USA > Ohio > History of Ohio; the rise and progress of an American state, Volume Four > Part 9
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36
126
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
In 1835 there came to Ohio from Kentucky an abolitionist of the same type as Benjamin Lundy, full of courage and conviction and armed with the most dangerous weapon of those times-a newspaper. This was James G. Birney. He was a man of fine attain- ments, had spent a great portion of his life in Alabama as a cotton planter, and was a member of the first legislature of that State which assembled under the Constitution of 1819. He procured the enactment in 1827 by the Alabama legislature of a statute prohibiting the importation of slaves into that State for sale or hire. He was a powerful factor in the southern states in creating sentiment against slavery. In 1835 he commenced the publication of an anti-slavery paper at Danville, Kentucky, but was driven out by a mob. He removed to Cincinnati, where he was met by a bitterly opposing public sentiment. He was notified that if he attempted to publish his paper the city authorities would not be able to protect him or his property against violence.
At a public meeting in January, 1836, the business men of Cincinnati determined to suppress anti-slavery agitation. A committee of twelve was appointed to argue with Birney and to endeavor to dissuade him from publishing an abolition paper. This committee was composed of prominent Whigs and Democrats, among whom was Judge Burnet. Birney met all opposition with courage and made his fight for the freedom of the press. On January 22, 1836, the mob assembled at the courthouse, bent on the destruction of his property and personal injury. The authorities timidly notified him that they could afford him no
127
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
protection, but he exhibited great personal courage, firmness and judgment by attending the meeting, obtaining leave to speak and defeating the object of the mob. Later, however, in July of this year, the mob finally won; at a great meeting of citizens held at the Lower Market House, a committee was appointed to request the executive committee of the anti-slavery society to stop the publication of The Philanthropist, Birney's paper. They refused, and on Saturday night, July 30, a local historian records, "A large party, composed, like the aforesaid meeting, namely, from the more respectable classes in the city and of young men, gathered on the corner of Main and Seventh streets, held a short consultation, then marched down to the office, only two squares distant, effected an entrance, seized the press and material, carried them out in part, scattered the type in the street, smashed the press, and completely dismantled the office. Part of the press was dragged down Main Street and thrown into the river." The mob visited the dwelling of Birney, making noisy demonstrations but doing no mischief. They then turned to the office of The Gazette, edited by Charles Hammond, who was also a vigorous defender of free speech and opposed to slavery. These proceedings were severely condemned at a meeting held afterwards, at which such distinguished Cincin- natians as E. D. Mansfield, Salmon P. Chase, Charles Hammond and William M. Corry denounced the pro- ceedings of the mob.
Even as of old "the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church," so these ferocious attacks upon free speech gave additional impetus to abolitionism,
128
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
and influences soon began to operate that proved most effective agencies in the anti-slavery movement. This factor was the churches. Slavery had now rapidly assumed the form, to many of the religiously inclined people, of a moral atrocity, and they were not satis- fied to sit by quietly and allow it to work out its destiny in the southern states alone. A novel and powerful means was finally inaugurated to promote freedom and rescue slaves from their masters. For many years there had been surreptitious assistance given to fugitive slaves in their flight from their masters to some place of freedom. The fact that Ohio bordered on slave territory made it the most accessible territory for these people to traverse in their flight. There had been a fugitive slave law on the Federal statute books since 1793, and it was regarded as something extremely dangerous to conceal runaway slaves or aid them in any way to evade capture. Along the Ohio River there were men from Maryland, Virginia and Kentucky who had deep moral objections to slavery and they did not hesitate in the quiet of the night to harbor some poor fugitive or point his way to freedom. While these men would do nothing to seduce a slave from his master or to abduct him, they never shut the door in his face nor refused him assistance on his way. Even as the mainspring for their action was moral conviction, we can fully understand why those that were most notable in this work should be found among the Quak- ers, the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists, and as if by providential design these reli- gious bodies were extremely numerous in the counties on the Ohio River.
