# data[].attributes.body
Southern states wanted slaves that run away to the free northern states be returned back to their owners. Because the northern states didn't really want to argue and get the constitution passed and ratified, they reluctantly agreed. This became known as the "Fugitive Slave Act", and wasn't at all worth to the northern states as they didn't have many slaves.

# data[].attributes.body
Federalists supported the constitution, wanted a strong central govt., and felt like a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Some supporters of this were Alex Hamilton and James Madison. Anti-federalists on the other hand, were in favor of strong state governments and were against ratification of the constitution. They believed a Bill of Rights was essential, with Patrick Henry and Mercy Otis Warren as some of the supporters.

# data[].attributes.body
Both Northern and Southern delegates were arguing on how many slaves should be counted in the population. The South wanted slaves as population but not as taxes so they would have more representation but less taxes. The North, having little slaves, strongly opposed and stated slaves were property and should be counted as tax but not representation. The solution to this problem was the "3/5 Compromise" which stated 3/5 of slaves would count for BOTH population and taxes.

# data[].attributes.body
The delegates in the Constitutional Convention weren't able to decide on their number of representatives for each state, as larger states wanted reps. off of a state's population (Virginia Plan) and small states wanted all reps. equal, regardless of size. (New Jersey Plan). This dilemma was solved by the "Great Compromise" which stated their would be 2 houses with equal 2 senators for each state, and reps. based off of state population.

# data[].attributes.body
The Commerce Compromise was created amidst the disagreement of trading vs. agricultural exports. The north wanted trade, and the south wanted agriculture and slave sales. This compromise let the slavery issue rest for 20 more years before the govt. would start interfering, so the "triangular trade" would still be prominent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. What Were the Fugitive Slave Acts?

2. Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

3. Prigg v. Pennsylvania

4. Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

5. Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts

The Fugitive Slave Acts were a pair of federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway enslaved people within the territory of the United States. Enacted by Congress in 1793, the first Fugitive Slave Act authorized local governments to seize and return escapees to their owners and imposed penalties on anyone who aided in their flight. Widespread resistance to the 1793 law led to the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which added more provisions regarding runaways and levied even harsher punishments for interfering in their capture. The Fugitive Slave Acts were among the most controversial laws of the early 19th century.

What Were the Fugitive Slave Acts?

Statutes regarding refugee slaves existed in America as early as 1643 and the New England Confederation, and slave laws were later enacted in several of the 13 original colonies.

Among others, New York passed a 1705 measure designed to prevent runaways from fleeing to Canada, and Virginia and Maryland drafted laws offering bounties for the capture and return of escaped enslaved people.

By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, many Northern states including Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut had abolished slavery.

Concerned that these new free states would become safe havens for runaways, Southern politicians saw that the Constitution included a "Fugitive Slave Clause." This stipulation (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3) stated that, "no person held to service or labor" would be released from bondage in the event they escaped to a free state.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

Despite the inclusion of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the U.S. Constitution, anti-slavery sentiment remained high in the North throughout the late 1780s and early 1790s, and many petitioned Congress to abolish the practice outright.

Bowing to further pressure from Southern lawmakers-who argued the slave debate was driving a wedge between the newly created states-Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

This edict was similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause in many ways, but included a more detailed description of how the law was to be put into practice. Most importantly, it decreed that owners of enslaved people and their "agents" had the right to search for escapees within the borders of free states.

In the event they captured a suspected runaway, these hunters had to bring them before a judge and provide evidence proving the person was their property. If court officials were satisfied by their proof-which often took the form of a signed affidavit-the owner would be permitted to take custody of the enslaved person and return to their home state. The law also imposed a $500 penalty on any person who helped harbor or conceal escapees.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was immediately met with a firestorm of criticism. Northerners bristled at the idea of turning their states into a stalking ground for bounty hunters, and many argued the law was tantamount to legalized kidnapping. Some abolitionists organized clandestine resistance groups and built complex networks of safe houses to aid enslaved people in their escape to the North.

Refusing to be complicit in the institution of slavery, most Northern states intentionally neglected to enforce the law. Several even passed so-called "Personal Liberty Laws" that gave accused runaways the right to a jury trial and also protected free blacks, many of whom had been abducted by bounty hunters and sold into slavery.

