|
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 225
was concerned. The case went to the courts where it continued long, in the midst of unabating excitement and publicity that attracted the attention of the whole country. A grand jury, assembled by the United States district judge on December 7, 1858, brought bills against the following citizens of Oberlin and Wellington :
John H. Scott John Watson Simeon Bushnell James R. Shepard Ansel W. Lyman Henry Evans Wilson Evans David Watson Wm. E. Scrimeger Henry E. Peck James M. Fitch William Watson Thomas Gena Oliver S. B. Wall Walter Soules William Seiples Ralph Plumb John Mandeville Mathew De Wolfe Franklin Lewis John Hartwell Albert Loveland Lewis Hines Matthew Gillett Chauncey Goodyear Lorin Wadsworth David Williams Henry D. Niles Eli Boise Charles Langston James Bartlett Robert Windsor William E. Lincoln Jeremiah Fox John Copeland James H. Bartlett Robert L. Cummings
These, practically without exception, were prominent citizens of the two towns. The same day the marshal of the District Court served notice on fifteen of the Oberlin rescuers who were under indictment and commanded them to appear before the court in Cleveland. In the midst of a large concourse of their fellow citizens who cheered them as they boarded the train, the indicted men, on the following day, started to the Forest City. At Wellington the marshal was not so fortunate. He found a few only of the citizens of the village upon whom he had notices to serve.
With due formalities the trial opened. The Government was represented by United States District Attorney George W. Belden and George Bliss. The rescuers were represented by able counsel. Rufus P. Spalding, former justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and later for a number of terms congressman from the Cleveland district ; Franklin T. Backus, Albert G. Riddle, congressman and diplomat ; and Seneca 0. Griswold, soon to appear at Charlestown, Virginia, to defend John Brown, all were eminent lawyers and all volunteered their services free, an emphatic indication of their interest in the cause.
The friends of the men on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 complained of the partisan spirit manifest in the impaneling of the jury. The partisan clerk, it was claimed, submitted the names of forty citizens from which to choose twelve jurors. Ten of these sympathized politically with the defendants while thirty sympathized with the court. The ten were immediately stricken off by the district attorney and the defense allowed their choice of the remaining thirty.
The jury chosen and charged, the examination of witnesses commenced April 6, 1859, and continued till noon of the seventh day. In the afternoon Judge George Bliss opened for the Government in a speech of two and one-half hours, concluding with the statement :
"People around Oberlin think so little of their government and the statutes of the Federal Government, when they interfere with their sympathies with negro women and men, that they consider their violation a good joke. Is it right any people should impugn the laws of the land, knowing no law but their own consciences ? This is a serious question. Any jury of undebauched minds will execute the statutes in the same faith as in any civil or criminal case under statute law."
226 - HISTORY OF OHIO
Mr. Riddle immediately followed for the defense. From the opening of the arguments the courtroom was crowded to its capacity and the sympathy of the auditors was strongly for the men on trial. The address of Mr. Riddle continued through part of the afternoon of the seventh clay and until near the close of the eighth. In the midst of his plea he said:
"I have nothing to do with enticing slaves nor sympathy with those who do ; but if a fugitive comes to me in his flight from slavery and is in need of food and clothing and shelter and rest and comfort and protection and means of further flight—if he needs any or all the gentle charities which a Christian man may render to any human being under the circumstances, so help me the great God in my extremest need, lie shall have them all."
This eloquent outburst was greeted with cheers and long continued applause by the spectators, followed by a protest against "the disturbance" from the district attorney.
Judge Spalding addressed the court and jury for almost an entire day in behalf of the accused rescuers, closing with an arraignment of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Turning to the judge he said in conclusion :
"I hold that so glaringly unjust a decision as the affirmation of the constitutionality of this act can bind no one ; and had I the distinguished honor to occupy the seat which is so eminently filled by your honor, full long should I hesitate before I pronounced that to be law which so clearly contravenes the solemn compact of the Constitution and the superior Ordinance of 1787. * * * I should feel bound to pronounce the fugitive law of 1850 utterly unconstitutional, without force and void; though in thus doing I should risk impeachment before the Senate of my country ; and, Sir, should such an impeachment work my removal from office, I should proudly embrace it as a greater honor than has yet fallen to the lot of any judicial officer of these United States."
District Attorney Belden in opening the final argument stated that he scarcely knew whether to address "the court, the jury or the audience." "For three clays," he said, "the crowd has been addressed, not the court, not the jury." He was especially severe on the indicted men from Oberlin. "Here," said he, "are the saints of Oberlin, Peck, Plumb, Fitch, to whom should be added saints Spalding and Riddle and sub-saint Bushnell—all saints of the Higher Law." He deprecated the disposition to treat with contempt the constitution and the statutes enacted under it. After reviewing the evidence, he asked the jury to bring in a verdict in accordance with the facts and the law of the land. At one or two points in his address the audience gave evidence that it did not approve his line of argument. The sentiment of those who crowded the courtroom was throughout the trial strongly with the accused.
The judge then charged the jury who retired and soon brought in a verdict of guilty against Bushnell, who was the only prisoner thus far placed on trial.
Langston was next tried. There were lengthy addresses by the officers of the United States Government and by Griswold and Backus for the defense.
Attorney Griswold in opening his argument said :
"I quite agree with the district attorney in the desire expressed by him that this case should be tried on its own merits and without reference to any outside influences. It is manifest, however, that this is a case of peculiar interest—that considerable excitement has attended this prosecution and that this case has become and still is a matter of much public remark and comment. I doubt not that the novelty of this prosecution has in part contributed to this; for although we live in district containing over a 1,000,000 inhabitants and not a day's journey
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 227
distant from a large extent of slave territory, yet this is the second case which has ever occurred of a prosecution for a violation of the provisions of the Act of 1850 or of that of 1793."
Charles Langston, the defendant, was colored. In calling attention to this fact Mr. Griswold made the following statement of the disadvantages of his client in appearing before a court of justice and begged that he should not, because of his color, be subject to punishment unwarranted by law. In asking this, he said in part:
"My client can have no jury of his race and color, of those who are his peers. Not only is he an alien, but in the view of the law which governs this court he is an outcast. He has no equality, no rights, except as being amenable to the penal statutes. * * * In view, therefore, of this misfortune of his birth—of his color and condition—that he is one of the outcast race—that he has no other right but that of being punished, I ask you the more carefully to consider his case and give him a fair and impartial hearing."
Attorney Backus followed in general the line of argument outlined by Griswold. He did not ask that the law under which his client was tried (the Act of 1850) be declared unconstitutional. He contended that under that law an impartial consideration of the testimony would acquit his client. He spoke at length and made an exhaustive analysis of the testimony. The evidence against Langston was not very strong and his conduct on the day of the rescue exhibited self restraint and respect for the law as well as sympathy for the captive.
The jury pronounced Langston guilty. When asked whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed, he answered in a speech that made a profound impression and must stand as one of the most interesting exhibits of this remarkable trial. Langston was well educated and his speech, which was dignified and restrained, was at the same time an impassioned protest against the injustice inflicted upon his race. In a very direct appeal to the district judge, he said :
"In view of all the facts I say, that if ever again a man is seized near me, and is about to be carried Southward as a slave, before any legal investigation has been had, I shall hold it to be my duty, as I held it that day, to secure for him, if possible, a legal inquiry into the character of the claim by which he is held. And I go farther ; I say that if it is adjudged illegal to procure even such an investigation, then we are thrown back upon those last defences of our rights, which cannot be taken from us, and which God gave us that we need not be slaves. I ask your Honor, while I say this, to place yourself in my situation, and you will say with me, that if your brother, if your friend, if your wife, if your child, had been seized by men who claimed them as fugitives, and the law of the land forbade you to ask any investigation, and precluded the possibility of any legal protection or redress—then you will say with me, that you would not only demand the protection of the law, but you would call in your neighbors and your friends, and would ask them to say with you, that these your friends could not be taken into slavery.
"And now I thank you for this leniency, this indulgence, in giving a man unjustly condemned, by a tribunal before which he is declared to have no rights, the privilege of speaking in his own behalf. I know that it will do nothing toward mitigating your sentence, but it is a privilege to be allowed to speak, and I thank you for it."
In picturing the plight of his race, Langston said :
"There is not a spot in this wide country, not even by the altars of God, nor in the shadow of the shafts that tell the imperishable fame and glory of the heroes of the Revolution ; no, nor in the old Philadelphia Hall, where any colored man may dare to ask mercy of a white man. Let me stand in that hall, and tell a United States marshal that my father was a Revolutionary soldier ; that he served under Lafayette, and fought through the whole war ; and that he always told me that he
228 - HISTORY OF OHIO
fought for my freedom as much as for his own ; and he would sneer at me, and clutch me with his bloody fingers, and say he had a right to make me a slave ! And when I appeal to Congress, they say he has a right to make me a slave ; when I appeal to the people, they say he has a right to make me a slave, and when I appeal to your Honor, your Honor says he has a right to make me a slave, and if any man, white or black, seeks an investigation of that claim, they make themselves amenable to the pains and penalties of the Fugitive Slave Act for black men have no rights which white men are bound to respect."
The accused from Wellington, who participated in the rescue, were encouraged to accept a light sentence and, on April 5, with a single exception, entered a plea of nolle contendere (a plea by a defendant, "which, while not admitting guilt, subjects him to all the consequences of a plea of guilty") and were fined twenty dollars and costs and sent to jail twenty-hour hours. This limited further prosecution to the Oberlin rescuers.
