Unit 22 Black VVigilance - nydivided.orgUnit 2 - Black Vigilance Document 22 “More SSlave...

7733

“Anthony Burns,” (detail). John Andrews, engraver, ca. 1855. The Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division LC-USZ62-90750.

Unit 22Black VVigilance

Unit 2 - Black Vigilance

BackgroundEmancipation came to New York State in 1827, as it had to other northern states earlier, but it did not bring thefull freedom blacks had hoped for, and New York City’s financial and social ties to the South made life especial-ly hard for its black residents. In fact, emancipation generated new rules and procedures at many levels of citylife, designed to keep free blacks less than free. In response, blacks in the city and elsewhere began a determinedeffort to build a strong, self-sufficient community. Dr. James McCune Smith, one of several powerful black lead-ers who emerged during this period, was seen as a champion of the movement toward black autonomy. Manyblack-led organizations were established during the 1830s – churches, benevolent societies, newspapers, educa-tional and political groups. In the process, blacks invented the first models for how groups in American societycould seek equality, models still in use today.

Perhaps the most alarming problem faced by blacks in New York City was the presence of slave catchers paid totake people into slavery in the South. Kidnapping was a source of constant terror. Adults could be seized, butchildren were at special risk, since a long, productive period of slavery lay ahead of them and they were not wellable to defend themselves. But no one, child or adult, could feel safe in New York, whether they were actualfugitives or legally free blacks. All were at risk.

Many people in New York were eager to help southern slave owners find fugitive slaves. One Virginia lawyermoved to the city just for this purpose and bluntly advertised his services in the newspapers. Others were profes-sional slave catchers, including the infamous Tobias Boudinot and Daniel Nash. Southerner slave owners hiredthese men and their assistants to track down and reclaim runaways, often on the basis of nothing more than averbal description that resulted in many false seizures.

Blacks and white abolitionists called this action kidnapping or manstealing, and considered it a crime, becauseslavery itself was a crime. Slave-catching, however, was not illegal. The U.S. Constitution supported slave own-ers’ right to reclaim runaways, and the 1793 Fugitive Slave Law specified how this should be done. The law didnot require a jury trial. The captive was to be brought before any local magistrate, who would hear witnessesand decide whether or not to issue the slave owner a certificate of custody. In New York City, the magistrate wasoften City Recorder Richard Riker, who usually gave the slave owners what they wanted, sometimes after wit-nesses had been paid to lie. The entire proceeding could be over and the captured black person deposited on asouthbound ship before family or friends knew what had happened.

In the mid-1830s, with many city officials taking the side of the slave owners, and white abolitionists more con-cerned with ending southern slavery than with helping free blacks in the North, black New Yorkers forged theirown protective response to kidnapping. Black Vigilance focuses on the effort to win the freedom of captiveWilliam Dixon, and to secure the right to jury trials in all fugitive slave cases in New York State.

A note about legal terms in Black Vigilance: Free blacks were not considered U.S. citizens, but the Americanlegal system protected them to a degree. The several writs collectively known as habeas corpus, considered thegreat cornerstone of personal liberty in English and American law, applied to any prisoner, regardless of color.The most common and celebrated of these writs requires prison officials to bring a prisoner to court to determineif the person is held lawfully or should be released. Lawyers in fugitive slave cases routinely filed a petition forthis writ. Slave owners could also take advantage of habeas corpus writs.

The writ de homine replegiando, like the writs of habeas corpus, dates to common law in medieval England,

7755


where it was used in cases involving runaway serfs. Abolitionists resurrected this writ in American fugitive slavecases, and it is central to the story of William Dixon. The process was straightforward: a petition for the writ wasfiled by the prisoner or his lawyer, and the magistrate issued the writ unless he saw legal cause not to do so.Once issued, the writ required that a prisoner be released on bail and remain available to appear in court toanswer charges. (The bail money was actually used to protect the sheriff or prison officials who would be finedif the prisoner ran away.) Most important, the writ de homine replegiando requires a jury trial. In the 1830s, itwas seen as the only way to bring a fugitive slave case before a jury.

Sources: Fergus M. Bordewich, Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America, (New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2005); Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,2004); Jane H. Pease and William H. Pease, They Who Would Be Free: Blacks’ Search for Freedom, 1830-1861 (New York: Atheneum, 1974). Specialthanks are due to James Folts, Head of Reference Services, New York State Archives, who searched the New York State court records for evidence of theDixon case and added valuable perspective to these materials. Thanks as well to Leonora Gidlund, Director of the Municipal Archives, City of New York,and Bruce Abrams, Archivist, New York County Clerk’s Office.

7766

Whereas, the barbarous practice of kidnapping continually menaces, endangers, and invade thepeace, safety and liberty of every colored citizen in these United States. And, whereas, Captains ofMerchant’s vessels, Slaveholders, Slavetraders, and their kidnapping agents have sold into slavery, citi-zens of the State of New York. And, whereas, the alarming precedent, lately established in this city, hasfirmly convinced us in the belief, that the people of color can expect no protection from the laws, as atpresent administered, with out the benefit of trial by jury.

And whereas, we view with grief and indignation the conduct of the Hon. Richard Riker,Recorder of the city of New York, in the case of Abraham Goslee, whom he refused the benefit of threeimportant witnesses, and pronounced him a slave - then denied him the benefit of the writ of Hominoreplegiando, and unjustly granted or issued a writ of Habeas Corpus to reduce him to slavery.

Be it therefore, Resolved, that while we the people of color are deprived of the bulwark of per-sonal freedom, a trial by jury, it is in vain to look for justice in the courts of law, especially where everyadvantage is given to slaveholders and kidnappers by the law and practice of those courts.

Resolved, That humanity and justice dictate, that every colored citizen unite his every effort toprocure for every person who may be arrested a fugitive slave a trial by jury; and the removal of suchlegal abuses as may at present exist, and continue those efforts in every proper and legal manner, untilour rights be established.

7777


Unit 22, DDocument ##1 ((Transcript)New York Committee of Vigilance, 1836 Resolutions. Delivered at Phoenix Hall, New York City, September 27, 1836. C. Peter Ripley, ed.,

The Black Abolitionist Papers, Vol. III (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985) 169-71.


7788

DDooccuummeenntt 11NNeeww YYoorrkk CCoommmmiitttteeee ooff VViiggiillaannccee,, 11883366 RReessoolluuttiioonnss.. DDeelliivveerreedd aatt PPhhooeenniixx HHaallll,, NNeeww YYoorrkk CCiittyy,, SSeepptteemmbbeerr2277,, 11883366.. CC.. PPeetteerr RRiipplleeyy,, eedd..,, TThhee BBllaacckk AAbboolliittiioonniisstt PPaappeerrss,, VVooll.. IIIIII ((CChhaappeell HHiillll:: UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff NNoorrtthhCCaarroolliinnaa PPrreessss,, 11998855)) 116699-7711..

After 1827, when New York State ended slavery, black New Yorkers faced more risk than ever of being kid-napped and enslaved in the South. One reason was the role played by the City Recorder Richard Riker.According to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, a slave owner required only a certificate issued by any local mag-istrate to permit him to take custody of a black he claimed as his runaway slave. In New York City, the magis-trate was often Riker, widely thought to be in collusion with local kidnappers. By the mid-1830s, the number ofblacks seized in New York had risen to terrifying levels. Blacks fought back in the only way they could: bykeeping their eyes open and trying to physically prevent kidnappings when they saw them. In 1835, a group ofblack leaders formed the New York Committee of Vigilance specifically to organize black resistance to kidnap-ping. In this 1836 document, the leaders lay out their plans for a united fight to win a fundamental legal right forblacks claimed as fugitives. (For information on habeas corpus and de homine replegiando, see the Unit 2Background piece.)

7799


Unit 22, DDocument ##2“More Slave Trouble.” The Herald, April 12, 1837. Collection of the New-York Historical Society.


DDooccuummeenntt 22““MMoorree SSllaavvee TTrroouubbllee..”” TThhee HHeerraalldd,, AApprriill 1122,, 11883377.. CCoolllleeccttiioonn ooff tthhee NNeeww-YYoorrkk HHiissttoorriiccaall SSoocciieettyy..

