We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
Revisiting the Critiques of Those Who Upheld the Fugitive Slave Acts in the 1840s and '50s.
- Authors
Karsten, Peter
- Abstract
Several legal scholars have criticized five antebellum justices–Joseph Story, John McLean, Lemuel Shaw, Benjamin Robbins Curtis, and Joseph Swan–for their having been unable or unwilling to defy the 1793 and 1850 Fugitive Slave Acts. They have argued that a morally "correct" path could and should have been hewn out and followed by these justices to release those claimed by slave-catchers, and to protect from prosecution those aiding fugitives. I disagree with their verdicts with regard to four of these jurists, and partly with regards to the fifth. The critics offer insufficient regard for their perspectives from the bench as well as relevant historical evidence that supports the justifications provided by them: Firstly, in that they had sworn to respect and uphold the law of the land. And secondly, in that they maintained that refusing to enforce these fugitive slave statutes could well lead to the dissolution of a Union these jurists regarded as profoundly important, for reasons, again, that their modern critics have insufficiently recognized or appreciated.
- Subjects
UNITED States; FUGITIVE slaves; UNITED States. Fugitive Slave Law (1850); ANTEBELLUM Period (U.S.); UNITED States. Fugitive slave law (1793); FUGITIVE slave catchers; PROSECUTION; LEGAL status of fugitive slaves; DISSOLUTION of legislative bodies; GOVERNMENT policy
- Publication
American Journal of Legal History, 2018, Vol 58, Issue 3, p291
- ISSN
0002-9319
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1093/ajlh/njy009