§33. Change in character of cases.—The cases of escape which occur in the period beginning with the formation of the Constitution, and ending with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, will be found, in comparison with those of colonial times, much more frequent, more complex in action, and more varied in detail. Instead of many colonies under governments independent one of another, there was now one government and one country; nevertheless, the extinction of the system of bondage and the rise of the antislavery sentiment in the Northern States brought into the cases new and difficult elements. No attempt will be made to mention the cases in their chronological order, or to describe them all. They will be classified into cases of simple escape, of kidnapping, of rescue, and of State interference; and typical examples will be described in each category.

The First Case of Rescue.

§34. The first case of rescue.—The first attempt to enforce the act of 1793, of which any record has been discovered, immediately revealed its unfairness, and the indisposition of the North to carry it out.

Mr. Josiah Quincy, then a young lawyer, afterwards known as a public man and the President of Harvard College, has left an interesting account of his connection with the case. "He states that the process was issued by a justice of the peace, that he was retained as counsel for the alleged slave, that he prepared his brief, and went down loaded with all the necessary authorities. He found a great crowd of people assembled; but while he was in the midst of the argument, he heard a noise, and, turning around, he saw the constables lying sprawling on the floor, and a passage opening through the crowd, through which the fugitive was taking his departure without stopping to hear the opinion of the court, and that was the last of that case, and that was the last of the law of 1793 in Massachusetts."¹⁶⁹

§35. President Washington's demand for a fugitive.—As has been noticed in a previous chapter, George Washington's boyhood was connected with white slavery. Now, at the zenith of his public life, we find one of his chattels the occasion of the first recorded refusal on moral grounds to return a slave. In 1796, President Washington wrote to Mr. Whipple, Collector of Portsmouth, N. H., to send back to him one of his slaves who had escaped to that place, if it could be done without exciting a mob. This letter has been preserved, and the following extract gives us an insight into President Washington's opinions upon the rendition of fugitives:—

Mr. Whipple answered, that any return would be impossible; public sentiment was too strong against it.

Kidnapping.

§36. Kidnapping cases.—The great number of cases of kidnapping throughout the period from 1793 to 1850 show what cruel and unjust deeds were possible under the existing system, and served as nothing else could to rouse people to the defence of negroes. Various were the methods by which, in spite of law, kidnappers were enabled to secure their prey. Perhaps the most common practice, in places where the courts were known to be friendly to slavery, was to arrest a man on some false pretence, and then, when he appeared in court without opportunity to secure papers or witnesses, to claim him as a fugitive slave. Most of these cases occurred in communities bordering upon or near the Southern States. The risk and trouble of transporting slaves across free States were so great, that up to 1850 we seldom hear of kidnapping cases, and rarely of the capture of a genuine fugitive in the New England States.

The natural consequence of such acts of outrageous violence was to rouse people to the forcible rescue of the captured negroes. In the earliest cases, colored people seem to take the leadership; later on, the whites joined, and became most active in the work.

§37. Jones case.—The following instance well exemplifies this form of oppression. George Jones, a respectable colored man, was arrested on Broadway, New York, in 1836, on the pretext that he had committed assault and battery. As he knew that no such charge could be sustained against him, he at first refused to go with his captors; but finally he yielded, on the assurance of his employer that everything possible should be done for him. He was then placed in Bridewell, and his friends were told that when they were wanted they "would be sent for"; but, soon after one o'clock that same day, he was taken before the Hon. Richard Riker, Recorder of New York, and to the satisfaction of that magistrate was proved to be a slave. Thus, in less than two hours after his arrest he was hurried away as the property of the kidnappers: their word had been accepted as sufficient evidence, and he had not been allowed to secure the presence of a single friendly witness.¹⁷¹

