Printed by: Melissa CooperPrinted on: October 21, 2015

When the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, the nation was facing challenging conflicts that threatened the unityof the country. By passing this law, government leaders hoped to hold the country together. What do youthink?

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Catching Runaway Slaves

Before Reading Poll

The Fugitive Slave Act was necessary in order to hold the nation together.

Agree

Disagree

Explain why you voted the way you did.

Article

PAGE 1

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Achieve3000, October 19, 2010).

Nineteen-year-old Anthony Burns lay on his side in a dank corner ofthe ship. He shivered, and drew his legs closer to his chest. He was atall, well-muscled youth, yet the past two weeks had weakened himconsiderably; his left arm was frozen in position under his torso, andhe could no longer bend it. The ship tossed, suddenly, unexpectedly,and Anthony hit his head against a wooden beam. Screaming in painwas a luxury that he could ill afford. Instead, he bit his lip so hard thathe drew blood. The sailor who had hidden him on the ship had beensympathetic to his cause, but Anthony could not be certain that theothers would be. He felt a sharp pain in his stomach; it had beenmore than two days since he had been given food or drink. Already hewas regretting his decision—had his conditions been so terrible on theplantation that this tortuous imprisonment was worthwhile?—but there

This poster from April 24, 1851,warned people in Boston aboutpolicemen acting as slave catchers.

was nothing to do once the ship had set sail.

One week later, Anthony stepped off the boat, blinking as his eyesadjusted to the bright Boston sunlight. He was a free man. He soonfound gainful employment and regained his strength. The former slave walked proudly through the streets, headheld high and shoulders squared. His new life was shattered just one week later when the slave-catcher AsaButman caught hold of his shoulder and led him to a small room in the town's Court House. A town marshalentered the room, accompanied by Burns' former master, Charles F. Suttle.

"Why did you run away from me?" Suttle demanded. Burns may have moved to the North to be a free man, but inSuttle's eyes, Burns was still his property.

The Fugitive Slave Act

Passed in 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act declared that all runaway slaves had to be returned to their masters. The lawmeant that no African Americans—runaways or free men—were safe from capture. Passed in a time of tensions overslavery, the law was an attempt to thwart the Southern impulse to break away from the North.

Unrest in the South

What were the circumstances that led to the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act? Americans were bitterly divided overthe issue of slavery for years. This clash dated back to the 1700s, when the movement to abolish slavery took root.By 1850, relations between the Northern and Southern states were more strained than ever before; Southerners whowould become members the Confederacy had begun to mutter threats of secession. Worried legislators inWashington, D.C., searched frantically for a means of appeasing the Southern states and keeping them a part of theUnion. Ultimately, they decided to revive the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

The 1793 law had required that fugitive slaves who fled to free states be returned to their owners. However, it wasrarely enforced and sometimes even actively opposed. Many Northern states passed laws attempting to limit the act'spowers. Some states created personal liberty laws that guaranteed accused slaves the right to a trial by jury; otherstates would not allow public officials to assist in the capture of suspected slaves. These state laws often made it allbut impossible for Southern slave owners to claim runaway slaves who had reached the haven of a free state. In1842, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly weakened the 1793 law by ruling that states were notrequired to assist in the recapture of a fugitive slave.

An Old Law Made New

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 severely tightened the restrictions of the original bill. Suspected fugitives were to bearrested if anyone made sworn testimony claiming ownership. In addition, any federal marshal or public officialrefusing to make the arrest was in danger of a $1,000 fine. Once imprisoned, the suspected slave was not permittedthe luxury of a jury trial, and no witnesses could be summoned to testify in his defense. Anyone providing aid to asuspected slave was to be slapped with a six-month jail sentence and a $1,000 fine.

The nature of the act's provisions made it impossible for anybody—a proponent of slavery or not—to claim that itpromoted justice or honesty. The accused was denied a jury trial and was not permitted to bring witnesses in hisdefense. Therefore, any accusation was as good as a sentence. Many free men were thus forced into slavery.

