To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Fugitive slave laws

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fugitive slave laws were laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of slaves 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 (Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3). It was thought that forcing states to deliver escaped slaves to slave owners 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 escaped slaves "shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due", which abridged state rights because retrieving slaves was a form of retrieving private property.[1] 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 slaveholders without a jury.[2]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    2 839 510
    1 224
    46 185
    7 101
    335
  • ✪ Slavery - Crash Course US History #13
  • ✪ Federal Fugitive Slave Act
  • ✪ Increasing political battles over slavery in mid 1800s | US History | Khan Academy
  • ✪ MOOC | The Fugitive Slave Question | The Civil War and Reconstruction, 1850-1861 | 1.4.5
  • ✪ Why Did The South Secede?

Transcription

Episode 13 – Slavery Hi, I’m John Green. This is Crashcourse U.S. history and today we’re gonna to talk about slavery, which is not funny. Yeah, so we put a lei on the eagle to try to cheer you up, but, let’s face it, this is going to be depressing. With slavery, every time you think, like, “Oh, it couldn’t have been that bad,” it turns out to have been much worse. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, but what about-- Yeah, Me from the Past, I’m gonna stop you right there because you’re going to embarrass yourself. Slavery was hugely important to America. I mean, it led to a civil war. And it also lasted what at least in U.S. history counts as a long ass time—from 1619 to 1865 And, yes, I know there’s a 1,200 year old church in your neighborhood in Denmark, but we’re not talking about Denmark! But slavery is most important because we still struggle with its legacy. So, yes, today’s episode will probably not be funny. But it will be important. INTRO So, the slave-based economy in the South is sometimes characterized as having been separate from the market revolution, but that’s not really the case. Without southern cotton, the north wouldn’t have been able to industrialize, at least not as quickly, because cotton textiles were one of the first industrially produced products and the most important commodity in world trade by the 19th century. And ¾ of the world’s cotton came from the American South. And, speaking of cotton, why has no one mentioned to me that my collar has been half-popped this entire episode, like I’m trying to recreate the flying nun’s hat? And although there were increasingly fewer slaves in the North as northern states outlawed slavery, cotton shipments overseas made Northern merchants rich, northern bankers financed the purchase of land for plantations. Northern insurance companies insured slaves, who were, after all considered property and very valuable property. And, in addition to turning cotton into cloth for sale overseas, northern manufacturers sold cloth back to the south where it was used to clothe the very slaves who had cultivated it. But certainly the most prominent effects of the slave-based economy were seen in the South. The profitability of slave-based agriculture, especially “King Cotton,” meant that the south would remain largely agricultural and rural. Slave states were home to a few cities, like St. Louis and Baltimore, but with the exception of New Orleans, almost all southern urbanization took place in the Upper South, further away from the large cotton plantations. And slave-based agriculture was so profitable that it siphoned money away from other economic endeavors. Like, there was very little industry in the South – it produced only 10% of the nation’s manufactured goods, and as most of the capital was being plowed into the purchase of slaves, there was very little room for technological innovation like, for instance, railroads. This lack of industry and railroads would eventually make the south suck at the civil war, thankfully. In short, slavery dominated the south, shaping it both economically and culturally. And, slavery wasn’t a minor aspect of American society. By 1860, there were 4 million slaves in the U.S., and in the South, they made up 1/3 of the total population. Although in the popular imagination, most plantations were these sprawling affairs with hundreds of slaves, in reality the majority of slave-holders owned five or fewer slaves. And of course, most white people in the south owned no slaves at all, although if they could afford to, they would sometimes rent slaves to help with their work. These were the so-called “yeoman” farmers who lived self-sufficiently, raised their own food and purchased very little in the market economy. They worked the poorest land and as a result were mostly pretty poor themselves. But even they largely supported slavery, partly perhaps for aspirational reasons and partly because the racism inherent to the system gave even the poorest whites legal and social status. And southern intellectuals worked hard to encourage these ideas of white solidarity and to make the case for slavery. Many of the founders, a bunch of whom you’ll remember held slaves, saw slavery as a necessary evil. Jefferson once wrote, “As it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” The belief that justice and self-preservation couldn’t sit on the same side of the scale was really opposed the American idea and, in the end, it would make the civil war inevitable. But as slavery became more entrenched – and as ideas of liberty and political equality were embraced by more people – some Southerners began to make the case that slavery wasn’t just a necessary evil. They argued, for instance, that slaves benefited from