Figure 1.--

The U.S. Constitution does not mention slavery. This was a major problem at the Convention. The southern delegates demanded that it be included, but the norther delegates were insistent. There is a prevision for fugitives that is called a fugitive slave provision, but it does not refer to slaves (Article IV, Section 2). Rather than slaves, it refers to 'service or labour'. At the time there were still indentured servants, although slavery was far more important. Important to note here is that the Constitution does not create a Federal police force that would be needed to effectively enforce this. Thus there was no basis for pursing fugitive slaves who reached free states. This was not much of a problem when the Constitution was drafted and ratified there were no free states. As the northern states began abolishing slavery in the early-19th century, it became an increasing problem. As public opinion shifted in the North it became increasingly difficult for slave owners to get their slaves back that made it to a northern free states. There were two Federal Fugitive slave laws. (We do not know about state laws.) The two Federal laws were the 1793 and 1850 Acts. These Acts for the seizure and return of runaway enslaved people who escaped from a their owners into a another state. The southern delegates to the Convention did not get slavery mentioned in the Constitution. They did get a Fugitive Slave Law in 1773. This is a being difference. Laws an be repealed, it is a far more difficult proposition to amend the Constitution. The 1793 law was passed enforced Article IV, Section 2. It authorizing Federal district judge or circuit court judge or state magistrates to rule without a jury trial the status of an alleged fugitive from indentured service or slavery. This law met with opposition in the Northern states which were beginning recognize the gross moral violation of slavery and this only incensed decade by decade. The northern states began enacting personal-liberty laws to interfere with the enforcement of Federal law. And this began even before abolition laws were passed in the North. The laws were designed to allow fugitives who appealed an original decision to a jury trial. This of course would enable local attitudes toward slavery to impact the decisions on returning slaves to heir owners. One author reports that beginning early in the 19th century, people in the North (where few Blacks lived) began objecting to the 1793 Fugitive Slave Law on moral grounds. A decided minority at first, but opposition grew over time and the Abolitionist Movement was founded. This process varied from state to state. We begin to see systematic assistance being provided enslaved lacks escaping from the South, primarily to New England or Canada and the development of the Underground Railroad. This resulted in increasing demands from the Southern Slave States for a more-effective fugitive slave law. With increasing rise of sectional tension Congress passed the second Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850. This included a range of issues related to slavery including abolishing the slave trade in Washington, D.C. The Second Fugitive Slave Act included provisions mandating that slaves could not testify on their own behalf and were not permitted a trial by jury. This invalidated state laws to the contrary. In addition, hefty penalties were imposed upon federal marshals who did not enforce the law or allowed a fugitive to escaped. There were also sanctions for individuals who helped run-away slaves to escape. The 1850 law also provided special commissioners which had concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. courts. While the new law seems draconian on paper, it also inflamed anti-slavery sentiment in the North. We do not have any data on the extent to which the Law returned more runaways to their winners, but the increasingly intense anti-slavery sentiment in the North seems to have convinced many if not most most southern slave owners that they needed to leave the Union. So while the Abolitionist movement grew in the North, secessionist support grew in the South. This is important because the only realistic way that slavery could be abolished in America was by force anf this mean civil war. Thus the Southern secessionist were in essence doming the slave system that they were intent on preserving at any cost.

Constitution: Article IV

The U.S. Constitution does not mention slavery. This was a major problem at the Convention. The southern delegates demanded that it be included, but the norther delegates were insistent. There is a prevision for fugitives that is called a fugitive slave provision, but it does not refer to slaves (Article IV, Section 2). Rather than slaves, it refers to 'service or labour'. At the time there were still indentured servants, although slavery was far more important. Important to note here is that the Constitution does not create a Federal police force that would be needed to effectively enforce this. Thus there was no basis for pursing fugitive slaves who reached free states. This was not much of a problem when the Constitution was drafted and ratified there were no free states. As the northern states began abolishing slavery in the early-19th century, it became an increasing problem. As public opinion shifted in the North it became increasingly difficult for slave owners to get their slaves back that made it to a northern free states.