Anger in the North

Abolitionists were enraged. They began calling the act the "Bloodhound Law," after the dogs used to track downsuspected fugitives. The law actually helped the abolitionists' cause. While many Northerners had remainedsomewhat removed from the debates that seemed so irrelevant in their free states, the new laws brought everyoneinto the frenzy. Men who opposed slavery in principle but preferred not to take a public position on the issue weresuddenly thrown into an uncomfortable predicament. If they openly ignored the U.S. law, they risked stiff fines andimprisonment. On the other hand, if they complied with regulations and turned in suspected slaves, they violated thedictates of their conscience. Inaction was no longer an option.

Many Northerners joined abolitionist groups or became stationmasters for the Underground Railroad, whose passengerload was as heavy as ever, but whose destination had changed. Escaping slaves now followed the "drinkin' gourd"(the Big Dipper constellation) that pointed to the North Star. It led them north, but they no longer stopped in theNorthern U.S. They headed to freedom, to the promised land, to Canada.

An End to the Act

In 1854, abolitionist Sherman Booth led a raid to free the captured fugitive slave Joshua Glover. Booth was arrestedfor violating the Fugitive Slave Act, but he was freed by the Missouri Supreme Court, which ruled that the law itselfwas unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court repealed this ruling, but the seeds of opposition had already beendeeply sewn. As arrests for violating the Fugitive Slave Act mounted, more Americans began to question the law.

The Fugitive Slave Act was not repealed until 1864. By that time, the Civil War, which for the North began as an effortto save the union, had become a struggle to end slavery. It had been over a year since the EmancipationProclamation had freed the slaves of the Deep South.

The Fugitive Slave Act only served to briefly prolong the fragile hold that the Southern states had on the institution ofslavery. The law, meant to appease the South, angered many in the North and helped strengthen the abolitionistmovement.

PAGE 2

Dig Deeper

In "Catching Runaway Slaves," you read that the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was passed in an atmosphere of tensionbetween pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. But how did this act come into law, when roughly half of Americansopposed it? It was, in fact, part of a compromise designed to avoid conflicts as the nation expanded.

Expansion was tricky at a time when some states permitted slavery and others did not. In 1820, with the MissouriCompromise, Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state and Maine as a free state. The MissouriCompromise also drew an imaginary line across the former Louisiana Territory. Slavery was not to be permitted northof that line. But less than 30 years later, the U.S. expanded again, reviving the question of how to maintain thebalance between slave states and free states.

In 1848, the U.S. obtained land as part of the treaty that ended the Mexican War. The following year, Californiarequested permission to enter the Union as a free state. This would mean that there would be more free states thanslave states—and more free-state representation in Congress. For a government that was trying to keep the peace, itwould not do.

The other territories the U.S. had acquired in the treaty (Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah) alsothreatened to present problems for the nation. They would probably apply for statehood, forcing the "slave vs. free"question in each case. In addition, Texas wanted to claim land as far west as Santa Fe (in New Mexico). Congresshad to decide how to handle the delicate situation that could lead dissatisfied states or territories to secede.Washington, D.C., was also causing distress among abolitionists because it permitted slavery and was a slave-trading center.

The solution, called the Compromise of 1850, came from Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, with input from IllinoisSenator Stephen Douglas. It called for Texas to give up its claim to the disputed land in exchange for $10 million.Residents of the other territories would decide for themselves whether to permit slavery. Slavery would still bepermitted in Washington. However, the slave trade there would be abolished.

abolitionist (noun) a person who supported outlawing slavery

comply (verb) to go along with

constellation (noun) a cluster or group of stars that often appear to form a shape

legislator (noun) lawmaker

secession (noun) when people remove themselves from the government that they're under and form their own country

1. Which of these happened before Sherman Booth led a raid to free Joshua Glover?

A law called the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves of the Deep South.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states were not required to help recapture fugitive slaves inPrigg v. Pennsylvania. Sherman Booth was set free by the Missouri Supreme Court.