129
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
The losses to the southern slave owners from fugi- tives fleeing to the North were very great. There was a constant complaint coming from the South that thousands of dollars' worth of negroes were lost every year through the bad faith of the North in failing to return their fugitives, or in encouraging their elopement. In 1822, Mr. Moore, of Virginia, declared on the floor of Congress that his district lost four or five thousand dollars' worth of negroes every year in this manner. Senator Atchinson, of Kentucky, declared that hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth were lost every year by the border slave states. A representative of Mary- land said his State lost eighty thousand dollars' worth annually, while Virginia's loss was estimated by Senator Mason at over one hundred thousand dollars a year. Representative Thomas L. Clingman, of North Caro- lina, said there were thirty thousand fugitive slaves living in the North that were worth at current prices fifteen million dollars. Governor Claiborne, of Louisi- ana, gave as a defect of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 that it failed to recompense the South for thirty million dollars which had been stolen from her through the manipulation of northern anti-slavery people. Whether these figures are over-estimates or not will never be known, but the southern statesmen were correct in assuming that there was a constant drain on their slave property by migration to the North. Neither was this accidental, nor was it entirely due to the irre- sponsible flight of the slave. The agency that was responsible more than any other for twenty years before the Civil War, was the Underground Railway.
130
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
This was the name given to the mysterious methods by which the ignorant slave was enabled to make an intelligent effort for liberty, and which furnished him transportation to a point where slavery was unknown and which, when he attained, he would be a free man. The terminus was usually Canada. Ofttimes the slave remained in a northern State, but this was always for him a position of danger. The Underground Rail- road was operated more extensively in Ohio than in any other State in the Union. The long coast line of the Ohio River, every foot of which was an invitation to the slave to step into a land of freedom, furnished numerous stations where he could start on his race for liberty. Along this line there were about twenty river towns, nearly all of which were stations of the Underground Railroad.
It will add to the interest of this subject to learn how this queer name came to be applied to this method of the blacks reaching freedom. Hon. Rush R. Sloane, in an address before the Firelands Historical Society at Milan, Erie county, Ohio, February 22, 1888 (The Firelands Pioneer, July, 1888), gives a very interesting history of the origin of this name. He says, "In the year 183I a fugitive named Tice Davids came over the line and lived just back of Sandusky. He had come direct from Ripley, Ohio, where he crossed the Ohio River; he remained some time in Sandusky and then went to Canada. It was told of him that he gave the name to the Underground Road in this way: When he was running away, his master, a Kentuckian, was in close pursuit and pressing him so hard that when the Ohio River was reached he had no alternative but
-
LEVI COFFIN
Born near New Garden, North Carolina, October 28, 1798; removed to Wayne county, Indiana, 1826, and to Cincinnati, Ohio, 1847; for thirty years was president of the "underground railroad"; identified with the Freed- men's Bureau, and visited Europe in the interests of the freedmen; died in Avondale, Ohio, September 16, 1877.
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
TEAI COBEIV. o the mysterious methods of bas ,ds81 ,snsibnI , fritos ents of Bsvomnot :betmake an
-boord odt ditiw befitnebi ; "bsorlist bavorgrybau" odt ivaš unknown .Fr8I .dI 19dmotq92 ,oido ,alsbovA Mi boib]; mottibbsfree man. Canada. Ofttimes the
State, but this was always
wed vf Manger. The Underground Rail- web stepsively in Ohio than in Mike tode in 1%- Tinion. The long coast line of
Dado Mivel. every looe of which was an invitation so Ll coś 3 sp Int a land of freedom, furnished wo-mm spinons where he could atart on his race for Ming IN line there were about twenty www .diy all of which were stations of the
the Interest of this subject to learn to be applied to this method dom. Hon. Rush R. Sloane, Wu Firelands Historical Society Cho, February 22, 1888 (The INDH) gives a very interesting /his name. He says, "In the nol Tice Davids came over the Tout of Sandusky. He had come does Dolo, where he crossed the Ohio I- 6 raced sim time in Sandusky and then Bon in Comita In war told of him that he gave the bu to de Ladirguand Road in this way: When was meantog smag, hija master, a Kentuckian, was le thes gurmy and pregjag hin so hard that when the Ohio River was reached he had no alternative but
131
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
to jump in and swim across. It took his master some time to secure a skiff, in which he and his aid followed the swimming fugitive, keeping him in sight until he had landed. Once on shore, however, he could not find him. No one had seen him; and after a long and unsuccessful search the disappointed slave master went into Ripley, and when inquired of as to what had become of his slave, said he could not tell, that he had searched all the openings but he could not find him; that he was close behind him when the boy got on shore, and he thought 'the nigger must have gone off on an under- ground road.' This story was repeated with a good deal of amusement, and this incident gave the name to the line. First the 'Underground,' afterward 'Under- ground Railroad.'"'
