Public Sentiment in the North.
Nearly every mail that reaches us brings convincing proof that the Albany Atlas was in error when it asserted that the sentiment of opposition to the fugitive slave law was "universal" in the non-slaveholding States. Gradually the great body of the people is moving; the voice of reason, duty, and patriotism is becoming audible amidst the din of that "abolition rub-a-dub," to which Mr. Webster so graphically alluded in his last speech in the Senate. We can readily understand how even the best inclined persons might have mistaken the first signs of public opinion on this exciting subject.
The fugitive law had scarcely been adopted before every abolition society and every abolitionist, with their allies the runaway and free negroes, were in motion. Meetings were held to denounce it–addresses pamphlets issued in myriads, scattered broadcast over the country, and containing the most palpable falsehoods and misrepresentations. Negroes were leaving in scores for Canada, white men urging them to flee from the "abode of the oppressor," and every town and hamlet of the North was as much alarmed and convulsed as if a British "press-gang" or Cumanche [Comanche] foray was on the point of being made in their peaceful precincts.
Many were misled by this formidable display, and carried away by the contact of enthusiasm, joined in the outcry. The remedy appeared to be easy and practicable; and that was, to repeal the law. Hence much of this menacing danger. At length people are coming to their senses again, and beginning to estimate the magnitude of the evil to be remedied, and the fruits of the remedy proposed. They see, upon reflection, that this abused law is neither a violation of the constitution, of humanity, nor of the laws of God, but in strict conformity to them all. It only enjoins upon the officers of the government to do what the constitution requires, and what, under like circumstances, St. Paul did voluntarily, as an act of duty, even under the higher law of God.
Startled as we were among others at the first threatening demonstration, we are happy to find that the temporary delusion appears to be abating, and that the honest, enlightened mass of the northern people are determined to be heard. A few noisy factionists can make more clamor and commotion that millions of quiet, calm, unobtrusive citizens. The latter are reluctant to engage in strife of this sort; but when they see its necessity, they throw off all reserve, and speak out in a voice that drowns the croakings of demagogues. Mr. Burke's celebrated illustration will exactly describe the state of the North, and indeed of the South, too, since the adoption of the Compromise: "A single grasshopper in a green pasture-field will make more noise and disturbance," he says, "than all the herds of stately oxen that graze upon its banks." It has been the gadflies and grasshoppers of the North that have been buzzing and teazing the noble herds, till they have finally driven them into action. We shall soon see which is the most potent in this contest.
We give some extracts from northern papers on this subject, in confirmation of our remarks. Some have no doubt escaped our notice. We add our unqualified approbation of the following, from the New York Mirror. Let it be followed up elsewhere:
From the New York Mirror.
THE MERCHANTS AND THE UNION.--Who of our merchants will lend oil in getting up a mass meeting to protest against the "further agitation of the slavery question," and to pledge the great commercial emporium to the cause of the Union and the constitution?
From the Detroit Free Press.
There is, indeed, "enough in the general aspect of our affairs, if not to alarm, at least to admonish us that every cord which binds us together should be strengthened," when old and long-established journals, like the Daily Advertiser of this city, array themselves against the constitution and law, and "endeavor to bring it into contempt, so that it may be violated with impunity," merely for the purpose of securing a few votes of the fanatics for their candidates.
We look upon this whole subject as one not to be trifled with. When the law is trampled under foot, then the glory of our country has departed–when the strong mandates of the constitution are set at naught, then the danger is nigh at hand, and it behooves every friend of liberty and his country to be at his post. Let each and every man do his duty in sustaining the laws, and not be found in the ranks of those who, by "open or secret means," are really plotting against the best interests of his country.
It has been well said, the Union will have but few such contests as we have passed through the past winter. It is not to be disguised that there are Sewards in the South as well as in the North–men who would dissolve the Union if they could, and who will use every effort in their power to continue the agitation, in the belief that in the end they will be able to accomplish their unholy aims. Bond after bond which bound the North and South together has been broken. Churches and religious unions have been rent asunder, and yet there are those among us who cry there is no danger! While thousands in the South already declare that the Union is a burden to them, and the party lines are formed on that basis, northern presses, like the Advertiser, are fanning the flame of agitation, and strengthening the hands of the disunionists.
We look upon this question as above all party. The election of this or that man for President or congressman is of no consequence compared to the preservation of the Union of these States.
From the Providence Herald.