slavery. Because, you know, their masters fed them and clothed them and took care of them in their old age. You still hear this argument today, astonishingly. In fact, you’ll probably see asshats in the comments saying that. I will remind you, it’s not cursing if you are referring to an actual ass. This paternalism allowed masters to see themselves as benevolent, and to contrast their family oriented slavery with the cold mercenary capitalism of the free labor north. So, yeah, in the face of rising criticism of slavery, some Southerners began to argue that the institution was actually good for the social order. One of the best-known proponents of this view was John C. Calhoun who, in 1837 said this in a speech on the Senate floor: “I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good — a positive good.” John: Now, of course, John C. Calhoun was a fringe politician and nobody took his views particularly seriously … Stan: Well, he was secretary of state from 1844 to 1845. John: Well, I mean, who really cares about the Secretary of State, Stan … Danica: Ehh, also Secretary of War from 1817 to 1825. John: Alright, but we don’t even have a Secretary of War anymore. Meredith: And he was Vice President from 1825 to 1832. John: Oh my God, were we insane? We were, of course. But we justified the insanity—with biblical passages and with the examples of the Greeks and Romans and with outright racism, arguing that black people were inherently inferior to whites and that NOT to keep them in slavery would upset the natural order of things, a worldview popularized millennia ago by my nemesis, Aristotle. God, I hate Aristotle. You know what defenders of Aristotle always say? He was the first person to identify dolphins. Well, okay. Dolphin-identifier. Yes, that is what he should be remembered for, but he’s a terrible philosopher. Here’s the truth about slavery: It was coerced labor that relied upon intimidation and brutality and dehumanization. And this wasn’t just a cultural system, it was a legal one. I mean, Louisiana law proclaimed that a slave “owes his master…a respect without bounds, and an absolute obedience.” The signal feature of slaves’ lives was work. I mean, conditions and tasks varied, but all slaves labored, usually from sunup to sundown, and almost always without any pay. Most slaves worked in agriculture on plantations and conditions were different depending on which crops were grown. Like, slaves on the rice plantations of South Carolina had terrible working conditions but they labored under the task system, which meant that once they had completed their allotted daily work, they would have time to do other things. But lest you imagine this as like how we have work and leisure time, bear in mind that they were owned and treated as property. On cotton plantations, most slaves worked in gangs, usually under the control of an overseer or another slave who was called a driver. This was backbreaking work done in the southern sun and humidity and so it’s not surprising that whippings or the threat of them were often necessary to get slaves to work. It’s easy enough to talk about the brutality of slave discipline, but it can be difficult to internalize it. Like, you look at these pictures, but because you’ve seen them over and over again, they don’t have the power they once might have. The pictures can tell a story about cruelty, but they don’t necessarily communicate how arbitrary it all was. As for example in this story told by a woman who was a slave as a young girl. “[The] overseer … went to my father one morning and said, “Bob, I’m gonna whip you this morning.” Daddy said, “I ain’t done nothing,” and he said “I know it, I’m going to whip you to keep you from doing nothing,” and he hit him with that cowhide – you know it would cut the blood out of you with every lick if they hit you hard.” That brutality – the whippings, the brandings, the rape – was real and it was intentional because in order for slavery to function, slaves had to be dehumanized. This enabled slaveholders to rationalize what they were doing and, it was hoped, to reduce slaves to the animal property that is implied by the term “chattel slavery.” So the idea was that slaveholders wouldn’t think of their slaves as human. And slaves wouldn’t think of themselves as human. But, it didn’t work. But more importantly, slaveowners were never able to convince the slaves themselves that they were anything less than human. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Slaves resistance to their dehumanization took many forms, but the primary way was by forming families. Family was a refuge for slaves and a source of dignity that masters recognized and sought to stifle. A paternalistic slaveowner named Bennett H. Barrow wrote in his rules for the Highland Plantation: “No rule that I have stated is of more importance than that relating to Negroes marrying outside of the plantation … It creates a feeling of independence.” Most slaves did marry, usually for life, and when possible, slaves grew up in two-parent households. Single parent households were common, though, as a result of one parent being sold. In the Upper South, where the economy was shifting from tobacco to different, less labor-intensive cash crops, the sale of slaves was common. Perhaps 1/3 of slave marriages in states like Virginia were broken up by sale. Religion was also an important part of life in slavery. While masters wanted their slaves to learn the parts of the Bible that talked about being happy in bondage, slave worship tended to focus on the stories of Exodus, where Moses brought the slaves out of bondage, or Biblical heroes who overcame great odds, like Daniel and David. And although most slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write, many did anyway, and some became preachers. Slave preachers were often very charismatic leaders, and they roused the suspicion of slave owners, and not without reason. Two of the most important slave uprisings in the south were led by preachers. Thanks, Thought Bubble. