...

.


GENEALOGY EXPRESS

 

Welcome to
Black
History & Genealogy

 

THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD
FROM
SLAVERY TO FREEDOM

By
WILBUR H. SIEBERT
Associate Professor of European History
in Ohio State University
With an Introduction by
Albert Bushnell Hart
Professor of History in Harvard University

New York
The McMillan Company
London: MacMillan & Co., Ltd.
1898

CHAPTER XI. -
EFFECT OF THE UNDERGROUND RAILROAD

Pg. 340 -

THE Underground Road as a subject for research - Obscurity of the subject - Books dealing with the subject
Magazine articles on the Underground Railroad - Newspaper articles on the subject
Scarcity of contemporaneous documents - Reminiscences the chief source - The value of reminiscences illustrated

     THE effect of Underground Railroad operations in steadily withdrawing from the South some of its property and thus causing constant irritation to slave-owners and slave-traders has already been commented upon.  The persons losing slaves of course regarded their losses as a personal and undeserved misfortune.  Yet, considering the question broadly from the standpo9int of their own interests, the work of the underground system was a relief to the masters and to the South.  The possibility of a servile insurrection was a dreadful thing for Southern minds to contemplate; but they could not easily dismiss the terrible scenes enacted in San Domingo during the yeas 1791 to 1793 and the three famous uprisings of 1800, 1820 and 1831, in South Carolina and Virginia.  The Underground Railroad had among its passengers such persons as Josiah Henson, J. W. Loguen, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, William Wells Brown and Henry Bibb; it therefore furnished the means of escape for persons well qualified for leadership among the slaves, and thereby lessened the danger of an uprising of the blacks against their masters.  The negro historian, Williams, has said of the Underground Road that it served as a "safety-valve to the institution of slavery.  As soon as leaders arose among the slaves, who refused to endure the yoke, they would go North.  Had they remained there must have been enacted at the South the direful scenes of San Domingo."1
     It is difficult to arrive at any satisfactory idea of the actual loss sustained by slave-owners through underground channels.  The charges of bad faith against the free states made in Congress by Southern members where sometimes accompanied

---------------
     1 History of the Negro Race in America, Vol II, pp. 58, 59

[Page 341] - LOSS SUSTAINED BY SLAVE-OWNERS -
by estimates of the amount of human property lost on account of the indisposition of those living north of Mason and Dixon's line to meet the requirements of the fugitive slave legislation.  Thus as early as 1822, Moore, of Virginia, speaking in the House in favor of a new fugitie recovery law, said that the district he represented lost four or five thousand dollars worth of runaway slaves annually.1  In August, 1850, Atchison, of Kentucky, informed the Senate that "depredations to the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars are committed upon the property of the people of the border slave states of this Union annually."2  Pratt of Maryland, said that not less than $80,000 worth of slaves was lost every year b citizens of this state.3  Mason, of Virginia, declared that the losses of ihs state were already too heavy to be borne, that they were increasing from year to year, and were then in excess of $100,000 per year.4  Butler, of South Carolina, reckoned the annual loss of the Southern section at $200,000.5  Clingman, of North Carolina, said that the thirty thousand fugitives then reported to be living in the North were worth at current prices little less than $15,000,000.6  Claiborne, the biographer of General John A. Quitman, who was at one time governor of Louisiana, indicated as one of the defects of the second Fugitive Slave Law its failure to make "provision for the restitution to the South of the $30,000,000, of which she had been plundered through the 100,000 slaves abducted from her in the course of the last forty years" (1810-1850);7 and the same writer stated that slavery was rapidly disappearing from the District of Columbia at the time of the enactment of the new law, the number of slaves "having been reduced since 1840 form

---------------
     1 Benton's Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, Vol. VII, p. 296.
     2 Congressional Glove, Thirty-first Congress, First Session, Appendix, p. 1601.
     3 Ibid., p. 1603.
     4 Ibid., p. 1606.
     5 Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the United States, Vol. III, p. 552.
     6 Congressional Globe
, Thirty-first Congress, First Session, p. 202.  See also Von Holst's work, Vol. III, p. 552, foot-note.
     7 J. F. H. Caliborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman,Vol. II, p. 28.