The Fugitive Slave Act was repealed, after the Civil War became a struggle to end slavery.

2. What is this article mainly about?

Passed in 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act declared that all runaway slaves had to be returned to theirmasters. Passed in 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was actually a revival of the original Fugitive Slave Act of

1793. After the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act, runaway slaves headed for Canada, rather than the

Northern U.S. Ruled in 1842, Prigg v. Pennsylvania greatly weakened the Fugitive Slave Act by ruling that

states no longer had to assist in slave recapture.

3. According to the article, why was the Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850?

Southern leaders needed a way to follow through with their threats of seceding from the Union.

Fugitive slaves were finding their way to freedom over the border to Canada.

But this did not address the fact that with the admission of California into the Union, Congress had permitted theexistence of another free state. And so, to appease the slave states—and to save the Union—the Compromiseincluded the Fugitive Slave Act. As you read in the Article, however, these compromises would not solve the nation'sproblems permanently. The consequences of some of their provisions, including the Fugitive Slave Act, wouldeventually fuel the conflicts that led to the Civil War.

Dictionary

Activity

PAGE 1

Legislators were trying to prevent the Southern states from leaving the Union.

Many Northern states had begun to repeal personal liberty laws that gave accused slaves a trial.

4. Which is the closest antonym for the word comply?

Conform

Disobey

Preview

Overhaul

5. The article states:Some states created personal liberty laws that guaranteed accused slaves the right to a trial by jury; otherstates would not allow public officials to assist in the capture of suspected slaves. These state laws oftenmade it all but impossible for Southern slave owners to claim runaway slaves who had reached the haven ofa free state.

Why did the author include this passage in the article?

To show the reader how some Northern states actively opposed the Fugitive Slave Act

To evaluate the reason that slave masters said they needed slaves to run their businesses

To examine how easy it was for Southern slave masters to recapture escaped slaves

To describe the jury selection process in trials for suspected runaway slaves

6. Based on information in the article, how were personal liberty laws different from the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?

Personal liberty laws gave accused slaves a trial by jury; the Fugitive Slave Act did not allow theaccused a trial. Personal liberty laws gave accused slaves a trial with a jury of peers, and the Fugitive Slave Act

only provided the accused a hearing with slave owners. Personal liberty laws were enacted in Canada, and the Fugitive Slave Act was enacted in the U.S.

Personal liberty laws were put in place after the Civil War, and the Fugitive Slave Act was adoptedbefore the Civil War.

7. The article states:The nature of the act's provisions made it impossible for anybody—a proponent of slavery or not—to claimthat it promoted justice or honesty. The accused was denied a jury trial and was not permitted to bringwitnesses in his defense. Therefore, any accusation was as good as a sentence.

Which would be the closest synonym for the word proponent?

Advocate

Statesman

Liberal

Director

8. Which question is not answered by the article?

How did the Fugitive Slave Act help the abolitionist movement in the North?

How many free people were forced to be slaves because of the Fugitive Slave Act?

Where did fugitive slaves want to go to ensure their safety after the Fugitive Slave Act?

Why did the federal government pass the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850?

Now that you have read the article, indicate whether you agree or disagree with this statement.

OPINION STATEMENT: The Fugitive Slave Act was necessary in order to hold the nation together.

BEFORE READING AFTER READING

After Reading Poll

The Fugitive Slave Act was necessary in order to hold the nation together.

Agree

Disagree

Thought Question

Think about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Based on that law, would you have been willing to accept the risks involvedin helping runaway slaves escape? Be sure to consider your background (gender, race, and so on). Discuss thebenefits and drawbacks that would have affected your decision to help. Consider how each part of your life would playinto your decision to help slaves escape.

Support your answer with details from the article, as well as ideas of your own.

Type your answer in the text box below.

Poll Results

HOW YOU VOTED

Agree Agree

Disagree Disagree

WORLDWIDE RESULTS

Agree 45% Agree 36%

Disagree 55% Disagree 64%

27% changed their opinion after reading the article.