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? We’re doing two set pieces in a row? Alright...The rules here are simple. I wanted to reshoot that, but Stan said no. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. If I am wrong, I get shocked with the shock pen. “Since I have been in the Queen’s dominions I have been well contented, Yes well contented for Sure, man is as God intended he should be. That is, all are born free and equal. This is a wholesome law, not like the Southern laws which puts man made in the image of God on level with brutes. O, what will become of the people, and where will they stand in the day of Judgment. Would that the 5th verse of the 3rd chapter of Malachi were written as with a bar of iron, and the point of a diamond upon every oppressor’s heart that they might repent of this evil, and let the oppressed go free…” Alright, it’s definitely a preacher, because only preachers have read Malachi. Probably African American. Probably not someone from the south. I’m going to guess that it is Richard Allen, the founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church? Dang it! It’s Joseph Taper? And Stan just pointed out to me that I should have known it was Joseph Taper because it starts out, “Since I have been in the Queen’s dominions.” He was in Canada. He escaped slavery to Canada. The Queen’s dominions! Alright, Canadians, I blame you for this. Although thank you for abolishing slavery decades before we did. AH! So the mystery document shows one of the primary ways that slaves resisted their oppression: by running away. Although some slaves, like Joseph Taper, escaped slavery for good by running away to Northern free states or even to Canada where they wouldn’t have to worry about fugitive slave laws, even more slaves ran away temporarily, hiding out in the woods or the swamps and eventually returning. No one knows exactly how many slaves escaped to freedom, but the best estimate is that 1,000 or so a year made the journey northwards. Most fugitive slaves were young men, but the most famous runaway has been hanging out behind me all day long, Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman escaped to Philadelphia at the age of 29 and over the course of her life she made about 20 trips back to Maryland to help friends and relatives make the journey north on the Underground Railroad. But a most dramatic form of resistance to slavery was actual armed rebellion, which was attempted. Now individuals sometimes took matters into their own hands and beat or sometimes even killed their white overseers or masters, like “Bob,” the guy who received the arbitrary beating, responded to it by killing his overseer with a hoe. But that said, large-scale slave uprisings were relatively rare. The four most famous ones all took place in a 35 year period at the beginning of the 19th century. Gabriel’s rebellion in 1800, which we talked about before, was discovered before he was able to carry out his plot. Then, in 1811 a group of slaves upriver from New Orleans seized cane knives and guns and marched on the city before militia stopped them. And, in 1822 Denmark Vesey, a former slave who had purchased his freedom may have organized a plot to destroy Charleston, South Carolina. I say may have because the evidence against him is disputed and comes from a trial that was not fair. But, regardless, the end result of that trial is that he was executed as were 34 slaves. But, the most successful slave rebellion, at least in the sense that they actually killed some people, was Nat Turner’s in August 1831. Turner, was a preacher and with a group of about 80 slaves, he marched from farm to farm in Southampton County Virginia killing the inhabitants, most of whom were women and children because the men were attending a religious revival meeting in North Carolina. Turner and 17 other rebels were captured and executed, but not before they struck terror into the hearts of whites all across the American south. Virginia’s response was to make slavery worse, passing even harsher laws that forbade slaves from preaching and prohibited teaching them to read. Other slave states followed Virginia’s lead and by the 1830s, slavery had grown if anything more harsh. So this shows that large-scale armed resistance was, Django Unchained aside, not just suicidal but also a threat to loved ones, and really to all slaves. But it is hugely important to emphasize that slaves DID resist their oppression. Sometimes this meant taking up arms, but usually it meant more subtle forms of resistance, like intentional work slowdowns, or sabotaging equipment, or pretending not to understand instructions. And, most importantly, in the face of systematic, legal, and cultural degradation they reaffirmed their humanity through family and through faith. Why is this so important? Because too often in America we still talk about slaves as if they failed to rise up, when in fact rising up would not have made life better for them or for their families. The truth is, sometimes carving out an identity as a human being in a social order that is constantly seeking to dehumanize you is the most powerful form of resistance. Refusing to become the chattel that their masters believed them to be is what made slavery untenable, and the Civil War inevitable. So make no mistake: Slaves fought back. And in the end, they won. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. The script supervisor is Meredith Danko. Our associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week, there’s a new caption to the libertage, but today’s episode was so sad that we couldn’t fit a libertage in UNTIL NOW. Suggest libertage captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be abolitionist. CCUS 13 -