[Page 342]
4,694 to 650, by 'underground railroads' and felonious abductions."1
     The wide divergences among the estimates here given, as well as the obvious difficulty of getting reliable information in regard to the number of runaway slaves, renders these figures of little use in determining the loss of human property by the slaveholding states.  Nevertheless, the estimates are valuable in illustrating the character of the complaints that were made in Congress, and in enabling one to realize that the tenure of slave property in the border states was rendered precarious by the operations of the Underground Railroad. Can it be thought strange that the disappearance week by week and month by month of valuable slaves over the unknown routes of the underground system should have produced wrath, suspicion and hostility in the minds of people who could justly claim to have a constitutional guarantee, the laws of Congress, and the decisions of the highest courts on their side?
     In the compendiums of the United States Census for 1850 and 1860 are some statistics on fugitive slaves, which fall far short of the most moderate estimates of the Southerners, and flatly disagree with the testimony gathered from all other quarters.  The official reports appear to show that the number of slaves escaping from their masters was small and inconsiderable, that it rapidly decreased, and that it was independent of proximity to a free population.  But the censuses are not only opposed to the evidence, they are on their face inadequate.
     If, as those tables indicate, only 1,011 slaves escaped from their masters in 1850, and only 803 in 1860, and in the latter year only 500 escaped from the border slave states, then it becomes impossible to understand the emphasis laid by Southern men upon the value of their runaway slaves, the steady pressure made by the border states for a more stringent law that resulted in the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and the allegation of bad faith on the part of the North put

---------------
     1 J. F. H. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Vol. II, p. 30.  His figures are, of course, of not correct.

[Pg. 343] - CENSUS REPORTS ON FUGITIVE SLAVES -
forth by the Southern states as a reason for secession.1  In considering the weight to be ascribed to the figures on fugitive slaves supplied by the census compendiums, it is proper to set over against them the showing afforded by the same compendiums relative to the decline of the slave population in the border slave states during the decade 1850-1860;for it is to be noted that the compendiums show a marked decline in these states, that they show a greater percentage of decline in the northernmost counties of these states than in the states as a whole, and, what is even more remarkable, that the loss appears to have been still greater during this time in the four "pan-handle" counties of Virginia than in any of the other states referred to, or in the border counties of any one of them.2  It can scarcely be suggested that the relatively rapid decline of the slave population in the border counties was due to larger shipments of slaves to the far South from these marginal regions without at the same time suggesting that the explanation for such shipments lay in the proximity of a free population and the numerous lines of Underground Railroad maintained by it.  The concurrence of evidence from sources other than the census reports, and the agreement therewith of part of the evidence gathered from these reports themselves, constrains one to say that those who compiled the statistics on fugitive slaves did not secure the facts in full; and that the complaints of large losses sustained by slave-owners through the befriending of fugitive slaves by Northern people, frequently made by Southern representatives in Congress and by the South generally, were not without sufficient foundation.
     It is natural that there should be great variation among the guesses made as to the total number of those indebted for liberty to the Underground Road.  Very few of the persons that harbored runaways were so indiscreet as to keep a register of their hunted visitors.  The hospitality was equal to all possible demands, but was kept strictly secret.   Under these circumstances one should handle all numerical generalizations with caution.

---------------
     1 Census of 1860, pp. 11, 12.  See Tale A, Appendix C, p. 378.
     2 See Tables B and C, Appendix C, p. 379.

[Pg. 344]


Record of Fugitives Aided During Five Months.

[Pg. 345] - FACSIMILEOF OSBORN'S RECORD


Kept by Daniel Osborn, of Alum Creek Settlement, Ohio.