The attorneys for the indicted men had complained that the jury selected to pass judgment on the acts of their clients all belonged to the political party of the Buchanan administration. This claim was not denied. The obvious defense of the district attorney was that only through a jury thus selected could the government hope to secure a conviction. On this question of slavery and the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law it was next to impossible to get a verdict from a jury politically divided. Partisanship frequently ruled the court and rendered judgment with small regard for the law or justice.
While the United States District Court was using strong-arm methods to keep faith with the South and punish infractions of the Fugitive Slave Law, the courts of Lorain County, which were administered by men of opposite political faith, had not been idle. The grand jury of that county on February 15, 1859, returned bills of indictment against Rufus P. Mitchell, Anderson Jennings, Jacob K. Lowe, and Samuel Davis "for kidnapping and attempting to carry out of the state, in an unlawful manner, a negro boy named John Price."
These men were the agents of the alleged owner of the slave, John Price. They had thrown themselves technically liable to the state law against kidnapping and the officials of Lorain County, who were evidently in sympathy with the Oberlin rescuers, promptly indicted these men who were chiefly instrumental in getting the prominent participants of the Oberlin-Wellington affair into jail. In a short time the slave hunters were out of jail on bail awaiting trial before the county courts, with prospects of a sentence to the penitentiary.
An interesting collateral development of the trial of the rescuers was the habeas corpus proceedings that brought two of the condemned men, Bushnell and Langston, before the Supreme Court of Ohio. The question involved was the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law. Arguments were made in behalf of the contention that the law was unconstitutional by Attorney Riddle and the attorney-general of the state, C. P. Wolcott. The address of the latter was an extended and illuminating arraignment of the Fugitive Slave Law and a searching analysis of the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States affirming its constitutionality. This consumed the entire afternoon of May 25th and the forenoon of the following day. The case was then submitted to the court.
Stripped of all verbiage and extraneous matter, the real question at issue was the power of the Supreme Court of a state to declare a national law unconstitutional. In this instance the party contending for states rights was the one that in the near future was to take up arms in support of national supremacy, while the party pleading for the enforcement of a national law and insisting upon the subordination of the state was to reverse its attitude and open fire upon the Government of the United States to enforce by civil war the right of the state
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 229
to annul all national laws and to sever the ties that bound them to the Union. In fact, the question of slavery had so divided the people into bitterly hostile camps that they no longer hesitated at nullification, and at times it seemed uncertain which party would first reach that goal.
The decision of the Supreme Court was understood to depend upon the chief justice, Joseph R. Swan. He was a republican and the radical leaders of that party, who were in the ascendancy, were expecting him to decide in favor of the condemned men and against the constitutionality of the United States statute. While Judge Swan was known to be opposed to the Fugitive Slave Law, he did not believe that the Supreme Court of the state could nullify a national law that had been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the concluding sentence of his decision Judge Swan says :
"If, after more than sixty years of acquiescence by all departments of the national and state government, in the power of Congress to provide for the punishment of rescuers of escaped slaves, that power is to be disregarded and all laws which may be passed by Congress on this subject henceforth are to be persistently resisted and nullified, the work of revolution should not be begun by the conservators of the public peace."
Judges Scott and Peck concurred with Chief Justice Swan, while Judges Brinkerhoff and Sutliff dissented. For this act Judge Swan was denied renomination by his party and soon afterward resigned. His decision, however, saved Ohio from classification with the "nullifiers" and serious complications that must have immediately resulted from a clash of authority between the two Supreme Courts. In speaking of this decision in after years, James H. Fairchild, president of Oberlin College, said :
"A writ of habeas corpus was granted by one of the judges of the Supreme Court, commanding the sheriff to bring Bushnell and Langston before that court, that the reason of their imprisonment might be considered. The case was ably argued before the full bench, at Columbus, for a week ; but the court, three to two, declined to grant a release. This was a severe blow to the men in jail. They had counted with much confidence upon relief from that quarter. It is idle to speculate upon the possible results if a single judge had held a different opinion. Salmon P. Chase was governor at that time, and it was well understood that he would sustain a decision releasing the prisoners by all the power at his command ; and the United States Government was as fully committed to the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. This would have placed Ohio in conflict with the general government in defense of state rights, and if the party of freedom throughout the North had rallied, as seems probable, the war might have come in 1859 instead of 1861, with a secession of the Northern instead of the Southern states. A single vote apparently turned the scale, and after a little delay the party of freedom took possession of the government and the party of slavery became the seceders."
Failing in the habeas corpus proceedings, Bushnell and Langston were returned to jail.
Almost coincident with the effort to release the prisoners through the Supreme* Court of the state was the great mass convention of the Republicans of the Western Reserve in Cleveland, May 24, 1859. Large delegations came from outside of the city and the people of Cleveland were numerously present. Over 10,000 listened to the speeches delivered from a stand on the public square. Joshua R. Giddings aroused great enthusiasm by his denunciation of the Fugitive Slave Law and his expressed determination to find a way to release the imprisoned Oberlin rescuers. Governor Salmon P. Chase, in a firm but guarded and dignified address, counseled against revolutionary methods and urged the use of the ballot box for the redress of wrongs and the repeal of iniquitous laws. There were also addresses by Joseph M Root,
230 - HISTORY OF OHIO
Reuben Hitchcock, Columbus Delano, D. K. Cartier, John P. Converse, 0. P. Brown, Asa Mahan, John Langston (colored), D. R. Tilden, Rufus P. Spalding and others.
Ringing resolutions were adopted, savoring in some of the clauses strongly of state rights, and denouncing the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott decision. Among the declarations were the following :
"That the Dred Scott decision, reversing all the well-established rules which for ages have been the bulwark of personal liberty, yields its legitimate fruits in the recent atrocities committed in the heart of the Western Reserve, and calls upon us for new efforts and new sacrifices for constitutional liberty.
"That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government, but that by compact, under the style and title of a constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constitute a general government for special purposes and delegate to that government certain definite powers, reserving each state for itself the residuary mass of rights to their own self-government. * * *
"That Joshua R. Giddings of Ashtabula County, Herman Canfield of Medina County and Robert F. Paine of Cuyahoga County be constituted a committee to sue out the writ of habeas corpus in behalf of said prisoners [the Oberlin rescuers] without unnecessary delay, and that they address the application at their discretion to any judicial officer of the State of Ohio having power to grant the writ."
There was a great procession, the delegations from Lorain County alone numbering about 2,000. There was enthusiasm and excitement when they came opposite the jail where the Oberlin men were imprisoned. Sheriff Wightman permitted the prisoners the freedom of the jail yard and the opportunity to shake hands across the fence with their admiring friends. After the procession had broken up the Oberlin and Wellington bands were admitted to the jail yard. In answer to repeated calls some of the prisoners responded with brief remarks.
"We believe," said Professor H. E. Peck, "and your presence here today testifies to us, that the issue of our present griefs will be the making of man hunting upon the reserve a difficult and dangerous pursuit."
"Gentlemen," said Ralph Plumb, "you are here today because you have an intelligent appreciation of the important truth that the right of the meanest inhabitant of our great state can not be ruthlessly trampled under foot, without endangering your own."
"It is a great comfort to us," declared J. M. Fitch, "while enduring this imprisonment, to know that when we who are now incarcerated, have been sufficiently ground between the upper and nether mill-stones of Federal power there are hundreds of thousands more of just such in our noble state, who are ready to enter the hopper as future grists."
It was not entirely due to the fact that he was a colored man that the four minute speech of Mr. Langston aroused enthusiasm. Following is the concluding paragraph :
"The foul spirit of slavery has crushed the rights of the states beneath its iron heel and led the Federal judiciary captive at its despotic will. Shall it, too, crush out the spirit of the free citizens of Ohio ? Will you tamely submit to this tyranny and despotism ? Will you not defend your own rights, sustain your own liberty and roll back this tide of judicial usurpation which is sapping the very foundation of your country's liberty, so that being free and untrammeled yourselves, you may assist us who are groaning beneath the cruel weight of gigantic wrongs and brutal oppression ?"
The days of June passed slowly. The failure of the prisoners to secure release through the intervention of the Supreme Court of Ohio, coming immediately after the great mass meeting in Cleveland, was
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 231
somewhat discouraging to them and their friends. The jail now began gradually to take on the aspect of a workshop. Tools were brought in and one man resumed his work as a harness maker; another commenced to make boots and shoes ; the students resumed their studies in order not to lose their standing in college ; and finally to pass away the time and keep the world advised in regard to their experiences and meditations, the publication of a prison paper was commenced.
On the whole time passed rather pleasantly within the prison walls, while in the state outside the "irrepressible conflict" proceeded with increasing bitterness and more ominous portent. Every day brought visitors with words of cheer and encouragement to the prisoners. They were regarded, not as felons, but as moral heroes. Without their knowledge, however, the days of their detention were rapidly approaching the end.
Whether Joshua R. Giddings and his committee accomplished in a measure the work for which they were appointed is not known. It is more than probable, however, that the indictments hanging over the men from the South for kidnapping and the near approach of the day set for trial was the potential persuader.
The conclusion of the whole affair, so far as court proceedings and penalties were concerned, may be inferred from the following editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, staunch supporter of the Buchanan administration, in its issue of July 6, 1859:
OBERLIN CASES NOLLED-HIGHER LAW TRIUMPHANT
We learn with astonishment that the United States district attorney has nolled the indictment against the Oberlin rescuers now in jail on condition that the Oberlinites will nolle the indictment against the Kentucky witnesses who were under arrest on a trumped up charge of kidnapping. This arrangement, we understand, has been made at the solicitation of the four Kentucky gentlemen, who, while under recognizance of the United States Court to appear here and testify in the rescue cases, were indicted by an Oberlin Lorain jury and arrested while in the discharge of their duty, on a false charge of kidnapping. They were thrust into the Lorain County jail, but were subsequently released on bail. A special term of the Lorain County Court was to be held on the sixth inst. to try them, and a Lorain County jury was all in readiness to send them to purgatory or the penitentiary, without regard to constitutions, courts, or the laws of the land.