Contents

Pre-colonial and Colonial eras

Slavery in the 13 colonies, 1770. Numbers show actual and estimated enslaved population by colony. Colors show enslaved population as a percentage of each colony's total population. Boundaries shown are based on 1860 state boundaries, not those of 1770 colonies.[3]
Slavery in the 13 colonies, 1770. Numbers show actual and estimated enslaved population by colony. Colors show enslaved population as a percentage of each colony's total population. Boundaries shown are based on 1860 state boundaries, not those of 1770 colonies.[3]

The Articles of Confederation of the New England Confederation of 1643 contained a clause that provided for the return of fugitive slaves. However, this only referred to the confederation of colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven, and was unrelated to the Articles of Confederation of the United States formed after the Declaration of Independence. Both Africans and Native Americans were slaves in the New England colonies even in the 18th century.[4] The Articles for the New England Confederation provided for the return of slaves in Section 8:

It is also agreed that if any servant run away from his master into any other of these confederated Jurisdictions, that in such case, upon the certificate of one magistrate in the Jurisdiction out of which the said servant fled, or upon other due proof; the said servant shall be delivered, either to his master, or any other that pursues and brings such certificate or proof.[5]

As the colonies grew and settlers expanded into other areas, slavery continued in the English territories and in former Dutch territories like New Amsterdam, which became New York.

Serious attempts at formulating a uniform policy for the recapture of escaped slaves began under the Articles of Confederation of the United States in 1785.

1785 attempt

There were two attempts at implementing a fugitive slave law in the Congress of the Confederation in order to provide slave owners with a way of recapturing escaped slaves.

The Ordinance of 1784 was drafted by a Congressional committee headed by Thomas Jefferson, and its provisions applied to all United States territory west of the original 13 states. The original version was read to Congress on March 1, 1784, and it contained a clause stating:[6]

That after the year 1800 of the Christian Era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty.

Rufus King's failed resolution to re-implement the slavery prohibition in the Ordinance of 1784.
Rufus King's failed resolution to re-implement the slavery prohibition in the Ordinance of 1784.

This was removed prior to final enactment of the ordinance on 23 April 1784. However, the issue did not die there, and on 6 April 1785 Rufus King introduced a resolution to re-implement the slavery prohibition in the 1784 ordinance, containing a fugitive slave provision in the hope that this would reduce opposition to the objective of the resolution. The resolution contained the phrase:[7]

Provided always, that upon the escape of any person into any of the states described in the said resolve of Congress of the 23d day of April, 1784, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the thirteen original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and carried back to the person claiming his labor or service as aforesaid, this resolve notwithstanding.

The unsuccessful resolution was the first attempt to include a fugitive slave provision in U.S. legislation.

While the original 1784 ordinance applied to all U.S. territory that was not a part of any existing state (and thus, to all future states), the 1787 ordinance applied only to the Northwest Territory.

