Talk:Fugitive slave laws in the United States

Untitled
Why is this page whitout any text? :p 83.160.10.97 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC) the f***? that's vandalism {Ableenglish (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)}

Vandalism
There was an act of vandalism by an unknown user on February 8, 2010 under "The 1850 Statue":

"; of Jerry M. Henry, in Syracuse, New York, in the same year; of Anthony Burns in 1854, in Boston; and of the two Garner families in 1856, in Cincinnati, with other cases arising under the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, probably had as much to do with bringing on the Civil War as did the controversy over slavery in the Territories. bullshit"

Noticing this, "Reach Out to the Truth" deleted the word "bullshit", restoring the article to its earlier form.

There has been acts of vandalism to wikipedia articles on the topic of slavery recently, sometimes using outright racial slurs. Such acts of vandalism - racist or not - violate Wikipedia's policy, and make it more difficult for serious people to contribute to Wikipedia & for the public. Ebanony (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

-

There were some problems w/ the section "Pre-colonial & Colonial Eras" Some of the editors obviously confused the Articles of Confederation of the New England Confederation & the Articles of Confederation of the United States. They are not even remotely related, and are separated by over 100 years.

When I edited this article several months ago, that issue was not present. Those who are not familiar w/ the most of basic of historical differences should refrain from making changes. As in if they don't know what the Articles of Confederation of the US were, then why make changes? That's pretty basic history. Is that more vandalism or just ignorance?

Now this is another issue: Under the "1793 Statue" someone changed the first paragraph to say that the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act was because of abolition & that there was "strong opposition" to this law. Saying that "soon in 1830's" states began to fight it.

Well, again, someone doesn't what the subject matter. The "north" in 1793 was not opposed to the 1793 Slave Act in any real way. Their economy was based on the slave trade, with every major port playing a role: NY, Providence, Mass etc were all major ports that imported about 75% of African slaves by the Revolution. Further, most still had slaves, including Pennsylvania (where the Govt was in 1793) and New York. There was not much of an argument against slavery in 1793 the way there was later on.

There were differences in the 1830's. Yes, about 40 years later. That's not "soon" and further, the 1793 Law was passed w/ a comfortable majority in both the House & Senate & signed by Washington - himself a big slave owner. So yes there was an underground railroad in the early 19th century, but that was a small thing. You had slaves at that time running to Florida (Spanish owned)and Mexico. That's a seperate issue. The debate for the abolition of slavery heatd up in the 1840's & 1850's. In 1793 & the next few years, there was little mainstream opposition to slavery on a PRINCIPLED basis. The so called "send tehm back to Africa groups" were hardly looking to help slaves.

Again, people should not edit a page unless they 1) know what they're talking about and 2) have a reference. Neither of the above mentioned arguments even had references to them.Ebanony (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

1793 Statue
I have made some minor changes because there have been some changes to the grammar as well as meaning of the text without valid reasons. This was confusing to the reader. This article gets far too many changes and should be protected from changes by unsigned or unestablished users.Ebanony (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone reduced the size the size of this section of the article, which is fine. The problem is that he/she confused it with the Ordinance of 1787 and had the wrong sections quoted; I've made the proper corrections, and kept the quotes small so that no extra space was used (this topic has a main article, so this is brief). There were other small changes I made, but that was just to ensure that the 2 sections were coherent. The basic information is the same. Note: work needs to be done on the html of the sources so that the hyerlinks do not show, but can be accessed.Ebanony (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The 1850 Statute -- partial citation plus
The citation for the Garner’s arrest in Ohio and return to Kentucky in 1856 as a cause of the Civil War is William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion, Vol. II: Secessionists Triumphant 1854-1860, Oxford, 2007, p. 350.

The apprehended runaway Margaret Garner slit her mulatto 2-year old daughter Priscilla’s throat in 1856 rather than allow her to fall back into the slavery the mother had experienced at the hand of her Kentucky master Archibald Gaines. Federal authorities returned the surviving Garners to their owner (for resale?).