HABEAS CORPUS ACTS AND ACTS OF REBELLION AGAINST THE LAWS.–The excitement in certain quarters against the fugitive-slave law begins to show signs of moderation. The fact that there was so great a number of fugitives in the non-slavehlding States would never have been known if this alarm of a more efficient provision for the election of the law had not been given. The constitutional guarantee for the restoration of slaves had become a dead letter in consequences of the opposition which had been made, for a great length of time, and made successfully, too, to the execution of the law of 1793. Resistance to that law has long since amounted to what may be technically called rebellion. If Congress had therefore actually suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as alleged, it was in a case in which the constitution would authorize its suspension.
But the fugitive-slave law is, however, one to which the North would not be inclined to give support upon any other consideration that that of good faith, and to keep peace between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. It is not fair, therefore, to place the law in an abstract point of view, disconnected from that system of measures which was devised for the sake of its combined tendency to preserve the Union of the States under the existing constitution. It could not be expected that the North, whatever may the effect, would look upon this law by itself as designed for their special benefit; though it was reasonable to hope that the benefits of the Union would be seen to be so desirable to us, that no abstract dogma would lead to a voluntary sacrifice of the great property of the North, as well as of all the parts of the country.
From the same.
SIGNIFICANT.--Some whig papers are endeavoring to show that the whigs did not vote for the peace measures. Stevens, (whig,) who voted against the fugitive bill, though re-elected, fell off in his majority nearly 4,000 votes. So Ross, Dimmick, and McLanahan, (democrats) who voted for the fugitive bill, have been re-elected; while Ogle and Dickey, (whigs,) who voted against the fugitive bill or peace measures, have been defeated. And the whigs that were re-elected had diminished majorities, while an increasing majority was received in many instances by the democrats. If the people in the other States should manifest as true an attachment to the Union as those of Pennsylvania, there would be little anxiety exhibited by any of the whig papers to show how little the members of that party had done to preserve the constitution and the Union; and it would not be surprising if a few months should find them as anxious to conceal as they now are to boast of their unpatriotic zeal.
From the Jackson (Michigan) Patriot.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.--A considerable degree of excitement exists in portions of the North in consequences of some arrests having been made under the recent act of Congress providing more stringent measures for the recapture of fugitive slaves.
This excitement we believe to have been brought about by the action of fanatical abolitionists and interested politicians. We have heard of but two arrests under the law; and yet large numbers of negroes are hastening out of the country with all the sped of hunted wolves.
There is no necessity for the excitement. It is true that the law contains effective provisions, but there is no danger that any fugitive will be taken back unless the claimant produces conclusive proof in the premises.
The law is the last plank of the abolitionists. They have nothing else to stand upon, and they will cling to this with all the tenacity of drowning men. All the other vexed questions have been settled by the series of compromise measures of which this was one. Every ground of the agitation had been taken away, and now the arrest of two persons as fugitive slaves will be a new subject of commotion until after the fall elections. It wont work.
In this State, the present agitation is headed by a few whig politicians, who hope to profit by it at the polls. The Detroit Advertiser and other papers which sustained Mr. Clay's compromise bill (and this fugitive-slave law was one of the measures of the Compromise) are now opposing the law for political effect. Let no democrat be caught in such a trap.
We are sorry to know that there is a small class in our midst who talk about resisting the law, and among them some who advise resistance at all hazards, and without regard to consequences. This is no less dangerous than the most execrable doctrine, and those who hold it are little better than madmen. The ground of resistance, we believe, is that the law is contrary to the law of God, and hence wrong, and not be obeyed. Where would this rule of ethics lead us? If the rule is once established as a general one, of course every man is to judge for himself what human laws conflict with Divine laws, and to govern himself accordingly. What kind of doctrine would this be, and where would it land us? Would it not be subversive of all civil government? Would it not lead to anarchy and everlasting confusion and never-ending wrangling? The doctrine is too abominably atrocious to be tolerated by any reasonable man; and he who gives currency to it is either actuated by an insane passion, or else he is rotten to the core. If the law is unconstitutional, there is an established tribunal before which it can be ascertained; and until it is do declared so by that tribunal, it is no less a moral than a high religious duty for every citizen to sustain it. But the law is not unconstitutional, and it must and will be sustained.
From the same.
THE HEINOUSNESS OF ABOLITIONISM --When it was known that the fugitive-slave law had been passed by Congress, the abolitionists set up a universal howl through the North, declaring that every negro, no matter whether slave or free, was in imminent danger of being arrested and hurried into slavery. The consequence of this was to frighten all the negroes in the country, and thousands of them have fled from this jack-o'-lantern set up by the abolitionists, and gone to Canada.
The object of this howling is too palpable and transparent to be misunderstood. What do the abolitionists care for the negro, so that they can keep alive the excitement upon which they have fed for three years past? Nothing! We believe this stampede among the negroes has been got up purposely by the abolitionists to serve their insane and treasonable designs.
