E450 
 
pHSJ 
 
E 450 F U G I T I Y E S L A Y E S 
 
 .n39 
 
 Copy 1 
 
 SERMON, 
 
 PREACHED IN THE 
 
 KortJ) eonfltc0at(onal ei)ttrclj, Wi in tf^tti'a an, 
 
 THE DAY OF THE ANNUAL FAST, 
 
 APRIL 11, 1850. 
 
 BY A. p. MARVIN, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE CONGREGATION. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 PUBLISHED BY JOHN P. JEWETT & CO 
 
 N08. 17 & 19 COENKILI.. 
 
 1850. 
 

SERMON. 
 
 DEUTERONOMY xxiii. 15. 
 
 THOU SHALT NOT DELIVER UNTO HIS MASTER, THE SERVANT WHICH IS 
 ESCAPED FROM HIS MASTER UNTO THEE. 
 
 I. This was one of the municipal laws of the Hebrews. It 
 was undoubtedly enacted in accordance with the divine will, 
 and it has been handed down to us by divine inspiration. But 
 being a law for the Hebrews, it has no relation to us except so 
 far as the principle on which it was founded is of general appli- 
 cation. If, however, the law was based on a moral principle 
 of universal extent, then we are bound to act according to it, 
 although this particular enactment has never had a place in our 
 statute book. Even the ten commandments were a part of the 
 national law of the Hebrews, and their autliority would have 
 ceased ages ago, were it not for the fact that they are the ex- 
 pression of moral obligation, in all nations, and in all times. 
 
 If we consult the opinions of commentators respecting this 
 law, our surprise will be increased in proportion to the atten- 
 tion we may give to the subject. I know of scarcely a passage 
 of Scripture which has been more grossly perverted from its 
 true meaning, than the text. And yet there seems to be no 
 necessity for the least misunderstanding. It reads plainly. 
 How simj)le the terms in which it is expressed. " Thou shall 
 not deliver unto his master, the servant which is escaped from 
 his master unto thee." The law is unlimited in its terms. It 
 has no qualifications. Strictly interpreted, it applies to all 
 servants whatsoever. Why then have writers on this point, 
 ventured to qualify and limit this philanthropic enactment ? 
 The answer may perhaps be found in the fact that most of 
 those authors who have endeavored to explain it away, wrote 
 
4 
 
 before the modem movement against slavery arose. They 
 lived when slavery was npheld by nearly all civilized nations, 
 and were therefore under strong temptation to explain the 
 Scriptures in such a way as to make them justify existing 
 institutions and customs. Even good men grew up with a 
 bias in favor of slavery which clouded their moral perceptions 
 in relation to this matter. Those in our day who take the 
 same view, are mere copyists from former authors. This sup- 
 position will not be deemed uncharitable, when the current 
 limitations of tlie law are understood. 
 
 It is said by some, that the law applied only to servants who 
 had fled from foreign masters. For example, if a slave belong- 
 ing to a master residing in any of the neighboring nations, 
 should escape into Judea, he was to be delivered up to his 
 master. But there is not even a shadow, much less a sub- 
 stance, upon which to base this supposition. The idea never 
 occurred to the ancient Hebrews, that they must deliver up 
 fugitives from other nations ; and there could be no occasion 
 for passing a law on the subject. Even fugitive criminals 
 were safe as soon as they passed the boundaries of their own 
 country. I do not recollect ever meeting with the notice of a 
 law, by which nations, in ancient times, were bound to return 
 even the most atrocious criminals, when they had escaped from 
 one country to another. No laws were passed either for deliv- 
 ering up, or for protecting such persons. The territory of all 
 governments was considered inviolable ; and it was a cause for 
 war, if one government undertook to exercise jurisdiction over 
 any body or any thing, within the limits of another govern- 
 ment. Extradition laws, as they are called, are the beneficial 
 result of modern* diplomacy, between civilized and Christian 
 nations. If an adulterer, a robber, an incendiary, a defaulter, 
 or a murderer, should escape from our country, in a vessel 
 bound to the 13arbary states, there is nothing in the law of na- 
 tions by which our government could get possession of either 
 of them. Neither is there any special agreement between our 
 government and the Emperor of Morocco, by which we could 
 recover them. There is such a stipulation between the gov- 
 ernment of this country and that of Great Britain ; and, if I 
 
 * See Kent's Conim., Vol. i. p. 36, et. seq. 
 
am correctly informed, a few other governments. By treaty 
 engagements, a few classes of criminals, when fleeing from 
 one of these countries to the other, are to be given up on de- 
 mand of the government from whose jurisdiction they have 
 fled, that they may be punished, in the country whose laws 
 they have violated, in accordance with the demands of justice. 
 But even such engagements as these never extend to slaves, as 
 such. A slave, guilty of crime, would come under the grasp 
 of the treaty ; but as a slave simply, there would be no obliga- 
 tion to deliver him up. It has been said, without contradic- 
 tion, by a distinguished Senator,* that there is but one example, 
 in all history, of a treaty between nations, for the extradition 
 of slaves ; and that was negotiated many centuries since, be- 
 tween the barbarous government of Russia, and the debased 
 court of Constantinople. It being then a fact that all extradi- 
 tion laws are a modern contrivance, and that these have no 
 reference to servants or slaves, it is simply absurd to suppose the 
 Hebrews were bound by law, not to deliver up fugitives from 
 other nations. It is worse than absurd to maintain that the 
 law contained in the text referred exclusively to servants who 
 had fled from foreign masters. The very idea would never 
 occur to a Hebrew, that a foreign master or a foreign nation 
 could claim an escaped servant, without a violation of the na- 
 tional territory, the national rights, and the national honor. 
 