An effort was made to get them out of the hands of the Oberlinites by a writ of habeas corpus, issued by Judge McLean, but the sheriff of Lorain hid himself for several days and the probate judge ran away to prevent the bail from surrendering the prisoners up, so that the writ could take effect, and in this way nullified the law and set at defiance that "Great Writ of Right" which these same Oberlinites have resorted to and have had the full benefit of on two occasions since these arrests have been made.
Finding no law in Lorain but the higher law, and seeing the determination of the sheriff, judge and jury to send them to the penitentiary any way, for no crime under any human law, but on a charge trumped up on purpose to drive them out of the country, and having been kept away from their families most of the summer and away from their business at great pecuniary expense to themselves, for the government fees for witnesses do not pay board bills, they proposed to exchange nolles, and the district attorney consented to it. So the Government has been beaten at last with law, justice and fact all on its side, and Oberlin with its rebellious higher law creed is triumphant.
The precedent is a bad one. All these factionists have to do in future, whenever any of their number is arrested for the violation of our statute law, is to pay no regard to the writs of the lower law courts ;
232 - HISTORY OF OHIO
but threaten the witnesses with the terror of their own inquisition and enforce the penalties of the higher law. This is Mormonism, with Profesor Peck acting the part of Brigham Young, and it will have to be put down, as Mormonism has been, by the strong arm of military power.
There will be some unearthly shoutings by these triumphant myrmidons of Mormonism. Oberlin will blaze in her new won glory, and Te Deums will be sung in all her churches. There will be a great accession to her calendar of saints. Those immortal men, who, armed with muskets, mobbed the United States officials while in the discharge of their sworn duties, will now be canonized instead of cannonaded, and Saint Peck will be listed with Saint Peter as worthy to hold the keys of Paradise.
The arrangements to nolle charges against all parties was made as stated at the instance of the men from Kentucky. While they had been bailed out of jail, their experiences had been expensive and nerve racking. They determined to end them and through their attorney arranged the terms.
The sudden turn of fortune took the prisoners by complete surprise. The news spread rapidly through Cleveland on the morning of July 6, and friends were soon flocking to the jail to congratulate the released rescuers. A big demonstration was improvised and amid the thundering of cannon they were conducted to the afternoon train which was to bear them back to Oberlin. In response to a call, Judge Brayton delivered a brief but eloquent speech congratulating them and bidding them God-speed.
Many from outside of the college town, who had been identified with the case, including Sheriff Wightman and Jailer Smith, accompanied the rescuers on their triumphant homeward journey.
At Oberlin they received perhaps the most remarkable welcome ever tendered in the state. There was an address by Professor James Monroe, afterwards to serve many years as the representative of the Oberlin district in the Congress of the United States. There were speeches by Doctor Fairchild, president of Oberlin College, other prominent citizens and almost all of the rescuers. Mr. Bushnell, the rescuer first tried and convicted, returned to Oberlin later and was accorded an enthusiastic reception. Thus at last, after a series of exciting incidents that attracted the attention of the state and the Nation, ended happily and triumphantly for the participants, and passed into history, the Oberlin-Wellington rescue. 4
OHIO'S FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW
In urging her claims for the rendition of fugitive slaves Kentucky became insistent and persistent. She sent a delegation to Columbus and boldly suggested the enactment of a law that would make it more difficult for slaves to escape into Ohio—that would be a decided break on the "car of emancipation" on the Underground Railroad. The delegation found the Ohio Legislature pliant and disposed to yield to their wishes.
On February 28, 1839, only a little more than a month after the visit from the Kentucky delegation, the General Assembly of Ohio enacted the Fugitive Slave Law of 1839. The excuses for this act were set forth in the preamble which read as follows :
Whereas, The United States Constitution states that no fugitive from labor shall escape from the service due, and,
Whereas, The laws of Ohio are inadequate to carry out such provisions, and,
Whereas, Those reaping the benefits of the United States Constitu-
4- For detailed account see Shipherd, Jacob R., "History of the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue," Vol. VIII, p. 280.
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 233
tion are in duty bound to fulfill the obligations imposed upon them by that instrument, and,
Whereas, It is the deliberate conviction of this General Assembly that the constitution can only be sustained, as it was formed, by a spirit of just compromise, therefore—
Then followed the provisions of the law :
1. It was made the duty of any judge, justice of the peace or mayor of a municipal corporation, on application of a slave owner or his agent, to issue a warrant to any sheriff directing him to arrest the fugitive and bring him for trial before any judge of the county in which he should be arrested. If the claimant could satisfy the court that he had a legal right to the slave then a certificate should be forthwith issued for his removal from the state.
2. Any one preventing or hindering the execution of such warrant or aiding in the rescue or escape of a slave was liable to a fine of not exceeding $500 and imprisonment for not to exceed sixty days.
3. The same penalty was imposed upon anyone who would entice, advise or aid in any way a slave to escape.
The law gave wide discretion to the master in selecting the magistrate from whom to ask the warrant. If one magistrate should refuse to issue it, application could be made to others until he succeeded in getting the warrant.
CASE OF THE NEGRO, BILL, IN MARION, OHIO
In this same year, 1839, an exciting case under Ohio's Fugitive Slave Law occurred at Marion, Ohio, then a village of about 500 inhabitants. A spirited account of it, published in the Marion Visitor, is copied in the Niles Register of September 14, 1839, under the caption, "A Disgraceful Occurrence." The negro Bill was well known in Marion, where he had lived for some time. At the instance of his reputed master in Virginia he was arrested as a runaway slave and lodged in jail awaiting trial, which was fixed for the first day of the sitting of the Court of Common Pleas. The case had aroused unusual interest and the court-room was crowded. The first clay was devoted to the hearing of testimony and the arguments of the counsel. The judge reserved his decision for the following clay.
Court was called at 10 o'clock A. M. Long before that hour the room was crowded with spectators. Judge Ozias Brown was more than half an hour reading his decision, which was heard with bated breath until at the conclusion he pronounced the prisoner free. This was signal for confusion and disorder.
The representatives of the pretended owner of the negro siezed the prisoner. The by-standers resisted and attempted to rescue him, declaring him free by decision of the court. The Virginians refused to give him up and held the crowd at bay with pistosl, bowie knives, dirks and bludgeons. This increased the excitement and a riot was soon under way.
The Virginians dragged and pushed the negro through the streets, threatening him and the crowd with their pistols and knives. "At this unusual and horrible sight the populace became enraged" and attacked the abductors with stones and other missiles. The Virginians succeeded at length in getting the negro into the office of a justice of the peace where they guarded him and prevented his liberation.
Finally some one raised the cry, "To the arsenal ! To the arsenal !" The crowd at once hurried to the arsenal, broke it open, armed themselves and presented a most threatening and dangerous situation. The excited citizens felt that their courts had been defied and their laws trampled under foot by these armed intruders, and they were now determined that the negro should be released at whatever cost. The sheriff and others appealed to them in vain.
234 - HISTORY OF OHIO
At this juncture Associate Judge Thomas J. Anderson forced his way past the armed Virginians into the room where Bill was confined and broke open a rear door through which the prisoner escaped. He was soon overtaken by a Virginian who thrust a cocked pistol in his face and compelled him to stop. A citizen hurried up and knocked the Virginian down. In quick succession the remaining abductors were subdued. The negro, restored to liberty, made his escape, most probably to the land of freedom on the other side of Lake Erie.
Order was not restored on that memorable day in Marion until the abductors were arrested and placed under bond.
The Ohio Fugitive Slave Law of 1839 proved unsatisfactory. 5 Many citizens of the state thought it was bad policy to thus truckle to a delegation from another state in order to please and appease them. It began to look as if the Virginians and Kentuckians wished not only to dictate what laws Ohio should pass, but how those laws should be interpreted and applied by the courts. This act was repealed January 19, 1843.
CASE OF A FUGITIVE SLAVE NAMED JOHN
Considerable excitement attended this case, which was brought under the "black laws" of Ohio in 1841. It began in Newark under Judge Hughey. At the instance of Samuel White, who espoused the cause of the fugitive, the case was postponed and by writ of habeus corpus transferred to Granville where the hearing was before Judge Bancroft. Attorneys White, Stanbery and Eells defended the negro. The court found that the arrest, "as it had been brought about," was unconstitutional and the negro was released. "Knock off those shackles," shouted Attorney White. "No fetters here. John, you are a free man. Run, John, run for your life and liberty." The shackles were instantly removed and the fugitive, in the midst of tears and fervent thanks to "Massa White," was hurried out of the room and soon borne away on a fleet horse from immediate danger of re-arrest. At the earliest opportunity he took passage on the Underground Railroad to Canada and liberty. 6
THE VAN ZANDT CASE
This case was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States for final adjudication. John Van Zandt, the original of John Van Trompe in "Uncle Tom's Cabin," was an aged farmer, a Kentuckian by birth and an abolitionist from principle. He had moved from his native state to Ohio and acquired a small farm near Cincinnati.
