The Fugitive Slave Case of John Freeman and Its Influence on Indiana Politics

Home , George Washington Julian, Personal liberty laws, The Fugitive (season 1), The Fugitive (season 2)

The Fugitive Slave Case of John Freeman and its Influence on Indiana Politics

Chris Walker

Abstract: In June 1853, Indianapolis resident John Freeman was arrested at the behest of a Missouri slaveholder under the terms of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Freeman enjoyed the support of many of his white neighbors as well as excellent legal representation, but was forced to remain in jail while his lawyers sought proof of his free status as well as the true identity of the fugitive slave in question. Although Freeman was finally legally identified and released, the case brought home to many Northerners how easily free black citizens could be arrested and borne away by claimants and how complicit Northern law enforcement could become in aiding Southern slaveholders. The case also influenced the formation of the abolitionist People’s Party in 1854.

Keywords: Fugitive slave laws, People’s Party, Indianapolis

hortly after the election of Democrat Franklin Pierce as president in S1852, an Indianapolis fugitive slave case awakened Hoosiers to the dangers and injustices of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. The arrest, incarceration, and subsequent trial of John Freeman, a well-respected free black Indianapolis resident, revealed how easily slave hunters could capture and send free black men, women, and children into bondage under the 1850

Chris Walker, Ph.D., is a graduate of Purdue University and an assistant professor of history, Indiana Wesleyan University. He specializes in the antebellum and Civil War periods of American history. The author would like to thank Dawn Bakken, Ph.D., associate editor of the Indiana Magazine of History, for her assistance.

law. The case also showed how frequently Northern state and federal officials, as required by law, zealously assisted slave-catchers in the per- formance of their duties. Despite the law’s disadvantages placed on the accused, Freeman escaped bondage with the help of antislavery friends and honest and sympathetic Southern whites. The Freeman case received national publicity, and proved to be of immense propagandistic value to abolitionists, who fervently sought to discredit the fugitive slave law and energize the Free Soil movement in Indiana. The incident revived antislavery sentiment in the state and contributed to the formation of a new political party committed to the non-extension of slavery. As a result of the American victory in the Mexican-American War, which ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, the United States acquired a vast territory from Mexico. The acquisition of the Mexican Cession brought the long-standing sectional debate over slavery to a fever pitch, as Americans wrestled with the issue of slavery extension into the newly acquired territories. In response, Congress passed the Compromise of 1850, a series of bills intended to permanently resolve sectional differences. The Compromise package included a stron- ger fugitive slave bill, demanded by Southern slaveholders, but highly objectionable to many Northerners. President Millard Fillmore signed the controversial bill into law on September 18, 1850, and its enforcement proved to be a source of great agitation between the free and slave states in the decade leading up to the Civil War. During the antebellum period, Northern personal liberty laws and increasing antislavery sentiment had made it more difficult for Southern masters to reclaim fugitives. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was designed to more effectively and efficiently secure the right of slave owners to reclaim fugitives across state lines or territorial boundaries—a right guaranteed in Article Four, Section Two, of the Constitution, as well as in the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act. The 1850 act gave United States commissioners the responsibility of executing the provisions of the law, and their jurisdiction was concurrent with district and circuit judges. Commissioners were given the authority to grant certificates for the return of absconding slaves, and if necessary, appoint special officers and call out the posse comitatus to execute the law. The owner or his agent was authorized to pursue and reclaim his fugitive by procuring a warrant from a judge or commissioner, or by seizing and taking the fugitive before such judge or commissioner, who, having ascertained the identity of the alleged fugitive, would then grant a certificate authorizing the owner or his agent to take the fugitive John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 3

Calvin Fletcher’s diary entry for June 12, 1853. News of Freeman’s arrest spread quickly through Indianapolis, and Fletcher, an influential local citizen, recorded the events in his diary. Courtesy, Indiana Historical Society back to the state or territory from where he came. This proceeding was to be conducted in a summary manner, without a jury trial. The alleged fugitive was not allowed to testify or offer evidence in his own defense. Interference in the removal of a fugitive by any judge, magistrate, or court, as well as any other persons, was prohibited. Any person who obstructed the arrest of a fugitive, or attempted to rescue, aid, harbor or conceal a fugitive, knowing him to be such, would be liable to a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to six months. United States marshals or deputy marshals who refused to act under the law were liable to a fine of up to $1,000, to be granted to the claimant; should a fugitive escape from his custody, the marshal was liable for the full value of the fugitive. Finally, the law allowed ten dollars to the commissioner when the fugitive was delivered to the claimant, but only five dollars in cases where he was 4 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