 This enactment then, so far from relating to fugitive slaves, 
 who had escaped from foreign masters, had exclusive reference 
 to such as had fled from Hebrew masters, and betaken 
 themselves to such places of residence as seemed agreeable to 
 themselves. But here also some authors come in with their 
 limitations. They tell us that there were two sorts of servants; 
 native born, and foreign ; and that this law relates to the 
 former, and not to the latter. That is, if a Hebrew servant — 
 one of their own blood and lineage — should leave his master, 
 
 * Hon. William II. Seward, whose recent speech, delivered in the Senate 
 of the United States, deserves the special comiiiendation of the clergy, 
 because, in addition to its other great merits, it so ably maintains the para- 
 mount supremacy of the divine authority over all human laws and constitu- 
 tions ; and because he has been bitterly assailed by unprincipled partisans, 
 for asserting this great truth : — a truth easily understood by a child, but 
 apparently unintelligible to a thorough-paced politician. 
 
they should not return him. Whereas, if he was a foreigner 
 by birth, his master's right must still be acknowledged, by 
 delivering the fugitive into his power. But they do not inform 
 us whence they have derived this information. It certainly 
 is not to be found in the terms of the law. That makes no 
 discrimination between native-born and foreign-born servants, 
 nor is there any other law of Moses, that I am aware of, which 
 requires us to make any such distinction. This qualification, 
 then, is an unwarranted invention, or supposition, having no 
 foundation in the letter, or the spirit of Hebrew legislation in 
 reference to servants. 
 
 There is still another expedient to evade the force of this 
 beneficent law. It is claimed that it applied only to those ser- 
 vants who had received ill-treatment and abuse. If such 
 escaped from their masters, they were not to be restored, and 
 again subjected to ill-treatment. This looks more plausible 
 than the other suppositions, but it has no better basis. In 
 short, it is no where said that the well-treated servant should 
 be forced back to the service of his master. The law is unlim- 
 ited in its terms ; nor is it limited by other enactments. Let 
 us read it once more. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his 
 master, the servant which is escaped from his master unto 
 thee." It means just as it says, viz., that the fugitive servant, 
 come from whence and from whom he might, was not to be 
 returned to his master. The following verse confirms this 
 view, and shows, in addition, that the fugitive was to be treated 
 with kindness. "He shall dwell with thee, even among you, 
 in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where 
 it liketh him best ; thou shalt not oppress him." So far 
 from restoring the fugitive to his alleged master, they were 
 commanded to allow him the choice of a residence where it 
 suited him best; and it was expressly enjoined upon them that 
 they should not oppress him. 
 
 A question may arise in some minds, of this nature. Of 
 what use, it may be said, was servitude, if it was liable to such 
 a limitation ? Wliat benefit would accrue from having servants 
 if they possessed the privilege of departing from their master's 
 service, at their own option? That question gives me no anx- 
 iety. If any one is still so bound to the idea that the Hebrew 
 institutions and laws favored servitude, as to be troubled with 
 
the above interpretation of the text, I do not partake in the 
 least degree of his perplexity. The plain fact is this ; it was 
 not the design of Moses, or of God to favor or uphold servitude. 
 It was a fundamental law of the Hebrews that all native-born 
 servants should be set free, every seventh year ; and that all, 
 of whatever nation, should be emancipated every fiftieth year. 
 There was to be no exception, unless a man obstinately persisted 
 in remaining with his master ; in which case an awl was to be 
 thrust through his ear into the door, in token of his servitude 
 for life. Every thing was done adversely to the system. Op- 
 pression, withholding wages, compulsory labor, were all severely 
 condemned. The whole genius of Mosaic legislation ; the 
 whole influence of prophetic teaching, bore hard against the 
 mild servitude — essentially different from modern chattel slavery 
 — which existed among that people. The law under considera- 
 tion was enacted in the same spirit. Under its operation, it 
 was necessary for the master to treat the servant so kindly as 
 to make it his interest to remain. The affections of the ser- 
 vant were to be secured by kindness and protection ; and if 
 the master took this course, his servants would not wish to 
 leave. It must be remembered that there was no prejudice 
 against servants like that which prevails in this country against 
 slaves. They lived in the family of their master ; they sat at 
 his table; were trusted with his most important business; bore 
 arms in his defence ; went long journeys in managing his af- 
 fairs ; and intermarried with his sons and daughters. In ordi- 
 nary cases, they were in a more eligible situation than they 
 could find elsewhere. Nothing would induce them to leave, 
 but ill-treatment, or a conviction that they could greatly im- 
 prove their condition by a removal. In either case, they had a 
 moral right to look after their own interests ; and this law made 
 such a proceeding legal and safe.* 
 
 Of course, slavery of this sort, did not amount to much. 
 Indeed the word slave is not used in our translation of the 
 Bible, except in one or two instances. The Hebrews tolerated 
 
 * Since delivering this discourse, I have read the article entitled " Slave," 
 in Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. It fully covers and sustains all 
 the points taken in the two or three preceding pages. The whole article, 
 though brief, is thorough and satisfactory, and ought to have a wide circula- 
 tion in the form of a tract. 
 
8 
 
 no such slavery as that which exists in this country ; and those 
 who resort to the Bible — whether the Old or the New Testa- 
 ment — to find a justification of slavery, are obliged to pervert 
 both the letter and the spirit of the whole book. 
 
