Slave Catchers

During the era of slavery in the United States, 

slave catchers(also known as slave hunters) were individuals who were hired to find and return enslaved people who had escaped from their owners. These individuals would pursue runaway slaves, often into free states like Massachusetts, where they would attempt to recapture them and return them to the South. 

Slave catchers in Boston, Massachusetts, were a significant part of the conflicts that arose between the abolitionist movement and those who sought to uphold the institution of slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a federal law that required the return of runaway slaves, intensified these conflicts. This act made the federal government responsible for finding, returning, and trying escaped slaves, and it increased penalties for those who interfered with or refused to cooperate with slave catchers. 

Boston’s abolitionist community, which included both black and white individuals, actively resisted the presence and efforts of slave catchers in the city. Organizations like the Boston Vigilance Committee formed to protect escaped slaves and disrupt the activities of slave catchers. They provided legal and financial aid to freedom seekers and kept an eye out for slave catchers, spreading the word when they were spotted in town. Some members of the committee even participated in violent rescue efforts to free individuals who had been apprehended by slave catchers. 

Notable examples of slave catchers operating in Boston include:

• Willis Hughes and John Knight: These two slave catchers from Georgia arrived in Boston in 1850 seeking to reclaim Ellen and William Craft, an escaped slave couple. Boston abolitionists actively harassed them, posting handbills describing their appearance and having them arrested on various charges.
• John Caphart: Mentioned in the Boston Vigilance Committee’s expense ledger, Caphart was a known and notorious slave catcher.
• A Slave Hunter from Virginia: In 1851, this individual captured Shadrach Minkins, an escaped slave working in Boston, triggering a conflict with local abolitionists. 

The presence of slave catchers in Boston and the actions taken by abolitionists to resist them highlight the deep divisions and tensions surrounding slavery in the United States during the pre-Civil War era. The Fugitive Slave Act, in particular, exacerbated these tensions, contributing to the growing conflict that eventually led to the Civil War. 

-Summary compiled by Google’s AI.

I’m a huge proponent of learning from history. There ain’t much truly new under the sun, just new expressions thereof. With that being said, let’s dive into a bit of America’s real history. European settlement of the Americas has always been fueled by human exploitation. When Columbus and Cortez arrived on their shores, they found themselves the beneficiaries of a peculiar combination of political intrigue, superstition, technological superiority and timing that allowed for them to utterly dominate the Native Americans far in excess of their numbers. Spaniards and Portuguese settlers enslaved hundreds of thousands of Native Americans, eradicated entire societies and deleted their cultures via disease, massacres and the classic auto-da-fey. In North America, though, things were a little different. The native tribes here were far less organized and far less numerous, and their technologies were primitive. White people and our diseases hit them like a proverbial hurricane, and even though plenty of Native Americans were enslaved,

The supply of Native American slaves was inadequate for the demands of the American economy. That horrific fact was the impulse for chattel slavery and the systemic, organized, legal institution of slavery in the colonies, and in the United States. Once our ancestors decided that slavery was the best way to capture the labor needed for their economic ventures, they were forced to create social institutions to enforce slavery, and to craft and install racial bias to legitimize those structures. Their tools included the warping of religion to justify slavery, the “reinterpretation” and creation of tropes and stereotypes to justify racism, and the passage of bodies of law that evaluated people by the color of their skin. This would one day become Jim Crow, but we’re not there yet.

See, one of the things about slaves is that they’re people, and slave revolts are messy and dangerous. So, logically, it’s important to maintain order. The first organized slave patrol was founded in South Carolina in 1704, and the concept spread like wildfire through the South. An armed body of (white) men, deputized to enforce the law and break up revolts before they could start, but targeting those people, not us. Men willing to use force, for pay and for order and for the power of the job. And it held together in an organized fashion for nearly 250 years, and even today arguably has some deep and disturbing roots in law enforcement. Even after the Civil War, racially-motivated “law enforcement” activity and militias and the KKK and Jim Crow and simple vigilante racism are all well-known problems. But that’s going a bit ahead of ourselves. Let’s look at the late antebellum period- 1840-1860.

See, America was founded with a blaring inconsistency between the paragonal, aspirational virtues of the Declaration of Independence and the realities of slavery, conquest, racism and exploitation of the poor, new, illiterate, etc (“No Irish Need Apply” is a great example of this). Plenty of Americans eagerly defended the status quo; let’s call them “Confederates” because that’s who they become. Plenty more of us simply didn’t really care, because it wasn’t a part of our daily lives and for the most part it was far beyond our mandate to change, or because we lived far from slavery, or because we didn’t have the tools or time or resources, or even because we personally didn’t really care or believe in the thought, or because our cultures took a nuanced approach to the situation and parsed it with logic. Logically, after all, slavery was dying slowly, confined behind the Mason-Dixon Line, blocked politically by the Missouri Compromise, geographically by the Great Plains and the deserts of the American West, and socially by the slow development of an Abolitionist movement that held slavery in low regard at best, and economically by the industrialization and education of the North and the exploitation of the Midwest far beyond the capabilities of the Old South. Logically, slavery was their problem, and for someone who wasn’t really bothered by it and had no real reason to be involved or affected by it and no real foreseeable exposure to it, why fight over it? That was the vast majority of us.