§38. Solomon Northup case.—Sometimes, if they feared to enter their case in court, slave hunters could find opportunity, by watching a negro for a while, to carry out their plans through some small deception. One of the most striking of these cases is that of Solomon Northup, who has written an account of his experiences as freeman and as slave. He was born in 1808 in New York State. His father had been made a free man by the provisions of his master's will. Thus Solomon was brought up under the influences of freedom, and knew little of slavery. After his marriage, he lived for some years in Saratoga. Here he earned a comfortable livelihood. During the day he worked about the hotels, and in the evenings he was often engaged to play the violin at parties. One day, two men, apparently managers of a travelling circus company, met him and offered him good pay if he would go with them as a violinist to Washington. He consented. Their behavior seemed to him peculiar, but he remained in their service, only to find himself one morning in a slave pen in Washington. How he got there remained always a mystery, but it is evident that he must have been drugged. Resistance was useless. He was carried South and sold to Mr. Epps, a hard master, with whom he remained for twelve years.

After he had long given up all hopes of escape, a friend was found in a Northern man who was working on the same plantation. Mr. Bass consented, though at a great risk to himself, to write some letters, telling Solomon's story to his Northern friends. The letters reached their destination, and, under the law of 1840 against kidnapping, a memorial was prepared to the Governor of New York. He became interested, and immediately sent a man South to find Northrup. After a long search, the agent was directed to Mr. Epps's plantation. Much to the disappointment of the master, who used every means to prevent his return, Solomon was identified at last, and went back to New York again a free man. Efforts were made to prosecute the kidnappers; but as sufficient evidence could not be obtained, no case was made out.¹⁷²

§39. Washington case.—So bold did these stealers of men become, that they sometimes resorted to simple force, without the slightest attempt at concealment. A case of this kind occurred in Washington, D. C., between 1840 and 1850. Three or four men seized a negro who was employed in a hotel near the Capitol, and dragged him away. Mr. Hall, proprietor of the house, after trying in vain to prevent the arrest, succeeded at last in compelling them to take the man before a magistrate. The justice declined to assume jurisdiction in such a case, and before any other protection could be provided, the man was hurried by the kidnappers into a hack, and taken across the Potomac into bondage.¹⁷³

§40. Oberlin case.—Occasionally the result was less fortunate for the captors. In Oberlin, three slave hunters seized by force a negro man and his wife, and carried them to an inn for the night. In the mean time the people of the town decided that the negroes must have a trial. They therefore employed a lawyer, who discovered that the writ for the capture was illegal, and secured a hearing. The captives were placed in jail, but, aided by some undivulged agency, they managed to break the grates of their prison windows, and escaped to Canada before the day set for trial.¹⁷⁴

Interference and Rescues.

§41. Interference and rescues.—After a kidnapping case had occurred in a Northern village or town, measures were frequently taken by the indignant citizens to prevent the recurrence of such acts. They organized vigilance committees, or the antislavery societies took it up as a part of their work. In a free community, public sentiment would not allow negro towns-people to stand entirely unprotected. Thus many of the cases of interference and rescue were the result of some organized movements on the part of the white people, though occasionally they came about through the unpremeditated action of a mob.

§42. Chickasaw rescue.—The first case which has been found occurred in 1836. A writ of habeas corpus was served against Captain Eldridge of the brig Chickasaw, for holding two colored women in his ship with the intention of carrying them South. As both presented free papers at the hearing, the judge ordered them discharged; but the agent of John B. Morris of Baltimore, who demanded their return, declared that he would soon have sufficient evidence to prove them fugitives. Thereupon the colored people rushed in, took the women to a carriage, and carried them away to safety.¹⁷⁵

§43. Philadelphia and Kennedy cases.—A similar but unsuccessful attempt was made in Philadelphia in 1838. A slave had been delivered to the man claiming to be his master. As the captors were about to take him away, a crowd of colored people gathered and attempted to rescue him. It was not so simple a matter in a large city as in a country town. A body of police soon appeared, protected the slaveholders, and finally arrested some of the leaders among the free blacks.¹⁷⁶