Did you know? The passage of the Fugitive Slave Acts resulted in many free blacks being illegally captured and sold into slavery. One famous case concerned Solomon Northup, a freeborn black musician who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841. Northup would spend 12 years enslaved in Louisiana before winning back his freedom in 1853.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

The legality of Personal Liberty Laws was eventually challenged in the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg v. Pennsylvania. The case concerned Edward Prigg, a Maryland man who was convicted of kidnapping after he captured a suspected slave in Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prigg, setting the precedent that federal law superseded any state measures that attempted to interfere with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Despite decisions like Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 remained largely unenforced. By the mid-1800s, thousands of enslaved people had poured into free states via networks like the Underground Railroad.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

Following increased pressure from Southern politicians, Congress passed a revised Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.

Part of Henry Clay 's famed Compromise of 1850-a group of bills that helped quiet early calls for Southern secession-this new law forcibly compelled citizens to assist in the capture of runaways. It also denied enslaved people the right to a jury trial and increased the penalty for interfering with the rendition process to $1,000 and six months in jail.

In order to ensure the statute was enforced, the 1850 law also placed control of individual cases in the hands of federal commissioners. These agents were paid more for returning a suspected runaway than for freeing them, leading many to argue the law was biased in favor of Southern slaveholders.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was met with even more impassioned criticism and resistance than the earlier measure. States like Vermont and Wisconsin passed new measures intended to bypass and even nullify the law, and abolitionists redoubled their efforts to assist runaways.

The Underground Railroad reached its peak in the 1850s, with many enslaved people fleeing to Canada to escape U.S. jurisdiction.

Resistance also occasionally boiled over into riots and revolts. In 1851 a mob of antislavery activists rushed a Boston courthouse and forcibly liberated an escapee named Shadrach Minkins from federal custody. Similar rescues were later made in New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts

Widespread opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 saw the law become virtually unenforceable in certain Northern states, and by 1860 only around 330 enslaved people had been successfully returned to their Southern masters.

Republican and Free Soil congressmen regularly introduced bills and resolutions related to repealing the Fugitive Slave Act, but the law persisted until after the beginning of the Civil War. It wasn't until June 28, 1864, that both of the Fugitive Slave Acts were repealed by an act of Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fugitive Slave Acts - Definition, 1793 & 1850 | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fugitive Slave Acts, passed in 1793 and 1850, were federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway enslaved people within the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the thirteen colonies met to draft the United States Constitution, the Northern states and the Southern slave-owning states disagreed on issues such as the slave trade and tariffs on imports and exports. Eventually, they reached a compromise on both.

The commerce compromise was a compromise reached on import and export taxes, and most importantly, the slave trade. It was finalized after heated debates during the drafting of the United States Constitution in 1787. During negotiations, the urban northern states and the southern agricultural slave-owning states realized that some fundamental differences would have to be put aside, even for just a short time, in order to move forward with the Constitution. Hence, the compromise was born.

Commerce Compromise on Imports and Exports

The northern states wanted the federal government to levy import tariffs on finished products coming into the country to protect against foreign competition and to encourage the southern states to purchase goods made in the North. They also wanted export taxes on raw materials coming into the U.S. The southern states disagreed, arguing that tariffs on the export of raw materials would hurt their agricultural economy. The commerce compromise permitted tariffs only on imports from foreign countries and not on exports from the U.S. to other countries. Most significantly, this commerce compromise made the regulation of interstate commerce the responsibility of the federal government. All commerce legislation would be regulated by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate.

Commerce Compromise on the Slave Trade

The question of slavery was a divisive issue in the United States even before the official establishment of the federal government. The commerce compromise regarding the slave trade was agreed upon in order to bring the northern and southern states together. At the time Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, there were an estimated 500,000 African slaves in the Colonies. Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and other founding fathers owned hundreds of slaves themselves. African slaves lived primarily in the southern colonies and made up about one-fifth of the entire Colonial population and comprised 40 percent of the southern population.

Jefferson called slavery a "hideous blot" on America. Washington called it "repugnant," and many Colonists, even some slave owners, hated slavery, too. The problem was that the southern economy relied on agricultural products like tobacco, indigo and rice that were produced by slave labor they could not afford to lose. At one point, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, the three states that still permitted the slave trade threatened to leave the Constitution convention if importing slaves was outlawed.