Then, though, there were the Abolitionists. These were people who acknowledged the hypocrisy and racism and evil inherent in slavery. They were the ones who spoke out. By the standards of the time, they were “woke”, progressive, liberal and disruptive. They were the people who openly endorsed breaking the law and social constructs and religious traditions. They were the John Browns and Hannah Mores and William Wilburforces. They came together primarily in lily-white New England, deeply aware and ashamed of their own benefits derived from European conquests, and they learned and collaborated and educated and propagated their message. They convinced their fellow citizens, just as their European mentors had convinced their governments to ban slavery, and they astutely blended abolitionism with sensible public policy and they earned places of power in the local and state governments and in the federal government. Men like Charles Sumner became powerful voices for abolition and the nation’s moral center. They weren’t popular, they were incredibly controversial. It wouldn’t be fair to them to compare them to someone as mainstream as AOC today. They were literally beaten nearly to the point of death on the Senate floor by white-supremacist congressmen, and a quarter of the nation cheered because it was satisfying to see Abolitionist blood spilled.

Economics, culture, politics and a collective culture of “fuck you” meant that the center of the Abolitionist movement was New England, particularly around Boston. Geographically somewhat isolated from the slave states, with a diverse economy and an educational, religious and cultural background that was no longer dependent on slavery, New England abolitionists didn’t really have anything to fear from slave patrols; traveling hundreds or even thousands of miles from friendly warm hometowns to frigid, unfriendly New England townships wasn’t particularly enticing for the purpose of “repatriating” unwilling human beings to chattel slavery wasn’t a job for the faint of heart. This also made New England and the Upper Midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin, etc) a haven of sorts for escaped slaves and free blacks- there was economic opportunity and a different degree of racial bias that was more acceptable at the time to those people than Southern slave-racism. It was also next to Canada, offering easier escape as needed. This posed a problem for the slavers of the South as their political fortunes waxed in the 1840s and 1850s- how could they tolerate a thriving community of free blacks and escaped slaves, a living counter-example proving that their entire social construct was a crock of shit? Here was a place, a mere 400 or so miles away from the plantations of Northern Virginia, where their property could be free. And even if the economics didn’t justify one or two or ten “repatriations”, it wasn’t about the money. It was about the message. As long as a colony of New England blacks existed living freely, a Southern slave had hope. Boston was freedom. Vermont was a life without an overseer or a rape or a beating. Manchester was a place without having your family sold away or your body broken for someone else’s profit. And so, to Southerners, it became critical to crush that dream, and Abolition. It was integral to perpetuating slavery as a social and economic institution.

In 1850, one of the most shameful pieces of legislation ever introduced into the Congress became law. The Fugitive Slave Act compelled free-state citizens to assist slave catchers. This meant that simply associating with a Black person in any capacity other than slave-catching would expose someone to a potentially devastating fine of $1000 (approximately $37,400 today). It ostensibly forced local law-enforcement to aid slave catchers, banned the invocation of habeus corpus to justify detentions, and compelled them to aid in these “repatriations”.

In response to the weakening of the original Fugitive Slave Act, Democratic Senator James M. Mason of Virginia drafted the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which penalized officials who did not arrest someone allegedly escaping from slavery, and made them liable to a fine of $1,000 (equivalent to $37,800 in 2024). Law enforcement officials everywhere were required to arrest people suspected of escaping enslavement on as little as a claimant‘s sworn testimony of ownership. Habeas corpus was declared irrelevant. The Commissioner before whom the fugitive from slavery was brought for a hearing—no jury was permitted, and the alleged refugee from enslavement could not testify^[8]—was compensated $10 (equivalent to $380 in 2024) if he found that the individual was proven a fugitive and only $5 (equivalent to $190 in 2024) if heIn addition, any person aiding a fugitive by providing food or shelter was subject to up to six months of imprisonment and up to $1,000 in fine. Officers who captured a fugitive from slavery were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work.

Enslavers needed only to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture a fugitive from slavery. Since a suspected enslaved person was not eligible for a trial, the law resulted in the kidnapping and conscription of free Blacks into slavery, as purported fugitive slaves had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations.^[10]

So, quite literally, it immediately becomes mandatory to aid in the enslavement of human beings. In Southern heads, this was grand- a slave catcher need not even get their hands dirty! All they would have to do is take a train north with a warm coat, point out the fittest Blacks that they wanted to take to the local constable, and then back south with their product! Look at that- all that was needed was an affadavit that someone was an escaped slave; an affidavit that could not be afforded the challenge of due process because Dred Scott extinguished the rights of purported slaves to legal process in the same way as we wouldn’t hold a jury trial for a squirrel tearing up cushion. It was a perfect way to stick it to the Abolitionists. The Fugitive Slave Act meant that blacks could never be safe from slavery- and eventually, slavery could escape the political confines of the Compromises.