A few years later, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, three negroes were arrested and their identity established as the slaves of Messrs. Kennedy and Hollingsworth of Maryland. The colored people of the neighborhood had caused a writ of habeas corpus to be issued and a second hearing was held. Judge Hepburne decided that the magistrate first employed had no right to commit the alleged fugitives, but he himself remanded them. A riot ensued, and some thirty-six persons were tried for participating in it.¹⁷⁷

§44. Latimer case.—In the Latimer case, the first of that series of famous fugitive slave trials which took place in Boston, was strongly developed the feeling against kidnapping, or in fact against the rendition of a slave under any circumstances.

In 1842, George Latimer was seized in Boston without a warrant, at the request of James B. Grey of Norfolk, Virginia. Latimer's counsel, Samuel E. Sewall and Amos B. Merrill, sued out a writ of habeas corpus, but after argument Chief Justice Shaw denied it. Mr. Grey asked for time to procure evidence against Latimer from Virginia. The judge ruled that the request should be granted, and that Latimer should for the time being be kept in the custody of the city jailer, Nathaniel Cooledge. A writ of personal replevin, under the act of 1837 securing trial by jury,¹⁷⁸ was then sworn out, but Justice Shaw decided that, according to the decision by the Supreme Court in the Prigg case, the law was illegal.¹⁷⁹

The proceedings aroused great indignation throughout the city and State. Meetings to devise means of aiding Latimer were held in Faneuil Hall and Belknap Street church. Stirring speeches were made by Wendell Phillips and others, and resolutions condemning the proceedings of the authorities, and remonstrating against the return of Latimer, were adopted. Bands of ruffians strove to break up the meetings, and succeeded in greatly disturbing them. To rouse the people, to give expression to public sentiment, and to spread the news from day to day, Dr. H. I. Bowditch and Dr. W. F. Channing edited a paper called "The Latimer Journal and North Star." This was published for a number of weeks by the friends of the fugitive. Petitions were sent to the sheriff to remove the jailer, and to the Governor asking the removal of the sheriff if he did not accede to their demand. Thereupon Latimer's custodian agreed to give him up for a sufficient payment. The sum of four hundred dollars was accordingly raised, the proceedings came to an abrupt termination, and Latimer was released.

The excitement produced, however, did not die out immediately, and some of the results were far-reaching. So intense was the public excitement, that, soon after, a petition was prepared and sent to Congress, asking an amendment to the Constitution. This was signed by fifty thousand people in Massachusetts, and presented in the House by Mr. Adams. Another, signed by sixty-five thousand people, was sent to the legislature. The effect was the act of 1843, forbidding all officers to aid in the recapture of a fugitive slave, or to permit the use of State jails for their imprisonment. The petition to Congress was not received. A resolution from the Latimer committee, which proposed an amendment to the Constitution so as to base representation on "free persons," brought about much discussion, and was not received in the House. In the Senate it excited even more violent opposition, and the resolutions were laid on the table and not printed.¹⁸⁰

§45. Ottoman case.—Similar indignation was felt in Boston over the case of Captain Hannum of the brig Ottoman. He had found a runaway concealed on board, but had set sail to return, evidently with the intention of taking the man back into captivity. A steamer was sent out to rescue the slave, but the Ottoman managed to elude it, and the man was lost. At a meeting held September 24, 1846, a committee was appointed for the purpose of preventing similar outrages.¹⁸¹

Interstate Relations.

§46. Interstate relations.—The spirit of opposition to the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law made itself felt, not only in popular demonstrations and in legislation, but in interstate relations. We have already noticed the Prigg case,¹⁸² and its effect in relieving the States from any responsibility in the enforcement of the law. Other States took advantage of this decision, and of the general principle of international law, that one nation or state is not bound to enforce the municipal law of another.

