Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 8:15 — 7.6MB)
In 1850, when President Millard Fillmore signed the second “Fugitive Slave Act,” due process was under serious attack by the federal government.
The law compelled people of all states to “assist” federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves. It brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter.
On top of it, bounties were paid to commissioners in fugitive slave cases. $10 was paid if a person was sent back to slavery, and $5 if the person was allowed freedom. The federal government was paying people to capture other people and send them to slavery.
The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for alleged “slaves,” and made their testimony inadmissible in court. The written testimony of the supposed slave master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.
STATE RESISTANCE
In response, Northern States intensified efforts to pass what were known as “personal liberty laws.” These had already been growing over time in response to the original Fugitive Slave Act years earlier.
Vermont passed a “Habeas Corpus Law,” requiring state judicial and law enforcement officials to actually help captured fugitive slaves there. Massachusetts took a really strong stand – and passed a law that provided for kidnapping charges to anyone trying to use these “indefinite detention” provisions of the fugitive slave act.
No federal agent was charged with kidnapping in Massachusetts, though. But, this was only because no escapee was ever captured for return after the law was passed. The state response was working.
In fact, Northern states were so successful overall that when South Carolina seceded ten years later the people there named this as one of their primary reasons for leaving the Union. From their publicly-released “Declaration of Causes,” was this:
“The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the [Fugitive Slave Acts] or render useless any attempt to execute them…”
NDAA: THE ROAD BACKWARDS
In 1942, FDR signed an executive order which authorized the creation of military zones “from which any or all persons may be excluded.”
This led to the roundup of around 110,000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese citizens living here in California and along the West Coast. Without due process to assist them, these people were relocated and sent to internment camps. Many more were classified as “enemy aliens” and subjected to increased restrictions.
Like the Fugitive Slave Acts and Japanese mass internment, the federal government has again taken new powers never intended under the Constitution. Under sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, the feds again claim the power to classify people in such a way that they no longer have rights.
President Obama and Congress have dropped the terms “fugitive slave” and “enemy alien.” Instead, they use “suspected terrorist” as a way to eliminate due process these days.
RESISTANCE TODAY
Today, in the spirit of the 19th century Personal Liberty Laws, states and local communities around the country are taking action against NDAA detention powers. Virginia recently became the first state in the country to pass a law refusing compliance with or assistance to federal agents carrying out detentions without due process against citizens of that state. Arizona’s legislature just passed a similar bill. And a number of other states are working on the same.
But, it’s not just states. More than ten local communities are on board too. For example, up north in Fairfax, CA, they passed legislation which says that they will:
“Instruct all our Town of Fairfax agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel.”
Become a member and support the TAC!
JUST THE BEGINNING
When Northern States protected habeas corpus against federal encroachments in the 19th century, they were doing their duty to protect liberty and the Constitution. Today, states and local communities are doing the same.
They can and should serve as a powerful check on federal power. In fact, the framers counted on it. It’s all about local actions. As Democrats and Republicans continue to work together in DC to take away our rights, it’s our local communities who must and will rise up to save them.
Unfortunately, Lincoln and the northern states made a mockery of the Constitution during the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln even suspended habeas corpus. It was the Southern States who were on the side of the Tenth Amendment and smaller government. Of course, that’s not what they teach in the government indoctrination centers commonly referred to as “public schools” today.
WELL SAID Jeff,,,,they were teaching their propaganda back then,,,,of course the victor is the one who gets to print history.
Not a good historical example of nullification. Article 4 Section 2 says: ” No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Especially in light of what the cited states did in the following conflict with the ultimate nullification, called secession, not the best of historical examples. The modern applcation is right on the money, however.
@ht_cce This is a great example of nullification. A federal law was passed requiring states to deny due process. States rejected that federal law en masse. And, it was so effective that the slavery advocates cited it as their #1 complaint.
It’s a tool we should use today – a blueprint.
@ht_cce This is a great example of nullification. A federal law was passed requiring states to deny due process. States rejected that federal law en masse. And, it was so effective that the slavery advocates cited it as their #1 complaint.
It’s a tool we should use today – a blueprint.
Not a good historical example of nullification. Article 4 Section 2 says: ” No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Especially in light of what the cited states did in the following conflict with the ultimate nullification, called secession, not the best of historical examples. The modern applcation is right on the money, however.
With nullification in mind, anyone willing to wade into the “free illegal alien” zones communities
have inacted?
Thank you.
With nullification in mind, anyone willing to wade into the “free illegal alien” zones communities
have inacted?
Thank you.
Great article and a good historical comparison to the NDAA. Hopefully, more will visit this site and ignore the sore loser confederates who are constitutionalists when convenient to their ideology of hate and sloth.
