The Fugitive Slave Law

The Fugitive Slave Law.

 

We said when this law passed, that it would not be executed, and were frequently censured by Southern submission papers, for the opinion. We said a few days since, that it had actually failed - only one fugitive having been arrested and recovered under its provisions - the slave Hamlet, at New York. One arrest was made at Detroit, but the excitement was so great, that the claimant compromised by taking a sum of money, and relinquished the claim. Another slave was arrested at Philadelphia, and there also, great demonstrations of resistance were made, but Judge Grier liberated the slave on technical grounds - and as the Independent, an Abolition paper says "from a leaning to freedom." The fugitives recovered at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were arrested under the previous law. 

 

We referred to these facts a few days since, and asserted that no slaveholder would be safe in an attempt now to reclaim a runaway.  The Louisville Journal denied this, and asserted the contrary. And now what have we seen? Two or three claimants appeared in Boston, to recover Craft and his wife, whose escape from Georgia is somewhat notorious. They obtained warrants to arrest, and the officer never dared to serve them. Craft continued in open day to pass from his residence to his place of business. And instead of the fugitives, the claimants were three times arrested, first on an action of slander, and then for attempting to kidnap - and held to bail in a sum so large that few strangers would be able to give the requisite bail of $30,000 each. And when the bail was given, they had to hurry into a vehicle at the very portals of the temple of justice, and fly for their lives from the fury of a mob, excited against them by hand bills, denouncing them as villains, and describing their persons as felons. 

 

Thus it appears that in the boasted Union-loving religion and morality professing, and law and order supporting the city of Boston, justice is administered by giving to a man's property the sanctity of the castle which no process of law can open, and hunting the owner with sheriffs and constables to the Court House, and then mobbing him from its doors, and this, too, whilst he is merely asserting one of the plainest rights in the Constitution, according to a law embraced in a compromise by which the South was bereft of an immense territory as the price of the work of conciliation and harmony.

 

This is the greeting which Massachusetts sends to Georgia when she is gathering in Convention. How will Georgia answer? Will she submit to have her citizens hunted as outlaws in the North, when asserting their constitutional rights?

 

We beg to be understood, however, as not making this new issue, or any new issue. If the late measures of Congress are proper for Southern acquiescence and rejoicing, it would be folly to disturb the general harmony and affection of the Union for all the negroes that ever have, or ever will run away - particularly as the States from which they usually run are so contented.

 

The cotton States had a peculiar interest in the Territorial question. It was important to then to avert a great numerical preponderance of the black over the white race in their borders. This would not only diminish the value of their great staple by over production, but menace their safety. The border States may conclude to consult their own interest, and to abandon the common Territorial rights of the South to obtain the restitution of fugitive slaves. They have paid the price - and the contract is, as usual, repudiated by the North. 

 

We have the most unhesitating conviction that neither the present, nor any other fugitive slave law ever will be executed in the North. This is no longer a federative but consolidated Government, and as such the majority is responsible for what they call the sin of slavery. And with the universal sentiment of our "Northern brethren" on slavery, they never will submit to the execution of a fugitive slave law, nor to the continuance of slavery in the Union much longer. 

 

It is true the submissionists of the border States are again threatening what they will do, if this law is nullified or repealed. Let not the Cotton States be again deceived. The submissionists would not resist anything, but they would like to have the co-operation of the Cotton States next Congress in protecting the law, and in case of failure, as is probable, of displaying their love of Union again by deserting again their allies and their pledges - to be puffed in Northern papers as patriotic nationals, and to make a little more capital for party, and to improve their chances of getting into the Federal crib.

 

We wish it to be understood now, that we shall take no part in resisting the law to repeal or modify the Fugitive law. We go, and shall go, for the assertion of the great body of rights, by the maintenance of which the South will have power not only to defend herself but to advance to her destiny. We are determined never to be the supporter of a whining and supplicant policy that recognizes a superior, and accepts as favors what a greedy majority may leave from time to time undevoured. 

[Southern Press