§47. Boston and Isaac cases (1837-1839).—In 1837 a runaway was found on the ship Boston, then on her homeward voyage from Georgia to Maine. After landing, the slave succeeded in getting to Canada. The Governor of Georgia charged the captain with slave-stealing, and demanded his return as a fugitive from justice. The Governor of Maine would not comply with the request, because, as he said, the laws of that State recognized slaves not as property, but as persons. The indignant legislature of Georgia adopted resolutions calling upon Congress so to amend the laws that the Governor of Maine should be compelled to give up slave stealers as fugitives from justice. Resolutions were presented in the United States Senate, but no action was taken.¹⁸³

The refusal to use State machinery against fugitives extended to the process of extradition against persons connected with the rescue of slaves. Thus in the Isaac case, in 1839, Virginia asked New York for the arrest of three colored men who were accused of abetting a slave's escape. The Governor of New York returned answer, that no State could demand the surrender of a fugitive from justice for an act which was made criminal only by its own legislation.¹⁸⁴

§ 48. Ohio and Kentucky case.—Kentucky, in 1848, demanded from the Governor of Ohio the extradition of fifteen persons on the charge of aiding the escape of a fugitive. Governor Bell refused, on the ground that Ohio laws did not recognize property in man.¹⁸⁵

Prosecutions. Act of 1850.

§49. Prosecutions.—The effects of the aid and protection thus given fugitives by Northern people or governments awakened among the slaveholders a feeling of wrong and indignation. The Fugitive Slave Law was clear, and they determined to carry it out to the letter. They began, therefore, energetically to prosecute people for aiding and harboring escaping slaves. The case just mentioned shows how difficult it was to secure prosecutions beyond the State boundaries. When the offence occurred within the bounds of a slave State, the judgments were most severe, and the heaviest possible fines and longest terms of imprisonment were inflicted for simple acts of charity.

§50. Van Zandt, Pearl, and Walker cases.—Mr. Van Zandt, returning into the country from Cincinnati one day in 1840, took nine fugitive slaves from Kentucky into his farm wagon. He was stopped by three persons, and all but two of the slaves were recaptured. Mr. Van Zandt was arrested, taken into court, and fined twelve thousand dollars, which exhausted his entire property.¹⁸⁶

A still more severe penalty was that imposed upon Captain Drayton, of the schooner Pearl, in 1848. He took on board seventy-five fugitive slaves, and sailed up the Potomac. An armed steamer, sent in pursuit, overtook them and brought them back. Captain Drayton and another officer of the schooner were placed in prison, where they remained for twenty years, and at last were relieved only through the efforts of Charles Sumner.¹⁸⁷

Another instance of the same sort is the case of Mr. Jonathan Walker, in 1844. With seven fugitives he embarked from Pensacola in an open boat for the Bahama Islands, but he received a sun-stroke and was obliged to leave the management of the craft in the hands of the negroes. On account of the accident, they were overtaken by two sloops, and both fugitives and their protector captured. Mr. Walker was twice tried, imprisoned, sentenced to stand in the pillory, and branded on the hand with the letters S. S., slave stealer.¹⁸⁸ The crime and the punishment have alike been glorified in Whittier's verses:—

§51. Unpopularity of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.—The passage of the new law probably increased the number of antislavery people more than anything else which had occurred during the whole agitation. Many of those formerly indifferent were roused to active opposition by a sense of the injustice of the Fugitive Slave Act as they saw it executed in Boston and elsewhere. Hence, in the cases of the period from 1850 to the outbreak of the Civil War, we shall find a new element. The antislavery party, grown strong, resisted the regulations, and instead of the unquestioned return of a fugitive, as in colonial times, or of prosecutions carried on under the simple conditions of the act of 1793, the struggle became long and complex. In fact during this time hardly an important case can be cited in which there was not some opposition to the natural course of the law. These exasperating effects were not at first apparent to the South, since before the famous rescues began several cases of rendition showed the power of the Executive. As the escapes grew more and more frequent yearly, increasing all the time in boldness, the slaveholders put forth greater efforts to punish the offenders, and prosecutions were numerous. But the "new law had no moral foundation," and against such an act public sentiment must sooner or later revolt, no matter how severe may be its provisions.¹⁹⁰ As Mr. James Freeman Clarke has said, "It was impossible to convince the people that it was right to send back to slavery men who were so desirous of freedom as to run such risks. All education from boyhood up to manhood had taught us to believe that it was the duty of all men to struggle for freedom."¹⁹¹