 II. Such then was the law in ancient times. If it was a just 
 law ; if it was founded on a permanent principle of moral 
 right, it is as obligatory upon us as it was upon the Jews. If 
 the principle which pervades it is sound, we have no right to 
 act contrary thereto. We are forbidden to enter into any com- 
 pact, and to fulfill any engagement which is a violation of it. 
 And thus we are led to consider our obligations in reference to 
 fugitive slaves, under the Constitution and Laws of the United 
 States. In order to do this, we must see what the constitution 
 requires ; the provisions of the law of Congress passed in the 
 year 1793 ; and the interpretation of that law by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, in the Prigg case, so called. It 
 will be proper also to take a view of the proposed law now un- 
 der consideration in the Senate of the United States. The 
 way will then be prepared to inquire about our duty in regard 
 to this whole subject. 
 
 The provision of the constitution which is supposed to relate 
 to fugitive slaves, reads as follows. " No person held to service 
 or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into anoth- 
 er, shall, inconsequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis- 
 charged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up 
 on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be 
 due." This section of the constitution, (Art. 4, Sect. 2, Par. 
 3,) is generally understood by lawyers and politicians, to refer 
 to slaves who have run away from their masters, and escaped 
 into another State. It is claimed that this is one of the com- 
 promises of the constitution which secured the adhesion of 
 the Southern States to the Union. This may be admitted for 
 the present ; although there is ground for doubt whether it was 
 so understood by many of the Northern members of the Con- 
 vention. This doubt is excited by the contemporary history j 
 and by the fact, that such a view makes this section militate 
 against the general tone and spirit of the constitution, and of 
 the Declaration of Independence. But on the ground, that this 
 section relates to the recapture of fugitive slaves, what is the 
 nitent and design of it ? Does it require the States to pass ex- 
 
tradition laws, by which they shall agree to restore all fugitive 
 slaves ? Or does it empower Congress to require the citizens 
 and office-holders of the several States to aid iu the recapture 
 of fugitives? Or does it give Congress power to pass laws re- 
 quiring the officers under the general government, to lend their 
 co-operation in recapturing him who is alleged to owe service 
 or labor to a master, so called, residing in a slave State ? Mr. 
 Webster has given his opinion in favor of one of the former 
 methods; but the Supreme Court, by its decision — in which 
 he expresses his acquiescence — has limited the operation of 
 this section, to the mode last mentioned. In other words, we 
 must understand the constitution to empower Congress to pass 
 laws, requiring office-holders under the general government, 
 and none others, to aid iu the recapture of " persons held to 
 service or labor " when they have fled into another State. 
 
 In 1793, Congress passed a law, with the design of carrying 
 into effect the section of the constitution just recited. That 
 Congress proceeded on the assumption that it was authorized 
 to call in the aid of certain officers of the several States in 
 seizing and returning fugitive slaves. Among the provisions 
 of that law are the following. It empowers the owner of an 
 absconding slave, or his agent, to seize such slave wherever he 
 can be foimd in any of the States. It gives justices of the 
 peace, besides other officers, jurisdiction in the case. It only 
 requires of the slave-holder or his agent, to present oral testimony 
 or the certificate of a magistrate in the State whence the slave 
 has fled, alleging that the arrested person is the slave of the 
 aforesaid claimant. This certificate is to be given on the ground 
 of an affidavit, made by the claimant, before the magistrate, 
 stating that a certain slave of his has escaped. With such evi- 
 dence before him, the justice of the [leace, or other officer, be- 
 fore whom the arrested person may be brought, is required to 
 give to the claimant, or his agent, a certificate authorizing him 
 to remove the fugitive to the State from which he had fled. 
 The law secures no rights whatever to the fugitive. It does 
 not require that the person claimed to be a slave shall be of 
 any particular color or complexion ; it does not secure a jury 
 trial, nor the right of habeas corpus. It does not require the 
 magistrate to institute an inquiry to ascertain if the person so 
 2 
 
10 
 
 arrested is a free person. It does not permit the alleged fugitive 
 to testify in his own case. The hberty of the poor creature, 
 whether a slave or a freeman, is made to depend on the oral 
 testimony of a slave-hunter ; or on a declaration made before a 
 magistrate in a distant State ; and the officer is bound to deliver 
 np the fugitive on the presentation of such a claim, supported 
 by such evidence! * 
 
 Another provision of the law forbids any and all persons 
 harboring, concealing, feeding, or clothing, a fugitive slave, or 
 assisting him to escape, knowing him to be such. Under this 
 section, you would become liable to a severe penalty, if you 
 should take a fugitive into your wagon, and carry him a few 
 miles towards a free country. You would incur the same pen- 
 alty by furnishing him with a team, or any other facilities for 
 escape. If a poor hunted wretch should come to your house 
 in a cold and stormy night, you could not receive him within, 
 and furnish him with lodging, without becoming obnoxious to 
 a heavy fine ; unless indeed you received him for the base pur- 
 pose of betraying him to his master. If you should give food 
 to a starving man, woman, or child, you would render yourself 
 liable to a heavy fine, and in default of payment thereof, to 
 imprisonment in a common jail for many months. Such is the 
 law of 1793, and it is still in force. It has been modified by a 
 late decision of the Supreme Court, but its penalties are un- 
 changed. 
 
 That decision, so far as it concerns us at present, amounts 
 to this. An action was brought against the State of Pennsyl- 
 vania, before the United States Court. The facts on which 
 the action was based need not be stated. It is sufficient to say 
 that the action was brought against that State, because the laws 
 thereof obstructed slave-holders in their attempts to recapture 
 fugitive slaves who had fled into that Commonwealth from the 
 neighboring State of Maryland. The decision of the Court 
 overturned the State law, or a part of it at least; but at the 
 same time, it also decided that Congress had no authority to 
 call upon officers holding commissions under a State govern- 
 
 * Of course the author does not write as a lawyer, and may not use techni- 
 cal terms with strict accuracy. He endeavors merely to give the suhstance 
 and spirit of the law, in sucii a manner as to be intelligible. 
 
