Levi Pownall House Courtesy of Lancaster County Historical Society

National Newspaper Reaction to the Christiana Resistance  

Initial reactions

The national significance of the Christiana Resistance rested in its legacy as the first direct reaction to the Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Law. The Cleveland True Democrat, speaking of the Resistance said, “This is the first horrible tragedy which has taken place under the Fugitive Slave Law. We had expected such a catastrophe before this; and, we fear, it is but the beginning of a series of riots which will end, as it has begun, in blood.”

Reactions to the Resistance were more immediate and emotional in Pennsylvania and Maryland than they were in the rest of the nation, but unrest was clearly created throughout the nation. The events of Christiana lasted only one day, but the results lingered much longer. Public opinion expressed was varied in reference as to who were the villains and who were the victims. However, one sentiment common in all the opinions expressed was the feeling that the Resistance happened as a response to the Fugitive Slave Law. A belief was expressed by several sources that the time had come for the people to choose whether or not the Fugitive Slave Law would be recognized in the “free” states. In order for the Fugitive Slave Law to be effective, northern states would need to partially suppress individual beliefs concerning slavery because slavery and freedom have nothing in common. Public opinion on Christiana treated the event as if it were a referendum on the Fugitive Slave Law and whether or not the northern states would support it.

In the atmosphere of watchful waiting that existed in the South in 1851, the word of the events at Christiana assumed a significance of extraordinary proportions. It was the first open and violent defiance of the Fugitive Slave Law and the first indication of the willingness to defy the Compromise of 1850 with bloodshed when necessary. Southern editors expressed anger and shock. Whether or not it was true moral indignation or carefully created outrage for propaganda purposes, these editorials greatly influenced and molded southern opinion.

The initial reaction expressed tended to be of shocked disbelief. The editor of the Baltimore Clipper alleged that after the Compromise of 1850 the hostility between the sections had been subsiding, and the Fugitive Slave Law was operating successfully. He stated that, “people were generally beginning to look forward to the restoration of entire good feeling between the North and the South.” He went on to say that Christiana created “such an excitement &endash; such a feeling of indignation in Maryland &endash; as has seldom been witnessed.”

The Mobile, Alabama newspaper the Daily Register echoed the lament of the Baltimore editor when the editor stated, “Our country has been on the verge of a revolution. The elements of discord have scarcely subsided into sullen calm, the grieved and injured Southern States have barely yielded to the importunities and assurances of their own patriotic citizens, that the hand of aggression would be stayed, and that the Compromise would be observed in good faith, when all this diabolical tragedy is enacted with all its vile and insulting circumstances.” The editor felt the key word was the word “insulting”. To a southerner honor was a highly valued commodity. Christiana had deeply struck at that trait which some southerners saw as inviolate.

Two clearly defined schools of thought developed in the South immediately following the Resistance, the moderates and the radicals. Moderates tended to see Christiana as a flashpoint which would awaken the North to the harmful nature of abolitionists. According to the moderates, abolitionists who had incited the blacks to violence at Christiana would be ostracized by a North outraged by that violence. The Baltimore Sun of September 19 described blacks as having been “trained for the terrible deed by white neighbors.” The paper went on to clearly portray the white neighbors as abolitionist Quakers. The moderate philosophy was that northern states would insist on enforcement of the Compromise of 1850 and the elimination of this divisive abolitionist influence.

Many moderate southern editors yearned for a restoration of peace and called for restraint between the sections of the nation. They called for the North to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law as the constitutional law of the land as agreed to in the Compromise of 1850. Optimism was a prominent sentiment expressed immediately following the Resistance. The cold-blooded murder of a fine Christian man such as Edward Gorsuch would serve to outrage thoughtful Christian northerners who would see abolitionists as wicked fanatics. Christiana would not be repeated and Edward Gorsuch would be perceived in history as a martyr to the cause of maintaining the union in the face of abolitionist's attempts to tear it apart. Moderate northerners who loved peace, the constitution as law, and the union would see to it that Edward Gorsuch did not die in vain.

The editor of the Memphis, Tennessee newspaper, the Enquirer, fully expected the North to vindicate not only Edward Gorsuch, but also to vindicate itself. He was impressed by the arrest of the murderers on September 13^th and 14^th. He believed this to be a sincere effort on the part of the North to guarantee southern property rights under law. His editorial concerning the events at Christiana and the aftermath stated, “The sober-minded people of Pennsylvania, are not prepared to submit to such shameful and disgraceful violations of the law of the land in their own State, by a band of vagabond Negroes and degraded white people who unfortunately reside amongst them. This case has aroused our Northern friends to a sense of their own folly, and the Southern people have to thank them for their prompt energy which they have displayed on the occasion.”