[Pg. 346]
     By rare good fortune the writer has found a single leaf of a diary kept by Daniel Osborn, a Friend or Quaker, of Alum Creek Settlement, Delaware County, Ohio, which gives a record of the blacks passing through that neighborhood during an interval of five months, from April 14 to Sept. 10, 1844.  The accompanying facsimiles, which reproduce the two sides of the leaf, show that the number is forty-seven.  The year in which this memorandum was made may be fairly taken as a average year, and the line on which this Quaker settlement was a station as a representative underground route in Ohio.  Now, along Ohio's southern boundary there were the initial stations of at least twelve important lines of travel, some of which were certainly in operation before 1830.  Let us consider, as we may properly, that the period of operation continued from 1830 to 1860.  Taking these as the elements for a computation, one may reckon that Ohio may have aided not less than 40,000 fugitives in the thirty years included in our reckoning.1 That the number of refugees after 1844 did not decrease is indicated by the statement that during one month in the year of 1854-1855 sixty were harbored by one member of the Alum Creek Settlement.  It is to be remembered that several families of the settlement were engaged in this work.2
     An illustration of underground activity in the East may be ventured.  Mr. Robert Purvis, of Philadelphia, states that he kept a record of the fugitives that passed through the hands of the Vigilance Committee of Philadelphia for a long period, till the trepidation of his family after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Bill in 1850 caused him to destroy it.  His record book showed, he says, an average of one a day sent northward.  In other words, between 1830 and 1860 over 9,000 runaways were aided in Philadelphia.  But we know that the Vigilance Committee did not begin this sort of work in the Quaker City, and that underground activities there date back at least to the time of Isaac T. Hopper’s earliest efforts, that

---------------
     1 This computation was first printed by the writer in the American Historical Review, April, 1896, pp. 462, 463.
     2 Conversation with M. J. Benedict, L. A. Benedict and others, Alum Creek Settlement, Ohio, Dec. 2, 1893.

[Pg. 347] - DRAIN ON RESOURCES OF LAWRENCE DEPOT -
is, 1800 and before.  We also know that there were many centres round about Philadelphia, some of whose work was certainly done independently of that place.
     That the resources of some of the operators in centres in the West were being drained almost to exhaustion by the demands of the heavy traffic towards the close of the underground period, distinctly appears in the following letter from Col. J. Bowles, of Lawrence, Kansas, to Mr. F. B. Sanborn:—

                                                                                                LAWRENCE April 4th, 1859
M
R. F. B. SANBOURN
     Dear Sir at the suggestion of friend Judge Conway I address you these few hastily written lines.  I see I am expected to give you some information as to the present condition of the U. G. R. R. in Kansas or more particularly at the Lawrence depot.  In ofrer that you may fully understand the present condition of affairs I shall ask your permission to relate a small bit of the early history of this, the only paying, R. R. in Kansas.
     Lawrence has been (from the first settlement of Kansas) known and cursed by all slave holders in and out of Mo. for being an abolition town.  Missourians have a peculiar faculty for embracing every opportunity to denounce, curse, and blow every thing they dislike.  This peculiar faculty of theirs gave Lawrence great notoriety in Mo. especially among the negroes to whom the principal part of their denunciations were directed and on whom they were intended to have great effect.  I have learned from negroes who were emigrating from Mo. that they never would have known anything about a land of freedom or that they had a friend in the world only from their master’s continual abuse of the Lawrence abolits.  Slaves are usually very cunning and believe about as much as they please of what the master is telling him (thoug of course he must affect to believe every word) knowing it is to the master’s interest to keep him ignorant of every thing that would make him likely or even wish to be free.
      One old fellow said “when he started to come to Lawrence he didn’t know if all de peoples in disha town war debbils as ole massa had said or not, but dis he did know if he could get dar safe old massa was fraid to come arter him, and if dey all should prove to be bad as ole massa had said he could lib wid dem bout as well as at home.”  Some few of them were unavoidably taken