This article about the capture of William Dixon on April 4 appeared in the Herald on Wednesday, April 12,1837. The Herald called it “more slave trouble” because it came just days after the capture of a runaway slavenamed George Thompson, an event that had outraged the black community. A huge crowd had kept vigil at thecourt house to prevent the sheriff from taking Thompson into slavery. Thompson, however, had admitted beingthe fugitive in question – he also detailed how he and other slaves had stolen the master’s boat in order toescape. Because of these admissions, Thompson was pronounced a slave by Recorder Riker and was takenSouth on April 2. When Dixon was captured two days later, George Thompson was on everyone’s mind.

The abolitionists mentioned in this article are the members of the New York Committee of Vigilance and theabolitionist lawyer Horace Dresser, who represented the captives in the Committee’s fugitive slave cases.Dresser’s fees were paid by the New York Manumission Society, founded by prominent whites in 1785 to helpblacks secure their legal rights. Some of the Society’s members were abolitionists, but it was not an abolitionistorganization. (For information on de homine replegiando, see the Unit 2 Background piece.)

Note: The slave owner’s name was Walter T. Allender, not Alexander.

8800

8811


Unit 22, DDocument ##3“Prisoner’s Introduction into Court.” Henry C. Wright, “Kidnapping in New York!!” The Liberator, April 21, 1837.

Collection of the New-York Historical Society.


8822

DDooccuummeenntt 33““PPrriissoonneerr’’ss IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn iinnttoo CCoouurrtt..”” HHeennrryy CC.. WWrriigghhtt,, ““KKiiddnnaappppiinngg iinn NNeeww YYoorrkk!!!!”” TThhee LLiibbeerraattoorr,, AApprriill 2211,,11883377.. TThhiiss aarrttiiccllee wwaass wwrriitttteenn dduurriinngg ccoouurrtt pprroocceeeeddiinnggss oonn AApprriill 1111,, 11883377,, WWiilllliiaamm DDiixxoonn’’ss ffiirrsstt ddaayy iinn ccoouurrtt..CCoolllleeccttiioonn ooff tthhee NNeeww-YYoorrkk HHiissttoorriiccaall SSoocciieettyy..

Henry C. Wright was a white abolitionist present when William Dixon first appeared in court. He wrote a longaccount of the events of the first two days of the trial and sent it to William Lloyd Garrison, the Bostonian whopublished the Liberator, one of the leading abolitionist newspapers in the country. The court proceedings wereheld in New York’s City Hall, the same building that serves as City Hall today.

8833


Unit 22, DDocument ##4“To the Thoughtless Part of our Colored Citizens.” The Colored American, April 15, 1837.



DDooccuummeenntt 44““TToo tthhee TThhoouugghhttlleessss PPaarrtt ooff oouurr CCoolloorreedd CCiittiizzeennss..”” TThhee CCoolloorreedd AAmmeerriiccaann,, AApprriill 1155,, 11883377.. CCoolllleeccttiioonn ooff tthheeNNeeww-YYoorrkk HHiissttoorriiccaall SSoocciieettyy..

William Dixon was jailed for a week before he appeared in Recorder Riker’s court. During that time, word ofhis kidnapping spread through the black community. On the second day of the hearing, a crowd of angry blacksgathered in the park outside City Hall, where the court house was located. When they saw the sheriff leadingDixon across the park toward prison, they stormed forward. Someone tossed a knife and a dagger to Dixon, whoescaped briefly. A black man and woman attacked Justice John Bloodgood, who was trying to help the sheriff.The following day, Samuel Cornish responded to these events in the newspaper he had begun to publish justweeks earlier. Beginning with this issue, the Colored American followed the progress of the Dixon case closelyfor many months.

8844

8855


Unit 22, DDocument ##5Witness Testimony in the Dixon Case (Right). The Liberator, April 21, 1837 and (Left) The Herald, April 19, 1837. New-York Historical Society Library.



8866

DDooccuummeenntt 55 WWiittnneessss TTeessttiimmoonnyy iinn tthhee DDiixxoonn CCaassee.. FFrroomm aann uunncciitteedd nneewwssppaappeerr rreepprriinntteedd iinn TThhee LLiibbeerraattoorr,, AApprriill 2211,,11883377 aanndd TThhee HHeerraalldd,, AApprriill 1199,, 11883377.. CCoolllleeccttiioonn ooff tthhee NNeeww-YYoorrkk HHiissttoorriiccaall SSoocciieettyy..

The Herald was the most widely read newspaper in New York. Its editor, James Gordon Bennett, wrote manyarticles defending slavery in the South, calling it a “positive good.” These two accounts follow the court testi-mony of witnesses appearing for and against William Dixon. The Liberator was an abolitionist newspaper pub-lished in Boston by William Lloyd Garrison. This article was first published in an uncited newspaper and thenreprinted in Henry C. Wright’s long article in the Liberator, along with many others from newspapers around thecountry, all responding to Dixon’s arrest and trial.

8877


Unit 22, DDocument ##6“After a long, and tedious imprisonment….” The Colored American, July 8, 1837. Collection of the New-York Historical Society.


DDooccuummeenntt 66““AAfftteerr aa lloonngg,, aanndd tteeddiioouuss iimmpprriissoonnmmeenntt……..”” TThhee CCoolloorreedd AAmmeerriiccaann,, JJuullyy 88,, 11883377.. CCoolllleeccttiioonn ooff tthhee NNeeww-YYoorrkk HHiissttoorriiccaall SSoocciieettyy..

In the American legal system, if prisoners free on bail do not appear in court to answer charges as required – ifthey jump bail – the prison officials who released them are fined. When magistrates set bail, they are actuallysetting the amount of this fine. The bail money is set aside to protect the sheriff or other officials from the penal-ty if a prisoner runs away. Recorder Riker set William Dixon’s bail at $500. This letter makes clear how long theblack community worked to raise these funds and how they went about it

8888

Dixon (an alleged slave) vs. Allender (claimant)

Question on the writ de homine replegiande, in the case of a slave escaped from the service of his mas-ter; and as to the proof necessary to be exhibited.

August 1837.

A writ de homine replegiando was sued out in this case, by the alleged slave, and a motion wasnow made by the claimant to quash the writ, on the strength of the decision of this court in the case ofJack, a Negro man, v. Marin, 12 Wendell, 311.

H. Dresser, in opposition to the motion, insisted that the certificate granted by the recorder inthis case, to the claimant, was granted without such proof having been adduced as is required by thestatute on this subject, Laws of the U.S. vol. 2, p. 165, passed 12th February, 1793, and that thereforethe question of the constitutionality of the act of this state allowing the suing out of a writ de hominereplegiando did not arise. The proof exhibited to the recorder was not taken before and certified by amagistrate of the state from whence the alleged slave was said to have escaped. This he contended wasnecessary, and without it a certificate could not be legally granted. The language of the third section ofthe act is, “ upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affi-davit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized orarrested doth under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service,”&c. it shallbe the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate, &c. Language, he argued, could not bemore explicit, requiring the proof to be taken before and certified by a magistrate of the state from whichthe alleged slave had escaped. In the case of fugitives from justice, provided for by the first section ofthe same act, it had never been doubted that the affidavit charging the offence alleged to have been com-mitted, must be made before a magistrate of the state or territory from which the party was alleged tohave fled, and the uniform construction had been that the affidavit must be so taken; and he insisted thatthe phraseology of the third section demanded the same construction. If right in his construction of thestatue the writ de homine replegiando, he contended, ought not to be quashed.

The Court, Nelson, Ch. J. presiding, directed the motion to be suspended until the next specialterm; in the mean time the attorney for the plaintiff to have leave to prepare and serve his declaration,and the attorney for the defendant to have leave to plead the proceedings had before the recorder underthe act of congress, to which the plaintiff may demur, with the view to enter the formal judgment of thiscourt, so that the cause may be removed to the court of dernier resort in this state, for a final decisionupon constitutional question involved in the motion now made; be further directed that a record be madeup and presented to him for settlement previous to the entry of judgment thereon.

8899


Unit 22, DDocument ##7 ((Transcript)“Dixon (an alleged slave) vs. Allender (claimant).” John L. Wendell, Reports of the Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Judicature

and in the Court for the Correction of Errors of the State of New-York, Volume XVIII (Albany, 1839), 678-80.