§52. Principle of the selection of cases.—The large number of cases occurring between 1850 and 1860 renders it impossible to present a detailed account of them all in a brief monograph. The selection, therefore, includes only such as are typical of the various phases of the agitation.

§53. Hamlet case (1850).—The first recorded action under the provisions of the law of 1850 took place on the 26th of September of that year, just eight days after the passage of the act. James Hamlet, a free negro, who with his family had been living for several years in New York, was on that day arrested by a deputy United States Marshal as the fugitive slave of Mary Brown of Baltimore. After a hasty examination by Commissioner Gardiner, he was surrendered in accordance with the new law. These proceedings were not sufficiently well known at the time to excite a mob, but when discovered they roused so strong a feeling that the money necessary to redeem Hamlet was almost immediately raised, and on the 5th of October he was brought back from slavery.¹⁹²

Sims and Burns.

§54. Sims case (1851).—Another instance in Boston, often mentioned as the first under the law of 1850, but really six months later than the Hamlet case, is that of Thomas M. Sims. A common method of seizure was followed. Marshal Tukey arrested Sims on a false charge of theft. Mr. Potter of Virginia then claimed him as his slave. Court Square was filled with people. The Marshal feared a popular outbreak while the matter was pending, and, to the indignation of the city, caused the court-house in which Sims was confined to be surrounded with chains. As these were but four feet from the ground, the judges as they went in and out from the sessions were forced, morning and night, to bow beneath them. The building was also strongly guarded by a company of armed men, ever afterward known as the "Sims Brigade." Robert Rantoul, Jr. and Samuel E. Sewall conducted Sims's case. Commissioner Curtis overruled the constitutional objections to the Fugitive Slave Law, and to the judicial functions of the Commissioners of the United States courts. Then, despite all efforts of the antislavery people in his behalf, the certificate which sent Sims back to Virginia was made out and signed by Commissioner Curtis.¹⁹³ The Liberator says of the popular sentiment: "One feeling was visible on almost every countenance, commiseration, humiliation,—commiseration for the victim, humiliation at the degradation of Massachusetts. No man talked, no man thought, of violence. Why? Because it is acquiesced in? No! no! Because it is approved? A thousand times, no! but because government is pleased to enforce the law, and resistance is hopeless."¹⁹⁴ Sims was taken from his cell in the early morning, observed only by a few faithful vigilants, and, amid platoons of armed men, conducted to the United States ship Acorn, which was detailed to carry him back to the South.¹⁹⁵

The indignation of the antislavery people remained to be expressed, and a mass meeting was held on the Common and in Tremont Temple. Wendell Phillips and Theodore Parker addressed the assemblage, and Phillips noticed the fact that hostile troops had not been seen in the streets of Boston since the redcoats marched up from Long Wharf.¹⁹⁶

§55. Burns case (1854).—The rendition of Anthony Burns in 1854 was the last great fugitive slave case which occurred in Boston. Burns was the property of Charles F. Suttle of Virginia. He escaped in 1854, and came to Boston. One of the first things he did was to write a letter to his brother, still a slave in the South. Unfortunately, though this was mailed in Canada, by some oversight it was dated in Boston. Since a letter to a slave was always opened by the master, Burns's hiding place was discovered.¹⁹⁷ He was arrested upon the usual charge of theft. Then, upon a warrant issued by Judge Loring, he was claimed as a fugitive slave by Suttle.