Lincoln’s first inaugural promised the federal government would continue to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. The Union would do for slavery, slave holders and slave states what northern states and juries would not. Disunionists would lose if they separated, because the anti-slavery states would not coerce slavery. – Northern states could not stem the importation of African slaves through Louisiana by traders such as Jim Bowie (Three Roads to the Alamo). (Lincoln’s inauguration speech -- we can find a scholar to say L. was against disunion and used the arguments in his March 1861 Inaugural to try to prevent it, so as not to be orginal).

The Garner’s return to slavery reverberated among Northern educated, editors, clergy and state/US representatives in an unimaginable way (see the Anonymously posted incredulity in the posting above) without the background of Livy’s History of Appius’ c.445 BCE ruling in the case of Verginia’s slavery.

While virtually all leading men, North and South, read Livy’s History in Latin during college, (Wikipedia ‘Livy’ note #15) many of us now depend on translations (mea culpa). See Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History by Andrew Feldherr 1998 UC online. His treatment of Appius’ trial of Verginia is consistent with the 1823 Encyclopedia Britannica, see Google Books, it may be in other things.

Both Livy and Cicero held that ‘the unjust judge’ Appius reversed himself, holding that Verginia was Cladius’ slave, not Virginius’ daughter. In this he ruled against liberty and for slavery until evidence could be brought, so that he could prostitute Verginia. Taking his goodbyes outside the court, Virginius stabbed his daughter to death in his arms. (see Alexander Adams ‘A Compendius Dictionary of the Latin Tongue’ (1805 p. 842, 1814, 1822, Google Books, Feldherr UC ebooks, Britannica Google Books).

Debates over Fugitive Slave Laws were informed by this widely read history (citation). Northern states which required evidence in court before African-Americans were exiled into enslavement were following ancient Roman Republic rulings on liberty and slavery including by Appius the plebeian’s friend, not Appius the lustful, power grabbing aristocrat whom the Senate overthrew in civil war. Some abolitions thought slave masters lustful (Freehling), though Lincoln said they were 'just as we would be' in similar circumstances (citation).

Also, much in the wildly (northern) popular Uncle Tom’s Cabin stressed that slavery disrupted, violated and desecrated the family according to the Christian values held by the anti-slavery societies (Freehling Road-2 p. 224). Lincoln advocated freedom of speech and religion to talk, publish and deliver mail on the merits of slavery. (Although he did not protect southern editors, nor deliver mail where it was unwanted by disunionists, vigilantes and slave patrols(Freehling)).All of these were considered causes of the Civil War. (TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

pre-colonial and colonial vandalism help
In the pre-colonial and colonial section, there is reference to the Montana territories and the Dutch territories in what will later be New York.
 * I guess it is anachronistic vandalism, but I did not know what to substitute ... continuing in English ... the Swedes had a colony ... slavery in America was practiced among the Iroquois, Algonquin, and Choctaw, though not all, or even most, Native-American nations (see Lauber's "Indian slavery in colonial times" online) ... (???) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fugitive_slave_laws&diff=prev&oldid=357116055 I've just restored it manually because it was vandalism, but we should source that part as well. Right, some tribes had slaves, but Montana Territories in the 17th Century by European explorers? I don't know he/she was trying to say, but that was a claim with no suuport. Good call!Ebanony (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "Fugitive slave clause" have its own section?
I came to this page on a redirect. Shouldn't the "Fugitive slave clause" of the Constitution have its own section with cites and the text from the document? Right now it is an appendage of the lede. I think this new section fits between Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Without its own section (and placed in the redirect) the redirect loses the reader. Red Harvest (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fugitive slave laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923082639/http://www.ushistory.org:80/presidentshouse/history/slaveact1793.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/slaveact1793.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment
I moved the following by an IP that was added above in the middle of another editor's old comments. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The opening paragraph contains this sentence: "After the compromise of 1850, the Supreme Court made slavery a protected institution and arranged a series of laws...." This seems to be a confusing and misleading way to describe the complex interaction or reinforcement between acts of Congress and the Supreme Court's decisions. The Compromise of 1850 ("compromise" should be capitalized) was a series of laws, and the Supreme Court did not "arrange" those laws as the sentence carelessly implies. Arguably, both the Compromise and the Dredd Scott Decision made slavery "a protected institution" each in its own way, albeit whether that status was going to be allowed to stand was the issue that led almost directly to the Civil War. (written by User:67.237.160.255)