Two Key Commerce Compromises

To protect their economy and standard of living, the southern states came up with two proposals. The first compromise was to prevent Congress from taxing American exports in order to protect their agricultural trade. The second compromise was a proposal that would forbid the newly formed United States from banning slave importation. Those opposed to slavery argued passionately against it, calling slave trade a moral issue that was dishonorable to the America character. George Mason of Virginia called the business of slave trading "nefarious traffic" and slave owners "petty tyrants."

However, it became clear that a compromise would have to be reached to move forward as a country. The agreement provided that Congress could not tax exports and that no slave trade laws could be passed until 1808, about 10 years after the convention and ratification of the Constitution. The commerce compromise also included a fugitive slave clause as an additional concession to the southern states, but when the 13th Amendment was passed after the Civil War, the provision requiring fugitive slaves to be returned was eliminated.

The importance of the Commerce Compromise is evident from the that it was included in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. It also tells us that, despite moral principles and lofty ideals of equality, the founding fathers were prepared to do whatever was necessary to keep the country united.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the thirteen colonies met to draft the United States Constitution, the Northern states and the Southern slave-owning states disagreed on issues such as the slave trade and tariffs on imports and exports. Eventually, they reached a compromise on both.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The proposal for apportionment for the determination of each state's number of seats in the House of Representatives became an issue when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787. Aside from being a complex system and method for calculating the population through the census and then establishing a number of seats for representation, the issue as to who was eligible to be counted for the population was a topic of controversy. However, it is no surprise that this agreement is known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, for the Constitution itself was born out of compromise between the Framers of the Constitution.

However, the Three-Fifths Compromise is arguably the most controversial topic, for it delegates that all slaves of a particular state are to be counted as three-fifths of a white person. The population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths in total when apportioning Representatives, as well as Presidential electors and taxes.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, who were both delegates for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. However, the Three-Fifth Compromise has its roots further back in history, dating back to the Continental Congress in 1783. The Compromise was a result of the apportionment of taxes being related to land values.

Initially, taxes were levied not in accordance to the population numbers, but the actual value of the land. Many states began to depreciate the value of the land in order to provide for relief from their taxes. A committee was held that would rectify the situation by implementing the apportionment of taxes in relation to the state's population. However, this idea was met with the dispute over how to consider slaves in the apportionment process and the actual ratio of slaves to free people at that time.

For the most part, those who opposed slavery only wanted to consider the free people of a population, while those in favor wanted to include slaves in the population count. This would provide for slave holders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and more representation in the Electoral College. Many ratios were considered, such as three-fourths, one-half, and one-quarter. After much debate, it would be James Madison that would suggest the Three-Fifths Compromise. However, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not be adopted until the Constitutional Convention because the Compromise was not approved by all of the states and the Articles of Federation required a unanimous vote.

The implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise would greatly increase the representation and political power of slave-owning states. The Southern states, if represented equally, would have accounted for 33 of the seats in the House of Representatives. However, because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states accounted for 47 seats in the House of Representatives of the first United States Congress of 1790. This would allow for the South to garner enough power at the political level, giving them control in Presidential elections.

However, as time moved forward, the Three-Fifths Compromise would not provide the advantage for which the Southern states and slave-owners had hoped. The Northern states grew more rapidly in terms of population than the South. Even though Southern states had essentially dominated all political platforms prior to the Civil War, afterward that control would be relinquished slowly but surely. It would not be until the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was be enacted in 1865 that the Three-Fifths Compromise would be rendered obsolete.

comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three Fifths Compromise - constitution | Laws.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The proposal for apportionment for the determination of each state's number of seats in the House of Representatives became an issue when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787. Aside from being a complex system and method for calculating the population through the census and then establishing a number of seats for representation, the issue as to who was eligible to be counted for the population was a topic of controversy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Great Compromise of 1787 is an event of great importance in the US history. It laid the foundation of the present day structure of the US Congress. It was an attempt to address the concern of proper representation of both the larger, more populous states and those with smaller population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Great Compromise of 1787 is an event of great importance in the US history. It laid the foundation of the present day structure of the US Congress. It was an attempt to address the concern of proper representation of both the larger, more populous states and those with smaller population.