Anti-Slavery Reporter, November 2, 1842 (selection).
ASHBURTON TREATY : THE TENTH ARTICLE.
Playford HAll, October 24th, 1842.
MY DEAR FRIEND, JOHN BEAUMONT, — I have looked into the tenth article of the late treaty with the United States, and I will now give you the result of my thoughts upon it. It was necessary for the American government, considering the extent of the boundary line, and the number of American white ruffians who had taken advantage of it to escape the punishment due to their crimes by flying beyond it – it was necessary, I repeat, to have an article of this sort; and I believe therefore that the American government, and Lord Ashburton too, had no other object in view than to cause the surrender of such of its white subjects as were criminals: but I am decidedly of opinion that the American slave holders will take advantage of this article, not only to go into Canada with their claims as before, but to go more frequently – for the article says, that the proper authorities on both sides (British and American) shall deliver up all persons who, being charged with certain crimes, shall seek an asylum in the territories of each other. Now the words “all person,” evidently include the black (slave) as well as the white population. The words are qualified however, or restricted in their meaning, by their being made to relate only to those fugitives who have committed certain crimes. There is no article in the treaty which allows a fugitive slave to be given up merely for running away. Running away is no crime, according to the treaty, unless actual crime is the cause of it. Let us now see what those crimes are for which a criminal may be surrendered. They are six in number. 1. Murder. 2. Assault with intent to commit murder. 3. Arson. 4. Piracy. 5. Robbery. 6. Forgery. Now I think it is evident by this catalogue of crimes that the American president has in view the white population only, for I never heard of arson, piracy (according to our definition of it), or forgery being committed by slaves. Indeed they cannot commit forgery because there is only here and there a slave who can read or write. I wish it may be that this was the design of the American president, for then things will remain, with respect to Canada, as they were before the treaty; and it becomes our government, or Lord Ashburton, to inquire whether the American president views the treaty in this light. If it is meant to include the slave population, then the treaty will be most disastrous; for though the slaves do not commit some of the crimes specified, yet they are guilty of petty thefts. Now, does the word robbery include petty thefts? If it does, then the door is open to claims without end – to thousands of applications. I am of opinion then, if the treaty takes in the slave population, that the slave owners, encouraged by the case of Nelson Hackett, and having now a legal right to make claims, which they had not before, will pester our government in Canada with thousands of applications (considering that the fugitives now in Canada amount to 12,000 souls) : indeed they will not be able to get through the business without establishing a special court for the purpose of trying the cases which will be brought before them. And such a court, if established, would have many and great difficulties to contend with. Lies without end would be told without scruple by the pursuers of the fugitive, to get him into their possession. Ask a Canadian who lives on the British borders of Canada, what he thinks of these claims as far as they have come within his own knowledge, and he will tell you that he will not believe a word of what these pursuers have to say. The crimes with which they charge the fugitives are mostly fabricated. It may be that a fugitive is now and then a criminal, but ninety-nine in a hundred run away solely to gain their liberty and avoid oppression.
Anti-Slavery Reporter, October 5, 1842.
INTERVIEW OF THE AMERICAN AND FOREIGN ANTI-SLAVERY COMMITTEE WITH LORD ASHBURTON.
(From the Liberator.)
THE executive committee of the American and Foreign Anti-slavery Society, apprehending that the tenth article of the treaty lately concluded between the British minister and our government might be used to the injury of fugitive slaves escaping into Canada, appointed a deputation to solicit an interview with Lord Ashburton just before his departure for England, to lay before him facts in relation to the subject which might be communicated to his government. He very readily complied with the request, and appointed ten o’clock A.M., September 3rd, for the interview at his lodgings at the Aster House. The committee consisted of Messrs. S.S. Jocelyn, Leonard Gibbs, La Roy Sunderland, and Lewis Tappan. Mr. Gerritt Smith, being present, was invited to accompany the delegation. The delegation was courteously received by Mr. Mildway, secretary of the special mission of H.B.M., and by him introduced to Lord Ashburton, who invited them to be seated, expressed much satisfaction at seeing them, and entered into a frank and full conversation on the subject for which the interview was requested. The delegation, after congratulating the British enjoy on the successful termination of his mission, informed him of the particulars of the case of Nelson Hackett, a slave who fled from Arkansas to Canada; where his pursuers overtook him, had him arrested on a charge of stealing a coat, gold watch, and horse, of his master. Hackett was imprisoned, and meantime a grand jury in Arkansas indicted him. A demand was forwarded from the governor of Arkansas to the governor-general of Canada for his surrender. Sir Charles Bagot complied, and Hackett was taken back to Arkansas. The delegation stated to Lord Ashburton their apprehensions that such a course occurring without any treaty stipulation, there was great case of apprehension that under the tenth article of the treaty, which provides for the mutual surrender of all persons charged with certain special crimes, no fugitive slave would be safe in Canada, especially when it is notorious that slave-holders allege crimes against fugitive slaves, us one expedient for their reclamation.