Great article and a good historical comparison to the NDAA. Hopefully, more will visit this site and ignore the sore loser confederates who are constitutionalists when convenient to their ideology of hate and sloth.
I think that the “free illegal alien” zones are probably good examples of nullification, but for a wrong cause. The nullification sword cuts both ways. Would need to bone up on the issue. Matbe the Alien & Sedition Acts themselves are a place to stazrt.
I think that the “free illegal alien” zones are probably good examples of nullification, but for a wrong cause. The nullification sword cuts both ways. Would need to bone up on the issue. Matbe the Alien & Sedition Acts themselves are a place to stazrt.
But Michael,
The constitution specifically provides for the return of runaway slaves. Article 4, Section 2 “No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due,” Nullification must respond to unconstitutional acts or edicts not unpopular or even unjust. For proper understanding of state sovereignty, one can usdually look southward!
@ht_cce
two things.
1. This is talking about how nullification is EFFECTIVE. It’s a blueprint on how to take action against federal acts right now. This was a VERY EFFECTIVE method. Use it.
2. On constitutionality – the commentary isn’t really covering it. But, I’m happy to provide some short thoughts on your comment….an analogy is appropriate.
If the Constitution provided the return of a stolen vehicles, and someone had your vehicle, you’d still have to provide proof of ownership. And the person you accused of having your property would still have the opportunity to counter your claims.
the fugitive slave act was an abomination – morally, and constitutionally. On the latter – because it removed due process – the ability to counter and defend against a claim of ownership in court.
All you needed to do was say “That black person is my property” – and they’d be yours…whether you were telling the truth or not.
@ht_cce
two things.
1. This is talking about how nullification is EFFECTIVE. It’s a blueprint on how to take action against federal acts right now. This was a VERY EFFECTIVE method. Use it.
2. On constitutionality – the commentary isn’t really covering it. But, I’m happy to provide some short thoughts on your comment….an analogy is appropriate.
If the Constitution provided the return of a stolen vehicles, and someone had your vehicle, you’d still have to provide proof of ownership. And the person you accused of having your property would still have the opportunity to counter your claims.
the fugitive slave act was an abomination – morally, and constitutionally. On the latter – because it removed due process – the ability to counter and defend against a claim of ownership in court.
All you needed to do was say “That black person is my property” – and they’d be yours…whether you were telling the truth or not.
But Michael,
The constitution specifically provides for the return of runaway slaves. Article 4, Section 2 “No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due,” Nullification must respond to unconstitutional acts or edicts not unpopular or even unjust. For proper understanding of state sovereignty, one can usdually look southward!
All you needed to do was say “That black person is my property” – and they’d be yours…whether you were telling the truth or not.
Not so! The magistrate had to make a decision & the owner had to give a description of his property. The provision for both possibilities was in the law. $5 for a release, $10 for a return. Due process was followed. In fact to allow for escape without a hearing (Underground railroad) was an abrogation of process. Remember slaves were property.
@ht_cce That is not due process. Allowing both sides to make a case is. But, thanks for the feedback…
For everyone else reading.
The key here is that testimony wasn’t allowed on both sides, jury trials were eliminated – and more. Basically everything that you would be entitled to if I were to say that the computer you are using is mine.
I could tell the commissioner (not magistrate) that is was mine, provide my evidence, and you couldn’t defend yourself.
That’s the opposite of due process.
Thank you, Michael. Appreciate the exchange. We definitely agree on the modern application of the principle today.
Can anyone here tell me if South Carolina is listed as one of the States that Nullified?????
Question is:
When the FEDs are after someone, and they think they may be hampered in herding or detaining him, surely they will charge that person with something else to disallow any local authority of getting in the way. And what’s easier then charging someone with an imaginary crime serious enough to enlist the help of the states or other local authority when needed, then easily drop the charges after that person has been corralled under an NDAA warrant.
Because what will most likely precipitate such detention is someone with knowledge and critical of US Government complicity in some act of drug transport or more then likely terror. Which is why NDAA was actually promoted and passed.
It certainly has little effect on foreign terrorist although dressed as such, but mighty effective in hampering opposition on something likely the US Government will be involved in the future. So to clear the road, was this law inaugurated to prepare for whomever is audacious or brave enough to oppose the tyranny that is no longer on the horizon but a very present reality.
Anyone out there have an answer?
Post answer on forum.
Please forgiver me, if I don’t respond immediately. The expat Clem Kadidlehopper lives in Patagonia and often doesn’t check the forum for several days.
Best Regards folks, keep up the good work, I love reading your comments, there are some very smart people on this forum and I learn alot. Thanks and may God increase your tribe!
One final note. Research says Michael is right – no due process. But, southerners bekieved none was necessary because of the constitutional guarntee of return. The slave himself had no due process rights because he was the property absconded with.as well as the perpetrator.