On April 23, 1842, he met on the road nine slaves who had escaped from Kentucky and were on their way to freedom. They included a husband and wife and three children. In answer to appeals of the fugitives, Van Zandt consented to take them a distance in his wagon. When they were about sixteen miles north of Cincinnati, they were overtaken by two slave hunters, Hargraves and Hefferman, who with the aid of some pro-slavery associates, captured all the slaves but two of the men, who made good their escape. The captured fugitives, without warrant or other legal formality, were hurried to Covington, Kentucky, and lodged in jail. The two slave hunters received $450 as their reward.
The owner of the slaves, Wharton Jones, sued Van Zandt under the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793. The case was tried before Justice McLean in Cincinnati in July, 1842. Van Zandt was ably defended by Salmon P. Chase and Thomas Morris, former United States senator and later
5 - Hickok, C. T., "The Negro in Ohio," pp. 170-173. 6 - Bushnell, "The History of Granville," pp. 307-308.
234 - HISTORY OF OHIO
At this juncture Associate Judge Thomas J. Anderson forced his way past the armed Virginians into the room where Bill was confined and broke open a rear door through which the prisoner escaped. He was soon overtaken by a Virginian who thrust a cocked pistol in his face and compelled him to stop. A citizen hurried up and knocked the Virginian down. In quick succession the remaining abductors were subdued. The negro, restored to liberty, made his escape, most probably to the land of freedom on the other side of Lake Erie.
Order was not restored on that memorable day in Marion until the abductors were arrested and placed under bond.
The Ohio Fugitive Slave Law of 1839 proved unsatisfactory.5 Many citizens of the state thought it was bad policy to thus truckle to a delegation from another state in order to please and appease them. It began to look as if the Virginians and Kentuckians wished not only to dictate what laws Ohio should pass, but how those laws should be interpreted and applied by the courts. This act was repealed January 19, 1843.
CASE OF A FUGITIVE SLAVE NAMED JOHN
Considerable excitement attended this case, which was brought under the "black laws" of Ohio in 1841. It began in Newark under Judge Hughey. At the instance of Samuel White, who espoused the cause of the fugitive, the case was postponed and by writ of habeus corpus transferred to Granville where the hearing was before Judge Bancroft. Attorneys White, Stanbery and Eells defended the negro. The court found that the arrest, "as it had been brought about," was unconstitutional and the negro was released. "Knock off those shackles," shouted Attorney White. "No fetters here. John, you are a free man. Run, John, run for your life and liberty." The shackles were instantly removed and the fugitive, in the midst of tears and fervent thanks to "Massa White," was hurried out of the room and soon borne away on a fleet horse from immediate danger of re-arrest. At the earliest opportunity he took passage on the Underground Railroad to Canada and liberty. 6
THE VAN ZANDT CASE
This case was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States for final adjudication. John Van Zandt, the original of John Van Trompe in "Uncle Tom's Cabin," was an aged farmer, a Kentuckian by birth and an abolitionist from principle. He had moved from his native state to Ohio and acquired a small farm near Cincinnati.
On April 23, 1842, he met on the road nine slaves who had escaped from Kentucky and were on their way to freedom. They included a husband and wife and three children. In answer to appeals of the fugitives, Van Zandt consented to take them a distance in his wagon. When they were about sixteen miles north of Cincinnati, they were overtaken by two slave hunters, Hargraves and Hefferman, who with the aid of some pro-slavery associates, captured all the slaves but two of the men, who made good their escape. The captured fugitives, without warrant or other legal formality, were hurried to Covington, Kentucky, and lodged in jail. The two slave hunters received $450 as their reward.
The owner of the slaves, Wharton Jones, sued Van Zandt under the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793. The case was tried before Justice McLean in Cincinnati in July, 1842. Van Zandt was ably defended by Salmon P. Chase and Thomas Morris, former United States senator and later
5 - Hickok, C. T., "The Negro in Ohio," pp. 170-173. 6 - Bushnell, "The History of Granville," pp. 307-308.
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS 235
candidate for vice president of the United State on the Liberty Party ticket. The decision was against Van Zandt and he was fined $1200 in damages and $500 additional for violating the act of 1793. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in December. James T. Morehead, United States senator. from Kentucky, appeared for Wharton Jones and William H. Seward and Salmon P. Chase for Van Zandt. The finding of Justice McLean was .sustained and Van Zandt had to pay the penalty. 7
THE MILTON CLARK RESCUE CASE
In September, 1842, a fugitive by the name of Milton Clark was captured in Lake County and by writ of habeus corpus was released in Ashtabula County and at once took flight by the Underground Railroad. An account of the case was published in the Geneva Times, September 14, 1892. 8
MARYSVILLE RENDITION CASE
In September, 1844, two fugitives captured on the Scioto River, near Marysville, Union County, were returned to slavery. An account of this case was published in the Marysville Tribune of May 17, 1893. 9
THE WATSON CASE
This case is interesting chiefly because of the numerous legal points raised by Salmon P. Chase in defense of his client, Samuel Watson, who was brought on board the Ohio Bell to Cincinnati by an agent named Hoppess, on the morning of January 21, 1845. Soon after the arrival of the boat Watson was missing. In the evening he was found by Hoppess on the landing, siezed and on the following morning taken before a magistrate to obtain a certificate authorizing his removal under the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793.
Judge M. C. Read, of the Ohio Supreme Court, issued a writ of habeus corpus requiring Hoppess to justify the detention of Watson. Hoppess claimed that "Watson was a slave in Virginia whose master had taken him thence to Arkansas ; that the master had returned to Virginia and died there, after having sold Watson to a man named Floyd ; that as the agent of Floyd he, Hoppess, had gone to Arkansas, obtained possession of Watson and was returning with him to Virginia, when, the boat having arrived in Cincinnati early in the morning, Watson escaped." It appeared that the negro was making no attempt to escape. What his purpose was in going ashore and why Hoppess rushed to the magistrate to arm himself with authority to proceed with the slave is not apparent.
The counsel for Watson were Chase, Johnson and James G. Birney. The points upon which they insisted were :
1. That there had been no escape ; 2. That the escape, if there was one, was from one place in Ohio to another place in the same state, and so not within the constitutional provision as to escaping servants, nor the provisions of the Act of 1793 ; 3. That the boat, at the time of the escape, was within the State of Ohio, being fastened to the Ohio shore and within low-water mark ; to which line, by consent of all, the territory of the state extends, and beyond this line, it was insisted, to the middle of the river ; 4. That the holding of persons as slaves in Arkansas was repugnant to the treaty with France, which provided for the admission
7 - Schuckers, J. W., "Life and Public Services of Salmon P. Chase," pp. 53-66. 8 - Siebert, Wilbur H., "The Underground Railroad," p. 370. 9 - Ibid, p. 370.
236 - HISTORY OF OHIO
of all the inhabitants of the territory to the immunities of citizens of the United States, and also the fifth amendment to the constitution, which declares that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law and applies, at least, to all national territories and states created out of such territories, and that Watson, having been taken by his alleged master from Virginia to Arkansas was free there and could not be reclaimed ; 5. That the Act of 1793, relating to fugitives from service, was unconstitutional, that no power was conferred by the constitution upon Congress to legislate on the subject ; * * * 6. That the Ordinance of 1787 confined the right of reclaiming escaping servants, as to the territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio River and as to the states erected out of it, to cases of escape from the original states, and that Watson, not having escaped from an original state, could not, therefore, be reclaimed as a fugitive from service. 10
Judge Read decided that the agent had a right to proceed with the slave, as the landing of the boat at Cincinnati was only an incident of transportation from Arkansas to Virginia, but Chase and his associates found much satisfaction in the finding of the court that—
"Slavery is wrong inflicted by force and supported alone by the municipal power of the state or territory in which it exists. It is opposed to the principles of natural justice and right and is the mere creature of positive law. If a master bring his slave into the State of Ohio he loses all power over him. If the master take his slave beyond the influence of the laws which create the relation, it fails ; there is nothing to support it, and they stand as man and man. The slave is free by the laws of the state to which he has been brought by the master, and there is no law authorizing the master to force him back to the state which recognizes the relation of master and slave. At one time I was of opinion that he had the right of passage through a free state with his slave. This would probably harmonize with the spirit of the compromise upon the subject. But upon more careful examination, I am satisfied the master must lose his slave if he brings him into a free state, unless the slave voluntarily returns to a state of slavery ; because the master loses all power over the slave by the law of the state to which he has brought him and there is not other law authorizing the master to remove him. The constitution of the United States only recognizes the right of recapture of a fugitive held to service in one state escaping into another." 11
THE PARISH CASE
This case, also referred to as the "Jane Garrison Case," is described in the Firelands Pioneer of July, 1888, by Judge Rush R. Sloane, who was familiar with all the details. After giving an account of the effective work of Mr. F. D. Parish in aiding fugitives to escape and detailing particularly his assistance in successfully defending two slave boys before an associate judge of Erie County and helping them on their way to Canada Judge Sloane says :
"It was not, however, for aiding these boys to escape that Mr. Parish was sued, but for the part he took in behalf of other slaves which these same Kentuckians sought to reclaim on the same day, of which latter case the circumstances were as follows :
"There were at this same time two colored persons, Jane Garrison and her little boy, Harrison, stopping at the house of Mr. Parish. The son of the man claiming to own them called at Mr. Parish's house to see them and stated to Mr. Parish that he was there to reclaim them, that they were the property of his father, Peter Driskell, of Kentucky. Mr. Parish asked by what authority, and the reply was by power of
10 - Schuckers, "Life of Salmon P. Chase," pp. 75-76. 11 - Ibid, p. 77.