Lord Ashburton went into an explanation of the tenth article, and mentioned several particulars of the discussion that took place, both on that topic and others relating to slaves. He said that it was very desirable to have an article in the treaty to meet cases similar to that of Holmes, who fled from Canada into Vermont, and the cases that would frequently arise, considering the extent of the bordering lines, and the temptation for criminals to flee across the lines in hope of securing themselves from arrest and punishment. The governor of Canada was anxious that deserters should be included, but as Lord Ashburton learned that claim would be put in for the delivering up of fugitive slaves, he abandoned the question of deserters from H. B. M.’s possessions. He was also very desirous to secure the delivery of mutineers, but did not press it, lest it should involve, on the part of his government, the delivery of slaves situated as were those on board the Creole. With regard to the case of the slave Hackett, he did not know all the facts. Sir Charles Bagot was known to him, and he did not believe he would do any thin intentionally wrong. But he had just entered upon his duties, and was probably desirous, at that juncture, of promoting good feeling with his great neighbour. The fact that the slave had taken his master’s watch, was a circumstance that probably went against him. “Had he only taken the horse,” said Lord Ashburton, (looking at Gerritt Smith significantly, though he could not be supposed ever to have read the advice of the gentleman to fugitive slaves), “he would not probably have been surrendered, for you know the horse was necessary for his escape.” Lord Ashburton said, that in framing the tenth article, great cared had been taken to provide that inferior magistrates in Canada should have no authority to surrender fugitives, as had been urged by the other party, and that only the governor himself could perform an act of so great importance. Great care would be taken, he had no doubt, to protect the innocent, and that the taking of any article necessary to effect an escape would not be considered felonious. If, said he, the operation of the tenth article proves injurious, he had not doubt the British government would put an end to it, agreeably to another provision of the treaty, viz. “The tenth article shall continue in force until one or the other party shall signify its wish to terminate it, and no longer.” Lord Ashurton said, that when the delegation came to read his correspondence with Mr. Webster, they would see that he had taken all possible care to prevent any injury being done to the people of colour; that if he had even been willing to introduce an article including cases similar to that of the Creole, his government would never have ratified it, as they will adhere to the great principles they have so long avowed and maintained; and that the friends of the slave in England would be very watchful to see that no wrong practice took place under the tenth article.
The delegation now rose, and after thanking Lord Ashburton for the candid and satisfactory manner in which he had received their communications, and answered their inquiries – wishing the divine blessing for the part he had taken in perpetuating peace between the respective countries, and protecting the rights of the oppressed, and a safe and speedy return to his native land – took their leave, highly gratified with the courtesy, frankness, intelligence, and philanthropy of this distinguished nobleman. Believing the above statement will be interesting to your readers, especially to those who labour and pray for the slave – for the poor fugitive particularly – that it will tend to quiet the fears of the twelve thousand coloured inhabitants of Canada, most of whom have fled from southern slavery, and their numerous friends on both sides the lines; and that there will be found an additional occasion for thankfulness to God that he has, through the American and British ministers, brought about a peace that will, it is hoped, be lasting. I remain, very respectfully yours,
LEWIS TAPPAN.
Anti-Slavery Reporter, October 19, 1842.
ASHBURTON TREATY – THE TENTH ARTICLE.
We insert another letter which Captain Stuart has written in this deeply interesting subject to a member of the Anti-Slavery Committee. A remark or two of our own will be found elsewhere.
“Redruth, October 5th, 1842.
“My Dear Friend, — The Tenth Article of Lord Ashburton’s Treaty, appears more and more horrible to me, as repeated consideration seems to develop its character. My reasons are as follows : —
“In all slave states of the United States, in one at least of the free (Ohio), the coloured, whether enslaved or free, have no evidence in law. When accused, therefore, no evidence except that of free white persons can be legally received in their favour; but, whenever the contest is with free white persons, you see at once, how hopeless to them, generally speaking, such a defence must be. Was Lord Ashburton aware of this? Or is there one amongst us, who, excluded entirely from those of his own class, could be content to repose the question of his honour, his liberty, or his life, upon the testimony and judgement of his deliberate and exasperated enemies?
