“Law or No Law”: Abolitionist Resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

The following is a guest post by Jack Carlson, an intern with the Digital Resources Division of the Law Library of Congress. He is an undergraduate student studying history and political theory at Michigan State University. He has previously written Escaping Slavery: The Consequences of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Sectional tensions over slavery in America escalated with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (9 Stat. 462), a law that inspired stiff and sometimes violent resistance from antislavery groups in the North. Passed by Congress under the Compromise of 1850, it strengthened existing fugitive slave laws by guaranteeing federal assistance to enslavers in capturing freedom seekers, thus turning the capture of freedom seekers into a federal–instead of purely state–matter. Opposition to the law took many forms early, and for abolitionists, the law provided an opportunity to put slavery at the center of national politics by committing powerful and controversial acts of resistance to its enforcement. Their efforts not only helped to drive forward sectional divisions and pave the way for civil war but also helped to secure the freedom of numerous freedom seekers threatened by enslavement.

Among the most famous cases of resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act was the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue of 1858. Inspired by the Christiana Riot of 1851 seven years earlier, an incident in Ohio further tore apart the already delicate sectional fabric between North and South. What was later referred to as the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue began when John Price, enslaved to Kentucky slaveholder John G. Bacon, escaped to Oberlin, Ohio in 1856, which the New York Herald described as “a well known anti-slavery town.” For two years, Price found refuge in Oberlin until he was arrested on September 13, 1858, by a federal marshal authorized by the 1850 Act to capture Price and return him to slavery. After being captured, Price was taken by train south of Oberlin to Wellington, Ohio, where the marshal encamped in a local hotel before planning to enter Kentucky.

Abolitionists and other antislavery advocates in Oberlin rallied to Price’s defense. After hearing that “some one had been kidnapped,” abolitionists in the town resolved to journey to Wellington and secure his freedom. “We will have the man,” said one person defiantly, “law or no law.” After reaching the hotel in Wellington, the antislavery crowd attempted to peacefully negotiate Price’s return before resorting to force. The marshal inside the hotel refused their pleas. “Just then there was a rush—the window was broke in,” and several of the men swept into the room where Price was being held, helping him escape and return to Oberlin. Once in Oberlin, those involved in his rescue acted quickly to secure Price’s escape to Canada, where he successfully found freedom.

While the citizens of Wellington resolved that they would “resist, for the future, any and every attempt to arrest a negro at Oberlin,” authorities moved to convict those involved with the rescue. Of the people involved with Price’s escape, 37 were indicted by a federal grand jury for having violated the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Authorities in Ohio, sympathetic to the rescuers and opposed to many provisions of the Act, reacted by arresting the federal marshal and other officers who captured Price, charging them with kidnapping. By April of 1859, federal and state authorities negotiated the release of both parties, with only two antislavery men being convicted and the remaining 35 released without charges. In return, Ohio authorities dropped the charges of kidnapping.

Defiant and determined to push back against federal enforcement of the 1850 Act, the convicted men, Simon Bushnell and Charles Langston, filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Ohio Supreme Court while claiming the Act was itself unconstitutional. The Ohio Court refused their application for writs of habeas corpus, upholding the constitutionality of the Act. Such events were not unique to Ohio; that same year, the Supreme Court struck down a similar case in Wisconsin, where the state supreme court declared the 1850 Act unconstitutional and attempted to nullify its enforcement.

Occurring at a time in which the country was fiercely divided over the issue of slavery, the events in Oberlin and Wellington became another major flashpoint of political conflict. For many involved with the abolitionist movement, the incident was a cause for celebration. Frederick Douglass described Oberlin in religious oratory as a “Gibraltar of Freedom,” a haven where the “infamous” Fugitive Slave Act could not be enforced. Others portrayed the trial against the antislavery group as evidence that “the general government is under the control of slaveholders.” At once commended by abolitionists and condemned by enslavers, the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue exposed the irreconcilable divisions between North and South that, within three years, erupted into civil war.

Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.