When the knowledge of the arrest began to circulate, the most intense excitement prevailed. Handbills asking all antislavery people to go to Boston were sent throughout the country. Public meetings held in Faneuil and Meionaon Halls were crowded with representatives from all the towns about.¹⁹⁸ One of the people who took part in the attempted rescue which followed one of these meetings thus describes it:—

At the trial, though Burns was ably defended by Mr. R. H. Dana and others, it was of no avail. His identity was unfortunately established from the first. He had recognized and addressed his master, and also a Mr. Brant, who had once hired him. The order for his rendition was therefore at once given.²⁰⁰

Guarded by a large military force he was conducted through the streets, filled with an indignant multitude, to the United States cutter Morris, which had been ordered by the President to take him back.²⁰¹ Many buildings on the route were hung with black, and so great was the popular excitement, that Rev. J. F. Clarke, an eyewitness of the affair, has said: "It was evident that a very trifling incident might have brought on a collision, and flooded the streets with blood."

The difficulty of enforcing the act was shown in the precautionary measures immediately adopted by the government. The city police, the militia, the marines, and some regular troops, were ordered out to the task of guarding one poor fugitive. It cost the country one hundred thousand dollars to send this single slave back to his master.²⁰²

Not long after Burns's return, a sum of money, to which Charles Devens, United States Marshal at his trial, contributed largely, was raised in Boston and the vicinity for his purchase; but it was found impossible to effect it.²⁰³

Mr. Higginson, Wendell Phillips, and Theodore Parker, with others, were indicted for riot, but the indictment was quashed by Judge Curtis on technical grounds, and they were discharged.²⁰⁴

Garner and Shadrach.

§56. Garner case (1856).—Of all the cases of rendition, the saddest, and next to the Burns case probably the best known at the time, was that of Margaret Garner. In accounts of the Underground Railroad we are told that winter was the favorite season for flight in the section of the country south of the Ohio, since ice then covered the river, and the difficulty of crossing by boat did not arise. It was at this season that Simeon Garner, his son Robert, and their families, fled from Kentucky and crossed the frozen stream to the house of a colored man in Cincinnati. They were soon traced thither, and after a desperate hand to hand struggle the house was entered. There the pursuers found that Margaret Garner, preferring for her children death to slavery, had striven to take their lives, and one lay dead. The case was immediately brought into court, where, despite the efforts made to save them, rendition was decided upon. On the way back, Margaret, in despair, attempted to drown herself and her child in the river; but even the deliverance of death was denied her, for she was recovered and sold, to be carried yet farther south.²⁰⁵

§57. Shadrach case (1851).—In the three typical cases just described, neither the law's delay, violent interference, nor the desperation of the slave, availed to prevent the return of the fugitive to the oppressor. Let us turn from this group, and take up those more important cases wherein the law was not allowed to complete its course, but rescues were accomplished, either by free negroes or antislavery people. First in time and importance comes the case of Shadrach, which occurred in Boston in February, 1851.

In May, 1850, a slave named Frederic Wilkins had run away from Virginia and come to Boston, where he found employment as a waiter in the Cornhill Coffee House under the alias of Shadrach. He had been there not quite a year, however, when John De Bere, his master in Norfolk, sent some one in pursuit of him. A warrant was served and he was arrested while at work. United States Commissioner Riley then took him to the court-house, where Mr. List, a young lawyer of antislavery sympathies, offered his aid as counsel, and Messrs. Charles G. Davis, Samuel E. Sewall, and Ellis Gray Loring also came to his assistance. Mr. List obtained some delay in the proceedings; but since, by the act of 1843,²⁰⁶ the use of State jails had been denied for fugitives, the officers were obliged to keep the prisoner in the court-room until another place of confinement could be found. By this time a large number of people had gathered about the building, and were trying to force an entrance. For a long time they were unable to enter, but at last opportunity was given as Mr. Davis opened the door to leave the court-room. In spite of all efforts on the part of the officers to close the door, a body of colored people under the lead of Lewis Hayden rushed in and seized the prisoner. They carried him triumphantly out of the court-room on their shoulders, and soon saw him safely started for Canada. Mr. Davis and others were prosecuted for aiding in the rescue, but nothing was proved against them. Intense excitement prevailed in the city, and finally throughout the country, since Congress took up this infringement of the law.²⁰⁷

