg had acted lawfully under the authority Congress granted slaveholders under that act. Consequently, Pennsylvania had exceeded its authority when it criminalized the conduct done pursuant to federal law for which the Commonwealth had convicted Prigg. In this example, Prigg claimed that he was acting under article IV, section 2, of the Constitution, which clearly states that criminals or fugitives cannot escape punishment or recapture by leaving their state for another. [7] The Personal Liberty Law that had passed in 1826 directly stated that anyone, including escaped slaves, could not be brought into Pennsylvania and kept as a slave. [6] This contradiction made the Personal Liberty Laws controversial.

Threats

Prigg was not the only one to openly attack the Personal Liberty Laws. Many of these laws were ignored by officials of the law and judges. [1] This unequal treatment however did not stop the abolitionists from their fight to win justice for all people. Because most of the abolitionists and supporters of the Personal Liberty Laws resided in the northern states, the controversy added to the already growing rift between the two halves of the country. [1] The northern states refused to repeal the laws and the southern states were not willing to give up slavery. The end result was the bloodiest war of American history; the Civil War. At the end of this bloody chapter, it was not the Personal Liberty Laws that were changed but the constitution itself. [7]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fugitive Slave Act of 1850</span> Act of the United States Congress

The Fugitive Slave Act or Fugitive Slave Law was a law passed by the 31st United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern interests in slavery and Northern Free-Soilers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fugitive Slave Act of 1793</span> Act of the United States Congress

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was an Act of the United States Congress to give effect to the Fugitive Slave Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which was later superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment, and to also give effect to the Extradition Clause. The Constitution’s Fugitive Slave Clause guaranteed a right for a slaveholder to recover an escaped slave. The subsequent Act, "An Act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters", created the legal mechanism by which that could be accomplished.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fugitive slaves in the United States</span> Aspect of history

In the United States, fugitive slaves or runaway slaves were terms used in the 18th and 19th centuries to describe people who fled slavery. The term also refers to the federal Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. Such people are also called freedom seekers to avoid implying that the enslaved person had committed a crime and that the slaveholder was the injured party.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 precluded a Pennsylvania state law that prohibited blacks from being taken out of the free state of Pennsylvania into slavery. The Court overturned the conviction of slavecatcher Edward Prigg as a result.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Margaret Garner</span> United States fugitive slave

Margaret Garner, called "Peggy", was an enslaved African-American woman in pre-Civil War America who killed her own daughter rather than allow the child to be returned to slavery. Garner and her family had escaped enslavement in January 1856 by traveling across the frozen Ohio River to Cincinnati, but they were apprehended by U.S. Marshals acting under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Garner's defense attorney, John Jolliffe, moved to have her tried for murder in Ohio, to be able to get a trial in a free state and to challenge the Fugitive Slave Law. Garner's story was the inspiration for the novel Beloved (1987) by Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison and its subsequent adaptation into a film of the same name starring Oprah Winfrey (1998).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fugitive slave laws in the United States</span> Laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850

The fugitive slave laws were laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of enslaved people who escaped from one state into another state or territory. The idea of the fugitive slave law was derived from the Fugitive Slave Clause which is in the United States Constitution. It was thought that forcing states to deliver fugitive slaves back to enslavement violated states' rights due to state sovereignty and was believed that seizing state property should not be left up to the states. The Fugitive Slave Clause states that fugitive slaves "shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due", which abridged state rights because forcing people back into slavery was a form of retrieving private property. The Compromise of 1850 entailed a series of laws that allowed slavery in the new territories and forced officials in free states to give a hearing to slave-owners without a jury.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Sims</span> American who escaped slavery but was reenslaved by law

Thomas Sims was an African American who escaped from slavery in Georgia and fled to Boston, Massachusetts, in 1851. He was arrested the same year under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, had a court hearing, and was forced to return to enslavement. A second escape brought him back to Boston in 1863, where he was later appointed to a position in the U.S. Department of Justice in 1877. Sims was one of the first slaves to be forcibly returned from Boston under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The failure to stop his case from progressing was a significant blow to the abolitionists, as it showed the extent of the power and influence which slavery had on American society and politics. The case was one of many events leading to the American Civil War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Slave catcher</span> People who tracked down escaped slaves in the United States