[Pg. 348]
back to Mo. after leaving here for Iowa.  Many of them found an opportunity to make their escape and bring others with them and none ever failed to be a successful missionary in the cause, telling every one he had a chance to converse with of the land of freedom, and the friends he found in Lawrence.  One man I know well who has been captured twice and was shot each time in resisting his captors (one of whom he killed) told me that he was confident he had assisted in the escape of no less than twenty five of his fellow beings, and that he had also given information or sown the seed that would make a hundred more free men.  He is now with some others in or about Canada.  The last and successful escape was made from western Texas where he was sent for safe keeping.  You can see from the above why L_____ has had more than would seem to be her share of this good work to do.  At first our means were limited and of course could not do much but then we were not so extensively known or patronized.  As our means increased we found a corresponding increase in opportunity for doing good to the white man as well as the black.  Kansas has been preeminently a land of charity.  The friends in the East have helped such objects liberally yet Kansas has had much to do for herself in that line.  To give you an idea of what has been done by the people of this place in U. G. R. R.   I’ll make a statement of the number of fugitives who have found assistance here.  In the last four years I am personally known to [cognizant of] the fact of nearly three hundred fugitives having passed through and received assistance from the abolitionists here at Lawrence.  Thus you see we have been continually strained to meet the heavy demands that were almost daily made upon us to carry on this (not very) gradual emancipation.  I usually have assisted in collecting or begging money for the needy of either class.  Many of the most zealous in the cause of humanity complained (as they had good cause to) that this heavy (and continually increasing) tax was interfering with their business to such a degree that they could not stand it longer and that other provisions must be made by which they would be relieved of a portion of a burden they had long bourn.  This was about the state of affairs last Christmas when as you are aware the slaves have a few days holiday.  Many of them chose this occasion to make a visit to Lawrence and during the week some twenty four came to our town, five or six of the number brought means to assist them on their journey.  These were sent on but the remainder must be kept until money could be raised to send them on.  $150

[Pg. 349] - DRAIN ON RESOURCES OF LAWRENCE DEPOT -
was the ain’t necessary to send them to a place of safety.  Under the circumstances it necessarily took some time to raise that am’t, and a great many persons had to be applied to.  It was not enough that the sympathies and love for the cause of humanity was appealed to in order to raise money, many had to be argued with and shown that the cause was actually in a suffering condition and the fugitives were then in town and the number must also be made known in order that the person might give liberally.  Lawrence like most all towns has her bad men pimps and worst of all a few democrats, all of whom will do anything for money.  Somewhere in the ranks of the intimate friends to the cause these traitors to God and humanity found a judas who for thirty pieces of silver did betray our cause.  This was not suspected until after the capture of Ur Day. . . .  Every thing goes to prove that the capture of Day’s party was the work of a traitor who though suspected has not yet been fairly tried and dealt with as will be done as soon as Day is bailed out which will be done [in] a few days.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

We would like . . . that you plead our cause with those of our friends who are disposed to censure us and convince them we are still worthy and in great need of their respect and cooperation.  I am sorry to say (but tis true) that many of the most zealous in the cause of humanity have become somewhat discouraged by the hard times and the lamentable capture of Day and party and cannot be induced to take hold of it and lend a willing hand.  Never the less the work has went slowly but surely on, until very recently.  Those who have persevered like many others, have found their bottom dollar also of the money so generously contributed by persons of your notable society.  This is partialy owing to heavy expenses of the trial of Dr Day and son which has been principally borne by the society here and has amounted to near $300.  Now seems to be our dark day and we are casting about to see what can be done.  We have some eight or ten fugitives now on hand who cannot be sent off until we get an addition to our financial department.  This statement of facts has been made with a full knowledge of the many calls that is made upon your generosity in that quarter.  Nothing shall be urged as an alternative for we feel confident the case here presented will meet with merited assistance sympathy or advice, as you may deem best.  One word of old Brown and his movement in the emancipation cause, and I will have done.  I understand from