Fugative Slave Laws

There were two Federal Fugitive slave laws. (We do not know about state laws.) The two Federal laws were the 1793 and 1850 Acts. These Acts for the seizure and return of runaway enslaved people who escaped from a their owners into a another state.

1773 Act

The southern delegates to the Convention did not get slavery mentioned in the Constitution. They did get a Fugitive Slave Law in 1773. This is a being difference. Laws an be repealed, it is a far more difficult proposition to amend the Constitution. The 1793 law was passed enforced Article IV, Section 2. It authorizing Federal district judge or circuit court judge or state magistrates to rule without a jury trial the status of an alleged fugitive from indentured service or slavery. This law met with opposition in the Northern states which were beginning recognize the gross moral violation of slavery and this only incensed decade by decade. The northern states began enacting personal-liberty laws to interfere with the enforcement of Federal law. And this began even before abolition laws were passed in the North. The laws were designed to allow fugitives who appealed an original decision to a jury trial. This of course would enable local attitudes toward slavery to impact the decisions on returning slaves to heir owners.

Fugative Slaves

One author reports that beginning early in the 19th century, people in the North (where few Blacks lived) began objecting to the 1793 Fugitive Slave Law on moral grounds. A decided minority at first, but opposition grew over time and the Abolitionist Movement was founded. This process varied from state to state. Abolitionswee a first seen as rafical fringe gradually became increasingly strogly felt in the northern states which one by one began abolishing slavery. And without a Federalm police force, enforcing the 1773 Act was incrreasingly difficult. The Aboltionist Movement became an increasing force. The Quakers played an imprtant role. The British and American Abolitionist movements were the only two such moveents of real force worldwide. Capturing runaways bcame difficult in local communities where nti-slavery feeling developed. Attitudes varies in the Nrth in the free states. While slavery was increasing seen as wrong and immoral

Soutern Laws

We assume that the slave states with their slave codes and state comstitutions had proivision concerning fugitive slaves and those who might assist them. We have little information on the laws involved or know of any author wo ha loked in to is. Of curse in the South there were very few people willing to assist run-away slaves. This iswhy almost all he run-aways who mde it fo freedoim were from the border states.

1850 Act

We begin to see systematic assistance being provided enslaved lacks escaping from the South, primarily to New England or Canada and the development of the Underground Railroad. This resulted in increasing demands from the Southern Slave States for a more-effective fugitive slave law. With increasing rise of sectional tension Congress passed the second Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850. This included a range of issues related to slavery including abolishing the slave trade in Washington, D.C. The Second Fugitive Slave Act included provisions mandating that slaves could not testify on their own behalf and were not permitted a trial by jury. This invalidated state laws to the contrary. In addition, hefty penalties were imposed upon federal marshals who did not enforce the law or allowed a fugitive to escaped. There were also sanctions for individuals who helped run-away slaves to escape. The 1850 law also provided special commissioners which had concurrent jurisdiction with the U.S. courts. While the new law seems draconian on paper, it also inflamed anti-slavery sentiment in the North. We do not have any data on the extent to which the Law returned more runaways to their winners, but the increasingly intense anti-slavery sentiment in the North seems to have convinced many if not most most southern slave owners that they needed to leave the Union. The intestity of feeling led to the Bleeding Kansas massacres of the 1850s and ultmatky the John Brown Raid (1859). So while the Abolitionist movement grew in the North, secessionist support grew in the South. This is important because the only realistic way that slavery could be abolished in America was by force anf this mean civil war. Thus the Southern secessionist were in essence doming the slave system that they were intent on preserving at any cost.

Sources

Wickendon, Dorothy. Agitators: The Agitators: Three Friends Who Fought for Abolition and Women's Rights (2022).

Created: 1:34 AM 5/12/2025
Last updated: 1:34 AM 5/12/2025