The terminology of the railroad soon became appli- cable to the different features of this rescue work. Those who were active in it were called "managers"; the "con- tributing members" were those who furnished clothing, food and vehicles, and while they were in sympathy with what was being done, for business, political and social reasons they did not desire to be known. The "conductor" was the one who directed the fleeing slaves from one "station" to another; these "stations" were the houses of abolitionists who kept the fugitives over night, or concealed them during the daytime.
There were two men in Ohio who were conspicuous by their untiring service in this work; one was Levi Coffin, of Cincinnati, and the other was the Rev. John Rankin, of Ripley, Ohio. Both of these men devoted the best years of their lives in aiding fugitive slaves to liberty. Coffin's conspicuous services brought
132
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
to him the title of President of the Underground Rail- road. During the thirty years that he was engaged in this work he aided over three thousand slaves on their way to Canada. The Rev. John Rankin was a Presbyterian pastor at Ripley for forty-four years. He was an aggressive abolitionist and was mobbed for his views more than twenty times. His little work entitled, "Letters on Slavery," addressed to his brother, who owned slaves at Middlebrook, Virginia, was printed in Ripley in 1824 ran through numerous editions and had a wide circulation throughout the United States.
If the reader desires to pursue the history of the Underground Railroad in all its parts, with its romance, its dangers and its facts, he can find in the fullest detail a most comprehensive and entertaining narration in "The Underground Railroad from Slavery to Freedom," by Prof. Wilbur H. Siebert, of the Ohio State University (The Macmillan Co., 1898). In this work Prof. Siebert has performed a service which can really be said to be the last and fullest word on the subject.
In 1850 Congress passed what is known as the "Fugi- tive Slave Law." Indignant at the action of the North, and especially at the operations of the Underground Railroad in encouraging the flight of slaves from the South, the slaveholders demanded a more rigid protec- tion of their "property." The result was the passage of an act, September 18, 1850, providing for the capture of fugitives from justice and of persons escaping from the service of their masters. It was an amendment of the first fugitive slave act of 1793. It was bitterly opposed by the anti-slavery sentiment of the North,
133
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
as the whole purpose was to make the northern states a free field for the action of slave hunters, supported and backed by the laws of the United States. Meetings were held throughout Ohio, protesting against the law. Joshua R. Giddings, in his speech against it in Congress, said, "The freemen of Ohio will never turn out to chase the panting fugitive." Senator Salmon P. Chase opposed the bill with all his strength. The law was altogether in favor of the slave hunter. It did not allow the negro to establish his rights when he was claimed as a fugitive. The owner was given the authority of a Federal officer in a State where he was not a citizen. Heavy fines and penalties were inflicted upon all who aided the fugitives, and all citizens were subject to be called upon to assist in returning the slaves.
The political effect of this law was to unite the anti- slavery element of the Whig and Democratic parties into what afterwards became the Republican party, the creation and organization of which will be treated hereafter. The Compromise of 1850, which resulted in the Fugitive Slave Act, was a strictly Southern measure, and it had the effect of so disgusting the anti- slavery Whigs of Ohio that the next year the Democrats carried the State on account of the disrupted condition of the Whig party. Leaving the political situation for a time, let us turn our attention to the effect of the legislation on the anti-slavery sentiment of the State. It was received in Ohio with a storm of dissent and indignation. The abolitionists in many places resisted the enforcement of the law, and some complicated and dangerous conflicts between the Federal and State
134
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
authorities ensued. There were many minor cases of resistance to Federal officers when they endeavored to return fugitive slaves from Ohio.