[Pg. 350]
some parties who have been corresponding with some persons in Boston and other places in behalf of our cause that we could and would receive material aid only they are holding themselves in readiness to assist Brown.  Such men I honor and they show themselves worthy the highest regard yet I assure them they do not understand Brown’s plans for carrying out his cause.  I have known Brown nearly four years, he is a bold cool calculating and far seeing man who is as consciencious as he is smart.  He “knows the right and dare maintain it.”  I have talked confidentially with him on the subject.  I know he expressed himself in this way as to the effects that he intended to make the master pay the way of the slave to the land of freedom.  That is he intended to take property enough with the slaves to pay all expenses.  So you see there is not fear of a large demand from that quarter.  By no means would I be understood as counciling not to assist him.  No indeed if I counciled at all it would be to this effect, render him all the assistance he ever asks for he is worthy and his cause is a good one.  Others would have been with him only they had all they could do in another quarter.  I feel myself highly honored to be placed where I can with propriety communicate with a society whom I have only known to admire.  Hoping what I have written (disconnectedly and badly written as it is) may be acceptable and that I may hear from you soon.  I am very respectfully Your obedient servant

                                                                                               J. BOWLES
                                                                                                            Lawrence
     F. B. SANBOURN
              Concord.

     The success of the Underground Road in transporting negroes beyond the limits of the Southern states was long ago commented upon as standing in marked contrast with that of the American Colonization Society.  This association was organized in 1816 and soon had auxiliary societies in most of the states.  Its object was to remove the free blacks and such as might be made free from the South, and colonize them on the coast of Africa.  By 1857, after an existence of forty years, the Colonization Society had sent to Africa 9,502 emigrants, of whom 3,676 were free-born, 326 self-purchased, and 5,500 emancipated on condition of being transported.  That the informal method of the abolitionists was many times as efficient as that adopted by the organization mentioned,

[Pg. 351] - ACCUSATIONS MADE BY SOUTHERN STATES -
with its treasury and its board of officers, cannot be denied.1
     It is not surprising that the secret enterprises of this determined class of people - so effectual as to make rare the pursuit of a fugitive during the last years of the decade preceding the War2 - should have become the ground of an important charge against the North in the crisis of 1860.  The violation of the Fugitive Slave Law was an accusation upon which Southern members of Congress rang all the changes in the course of the violent debates of the sessions of 1860-1861.  Thus Jones, of Georgia, said in the House in April, 1860: "It is a notorious fact that in a good many of the non-slaving holding states the Republican party have regularly organized societies - underground railroads - for the avowed purpose of stealing the slaves from the border States, and carrying them off to a free State or to Canada.  These predatory hands are kept up by private and public subscriptions among the Abolitionists; and in many of the States, I am sorry to say, they receive the sanction and protection of the law.  The border States lose annually thousands and millions of collars' worth of property by this system of larceny that has been carried on for years."  Polk of Missouri, whose state had suffered not a little through the flight and abduction of slaves, made the same complaint in the Senate in January, 1861:  "Underground railroads are established," said he, "stretching from the remotest slaveholding States clear up

---------------
     1 E. M. Pettit, Sketches in the History of the Underground Railroad, Introduction, p. xi.  Wilson gives an account of the American Colonization Society in his Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, Vol. I, pp. 208-222; see also the Life of Garrison, by his children, Index.
     2 McDougall, Fugitive Slaves, p. 71.