11 
 
 ment, to aid in restoring slaves. By this decision, Congress 
 has sole jurisdiction in the matter, and is bound to provide its 
 own ofilcers to execute its laws. It follows therefore that no 
 officer or citizen of any State, unless he be also an officer of 
 the United States, is bound to render assistance of any kind in 
 returning a human being into bondage. Nor is any office- 
 holder under the national government under obligation to do 
 so, unless so directed by law. In all other respects, the law 
 stands as it was. And now a slave-holder can pursue his slave 
 into this Commonwealth, and by presenting certain papers, 
 made out in a distant State, by an unknown person, can obtain 
 possession of the fugitive, and bear him back to stripes, to tor- 
 ture, to degradation, and to hopeless toil. 
 
 But even this inhuman law is not enough to satisfy those 
 who live upon the enforced law labor of their fellow men. 
 Nor does it satisfy one at least of the Senators of this State,, 
 now having a seat in the Senate of the United States. He 
 has expressed his willingness to pass a much more stringent 
 law for the protection of slave property, and this conducts us 
 to the proposed law, now under consideration in the Senate, 
 and which may yet become the law of the land. Indeed it 
 would not occasion in me the least surprise, to hear that Mr. 
 Mason's bill was passed in both houses, and signed by the 
 President, within a few weeks. And that man is too simple or 
 too ignorant to be argued with, who has any confidence in a 
 large number of northern members, except just so far as they 
 may be under the pressure of public opinion in their respective 
 districts or States. For as already intimated, the most distin- 
 guished and intiuential Senator from the free States, has in 
 advance, and gratuitously, volunteered his aid in favor of the 
 proposed law, pledging himself "to support it, with all its 
 provisions, to the fullest extent," and demanding no legal 
 security even against kidnapping.* 
 
 The bill under consideration goes upon the supposition that 
 the decision of the Supreme Court was correct, in so far as it 
 released all State officers from obligation to lend assistance in 
 
 * Since the above was delivered, the Senator referred to has authorized a 
 public statement that he shall insist upon important amendments to Mason's 
 bill, before giving it his support 
 
12 
 
 recapturing fugitives. It makes it the imperative duty of sev- 
 eral thousand officials appointed by the national government to 
 act with efficiency. All district court judges, clerks, marshals, 
 commissioners, collectors and postmasters throughout the coun- 
 try, holding office by appointment of the general government, 
 are clothed with magisterial powers for this special purpose. 
 It confers on them, one and all, the fearful power to consign 
 fellow beings, as good as themselves, and as much entitled to 
 freedom, into life-long bondage. More particularly, a slave- 
 holder, or his agent, may pursue his slave through any or all 
 the free States, and seize him wherever he can be found. He 
 may then take the slave, or the person claimed to be a slave, 
 before the nearest judge, clerk, marshal, commissioner, col- 
 lector, or postmaster, and there present his certificate or papers 
 made out by a magistrate in the State from which the slave- 
 holder or his agent may have come ; and on the strength of 
 such papers, or of oral testimony, the officer is bound to deliver 
 up to the claimant, the person so held to service or labor. 
 Indeed there is nothing to prevent the slave-hunter from bring- 
 ing along with him, a postmaster or other authorized official, 
 who will be sure to put the fugitive into his power. The poor 
 slave has not a single right secured to him by this bill. He 
 can have no trial by jury. He has no right to sue out a writ 
 of habeas corpus. He has no opportunity to defend himself 
 by counsel. He cannot speak for himself, for the bill reads 
 thus : " In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testi- 
 mony of such slave be received." If he claims that he is a 
 free man, he has no chance to maintain his claim, because the 
 officer is bound to give him up to the claimant on the strength 
 of the papers brought from a distant State ; or upon the affi- 
 davit of the claimant made in his presence. Under this law, 
 a free man, white or colored, leaving Kentucky or any other 
 State where slaves are held ; or residing in any State, north or 
 south, might be pursued, seized, and borne otf into perpetual 
 slavery. The process would be as follows. Some revengeful 
 or rapacious man might go before a magistrate, and make a 
 false declaration that a certain person, claimed to be his slave, 
 of such and such a description, had fled. The magistrate 
 would make out his papers accordingly. With these the villain 
 
13 
 
 would pursue the free man into the free State wherein he had 
 taken his residence, bring him before tlie postmaster of the 
 town or city, present his demands, and receive a certificate 
 empowering him to carry the alleged slave, but really free 
 man, into a slave-holding State. He might there be sold for 
 what he would fetch, and his chance of obtaining his freedom 
 would be small. Men have been kidnapped and sold into 
 slavery, under the existing law. The proposed law would 
 furnish still greater lacilities for this species of iniquity. It 
 leaves no security for any man, who may happen to be away 
 from home, and among strangers. Two traveling kidnappers, 
 — one of them being a subaltern of the general goverument, — 
 might seize any unprotected man, woman, or child, and bear 
 them off to the auction block.* 
 
 This law also makes it a penal offence to aid or assist a slave 
 in his flight. The penalty for doing so, or for hindering, in 
 any way, the claimant from getting possession of his victim, is 
 one thousand dollars, and imprisonment during twelve months, 
 for each violation of the law. Thus it is made a crime to per- 
 form an act of humanity. That which is considered praisewor- 
 thy among all people who do not deserve to be called barbarous 
 wretches, is made a high misdemeauor, and is restrained by a 
 cruelly severe punishment. And if this bill becomes a law, 
 humane men will become its victims, and be subjected to 
 treatment worthy only of a savage government, as they have 
 been already, under the existing statute. A good man in Ohio, 
 has been compelled to pay a fine amounting to several hundred 
 dollars, in addition to heavy costs, for giving a human being 
 food, and permitting him to ride a few miles in his vehicle. 
 Another man, in Deleware, has been fined several thousand 
 dollars, for doing but half as much. Such are our constitution 
 