This did not go well in Boston, or New England. Slavery had been someone else’s problem. Now, though, failing to help deport the Black people living at the other end of town or working the night shift at the mill or working in the forges or cooking and tending the children might get you fined and imprisoned. How could this square with Christ, or liberty, or even simple economics? The Fugitive Slave Act promised to force every American to pervert their morals for the sake of Jim Crow, Sr. And slavery. When Anthony Burns was re-enslaved, the federal government was “forced” to send troops to keep civil order- an action that further fanned the perception that Southerners called the shots and would expand slavery everywhere. Read that again- the federal marshals deputized the Massachusetts state militia to do their bidding, rationalizing their return of a man to slavery under the color of law. This wasn’t an isolated incident- some were rescued from slavers, the Boston Committee for Vigilance publicized the arrival and identities of slave catchers, and one particular slave-catcher nearly got lynched when he went slave-chasing.

The ultimate impact of the Fugitive Slave Act, though, was that it accelerated the collision between Southern greed and slavery and Northern accountability and freedom. See, until the FSA, that great average middle American didn’t have a lot vested in slavery- it was a rich man’s problem, a southern problem, someone else’s problem. Now, though, it was our problem. And if it was our problem, enough to put us in jail and fine us and force us to go against our faith and our convictions and our beliefs and our own laws, well, where would the slavers stop? In 1850, there wasn’t much of an appetite for civil war. In 1856, Kansas bled for slavery. In 1860, simply voting for the wrong candidate for President was enough to justify secession. By the summer of 1861, men were shooting each other at Bull Run.

Now, let’s fast-forward to today. Law-enforcement “professionals” are working across our nation, masked and sometimes with questionable tattoos, targeting Hispanic and other “colored” immigrants with the intention of fostering a culture of fear in their communities.

Here is a senior White House official, Steven Miller, a man who literally crafts the President’s agenda, openly spouting his racist bullshit. He is the man who is crafting the orders that those ICE agents are following.

They are using the law as it currently stands, as interpreted by Trump (Miller’s) executive orders, to enact an agenda every bit as reprehensible as that of Preston Brooks and the slave owners and slave catchers of 1850. And just like back then, every single one of those agents is at the edge of a deep moral precipice between enforcing the law and their morality- the same question that Asa Butman, Judge Loring, Marshal Freeman and Mayor Smith of Boston answered in 1854. Their individual choices absolutely matter in their own contexts, but even moreso, their collective actions have the potential to define the course of history far beyond one man or one deportation case or one day. As you read this, an ICE team (+/- local attachments) is arresting an immigrant. The justification might be ironclad or it might be transparently flimsy. Certainly, some deportations are absolutely justified, and unlike slavery, it is not inherently immoral for a nation to enforce its immigration laws. I can’t judge ICE as a whole, or an individual officer, at least in present circumstances (even if things like rendition to South Sudan are suspicious AF). We have not yet reached the level of “where are the Jews?” That the Gestapo introduced to Hitler’s Europe. But it is deeply troubling for us as Americans and our law-enforcement institutions to be involving ourselves in the racist power fantasies of men like Donald Trump and Stephen Miller. History tells us that mistake can only be fixed with blood and steel, because its never “just” them. It’s ALWAYS something more that they demand.

But don’t despair. Freedom and liberty and good have a way of winning. Remember that mass of apathetic people who didn’t care? Well, guess what. More of them came to care because of the overreach and greed that they could no longer ignore.

And when it came down to it, English professors and freed slaves and farmers and tailors and blacksmiths and cooks and Irishmen and Italians and Indians and countless other Americans fixed bayonets and rammed hot lead and cold steel through Southern guts.

Those who cheer for the Trump/Miller agenda and ICE Valknots and rendition should take note from history- “sow the wind, reap the whirlwind”. In a conversation with my own father, I was ashamed, because he was one of those spouting Miller’s bullshit (via conservative media and social media). “Kill all the illegals.” “Try Nancy Pelosi for treason.” “Execute Jill Biden.” A detailed fantasy of some sort of super-noose with a lot of Democrats and a token RINO or two to appease the MAGA. Notice that language- the base that supports that agenda is already being primed past deportations. They’re already normalizing disappearances of “traitors”, secret police, the literal elimination of political and social enemies, and eventually partition of the nation. He’s become one of ‘them’, the Confederates of 1859.

If my father and I transported back to 1863’s Gettysburg, I think I might be one of the ones running downhill with a Springfield at someone. I am, however, 100% certain that he’d be one of those delusional traitors spouting bullshit justifications for their support of palpable evil and treason. And it’s anyone’s guess as to whether he’d have the good sense to surrender and ask for water or if he’d be shot dead or ran through because of his poor team selection. And that is a terrible, terrible thing to have to think, because when I first watched Gettysburg with my dad, I remember it as a pretty clear choice between the Good Team wearing Union Blue and the Bad Team wearing Shitty Off-Brand Nazi Bad-Guy Grey. Back then, we both cheered for America and the Good Team. It sucks that that’s changed, but then again, that’s the power of conservative media and intellectual decay and a lack of understanding of the deeper implications of the easy answers at work. Where this matters for us, and where we can break the circle of history, is to understand this pattern and be ready to take action to change it before war and death are the only answers.