But that’s not particularly on point here, given the implied historical and geographic context.
Quick. You see someone pull up next to a dog on the street and throw him into the back seat of their car.
Do you go find the closest police officer to file a report?
Or do you shrug your shoulders and keep on with your business?
On his nights, weekends, and on personal days off.
I asked respectfully for no more spoilers, I don’t see why I’m getting the snark.
Yes, it’s possible that if you think it through, the fact the book exists tells us something about what happens in the film. But you can say the same thing about many spoilers “It’s obvious when you think about it…”.
I hadn’t thought about it.
Still waiting for **Little Nemo **to produce cites for his post, which was the first response in this thread. At this point, I guess we should assume he has none.
Huh?
He might be the first, but there’s no real reason to single him out. This entire thread has been along the same lines.
Fighting ignorance requires a modicumof effort on the part of the ignorant one. Get the book I linked to, and check the bibliography for original sources. Not hard.
Not how it works. I don’t care enough about this topic and I can’t be bothered to find and read books on this subject.
Anyone interested in reading books on topics that are covered here will probably be a lot more educated on most of these topics. But the main function of this board is for people who are not up to reading books on the subject.
What you’re saying boils down to “the proof that I’m right is in such-and-such book, and since I’ve provided the name of a book I am presumed to be correct in my assertions”. Doesn’t cut it, IMO.
A “fugitive slave” didn’t have legal standing to object to his being hauled back to bondage. And that means, a person being transported as a fugitive slave did not have the right to a hearing to determine whether they were, in fact, a fugitive slave.
And once a black man was in the south, all it took was the word of one white man before a judge that, yes, this was Bill who ran away a few years ago, and the fugitive was now legally enslaved.
Yeah, if a white man from the victim’s home went down to the plantation and swore that the supposed slave was actually Bob, a free man, then we’d have a court case. But of course, there was no way for this to actually happen, since even if the victim’s white associates would be willing to swear that he was a free man, they would have no way for knowing where he was or what happened to him. Bob disappears one day, and a month later there’s a new slave named Bill in Mississippi. It is exactly analogous to having your car stolen and shipped off to Mexico. Yeah, if you happened to be walking down the street in Guadalajara years later and saw your car you could complain about it. Except that’s not going to happen.
Don’t forget -
(a) in the days before automobiles, the fastest anyone could get away was a horse’s gallop. In fact, horses would tire very quickly, it’s not like someone would be 50 miles away before the hue and cry got out.
(b) we forget in this day of cheap transport how “small town” even the big towns were. Everyone knew everyone’s business, who belonged in a neighbourhood and who didn’t. (Just ask someone who’s lived in a small town!) People didn’t live in 20-story apartments and never see their neighbours. Without air conditioning, everyone hung out outdoors in the breeze and shade. most people lived where they worked in the days before autos and electric subway trains. Snatching someone off a crowded trolley would be pretty difficult.
Thus my contention - the Gap Gang is reported as operating on the road far from interfering crowds. Solomon was lured 90% of the way to be kidnapped (in private?) well outside his community. A gang trolling for victims in a black or mixed(?) neighbourhood would be noticed and remarked upon very quickly. They would be lucky to survive a riot after the first kidnapping. it’s not a trick you can keep pulling habitually.
© Just because the fugitive slave act said “do this” does not mean northern law authority did it. This was part of the problem - ever more strong acts were passed as the provious ones were ignored or bypassed. The requirement to help slave catchers was not an afterthought - I recall reading it was put there due to the active resistance of some northern state officials. And… if it came down to a court dispute between a half dozen white northern policemen and some drawling southern hayseeds - “they freed my runaway slave!” vs. “Nothing happened!”, which one will the white northern Judge believe?
So it sounds like it was dangerous to wander beyond your comfort zone if you were a prime target (eligible slave material) but not that there was a reign of terror where people disappeared from their home street every day.
That is what happened to free Northup. It had to be rare, but it happened.
What kind of proof are you looking for? Here’s a link to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and here’s the relevant passage:
Was there a specific claim in Little Nemo’s post that you wanted more info on?
Apparently, for whatever reason, John Mace and Fotheringay-Phipps want to believe that the circumstances of Northup’s abduction were rare to non-existent, and unless someone somehow can pony up statistics for crimes which mostly went unnoticed by the law enforcement authorities of the day (seemingly a difficult proposition), then they can remain secure in that belief. I’m sure they’ll correct me if I’ve misstated their intent.
A 1834 woodcut showing a freed black being kidnapped by slavers
The kidnapping of free blacks was common enough to be addressed in law. According to this source, Delaware General Assembly passed laws regarding the punishment of kidnappers in 1787 and 1793. It describes several people were tried and convicted of this crime. The source says that in 1800 a kidnapping ring was uncovered reporting involving 100 African Americans victims. Apparently, the problem of kidnapping was so serious during the antebellum years that the General Assembly had to pass stricter punishments. I have not looked to see if at least other border states had similar legislation. My guess is that they did.
I really don’t understand the skepticism. I can’t turn on the TV without hearing about children being abducted. Many of these children end up being someone’s slave. Just imagine if sex trafficking of minors was legal and unregulated. Imagine how many more children’s faces we would see on the six o’clock news.
And while I don’t expect gratitude for having rooted around for information (because I always enjoy learning more about a topic), I would like John Mace and Fotheringay-Phipps to at least acknowledge that crimes that are rare and insignificant typically do not get acknowledged by the law. Since it’s impossible to know how many free blacks (particularly children) were abducted and enslaved, I’m thinking it would be decent on your parts to to accept what’s evident in the law books as a reasonable proxy for his information.
I’ll risk being accused of hijacking, but… what was Solomon Northup’s wife in New York doing while he was missing for 12 years? What were his family and friends doing?
Obviously, they had no way of knowing he was a slave in Louisiana, but did they make any effort through legal authorities to find out where he’d gone or what had happened to him?
It’s certainly easy enough to believe that they DID call the police and got nowhere. But did the book or movie indicate what efforts Northup’s family made to find or save him?
You’ve got my gratitude. Thanks.
They’ll believe it when they see it on Fox News.
I’m trying to spend less time arguing on this board. (I’ll admit I’m not there yet but I’m making an effort.)
My new principle is to answer a person’s question and then, if they don’t want to accept the answer, let it go. If somebody asks for details or wants to discuss the issue, I’m usually up for that. But if they are just saying they don’t believe me, why bother? If they didn’t believe my first post, why should I put any further effort into more posts than they probably won’t believe either.
One figure I found was that 332 people were captured in non-slave states under the terms of the Fugitive Slave Act in the ten years it was in force.