9900

DDooccuummeenntt 77““DDiixxoonn ((aann aalllleeggeedd ssllaavvee)) vvss.. AAlllleennddeerr ((ccllaaiimmaanntt))..”” JJoohhnn LL.. WWeennddeellll,, RReeppoorrttss ooff tthhee CCaasseess AArrgguueedd aannddDDeetteerrmmiinneedd iinn tthhee SSuupprreemmee CCoouurrtt ooff JJuuddiiccaattuurree aanndd iinn tthhee CCoouurrtt ffoorr tthhee CCoorrrreeccttiioonn ooff EErrrroorrss ooff tthhee SSttaattee ooffNNeeww-YYoorrkk,, VVoolluummee XXVVIIIIII ((AAllbbaannyy,, 11883399)),, 667788-8800..

In 1834, three years before Dixon was captured, a very important case involving the writ de homine replegiandohad reached New York’s Supreme Court. In Jack, a negro man, v. Martin, Chief Justice Nelson had ruled thatthe writ could not prevent Martin from reclaiming the fugitive, who had admitted to being her former slave. (Formore information about Jack v. Martin, see the Dixon Case Chronology.) Hoping for a similar decision, Dr.Allender’s lawyers made a motion to quash, or cancel, the writ’s use in the case of William Dixon. The casecame before Justice Nelson, who was still Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, on August 1, 1837.

Note: This document provides the only known evidence that Recorder Riker had granted Dr. Allender’s certifi-cate – in other words, he had ruled that William Dixon should be returned to slavery in Baltimore.

9911


Unit 22, DDocument ##8“Sir, — It is with regret that I make….” The Colored American, September 9, 1837.



DDooccuummeenntt 88““SSiirr,, —— IItt iiss wwiitthh rreeggrreett tthhaatt II mmaakkee……..”” TThhee CCoolloorreedd AAmmeerriiccaann,, SSeepptteemmbbeerr 99,, 11883377.. CCoolllleeccttiioonn ooff tthhee NNeeww-YYoorrkk HHiissttoorriiccaall SSoocciieettyy..

Two weeks after Chief Justice Nelson postponed the Dixon case until the next special term of the SupremeCourt, David Ruggles wrote this letter to the Committee of Vigilance, apparently in response to a growingrumor.

9922

9933


Unit 22, DDocument ##9Minutes of the New York Manumission Society, Volume 11, November 9 and November 27, 1837.



9944

DDooccuummeenntt 99MMiinnuutteess ooff tthhee NNeeww YYoorrkk MMaannuummiissssiioonn SSoocciieettyy,, VVoolluummee 1111,, NNoovveemmbbeerr 99 aanndd NNoovveemmbbeerr 2277,, 11883377..CCoolllleeccttiioonn ooff tthhee NNeeww-YYoorrkk HHiissttoorriiccaall SSoocciieettyy..

The New York Manumission Society was founded in 1785 by prominent whites to help black people secure theirlegal rights. Among its early members were Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. The Society paid Horace Dresserto serve as William Dixon’s lawyer and provided other important services to the Committee of Vigilance, and toDixon himself, as these entries make clear.

Note: In these entries, “manumission” is written as “manumifsion.” An old form of the day’s date is used aswell: “11 mo. 27” is the 11th month, 27th day, or November 27.

Transcripts of the documents included below:

[November 9, 1837]

At a meeting of the Standing Committee of theNew York Manumifsion Society held at at M.Day's Store 11 mo. 9, 1837. -

Present: Barney Corse Chn.Mahlon DayJames KetchamJohn Hopper +Henry Wood

On motion it was resolved that the sub committeehaving charge of the case of Wm. Dixon who isnow in Canada be authorised to employ a personto bring him to this city and to pay one half of theexpense.

Then adj'd.

Henry Wood Secretary

[November 27, 1837]

At a meeting of the Standing Committee of theNew York Manumifsion Society held at M. Day'sstore 11 mo. 27, 1837 -

Present: Barney Corse Chn.Mahlon DayIsaac SherwoodJames KetchamJosiah Hopper +Henry Wood

The minutes of the last meeting were read andapproved.

A bill in favor of Barney Corse for Forty three87/100 Dollars expenses incurred in bringing W.Dixon from Canada and one in favor of D.Ruggles for $11. 48/100, ½ of W. Dixon's travel-ling expenses were presented to the committeeand audited.

43.8711.4855.35

The Committee then adj'd.

Henry Wood Sec'y

Free and joyous, however, as I was, joy was not the only sensation I experienced. It was likethe quick blaze, beautiful at the first, but which subsiding, leaves the building charred and desolate. Iwas soon taught that I was still in an enemy’s land. A sense of loneliness and insecurity oppressed mesadly. I had been but a few hours in New York, before I was met in the streets by a fugitive slave, wellknown to me, and the information I got from him respecting New York, did nothing to lessen my appre-hension of danger. The fugitive in question was “Allender’s Jake,” in Baltimore; but, said he, I am“William Dixon,” in New York! I knew Jake well, and knew when Tolly Allender and Mr. Price (for thelatter employed Master Hugh as his foreman, in his shipyard on Fell’s Point) made an attempt to recap-ture Jake, and failed. Jake told me all about his circumstances, and how narrowly he escaped beingtaken back to slavery; that the city was now full of southerners, returning from the springs; that theblack people in New York were not to be trusted; that there were hired men on the lookout for fugitivesfrom slavery, and who, for a few dollars, would betray me into the hands of the slave-catchers; that Imust trust no man with my secret; that I must not think of going either on the wharves to work, or to aboarding-house to board; and, worse still, this same Jake told me it was not in his power to help me. Heseemed, even while cautioning me, to be fearing lest, after all, I might be a party to a second attempt torecapture him. Under the inspirations of this thought, I must suppose it was, he gave signs of a wish toget rid of me, and soon left me – his whitewash brush in hand – as he said, for his work. He was soonlost to sight among the throng, and I was alone again, an easy prey to the kidnappers, if any should hap-pen to be on my track.

9955


Unit 22, DDocument ##10 ((Transcript)“Free and joyous, however, as I was….” Frederick Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom, 1855, p. 337-8.



DDooccuummeenntt 1100““FFrreeee aanndd jjooyyoouuss,, hhoowweevveerr,, aass II wwaass……..”” FFrreeddeerriicckk DDoouuggllaassss,, MMyy BBoonnddaaggee aanndd MMyy FFrreeeeddoomm,, 11885555,, pp.. 333377-88..

On September 4, 1838, a runaway slave from Baltimore arrived in New York City and was surprised to seesomeone he knew on the street. Just two days away from slavery, the runaway was still known as FrederickBailey. Later he would change his name to Frederick Douglass.

William Dixon was able to work and move about New York because his legal case was pending, but he clearlydid not feel safe from the threat of reenslavement.

9966

9977


Unit 22, DDocument ##11Minutes of the New York Manumission Society, Volume 11, February 20, 1839. Collection of the New-York Historical Society.

DDooccuummeenntt 1111MMiinnuutteess ooff tthhee NNeeww YYoorrkk MMaannuummiissssiioonn SSoocciieettyy,, VVoolluummee 1111,, FFeebbrruuaarryy 2200,, 11883399.. CCoolllleeccttiioonn ooff tthhee NNeeww-YYoorrkkHHiissttoorriiccaall SSoocciieettyy..

This entry appeared in the Manumission Society minutes almost two years after William Dixon was seized onhis way to work. It is the last known, significant mention of this case in official records or newspapers.

Note: In these entries, “manumission” is written as “manumifsion.” An old form of the day’s date is used aswell: “2 mo. 20” is the 2nd month, 20th day, or February 20.

Transcript of the document included below:


9988

[February 20, 1839]

At a meeting of the Standing Committee of the New York ManumifsionSociety held at Mahlon Day's store 2 mo. 20, 1839.

Present Edmund Willets Chn.John Wood E. Bway.Jas. KetchamJohn Bartlett +Henry Wood Sec'y.

The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved.

The following communication was rec'd. from the Secretary of the Society.

"At a Special meeting of the New York Manumifsion Society held 2 mo.13, 1839.

"It was on motion resolved, that the Standing Committee be authorised,(with the advice of a majority of the consul of the Society), if they shoulddeem it best, to prosecute the case of Dixon, before the Court of Errors atan expense of not exceeding Five hundred Dollars. -

Extracted from the minutesRichard Field, Sec'y."