set free. The stated reason given for the difference in payment was that the paperwork required for remanding the fugitive was greater than that required for freeing him. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, then, established court-appointed United States commissioners to enforce the law, created a summary legal process that would make it much easier for owners to transport fugitives back to the state or territory from where they had escaped, and finally stiffened the penalties (over the 1793 act) for any interference in the rendition process.1 Northern abolitionists and antislavery men and women vehemently opposed the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. They claimed that since alleged fugitives were not allowed a jury trial, the law was essentially a license for kidnapping. The law made no allowance for legal representation, nor the gathering of evidence in support of an accused fugitive’s claim of freedom. Southern slave owners demanded a summary hearing held only to verify the fugitive’s identity. They did not trust Northern juries, and they feared that court costs might exceed the slave’s value, resulting in financial loss. Northerners were particularly angry over the provision of the law authorizing marshals to require citizens’ assistance (the posse comitatus) in the apprehension of runaways. Even many of those who accepted the law as a necessity for preserving sectional peace had no intention of being complicit in its execution. Finally, antislavery Northerners claimed that the higher fee offered commissioners for remanding the fugitive amounted to a bribe and offered a financial incentive to side with the slave owner. After the initial angry protests of many Northerners, however, the majority of Americans accepted the law’s necessity as a condition for preserving the Union. This was especially true in Indiana, which had strong cultural and commercial ties to the South. Indiana’s general hostility to blacks was epitomized in its 1851 Constitution, which prohibited the immigration of African Americans into the state in the “Negro Exclusion Act,” a provision submitted separately to the people and overwhelmingly supported. The delegates to the constitutional convention also passed a resolution endorsing the Compromise of 1850 measures, including the Fugitive Slave Act. Indiana’s abolitionist congressman George W. Julian perhaps overstated his case when he described the state as “an outlying province of the empire of slavery,” but the antislavery movement in Indiana

1 David R. Potter, The Impending Crisis: America Before the Civil War, 1848–1861 (New York, 1976), 131; Michael F. Holt, The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War (New York, 2004), 86. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 5

did develop slowly, lagging significantly behind that of other states in the antebellum period. 2 John Freeman’s fugitive case is so significant because it gave impetus to the state’s antislavery movement at a time when most Hoosiers stood solidly behind the Compromise of 1850, and opposed any agitation over the issue of slavery. John Freeman was born about 1815 in Virginia. Born into slavery, he was emancipated by Langley Jennings, his master, in 1831. Shortly afterwards, he left Brunswick County, Virginia, and settled in Monroe, Walton County, Georgia, under the guardianship of Creed M. Jennings, Langley Jennings’s son. He came to Indianapolis from Monroe in 1844 and shortly thereafter married Letitia, a house servant of the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher. Beecher was then pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church of Indianapolis, and would later earn notoriety during his pastorate at Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, New York, as an impassioned opponent of slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law. The Freemans lived in a small cabin on North Meridian Street in the heart of fledgling Indianapolis.3 Freeman was the wealthiest black man in Indianapolis; he and his family, which included three children, were described as “honest, industrious, clean, good tempered and much respected.”4 Indiana census records and Indianapolis directories describe John Freeman as a laborer, painter, restaurateur, and owner of an oyster saloon. He was also a deacon at the Second Presbyterian Church. His social standing in the community was atypical for a black man in Indiana and helps to explain the support he received from prominent citizens after his arrest as a fugitive slave.5 On June 21, 1853, the first day of summer and a “pleasant hot day” in Indianapolis, Pleasant Ellington, of Platte County, Missouri, filed an affidavit with William Sullivan, a United States Commissioner for the District

2 George W. Julian, Political Recollections, 1840–1872 (Chicago, 1884), 115. 3 The location is now part of the St. Joseph Historic Neighborhood. Wilma L. Moore, “John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850,” Traces of Indiana and Midwestern History 26 (Spring 2015), 35. 4 Jane Merrill Ketcham Reminiscences, BV 1046, pp. 90–91, John L. Ketcham Collection, M0173, Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis. 5 For biographical information on Freeman, see Gwendolyn J. Crenshaw, “Brother John Freeman’s Homecoming Celebration: The Black Reaction to the Freeman Case and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850,” Black History News and Notes 91 (February 2003), 5; Indiana Free Democrat, June 30, 1853. On Freeman’s residence and business, see Seventh United States Census, 1850, Marion County, Indiana, online at www.ancestry.com, which indicates that Freeman owns real estate worth $2,000. See also Indianapolis city directories, including Howard’s 1857, McEvoy’s 1858, Sutherland & McEvoy’s 1860, Dodd, Talbott & Parson’s 1862, and Buell & Williams’ 1864. 6 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

