Eleanor Finch
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or Fugitives From Labour Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It required that a Person held to Service or Labour who escaped to another state be returned to their master. The clause was a compromise between free and slave states, and its wording has been the subject of debate among legal scholars. Although it did not use the words slave or slavery, it formed the basis for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and subsequent acts that enforced the return of escaped slaves. The clause was nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name | Fugitive Slave Clause |
| Other Names | Slave Clause, Fugitives From Labor Clause |
| Location | Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution |
| Purpose | Requires a "Person held to Service or Labour" (usually a slave, apprentice, or indentured servant) who flees to another state to be returned to their master in the state from which they escaped |
| Status | Nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment's abolition of slavery |
| Similar Clauses | The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, strengthened in 1850, gave slaveholders the right to capture enslaved persons who ran away |
| Supreme Court Interpretations | The owner of an enslaved person had the right to seize and repossess them in another state, and state laws that penalised such a seizure were unconstitutional |
| Resistance | Northern states resisted enforcement, enacting "personal liberty laws" to protect free Black residents and provide safeguards for accused fugitives |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fugitive Slave Clause's constitutional legitimacy
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It states:
> No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
The Clause's legitimacy has been questioned by modern legal scholars, some of whom argue that its vague wording was a political compromise that avoided overtly validating slavery at the federal level. The wording of the Clause does not include the words "slave" or "slavery", instead referring to a "Person held to Service or Labour". This ambiguity allowed both pro- and anti-slavery factions to claim constitutional ground, reflecting deeper contradictions in the founding document itself.
However, the Clause did effectively give constitutional legitimacy to slavery by granting slaveholders the right to reclaim their slaves who had escaped to another state. The Supreme Court interpreted the Clause as giving the owner of an enslaved person the right to seize and repossess them in another state, and that state laws that penalised such a seizure were unconstitutional. This interpretation gave constitutional authority to the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850, which enforced the Clause by requiring escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.
Despite this, resistance to the enforcement of the Clause increased in the 19th century, particularly in the Northern states. Several Northern states enacted "personal liberty laws" to protect free Black residents from kidnapping and provide safeguards for accused fugitives. The passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865, which abolished slavery except as a punishment for criminal acts, has made the Clause mostly irrelevant.
Dekanawida's Constitution: United, Peaceful Nations
You may want to see also
Northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Clause
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or Fugitives From Labour Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It requires that a "Person held to Service or Labour" who escapes to another state must be returned to their master. Despite the Fugitive Slave Clause's constitutional authority, resistance to its enforcement in the North grew steadily in the 19th century, particularly after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was passed by Congress as part of the Compromise of 1850. It required that all escaped slaves be returned to their owners, even if they were in a free state, and that federal, state, and local officials and citizens of free states had to cooperate in the capture and return of escaped slaves. This caused great consternation in the North, where many saw it as a slave power conspiracy. It was one of the factors that led to the founding of the Republican Party and the start of the American Civil War.
Northern states bristled at the idea of their states becoming a stalking ground for bounty hunters and argued that the law was tantamount to legalized kidnapping. Several Northern states, including Massachusetts, enacted "personal liberty laws" to circumvent the Fugitive Slave Clause and protect free Black residents from kidnapping. These laws provided accused fugitives with procedural safeguards, such as the right to a jury trial. In some cases, states passed laws to prevent their officials from assisting in fugitive slave renditions and banned the use of state facilities for holding alleged fugitives.
Resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 also took more direct forms. Abolitionists organized clandestine resistance groups and built complex networks of safe houses to aid enslaved people in their escape to the North. In some cases, this led to riots and revolts, with antislavery activists forcibly liberating escapees from federal custody. One famous case was the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue of 1858, where an escaped slave named John Price was arrested by a federal marshal in Oberlin, Ohio, and returned to slavery in Kentucky. Another was the rescue of Shadrach Minkins from Boston officials in 1851.
Legal challenges to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were also mounted. In 1859, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional in a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled this decision in Ableman v. Booth, further polarizing public opinion. Despite these challenges, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 remained in effect until June 28, 1864, when it was repealed by an act of Congress during the Civil War.
