Friday, Aug. 23, 1850.

Whig Senator John DAVIS, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the Fugitive Slave bill by adding the following as an additional section:

Senator Davis opened the discussion: … This amendment speaks for itself, and shows pretty distinctly what the object is. No modification of the bill is proposed, but a distinct matter making another section. Several of the Southern States in which slavery exists, have enacted laws by which they authorize officers of their own, whenever a vessel arrives from without any such State, to visit her, and to take into custody such free colored persons as are found on board, as mariners or otherwise, and commit them to prison, where they are to remain while the vessel lies in port. The colored portion of the crew is thus taken away, and the master is required to pay the expenses of detention in prison before they are restored. This has been the cause of very serious complaint, both on the part of those who are thus confined, and of the navigators who employ them, and representations of the abuse have been frequently made to the Government of Massachusetts, asking for the interference of that State so far as to protect them against this aggression on their rights. In order to show the true state of this question, and the necessity for some provision on the part of Congress, I must enter into a brief explanation of what has occurred between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and South Carolina. Vessels from Massachusetts, in the prosecution of ordinary commercial business, visited the port of Charleston, in South Carolina, and the free colored persons on board were, under a law of this description, taken out and placed in confinement there…. The question at issue was this: The State of Massachusetts admits this class of persons to be citizens of the commonwealth. They are treated as such, have the right of voting, and all the other rights of citizenship. South Carolina denies that they are citizens of that State, and on this founds a right to seize and punish them, without any allegation of crime or misconduct. The Constitution of the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. The question then arises, is a citizen of Massachusetts entitled in South Carolina to the privileges and immunities of a citizen of that State?

Well, sir, the Governor of South Carolina, instead of returning an answer … laid the subject before the Legislature, and the populace of Charleston took it up also… The Legislature of South Carolina immediately took up the message of the Governor communicating the letter of the agent, and passed certain resolutions in relation to this subject, amongst which was one authorizing the Governor to expel this individual from the State. The following are the resolutions:

They also passed an extraordinary law, in addition to existing laws, which, if I can rightly understand the substance of it, is, that it shall be criminal for any person to undertake to obstruct, or hinder, or interfere with the operation of the laws of South Carolina by which individuals are confined, or, in other words, precluding these individuals from the right of having this question settled in the courts of justice.

Sen. Andrew Pickens Butler of South Carolina

…It is true that the constitution declares that the citizens of one State shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of another State; but I assert here that there can be no such thing as making a colored man a citizen of South Carolina. By the laws of South Carolina no such person is capable of attaining that status. A free man of color there may and does possess many civil rights. He can sue and be sued, has the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, and has the right of holding property the same as a white man--and, by the by, many of them hold slaves there. In fact, he has all the rights, except what may be called the complete right, of citizenship. And this right the legislation of no other State can give him in the State of South Carolina. There can be no such thing, therefore, as one State making citizens of a particular class of persons, and endowing them with privileges and rights superior to and beyond what are enjoyed by persons of a similar character in any State to which they may go.

…I have said, on another occasion, that the old acts of Congress are very particular in referring to the sailors engaged in the foreign commerce of the country, to designate them as citizens, and as native free persons of color, thus expressly making a distinction between citizens and free persons of color. These are the acts of Congress passed--I will not say in the better days of their history--but certainly when a more cordial understanding existed between Massachusetts and South Carolina. The act of 1790, in regard to seamen, for instance, if examined, will be found to contain a clause saying expressly that citizens only, or native free persons of color, shall be sailors--thus distinguishing between them, and clearly showing that it was never contemplated that free persons of color should ever be regarded as citizens of the United States. I do not say that a person of this character, so long as he confines himself to the State that chooses to confer on him these privileges, may not enjoy the complete rights and immunities of a citizen there, but I do deny the proposition that it is in the power of any one State to confer upon them the right to enjoy those privileges in any State where the laws forbid it, or where a status of that description is unknown.

(Whig) Sen. Robert Charles Winthrop of Massachussetts

But I repeat, Mr. President, it is no mere question of citizenship which we desire to have settled. The question is, whether, upon the ground of police regulations, or upon any other ground, the States of South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, and Florida shall have the right to take the stewards and mariners out of our vessels, and imprison them, and even sell them into slavery for life, for no other crime than their color. It matters little to this issue whether they are citizens or not. They are persons "held to service or labor," if you please to call them so. They have entered into articles of agreement, with the master of the vessel on board of which they are shipped, to perform service and labor of a certain sort, during the voyage. Under these Southern laws, they are taken out of the vessel in which they are thus articled and employed, carried on shore and incarcerated; and unless the master shall afterwards reclaim them, at a heavy expense, they are liable to be sold and held as absolute slaves. This is the language of the statute.

And all that we now ask is, that the constitutionality of such a statute should be solemnly adjudicated by some competent and disinterested tribunal. Can any one say that such a demand is unreasonable?

Rep. John D. BALDWIN of Massachussetts: … this is a question in which not only Massachusetts, but other States concerned in navigation feel an interest... The law of the State of South Carolina authorizes the arrest or seizure of any free negroes or colored persons coming into any of the ports of that State, as cooks, stewards, or mariners, and their confinement in prison until the vessel is ready to depart, when it requires the captain, under a severe penalty, to carry them away and pay the expenses of their detention; and in case of his neglect or refusal so to do, it enacts "that such FREE negroes or persons of color shall be DEEMED and taken to be ABSOLUTE SLAVES, and sold."

By the laws of the State of South Carolina, then, a free man of a Northern State, guilty of no crime except his color, becomes an absolute slave to the person who purchases him. Under this law he is sold as a slave--not because his presence in South Carolina has endangered the peace and security of the people of that State, but because his captain has neglected to carry him away when the vessel departed, and because the negro is himself unable to obtain his discharge from imprisonment or to pay the expenses of his detention. …Now, sir, this bill provides for the return of any fugitives who owe service, by the laws of the State from which they fled. By the laws of the State of South Carolina these men would be holden as slaves… Now this amendment is intended to provide a mode of testing the validity of that law, … by authorizing an application to be made by the district attorney to the court of the United States for the discharge of seamen thus imprisoned, if, in the opinion of the court, the law by which they are detained is unconstitutional and void. ... The fact of such sale has actually occurred.

Mr. BUTLER. What, and one been sold?

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, sir, a free colored seaman sailing from the State of Connecticut. He arrived at a port in South Carolina, and while there he was seized and imprisoned, and sold as a slave. He was taken as a slave to New Orleans, and held there under the sale made in pursuance of this law of South Carolina. I was applied to, more than twenty years ago, by a gentleman in New Orleans, who has since occupied a distinguished position under this Government, for the purpose of taking testimony at New Haven to support his claim to freedom, he having made several voyages from that port. I said I was applied to; a commission was sent to another gentleman, now resident in Philadelphia, and my name was inserted with his in the commission.

Mr. BUTLER. Was he discharged?

Mr. BALDWIN. I believe he was discharged; but he was sold under the law of South Carolina…. If he had escaped from the person who bought him in South Carolina and come to a free State, he must, under the provisions of this bill, have been remanded to South Carolina, in order to have the question as to his title to freedom, or the right of the purchaser to hold him in slavery, determined by the law of that State. Who can doubt that, under that law, a South Carolina judge would have felt himself bound to regard him as a slave?

1. Downloaded from Library of Congress American Memory “From Slavery To Freedom The African American Pamphlet Collection 1824-1909, document #5 under Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 at

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/rbaapc:@field(DOCID+@lit(31700))#317000004

2. Fugitive Slave Law