1. Each student in Mr. Taylor's class is writing an essay on the Underground Railroad. The essay must consist of aminimum of 500 words. June wrote her essay, but she came up short in the word count. Her essay has 30% fewer wordsthan required. How many words are in June's essay?

450 words

400 words

350 words

300 words

Math

PAGE 1

Stretch Article

PAGE 1

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Achieve3000, October 19, 2010).

Nineteen-year-old Anthony Burns lay on his side in a dank corner of the ship. He shivered, and drew his legs closerto his chest. He was a tall, well-muscled youth, yet the past two weeks had weakened him considerably; his leftarm was frozen in position under his torso, and he could no longer bend it. The ship tossed, suddenly,unexpectedly, and Anthony hit his head against a wooden beam. He bit his lip so hard that he drew blood: anexclamation of pain was a luxury that he could ill afford. The sailor who had hidden him on the ship had beensympathetic to his cause, but Anthony could not be certain that the others would be. He felt his stomach constrictin a sharp pain; it had been more than two days since he had been given food or drink. Already he was regrettinghis decision—had his conditions been so terrible on the plantation that this tortuous imprisonment was worthwhile?

Photo credit: Wikimedia CommonsThis poster from April 24, 1851,warned people in Boston aboutpolicemen acting as slave catchers.

—but there was nothing to do once the ship had set sail.

One week later, Anthony stepped off the boat, blinking as his eyesadjusted to the bright Boston sunlight. He was a free man. He soonfound gainful employment and regained his strength. The formerslave walked proudly through the streets, head held high andshoulders squared. His new life was shattered just one week laterwhen the fervent slave-catcher Asa Butman caught hold of hisshoulder and led him to a small room in the town's Court House. Atown marshal entered the room, accompanied by Burns' formermaster, Charles F. Suttle.

"Why did you run away from me?" Suttle demanded. Burns mayhave moved to the North to be a free man, but in Suttle's eyes,Burns was still his property.

The Fugitive Slave Act

Passed in 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act declared that all runaway slaves had to be returned to their masters. Becauseit made all African Americans vulnerable to capture, the law essentially enslaved free men as well as runaways, bothin the North and in the South. It was passed in an attempt to thwart the Southern impulse to break away from theNorth amid tensions over the issue of slavery.

Unrest in the South

What were the circumstances that led to the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act? The North and the South werebitterly divided over the issue of slavery for years, particularly after the movement to abolish slavery took root in thelate 1700s. By 1850, relations between the Northern and Southern states were more strained than ever before, andSoutherners who would become members the Confederacy had begun to mutter threats of secession. Apprehensivelegislators in Washington, D.C., searched frantically for a means of appeasing the Southern states and keeping thema part of the Union. Ultimately, they decided to revive the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

While the 1793 law had required that fugitive slaves who fled to free states be returned to their owners, it was rarelyenforced and sometimes even actively opposed. Many Northern states passed laws attempting to limit the act'spowers. Some states created personal liberty laws that guaranteed accused slaves the right to a trial by jury, whileother states would not allow public officials to assist in the capture of suspected slaves. These state laws often madeit all but impossible for Southern slave owners to claim runaway slaves who had reached the haven of a free state. In1842, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly weakened the 1793 law by ruling that states were notobligated to assist in the recapture of a fugitive slave.

An Old Law Made New

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 severely tightened the restrictions of the original bill. Suspected fugitives were to bearrested on the sworn testimony of any claimant, and any federal marshal or public official refusing to make the arrestwas in danger of a $1,000 fine. Once imprisoned, the suspected slave was not permitted the luxury of a jury trial, andno witnesses could be summoned to testify in his defense. Anyone providing aid to a suspected slave—in the form offood or shelter—was to be slapped with a six-month jail sentence and a $1,000 fine.