Edmund Willets and Henry Wood were appointed to advise with the coun-selors of the Society relative to the case named in the foregoing minutesand report to a future meeting of this Committee.

The Committee then adjourned.

Henry Wood Secretary

9999


David RRuggles11881100-11884499

Runaway slaves had long set their sights on New York City, a crowdedplace where they could hide and live free. The black communityabsorbed them, protected them, gave them food and clothing and helpedthem if they wanted to escape further north. Southern slaveholdersknew there were many fugitives in New York, and they often hiredbounty hunters to comb the city and reclaim people they consideredtheir property. In the 1830s, kidnapping became a much greater problemfor black New Yorkers than it had been before. Federal law, city offi-cials, local newspapers, and many whites supported southerners’ right tocatch runaway slaves. Blacks had few means to fight back other thantrying to rescue a captive by ganging up on kidnappers, a tactic thatrarely worked.

In 1835, David Ruggles was one of several black leaders who formedthe New York Committee of Vigilance to mount an organized black

response to kidnappings. As the Committee’s staff person, he was responsible for many of the cleverest and mostaggressive efforts to help fugitives and thwart slave catchers. In its first year, the Committee helped rescue fugi-tives at the rate of one a day. There is no record of how many more people were lost to the South before theCommittee, or anyone else, knew they were missing.

In the summer of 1836, two free black men – Abraham Goslee and George Jones – were captured, broughtbefore Recorder Riker, and turned over to slave owners. For Ruggles and others in the Committee of Vigilance,these events were the turning point, the moment when anger and helplessness became action and resolve. Theblack community focused on the need for public trials so that fugitives’ cases would follow the established rulesthat governed other legal suits. Ruggles also argued that it was time to stop relying on whites in the New YorkManumission Society and the American Anti-Slavery Society, and time for blacks to defend themselves in what-ever ways they could. “Let a remedy be prescribed to protect us from slavery! Whenever necessity requires, letthat remedy be applied….Come what will, anything is better than slavery!”

The Committee of Vigilance looked for cases that would help it make the legal argument in favor of jury trials,cases that would ignite public outrage, cases there was a fair chance of winning. When William Dixon wasarrested, white abolitionist Henry C. Wright sent a long article to William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator, callingthis the most important kidnapping case that had come up in New York — important because Dixon seemed sodignified and so obviously innocent. Crowds of white New Yorkers attended the proceedings and were incensedby what they heard. It seemed clear to most onlookers that Dixon had never been a slave in Baltimore. One mancommented that the case was “enough to abolitionize us all.” David Ruggles probably knew the truth, but healso knew that admitting to being a runaway would cost William Dixon his freedom. Everyone must believe thatDixon was wrongly accused.

William Dixon’s case was one of several used by the Committee of Vigilance, with New York ManumissionSociety lawyers, to challenge the laws that permitted blacks to be seized and enslaved in the South. As the caseslowly made its way through the courts, David Ruggles kept the story in the public eye. He wrote article after

David Ruggles, Engraving. The Amistad Research Centerat Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana


110000

article, detailing its progress for the Colored American, fanning the public’s justified outrage. Editor Samuel EliCornish praised Ruggles’s work and published his articles, as well as letters and committee reports that helpedreaders stay up-to-date on Dixon’s case. At the same time, kidnappings continued in New York.

David Ruggles was never one to fight quietly or politely. He protested, spoke out, agitated, and took risks. Heurged black men – and women, too – to oppose the abductions, to fight back. He named the kidnappers in print,pointed them out so blacks would recognize them on the street. He sought out southern slaves who had beenbrought by their owners to New York and told them they were legally free if they had been living in the state formore than nine months. When kidnapped blacks were taken before Recorder Riker, Ruggles brought in witness-es to swear that the person was free, just as the slave catchers found witnesses to swear otherwise.

For his efforts, David Ruggles was jailed more than once and nearly kidnapped himself. He was also in frequentconflict with Samuel Cornish, a more conservative man who found Ruggles’s behavior dangerous to the cause.Many in the Committee of Vigilance agreed with Cornish, and the friction eventually resulted in forcing Rugglesout of the Committee in 1840. The episode left Ruggles discouraged and out of money just as he was fightingthe onset of blindness and other health problems. With the help of two white abolitionists, he moved to a com-munity of radicals in Northampton, Massachusetts, where he continued to fight for abolition. He was still ayoung man when he died of an infection in 1849.

Sources: American National Biography, s.v. “Ruggles, David”; Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1999); C. Peter Ripley, ed., “Founding the New York Committee of Vigilance,” The Black Abolitionist Papers, Volume III(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985); Graham Russell Hodges, “David Ruggles: The Hazards of Anti-Slavery Journalism,” downloadedat http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/msj/courage.summer2000/y02.html, accessed 5/13/06.

110011


Samuel EEli CCornishcc.. 11779955-11885588

Samuel Cornish knew how whites watched and judged black people. Henoticed how many whites who read black newspapers were critical ofpoor writing, or bad behavior, or what they deemed uppity ideas. In 1827,Cornish and John Russwurm had founded Freedom’s Journal, the nation’sfirst black newspaper, though Cornish left after a few months. In March1837, just before William Dixon was kidnapped, Cornish began publish-ing the Colored American. He carefully watched over every word printedin the newspaper and he watched himself as well – he wrote well, dressedwell, acted according to the rules followed by middle-class whites. Heworried that the way the black masses lived, most of them poor, uneducat-ed, and working in menial jobs, fueled white prejudice and held back therace. Some blacks thought Samuel Cornish looked down on his own peo-ple.

Like many whites, Cornish believed that women should stay out of publiclife, but he had special reason for this view: he knew that black women had been brutally mistreated by slaveryand thought that black men should create a safe and protected home for their wives and daughters. He brokeranks with the American Anti-Slavery Society in part because William Lloyd Garrison, the well-known whiteBostonian who led the Society, had started to argue for women’s rights and even to allow female abolitionists tospeak at meetings.

In all these respects, Samuel Cornish was David Ruggles’s direct opposite, but the two men had much in com-mon. Both were committed abolitionists and both were outraged by the American Colonization Society’s propos-al to send free American blacks to Africa. Both men worked diligently in the New York Committee of Vigilanceto protect blacks from slave catchers. Ruggles took care of most of the Committee’s day-to-day work. Cornish, amember of the Committee’s leadership, helped map out the group’s strategies and also published Ruggles’saccounts of his work in the Colored American. During the late 1830s, Samuel Cornish’s newspaper was blackNew York’s main source of information. It helped create a sense of shared identity and to focus people’s rageover the epidemic of kidnapping in the city. During the years when William Dixon’s case remained unresolved,the Colored American printed more stories about it than any other newspaper.

Soon after its founding, the Committee of Vigilance began working to press the State of New York to mandate ajury trial for fugitive slaves. The goal was to put an end to City Recorder Richard Riker’s control and to bringthese cases into the higher court system where they could be argued in public, before a jury. The Committeewaged this battle on two fronts. First was within the court system itself. With Horace Dresser and the New YorkManumission Society, the Committee made use of the few legal tools available to prevent Recorder Riker fromimmediately sending kidnapped blacks to the South. The hope was that, one by one, the cases might progress toa jury trial.

The second front involved the petition campaign that Samuel Cornish and Henry Highland Garnet began inFebruary 1837. Collecting signatures of black people and sympathetic whites throughout New York State, theyplanned use the petitions to pressure the New York legislature to pass three needed laws. One law would end the

The Reverend Samuel Eli Cornish. Engraving.Collection of the New-York Historical Society.


110022

rule that allowed southern visitors to keep their slaves in New York for up to nine months. One would eliminatethe special property requirements designed to keep most blacks from voting in the state. And one would requirea jury trial for fugitive slave cases. Petition campaigns had been tried before, mostly without success, but thisone was particularly well organized and had the Colored American behind it.

For a man with Samuel Cornish’s outlook, petitions probably seemed an ideal way to work for black rights with-out affronting and alienating whites. The signed petitions followed established procedures and presented NewYork’s black population as respectful, committed, intelligent, and literate. When the legislature tabled the firstpetitions, new petitions were circulated and resubmitted. With each setback, the pages of the Colored Americankept readers informed and helped build determination to improve the legal rights of black people in New York.