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 237
attorney, offering to produce it. 'You need not show it,' said Mr. Parish, 'as nothing but judicial authority will do.' The slaves went into the house and were not seen afterward. Suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States against Mr. Parish for the value of the slaves, and a jury found a verdict against him for hindering and obstructing the arrest and awarded damages against him in the sum of $500, the proved value of the slaves at the time of their escape. The amount of the judgment and cost and expenses in the suit, $1,000 in all, was collected by subscription in sums of one dollar each and presented to Mr. Parish."
The offense for which this fine was imposed occurred in Sandusky early in March, 1845.
THE CASE OF JERRY FINNEY
This was a case of a few novel thrills and distinctive features. The opening acts were in March, 1846. Jerry Finney, a colored man, had been a resident for some years in Columbus, Ohio. He had a wife and children. William Henderson was a justice of the peace in Franklinton. On request, Finney brought a trunk late one evening from one of the hotels to the office of Henderson. The office was dark. Only a feeble light was given from the fire in the stove. Finney was suddenly seized by seven men who proceeded to bind him hand and foot. A candle was then lighted and he was told that he was a fugitive slave and must return to Kentucky.
He then asked for a trial and an opportunity to show that his master had given him his freedom years before. This was refused. One of the abductors, Alexander C. Forbes, produced papers and swore to the identity of Finney. After a few other formalities the negro was rushed into a hack and started southward.
A colored boy who accompanied Finney with the trunk was detained until it was thought the kidnappers had time to make good their escape. As soon as he was released he spread the alarm and there was at once great excitement in the city. A party was organized and started in pursuit, hoping to overtake the abductors before they reached the train at Xenia. Arriving at the station they found that the train with Finney and his captors was on its way to Cincinnati.
"On to Cincinnati" was the watchword, and the pursuit was renewed. Again the abductors escaped and crossed the river into Kentucky. What followed in Columbus is thus described by Lee in his history of the city :
"The excitement in Columbus as to the outcome of the pursuit was only excelled by the public feeling against the kidnappers and against Justice Henderson and their abettors, who were arrested and, after a preliminary examination, conducted by Aaron F. Perry, then prosecuting attorney, and by Fitchjames Matthews and Albert B. Buttles for the defendants, were recognized to the Court of Common Pleas, and in default of bail were committed to the county jail. An immense public meeting was held at the Town Street Methodist Episcopal Church, at which spirited addresses were delivered by Samuel Galloway, Rev. Granville Moody and others, and resolutions were adopted fiercely denouncing Finney's abduction and all connected with it and expressing a determination 'to rescue him from the scoundrels who stole him from his family.' In the meantime Colonel Miner of Cincinnati and Messrs. Cowles and Bartol of Columbus at once proceeded to Frankfort to see what could be done for Finney's release. Awaiting the result of their efforts, a purse of $500 was raised by the citizens of Columbus to be added to a like sum to be offered by the governor for the purpose of bringing the kidnapers to justice." 12
Governor Mordecai Bartley issued a requisition on the governor of
12 - Lee, A. E., "History of Columbus, Ohio," p. 600.
238 - HISTORY OF OHIO
Kentucky for the surrender of the kidnappers without practical results. The attorneys who went to Frankfort, Kentucky, returned empty handed. In July the grand jury of Franklin County indicted Henderson and the others who connived at the abduction. Henderson was convicted and sent to jail. He was later sentenced to the penitentiary. His case was taken to the Supreme Court on error and he was released.
In the meantime, Finney, who had been imprisoned in the penitentiary of Kentucky, was brought back to Columbus. The good people of the city had raised $500 which was paid for his release and restoration to his family.
THE TOLEDO RESCUE CASE
In February, 1847, a fugitive slave was rescued from custody while his captor was being tried on a charge of assault and battery before a justice of the peace. This case was reported to Prof. W. H. Siebert by James M. Ashley and Mayor Brigham, both of Toledo, in the summer of 1895. 13
THE CASE OF RICHARD DILLINGHAM
As a rule the abolitionists, even those of the radical type, did not counsel entering slave territory and encouraging slaves to escape. The case of Richard Dillingham, the Quaker school teacher of Morrow County, constitutes an exception.
In December, 1848, while he was in Cincinnati, he was importuned by some colored people to go to Nashville, Tennessee, and bring back their relatives who were slaves under a cruel master. This he undertook to do, but was betrayed by a colored man whom he trusted, imprisoned and brought to trial April 13, 1849. After the arguments were closed, he rose and with calmness and dignity made the following poignant appeal :
"By the kind permission of the court, for which I am sincerely thankful, I avail myself of the privilege of adding a few words to the remarks already made by my counsel. And although I stand by my own confession, as a criminal in the eyes of your violated laws, yet I feel confident that I am addressing those who have hearts to feel, and in meeting out the punishment that I am about to suffer I hope you will be lenient, for it is a new situation in which I am placed. Never before in the whole course of my life have I been charged with a dishonest act. And, from my childhood, kind parents, whose names I deeply reverence, have instilled into my mind a desire to be virtuous and honorable ; and it has ever been my aim so to conduct myself as to merit the confidence and esteem of my fellow men. But, gentlemen, I have violated your laws ; this offense I did commit and I now stand before you, to my sorrow and regret, as a criminal. But I was prompted to it by feelings of humanity. It has been suspected, as I was informed, that I was leagued with a fraternity who are combined for the purpose of committing such offenses as the one with which I am charged. But, gentlemen, the impression is false. I alone am guilty ; I alone committed the offense, and I alone must suffer the penalty. My parents, my friends, my relations are as innocent of any participation in or knowledge of my offense as the babe unborn. My parents are still living, though advanced in years and, in the course of nature, a few more years will terminate their earthly existence. In their old age and infirmity they will need a stay and protection, and if you can consistently with your ideas of justice make my term of imprisonment a short one, you will receive the lasting gratitude of a son who reverences his parents and the prayers and blessings of an aged father and mother who love their child."14
13 - Siebert, "The Underground Railroad," p. 371. 14 - Howe, "Historical Collections of Ohio," Vol. II, p. 325.
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 239
Tears were in the eyes of many of the jurors when he concluded. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for three years—the shortest possible term for the offense under the laws of Tennessee.
While on trial he wrote a letter to the young woman to whom he was soon to be married, offering to release her. She, however, was constant and more than content to wait until he was released.
In the summer of 1850, the scourge of cholera, which was claiming many victims in the Southland, reached the penitentiary of Tennessee and a number of the prisoners were prostrated. Dillingham labored early and late to care for his fellow prisoners. Finally one Sabbath morning he himself was stricken. He died at noon the same day and was buried at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
THE BELLEFONTAINE RESCUE CASE
In November, 1852, the probate judge of Logan County discharged the Piatt slaves from custody and they made good their escape over the Underground Railroad. 15
THE CASE OF WASH MCQUERRY
What was declared by James Hanaway, at the time a citizen of Darke County, as the first Ohio case under the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, was tried before Judge McLean, of the United States Circuit Court in Cincinnati in 1853. McQuerry had taken up his residence in Troy, Miami County. A citizen living near Piqua, learning that he was a fugitive slave, wrote a letter to his master, Henry Miller, informing him where his "property" could be found. A posse of slave hunters came upon Wash where he was working on a canal boat. He was arrested, taken before Judge McLean and returned to his master. 16
ESCAPE FROM A COURT-ROOM
Levi Coffin in his "Reminiscences" gives an account of the escape of a slave by the name of Louis, who eluded his would-be captors under very unusual circumstances in October, 1853. He had run away from his master in the interior of Kentucky and crossed the river at Cincinnati, where he found employment and remained for a time. Later he went to Columbus, Ohio, where he lived a number of years. His master finally learned where he was and sought by legal process to have him remanded to slavery. He was brought to Cincinnati where the officer who had him in custody was arrested for kidnapping.
The case was tried before United States Commissioner Carpenter. The owner came with witnesses to identify his "property." The trial lasted "a number of days" and interest grew as it approached its close. The commissioner deferred judgment for a day in order to consider more fully the law and the evidence. A new courthouse was in process of erection and court was held "in the second story of Wilson's building on Court Street." The time had arrived for the decision of the commissioner and the room was crowded to its capacity. Many colored people were present in a group. The slave sat between his master and the officer who had brought him from Columbus.
This is what then occurred, according to Levi Coffin :
"Louis was crowded and to gain more room slipped his chair back a little way. Neither his master nor the marshal noticed the movement, as they were intently listening to the judge, and he slipped his chair again until he was back of them. I was standing close behind him and saw every movement. Next he rose quietly to his feet and took
15 - Siebert, "The Underground Railroad," pp. 373-374. 16 - History of Darke County, Ohio," pp. 324, 325.
240 - HISTORY OF OHIO
a step backward. Some abolitionists, friendly to his cause, gave him an encouraging touch on the foot and he stepped farther back. Then a good hat was placed on his head by some one behind and he quietly and cautiously made his way around the south end of the room into the crowd of colored people on the west side, through it, toward the door. I and several other abolitionists had our eyes on him, and our hearts throbbed with suppressed excitement and anxiety lest he should be discovered."17
Louis gained the street and made good his escape. His absence was soon discovered and the crowd in the court-room was in an uproar. A vigorous search was made for him by his master and the officers, but he was not found. He was concealed for some time in Cincinnati, finally conveyed to a station of the Underground Railroad and soon afterward arrived safely in Canada.