The most important case, and one which came peril- ously near to bringing on a conflict with the authorities of the United States, occurred in September, 1858. This is known as the "Oberlin-Wellington Rescue case." It grew out of the attempt to arrest a fugitive slave who had resided near the town of Oberlin more than two years past. The arrest by the Federal officers was resisted by a professor of Oberlin College and a number of students. They found the slaves in possession of the authorities at Wellington, and without violence rescued them. The result was the arrest of the rescuers and their arraignment before the United States Court at Cleveland. The occurrence was the sensation of the country at the time. Public sentiment in northern Ohio was with the prisoners. Two of the offenders were tried and convicted. The proceedings of the court were denounced by mass meetings throughout northern and eastern Ohio. An attempt was made to obtain relief by appeal to the State courts. A writ of habeas corpus was granted by one of the judges of the Supreme Court, commanding the sheriff to bring the prisoners who had been committed to the Cleveland jail before the court in order that the reason of their imprisonment might be inquired into. The Supreme Court heard the case at Columbus in 1859. It is reported at length (Ex Parte Bushnell, 9 Ohio State Reports, pp.77-325), and is an able interpretation of the law involved. This case is of great historical interest for several reasons. The applicant was Simeon Bushnell,
135
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
who had been convicted with Charles Langston, and im- prisoned as abovestated, for rescuing fugitive slaves from the United States authorities. In this case they sought to be discharged under writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of Ohio, on the ground that the Fugitive Slave Law was unconstitutional. It was an attempt to override a judgment of the United States Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and there were grave apprehensions of a conflict between the State and the United States authorities should a decision be rendered favorable to the prisoner.
The excitement was intense, and it was an occasion which called for the coolest judgment, the highest official independence, and indomitable judicial integ- rity. A bare majority of the Supreme Court of five members sustained the United States District Court, and the prisoners were therefore remanded to the cus- tody of the Federal authorities. Judge Joseph R. Swan, as Chief Justice of the Court, prepared and delivered the opinion, in which he held that a State Court could not interfere with the orderly action of the United States Court within its constitutional limit. A more courageous opinion from an honest judge was never given. Judge Swan had been elected in 1854 by the anti-slavery sentiment of Ohio. It was the opposition to the Democratic party that eventually developed into the Republican party. The Fugitive Slave Law was extremely odious from a political stand- point to Judge Swan and his party associates. Not- withstanding that the law had been held constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, there was a deep seated hostility to it in Ohio. The opposition
136
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
to it was one of the cardinal points of the new Republi- can party, of which Judge Swan was a distinguished member. It was in the face of these facts that he ad- hered to his judicial integrity and conscience and held the law as authoritative, whether he personally or politically approved its spirit and terms or not. For his firmness and independence in adhering to the prin- ciple which should always control the fearless judge, he accepted a retirement from public life and even alienated the best of his political friends.
In the opinion of the Court, the majority of which was represented by Judge Swan, he takes occasion in his final words to indicate that his personal feelings and his judicial findings are not in accord. His closing words are:
"As a citizen I would not deliberately violate the Constitution or the law by interference with fugitives from service; but if a weary, frightened slave should appeal to me to protect him from his pursuers, it is possible that I might momentarily forget my allegiance to the law and Constitution, and give him a covert from those who were upon his track. There are, no doubt, many slaveholders who would thus follow the impulses of human sympathy; and if I did it, and were prosecuted, condemned and imprisoned, and brought by my counsel before this tribunal on a habeas corpus, and were there permitted to pronounce judgment in my own case, I trust I should have the moral courage to say, before God and the country, as I am now compelled to say, under the solemn duties of a judge, bound by my official oath to sustain the supremacy of the Consti- tution and the law, the prisoner must be remanded."
