Rev. Cutler was an outstanding salesman. As he was closing the deal to buy one and a half million acres, he made the case that potential settlers in Ohio or in other western lands needed assurances that stable governments, with orderly processes in place for admission to the union on equal footing with the original thirteen states, were necessary to encourage emigration. To that end, Rev. Cutler helped craft the Northwest Ordinance, which became one of the most important pieces of legislation in our nation’s history.1 The ordinance stated that at least three and no more than five new states would eventually be created in the area north and west of the Ohio River, up to the Mississippi River. Each would have been initially established as a territory. As it reached certain milestones, it would achieve more and more autonomy until each new territory could apply for statehood. When admitted as states, each would be equal in every way with the original thirteen. The ordinance stipulated that “religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government,” schools of all levels were important to ensure “the happiness of mankind” in each territory. Slavery was specifically prohibited in the allowed three-to-five new territories created by this ordinance. As with the land purchase, Rev. Cutler had to sweeten the pot to ensure that the president of Congress, Arthur St. Clair, would support the ordinance. Governors would be appointed, rather than elected, to make way for St. Clair to fill that position in Ohio.2
Rev. Cutler then traveled to Philadelphia to apprise the delegates of the Federal Convention what their colleagues were doing in New York. He wanted to ensure that his agreement, agreed upon with Congress in New York, would not be undermined in the new constitution. His mission was successful; with very little debate, Article IV, Section 3 of the new Constitution stated that “new states may be admitted by the Congress into this union….” Further, under the same section, the delegates adopted the language that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.”
While the future admission of new states was straightforward, other issues before the convention were far more complicated, such as how to deal with the institution of slavery. Delegates debated at length as to whether slavery should even be allowed under the new government. After North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia threatened to walk if slavery was not protected, the delegates addressed slavery in three parts of the new Constitution. Slaves could be imported from outside the United States until 1808, individual slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person in the census to bolster the power slave states held in the House of Representatives, and the fugitive slave clause provided for the return of escaped slaves to their masters. Many northern delegates believed slavery was on the road to extinction, making it easier to support the compromise.
For the first thirty years under the constitution, new states were admitted in an orderly fashion, under the basic framework established under the constitution and the Northwest Ordinance. The prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Ordinance only applied to that region. Under the new Constitution, Congress had the flexibility to balance equality in the admission of free and slave states. Everything seemed to be working well; that is, until Missouri sought admission as a slave state in 1819—at the time, there was not an obvious free territory ready for admission to maintain the balance between free and slave states. Senator Rufus King of New York led the northern, antislavery faction, when he argued that Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in any new state. Senator William Pinkney of Maryland advocated for the Southerners, arguing that states had a perfect right to choose slavery if they wished. Congress was deadlocked, until Senator Henry Clay from Kentucky proposed a compromise, in which Missouri would be admitted as a slave state, and to balance free and slave states, Maine, then part of Massachusetts, would be admitted as a free state. In addition, a line would be drawn at latitude 36°30′ (the southern boundary of Missouri); slavery would be illegal north of that line within the Louisiana Purchase.
As with most compromises, there was grumbling on both sides over the issue of slavery, but, in the end, most were willing to accept the agreement. One elder statesman who was deeply troubled by the compromise, however, was Thomas Jefferson. He confided to his friend John Holmes that “like a fire bell in the night, [news of the Missouri Compromise] awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.” He went on to say that “we have the wolf [the institution of slavery] by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” He was fearful that the nation he and other patriots had created might collapse over the institution of slavery.3
Over the next thirty years, Jefferson’s concerns about the future of his country seemed unfounded. Numerous issues regarding slavery came before Congress, but the admission of free and slave states continued, and the balance remained equal. In 1850, however, another crisis emerged. California had exploded in population with the gold rush. It had not been organized as a territory, but it still desired admission to the Union as a free state. As Jefferson had prophesied, the issue was like “a fire bell in the night.” There seemed to be no reasonable solution to the problem. Henry Clay, who orchestrated the Missouri Compromise, was not well, but he introduced a package of five bills that he hoped would work magic. In September 1850, and with the shepherding of Senator Stephen A. Douglas from Illinois, Congress reached a compromise by passing all five bills introduced by Clay. Texas would surrender its claim to what would become New Mexico, as well as its land north of the Missouri Compromise line. In return, the federal government would assume Texas’s public debt. California would be admitted as a free state. The Utah and New Mexico Territories could choose if they wanted slavery or not under the concept of popular sovereignty. The slave trade, but not the institution of slavery, was banned in the District of Columbia. Finally, Congress enacted a stringent fugitive slave law, making it much easier for slave owners to reclaim their slave property.