Cornish’s great newspaper always struggled under financial burdens. The Colored American was not able topublish consistently, sometimes skipping several weeks between issues, and shut down for good at the end of1841. Cornish had resigned as editor in 1839. All of this may explain why the outcome of William Dixon’s casewas not detailed in its pages, which had so carefully followed the earlier progress of this suit. After the ColoredAmerica fell silent, New York City had no black newspaper, and would not have another for many years tocome.

Sources: American National Biography, s.v. “Cornish, Samuel Eli”; Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City,1626-1863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003); David E. Swift, Black Prophets of Justice: Activist Clergy Before the Civil War (Baton Rouge:Louisiana State University Press, 1989).

110033


Kezia MManning aand JJesse HHarrod

On April 12, 1837, Kezia Manning and Jesse Harrod stood in the hugecrowd of blacks in a park near City Hall. William Dixon was inside,appearing before City Recorder Riker. Just a few days earlier, a blackfugitive named George Thompson had been grabbed, and a crowd had col-lected outside the court house then, too. They had waited all night, willingto do anything to protect Thompson, but Recorder Riker paid them noattention. Thompson had been taken to a ship and was now headed backto slavery in the South. The crowd was enraged to think that could happenagain and determined to prevent it.

The court proceedings dragged on, and the crowd of 2000 or more grewagitated. Then the court house door finally opened, and Sheriff Lowndsbegan leading Dixon across the park toward Bridewell prison. A voiceyelled “To the rescue!” and great numbers of people, both men and

women, surged forward and attacked Dixon’s captors. Someone tossed Dixon a knife and a dagger, and after amoment of confusion, he ran off. He was later found and taken to prison.

Justice of the Peace John Bloodgood was not involved in the case, but he was watching from the court house asthe crowd rushed toward Sheriff Lownds. He called for police help, and the men raced out to help fight thecrowd. As he neared Sheriff Lownds, Bloodgood was “violently seized” around the neck from behind by KeziaManning. Someone tackled the justice and threw him to the ground. Jesse Harrod struck Bloodgood severaltimes and held him by the neck. As several other blacks assaulted Justice Bloodgood, Harrod ran off. The policecaught him as he was climbing under the fence that bordered the park.

Two days later, Kezia Manning and Jesse Harrod were indicted for assaulting Justice Bloodgood. Others whohad been involved had escaped in the crowd. Manning and Harrod, imprisoned in Bridewell, were to appearbefore the next Court of General Sessions, where the city’s criminal cases were tried.

On June 3, 1837, the day before Manning’s scheduled appearance in court, Sheriff Lownds wrote a brief note toDistrict Attorney Phoenix. It said that Manning was “so unwell as to be unable to come out,” and asked that hercase be postponed until the following term of the General Sessions. Lownds’s note mentioned a letter from aphysician, but the surviving court papers include no such letter. It might have explained what caused Manning’shealth to fail. With only the sheriff’s wording to go by, it is unclear if she became ill in prison, where contagiousoutbreaks were common, or if she was beaten for attacking Justice Bloodgood.

The same question surrounds the fate of Jesse Harrod. The court records contain another letter, dated September17, 1837, written by Sheriff Lownds and cosigned by John M. Bloodgood. The letter is brief and avoids usingHarrod’s name: “In consideration of the death of the person indicted with Kezia Manning and her ill healthJustice Bloodgood…does not wish to proceed against her.”

Eventually, news of Jesse Harrod’s death and Kezia Manning’s continuing poor health would reach the blackpeople of New York. It would serve as yet another warning about the risks of fighting white authority — and asa stark reminder of the need to do so.

Sources: Jno. M. Bloodgood v. Kezia Manning and Jesse Harrod, District Attorney Indictment Papers, 14 April 1837, New York City Municipal Archives,Microfilm Roll 171; Samuel Eli Cornish, “To the Thoughtless Part of our Colored Citizens,” The Colored American, April 15, 1837; Henry C. Wright,“Kidnapping in New-York!!” The Liberator, April 21, 1837.

“Anthony Burns,” (detail). John Andrews, engraver,ca. 1855. The Library of Congress Prints andPhotographs Division LC-USZ62-90750.

110055


Richard RRikerRichard Riker enjoyed any opportunity to praise southern slave holders.More than once, he called them “men of undoubted character andrespectability.” He was not the only New Yorker who held this opinion,but as the City Recorder for most of the 1830s, he was in a unique positionto act on it. Almost alone, he determined what happened to people seizedas fugitive slaves in New York City. He sent nearly all of them to slaveryin the South.

Southern slave owners went to great lengths to retrieve runaways, not onlybecause the slaves were valuable but because the public punishment ofreturned runaways served as a powerful warning to any slave consideringescape. Sometimes the owners came to New York themselves, but fre-

quently they simply gave bounty hunters a description of a runaway – for example, a stocky 30-year-old manwith a scar on his cheek. Bounty hunters might seize someone who fit the description, or they might bribe ablack person to lead them to a runaway. The best-known and most successful of the paid slave catchers wereTobias Boudinot and Daniel Nash. Abolitionists called them and their accomplices the Kidnapping Club, andthey considered Riker a club member as well because he turned over so many captured blacks.

Richard Riker, like all recorders in New York State, was a state-appointed official who served the city. Boudinotwas a Third Ward constable. Official New York seemed to be on the side of the slave catchers, since no authori-ties challenged the Kidnapping Club, which worked with grim speed and efficiency. The slave catchers and theircaptive would be brought as quickly as possible before Recorder Riker. A few white witnesses would be broughtin to swear that the captured person was a runaway slave; some were paid to lie. Many captives had no lawyer,and there was never a jury. A captive could be placed on a ship headed south within a few hours of seizure.

In late March 1837, Boudinot, Nash, and the Manumission Society lawyer Horace Dresser appeared beforeRecorder Riker. The captive, George Thompson, had admitted to being the runaway in question. When Rikerseemed indecisive about the case, Dresser told Thompson he was free to go. Boudinot’s power is apparent inwhat happened next: he grabbed Thompson, jailed him in Bridewell, and then took him to a southbound ship.All this took place just days before William Dixon was seized and the same cast of characters appeared inRecorder Riker’s chambers.

In Dixon’s case, Horace Dresser and the Committee of Vigilance were using some different strategies, whichmay have been made possible by a week-long delay between Dixon’s capture and his court appearance. To beginwith, Dresser petitioned for the writ de homine replegiando in Dixon’s name. Riker had found cause to deny thiswrit before, but he issued it now and set Dixon’s bail at $500. He may have decided to grant the writ because thecourt room was jammed with onlookers, so many that the proceedings had to be moved out of the usual smallchamber to the larger Court of General Sessions. In the week between Dixon’s arrest and his first court appear-ance, his supporters had apparently been busy spreading the word to build this court room audience. Severalreporters were in attendance. Some came from newspapers like the Herald, which could be relied on to treatRichard Riker with respect. Others, though, wrote for the anti-slavery papers; on the first day, abolitionist HenryC. Wright sat next to Dixon and scribbled constantly, as if in a rage.

Then there was the mob action outside the court house, and the assault on Justice Bloodgood. Riker was not a

“Drawing for Proposed City Hall,” 1802. Library ofCongress Prints and Photographs Division. LC-USZC4-7.


110066

young man, and he may have wondered if the crowd’s rage would turn on him. He knew he was recognized andhated in the black community. He may even have had doubts about Dixon’s identity after some white witnessestestified that Dixon was absolutely not Dr. Allender’s slave as others contended.

In the end, Riker may have been rattled by the unusual course of events and by all the attention paid to the case.Boudinot and Nash were accustomed to quick action, but Riker refused to be pushed to an early decision.Instead he tried to show himself a reasonable man. He told Dixon he would not hold the mob’s actions againsthim, since Dixon had had no role in planning it and only ran when pushed to do so, a detail reported in severalabolitionist newspapers. When Justice Bloodgood noisily interrupted the trial to produce two pistols he said hadbeen taken from people in the mob, Riker advised him to show less emotion and to be cautious about confusingthe innocent with the guilty.

Recorder Riker let the Dixon testimony drag on. He closed the proceedings for a week, saying he was busy. Inlate April, he postponed the case for several weeks more. In July, he finally found in Dr. Allender’s favor andissued the certificate the slave owner needed. He did this after, and maybe because, Dixon had been freed onbail in early July. It was his last official action in the case.