The Georgia state newspaper the Southern Recorder declared its appreciate of Pennsylvania's efforts to arrest the murderers by stating, “Federal and State authorities, as well as the people of Pennsylvania were willing to do their duty to the utmost.” The Greensborough, North Carolina paper the, Patriot, editorialized that the Pennsylvanians, “seem to be alive to the enormity of the outrage” and have called “numerous public meetings” to denounce it.

As stated earlier, many southern journalists believed the potential of success of the Compromise of 1850 to be directly proportionate to the northern desire to enforce it and therefore, the response of the North to the Christiana Riot was crucial. An editor from North Carolina wrote that unless the rioters were convicted and punished the “compromise will be a `rope of sand' ” which would serve the North based on the whim of the people to enforce when convenient. If this were to be the case the law “may as well be burnt up.” An editor in Richmond, Virginia felt the logical conclusion of a non-conviction of the perpetrators of Christiana to be that the south was loyal to the Union but its people would not continue to live under it, “if its laws may be set aside at defiance and with impunity.”

Because the reaction of the North was so important to the South, many southern newspapers printed extracts from northern papers. The editor of the Richmond, Virginia Whig viewed the northern press as showing, “almost unanimous abhorrence of these natural results of fanatical teaching.” By citing sources in the Philadelphia Whig newspapers, southern newspapers were able to create an image of the North which seemed to support the anti-abolitionist or anti-fanatical bias which the southerners claimed existed there. The Philadelphia Whig newspapers spoke as one voice to create the image of blacks as poor misled people who were mere tools of the abolitionists. Such an image was very popular in the South as an explanation of the events at Christiana. Therefore northern support of this image was equally popular.

Southern moderate editors weary of the disruption of the peace that they perceived existed, applauded northern efforts to criticize notables such as Horace Greeley. Greeley, a noted abolitionist was denounced by the southern press for exonerating the blacks of any responsibility at Christiana. The southern press was pleased to find support among northern editors such as the editor of the New York Express who said Greeley, “speaks only for himself and for some mad little coterie, and without any authority whatsoever from any respectable number of persons in any part of the country.” Comments such as this which were carried in a number of newspapers throughout the South seemed to re-inforce the accuracy of moderate philosophy concerning the cultural impact of Christiana.

The radicals of the South felt quite differently. They felt the abolitionists had a numerical advantage in northern elections and that southern rights would never be protected there. The Southern Press of Washington, D.C. stated that Horace Greeley and his New York Tribune, “represents the actual sentiment on the subject of the Northern masses.” They felt the Christiana Resistance served to support their assertions that the Fugitive Slave Law would never be enforced north of the Mason-Dixon line and the defiance exhibited at Christiana was indicative of true northern sentiment. Rather than an isolated incident, Christiana would serve as a model for future behavior throughout the North. Edward Gorsuch would be the first, but certainly not the last innocent to die on northern soil in pursuit of property.

Southern newspapers resorted to adjectives such as, “horrible,” “dreadful,” and “atrocious” to describe the events at Christiana. Many called for revenge. The Fairfield Herald exclaimed, “Let us, while we yet claim so of the rights of freemen throw off the accused yoke which is galling us, at the risk of our fortunes, our tomes and our lives.” The Baltimore Sun cried, “The law of the land &endash; the very statute upon which hangs our destiny as an Union &endash; has been wantonly and openly violated and the death of one, if not more of the best citizens of Maryland, has been the consequence.” The Baltimore Clipper openly demanded vengeance, “that a most foul and damning outrage has been perpetrated upon the highly respected citizens of the Commonwealth, whilst honestly and lawfully endeavoring to repossess themselves of their property, and the circumstances call loudly for some prompt retributive justice upon the heads of the wretches who have instigated and committed the bloody deed.”

A Methodist newspaper in Nashville, Tennessee summarized the opinion of radicals everywhere who saw the actions at Christiana as defining the northerners as a group of fanatics who were unwilling to understand a simple point of law, that slaves were property which must be returned when recovered or found. The defiance of this simple point of justice was the real significance of Christiana. It was, according to the irate editor, “a determined purpose to resist the law of the land,” and in fact, “the cool and determined purpose to maltreat and murder, aye butcher, in the most savage, barbarous and cold-blooded manner, those who were seeking their constitutional rights.” He also called for vengeance by stating, “A crisis has come, this affair will test the matter.” Southern rights and the laws of congress will be respected and, “the cold-blooded murder punished,” or the rights of southern citizens will be, “trampled under foot, and their blood cry in vain for justice.”