Northwest Ordinance of 1787

Congress made a further attempt to address the concerns of slave owners over runaway slaves in 1787 by passing the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.[8] The law appeared to outlaw slavery, which would have reduced the votes of slave states in Congress, but southern representatives were concerned with economic competition from potential slaveholders in the new territory, and the effects that would have on the prices of staple crops such as tobacco. They correctly predicted that slavery would be permitted south of the Ohio River under the Southwest Ordinance of 1790, and therefore did not view this as a threat to slavery.[9] In terms of the actual law, it did not ban slavery in practice, and it continued almost until the start of the Civil War.[10]

King's phrasing from the 1785 attempt was incorporated in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 when it was enacted on 13 July 1787.[6] Article 6 has the provision for runaway slaves:

Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.[11]

Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

When Congress created "An Act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters", or more commonly known as the Fugitive Slave Act, they were responding to slave owners' need to protect their property rights, as written into the 1787 Constitution. Article IV of the Constitution required the federal government to go after runaway slaves.[12] The 1793 Fugitive Slave Act was the mechanism by which the government did that, and it was only at this point the government could pursue runaway slaves in any state or territory, and ensure slave owners of their property rights.[13]

Section 3 is the part that deals with fugitive or runaway slaves, and reads in part:

SEC. 3. ... That when a person held to labor in any of the United States, or of the Territories on the Northwest or South of the river Ohio ... shall escape into any other part of the said States or Territory, the person to whom such labor or service may be due ... is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labor ... and upon proof ... before any Judge ... it shall be the duty of such Judge ... [to remove] the said fugitive from labor to the State or Territory from which he or she fled.

Section 4 makes assisting runaways and fugitives a crime and outlines the punishment for those who assisted runaway slaves:

SEC. 4. ... That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant ... shall ... forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars.[14]

In the early 19th century, personal liberty laws were passed to hamper officials in the execution of the law, but this was mostly after the abolition of the Slave Trade, as there had been very little support for abolition prior; Indiana in 1824 and Connecticut in 1828 provided jury trial for fugitives who appealed from an original decision against them. In 1840, New York and Vermont extended the right of trial by jury to fugitives and provided them with attorneys. As early as the first decade of the 19th century, individual dissatisfaction with the law of 1793 had taken the form of systematic assistance rendered to African Americans escaping from the South to Canada or New England: the so-called Underground Railroad.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania in 1842 (16 Peters 539)—that state authorities could not be forced to act in fugitive slave cases, but that national authorities must carry out the national law—was followed by legislation in Massachusetts (1843), Vermont (1843), Pennsylvania (1847) and Rhode Island (1848), forbidding state officials from aiding in enforcing the law and refusing the use of state jails for fugitive slaves.

1850 Fugitive Slave Act

Massachusetts had abolished slavery in 1783, but the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 required government officials to assist slavecatchers in capturing fugitives within the state.
Massachusetts had abolished slavery in 1783, but the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 required government officials to assist slavecatchers in capturing fugitives within the state.

The demand from the South for more effective Federal legislation was voiced in the second fugitive slave law, drafted by Senator James Murray Mason of Virginia, grandson of George Mason, and enacted on September 18, 1850, as a part of the Compromise of 1850. Special commissioners were to have concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. circuit and district courts and the inferior courts of territories in enforcing the law; fugitives could not testify in their own behalf; no trial by jury was provided.

Penalties were imposed upon marshals who refused to enforce the law or from whom a fugitive should escape, and upon individuals who aided black people to escape; the marshal might raise a posse comitatus; a fee of $10 ($301 in today's dollars)[15] was paid to the commissioner when his decision favored the claimant, only $5 ($151 in today's dollars) [15] when it favored the fugitive. The supposed justification for the disparity in compensation was that, if the decision were in favor of the claimant, additional effort on the part of the commissioner would be required in order to fill out the paperwork actually remanding the slave back to the South.[16] Both the fact of the escape and the identity of the fugitive were determined on purely ex parte testimony. If a slave was brought in and returned to the master, the person who brought in the slave would receive the sum of $10 ($301 in today's dollars)[15] per slave.