Other New York magistrates appear to have been unnerved by William Dixon’s case. In October 1837, while itwas still pending, Henry Metscher was arrested by Boudinot and Nash. Recorder Riker was not in his office, sothe man was brought before Justice Bloodgood, who refused to interfere in the matter. Then Judge Betts refusedto hear the case. Judge Ulshoeffer refused as well, saying it was “another abolition case – I’ll not meddle withit.” In the meantime, Recorder Riker returned and said he was willing to jail the prisoner but not to go any fur-ther until the Dixon case was resolved.

Recorder Riker retired from his long career as city recorder around 1840.

Sources: “Another Slave Case,” The Colored American, October 21, 1837; Fergus M. Bordewich, Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and theWar for the Soul of America (New York: HarperCollins, 2005); Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-186(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 208-15, 271; “The Alleged Fugitive from Justice,” The Colored American, April 8, 1837; “Slave Case – No.3,” The Colored American, May 9, 1840; “Slave Case – No. 3, Concluded,” The Colored American, May 16, 1840; “Trial by Jury, in Questions of PersonalFreedom,” American Jurist and Law Magazine, Volume 17, April, 1827; John L. Wendell, Reports of the Cases Argued and Determined in the SupremeCourt of Judicature and in the Court for the Correction of Errors of the State of New-York, Volume XVIII (Albany, New York: Wm. and A. Gould andCompany, 1839).

William DDixonOn the morning of April 4, 1837, William Dixon was getting ready forwork as usual. His wife was not feeling well when he said good-bye andleft their home on the corner of Hester Street and the Bowery. A man in histhirties, tall and powerfully built, he usually found work sawing wood orwhitewashing buildings or fences. He did not work on Sundays, which hedevoted to the Zion Church. He sang in the choir.

No sooner had Dixon reached the street than he was seized by three men:a Baltimore policeman and two New Yorkers Dixon probably knew well,Tobias Boudinot and Daniel Nash. They pushed him into a carriage andtook him to Bridewell Prison. It was all over in seconds, but someone waswatching. Before the end of the day, the New York Manumission Societyknew that Dixon was in prison, that he had been claimed as a slave by aDr. Allender of Baltimore, who said the man’s name was Jake and that hehad run away in June 1832.

Most fugitive slave cases were dispatched with great speed, sometimeswithin hours of capture. But William Dixon spent a week in Bridewell

Prison, in a tiny, airless stone cell, before he was brought to Recorder Riker’s chambers. This delay may havebeen related to Riker’s schedule, as he claimed to be very busy during the month. Whatever the cause, lawyerHorace Dresser and the members of the New York Committee of Vigilance put the delay to good use. Theyfound people willing to testify on Dixon’s behalf. And they talked to Dixon himself. If he told them he had beenDr. Allender’s slave, they surely coached him not to admit this, ever. If he did, he would be returned to slavery.

Everyone who worked on behalf of fugitive slaves – the Committee of Vigilance, the black community, theManumission Society, white abolitionists – had had a recent hard lesson in fighting kidnappers. It was a fightthey lost, and the case of a fugitive slave named George Thompson was now on many people’s minds.Thompson had admitted in prison that he was the runaway being sought. As William Dixon sat in Bridewellprison, the Colored American reported that Thompson was on a southbound ship and that he had been “cruellytreated.”

After a week in prison, William Dixon was brought before Recorder Riker. He bowed respectfully and said, ascalmly as he could, that he was a freeman, that he had a wife whom he loved, that it was hard to be thrown injail just because he was a colored man claiming to be free. At the end of the first day, Recorder Riker orderedthe prisoner returned to Bridewell. The following day testimony resumed. As Dixon was led across the park bythe Sheriff and his deputy, a huge crowd of black people rushed toward them. Someone slipped Dixon a knifeand a dagger and told him to run. He was not sure what to do, but eventually he ran several blocks and hid in abasement on Duane Street. He was chased, caught, and taken to Bridewell.

The court case continued, and witnesses appeared on both sides. Then the court appearances stopped around theend of April, with no decision from Riker, and Dixon spent day after day in his cell. He was not free, but neitherwas he on a ship headed to Baltimore. Finally, one day in early July, Dixon was let out of Bridewell on bailmoney raised by the Committee of Vigilance. Soon after, Recorder Riker reached a decision in Dr. Allender’sfavor. But Dr. Allender could not make use of the certificate that gave him custody of the man he called Jake,

110077


“Whitewasher.” From [William] Croome for City Cries,or A Peep at Scenes in Town , 1850. Collection ofthe New-York Historical Society.


110088

perhaps because he could not find him. The Committee of Vigilance had helped William Dixon get to Canada.He remained there until mid-November, when Barney Corse, a white man who belonged to the ManumissionSociety, traveled to Canada and brought him home. It is not known why Dixon was brought back to New York atthis time, but it is possible that some development occurred in his case that required his appearance in court.

William Dixon’s case remained unresolved, however. He could not feel safe for many, many months, as hisnervous behavior toward Frederick Douglass makes clear. As late as February 1839, there was still a possibilitythat his case would appear before the New York State Court of Errors. Judging from all available records, thisnever happened, though some agreement may have been reached that gave Dixon his freedom. The best evi-dence for this outcome is the U.S. Census. In 1840, Dixon was listed as a “free colored person” and was livingwith his wife in his old neighborhood. So despite the untold numbers of free blacks who had been kidnappedand taken into slavery, William Dixon was one actual runaway who went free.

His life was not easy, though. In the 1850 census, he was among the inmates in city prison, at a time when theprison was crowded with blacks and Irish immigrants, New York’s very poorest residents. He was still listing hisoccupation as whitewasher. He was charged with a felony, though it is not known what crime he committed, ifany. But his landing in prison may be one indication of the strains and pressures he endured as a 50-year-oldblack man recovering from the long trauma of his trial and struggling to get by on low-paying work in a pro-southern, pro-slavery city.

Sources: Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999);“Kidnapping by American Law,” New York Evangelist, May 6, 1837; Henry C. Wright, “Another Kidnapping in New York!!” The Liberator, April 21,1837; The Colored American, April 15, 1837, July 8, 1837, September 9, 1837, October 21, 1837, December 9, 1837, January 10, 1838, January 20, 1838,May 8, 1840; The Herald, April 12, 1837, April 19, 1837, April 25, 1837; New York Manumission Society Papers, Ms., New-York Historical SocietyLibrary, Minutes, Volumes 8 and 11.

110099


The DDixon CCase CChronology The items in the Document Set for Black Vigilance were selected to show the major developments in WilliamDixon’s case over a two-year period. The following chronology is based on these items as well as others, mostlynewspaper articles, that were not included in the set but which shed light on the case. A complete list of refer-ences appears in the sources at the end of this chronology.

JJuullyy 11883344The New York State Supreme Court decided the fugitive slave case of Jack, a negro man, v. Martin. ChiefJustice Nelson ruled that the writ de homine replegiando did not prevent the slave owner, Mary Martin, fromreclaiming the man called Jack, who had admitted he was Martin’s runaway slave. On the divisive question ofwhether states could write laws concerning fugitive slaves, Nelson wrote that “the right of legislation on thissubject belongs exclusively to the national government.” In a response to the decision, Reuben H. Walworth,Chancellor of New York – the highest legal officer in the state after the governor — wrote that if a fugitiveadmitted to being a runaway slave, or if this was proven in court, the law required that the person be returned tothe slave owner. He noted, however, that questions about a captive’s identity often arose. In these cases, he didnot believe that the framers of the Constitution intended to leave a person’s liberty exclusively in the hands of“an inferior state magistrate.” He voiced his support of the right of individual states to write laws dealing withfugitive slaves. As the Dixon case moved through the courts, Chancellor Walworth’s opinion was widely dis-cussed and reprinted in the abolitionist press.

LLaattee MMaarrcchh,, 11883377Tricked by a paid black informant, a gardener and runaway slave named George Thompson was kidnapped byBoudinot and Nash. Thompson admitted to being the fugitive in question and was returned to slavery on Sunday,April 2.

AApprriill 44,, 11883377 ((TTuueessddaayy))William Dixon was arrested and confined in Bridewell prison.