The North was pleased to have another free state, and many could see the potential for other new free states created from the territory surrendered from Texas. Some, especially antislavery members of Congress, were happy to see the slave markets in the District of Columbia closed. But the new Fugitive Slave Act was a hard pill to swallow. The South was not pleased with most of the compromise, but many believed they had achieved a small victory with the Fugitive Slave Act. Under this law, special federal commissioners were appointed to handle fugitive cases. If they found for the slave owner, and returned the fugitive to servitude, they received $10. The hearing was not a jury trial and the fugitive could not provide a defense. The claimant only had to provide an affidavit or sworn testimony that he or she had a legal claim to the fugitive. If commissioners found against the claimant, they received $5. In other words, their financial incentive was to find in favor of the slave owner. US Marshals were required to aid in the capture of fugitives, and they could force bystanders to aid in apprehending a fugitive slave. Anyone who aided or provided food or shelter to a fugitive was subject to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. Without normal legal protections, free blacks were vulnerable to capture and being sent south as slaves.
As the Fugitive Slave Act was in force, fugitive slaves—and even some free African Americans—fled to Canada—some three thousand in the three months after passage of the law. Many abolitionists, or fugitives such as Harriet Tubman, who assisted or guided slaves in their journeys on the Underground Railroad, simply saw the new law as an additional bother. They subscribed to a “higher law” that they considered above any earthly law. Other antislavery advocates, normally law-abiding citizens, were deeply conflicted with knowingly breaking a federal law but felt so strongly about the injustice of the law that they swallowed their apprehensions and aided fugitives. On the other side, Southerners, who had reluctantly agreed to the entire compromise, thinking the Fugitive Slave Act would protect their interests, were
outraged that the federal government wasn’t doing a better job of returning slaves to captivity and punishing those who helped slaves escape.
Clearly, the Compromise of 1850 was not functioning as well as its sponsors had hoped. Senator Douglas, who had successfully pushed through the earlier compromise, came up with a new plan that he hoped would calm the troubled political waters. He had introduced the concept of popular sovereignty with the establishment of the New Mexico and Utah territories, and now he proposed the same concept in the bill he introduced in 1854 to create the Kansas and Nebraska territories. He hoped that the concept of popular sovereignty would “triumph and impart peace to the country and stability to the Union.”4 He thought his idea made perfect sense. The US Constitution started with “We the People of the United States, …” which to Douglas meant that the people were the power behind the government to which none other was equal. So, the people should be the ultimate source to make decisions such as whether or not they wanted slavery where they lived. Douglas had another motive as well: he hoped the transcontinental railroad would be built in one of these territories, which would financially benefit him and his constituents.
Not everyone agreed with Douglas. Abraham Lincoln, who would run against Douglas for his Senate seat several years later, strongly disagreed. Lincoln argued that the decision as to whether or not slavery should be allowed in the territories had successfully rested with Congress, dating back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. In his Peoria Speech in 1854, Lincoln said that Congress was abdicating the responsibility it had held “through sixty-odd of the best years of the republic.” Since Congress had successfully managed territorial issues since the creation of the republic, he saw no reason to change that now. Lincoln also made it very clear that he was emphatically against slavery, adding that “if the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal;’ and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”5 So, to Lincoln, decisions concerning slavery in the territories should remain in the hands of Congress, and, if he had his way, slavery would be abolished in all territories as well.
Douglas and Lincoln disagreed on how Congress should legislate regarding slavery in the territories, but at least they both recognized that Congress had the authority to make laws for the territories. There was, however, another faction that did not agree with Douglas or Lincoln—the slaveholding South. While a number of senators from the South were begrudgingly willing to support the Kansas-Nebraska Act, most believed that neither Congress nor the people should be able to ban slavery in the territories. They based their argument on the Constitution as well, but rather than focusing on Article IV, they argued that the Fifth Amendment provided that no one could “be deprived of life, liberty, or property [emphasis added], without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Slaves were property, and there should be no restrictions on people taking their slaves into territories on a temporary or permanent basis.
While the nation’s leaders were debating the creation of new territories in Kansas and Nebraska under the principle of popular sovereignty, the Fugitive Slave Act created a spectacle in northern cities that was turning more and more people against slavery. Many northern conservative businessmen had, for the most part, stood on the sidelines and not taken much interest in the issues surrounding slavery. But as they witnessed the capture of escaped slaves who were brought before kangaroo courts without any chance to plead their cases, and then these slaves being returned in shackles to bondage, the businessmen could no longer ignore what was happening around them. One such businessman, George S. Hilliard, after he witnessed a fugitive being shipped off to bondage from Boston, was so deeply troubled by what he saw, he wrote to a friend that “when it was all over [the slave was led away in chains] and I was left alone in my office, I put my face in my hands and wept. I could do nothing less.”6 Amos Adams Lawrence, another wealthy conservative Bostonian, had the same reaction to the same incident, but instead of hanging his head in shame, he decided to take action, to do what he could to end the institution of slavery. He saw his opportunity, for at the same time the slave was returned to bondage, Congress moved from debating to passing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Since Congress made the decision to allow these new territories to choose whether they wanted slavery or not, in an instant, he committed to investing a great deal of money and energy to make Kansas a free state.