THE ROSETTA CASE
This case is detailed at length in a very interesting account by Alfred E. Lee in his "History of the City of Columbus, Ohio." 18 A minister of the Gospel, H. M. Denison, of Kentucky, started his slave girl Rosetta early in March, 1855, from Louisville, Kentucky, on a journey to Wheeling, Virginia, in care of a friend, who, not finding a boat in Cincinnati, concluded to proceed by train across the State of Ohio. Finding to his surprise that he could not go directly to his destination but would be delayed in Zanesville over Sunday, he decided to remain in Columbus "where there were not so many abolitionists," and where he had an acquaintance with whom he and his charge would be safe. They were seen, however, by some colored women who reported their suspicions. Judge Joseph R. Swan issued a writ of habeus corpus which was served by the sheriff. It appeared that Rosetta had been brought into the state by consent of her master or his agent and she was set at liberty.
The girl was a minor and Mr. L. G. Van Slyke was appointed her guardian. Her former owner, Reverend Denison, later came to see her. She was given her choice to return with him or continue her freedom. After some deliberation, she elected to remain in Columbus. Here she found a home with the family of Dr. J. H. Coulter.
Later the same month, March 23, two men from the South came ostensibly to consult Doctor Coulter. They saw the girl and mutual recognition followed. Thereupon one of the men produced a power of attorney and demanded possession of Rosetta. Doctor Coulter refused to give her up until he could consult a friend. When he left his office, the two men promptly seized the girl and hurried her to a carriage which was in waiting. As they were about to start, Doctor Coulter returned and protested. They got into the carriage with the girl and made a dash for the depot, where a train was soon due for Cincinnati. In the meantime the alarm spread through the city.
Mr. Van Slyke and Dr. W. E. Ide boarded the train that took Rosetta and her captors South. At Cincinnati the latter were detained by habeas corpus proceedings and the case was heard before Judge Parker of the Common Pleas Court. Salmon P. Chase, Timothy Walker and R. B. Hayes, then a rising young attorney, appeared for the colored girl. United States Senator George E. Pugh and Jacob Fynn appeared in behalf of Reverend Denison, the slaveholder.
Judge Parker held with Judge Swan, and the girl was again set at liberty and placed in the custody of her guardian, Mr. Van Slyke. Before she could get out of Cincinnati she was rearrested by the United States marshal and taken before the United States commissioner who
17 - Coffin, "Reminiscences," pp. 550-551. 18 - Vol. I, pp. 602-603.
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 241
again discharged her. The marshal was then arrested for contempt of court, but United States Justice McLean came to his rescue with a habeas corpus and discharged him from the custody of the sheriff.
But Rosetta was free and returned to Columbus with her guardian. A wealthy lady from New England, who was in Columbus when the girl was abducted, became interested in her and with her consent took her to her home and had her educated in one of the seminaries of the East. Rosetta was a light colored mulatto and proved herself in every way worthy of this favor. She grew up to cultured and useful womanhood.
The colored people of Columbus, in recognition of the service of Mr. Van Slyke, at a public meeting in his honor, presented him a silver pitcher, with an eloquent expression of their appreciation.
THE AD WHITE RESCUE CASE
This case became famous in the annals of Champaign, Clark and Green counties, and was not lacking in incidents of thrilling excitement. Ad White, a fugitive from Kentucky, had, as he thought, found freedom and security on the farm of Udney Hyde near Mechanicsburg. He was finally tracked to his retreat and the United States courts in Cincinnati issued a warrant for his arrest.
White was a powerful man physically. He slept in the loft of the Hyde home where he had provided the means of defense to meet "eventualities." A rifle, a double-barrelled shotgun, a revolver, a knife and an ax constituted the principal part of the armament of this improvised fortress. The agents of the Government came for White in May, 1857. They could not persuade him to surrender. One of the deputies finally undertook to make the arrest. As he attempted to enter the loft, gun in hand, White fired and the deputy dropped to the floor. His life had been saved by the barrel of his gun, which turned aside the ball from White's rifle. The posse of deputies thereupon withdrew, leaving White in possession of his "fort."
The deputies returned empty handed to Cincinnati and made their report. Warrants were issued for the arrest of Azoro Z. Mann, Charles Taylor, David Tullis and Udney Hyde for interfering and preventing the capture of White. Their arrest created great excitement and an effort was made to prevent taking them away. Habeas corpus writs were issued in Champaign, Clark and Green counties to arrest the "spiriting away" of these citizens.
Judge Ichabod Corwin and Hon. J. C. Brand went to Springfield with a copy of the writ and soon Sheriff John E. Layton of Clark County was on his way to intercept the United States deputies and their prisoners. They were overtaken near South Charleston. In attempting to serve the writ Layton was beaten to the ground by Deputy-Marshal Elliott, borne back to South Charleston and reported in a dying condition.
This aroused intense excitement in Springfield and additional parties were organized at once to capture Elliott and his prisoners. They were finally arrested by the sheriff of Green County and taken to Urbana where the prisoners were released. On their way to Urbana the deputies were arrested in Springfield on a charge of assault with attempt to kill and lodged in the jail over night.
Sheriff Layton did not die, but he never fully recovered from the beating at the hands of Elliott. The deputy-marshals returned to Cincinnati. They soon came back, armed with warrants for the rearrest of the Mechanicsburg parties and a long list of additional men from the three counties, including among the number Judge Baldwin, Judge Corwin and Sheriff Clark of Champaign County.
The cases of Udney Hyde and Hon. J. C. Brand were selected as test cases. Eminent lawyers appeared for the prosecution and the
242 - HISTORY OF OHIO
defense. The case had now dragged along almost a year and both parties had considerably abated the ardor with which it had commenced. The Kentucky owner of Ad White finally proposed a settlement that would net him $1,000 for his slave. This was agreed to and Ad White, rejoicing in his freedom, spent the remainder of his days in and near Mechanicsburg. 19
IBERIA WHIPPING CASE
In the early summer of 1860, some colored persons were staying at a place about two miles south of Iberia, Morrow County, the seat of Ohio Central College, later called Iberia College, and famous as the institution in which President Warren G. Harding and his father received their academic training. On September 20, 1860, a train stopped and some men, supposed to be slave hunters, got off.
The news was carried to the college town and young men on horseback were soon on their way to protect the fugitives. "Two of these were rescued, but the third was caught and remanded to slavery." Just how this happened the local historian has not told us.
The rescuers were incensed at the effort to carry off the fugitive. They caught the deputy United States marshal and two of his subordinates, disarmed them, took them to the woods, clipped the hair of the deputy close to his head, compelled his assistants to subscribe to some "iron-clad oaths," and severely whipped them.
Rev. George Gordon, president of the college, was present at the conclusion of this cruel ceremony. There is difference of opinion as to his attitude toward the affair. His friends claimed that he in no way encouraged the flogging, that indeed, he had made an effort to prevent it while the victims and their sympathizers insisted that he witnessed it without protest. In November, 1861, he was fined $300 and cost of prosecution (from $1,000 to $1,500 additional) and sentenced to jail for six months." Before the close of his term of imprisonment he was pardoned by President Lincoln.
At first he refused to leave his prison cell in the jail at Cleveland, because the pardon did not exonerate him. His health was rapidly failing and he was finally prevailed upon to leave the cell in order to save his life. His health improved, but he never fully recovered. He died in 1868. 21
OTHER CASES
The cases on the preceding pages are not a complete list of those that occurred in Ohio. In the newspapers of the period one occasionally finds incidental mention of escapes and rescues of fugitive slaves. In later years reminiscent letters have appeared recalling these experiences of ante-bellum days.
In The Anti-Slavery Bugle, shortly after the rescue of "Abbie Kelley Salem," appeared the following reference to a case of which no further details have been seen by the writer : "The Supreme Court of Ohio has decided that the course pursued by the Salem rescuers was entirely legal. Some years since a similar rescue was happily effected by our friends, Abram and Edward Brooke and others. Then, as now, a hue and cry was raised against those engaged in the heroic undertaking, for it required more heroism to do it then than now. They were hunted by the mob and persecuted by appeals to law, at the instance of pro-slavery Ohioans. The Court of Common Pleas decided against the rescuers as guilty of offense
19 - Beer, "History of Clark County, Ohio," quoted in Howe, "Historical Collections of Ohio," Vol. 1, pp. 384-386. 20 - Siebert, "The Underground Railroad," p. 377. 21 - History of Morrow County, Ohio," 1880, pp. 403-404.
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 243
against law. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and Judge Lane decided to act to be lawful and constitutional and that the rescuers had the right to use so much force as was needful to effect the deliverance of the slaves."
While the list of cases is not complete, it is sufficient to illustrate the anti-slavery spirit of Ohio prior to the Civil war.
ATTITUDE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1850-1851
Caleb Atwater in his "History of Ohio" devotes a chapter to The Colonization Society, which is more properly designated by the page heading Anti-Slavery Society. When he wrote this he undoubtedly had in mind the great debate between Webster and Hayne which was still the talk of the country. He considered what might have happened had Rufus Putnam and his compatriots been the first settlers of Virginia instead of Ohio. Population, in his opinion, would have increased much more rapidly and the Old Dominion would have been in a more prosperous and happy condition. It was a suggestion of similar character, made by Webster in his speech on the Foote resolution with reference to the State of Kentucky that stirred Hayne and precipitated the great debate. After describing the rapid growth of the free State of Ohio, Webster asks his hearers to consider how much more fortunate Kentucky would have been had that state from the beginning been dedicated, as was the Northwest, to universal liberty. Hayne objected to the assumption that slavery was a source of weakness, and the debate followed.