A South Carolina based newspaper, the Southern Standard, editorial lamented that a South Carolinian had not been killed in the Riot. He felt Maryland was too moderate in temperament to properly rally the rest of the South to the required frenzy. Other southern editors believed the Christiana Riot would serve as the impetus to the South to seed dis-union. The editor of the Augusta, Georgia newspaper, the Constitutionalist, could not resist a not so subtle jab at moderates who believed in the Compromise of 1850 as a vehicle to preserve the union by stating, “Our opponents are always pointing to the Fugitive Slave Law. We point you, people of

Georgia, to the mangled corpses of your fellow citizens of the South &endash; We have been fearing just such a result as this &endash; The law will hereafter be a perfectly dead letter. Such is the Compromise which some of our opponents tell the people is fair, liberal, and just. We have lost all our territory and got a Fugitive Slave Law, the recovery under which of our slaves, costs us more than they are worth, and the blood of our people besides.”

The ultimate significance of the Christiana Resistance for radical editors was the opportunity it gave them to back their denunciations of the Compromise of 1850, The Fugitive Slave Law, and ultimately the union. The editor of the Little Rock, Arkansas Star Gazette and Democrat believed the Christiana Resistance had forced the South to the “last extremity of an injured and insulted people.” The editor of the Jacksonville, Florida Floridian and Journal asked, “Is such guilt to be tolerated &endash; are such assassinations to be repeated? If so, the sword of Civil War is already unsheathed.” The Fairfield, South Carolina Herald predicted, “Tis thus the people of the South have become suppliant and fawning &endash; God forbid Carolinians to submit or suffer their pile of grievances to be increased. Let us, while we yet claim some of the rights of freemen, throw off the accursed yoke which is galling us, at the risk of our fortunes, our tombs and our lives.”

The feelings of the North towards the Resistance were dividing into three groups. Northern moderates were horrified that Constitutional Law had been so casually disregarded and that violence would cause dis-union in the South. This group believed the Fugitive Slave Law and the Compromise of 1850 would preserve the union if enforced. The second opinion was the group which believed the Fugitive Slave Law to be morally reprehensible but didn't know what means of dissent would best defeat it. The third opinion was that of the abolitionists who applauded the black violent resistance at Christiana.

The moderates of the North, like their southern counterparts, blamed fanatical abolitionists for Christiana. Those abolitionists who pointed to their resistance being based on the moral authority supplied to them by God due to “higher law” became special targets in the press. The Pennsylvanian declared that the abolitionists were “agitators” who were “not only prepared for murder and insurrection, but they are themselves the pledged assassins of the Constitution.” The Weekly American felt that “these higher law men are morally responsible for encouraging and inviting such resistance to the laws, and as such must account to God and their country.” The Weekly American in Waterbury, Connecticut on September 19^th decried the deplorable effects of “higher law” advocates. The Philadelphia Ledger of September 12 quoted Mr. Stafford of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania as calling Christiana the “fruits of higher law.”

Those who opposed the Fugitive Slave Law, but were in doubt as to proper opposition to it, stressed the law itself as the culprit at Christiana. They welcomed the Compromise of 1850 because it maintained the union and because it temporarily calmed the storm around slavery expansion, but they felt the Fugitive Slave Law to be unenforceable. Northern concepts of individual rights and freedoms would not be suppressed in order to enforce the law. Without northern compliance the law was unenforceable. To act as a slave catcher was so morally repugnant to some northerners that a negative stance on slavery became significantly stronger after 1850. But, because the Fugitive Slave Law was the law of the land, those who were of this opinion believed it should be enforced.

The conflicting pangs of conscience and law were deeply disturbing to members of this belief. Those who were torn between obeying the law while also obeying their consciences were extremely upset by news of the Riot. It dramatically illustrated the need to make a choice between what was morally right and what was legally right.

The third belief system existing in the North was the group who damned the Fugitive Slave Law as a moral evil and defied federal authorities to enforce it. They described the Compromise of 1850 as a “pact with the Devil” and relied only on the “higher laws of God.” These were the abolitionists who cheered the resistance at Christiana and hoped the success of the resistance there would inspire further resistance everywhere. For the abolitionists, Christiana strengthened their attacks on the institution of slavery.