PART I
THE AWAKENING
1 We Waked Up Stark Mad Abolitionists
FROM MAY 24 THROUGH JUNE 2, 1854, Boston was in an uproar. On May 24, Anthony Burns, a young African American enslaved man, who had escaped from his bondage in Virginia and settled in Boston where he worked at a men’s clothing store, was captured by his owner on his way home from work. Burns’s owner, Charles Suttle, tracked his whereabouts from a letter he had intercepted from Burns to his brother. There was no question that Burns was an enslaved man and was Suttle’s property. Under the United States Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, there also was no question that Burns had no rights whatsoever.7
Although Burns had no legal claim to his freedom, to the citizens of Boston, his capture was an outrage. Antislavery lawyers representing Burns used several legal maneuvers to delay the hearing to send their client back to slavery. On May 26, a mob of some seven thousand black and white abolitionists, led by a Unitarian minister, the Reverend Thomas Wentworth Higginson, stormed the courthouse attempting to free Burns. When order was restored, one US Marshal was dead, and a dozen more individuals were injured. Abolitionists and federal troops faced off again the following day when the hearing began under heavy guard. Burns was represented by Richard Henry Dana and Charles M. Ellis, two of Boston’s finest abolitionist attorneys. Unfortunately for Anthony Burns, the Fugitive Slave Act did not allow for legal representation, so there was very little Dana or Ellis could offer as a defense. US Commissioner Edward G. Loring found for Suttle and ordered Burns returned to servitude.
Anthony Burns engraving by John Andrews. Surrounding Burns are scenes from his life. Lower left, sold at auction, next a whipping post, then his arrest in Boston. The next scene depicts his escape on ship from Richmond, then Burns escorted to Boston dock by federal marshals. Burns is possibly addressing the court, and finally Burns in slave prison in Richmond. Library of Congress.
President Franklin Pierce, although a Northerner, was committed to upholding the Fugitive Slave Act and was determined that Anthony Burns would be returned to servitude no matter the cost in dollars and manpower. So, on June 2, more than two thousand federal soldiers and marines cordoned off the streets of Boston. An estimated fifty thousand people watched as Anthony Burns was escorted in chains to an awaiting ship in Boston harbor. He was returned to Virginia and bondage. The government expense for the whole affair was $40,000.8
The story did not end on June 2, 1854. True, no more enslaved people were returned to bondage from Boston, so that part of the story was over. The Burns affair had a profound impact on Amos Adams Lawrence, who was a patriarch of one of Boston’s wealthiest and most powerful families. On June 1, the day before Burns was returned to slavery, Lawrence wrote to his uncle that “we went to bed one night old-fashioned, conservative, Compromise Union Whigs and waked up stark mad Abolitionists.”9
Amos Adams Lawrence. Frontispiece in William Lawrence, ed, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence (1888).
We know very little of Amos Adams Lawrence’s physical attributes. From the best image we have, he appears to be diminutive in stature, but that is based on conjecture, since no description of him survives. We know more about his persona. He was a deeply religious man, who was also absolutely devoted to his family. He was a very private man. He kept his innermost thoughts to himself, but fortunately for us, he shared his personal musings with his diary, which has survived. He shunned public attention whenever possible; he preferred communica
ting in writing rather than by the spoken word.
Lawrence fulfilled the adage of being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, with all of the benefits his noble birth implied. He was sent to a boarding school, Franklin Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, but was so unhappy there, he ran away for several days. He entered Harvard at age seventeen, but he left a year later when the college president suggested to his father that he needed private tutoring before he continued with his studies. Lawrence was sent to Bedford, Massachusetts, where he received private tutoring from J. Stearns; he then returned to Harvard, from which he graduated in 1835.
Amos Adams Lawrence was able to enjoy all of these advantages because his father, also Amos Lawrence, along with his uncle, Abbott Lawrence, built one of the largest and most successful wholesale mercantile businesses in the country. They also developed cotton and woolen milling enterprises in Massachusetts. When Amos senior retired from his business interests in 1831 at age forty-five, he devoted the remainder of his life to philanthropy, reportedly giving over $1 million to charitable causes, organizations, and projects.
So the younger Amos Lawrence grew up in a wealthy but generous household. He acquired both his father’s business skills and passion for philanthropy. Shortly after he graduated from Harvard, Lawrence created a business niche as a commission merchant selling manufactured textiles produced in New England mills. Then in 1843, when he and his partner, Robert Mason, consolidated their interests into Mason and Lawrence, Lawrence was a successful textile merchant.10 From the very beginning of his business successes, the younger Lawrence was generous with his money; so much so, in his personal diary entry from earlier in 1854, he wrote that he needed to continue with his business enterprises so he would be able to meet the demands of the charities he supported.11
Stark Mad Abolitionists Page 2