1787: Slavery in the Constitutional Convention

From the very beginning of the United States' current government system, it was clear that slavery was not going to be negotiated away. Until the Civil War, slavery was always approached as a compromise between supporters and opponents. If the Framers did not realize that slavery would become as divisive as it did, they did know that union could not be secured without both sides conceding some ground. Southern slave owners received protection for their chattel labor and Northerners were assured of Southern cooperation for the creation of the Union. In the "three-fifths clause" representation in the lower house and taxation were both affected by the population of slaves. The discussion over the importation of slaves, a practice deemed reprehensible by many in the North and South, was prohibited for twenty year. Even the choice of words in the Constitution indicate the controversial nature of this subject--"other persons" is a euphemism for "slavery" or "slaves."

Fugitive slave laws did not receive the same vigorous debate that the slave trade and the three-fifths clause did. South Carolinians, Pierce Butler and Charles Pinckney, proposed that a clause for the extradition of fugitive slaves be attached to that for fugitives from justice. Some opposition from James Wilson of Pennsylvania, on administrative rather than moral grounds, caused Butler to withdraw his proposal. But a day later, a separate clause for the extradition of fugitive slave was included as a separate clause in Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution.

1793: Fugitive Slave Law

The 1793 Fugitive Slave Law was written in response to a conflict between Pennsylvania and Virginia. Although the problem of fugitive slaves was addressed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (in Article IV, Section 2 in the final document), there was an assumption that interstate cooperation would allow this provision to be enforced. In reality, differences of moral attitudes and questions over legal responsibility for enforcement made the rendition of fugitives difficult. The particular case that forced Congress's hand in 1793 centered around John Davis. Pennsylvania's governor, Thomas Mifflin, sought the extradition of three Virginians accused of kidnapping Davis and taking him to Virginia. Virginia's governor, Beverly Randolph, refused the extradition request on the grounds that Davis was a fugitive slave subject to rendition. Mifflin objected claiming that Davis was free and should be protected. The 1793 Fugitive Slave Law that was written in response to this interstate struggle marked the first of several federal attempts to balance the rights of personal liberty and personal property.

1820: Missouri Compromise

1842: Prigg v. Pennsylvania

1850: The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Law

More territories further west were now asking for admittance as states and again the argument arose as to whether these should by designated slave or free. Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania introduced legislation stipulation that no new territories would by admitted as slave states. The "Wilmot Proviso" failed, but the debate rekindled vehement arguments in and out of Congress. The statesman Henry Clay engineered another compromise where California was admitted as a slave state, the territories of New Mexico and Utah were created without reference to the "Wilmot Proviso," and slavery was abolished in the District of Columbia. This legislation also included an act that addressed the return of fugitive slaves. This portion of the Compromise of 1850 Is referred to as The Fugitive Slave Act.

The Fugitive Slave Law was designed to deter slaves from escaping and free citizens from aiding in escape attempts. These laws stipulated that it was illegal for any citizen to assist an escaped slave. Furthermore, the legislation demanded that if an escaped slave was sighted, he or she should be apprehended and turned in to the authorities for deportation back to the "rightful" owner down south. It was thought that the Fugitive Slave Act would diminish the incentive for slaves to attempt escape. The rationale behind this was the slaves' realization that even if they managed to escape from their plantation, they could still be caught and returned by any citizen in the United States. The Fugitive Slave Act was so severe that any United States Marshall who refused to return a runaway slave would pay a hefty penalty of $1,000.

The law was very controversial and generally considered to favor slave owners. Abolitionists decried the fact that the burden of proof was put on the blacks (who had little legal power in the first place) and there was no provision for a jury trial. Instead, the case was decided by a federal commissioner who had a financial incentive to deliver the slave back to the south. If he sided with the black defendant the commissioner received a five dollar fee, but if the claimant won the fee doubled to ten dollars--a difference that opponents to the law viewed as a bribe. When quantified, the law certainly appears to have benefited the slave owners. Only eleven of the 344 cases heard by such commissioners during the 1850s were found in favor of the black defendant.

1851: Jerry McHenry of Syracuse

1851: The Christiana Resistance

1854: Anthony Burns of Boston