The nature of the act's provisions made it impossible for anybody—a proponent of slavery or not—to claim that itpromoted justice or honesty. As the accused was denied a jury trial and was not permitted to bring witnesses in hisdefense, any accusation was as good as a sentence. Many free men were thus conscripted into slavery.

Anger in the North

Abolitionists were enraged, dubbing the act the "Bloodhound Law," after the dogs used to track down suspectedfugitives. The law actually garnered sympathy for the abolitionists' cause. While many Northerners had remainedsomewhat removed from the debates that seemed irrelevant in their free states, the new laws brought everyone intothe frenzy. Men who opposed slavery in principle but preferred not to take a public position on the issue weresuddenly thrown into an uncomfortable predicament: openly ignore the U.S. law, risking stiff fines and imprisonment,or comply with regulations and turn in suspected slaves, often violating the dictates of their conscience. Inaction wasno longer an option.

Many Northerners were now spurred into action, joining abolitionist groups or becoming stationmasters for theUnderground Railroad, whose passenger load was as heavy as ever, but whose destination had changed. Escapingslaves now followed the "drinkin' gourd" (the Big Dipper constellation) that pointed to the North Star. Following thestar, they no longer stopped in the Northern U.S. but headed to freedom in Canada, the promised land.

An End to the Act

In 1854, abolitionist Sherman Booth led a raid to free the captured fugitive slave Joshua Glover. Booth was arrestedfor violating the Fugitive Slave Act, but he was freed by the Missouri Supreme Court, which ruled that the law itselfwas unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court repealed this ruling, but the seeds of dissent had already been deeplysewn.

In 1861, just after the Civil War began, Union General Benjamin Butler furtheredthis dissent by daringly deeming runaway slaves "contraband of war." This meantthat the Union no longer had to return runaway slaves to the South, and iteffectively obliterated the Fugitive Slave Act. However, it also had an unintendedbenefit for the South: it defined the Confederacy as a nation of its own. PresidentAbraham Lincoln firmly opposed Butler's decision, insisting that members of theConfederacy were the Union's rebel states, not citizens of a separate nation. TheFugitive Slave Act was not repealed until June 1864, a year and a half after theEmancipation Proclamation had freed the slaves of the Deep South.

The Fugitive Slave Act only served to briefly prolong the tenuous hold that theSouthern states had on the institution of slavery. The law, meant to appease theSouth, angered many in the North and helped strengthen the abolitionistmovement.

PAGE 2

Dig Deeper

conscript (verb) to compel into service

dissent (noun) disagreement; differing views

dub (verb) to give a name or nickname

garner (verb) to earn or acquire something

vulnerable (adjective) easily harmed

In "Catching Runaway Slaves," you read that the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was passed in an atmosphere of tensionbetween pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. But how did this act come into law, when roughly half of Americansopposed it? It was, in fact, part of a compromise designed to avoid conflicts as the nation expanded.

Expansion was tricky at a time when some states permitted slavery and others did not. In 1820, with the MissouriCompromise, Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state and Maine as a free state. The MissouriCompromise also drew an imaginary line across the former Louisiana Territory and declared that slavery would not bepermitted north of that line, but less than 30 years later, the U.S. expanded again, reviving the question of how tomaintain the balance between slave states and free states.

In 1848, the U.S. obtained land as part of the treaty that ended the Mexican War. The following year, Californiarequested permission to enter the Union as a free state, which would mean that there would be more free states thanslave states—and more free-state representation in Congress. For a government that was trying to keep the peace, itwould not do.

The other territories the U.S. had acquired in the treaty (Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah) alsothreatened to present problems for the nation, as leaders anticipated they would probably apply for statehood, forcingthe "slave vs. free" question in each case. In addition, Texas wanted to claim land as far west as Santa Fe (in NewMexico). It was up to Congress to decide how to handle a situation so delicate that it could lead dissatisfied states orterritories to secede. Washington, D.C., was also causing distress among abolitionists because it permitted slaveryand was a slave-trading center.

