Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for Staunton Spectator
Story April 26, 1859

Staunton Spectator

Staunton, Virginia

What is this article about?

Editorial commentary on the acquittal of the Echo slaver crew by a Charleston jury, arguing it reflects southern hypocrisy on slavery laws, and drawing parallels to northern resistance to the fugitive slave law, advocating enforcement of both as law.

Clipping

OCR Quality

95% Excellent

Full Text

The ECHO Slave Trial.—The Charleston Mercury thinks the jury acquitted the crew of the slaver Echo because it would have been "inconsistent, cruel and hypocritical in them to condemn men to death for bringing slaves into a community where they are bought and sold every day." A parity of reasoning ought to make the Mercury willing to excuse the unwillingness of the northern people to execute the fugitive slave law, because it would be "inconsistent, cruel and hypocritical in them to consent to the return of a fugitive slave when they believe slavery everywhere wrong and immoral." If the Mercury excuses the non-enforcement of one law in the South because public sentiment is opposed to it, how can it justly ask the North to enforce another law which is there opposed by public sentiment. The true ground is that both laws should be maintained simply because they are the law.

What sub-type of article is it?

Crime Story Historical Event

What themes does it cover?

Justice Crime Punishment

What keywords are associated?

Echo Slave Trial Jury Acquittal Charleston Mercury Fugitive Slave Law Slavery Enforcement Public Sentiment

What entities or persons were involved?

Crew Of The Slaver Echo

Where did it happen?

Charleston

Story Details

Key Persons

Crew Of The Slaver Echo

Location

Charleston

Story Details

The Charleston Mercury justifies the jury's acquittal of the Echo slaver crew due to local slavery practices, but the commentary argues this logic should excuse northern non-enforcement of the fugitive slave law based on anti-slavery sentiment, insisting both laws must be upheld as law.

Are you sure?