AApprriill 1111,, 11883377 ((TTuueessddaayy))William Dixon’s court case began before City Recorder Richard Riker. Dixon’s lawyer, Horace Dresser, peti-tioned for a writ de homine replegiando, which Riker issued. Dixon made his only address to the court.

AApprriill 1122,, 11883377 ((WWeeddnneessddaayy))Witnesses appeared for both sides. Some, both black and white, argued that Dixon was not the former slave ofDr. Allender of Baltimore. Others testified to the contrary. After the case was adjourned, a huge crowd of blackmen and women tossed weapons to Dixon and helped him escape briefly. Justice Bloodgood came to assist theSheriff and was attacked by Kezia Manning and Jesse Harrod, who were imprisoned in Bridewell.

AApprriill 1133,, 11883377 ((TThhuurrssddaayy))Testimony continued with witnesses for and against Dixon.

AApprriill 1144,, 11883377 ((FFrriiddaayy))Kezia Manning and Jesse Harrod were indicted for the attack on Justice Bloodgood.


111100

AApprriill 1155,, 11883377 ((SSaattuurrddaayy))The Colored American ran Samuel Eli Cornish’s criticism of mob violence in the Dixon case, and especially ofthe role women had played.

AApprriill 1177,, 11883377 ((MMoonnddaayy))Testimony continued with witnesses on both sides.

AApprriill 2244,, 11883377 ((MMoonnddaayy))More witnesses testified on both sides. Riker adjourned the case indefinitely, blaming his busy schedule. Dixonremained in jail, where he had been confined since his arrest.

EEaarrllyy JJuullyy 11883377William Dixon was released on bail.

JJuullyy 11883377After Dixon was freed on bail, Recorder Riker reached a decision in Dr. Allender’s favor. He granted the slaveowner the required certificate to take Dixon back to Baltimore as a slave.

JJuullyy 1177,, 11883377 ((MMoonnddaayy))In a letter to the New York State Supreme Court, Dr. Allender’s lawyers requested either that the case be setaside as contrary to the Constitution and the laws of Congress, or that the writ de homine replegiando in thiscase be cancelled or “quashed.” The letter requested an August 1 court date.

AAuugguusstt 11,, 11883377 ((TTuueessddaayy))The motion to quash the writ de homine replegiando came before the New York State Supreme Court. HoraceDresser argued that evidence against Dixon had not been certified by a Maryland judge, as the law required, sothe constitutionality of the writ was not at issue. Justice Nelson suspended the motion to quash the writ until thenext special term of the court. Lawyers for both sides were asked to prepare their arguments for an eventualappearance before the Court of Errors, the highest court in New York State.

AAuugguusstt 1144,, 11883377 ((MMoonnddaayy))David Ruggles informed the Committee of Vigilance that William Dixon was in hiding. His letter suggests thatDixon “retired to the country” after Recorder Riker issued the certificate to Dr. Allender. Though not stated inthe letter, Dixon had been safely transported to Canada.

SSeepptteemmbbeerr 1177,, 11883377 ((SSuunnddaayy))Justice Bloodgood dropped his case against Kezia Manning, noting that she was too ill to appear in court, andthat Jesse Harrod was dead.

OOccttoobbeerr 11883377A man named Henry Metscher was seized as a fugitive. Three judges refused to hear the case while Dixon’s caseremained undecided. City Recorder Riker was willing to jail the man but to go no further.

NNoovveemmbbeerr 11883377Between November 9 and 27, Barney Corse of the New York Manumission Society traveled to Canada to bringWilliam Dixon back to New York. No record indicates why Dixon was retrieved from Canada at this time, but

111111


he was obliged by law to appear in court whenever needed; possibly there were developments in his case.

SSeepptteemmbbeerr 44,, 11883388 ((TTuueessddaayy))On a New York City street, William Dixon ran into a man he had known when both were slaves in Baltimore.The recent fugitive would soon take the name Frederick Douglass.

FFeebbrruuaarryy 2200,, 11883399 ((WWeeddnneessddaayy))In the last reference to the Dixon case entered in its minutes, the New York Manumission Society authorized theStanding Committee to pursue Dixon’s case before the Court of Errors “if they should deem it best,” and moneywas set aside to cover costs.

11884400William Dixon appeared as a “free colored person” in the U.S. Census for New York, living with his wife in hisold neighborhood.

11885500In the U.S. Census, a 50-year-old whitewasher named William Dixon was listed among the inmates of cityprison, charged with an unspecified felony.

Important NNote:There is no record that William Dixon’s case ever came before the New York Court of Errors. The records mayhave been lost, but it is also possible that the case was withdrawn, or that the two sides reached an agreement,since both had something to lose. If Dr. Allender won, William Dixon would lose his freedom. If William Dixonwon, Dr. Allender would lose what he saw as his property, and perhaps more important, the writ de hominereplegiando would be strengthened in future slave cases. Pro-slavery forces may have advised Dr. Allender todrop the case rather than risk this outcome. The State of New York was increasingly opposed to slavery, an anti-slavery man had been elected governor, and Chief Justice Nelson had not immediately found in Dr. Allender’sfavor, so a decision in Dixon’s favor may have looked likely.

Sources: The Colored American, April 15, 1837, April 29, 1837, July 8, 1837, August 5, 1837, August 12, 1837, September 30, 1837, October 21, 1837,December 9, 1837, January 20, 1838, April 18, 1840, May 9, 1840; The Herald, April 12, 1837, April 13, 1837, April 14, 1837, April 19, 1837, April 25,1837; “Jno. M. Bloodgood v. Kezia Manning and Jesse Harrod,” District Attorney Indictment Papers, 14 April 1837, New York City Municipal Archives,Microfilm Roll 171; “Judicial: Case of William Dixon,” The Philanthropist, August 4, 1837; “Kidnapping By American Law,” New York Evangelist, May6, 1837; “Kidnapping in New-York!!” The Liberator, April 21, 1837; New York Manumission Society Papers, Ms., New-York Historical Society,Minutes, Vol. 8, February 13, 1839 and Vol. 11, April 4, 1837, April 8, 1837, June 21, 1837, July 11, 1837, July 26, 1837, October 12, 1837, November 9,1837, November 27, 1837, January 2, 1837, February 8, 1839, February 20, 1839; “Trial by Jury, in Questions of Personal Freedom,” American Jurist andLaw Magazine, April 1837; John L. Wendell, “Dixon (an alleged slave) vs. Allender (claimant),” Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the SupremeCourt of Judicature and in the Court for the Correction of Errors of the State of New-York (Albany, 1839), 678; Jacob D. Wheeler, “Jack, a negro man, v.Martin,” A Practical Treatise of the Law of Slavery, Being a Compilation of all the Decisions Made on that Subject, in the Several Courts of the UnitedStates, and State Courts (New York, 1837), 384.

111133


Strategies ffor FFighting KKidnappersThe case of William Dixon tells the story of the black community organizing to fight kidnappers and save oneman’s liberty. This effort involved a number of creative strategies, as the documents and life stories show. Thesestrategies are summarized below.

FFoorrmm tthhee NNeeww YYoorrkk CCoommmmiitttteeee ooff VViiggiillaannccee..There was no organized effort to fight slave owners and slave catchers until a mostly black group established theNew York Committee of Vigilance in 1835. Part of a concerted movement toward black autonomy, the formationof the Committee was the single most important step in protecting free blacks and fugitive slaves from capture.In addition, the Committee gave runaways food, shelter, clothing, and access to the Underground Railroad ifthey wished to move further north.

WWoorrkk wwiitthh tthhee NNeeww YYoorrkk MMaannuummiissssiioonn SSoocciieettyy.. David Ruggles at one point wanted to free the black community from reliance on white abolitionists andlawyers, but both remained critical to kidnapped blacks. The New York Manumission Society, founded byprominent whites in 1785 to help blacks secure their legal rights, paid lawyer Horace Dresser to take on all thekidnap cases brought by the Committee of Vigilance. So the two groups worked together as one team on caseafter case, learning valuable lessons.