The severity of this measure led to gross abuses and defeated its purpose; the number of abolitionists increased, the operations of the Underground Railroad became more efficient, and new personal liberty laws were enacted in Vermont (1850), Connecticut (1854), Rhode Island (1854), Massachusetts (1855), Michigan (1855), Maine (1855 and 1857), Kansas (1858) and Wisconsin (1858). The personal liberty laws forbade justices and judges to take cognizance of claims, extended the Habeas corpus act and the privilege of jury trial to fugitives, and punished false testimony severely. In 1854, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin went so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional.[17]

These state laws were one of the grievances that South Carolina would later use to justify its secession from the Union. Attempts to carry into effect the law of 1850 aroused much bitterness. The arrests of Thomas Sims and of Shadrach Minkins in Boston in 1851; of Jerry M. Henry, in Syracuse, New York, in the same year; of Anthony Burns in 1854, in Boston; and of the two Garner families in 1856, in Cincinnati, with other cases arising under the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, probably had as much to do with bringing on the Civil War as did the controversy over slavery in the Territories.[citation needed]

Civil War-era legal status of fugitive slaves

A Ride for Liberty—The Fugitive Slaves (c. 1862) by Eastman Johnson Brooklyn Museum
A Ride for Liberty—The Fugitive Slaves (c. 1862) by Eastman Johnson Brooklyn Museum

With the beginning of the Civil War, the legal status of the slave was changed by his masters being in arms. Benjamin Franklin Butler, in May 1861, declared black slaves are contraband of war. The Confiscation Act of 1861 was passed in August 1861, and discharged from service or labor any slave employed in aiding or promoting any insurrection against the government of the United States.

By the congressional Act Prohibiting the Return of Slaves of March 13, 1862, any slave of a disloyal master who was in territory occupied by Northern troops was declared ipso facto free. But for some time the Fugitive Slave Law was considered still to hold in the case of fugitives from masters in the border states who were loyal to the Union government, and it was not until June 28, 1864, that the Act of 1850 was fully repealed.[18]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Baker, Robert (2014). "A Better Story in Prigg v. Pennsylvania?". Journal of Supreme Court History 39: 171.
  2. ^ Finkelman, Paul (2012). "State Rights, Southern hypocrisy, and the crisis of the Union". Akron Law Review: 453.
  3. ^ New York and New Hampshire claimed what was to become Vermont. Kentucky was a county of Virginia. Tennessee was a county of North Carolina. Even less neatly, delegates attended the colonial Virginia House of Burgesses from north of the Ohio River in what would later be Ohio and Illinois.
  4. ^ Rausch, David A.; Schlepp, Blair (1994-01-01). Native American Voices. VNR AG. ISBN 9780801077739.
  5. ^ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/art1613.asp
  6. ^ a b Merriam 1888:308–310, Leg. Hist. Ord. of 1787.
  7. ^ Merriam 1888:314, Leg. Hist. Ord. of 1787
  8. ^ "Avalon Project - Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787". avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2016-10-12.
  9. ^ Pohlmann, Marcus D.; Whisenhunt, Linda Vallar (2002). Student's Guide to Landmark Congressional Laws on Civil Rights. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 14. doi:10.1336/0313313857. ISBN 0-313-31385-7.
  10. ^ "Evading the Ordinance: The Persistence of Bondage in Indiana and Illinois", Paul Finkelman, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Spring 1989), pp. 21.
  11. ^ "Avalon Project - Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787". avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2016-10-12.
  12. ^ "Article IV". LII / Legal Information Institute. 2009-11-12. Retrieved 2016-10-12.
  13. ^ Pohlmann, Marcus; Linda Whisenhunt (2002). Student's Guide to Landmark Congressional Laws on Civil Rights. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 22. ISBN 0-313-31385-7.
  14. ^ "Redirection of: The President's House". www.ushistory.org. Archived from the original on 2009-09-23. Retrieved 2016-10-12.
  15. ^ a b c Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Community Development Project. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved January 2, 2019.
  16. ^ James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, p. 80 (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003 paper edn.)
  17. ^ Wisconsin Supreme Court (1855). Unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act. Milwaukee.
  18. ^ 12 Stat. 200, c.166.

References

Attribution

Further reading

This page was last edited on 21 January 2019, at 14:22
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.