 * A resolute man might seize even the celebrated statesman already re- 
 ferred to, if traveling through some part of tlie country where he is per- 
 sonally unknown, and sell him in a slave State, for all the laws of the land 
 could do to save him. His friends, hearing of his seizure, might raise a 
 mob, and fly to the rescue. But that would be his only ^ope ; for his mag- 
 nificent features and brow of Jove would go for nothing against the 
 affidavit of a slave-holder. His matchless eloquence would be powerless in 
 a case where his testimony is absolutely ejccluded. 
 
14 
 
 and laws ; and such was the law of the Hebrews, given by 
 God. Which is most just ? Which will we obey? 
 
 III. There is no doubt that the great majority of people in 
 the Northern States regard the laws relating to the recapture of 
 fugitive slaves, with dislike, and even with abhorrence. This 
 is eminently so of the more thoughtful and religious portion of 
 the community. Nearly, if not quite, all the religious papers 
 of New England, and the most ably conducted of those in 
 New York, and other Northern States, have spoken in condem- 
 nation of these laws ; and they take the ground that a good 
 man is justifiable in disregarding them. They maintain that a 
 good man is bound by humanity, and by the spirit of the para- 
 ble of the good Samaritan, to violate them. So strong is the 
 opposition, that the Legislatures of several States have passed 
 laws for the purpose of counteracting the legislation of the 
 national government, so far as it can be done in a constitutional 
 manner. This feeling of opposition has been steadily increas- 
 ing for several years ; it is gaining strength from week to 
 week. And we may hope that the time is approaching when 
 public opinion will be so hotly turned against the slave-hunter, 
 that no man of respectability, no man having a regard for the 
 good will of mankind, will render any aid in re-capturing the 
 fugitive slave. But just now a resolute attempt, is being made 
 by a few men, headed by a gentlemen of unequaled eloquence 
 and intellectual power, to change this mighty current of public 
 sentiment, and persuade us all that we are under legal and 
 moral bonds to become the humble servitors and assistants of 
 the slave-holders in their efforts to reduce our fellow men to 
 bondage. Will he convince us that all this is true ? Will he 
 succeed in degrading his own New England to that depth of 
 degradation beneath which there is no lower deep, till we our- 
 selves become slaves t 
 
 However, the constitution and laws being as they are, have 
 we any remedy? In answer to this question, several things 
 suggest themselves to our minds. 
 
 The present Haw may be repealed, and another be enact- 
 ed, to supersede it. A member of the Senate of the United 
 States has introduced a bill to repeal the present law, and to 
 provide a more stringent measure for the benefit of the slave- 
 holders. This bill has already been referred to, and described. 
 
15 
 
 Another member has moved an amendment, securing to the 
 fugitive the right of trial by jury. Other amendments favora- 
 ble to liberty might be added, until the new bill shall be made 
 as little objectionable as possible. Or an entirely new project 
 might be brought forward, throwing around the person claimed 
 as a slave, all the protection which a white freeman enjoys. 
 The clamiant might be required to bring witnesses to show an 
 impartial jury of twelve men, that the alleged slave was in 
 reality such. The fugitive might be provided, by government, 
 with able counsel. He might have the right to appeal from 
 one tribunal to another, — from the district to the supreme 
 court ; — or to have his case laid over, if he could show cause. 
 He might have the right to take out the writ o( habeas corpus, 
 and to go free, by giving bonds for his appearance at the time 
 of trial. Perhaps this is what is meant by the "glorious uncer- 
 tainty of the law." And thus, by the law's proper delay, the 
 slave-holder would be discouraged from following up his wicked 
 prosecution. All this would be entirely constitutional ; and it 
 ^^would be right ; because it has been a sound maxim with law- 
 ^3rs, for centuries, that the law should be made to lean, as far 
 as possible, in favor of pefsonal freedom. This had a powerful 
 influence in the overthrow of slavery or villenage, in England, 
 It characterizes the common law, which is our rich inheritance 
 from the mother country. By this course, the whole burden 
 of proof is thrown upon the slave-holder, and he is compelled 
 to get possession of his slave, if he gets him at all, "by the 
 hardest." 
 
 All the free States might pass such laws as several of 
 them have already enacted, forbidding their citizens, under 
 severe penalties, to render any aid in the recapture of fugitives. 
 Lawyers, jailers, sheriffs, citizens, one and all, might be re- 
 strained from giving the least assistance to the hunters of men. 
 Thus the slave-holder would be obliged to depend upon him- 
 self, the marshal of the United States, and a few other govern- 
 ment officials. The consequence would be that very few 
 fugitives would ever be carried back to slavery. 
 