They preach resistance to the law! Let them resist. We are glad to see them throw off the mask at last, and exhibit their naked deformity to the world. Resist the law! Let them do it; but let them remember that they must take the consequences, for the consequences surely will follow.
There is, we are glad to know, a healthy public sentiment among the democracy, the people of the North, which will sustain this and every other law; and the hydra-head of treason and resistance will be successfully and triumphantly beaten back.
But the most heinous feature in the whole matter is the encouragement given to the negroes to arms and resist the law. They are advised to shoot down the officer so the government–and these officers, be it remembered, are citizens of our own State–when engaged in the execution of their sworn duty! Can anything be more atrocious and blood-thirsty than this? And yet some of these men pretend to be followers of Christ! Let the true men of the North rebuke this horrible doctrine. Let there be a determination evinced to sustain all law, and all the compromises upon which the Union is based. Without acquiescence in law, this republic has but a feeble foothold, and it strength will be a mere rope of sand. Without law, we shall be without liberty; and the pretended or imaginary dangers of a few men are not to be weighed in the balance against the preservation and prosperity of the republic.
From the Detroit (Michigan) Courier.
The abolitionists and fanatics who sympathize with them are sounding the cry of repeal, as though the South had the whole North under their feet, and were preparing to sell us all out, "body and breeches," to the highest bidder. In all their movements to the rights of their southern brethren are never thought of or alluded to. Justice to the South forms no part of their plans. To carry their schemes at the North is the only object sought, and that they mean to accomplish at all hazards. The repeal of this law would be justly regarded by the people of the South as a declaration of hostility to their rights, totally inconsistent with a longer harmonious national Union. Another hour of submission would be a depth of degradation to which no man who had the soul of a patriot within him could endure to sink, even in contemplation. Should that day come, black and bitter will be its fruits. The passage of the act of 1850 was hailed as the harbinger of good-will by the South; and the very threat to repeal it has added ten-fold fuel to the flames kindled by the ultras of the South. Let the great enlightened masses of the North unite, heart and hand, in the cause of their country, and drown down these agitators. Let it be remembered, too, that the happiness of millions of the white race is of some value, and entitled to some little consideration, and that the blood and treasure of our forefathers were not poured out for the exclusive benefit of the negro.
The only question for the South is, whether we will treat with contempt the law that has been made, carrying out a provision of the constitution, or turn in along with the slave-stealers, and proclaim to the world that we will, if we can, deprive southerners of their slaves to the extent of our ability, regardless of law; that we will get up an excitement, and upon the strength of mob law kill the officers who are appointed to execute the laws. Such conduct would surely divide this Union, and place the North in the attitude of acting in bad faith to the constitution and laws of our common country.
From the Indiana State Sentinel.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL.–The passage of this measure at the late session of Congress, by the aid of northern voter, and its approval by a President form the North, contradict the assertion, so often made by the southern press and southern statesman, that an attack is contemplated by the free States upon their peculiar institutions. It affords another evidence which ought to be peculiarly gratifying to all; that is, the fidelity and attachment of the northern people to the constitution under which they live. Nothing is more difficult than to enforce a law which violates public opinion. That all the prejudices of the North are against slavery, and in favor of universal freedom, is not to be denied. Here is a law, the effect of which is to close our doors against the fugitive slaves, enforced without difficulty. Its operations so far have been most efficient. Under its provisions the long-secreted fugitive is returned to his owner, and the free man of color protected from the iron grasp of the man-stealer. The South should know that nothing but the most ardent desire to sustain the letter and spirit of the constitution could have induced the North to acquiesce in this measure--an acquiescence founded in fidelity to that instrument, which is the foundation of our happy and free institutions. It presents the sublime picture of a great people bowing in submission at the altar of constitutional requirements.
From the Boston Daily Advertiser.
THE FUGITIVE-SLAVE LAW.-- From the manner in which the fugitive-slave law is familiarly discussed, one would suppose that persons who freely express their opinions upon it were entirely ignorant that it involves any questions of right or obligation other than those which arise from the immediate relations between our community and the fugitives who are aggrieved at the law. It is not to be presumed that many of those who undertake to enlighten the public on this subject are themselves ignorant that we are under an obligation to other parties which does not permit us to overlook the relations which subsisted between them and the fugitives before the latter came among us. They, however, find it convenient to keep this obligation out of sight in their discussions of this subject. If Irish or Norwegian emigrants come among us, or if political refugees of Italy or Hungary claim our sympathy and patronage, we are at full liberty to receive them with open arms, if we see fit, and to extend to them any aid or protection which we may choose, because such protection interferes with no obligation which we are under to other parties who have any claim over the individuals so protected.