Sidney Howard Gay of the National Anti-Slavery Standard wrote, “It need surprise nobody that in the game of slave hunting &endash; it should sometimes happen that the hunting party and not the hunted become the mark for bullets, and the law of self-preservation, and not the Fugitive Slave Law, be obeyed in triumph.” Gay goes on to state that Edward Gorsuch should be, “shot down like a dog.” William Lloyd Garrison in the Liberator calls Gorsuch a “manstealer”, and described the slave catchers as “lawlessly breaking into a private dwelling under the cover o' darkness, attempted with stealth and violence, to seize and make slave some of the occupants.” Frederick Douglas wrote that Christiana was needed “to check these aggressions and to bring the hunters of men to the sober second thought.” The Pennsylvania Freeman wrote that “instead of whining and writhing over this horrible massacre, let every citizen worthy of the name, turn to the cause of it, slavery and have manliness enough to demand the remedy.”

Newspaper editors for all three belief systems found the Christiana Resistance to be a powerful subject on which to mount a forum for powerful editorials. Those northern editors who were opposed to the abolitionist viewpoint found ammunition for a plethora of editorials on the subject. The Philadelphia Bulletin claimed that “Every citizen, except those crazed upon the subject of abolition, will, we feel convinced, unite in condemning this atrocity.” The New York Express declared that, “The real murderers are the abolitionists.” The Express went on to state that , “higher law” is little more than “musket and bullet” when used by the “ignorant Negro.” The outraged editor of the Boston Journal told readers, “ The abolitionists thirsted for the blood of the Southerners. They urged their innocent dupes, the colored mob, to defy the law, and aided and abetted them in the commission of a most foul murder.”

Many northern editors seemed to be stunned. They could not believe that the Resistance had occurred in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania editors had the task of vindicating Pennsylvanians as a whole. The editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer made an attempt to vindicate the people of Pennsylvania while also reassuring southerners who may be concerned about the stability of the union when he wrote, “Pennsylvania is a law abiding Commonwealth, and her people are everywhere the friends of order and good government. The affair at Christiana was a sudden outbreak, not anticipated, and therefore could not have been guarded against. All that can now be done is to make the most vigorous efforts for the arrest and punishment of the accused. And this will be done! It is due alike to Pennsylvania and the Union.” The Whig editor Edward C. Darlington in the Lancaster Examiner and Herald called the rioters at Christiana too few to be of significance and called them, “a few fanatical monomaniacs who justify armed resistance to the law.” Many northern moderates outside Pennsylvania sought to maintain union, vindicate the North as a whole and reassure the South by calling for severe punishment for Castner Hanway and the other prisoners accused of perpetrating the crimes at Christiana. James Bennett of the New York Herald called for capital punishment for Hanway: “Those stealthy traitors who, in counseling resistance to the laws, are richly deserving of the traitor's penalty.” The Washington, D.C. called for capital punishment for “these pestilent agitators responsible for the act.”

Northern apologists could not suppress a sentiment which they feared the worst. It was a sentiment best expressed by the editor of the tiny Lancaster newspaper, the Saturday Express in an editorial titled, “Civil War &endash; The First Blow Struck,” states, “The fruits of slavery and of the excitement rashly gotten up by those who denominate themselves the `friends' of the Negroes, are beginning to ripen. The first murder fruit that has fallen in our Country from this tree of civil discord and evil, is one that has thrown the people into a fever heat of indignation; not so much at the Negroes as at those who instigated them to the deed. We have long forseen such an issue; God grant that the future has nothing worse in store growing out of the same causes &endash; but we have an ominous premonition that this is not the end, but only the beginning.”

Both southern and northern editors used the Christiana Resistance to sway public opinion. The moderates and radicals of the South saw defiance in a North which refused to recognize southern property rights and refused to obey Constitutional Law. They differed as to the appropriate response and what northern defiance meant to the nation. The northern editors were divided into moderates who opposed the Fugitive Slave Law but struggled between moral values and respect for Constitutional Law, and abolitionists who opposed the law and supported defiance of it in all forms. Moderates on each side were distressed by the death of Edward Gorsuch. Only the radicals on both sides saw benefit in Gorsuch's death to make political capital from the propaganda opportunity it afforded them. The editorials represented the opinions of all of the existing schools of thought and reflect the conflicting ideas present in the nation.