“Now, suppose a free coloured subject of the United States is reclaimed from our government with the legal affidavits, as a fugitive criminal. By the treaty, as a I read it, we are bound to give him up; but to what do we give him up? To a fair trial? This must have been Lord Ashburton’s idea. To a fair trial? Possibly; but certainly not once in a hundred times. To a fair trial? No; but to the power of a law system which has already deprived him of almost all possibility of proving his innocence, if innocent; and which leaves his acquittal or condemnation to a judiciary, outrageously at war with his safety, his honour, and his happiness. The ninety-nine probabilities out of a hundred are that he will be judged with fearfully partial severity. Yet, if he belong to the free states, there is still a mitigation – a sacred mitigation in his case. After undergoing the awarded punishment, he will be free – he will be restored to his manhood. But should he belong to the slave-states, his crime, by the laws of the state in question, may direct or sanction his being sold into slavery, either immediately, or after he has undergone some other dreadful penalty.
“I am not willing to believe that Lord Ashburton contemplated this; nor, as long as it is possible to doubt, will I believe, that our government will sanction the article in question, without expressly and effectually providing against such results.
“But a still worse evil is involved in the treaty. The slave, whoever he is, wherever he comes from, as soon as he touches British ground, is free. Glorious feature of our country! Well, a slave from Arkansas, we will say (Nelson Hackett will serve for a complete illustration), accused of theft, escapes to Canada, and from the moment that he arrives there is a free man. British law, in this particular executing the divine, restores to him his inherent manhood and tLo Egis of British power is nobly spread over him. But he is accused of theft, and the United States government, supplying the legal certificates, reclaims him for trial – Lord Ashburton doubtless presumed, for a fair trial by his peers. By his peers! Alas! he was none, but the cattle which graze his master’s field, or the furniture which adorns his master’s habitation! For a fair trial? What! a fair trial with no evidence admissible by law in his favour except the evidence of exasperated enemies! What! a fair trial of a runaway slave by indignant slave-masters! And, after all, when he has been tried for theft, when, of course, he has been found guilty, and when he has undergone the worst rigours of the law – what, ah! what, becomes of him if he survives? Will his liberty, which God had restored to him by British instrumentality, be given back by the slave-holder, exulting in the recovery of the runaway slave, and in the fearful example which he has made him to his fellows against similar transgressions of slave laws? Will he be at liberty to return openly and without impediment to Canada? Alas! he is in Arkansas – he is in the fangs of his tyrants; he was long ago legislated by them into a thing, and all his fair claims to equal manhood have of old been spurned with infinite indignation. And how would the coward pride and the tyrant selfishness of the slave-system quail and writhe in every nerve at the departing glories of slavery, should a slave’s claim to the common and inalienable manhood with which God has endowed every man, and to its fair and equal rights, be thus publicly acknowledged!
“Lord Ashburton meant, I presume, that criminals on both sides should be equitably restored, in a friendly manner, to fair trial and judgment; and so far, every honest mind will applaud and support him.
“Nelson Hackett’s case affords a fine opportunity of testing the question. If the Americans be honest in the treaty, they will scrupulously restore him to Canada, should he survive, after undergoing the punishment they may award him for theft; and how would my soul exult with thanksgiving should they do so! But, if he perish, or, if they retain him in slavery, and we be consenting to it, how criminal, debased, and dastardly will be our posture – how daringly shall we again begin to violate the Divine commandments, Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, and James v. 1-4, &c. My heart’s prayer is, that the Sovereign Mercy which so long spared us amidst all the abominations of our recent slave system, and which so graciously led us out of it in peace, my here again preserve us, nor suffer us to make ourselves kidnappers of freemen – for let us always remember that, one on British ground, the slave is restored to his liberty by British laws, as he always was entitled to it by Divine – nor suffer us, I say, to make ourselves kidnappers of freeman, out of regard to a supremely hypocritical power, the tyrant republic, which will be the first to detect our shallowness and to despise our pusillanimity, whilst it boasts of our brotherhood in corruption, and superciliously smiles upon our tame subserviency to its idol guilt.
“CHARLES STUART.”