The solution, called the Compromise of 1850, came from Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, with input from IllinoisSenator Stephen Douglas. It called for Texas to give up its claim to the disputed land in exchange for $10 million.Residents of the other territories would decide for themselves whether to permit slavery. Slavery would still bepermitted in Washington, but the slave trade there would be abolished.

But this did not address the fact that with the admission of California into the Union, Congress had permitted theexistence of another free state. And so, to appease the slave states—and to save the Union—the Compromiseincluded the Fugitive Slave Act. As you read in the Article, however, these compromises would not solve the nation'sproblems permanently. The consequences of some of their provisions, including the Fugitive Slave Act, wouldeventually fuel the conflicts that led to the Civil War.

Dictionary

1. Which of these happened before Sherman Booth led a raid to free fugitive slave Joshua Glover?

President Abraham Lincoln insisted that members of the Confederacy were rebel states, notcitizens of a separate nation. Union General Benjamin Butler declared that runaway slaves would be considered contraband of

war. The Fugitive Slave Act was repealed, nearly two years after the Emancipation Proclamation freed

the slaves of the South. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Prigg v. Pennsylvania that states were not required to assist in the

recapture of fugitive slaves.

2. The best alternate headline for this article would be __________.

A Full Account of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

Prigg v. Pennsylvania Revisited Decades Later

Emancipation Proclamation Enrages Abolitionists

Abraham Lincoln: Leader of the Abolitionist Movement

3. According to the article, why did the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 garner sympathy for the abolitionists' cause?

Because even those who disagreed with the abolitionists were willing to openly ignore theFugitive Slave Act Because even though abolitionist Sherman Booth violated the Fugitive Slave Act, he was freed by

the Missouri Supreme Court Because inaction was no longer an option, even for Northerners who may have previously felt

removed from the debate surrounding slavery Because the practice of using bloodhounds to track down suspected fugitives was too horrible for

anyone to ignore

Stretch Activity

PAGE 1

4. Which is the closest antonym for the word vulnerable?

Apathetic

Unassailable

Susceptible

Oblivious

5. The article states:One week later, Anthony stepped off the boat, blinking as his eyes adjusted to the bright Boston sunlight. Hewas a free man. He soon found gainful employment and regained his strength. The former slave walkedproudly through the streets, head held high and shoulders squared. His new life was shattered just one weeklater when the fervent slave-catcher Asa Butman caught hold of his shoulder and led him to a small room inthe town's Court House. A town marshal entered the room, accompanied by Burns' former master, Charles F.Suttle.

Why did the author include this paragraph in the article?

To evaluate the various reasons that slave masters like Charles F. Suttle had for not wanting toallow slaves to flee to the North To examine how difficult it was for slave masters such as Charles F. Suttle to recapture escaped

slaves To provide the reader with some background about the Fugitive Slave Act from the perspective of

the people most affected To describe the court process in Northern states for determining the fate of recaptured slaves such

as Anthony Burns

6. In what way does the article contrast the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?

While the law in both instances was authored by abolitionists, only the 1850 version was rarelyenforced and often opposed. While both versions of the law were declared unconstitutional, only the 1850 version permitted a

slave to call witnesses to testify on his behalf. While both versions of the law ruled that states were not obliged to assist in the return of a slave,

only the 1850 version was publicized. While the law in both instances required fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, the 1850

law severely tightened the restrictions of the earlier bill.

7. The article states:By 1850, relations between the Northern and Southern states were more strained than ever before, andSoutherners who would become members the Confederacy had begun to mutter threats of secession.Apprehensive legislators in Washington, D.C., searched frantically for a means of appeasing the Southernstates and keeping them a part of the Union.

Which would be the closest synonym for the word apprehensive?

Anxious

Tranquil

Vivacious

Whimsical

8. The news article says all of the following except __________.

How stationmasters on the Underground Railroad communicated with one another

Why outraged abolitionists dubbed the Fugitive Slave Act the "Bloodhound Law"

How a law meant to appease the South ended up strengthening the abolitionist movement

Why the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act led many free men to be conscripted into slavery