John Lewis Ketcham (1810–1869), attorney and lead member of Freeman’s defense team. Ketcham was widely known for his benevolence and his role in the formation of two Presbyterian churches in Indianapolis. Courtesy, Indiana Historical Society John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 7

of Indiana.6 The affidavit specified that John Freeman, now a resident of Marion County, was his escaped slave “Sam,” who had escaped in 1836 while Ellington was living in Greenup County, Kentucky. Based upon Ellington’s claim, Commissioner Sullivan issued a warrant for Freeman’s arrest, which was executed by Constable James H. Stapp, acting U.S. deputy marshal under the commissioner’s special appointment. Stapp, on the pretense of requiring Freeman’s testimony in a case regarding another black man, lured him to the commissioner’s office, where he made the arrest. Freeman’s arrest caught the attention of attorney John Ketcham, who came to the alleged fugitive’s defense and was reluctantly allowed a brief consultation with his new client.7 News of Freeman’s arrest spread quickly. Calvin Fletcher, president of the State Bank, recorded in his diary that “the arrest has produced considerable excitement. . . . I have already had some unpleasant words with our officers who have taken secretly a part with the Slaveholders. I wish not to promenade [sic] a disregard of the law and constitution but if the owners refuse as I am told they do to take a fair price for him I shall not feel grieved [sic] if he escapes.”8 The underhanded arrest and subsequent imprisonment outraged many Indianapolis citizens. Shortly after Freeman’s arrest, John Ketcham enlisted the assistance of two of the city’s most talented attorneys, John Coburn and Lucian Barbour. The three formed an impressive legal team with varying back- grounds. Ketcham was a 43-year-old native Kentuckian, and a Democrat not unsympathetic with the South’s dilemma over fugitive slaves. A graduate of Indiana University, he had run a successful law practice for nearly two decades after coming to Indianapolis. He was socially well-connected, marrying Jane Merrill, the oldest daughter of Samuel Merrill, Indiana’s first state treasurer, and first president of the Indianapolis and Madison Railroad. Ketcham served one term as a justice of the peace from 1838 to 1842. He also served as an elder of Second Presbyterian Church, which Freeman attended, and was the guiding spirit behind the formation of Fourth Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis. According to the Indianapolis Journal, Ketcham’s “reputation as a lawyer was gained more by his read- iness and force as a speaker than his erudition or industry. He possessed decided talents for oratory, and we have seen few men who could meet an

6 Gayle Thornbrough, Dorothy L. Riker, and Paula Corpuz, eds., The Diary of Calvin Fletcher, Vol. 5, 1853–1856 (Indianapolis, Ind., 1977), 80–81. 7 Indiana Free Democrat, June 30, 1853. 8 Thornbrough, Riker, and Corpuz, Diary of Calvin Fletcher, 5:80. 8 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

unexpected call with appropriate remarks so well-worded, so gracefully introduced, so pleasingly delivered as he.”9 A contemporary praised him for his benevolence, hospitality, and Christian devotion, describing him as an “untiring worker.”10 This last quality would be evidenced by Ketcham’s ceaseless labors on behalf of Freeman. John Coburn was the junior member of Freeman’s co-counsel and at the age of 25 was a rising political figure. He was the son of attorney Henry P. Coburn, a Massachusetts native and Harvard graduate who came to Indiana in 1816, opened a law practice in Corydon, the state’s first capital, and later moved to Indianapolis in its founding period. He served as clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court and distinguished himself as one of the earliest and greatest advocates of the Indiana free school system. John graduated from Wabash College on the eve of the Mexican-American War. Like his father, he pursued a legal career and in 1849 was admitted to the bar. He served a term as a Whig in the Indiana state legislature, and, in the 1852 presidential election, was chosen to be one of the Whig electors. Coburn was early imbued with antislavery principles. The Coburns and Beechers had been close neighbors during John’s formative years, and he was heavily influenced on the subject of slavery by engaging conversations with the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher.11 Lucian Barbour was perhaps the most distinguished of the three counsels. He was a 42-year-old native of Connecticut, one of twelve children who, as he described it, grew up in “middling circumstances.”12 He graduated from Massachusetts’s Amherst College in 1837, and came to Indianapolis later that same year. Barbour, a Democrat, served as U.S. district attorney for the District of Indiana during the Polk and Fillmore administrations, and in 1843 wrote a treatise on Indiana laws which became a standard work used by attorneys. In 1852, Barbour was appointed by the state legislature as one of three commissioners to draft a civil code for the state. A contemporary stated that Barbour stood “at the bar, deservedly high, among the first, while his high moral character gives great weight to his standing in

9 Indianapolis Journal, April 21, 1869. 10 John H. B. Nowland, Sketches of Prominent Citizens of 1876 (Indianapolis, Ind., 1877), 182–84. 11 Biographical Record of Prominent and Representative Men of Indianapolis and Vicinity (Chicago, 1908) 40–42, 88–91. 12 Lucian Barbour autobiographical letter to Charles Lanham, August 31-September 1, 1858, folder 1, Charles Lanham Collection, M185, Indiana Historical Society. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 9

