오하이오주 인신자유정치의 등장과 쇠퇴, 1803-1839 (The Advent and Decline of Personal Liberty Politics in Ohio, 1803-1839)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국서양사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 서양사론 / 120호 / 217 ~ 251페이지
· 저자명 : 허현

초록

This study seeks to trace the development of personal libertypolitics in Ohio and its abrupt decline following the advent ofpolitical anti-abolitionism in the 1830s. It suggests that after theadoption of a series of Black Laws (providing the basic fugitiveslave policy favorable to claimants seeking the recovery of theirproperty) Ohio gradually developed the politics of personal libertyintervening in the administration of slaveholders’ rights to recapturefugitive slaves.
The adoption of a series of anti-kidnapping laws dovetailed withthe evolution of the state fugitive slave policy towards theestablishment of what I call “personal liberty politics.” By “politics ofpersonal liberty” or “personal liberty politics” I mean the social andpolitical resistance to the exercise of constitutional or common lawrights of slaveholders to recapture fugitive slaves. Also it refers tothe antislavery struggle to assign strategic priority to the protectionof the freedom of fugitive slaves and free blacks through thesecurity of legal safeguards such as the right of trial by jury, thewrit of habeas corpus, and the rights of testimony and appeal, oreven through physical force. “Personal liberty politics” thereforerefers to the campaign for personal liberty laws which were designedto challenge and undermine the federal fugitive slave legislation. Itthus related to the legislative battle regarding state and federalfugitive slave policy, judicial decisions on fugitive slave andanti-kidnapping cases, and even illegal aid or rescue operations ofabolitionists.
During the first three decades of the nineteenth century, asignificantly pro-freedom fugitive slave policy prevailed in spite ofthe persistence of a strong white supremacist policy. When militantabolitionism emerged in the early 1830s, however, radical abolitionists inadvertently fostered unity among anti-abolitionists. Because thefirst intensive campaign of radical abolitionists was to question theconstitutionality of the federal Fugitive Slave Law and adoptstronger personal liberty legislation, the counterattack of theanti-abolitionists on the abolitionists focused on destroying personalliberty politics. It is noteworthy that the first successful task of thepolitical anti-abolitionists was the passage of the repressive OhioFugitive Slave Law of 1839. Clearly, it testified to the total collapseof the personal politics of Ohio. Anti-abolitionists became all themore hostile to the development of personal liberty politics becausethey regarded it as the embodiment of abolitionism. The repressionof personal liberty measures was established as an important way ofsuppressing abolitionists in Ohio.

영어초록

This study seeks to trace the development of personal libertypolitics in Ohio and its abrupt decline following the advent ofpolitical anti-abolitionism in the 1830s. It suggests that after theadoption of a series of Black Laws (providing the basic fugitiveslave policy favorable to claimants seeking the recovery of theirproperty) Ohio gradually developed the politics of personal libertyintervening in the administration of slaveholders’ rights to recapturefugitive slaves.
The adoption of a series of anti-kidnapping laws dovetailed withthe evolution of the state fugitive slave policy towards theestablishment of what I call “personal liberty politics.” By “politics ofpersonal liberty” or “personal liberty politics” I mean the social andpolitical resistance to the exercise of constitutional or common lawrights of slaveholders to recapture fugitive slaves. Also it refers tothe antislavery struggle to assign strategic priority to the protectionof the freedom of fugitive slaves and free blacks through thesecurity of legal safeguards such as the right of trial by jury, thewrit of habeas corpus, and the rights of testimony and appeal, oreven through physical force. “Personal liberty politics” thereforerefers to the campaign for personal liberty laws which were designedto challenge and undermine the federal fugitive slave legislation. Itthus related to the legislative battle regarding state and federalfugitive slave policy, judicial decisions on fugitive slave andanti-kidnapping cases, and even illegal aid or rescue operations ofabolitionists.
During the first three decades of the nineteenth century, asignificantly pro-freedom fugitive slave policy prevailed in spite ofthe persistence of a strong white supremacist policy. When militantabolitionism emerged in the early 1830s, however, radical abolitionists inadvertently fostered unity among anti-abolitionists. Because thefirst intensive campaign of radical abolitionists was to question theconstitutionality of the federal Fugitive Slave Law and adoptstronger personal liberty legislation, the counterattack of theanti-abolitionists on the abolitionists focused on destroying personalliberty politics. It is noteworthy that the first successful task of thepolitical anti-abolitionists was the passage of the repressive OhioFugitive Slave Law of 1839. Clearly, it testified to the total collapseof the personal politics of Ohio. Anti-abolitionists became all themore hostile to the development of personal liberty politics becausethey regarded it as the embodiment of abolitionism. The repressionof personal liberty measures was established as an important way ofsuppressing abolitionists in Ohio.

참고자료

· 없음