Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-2011

Publication Source

Law and History Review

Abstract

It is conventionally believed that neutral legal principles required antislavery judges to uphold proslavery legislation in spite of their moral convictions against slavery. Under this view, an antislavery judge who ruled on proslavery legislation was forced to choose, not between liberty and slavery, but rather between liberty and fidelity to his conception of the judicial role in a system of limited government. Focusing on the proslavery Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, this article challenges the conventional view by arguing that the constitutionality of the fugitive act was ambiguous; meaning that neutral legal principles supported a ruling against the fugitive act as well as a ruling in favor of it, and that prominent antislavery judges were influenced to uphold the act by a belief that doing so was necessary in order to preserve the Union.

Inclusive pages

797-834

ISBN/ISSN

0738-2480

Document Version

Postprint

Comments

This document is made available for download in accordance with the publisher's policy on self-archiving.

Permission documentation is on file.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press

Volume

29

Issue

3

Peer Reviewed

yes

Download
Link to published version

Share

COinS