We’ve been here before.
In 1852, a slave named Joshua Glover escaped from the
household of Bennami Garland of St. Louis. He ended up in Racine Wisconsin.
Unlike Huck and Jim, this slave knew the direction of freedom – the ductus of
liberation, you might say. Or thought he did. In 1854, Garland got a court in
St. Louis to recognize that Glover was in Racine, and that Glover had stolen
Garland’s property – Glover. Given the power encoded by the Fugitive Slave Act,
Garland informed the U.S. Marshals, who descended on a shack Glover was staying
in – while he worked for a local businessman at a sawmill – and they captured
him.
What happened next was real resistance, not a hashtag. The bells
rang in Racine to warn the populace about the invasion of free territory by the
slavers. Racine, at that time, was a strongly anti-slavery town. A meeting was
held, and resolutions were passed decrying the kidnapping of Glover. A writ of
habaeus corpus for Glover was submitted to the court, which would decide
whether Glover could be sent back to Missouri. Glover had been removed under
cover of night to Milwaukee by the slave catchers, due to fear that Racine’s
enraged citizens would rescue the man. But in Milwaukee the slavers were not
safe: a meeting was called in front of the courthouse, and thousands attended.
At this time in America, the idea that the feudal remnant called the judiciary
could arbitrarily slice and dice the inherent rights of human beings – which we
now accept gladly, watching millions process through our jail system – was not
so passively accepted. An abolitionist and the editor of a local newspaper,
Sherman M. Booth, incited the crowd to do a wondrous work of freedom by
crashing the jail in which Glover was held. Eight men volunteered. The jailhouse
was merrily cracked open, Glover was taken out of it, hidden in a cart, and
taken to Canada.
This is resistance.
Booth was arrested. He was tried. The judge in the case, one
A.D. Smith, covered himself with glory by freeing Smith and overturning the
Fugitive Slave act on a state’s rights plea.
One should remember that the Southern states were very willing,
at this point, to override state’s rights if it involved supporting slavery,
before they decided to invoke state’s rights – again, to support slavery – because
Southern states identified themselves with slaveholding.
This is from Smith’s opinion:
“But they (the States) never will consent that a slave
owner, his agent or an office of the United States, armed with process to
arrest a fugitive slave from service, is clothed with entire immunity from
state authority, to commit whatever crime or outrage against the laws of the
state; that their own high prerogative write of habeas corpus shall be annulled,
their authority denied, and their officers resisted, the process of their own
courts condemned; their territory invaded by federal forces, the houses of
their citizens searched, the sanctuary of their homes invaded, their streets
and public places made the scene of tumultuous and armed violence; and state sovereignty
succumb, paralyzed and aghast, before the process of an officer unknown to the
Constitution and irresponsible to its sanctions. At least such will not become
the degradation of Wisconsin…”
Change the words slightly to ICE and this is as pertinent
now as ever. ICE, which, lets remember, was started under George Bush. Like
almost everything that the Trump administration is doing – from overturning its
predecessor’s edicts to tax cutting to war mongering to polluting – the beginning
is there in the horrid administration of that world class ignoramus, George
Bush. This too.
No comments:
Post a Comment