 The present law might be repealed, and the friends of 
 freedom in either house of Congress, might neglect to enact 
 another. It is maintained by able and learned constitutional 
 
16 
 
 lawyers, that the constitution gives no power to Congress to 
 pass laws like the existing one, or the one proposed by Mr. 
 Mason. They claim that the section of the constitution, on 
 which all this legislation is founded, is a compact between 
 States. Then let the matter be left with the States, to be set- 
 tled as the rights of humanity, and the laws of God require. 
 Moreover, on the ground that this section gives to Congress the 
 power in question, that body is not bound to pass all the laws 
 which it has constitutional power to enact. The State of Illi- 
 nois furnishes us an illustration. In that State, previous to the 
 adoption of the new constitution, there were severe statutes, 
 called the "black laws," on account of their extreme cruelty 
 against colored people, free as well as bond. One provision of 
 the constitution required the first legislature which should be 
 elected after its adoption, to re-enact these "black laws," in all 
 their severity. The legislature met, but omitted to pass the 
 aforesaid laws. And it is now claimed that no subsequent 
 legislature can pass such laws, because no power to do so was 
 given to any legislature but the first that should come together 
 after the adoption of the constitution. However this may be, 
 no law of the kind has yet been enacted. So Congress may 
 neglect to pass any law relating to the subject, and thus the 
 whole matter would be at an end, so far as the. action of the 
 general government is concerned. Nor would this be a hard- 
 ship to the so-called owners of slaves. It would merely take 
 from them facilities for wrong doing. Besides, if they would 
 be persuaded to do their duty to the enslaved, these, so far 
 from fleeing from the States where they live, would remain 
 there, and by their voluntary labor, add threefold wealth to 
 that portion of the Union. 
 
 But the question may be pressed, what shall we do, suppos- 
 ing the constitution imperatively requires us to aid in delivering 
 up fugitive slaves ? In view of this alternative, several courses 
 are proposed. 
 
 One is an alteration of the constitution, by striking out the 
 section supposed to refer to runaway slaves. If this could be 
 done, all cause of trouble would be removed. But the project 
 is simply impossible. The consent of three-fourths of the 
 States is necessary to make any alteration in the constitution. 
 
17 
 
 Now as half of the States of this Union uphold slavery, it is 
 vain to hope for the concurrence of three-fourths of them in 
 such a measure. Counting Delaware among the free States, 
 we have fourteen slave to sixteen free States ; whereas, it 
 would require twenty-three States to amend the constitution. 
 Not one of the slave States will consent to such an arrange- 
 ment, until ready to abolish slavery within its own limits. 
 But by that time, the whole system of slavery will be ready 
 to vanish away, and no further efforts on our part will be 
 needed. 
 
 Another proposition looks to the dissolution of the Union as 
 a remedy for this great evil. Such a measure would undoubt- 
 edly relieve us from all responsibility in the matter of restoring 
 fugitive slaves ; but it is very questionable whether the results 
 would be, on the whole, beneficial to the white or the colored 
 race. This question, however, we are precluded from consid- 
 ering, because it is quite as difficult to dissolve the Union, as 
 to procure the above-mentioned amendment to the Constitu- 
 tion. No arrangement has ever been made by which the 
 Union can be dissolved. To make the attempt is treason, and 
 punishable with death. It is the dream of folly or fanati- 
 cism to suppose that the Union can be dissolved without war. 
 The very first overt act in that direction, would be an act of 
 hostility ; virtually a declaration of war. Let the attempt be 
 made by the ultra slave-holders of the South, or the little hand- 
 ful of zealous and eloquent philanthropists of Boston, of the 
 disunion school, who seem to think the whole moral and polit- 
 ical world turns on them as on a pivot, and if the whole coun- 
 try from Maine to California did not burst into a loud explosion 
 of mirth, like the "infinite laughter of the ocean," at the folly 
 of the enterprise, it would apply sharp steel and swift-flying 
 bullets in all needful haste. In short, it is utterly impossible 
 to procure a peaceable dissolution of the Union. Is it then 
 worth while to plunge the country into a civil war, of the most 
 bitter and unrelenting kind ? Does philanthropy or religion 
 urge us to shed fraternal blood in torrents, and to lay waste 
 the fairest heritage of freedom ? 
 
 But it may be said, that wc can in time persuade the people 
 of tlie country peaceably to sever the connection which now 
 3 
 
18 
 
 binds them in one great confederacy. It is probable that some 
 persons really think thus, because while advocating dissolution, 
 they are opposed to all wars and fightings. The idea then 
 amounts to this. You can persuade the people of this country 
 peaceably to dissolve the Union, for the purpose of releasing 
 the citizens of the free States from all constitutional obligation 
 to assist in restoring fugitive slaves. But what child cannot 
 see that when you can persuade the southern half of this 
 Union to consent to such a measure, for such a purpose, they 
 will also be persuaded to break the fetters of all their bond- 
 men ? In that case, there would be no slaves left, and conse- 
 quently no fugitive slaves to recapture. Therefore we can 
 find no relief by attempting to dissolve the Union. 
 
 There is still another course which has been suggested as a 
 remedy for individuals. It is something like this. Let every 
 individual set himself free from the government. Let each 
 one get up a little declaration of independence, and sever the 
 bonds which unite him to the political community. Refuse to 
 take the oath of office. Decline to take office. Place yourself 
 without the protection of law, and leave the rest of the people 
 to do the same ; or cling together, and go on in wrong doing. 
 The objection to this plan is, that it is utterly impracticable. 
 You can no more escape the bonds, responsibilities, and safe- 
 guards of society, than you can avoid the sunlight, or the vital 
 air. Do you suppose those men who refuse to take the oath of 
 office, who refuse to vote, and who decline official station, 
 really escape from the obligations which others incur? They 
 are indeed free from the cares of office, if they decline office ; 
 but in all other respects they are like the rest of the com- 
 munity. They, like us, claim the protection of society. Do 
 they not keep book accounts ? Do they not give and take 
 notes, bonds, and mortgages ? Is not the dowry of their 
 widows, and the inheritance of their children, secured by law; 
 by legally attested wills ; by all needful legal formalities ? Do 
 they not voluntarily pay taxes to support a government based 
 on military force ? Most assuredly; and in doing this, their 
 common sense triumphs over their hair-brained speculations. 
 