Atwater declares that the slave system was a great help to Ohio. It made the states south of the Ohio River the abode of slaves, while freemen naturally sought homes farther north under the ageis of the anti-slavery provision of the Ordinance of 1787 and the Constitution of 1802. Here are some of the things that he has to say on this phase of the subject :
"As a state, it is our interest in Ohio to have slavery continued in the slave-holding states for a century yet ; otherwise our growth would he checked. The broad and deep streams of wealth, numbers, enterprise, youth, vigor, and the very life blood of the slave-holding states, now rolling into Ohio like mighty floods, would be stayed ; and even roll back to their source, rendering those states not merely our equals but even our superiors in numbers, wealth and political power. No. We have adopted a policy which, for a century yet, requires slavery in the states south of us to be continued until they become deserts, * * * while we have 12,000,000 of people in Ohio. * * *
"The secret of our growth in all that is desirable must be kept a profound secret among ourselves. With such views on the subject, where is the patriotic citizen of this most prosperous of all states ever founded on the surface of the earth who would wish to stay its growth or even check its prosperity ? No ; let slavery be continued for a century at least, and our descendants will go and settle in the now slave-holding states, as forests, and make them what they will not be until then." 1
Mr. Atwater here expresses his view rather unhappily. He is fully convinced that slavery is a bad policy for any state and that Ohio is most fortunate to have been a free state from the beginning ; that all the free states naturally prospered at the expense of the South under the institution of slavery. He was not alone in his expressed willingness that this condition should continue.
The constitutional convention of 1850-1851 was emphatically opposed to the granting of additional rights and privileges to the negro. In this respect it presents a contrast to the convention of 1802. The wave of sentiment that swept the "black laws" from the statutes of
1 - Atwater, "A History of the State of Ohio," p. 331.
244 - HISTORY OF OHIO
the state a few years earlier was evidently receding. A clash over the status of the negro was precipitated when the article of the constitution relating to education was under consideration.
The standing committee having this subject under consideration reported among other sections the following :
The General Assembly shall make such provision by taxation and other means (in addition to the means arising from the irredicuble fund) as will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools, free to all the children in the state."
Mr. Sawyer of Auglaize County, one of the active and able members of the convention, always on the alert to block any additional opportunity for the colored race, promptly moved to amend the section by inserting the word "white" immediately before the word "children."
Mr. Taylor of Erie County opposed the change and in the course of his remarks said :
"I think it must be clear to every reflecting mind that the true policy of the statesman is to provide the means of education and consequent moral improvement to every child in the state, the offspring of the black man equally with that of the white man, the children of the poor equally with the rich. But I am told that the negro belongs to a degraded and inferior race ; so much the more reason, sir, for their education and improvement. Leave them to grow up without moral and intellectual training, and they become a positive curse as well as a burden upon society. Educate them and they become useful members of the community that has cared for them." 2
In reply Mr. Sawyer explained that his purpose was to discourage the colored 'people from coming to Ohio. He rejoiced in the recent passage by Congress of the Fugitive Slave Law. "For," said he, "I believe it will have the effect to rid the free states of the curse of a negro population, intermixed with the white."
He further explained his attitude toward the colored race :
"I have declared before, and I repeat it now, that I am willing that the negro shall have every privilege and every right that I myself enjoy. I am willing that he shall vote ; I am willing that he shall be a justice of the peace, or governor, a judge or a member of Congress. Aye, sir, I am willing that he shall be president of a republic. I am willing that the language of our sublime Declaration of Independence shall apply to the negro as well and as fully as to myself. But, sir, I am unwilling that he shall enjoy those privileges in this country, pre-occupied as it is by a different and a higher race. I am willing that he shall enjoy all these rights and privileges in his native country. Is there anything either unjust or inhumane in this ?" 3
He adverted to conditions in Canada, which had been made a haven for fugitives :
"The people of Canada are now reaping the bitter fruits of the seed sown by themselves. They are now overrun with an impoverished, if not viscious, negro population. And because the fugitive slave bill has had the effect, in so great a measure, to rid us of the negroes which were everywhere a pest in society and has accumulated them upon the soil of Canada, I rejoice "in its passage."
In closing, Mr. Sawyer said :
"If you will look at the statistics furnished by the recent census, you will find that in those counties of the state where abolitionism or freesoilism predominates, there are the fewest negroes. It is in the southern counties, bordering on Kentucky, where there is the largest proportion of negroes and mulattoes ; and these counties are the least friendly to provisions for the encouragement of their emigration to or remaining
2 - Debates and Proceedings of the Convention for the Revision of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. 1850-1851, Vol. II, p. 3 - IIbid, 12.
ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 245
in the state. Either the negroes do not know their friends, or else they will not go to them." 4
Mr. Townshend, who as a member of the General Assembly had been largely instrumental in effecting a repeal of the "black laws," answered Mr. Sawyer in part as follows :
"I did not rise, Mr. Chairman, to reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Auglaize on the Fugitive Slave Bill. I don't see what that has to do with the common schools of Ohio ; but, sir, as that gentleman has kindly given us his opinion, I will just take the opportunity to give mine, which is that the fugitive law, in all its distinctive features, is utterly and totally damnable.
"But I rose, Mr. Chairman, to correct one or two mistakes into which that gentleman has unfortunately fallen. The first relates to the feelings with which the people of Canada regard the fugitives who escape from this country. I do not believe that the people there are alarmed at the "black cloud" of fugitives that comes up from the States. On the contrary, I know that they treat them with great humanity, furnishing them with food, clothing and employment. * * * The gentleman alluded to the temper of the Canadian papers. I think, sir, I have seen the paper to which allusion was made, and if I am correctly informed, the articles are not written by any native of Canada or Great Britain, but by a negro hater from the United States. * * *
"The other mistake I wish to notice is the assertion of the gentleman that there are, comparatively, no colored persons in the free-soil counties, and that therefore all the sympathy felt in those counties is for a class of persons which we, in such counties, don't have among us ; and of the evils of whose presence we know nothing. Now, sir, I think it will be conceded that we have some free soil in Lorain, and there, sir, we have quite a sprinkling of colored persons. I don't pretend to know the exact number, but I should think but little, if any, less than 100 in the village where I live and a still larger number in another village a few miles off. * * * But, sir, we have less prejudice against colored persons, not because we don't know them, but because we do." 5
A number of delegates expressed themselves in favor of making the provisions of the article on education so general that they would not endanger the constitution when submitted to the people ; they favored leaving details to the General Assembly. This was finally done. The article, as adopted, contained no reference to the colored people. Discussion of the rights and privileges to be accorded to the colored people again occurred wh en the article on the elective franchise was up for consideration. The report of the committee limited the franchise to "every white male citizen." An amendment was offered to strike out the word "white." In support of this amendment Mr. Townshend took the lead, delivering a speech that was evidently carefully prepared. He opposed depriving the negro of the right to vote because such action he considered-1, unjust ; 2, anti-democratic ; 3, impolitic. Following are a few extracts from the address : "To attempt to govern men without seeking their consent is usurpation and tyranny, whether in Ohio or in Austria. There is a portion of the people of this state who have the same right to stand upon this part of God's earth, and to breathe this free air, that you or I have, and yet you seek to impose a government upon them without consulting them. I can only say that they are under no obligation to obey your laws or to submit to your authority. You burden them with taxation without representation, and thus inflict upon them the identical wrong 4 - Debates, 1850-1851, Vol. II, p. 12. 5 - Debates, 1850-1851, Vol. II, pp. 12-13. 246 - HISTORY OF OHIO for which the thirteen United Colonies threw off the yoke of the mother country. To establish a government over them, not based on their consent ; to subject them to laws they have had no voice in framing ; to tax them while you deny them representation is clearly and manifestly unjust." "I believe it to be our duty here to erect a civil platform upon which the foot of every person in the state may stand and on exactly the same level. I have not intentionally given in this body, one vote, nor do I intend to give one vote, to place any man, or set of men, above the common level. I will vote for no franchise, if by that is meant a something which makes one man free to do what may not be done by others. I will vote for no privilege, if by that is meant a private law for the benefit of the few over the many. "We have also been told that different races of men cannot dwell together peaceably. The fact that we have colored persons in the state was urged some days since, as a reason for keeping up the militia system—and all history was summoned to testify of the horrors growing out of wars of races. I know that terrible conflicts have often been witnessed between different races forming parts of the same nation ; but I too will appeal to history and defy any one to point out an instance where these conflicts have not grown out of the attempt on the part of one race to oppress the others." 6 Mr. Nash of Gallia County, in opposing the grant of suffrage to the negro, said in conclusion : "Again, this is not a question of right, or morality. The right of suffrage is a mere question of expediency—has ever been so considered. Hence minors and females are excluded from the exercise of this power in the government. The law, when made, protects all alike ; but the question, who shall make our laws, is another and different question. I so regard the question, and so regarding it, can have no hesitation in voting in accordance with a well-known public opinion. In doing so, I do not violate any principle of right, as I understand the question. Nor is there anything in this word citizen. They may be citizens, and yet not be entitled to the right of suffrage. Minors are citizens, and yet not voters. This is all I have to say." 7 Following is the vote on extending the right of suffrage to the negro : Yeas—Messrs. Andrews, Cook, Farr, Gray, Humphreville, Hunter, Otis, Perkins, Swift, Taylor, Townshend and Woodbury-12. Nays—Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery ; Barnett of Preble ; Bennett, Brown of Athens ; Brown of Carroll ; Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance; Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga ; Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Nash, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison ; Scott of Auglaize ; Sellers, Smith of Wyandot ; Stanbery, Stanton, Siebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Thompson of Stark ; Vance of Butler; Warren, Wilson, Worthington and President-66. 