How Nations Are Shaped: Conditions for New Constitutions
You may want to see also
The Fugitive Slave Clause's impact on state laws
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It required that any "Person held to Service or Labour" in one state who escaped to another must be returned to their master in the state from which they fled.
The Clause's impact on state laws was significant. It effectively nullified any state laws that might have offered protection to fugitive slaves. For example, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), the Supreme Court ruled that states could not obstruct slaveholders from seizing their slaves in another state, and that state laws that penalised such seizures were unconstitutional. In Moore v. Illinois (1853), the Court held that a state statute providing a penalty for harbouring an escaped slave did not conflict with the Clause, as it did not affect the rights of the slaveholder.
The Fugitive Slave Clause also influenced the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which clarified the processes by which slaveholders could reclaim their property. This Act was passed by Congress following a dispute between Pennsylvania and Virginia, and was designed to balance the interests of free and slave states. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1842.
In the 19th century, resistance to the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Clause and Act grew in the North, with several Northern states enacting "personal liberty laws" to protect their Black residents. This resistance further polarised public opinion, and led to legal challenges such as Ableman v. Booth (1859), in which the Supreme Court reinforced federal supremacy.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was ultimately rendered mostly irrelevant by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery except as punishment for criminal acts. However, it has been noted that people can still be held to service or labour under limited circumstances, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Kozminski (1988).
The Living Constitution: Should We Update It?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Fugitive Slave Clause's influence on the Supreme Court
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It requires that a "person held to Service or Labour" who escapes to another state be returned to their master in the state from which they fled. The clause does not use the words "slave" or "slavery", instead referring to a "person held to Service or Labour".
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fugitive Slave Clause gave the owner of an enslaved person the right to seize and repossess them in another state. This interpretation was outlined in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) and Ableman v. Booth (1859). In the latter case, the Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision to free abolitionist Sherman Booth, who had been jailed for aiding an escaped slave. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that states could not obstruct federal enforcement, reinforcing federal supremacy.
Despite the Fugitive Slave Clause's constitutional authority, Northern resistance to its enforcement increased in the 19th century, particularly after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Several Northern states enacted "personal liberty laws" to protect free Black residents from kidnapping and provide safeguards for accused fugitives. This resistance reflected the ambiguity of the clause, which some historians argue was a political compromise that avoided overtly validating slavery at the federal level.
The Fugitive Slave Clause was effectively nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery except as punishment for criminal acts. However, it has been noted that people can still be held to service or labour under limited circumstances, as referenced in United States v. Kozminski.
Constitution's Government Branches: How Many?
You may want to see also
The Fugitive Slave Clause and the Thirteenth Amendment
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It requires a "Person held to Service or Labour" (usually a slave, apprentice, or indentured servant) who flees to another state to be returned to their master in the state from which they escaped. The clause does not use the words "slave" or "slavery".
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery except as a punishment for criminal acts, has made the Fugitive Slave Clause mostly irrelevant. The exact wording of the Thirteenth Amendment is that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States". This nullified the Fugitive Slave Clause, which contemplated the existence of a right on the part of a slaveholder to reclaim an enslaved person who had escaped to another state.
The Fugitive Slave Clause gave enslavers a constitutional right to recover their property, an enslaved person, from a different state. It was approved by the Convention unanimously without further debate. However, modern legal scholars debate whether the Clause conferred constitutional legitimacy on slavery. Some argue its vague wording was a political compromise that avoided overtly validating slavery at the federal level, while others contend it entrenched slaveholder power.
In the 19th century, Northern resistance to the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Clause increased, especially after the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required the return of runaways. Several Northern states enacted "personal liberty laws" to circumvent the Clause, aiming to protect free Black residents from kidnapping and provide procedural safeguards for accused fugitives.
Boosting Your Health: Strategies for Maximizing Constitution Bonuses
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Fugitive Slave Clause is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
The Fugitive Slave Clause, also known as the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labour Clause, states that a "Person held to Service or Labour" who escapes to another state must be returned to their master. The clause does not use the words "slave" or "slavery".
The Fugitive Slave Clause was offered by Pierce Butler and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
The Fugitive Slave Clause became unenforceable following the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery "except as a punishment for crime".