 We do not clearly see how we can get rid of the constitu- 
 tion, or rather the obnoxious section of it, by such methods as 
 
19 
 
 these. It is much better to face it boldly ; to give up all 
 attempts to alter or overthrow the constitution ; and then de- 
 termine what we will do. What then is our dnty under the 
 existing law ? What will be our duty if the proposed law 
 shall go into effect ? Shall we obey it, or shall we break it ? 
 Before deciding this point, another question may as well be 
 settled. It is this. Who of us is affected by the present law? 
 That is, who are enjoined to do any thing, positively, to exe- 
 cute it ? Probably not ten men in the Commonwealth. 
 Under the proposed law, the number will be increased, as the 
 office-holders named in the bill, amount to several hundred, in 
 the State. In the whole country, they number several thous- 
 ands. The law directly commands their aid, and this assist- 
 ance they are legally bound to render. The question now 
 returns, what is their duty? That, of course, depends upon 
 the nature of the law. If it is morally wrong to obey, they 
 must not do it, as ihoy would preserve their allegiance to God. 
 The law requires them to render aid and assistance in securing 
 and returning a slave to his master. This I hold to be morally 
 wrong, inasmuch as the idea of property in man, on which the 
 law is founded, cannot be admitted without overturning all the 
 rights of persons and of things. I can have no more moral 
 right to seize a runaway man called a slave, than he has to 
 seize me, and reduce me to bondage. Indeed, it is impossible 
 to reason on that side, without subverting all the foundation 
 principles of morals ; all the rights of man. It is therefore 
 morally wrong to hold men in bondage, and subject them to 
 the condition of chattel slavery, without an express warrant 
 from the Almighty, authorizing you to be his agent in punish- 
 ing them for their sins. It is equally wrong to aid in executing 
 a law which forces the fugitive back to the horrors of slavery. 
 This being the case, the officer who may be called upon to 
 aid in the recapture of a fugitive, has two courses before him. 
 When a real case occurs, he can resign his office, and return 
 his commission. Or he can openly refuse to obey, and take 
 the consequences. The government comes to him, and hold- 
 ing its sword over his head, says, "Do this."- The law of 
 God comes to him, and with flaming bolts of vengeance, says, 
 " Do not that." Each authority says to the trembling official; 
 
20 
 
 " Choose your side, show to which government you will yield 
 allegiance, 
 
 ' Under which king, Benzonian ? 
 Speak, or die.' " 
 
 The result will show the man's moral principle, or his want 
 of it. If he fears man, and loves office, more than he regards 
 justice and the will of God, he will basely pander to slavery. 
 If he loves righteousness and hates robbery, he will leave the 
 law to be executed by those whose natures are mean and de- 
 based enough to permit them to do the unholy work. But the 
 slave-holder, and his distinguished northern advocate, claim that 
 the officer is bound by oath to sustain and execute the law. 
 The answer is two-fold. In the first place, no man can be 
 bound by oath to do wrong. If he has entered into such an 
 engagement, it is his duty to break his promise. No govern- 
 ment has a right to impose such an oath, or to require its fulfil- 
 ment. There is a prevalent mistake on this subject. It is 
 often said, you must keep your promise, whatever it is. But 
 this is setting your promise above the law of God. If that 
 forbids you to make or to keep the promise, it is your duty to 
 forfeit it ; and for so doing, God will grant you absolution. If 
 you have made a bargain which proves to be disadvantageous 
 to you, honor and truth require you to fulfill it unto the utter- 
 most farthing. But suppose you have agreed with a few 
 others, to seize a neighbor, bind him hand and foot, and whip 
 him within an inch of his life. Are you bound to keep that 
 promise ? Is there any moral obligation to fulfill that bargain? 
 Suppose you engage to do any thing a man may require of 
 you, provided he will gratify you in a certain particular. Are 
 you bound to keep that promise, if he demands that you shall 
 murder his enemy ? We have a case in point. Herod made 
 a promise to a lascivious dancing girl. In fulfillment of that 
 promise, she demanded the head of John the Baptist. Did he 
 do right in keeping that promise ? Did moral obligation re- 
 quire him to shed the blood of the forerunner of the Son of 
 God ? The whole world, savage, barbarian, and Christian, 
 brand him as a murderer. 
 
 In the second place, the oath of office is always taken, in a 
 
21 
 
 Christian land and by men of principle, with the tacit nnder- 
 standing that the rights of conscience are reserved. Daniel 
 took office under the king of Babylon, but he had no idea of 
 breaking the law of God in obedience to the mandate of that 
 sovereign. When the conflict of jurisdictions arose, he obeyed 
 God rather than man, and took the consequences. He acted 
 like a man of principle in a pagan land. In Christian nations, 
 no man supposes that in taking office, he binds himself to do 
 that which is morally wrong. It is understood, that when a 
 conflict arises ; when two governments come into collision, the 
 lower will give way to the higher; the human to the divine ; 
 the wrong to the right ; the weakness of human strength to 
 the omnipotence of God. 
 
 But there is another provision of the law which affects or 
 may affect us all, in a negative way. It does not command us 
 to assist in recapturing the fugitive ; but it forbids us, by se- 
 vere penalties, to aid him in his bold and praiseworthy strike 
 for freedom. It threatens us for giving him food, clothing, or 
 lodging, or a ride in our wagon towards the north star, provided 
 we are informed he is a slave. This is too inhuman to need 
 any argument against it. Altogether needless is it to expect 
 that it will be observed. Let us see the man, in all New 
 England, who would turn the hunted fugitive from his door, 
 or refuse him the luxury of a plentiful dinner, or scruple to 
 encourage him in his escape. Who is there in all the north, so 
 unspeakably base and devilish, as to keep any terms with such 
 a law ! It strikes down the most sacred rights of man ; it 
 makes war with all the best feelings of our nature ; it impu- 
 dently runs against the moral attributes of Jehovah. 
 