8 It will be noted that even Mr. Cutler, the son of Ephraim Cutler, the staunch supporter of the negro in the Convention of 1802, voted with the majority against extending the franchise to the colored race. If this result appeared discouraging to the negro, he, perhaps, could gain some comfort from the fact that an effort, on the same day, to extend the right to vote to the white women of the state was even more decisively defeated by the vote of yeas, 7; nays, 72. The second constitutional convention of Ohio doubtless faithfully 6 - Debates, 1850-1851, Vol. II, pp. 550-552. 7 - Ibid, 553. 8 - Debates, 1850-1851, Voi. II, pp. 554-555. ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 247 represented the prevailing attitude of the state at that time toward the negro. A majority of the people, like Caleb Atwater, were content to have the states south of the Ohio River increase their slave population, while Ohio continued to attract the vigorous, enterprising, self-reliant white immigrants that came pouring in from the older states and from lands beyond the sea. While occasionally a prophetic voice could be heard, in ominous warning that "coming events cast their shadows before," such gloomy predictions are heard here and there at all times. It is only when they are verified by subsequent experience that their authors are credited with "mystical lore" and elevated to the rank of seers. In comparative serenity and confidence, the people of Ohio in the year 1851, when the second constitutional convention completed its work, looked forward to a happy and prosperous future, with no thought, even in their dreams, of the pent-up cataclysmic forces that were straining the social order to eruptive tension ; of storms and thunderbolts on the verge of the national horizon ; of the volcano beneath their feet that was soon to burst forth and shake the earth and redden the skies. THE LIBERTY PARTY While the general tendency of legislation in Ohio prior to 1860 was unfriendly to the negro, there was during the entire period evidence of a strong anti-slavery sentiment throughout the state. This was manifest when the Missouri Compromise was up for consideration ; when the admission of Texas was proposed ; 1 and especially when the Compromise of 1850, including the Fugitive Slave provision, was debated in Congress. On all of these occasions, the General Assembly of Ohio, with little regard to party lines, protested against the extension of slavery and the adoption of a policy that made all citizens deputies of the slave power in "pursuit of the panting fugitive." Their opposition, whatever its impelling motive, was the result of observation and practical experience. Their contact with the "peculiar system" of the South was sufficiently intimate to fortify them with reasons for opposition to it ; and it required neither extended research nor profound reason to lead them to the conclusion that the conflict between slavery and freedom was irrepressible and that it was a patriotic duty to find an effective and, if possible, a peaceful solution to this issue that early threatened to rend the Union asunder. Those who regarded the question coolly, unmoved by sentiment, could not be oblivious to the fact that it was a perennial irritant, destined in time to become not only troublesome but intolerable. Organized political opposition to slavery was, however, a matter of slow development. In the early years of Ohio's statehood, there were abolitionists in all political parties. Some of the most prominent antislavery men in the state had risen to distinction in the democratic party. The same could be said with equal truth of the whig party. They and many of their followers could not at first see that it was either expedient or necessary to leave their party to work for the freedom of the slave. The organizing of a new political party, with a reasonable assurance of future success, is a venture of extraordinary magnitude. The difficulties are numerous and almost insurmountable. The great majority of electors will not lightly lay aside the associations and voting habits of years. It is easy to cast a "straight" ballot for the party with which we 1 - The Legislatures of Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Michigan passed vigorous resolutions in favor of the right of petition and against the admission of Texas, every democratic member except one in the Lower House in Ohio voting with the majority.—Birney, "Life and Times of James G. Birney," p. 339. 248 - HISTORY OF OHIO have been identified—in the traditions and fundamental principles of which we have been schooled for years. The simple name of that party is, in not a few instances, a binding influence, the result of practice or inheritance. If there are wrongs to be righted, reforms to be attained, worthy enterprises to be achieved and beneficent policies to be inaugurated, the voter prefers that these changes shall be accomplished within party lines. Strong indeed must be the call and compelling must be the issues that give birth to a new party with assurance of continued life and growth and ascendancy to power. The inertia of custom, past association, prejudice and suspicion of "ulterior motives" are to be overcome. Money for "legitimate expenses" must be raised. All the machinery of organization must be constructed. Age indues a party with resistant vitality. There may be defections and splits, due to evanescent issues and the personal piques or ambitions of leaders, but these contingencies are provided for by minor readjustments, and "Andrew Jackson" and the "Grand Old Party" move on to successive campaigns, defeats and triumphs, and "there is no new thing under the sun." After years of agitation an effort was finally made to establish a party whose basic principle should be the abolition of slavery. In the campaign of 1840, the democrats renominated Martin Van Buren for President, and the whigs chose as their standard bearer William Henry Harrison. Between the two, abolitionists had no choice. Van Buren was assumed to inherit the pro-slavery policies and tendencies of his predecessor, Andrew Jackson, and the record of General Harrison, who as governor of Indiana Territory had sought to introduce slavery there in violation of the Ordinance of 1787, was to them most unsatisfactory. They therefore decided to organize a national anti-slavery party. The initial movements in this direction occurred in the State of New York, in the County of Monroe, September 28, 1839, and in the national anti-slavery convention in Cleveland, October 23 of the same year. Definite action was taken by the New York State anti-slavery convention November 13, 1839, at which James G. Birney was unanimously nominated for President of the United States. He declined the nomination, (1) because it had not been tendered by a national convention ; and (2) because the whigs had not then made their nomination and it was thought possible that they might nominate Gen. Winfield Scott, who was known to be friendly to the anti-slavery cause. After the nomination of Harrison the abolitionists no longer hesitated. They met in Albany, New York, April 1, 1840, and nominated James G. Birney for President and Thomas Earle for vice president. At the election in the following November, the vote for the new party was very light and did not serve as an indication of the antislavery sentiment of the country. General Harrison was a military hero, who in the Indian wars on the frontier and the War of 1812, had performed valiant service for his country. His spectacular "log cabin and hard cider campaign" caused the voters, including anti-slavery whigs, to forget everything else in order to cast one more vote where if would count for "Tippecanoe and Tyler too." In the entire United States Birney polled only 7,100 votes ; of this number Ohio contributed 903. Four years later Birney was again the candidate of the abolitionists, now named the liberty party, and polled in the United States 62,300 votes, and in Ohio 8,050. In 1844 Thomas Morris, former United States senator from Ohio, was candidate on the liberty party ticket for vice president. In this connection the following record of votes for governor polled in Ohio by the new party may be of interest : 1842, Leicester King, 5,134 ; 1844, Leicester King, 8,898 ; 1846, Samuel Lewis, 10,797 ; 1850, Edward Smith, 13,717 ; 1851, Samuel Lewis, 16,918 ; 1853, Samuel Lewis, 50,346. Among some of the causes contributing to the slow growth of the ANTI-SLAVERY AND OTHER MOVEMENTS - 249 abolition party may be included the character of some of the early supporters of the anti-slavery movement. William Birney, in the "Life" of his father, James G. Birney, thus speaks of some of the well meaning, ridiculous persons who attached themselves to the anti-slavery societies and made themselves conspicuous at public meetings by their peculiar manners and dress and their extravagant and foolish declarations : "In that era of religious and reformatory excitement and new ideas of progress, material and moral, the natural drift of highly emotional persons of ascetic temperament and defective logical power was into abolitionism, and beyond it into fads and whimseys without end. * * * These men did great harm to the abolition cause. Some of them were eccentric in their personal appearance. One believed he resembled Christ, and wore long hair parted in the middle and flowing in curls over his shoulders ; another sported a sombrero hat and a long beard like a Mexican bandit ; and a third wore no hat at all. Some had adopted Dr. Sylvester Graham's recently advanced theories of living. They ate coarse bread and fruits but no meat ; drank no stimulants, not even tea and coffee, and, even if delicate, took cold shower-baths every morning, winter and summer." It is the fate of every reform movement, however worthy, to attract the non-descript "professionals" who seem to have been born in the objective case, who are never quite satisfied with the existing order of things and who automatically attach themselves to every passing fad and, with equal facility, to every meritorious movement in its initial stages of development. It is only in the initial stages, however, that they are troublesome. As soon as the movement becomes popular they disappear, for they abhor majorities. Their places are more than filled by the champions of expediency, the opportunists who always flock to the winning cause. The latter are the more respectable class and, perhaps, the more worthy, though that is an open question. If the world depended upon them alone the world would stand still. That the anti-slavery movement in Ohio was led by men of scholarly attainments and genuine merit is evidenced from the membership of the state and local societies and the men who represented it in the General Assembly of the state and in Congress. Conspicuous among the early leaders, who spoke boldly for the cause when his action meant personal sacrifice and political ostracism, was Thomas Morris, democratic United States senator from Ohio from March 4, 1833, to March 4, 1839. In the neatly kept village cemetery, at Bethel, Clermont County, Ohio, is an appropriate monument bearing an inscription that modestly but eloquently testifies to the worth of a distinguished servant of the state and nation, whose life was an inspiration and whose devotion to principle entitles him to high rank in the galaxy of statesmen from Ohio who have represented the state in the highest legislative body of the Republic. It was the privilege of Thomas Morris to serve as United States senator in the period to which it is still customary to advert with the observation, "There were giants in those days." He was the associate of Clay and Webster and Calhoun, a distinguished honor of which he was altogether worthy. This is the inscription on the shaft that marks his final resting place : THOMAS MORRIS LATE U. S. SENATOR Was Born January 3rd, 1776 Died December 7th, 1844 Unawed by power and uninfluenced by flattery he was through life the fearless advocate of human Liberty. Born in Berks County, Pennsylvania, taken when quite young with his father's family to Western Virginia, near Clarksburg, in the year |