[Pg. 352]
to Canada.  Secret agencies are put to work in the very midst of our slaveholding communities to steal away slaves.  The constitutional obligation for the rendition of the fugitive from service is violated.  The laws of Congress enacted to carry this provision of the Constitution into effect are not executed.  Their execution is prevented.  Prevented, first, by hostile and unconstitutional state legislation.  Secondly, by a vitiated public sentiment.  Thirdly, by the concealing of the slave, so that the United States law cannot be made to reach him.  And when the runaway is arrested under the fugitive slave law - which, however, is seldom the ase - he is very often rescued . . . .  This lawlessness is felt with special seriousness in the border slave States.  The underground railroads start mostly from these States.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars are lost annually.  And no State loses more heavily than my own.  Kentucky, it is estimated, loses annually as much as $200,000.  The other border States no doubt lose in the same ratio,  Missouri much more.  But all these losses and outrages, all this disregard of constitutional obligation and social duty, are as nothing in their bearing upon the Union in comparison with the animus, the intent and purpose of which they are at once the fruit and the evidence. . . .” 1  Of this animus the election of Lincoln was regarded as the crowning proof; and it became, as is well known, the signal for secession.
     In December, 1860, the very month in which South Carolina chose to withdraw from the Union, the arrest of a runaway negro in Canada gave rise to an extradition case that became an additional cause of excitement.  The negro was William Anderson who in 1853 had been caught without a pass in Missouri, and had killed the man that tried to capture him.  In 1860 he was recognized in Canada by a slave-catcher from Missouri, was arrested on the charge of murder, and thrown into jail at Toronto.  As the Ashburton treaty contained an article providing for the extradition of slaves guilty of crimes committed in the United States, the American government sought to secure the surrender of

-----
     1 Congressional Globe, Thirty-sixth Congress, Second Session, p. 356; see also ibid., Appendix, p. 197.

[Pg. 353] - EXTRADITION OF ANDERSON REFUSED -
Anderson for punishment.  Lord Elgin, Governor-General of Canada at the time, was appealed to in the fugitive’s behalf by Mrs. Laura S. Haviland.  He made a spirited reply to the effect that “in case of a demand for William Anderson, he should require the case to be tried in their British court; and if twelve freeholders should testify that he had been a man of integrity since his arrival in their dominion, it should clear him.”  Nevertheless, the case was twice decided against the defendant, first by the common magistrate’s court, then by the Court of Error and Appeal, to which it had been carried on a writ of habeas corpus.  But this did not end the matter.  Through the efforts of the fugitive’s friends application was made for a writ of habeas corpus to the English Court of the Queen’s Bench, and the writ was granted.  Anderson was defended by Gerrit Smith, whose eloquent speech produced a profound impression in Canada, and did not fail to attract considerable notice in all parts of the United States.1
     During the month of December, in which the Anderson case came into prominence, the example of secession set by South Carolina was followed by five other cotton states.  Meantime Congress was giving unmistakable evidence of the importance attaching to the fugitive slave question.  In his message of December 4, President Buchanan gave serious consideration to this question, although he insisted that the Fugitive Slave Law had been duly enforced in every contested case during his administration.2  He recommended an “ explanatory amendment” to the Constitution affording “recognition of the right of the master to have his slave who has escaped from one state to another restored and ‘delivered up’ to him, and of the validity of the Fugitive Slave Law enacted for this purpose, together with a declaration that all State laws impairing or defeating this right, are violations of

---------------
     1 Accounts of Anderson's case will be found in a collection of pamphlets in the Boston Public Library; in the Liberator, Dec. 3, 1860 and Jan. 22, 1861; in A Woman's Life Work, by Laura S. Haviland, pp. 207, 208; in the History of Canada, by J. M. McMullen, Vol. II, p. 259; in the History of Canada, by John MacMullen, p. 553; and in Fugitive Slaves, by M. G. McDougall, pp. 25, 26.
     2 Journal of the Senate, Thirty-sixth Congress, Second Session, p. 10.