 No ; the principles of justice, the laws of God, forbid us to 
 obey the provision of the statute of Congress, which prohibits 
 us from treating the fugitive with humanity ; and that other 
 provision which positively requires certain officials to aid in 
 reducing men to all the debasement of southern servitude. It 
 is our duty to disregard such laws while they exist, and to 
 repeal them as fast as we can. 
 
 Perhaps it may come to be the understanding, that the con- 
 stitution simply requires us of the free States not to interfere 
 in the matter at all ; but merely to permit the slaveholder, or 
 
22 
 
 his agent, to traverse our territory, in pursuit of his flying 
 bondman. It may in time, be the doctrine, that we are only 
 forbidden to discharge the " fugitive from service or labor," 
 and bound to deliver him up ; that is, not obstruct, in an illegal 
 manner, his recapture. Possibly we shall learn, that the "per- 
 son held to service or labor," has some rights under certain 
 other sections of the constitution. For example, the section 
 or article which asserts that no person shall " be deprived of 
 life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." At all 
 events, the time has come, or is speedily coming, when we 
 shall not be compelled to sustain the existing or the proposed 
 law. As the slave flies, we may look on and see the chase, 
 without being required, whether in ofiice, or out of oflice, to 
 take any part. Such, I doubt not, will the law eventually be. 
 But let legislation take such shape as it will, surely no law can 
 bind or control our sympathies, or prevent our prayers ascend- 
 ing to God. We may encourage the fugitive as he bounds on 
 his way, and shout with joy as he leaps the barrier which 
 shields him from pursuit. We may also show the slave-catcher, 
 or rather the slave-hunter, a little of our feelings. Although 
 the constitution may impose some restraint on our endeavors, 
 and prevent us from putting a whip in the hands of every hon- 
 est man, 
 
 " To lash the rascal naked through the land," 
 
 back to the place whence he came, we are at liberty to raise 
 against him such a storm of contempt, indignation, and abhor- 
 rence, as will be more intolerable than a whip of scorpions. 
 
 There is but one objection to the course here advocated 
 which requires notice. It is said that we make every man the 
 judge of his own duty, and subject the constitution and laws 
 of the country to the caprice of as many individuals as there 
 are in it. Unquestionably it is the duty of every person to 
 decide for himself respecting all duties. The Bible is the 
 only rule of faith ; the sole authoritative guide of life. The 
 Supreme Moral Governor demands that all his subjects shall 
 obey the laws of his kingdom. But the inference which the 
 abettors of laws like this under consideration draw, that such 
 a doctrine overthrows human government, is false. It merely 
 
23 
 
 keeps human authority within proper limits. The very fact 
 that human government is of divine origin, proves that it has 
 limitations. It is absurd to suppose that it can rightfully con- 
 travene the moral laws of its divine Author. Good men have 
 acted upon this principle in all times. The apostles refused to 
 ctey the highest Jewish authority, by saying, " Whether it be 
 right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto 
 God, judge ye ; for we cannot but speak the things which we 
 have seen and heard." And again, " We ought to obey God 
 rather than man." So thought the persecuted Christians under 
 the Roman emperors, and under the papacy. So thought the 
 Covenanters and the Cameronians, the Huguenots and the 
 Quakers, the Puritans and the Pilgrims, who laid the founda- 
 tions of all our good institutions. But these are the very men 
 who make the best of all citizens and subjects. They observe 
 and do the requirements of the laws. They uphold and de- 
 fend magistrates. They are the strength of the state. They 
 are not the men who make a factious opposition to govern- 
 ment. It is only when required by allegiance to God, that 
 they assume the position of resistants to the government ; and 
 when they take this attitude, they do not shrink from the con- 
 sequences. They endure the penalty, and leave God to judge 
 between them and the state. 
 
 We conclude, then, that the law of Congress relating to 
 fugitive slaves is unconstitutional, unjust and wicked ; that it 
 is certainly more severe than the constitution requires ; that 
 any law more severe than the present would be a "superfluity 
 of naughtiness " ; and that, therefore, all such laws must be 
 disregarded. We believe, further, that the true intent and 
 meaning of the constitution can be carried out, without the 
 enactment of a single statute on the subject, by Congress. 
 Therefore, as the law in question violates the declaration of 
 independence ; as it militates against the spirit of the constitu- 
 tion, which was adopted in order '< to establish justice, ensure 
 domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure 
 the blessings of liberty " ; as it is subversive of all the rights 
 of man ; as it conflicts with the moral sense of mankind ; and 
 as it sets up itself in opposition to the commands of God, it is 
 entirely hi vain for the slave-holders, or their friends, to expect 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 24 
 
 012 026 182 4 ^ 
 
 to turn the current of public sentiment in its favor. The 
 determination of the public mind is fast making up, (and the 
 preaching from a thousand pulpits is contributing to form that 
 determination,) that it is mean, wicked, and degrading, to aid 
 in reducing men to slavery. The conviction of the great mass 
 of the people of the free States, is rapidly settling into fixe*d 
 condemnation of this law, and into hearty approval of that 
 good old law, given to the Hebrews by God : " Thou shalt 
 not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from 
 his master unto thee : He shall dwell with thee, even among 
 you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, 
 where it liketh him best : thou shalt not oppress him."