But our obligations in regard to the class of people to whom the fugitive-slave law applies are of an entirely different character. That law applies only to persons over whom other parties claim rights which we are bound to recognise, because they are recognised by the law of the land, to which we are all subject.
The fugitives are subject to obligations under the laws of States from which they come, from which we have no power to release them, and which we are bound by our own laws to respect.
In considering, therefore, our rights and duties in regard to slaves who have escaped from their masters in other States of the Union, we are not at liberty to disregard either their obligations to their masters by the laws of those States, or our own obligation, imposed by the government under which we live, to respect the rights of such masters. That obligation is not of a vague and uncertain character, left to be inferred from a doubtful process of reasoning, but it is clearly defined in the most precise terms in the constitution. This constitution every public officer of our own Commonwealth, as well as of the Union, has sworn to support, and every citizen is bound to obey. This obligation is introduced into the constitution of the United States for the very reason that it relates to a subject on which the citizens of different States have different views, and in consequence have enacted different local laws, and for the purpose of establishing throughout the Union a common principle which is indispensable to the maintenance of rights which are sanctioned by the laws of a portion of the States and consequently to the maintenance of harmony between those States and other States of the Union. It recognises the legal existence of slavery in States where the laws there established sanction it, and where it has been subsisted from time immemorial; and it in consequence enjoins on other States the obligation not to interfere with its maintenance.
Whether it was expedient or reasonable in the framers of the constitution to enter into this obligation on the part of the States which have abolished slavery for the protection of the rights of the citizens of States which had not abolished it, and which, from the vast number of their slaves, manifestly could not abolish it by any summary process, as well as for the protection of the former against the inroads of fugitives, it is quite useless for us now to inquire. It is sufficient that they entered into the obligation, that we are bound by it, and that we cannot get rid of it unless we are ready to renounce the constitution itself. It is proper for us, however, to consider that if the constitution were now to be framed, and the question were presented to the free States for their decision, it would be impossible for us to escape form the conclusive reasons which induced the sagacious men who framed the constitution and the considerate men who adopted it, to accede to that only principle of Union between the free and slave States, and the only principle of harmony between them as conterminous States, had they become independent of one another.
We enrich our columns with another extract from a correspondent over the signature of "C," in the Boston Courier. The views of this writer are so clear, sound, and admirably expressed, that we cannot doubt his identity. We think we know that able pen, and hope to see it often employed in defence of the Union and welfare of the country:
"The act of 1850 imposes the duty of hearing complaints against fugitives from service on certain officers termed commissioners, who, by the acts of Congress of 1812 and 1817, are appointed by the circuit courts of the United States. These officers have been examining magistrates of the United States for thirty years and upwards and many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of culprits have been committed by them for trial, without, so far as I know, any exception being made to their authority. I think, then, that the act of 1850 is not unconstitutional for this clause. I should have said so when I was speaking of the substitution of commissioners for justices of peace, if I had supposed there was any doubt on the subject. The justices of peace, when acting under the law of 1793, were merely commissioners. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (16 Peters, 539,) decided that State magistrates could not be compelled to execute the powers conferred on them by the act of 1793, though they were authorized to do so if they chose, unless prohibited by a law of the State. This was the fact in Pennsylvania. It may interest the readers of these papers, as a piece of curious, antiquarian history, to know the origin of the practice of restoring fugitives from service. In the articles of confederation between the united colonies of New England–namely, Massachusetts, New Plymouth, Connecticut, New Haven, &c. made in 1643, and made as the preamble declares by those who 'all come these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the kingdom of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace'–there is the following provision: 'It is also agreed that if any servant run away form his master into any confederate jurisdictions, in such case, upon certificate form one magistrate in the jurisdiction out of which the said servant fled, or upon other due proof, that said servant shall be either delivered to his master, or any other that pursues and brings such certificate and proof.'
"Thus it appears that the rendition of fugitives from service in this country commenced more than two hundred years ago, and, what is remarkable, the mode of proof prescribed by the agreement of the colonies is precisely analogous to one of the modes provided by the act of 1850; the only difference between them is in the more elevated character of the tribunal 'in the jurisdiction out of which the said servant fled,' before which the proof is now to be made, and the greater caution in the proceedings. I presume that the subjects of this compact between the colonies were rather white servants and apprentices than negro slaves, which in 1643 were probably very few in number. It was very common in those early times, more than at present, for master-mechanics to take indentured apprentices, who, if they absconded, were (and now are) liable to be arrested, and returned to their masters, as persons held to labor or service in the State whence they fled."
"Public Sentiment in the North," Washington (DC) Daily Union, October 23, 1850, p. 3.