Mr. Clay, February 17, 1851, introduced a resolution which requested the President to send to Congress "any information he may possess in regard to the alleged recent case of a forcible resistance to the execution of the laws of the United States in the city of Boston," and communicate to Congress "what means he has adopted to meet the occurrence," and "whether, in his opinion, any additional legislation is necessary to meet the exigencies of the case."²⁰⁸ President Pierce then issued a proclamation announcing the facts to the country, and calling on all people to assist in quelling this and other disturbances. The Senate's request was also answered in an Executive message to Congress, which announced to them that the President would use all his constitutional powers to insure the execution of the laws. Such unusual national interference gave the case wide celebrity, and, as Von Holst says, "The pretensions and assumptions of the South were encouraged in a very unwise way, by the fact that, by such a manner of treating the matter, people seemed to recognize that it was entitled to hold the whole North responsible for every violation of the compromise, which could properly be laid at the door of only a few individuals. The proclamation and the message placed the compromise in a far more glaring light than the liberation of Shadrach."²⁰⁹

Rescues.

§58. Jerry McHenry rescue (1851).—Later, a case occurred at Syracuse, New York, which was a significant illustration of the successful action of a vigilance committee. Jerry McHenry, a respectable colored man who had lived for several years in that city, was arrested in October, 1851, as a fugitive slave. At the examination, which took place at two o'clock in the afternoon, he found opportunity to break away from the officers and escape through the crowd, which opened to allow him to pass. He was, however, immediately pursued and recaptured. It so happened that an Agricultural Fair and a convention of the Liberty Party were going on at that time in Syracuse, and the city was unusually full of people. When the alarm bell gave notice to the vigilance committee that a negro had been seized, Mr. Gerrit Smith, who was attending the meetings, and Rev. Samuel J. May, with others, hastened to the scene. The Commissioner, after the capture, had again taken up the trial, but such a disturbance was made by the crowd which gathered outside that he was forced to adjourn. Meanwhile, Mr. Smith with the committee had planned a rescue, and at about half-past eight fully two thousand people had assembled, and an assault was begun upon the court-house. They broke doors and windows, overpowered the officers, and at last bore Jerry away in triumph.

He remained in the home of a friend until he could be sent to Canada. Prosecutions were immediately instituted, and eighteen persons indicted for taking part in the rescue, but nothing came of the case. On the other side, Henry W. Allen, Marshal in the case, was tried for kidnapping. The judge declared the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, but a verdict of not guilty was rendered.²¹⁰

§59. Oberlin-Wellington rescue (1858).—Sometimes, however, general sentiment was so strong that the rescue became, not an action instigated and carried through by three or four determined men, but the indignant uprising of a whole town. Such was the Oberlin-Wellington case, celebrated for the great number of prosecutions and the high character of those engaged in it. Two kidnappers from Kentucky induced an Oberlin boy, by a bribe of twenty dollars, to entice away a negro named John Rice on pretence of giving him work. Having taken him to a lonely spot, he was seized and carried about eight miles across country to Wellington, there to await the south bound train.

On the way the party was overtaken by an Oberlin College student, who at once gave the alarm. A crowd gathered and followed the kidnappers to the railway station. There, by placing a ladder upon the balcony they succeeded in rescuing John from the upper story of the house in which he was confined. For this violation of the law thirty-seven citizens of Oberlin and Wellington were indicted. This produced the greatest excitement all over the country, and the case grew more and more complicated, until the proceedings had lasted several months. Public meetings to express sympathy with the prosecuted were held in many places. Some of them were imprisoned to await the trial, but no severe sentences were imposed.²¹¹

Castner Hanway. John Brown.