A slave catcher is a person employed to track down and return escaped slaves to their enslavers. The first slave catchers in the Americas were active in European colonies in the West Indies during the sixteenth century. In colonial Virginia and Carolina, slave catchers were recruited by Southern planters beginning in the eighteenth century to return fugitive slaves; the concept quickly spread to the rest of the Thirteen Colonies. After the establishment of the United States, slave catchers continued to be employed in addition to being active in other countries which had not abolished slavery, such as Brazil. The activities of slave catchers from the American South became at the center of a major controversy in the lead up to the American Civil War; the Fugitive Slave Act required those living in the Northern United States to assist slave catchers. Slave catchers in the United States ceased to be active with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rufus P. Spalding</span> American judge (1798–1886)

Rufus Paine Spalding was a nineteenth-century politician, lawyer and judge from Ohio. From 1863 to 1869, he served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served as a justice of the Ohio Supreme Court from 1849 through 1852 and as a member of the Ohio House of Representatives from 1839 through 1842.

The Fugitive Slave Clause in the United States Constitution, also known as either the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labor Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires a "Person held to Service or Labour" who flees to another state to be returned to his or her master in the state from which that person escaped. The enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery except as a punishment for criminal acts, has made the clause mostly irrelevant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John McLean</span> American jurist and politician (1785–1861)

John McLean was an American jurist and politician who served in the United States Congress, as U.S. Postmaster General, and as a justice of the Ohio and U.S. Supreme Courts. He was often discussed for the Whig Party nominations for president, and is also one of the few people who served in all three branches of government.

<i>Lemmon v. New York</i> Nineteenth-century freedom suit

Lemmon v. New York, or Lemmon v. The People (1860), popularly known as the Lemmon Slave Case, was a freedom suit initiated in 1852 by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was granted by the Superior Court in New York City, a decision upheld by the New York Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, in 1860 on the eve of the Civil War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery</span>

An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, passed by the Fifth Pennsylvania General Assembly on 1 March 1780, prescribed an end for slavery in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the United States. It was the first slavery abolition act in the course of human history to be adopted by a democracy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

Jones v. Van Zandt, 46 U.S. 215 (1847), was a landmark US Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of slavery that was a predecessor of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Supreme Court was then led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who owned slaves and wrote the Dred Scott decision but not Jones. The Court unanimously reached the decision that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was constitutional and that the institution of slavery remained a matter for individual states to decide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christiana Riot</span> 1851 armed resistance by free Blacks and escaped slaves

Margaret Morgan was an African American woman who was born to former slaves. They were considered free by their slaveholder, but they had not received an official deed of manumission. They lived on their former slaveholder's property, where they then had a daughter, Margaret. After she was married and had children, her family was taken from her home in the middle of the night around late March 1837 at the request of the former slaveholder's widow, Margaret Ashmore. Morgan became the subject of legal cases at the county, state and national level from 1837 to 1842. Prigg v. Pennsylvania was tried before the United States Supreme Court and the four men who apprehended Morgan and her children were found to be not guilty.

Kentucky raid in Cass County (1847) was conducted by slaveholders and slave catchers who raided Underground Railroad stations in Cass County, Michigan to capture black people and return them to slavery. After unsuccessful attempts, and a lost court case, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was enacted. Michigan's Personal Liberty Act of 1855 was passed in the state legislature to prevent the capture of formerly enslaved people that would return them to slavery.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 , Alexander Johston, "Personal Liberty Laws".
  2. 1 2 , Arthur G. LeFrancois, Fugitive Slave Acts
  3. Fritz, Christian G. (2023), "State Interposition and Nullification on the Path to Secession", Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State Legislative Resistance, Cambridge University Press, pp. 227–256, doi:10.1017/9781009325608, ISBN   978-1-009-32560-8, S2CID   255537670
  4. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
  5. "Fugitive Slave Law". Archived from the original on 2012-12-03. Retrieved 2012-12-18..
  6. 1 2 1842_0
  7. 1 2 Alan Brinkley, The Unfinished Nation, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008) A-15.

Further reading