[Pg. 354]
the Constitution, and are consequently null and void.”1  On December 12 not less than eleven resolutions were introduced into the House on this subject, and on December 13, 18 and 24 other resolutions followed.  Resolutions of a similar nature continued to be presented in both Houses during January and February of the succeeding year, ceasing only with the end of the session.2
     These efforts on the part of the national legislature to appease the spirit of secession in the South were paralleled by efforts equally futile on the part of various Northern state legislatures during the same period.  It was reported that towards the close of the year 1860 a caucus of governors of seven Republican states was held in New York City, and decided to recommend to their legislatures “the unconditional and early repeal of the personal liberty bills passed by their respective states.”  As a matter of fact this recommendation was made by the Republican governors of four states, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Illinois, and the Democratic governors of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.  Rhode Island repealed her personal liberty law in January, 1861; Massachusetts modified hers in March; and was followed by Vermont, which took similar action in April.  Ohio had repealed her act in 1858, but her legislature seized this opportunity to urge her sister states to cancel any of their statutes “conflicting with or rendering less efficient the Constitution or the laws.”3  The conciliation of the South was clearly the purpose of these measures, but action came too late, for confidence between the sections had already been destroyed.
     The fact that the border slave states, with the exception of Virginia, remained in the Union, must not be interpreted as indicating small losses of human property by these states.  The strong ties existing between the states lying on either side of the sectional line, the presence of a rigorous Union sentiment in Kentucky, western Virginia and the slaveholding regions lying east and west of these, together with the hope

---------------
 
    1 Journal of the Senate, Thirty-sixth Congress, Second Session, p. 18.
     2 For a complete list of these resolutions see Mrs. McDougall’s monograph on Fugitive Slaves, Appendix, pp. 117-119.
     3 Rhodes, History of the United States, Vol. Ill, pp. 262, 263.

[Pg. 355] - CONCLUSION OF FUGITIVE SLAVE CONTROVERSY -
of a new compromise entertained by these states, tended to keep them in their places in the Union.  The prospect of a stampede of slaves, in case they should join the secession, movement, was a consideration that may be supposed to have had some weight in fixing the decision of the border slave states.  Certainly it was one to which Northern men attached considerable importance at the time in explaining the steadfast position of these states; and the impossibility of recovering even a single fugitive from the free states in case of a disruption of the Union along Mason and Dixon’s line was a thing of which Southern members of the national House were duly reminded by their Northern colleagues.
     The retention of the loyalty of the border slave states was a matter of grave concern to President Lincoln, who sought first of all the preservation of the Union.  In his inaugural address Lincoln had declared his purpose to see to it that the Fugitive Slave Law was executed, and when a few months later an opportunity presented itself he kept his promise.  Congress also realized the need of caution on account of the border states, and moved slowly in framing general enactments.  The changed conditions surrounding the slaves, due to the marshalling of forces for the War and the advance of Northern troops into the enemy’s country, multiplied the chances for escape throughout the South, and removed the necessity for a long and perilous journey by the slaves to find friends.  Negroes from the plantations of both loyal and disloyal masters flocked to the camps of Union soldiers, and could not be separated.  Under such circumstances the need of uniformity of method in dealing with cases early became apparent.  The War had scarcely more than commenced when protests began to be made against the employment of Northern troops as slave-catchers.  A letter read in the Senate by Mr. Sumner, in December, 1861, made inquiry, “Shall our sons, who are offering their lives for the preservation of our institutions, be degraded to slave-catchers for any persons, loyal or disloyal?  If such is the policy of the government, I shall urge my son to shed no more blood for its preservation.”1  Two German companies in one of the Massachusetts regi-

---------------
     1 Congressional Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, First Session, p. 30.