UUssee aavvaaiillaabbllee lleeggaall ttoooollss.. The right of slave owners to reclaim fugitives who escaped to another state was written into the U.S.Constitution. In 1793, the nation’s first Fugitive Slave Law determined how people captured as fugitives wouldbe returned to owners: they would be brought before a local magistrate who would hear testimony and determineif the captive was the escaped slave. The absence of a jury and the speed with which hearings were held madethe trials all but secret, and they frequently resulted in fugitives being enslaved. Some northern states passedwhat were known as personal liberty laws to increase the rights of fugitives, but since the U.S. Constitution tookprecedence, their right to do so was in question. So northern abolitionists, looking for a way to press for a jurytrial for individual fugitives, resurrected a medieval British legal tool called the writ de homine replegiando. Itallowed a prisoner to be released on bail and also required that the case be heard by a jury. (For more informa-tion on de homine replegiando, see the Unit 2 Background piece.)

PPrreeppaarree DDiixxoonn.. William Dixon may never have admitted to the Committee of Vigilance that he had been Dr. Allender’s slave inBaltimore. But given the witnesses who apparently lied on Dixon’s behalf – witnesses who were probably linedup and coached by Ruggles and Dresser — it seems more likely that he did admit as much at some point duringthe week he spent in Bridewell after his capture. If so, he was surely warned not to say this in public. In warningWilliam Dixon on this issue, Dresser, Ruggles, and Cornish would have been looking to build public support andoutrage for an apparently innocent man. More important, they would have had their eyes on an eventualSupreme Court appearance. An admission from Dixon would oblige the courts to return him to Allender. It hadhappened before.

PPuubblliicciizzee tthhee ccaassee.. The hands of David Ruggles and Samuel Cornish become especially apparent here. The black community andwhite abolitionists were all aware of the case early on, and also of its importance. George Thompson’s terriblefate no doubt haunted them, and many came to court to watch the proceedings. So did the press. The abolitionist


111144

newspapers covered the events, as did general circulation (and pro-slavery) newspapers like the Herald.Cornish’s Colored American followed the case in detail and printed background information, such as minutesfrom the Committee of Vigilance meetings, letters written by Ruggles about the case, notice of public meetings,etc.

SShhooww SSoolliiddaarriittyy.. The mob scene that resulted in Dixon’s brief escape — and imprisonment and worse for Kezia Manning andJesse Harrod — was certainly not a tactic Samuel Cornish would have recommended. David Ruggles, however,may have helped to keep people informed about the court proceedings and focus their anger. He may have pro-moted a large gathering in the park without necessarily suggesting that the crowd attack or carry weapons. Themassive show of resolve was surely meant as a warning to New York’s white powers.

FFiinndd WWiittnneesssseess.. A number of people, black and white, were willing to testify convincingly – lie, in some cases – that Dixon hadbeen in the North well before 1832 and therefore could not possibly have been Allender’s slave. This tactic mayhave seemed fair play, given how often false witnesses had appeared in Riker’s court on the side of the kidnap-pers.

RRaaiissee MMoonneeyy.. This required the usual donations of a penny a week that women raised to support the Committee of Vigilance,but it also included specific fund-raising events and loans. Putting together William Dixon’s $500 bail was noteasy.

PPrroovviiddee EEssccaappee.. When Dixon was out on bail, the Committee of Vigilance feared that he would be kidnapped outright and takento slavery in the South. They sent him to Canada for his safety, probably using Ruggles’s Underground Railroadconnections to avoid the slave catchers Boudinot and Nash.

HHeellpp NNeeww FFuuggiittiivveess.. As Dixon’s case was being considered, fugitives continued to arrive in New York City. Frederick Bailey, wholater renamed himself Frederick Douglass, had been free less than two days when he met Dixon on the street.Frightened of what his old acquaintance might say, Dixon still gave him important warnings about how toremain safe in New York. Later, a sailor directed Douglass to David Ruggles, who sheltered him and helped himescape to New Bedford, Massachusetts.

Sources: Fergus M. Bordewich, Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America (New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2005); Leslie M. Harris, In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,2004. Special thanks to James Folts, Head of Reference Services, New York State Archives, who helped trace the case of William Dixon through the NewYork State Court System and offered valuable perspective on the case. Thanks as well to Leonora Gidlund, Director of the Municipal Archives, City ofNew York, and Bruce Abrams, Archivist, New York County Clerk’s Office.

111155


PostscriptGGeeoorrggee TThhoommppssoonn.. In two long articles published in the spring of 1840, the Colored American brought readers up to date on thecase of fugitive slave George Thompson. After he was returned to the South, Thompson was tried and convictedof stealing the master’s boat many years earlier in order to flee with 17 other runaways. Thompson had admittedthe theft and the escape when first captured in New York. He was punished by being “whipped, and burnt in thehands.” Slave catcher Daniel Nash, who had brought Thompson back to his owner, witnessed the whipping andapplied the burning iron to Thompson’s hands himself. This detail was probably not known in the early days ofWilliam Dixon’s case.

WWiinnnniinngg tthhee RRiigghhtt ttoo JJuurryy TTrriiaall.. With the support of anti-slavery Governor William Seward, the New York State Legislature passed a law in 1840granting a jury trial to all persons claimed as fugitive slaves. One of many personal liberty laws passed by north-ern states to counteract the 1793 Fugitive Slave Law, it contained a number of clauses that made legally taking arunaway from New York State almost impossible. It gave New York blacks some of the greatest legal protectionsavailable anywhere in the country.

SSoouutthheerrnn RReettaalliiaattiioonn.. Because the new law protected blacks in New York, and because so many runaway slaves were in New YorkCity, the Commonwealth of Virginia fought New York’s trial-by-jury law. It threatened to disrupt commerce byrequiring an inspection of every New York ship leaving Virginia unless the law was repealed. Governor Sewardrefused. The conflict between the two states escalated, both sides warning that the Union was endangered. Andbeyond this two-state battle, North and South came to bitter dispute over northern states’ personal liberty laws.The South pressured Congress for stronger measures to protect slave owners’ rights, resulting in the 1850Fugitive Slave Law.

LLoossiinngg tthhee RRiigghhtt ttoo JJuurryy TTrriiaall.. New York’s jury trial law was never repealed, but it was weakened by an 1842 U.S. Supreme Court decision(Prigg v. Pennsylvania) that found Pennsylvania’s personal liberty law unconstitutional. It was overruled entirelyin 1850 by the new federal Fugitive Slave Law, which strengthened the terms of the 1793 law and explicitlydenied alleged fugitive slaves in any state the right to a jury trial. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Law also made kid-napping in the North a bigger problem than ever, established the faraway Canadian border as the new promisedland, drove the expansion of the Underground Railroad, radicalized and enlarged the anti-slavery movement, andcontributed to the outbreak of Civil War.

NNeeww ffuuggiittiivvee ssllaavvee ccaasseess.. With the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law in effect, abolitionist lawyers throughout the North returned to the writ dehomine replegiando as the best strategy for winning the release of blacks who had been captured as fugitiveslaves.

RRiicchhaarrdd RRiikkeerr.. In 1865, James McCune Smith wrote a profile of Henry Highland Garnet in which he described an 1829 kidnap-ping attempt on the Garnet family. Garnet’s sister had been brought before Recorder Riker but was released afterpresenting a credible, though false, alibi. Smith referred to Riker as “one who genially squinted toward the liber-


111166

ty of the captive, and who was a friend to the colored people generally.” His perspective on Riker could hardlybe more different from that of the members of the Committee of Vigilance or others who followed the Dixoncase as it made its way through the courts. Of course people differ in their judgments of human behavior. But inunderstanding Dr. Smith’s comment, it is worth noting that he was writing 25 years after Riker’s retirement, thatthe Garnet family seizure predated the period of the Kidnapping Club, and that Dr. Smith was attending medicalschool in Scotland when New York’s kidnapping problem became most acute. It is also possible, as RichardRiker’s life story suggests, that Riker was a complicated man whose motives and actions were not alwaysstraightforward.

Sources: Paul Finkelman, “The Protection of Black Rights in Seward’s New York,” Civil War History, Vol. XXXIV, No. 3, Kent State University Press,1988; “The Alleged Fugitive From Justice,” The Colored American, April 8, 1837; “Slave Case – No. 3,” The Colored American, May 9, 1840; “SlaveCase – No. 3, Continued,” The Colored American, May 16, 1840; James McCune Smith, introduction to A Memorial Discourse, by Henry HighlandGarnet (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865).

Date post:	24-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Unit 22 Black VVigilance - nydivided.orgUnit 2 - Black Vigilance Document 22 “More SSlave...

Documents