§60. Christianacase(1851).—Occasionally the rescue of fugitives was not accomplished by a sudden unorganized movement, but by a deliberate armed defence on the part of the slaves and their friends. In the Christiana case the affair was marked by violence and bloodshed, while the fact that the Quakers Castner Hanway and Elijah Lewis were afterward prosecuted made it notorious; and the further fact that the charge was not, as usual, that of aiding a fugitive, but of treason, gave it still greater interest.

In and about Christiana, Pennsylvania, there were many negroes who had formerly been slaves, descriptions of whom were frequently furnished to kidnappers by a band of men known throughout the country as the "Gap Gang." A league for mutual protection had therefore been formed by the colored people, and prominent among them for intelligence and boldness was William Parker. Soon after the passage of the law of 1850, Edward Gorsuch and a party came from Maryland to Christiana for a fugitive slave. With United States officers from Philadelphia they went immediately to the house of William Parker, where the man they were seeking was sheltered. When their demand was refused, they fired two shots at the house. This roused the people, and a riot ensued in which the fugitive escaped. Mr. Gorsuch was killed, his son desperately wounded, and the rest put to flight. Castner Hanway at the beginning of the struggle was notified of the kidnappers' presence, and, though feeble in health, hastened to the scene. When ordered by Marshal Kline to aid him in accordance with the law, he refused; yet, far from leading in the affair, he tried in every way to prevent bloodshed and bring about peace.

After it was over, Parker, with two other colored men, knowing that arrest must follow, secreted themselves under piles of shavings in an old carpenter's shop. At night they sent four wagons in different directions as decoys for the detectives, and were carried safely away by a fifth. Many negroes hid that night in the corn shocks, and under the floors of houses, until escape could be made in safety.²¹²

Castner Hanway was arrested, and arraigned before the United States court on the charge of treason; but no proof of a conspiracy to make a general and public resistance to the law could be found, and he was acquitted. Afterward it was desired to try Hanway and Lewis for "riot and murder," but the grand jury ignored the bill, and all prisoners were released. With these prosecutions the end of the affair was apparently reached, though perhaps its influence may be traced in a succeeding case.

§61. Miller case (1851).—A noted kidnapper from Maryland, in 1851, seized a free negro girl living at the house of Mr. Miller, in Nottingham, Pennsylvania, and took her to Baltimore. Mr. Miller followed them, and succeeded in getting her freed. He then started back, but never reached home. Search was made, and his body found upon the way. It was thought that the murder was committed in revenge for the part he had taken in the Christiana riot.²¹³

§62. John Brown in Kansas (1858).—It was during this period also that John Brown was endeavoring to put into execution his famous plan for freeing the slaves. This is interesting, not only as typical of organized efforts to free the slaves on the plantations, but also because of its connection with other phases of the slavery question, into which we shall not attempt to enter here. His idea was first to gather as large a force as possible, then, when his men were properly drilled, to run off the slaves in large numbers; to retain the brave and strong in the mountains, and to send the weak and timid to the North by the "Underground Railroad."²¹⁴

In December, 1858, Brown divided his forces into two divisions, and went into Missouri. Here he succeeded in freeing eleven slaves, and, though pursued by a far superior number of Missourians, took them safely into Kansas. The affair, by its boldness, created great excitement throughout the South. The Governor of Missouri offered three thousand dollars reward, and the President of the United States two hundred and fifty dollars, for Brown's capture; within a very short time he had succeeded in conveying himself and his eleven fugitives safely into Canada, and the horses which he had appropriated from the slaveholders in order to carry his protegÉs out of Kansas were afterward publicly sold by him in Ohio.²¹⁵