[Pg. 356]
ments also entered protest, making it a condition of their enlistment that they should not be required to perform such discreditable service.  "They complained, and with them the German population generally throughout the country.”1  The inexpediency of the return of fugitives by the army was recognized by Congress in the early part of 1862, and a bill forbidding officers from restoring them under any consideration was signed by the President on May 14, 1862.2
     The various acts of Congress and the President relative to fugitive slaves down to the Proclamation of Emancipation, practically circumscribed the legal effect of the Fugitive Slave laws to the border states, for in the free states the laws had not been observed for a long time.  It was not until June, 1864, that these measures were swept from the statute-book of the nation, notwithstanding the insistence of Kentucky and the other loyal states of the South that a constitutional obligation rested upon the government to retain them.  The repeal act did not remove this obligation.  Such a result could come only with the extinction of slavery, and the last vestige of slavery did not disappear until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1865.  The Amendment provides: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
     The general significance of the long controversy in regard to fugitive slaves can best be understood by tracing the development as a sectional issue of the question at the bottom of it, namely, the obligation to restore fugitives to their masters.  The creation of a line dividing the free North from the slaveholding South in the early years of our national history, and the enactment of the first Fugitive Slave Law, by which the general government assumed a certain responsibility for runaways, led to the opening of the question. From that time

---------------
     1 Congressional Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, First Session, p. 30; see also M. G. McDougall's Fugitive Slaves, p. 79.
     2 House Journal, Thirty-seventh Congress, Second Session, p. 265; Senate Journal, Thirty-seventh Congress, Secon Session, p. 285; Congressional Globe, Thirty-seventh Congress, Second Session, p. 1243.

[Pg. 357]
on, the steadily increasing number of escapes, together with the spread of the underground system, which made these escapes almost uniformly successful, kept the question open.  Operations along the secret lines constantly caused aggravation in the South; and the pursuit of passengers, mobs and violence were results widely witnessed in the North.  The other questions between the sections were subject to compromise, but party action could not control the workings of the Underground Railroad.  The stirring sights and affecting stories with which the North became acquainted through the stealthy migration of slaves were well adapted to make abolitionists rapidly, and the consequence was more aggravation on both sides.  The practice of midnight emancipation in Northern states during the early years was accompanied, not unnaturally, with the formulation and statement of the principle of immediatism in neighborhoods where underground methods were familiar.  Thus the way was prepared for Garrison and his talented coworkers, whose eloquent tongues and pens could no more be controlled by pro-slavery forces than could the Underground Railroad itself.  Agitation reacted upon the Road and increased its activity; this caused counter agitation by Southerners in and out of Congress until a more rigorous Fugitive Slave Law was secured.
     The Compromise of 1850 failed to reconcile the sections:  Northern men despised the Fugitive Slave Law, and displayed greater zeal than ever before in aiding runaway slaves.  Thus, in the later stages of the controversy, as from its beginning, the fugitive was a successful missionary in the cause of freedom.  Personal liberty laws were passed by the free states to defend him; Uncle Tom's Cabin was written to portray to the world his aspirations for liberty and his endeavors to secure it; John Brown devised a "subterranean pass way" to assist him, as a part of the great scheme of liberation that failed at Harper's ferry.  One of the chief reasons for with-drawing from the Union assigned by the seceding states was the bad faith of the North in refusing to surrender fugitives.  At eh outbreak of the Civil War large numbers of slaves sought refuge with the Union fores, the government soon found it impracticable to restore them, and disavowed all re-

[Pg. 358]
sponsibility for them in 1862.  By the Proclamation of Emancipation slavery was abolished within the area of the disloyal states, and the controversy became merely formal, the loyal slave states striving to maintain an abstract right based by them upon the Constitution.  In 1864, however, they were forced to yield, and the fugitive, slave legislation was repealed.  The year following witnessed the cancellation of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution by the amendment of that instrument.  In view of all this it is safe to say that the Underground Railroad was one of the greatest forces which brought on the Civil War, and thus destroyed slavery.

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS


 

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO
BLACK HISTORY

INDEX PAGE

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO
GENEALOGY EXPRESS

INDEX PAGE

GENEALOGY EXPRESS
FREE GENEALOGY RESEARCH is My MISSION

This Webpage has been created by Sharon Wick exclusively for Genealogy Express  ©2008
Submitters retain all copyrights

...