137
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
On June 2, 1859, the Republican State Convention assembled at Columbus; on the Monday morning pre- vious Chief Justice Swan had rendered his famous opinion. Judge Swan was one of the founders of the Republican party; he was a Democratic anti-slavery man, and joined with all others of that manner of thinking in order to form a party consecrated to free- dom. He had been nominated and elected as Judge of the Supreme Court in 1854 by a majority exceeding seventy-seven thousand. His fine career as a jurist, his high character, his decided views against the extension of slavery, all called for a renomination to the high office which he held, but his opinion had aroused the indignation of the radical element of the Republican party, and under the leadership of Wade, Chase and Giddings a renomination was refused him.
It is difficult in moments of deliberation to conceive how men well versed in the law and having high ideals of citizenship could take this attitude. Judge Swan's position was such as any just and honorable judge, who had due regard for his oath of office and who honored his conscience, would take, but the intoler- ance of the abolitionists was exercised against him. Judge Rufus P. Spalding, one of the attorneys in the famous case growing out of the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue, wrote concerning the defeat of Judge Swan for renomination: "He was dropped for the reason that he, as a judicial officer, recognized the Fugitive Slave enactment of 1850 to be of binding force in Ohio, and the two judges who were with him in opinion will be dropped in the same way as soon as they are reached
138
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
in the order of time. We do not recognize them as Republicans here in northern Ohio who will for a moment sustain this miserable enactment."
In other words, the proposition was that a Judge of the Supreme Court should ignore a law that was duly passed by the Congress of the United States and declared constitutional by the highest tribunal of the land; and this should be done because the judgment of a majority of the citizens of Ohio was opposed to the law in prin- ciple and for that reason would decline to obey it.
Contrast this attitude with that assumed by Abra- ham Lincoln towards the Fugitive Slave Law. No man of the time was more bitterly opposed to the prin- ciples of this law than Lincoln. He declared that the motives that prompted it were evil and that it bore all the evidences of being a conspiracy to promote and further the interests of slavery. And yet Mr. Lincoln was in favor of obeying the law because it was the law. He recognized that it had been passed in a constitu- tional manner and that Congress had the right under the Constitution to pass such a law.
An interesting case arose in 1861 while Mr. Lincoln was President, illustrating his views on this subject. Rev. George Gordon was president of Iberia College, Iberia, Ohio, and in November, 1861, he was indicted in the District Court of the United States of the North- ern District of Ohio, for the violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. He was convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of three hundred dollars, with costs of prosecution. This case aroused a great deal of attention and concern in the North. It was regarded as a very singular thing that during a
139
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
rebellion of slaveholders the Lincoln administration should enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Petitions in great number were forwarded to Mr. Lincoln, asking for Dr. Gordon's pardon. An elaborate brief against the morality and constitutionality of the law was also submitted to President Lincoln. The result was that the President pardoned the offender, but in the pardon he specifically stated that the conviction and sentence were legal, and notwithstanding the appeal in Dr. Gordon's brief he recognized the force and validity of the law, but Dr. Gordon was given his liberty purely on the ground of executive clemency, and it was so stated by the President.
The greatest political event of this period of anti- slavery agitation was the organization of the Republi- can party. For years many men in both the Whig and the Democratic parties were opposed to slavery and every movement of the South looking to its extension, but neither anti-slavery Democrats nor anti-slavery Whigs could see any place for men of their belief in either of the old parties. So the movement was started by Free Soilers, Whigs, Democrats and Americans or "Know Nothings," opposed to slavery, to act in unison on that subject. Accordingly there appeared a notice in the Ohio State Journal of Columbus, Febru- ary 13, 1854, calling for a public meeting to express opposition to the violation of existing compromises between the free and slave states of the Union. From this meeting and others succeeding it, came the first State Convention of the Republican party of Ohio, or, as it was then known, the anti-Nebraska Convention. The name Republican was not adopted until the sub-
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.