John Coburn (1825–1908), a member of Freeman’s counsel. Coburn subsequently served as a brigade commander in the Civil War (as pictured) and later as a congressman. Courtesy, Indiana Historical Society 10 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

society.”13 A year after he represented Freeman, he was elected to the 34th Congress as an anti-Nebraska or People’s Party candidate. It is significant that Ketcham and Barbour were both Democrats during Freeman’s trial and yet less than a year later would ally themselves with the new People’s Party, launched after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Both eventually became Republicans. It is unlikely that the Kansas- Nebraska Act alone would have caused these outstanding Indiana lawyers to leave behind a lifetime of Democratic Party politics. In narrowly saving an innocent man’s life, they saw firsthand how the fugitive slave law might be used to kidnap a free man. Ellington’s bravado and eagerness to whisk away a free man, despite knowing he had the wrong person, fit the abolitionists’ portrayal of the average slaveholder—an unprincipled rogue willing to steal a free man and place him into a lifetime of bondage. By no means were Ketcham and Barbour abolitionists—few Hoosiers were. However, Freeman’s arrest cast doubt upon the veracity of slaveholders or slave hunters when it came to fugitive slaves. It seems reasonable to believe that Ketcham and Barbour began to question the rightness of the fugitive slave law and their allegiance to the Democratic Party as a result of the Freeman ordeal. The case certainly caused doubt in the minds of many Hoosiers who witnessed and learned of the event. Slaveholder Pleasant Ellington was not without his own array of talented attorneys. He hired Jonathon A. Liston and Thomas D. Walpole to prosecute his claim. This was not Liston’s first experience in a fugitive slave case. He had represented Kentucky slaveholder John Norris in a South Bend fugitive slave trial in 1849. When a local probate judge had ruled in favor of the slaveholders, Norris and his party immediately took the fugitives by force among a hostile and packed courtroom. According to one county history, Liston, in the courtroom excitement, “jumped upon a table and called upon the Kentuckians to shoot all who interfered, and they would be justified in doing so.”14 After a series of suits and countersuits, the slaves won their freedom, but those who assisted them were later heavily fined in a judgment by the Circuit Court for the District of Indiana. Liston’s credibility was allegedly ruined in the South Bend community for his role in the case. He subsequently relocated to Indianapolis, opened a successful

13 Oliver H. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches (Cincinnati, Ohio, 1858), 561. 14 History of St. Joseph County, Indiana (Chicago, 1880), 620. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 11

practice, and became one of the best-known members of the Indiana bar, ranking with the leading lawyers of the region.15 Liston’s co-counsel, Thomas D. Walpole, a native Ohioan, was a prominent attorney from Hancock County who had served several terms in the Indiana House of Representatives and Senate. He had served as a member of the state’s constitutional convention, which drafted Indiana’s second constitution in 1850–1851. Only a year before Freeman’s trial, Walpole had abandoned his long-time affiliation with the Whigs and joined the Democratic Party. He was described as a bitter opponent of the Know- Nothing Party, and may have changed parties because of the increasing defection of Whigs into the Know-Nothing and Free Soil camps. The Democratic State Sentinel eulogized that Walpole, “although a member of the Whig Party . . . was watchful of the rights of the people, and any attempt to circumscribe the liberty of the citizen was sure to rouse to fierce invec- tive the fiery eloquence which burned in his great and generous heart.16 Pleasant Ellington migrated from Greenup County, Kentucky, near the Ohio River, to the town of Ridgely, in Platte County, Missouri, in 1838. Ellington “became a merchant and the most enterprising man in the settle- ment.”17 By 1850, he owned nineteen slaves and a considerable amount of real estate.18 While the Ellingtons were considered “zealous Methodists,” and Pleasant Ellington had donated land for the Ridgely Methodist church, there is no evidence that he was a minister, as some of the Indianapolis papers later charged.19 How it is that Ellington came to believe that Freeman was his former slave, and living in Indianapolis, remains a mystery. After nearly two decades, Ellington went to great trouble and expense to claim Sam, perhaps simply to recoup his loss (though the time and expense of rendition would have surely exceeded the fugitive’s value), perhaps because of a personal grudge, or to vindicate his rights under the strengthened 1850 law. His pursuit illustrates that the long arm of the fugitive law was always a present reality for both free blacks and fugitives.

15 Indianapolis Journal, October 17, 1881. 16 Indianapolis Sentinel, October 12, 1863; Charles W. Calhoun, Alan F. January, Elizabeth Shanahan- Shoemaker, & Rebecca A. Shepherd, eds., Biographical Dictionary of the Indiana General Assembly, 1816–1899 (Indianapolis, Ind., 1980), 407. Less is known of Walpole than the other attorneys involved in the case. He died tragically from a fall down a flight of stairs during the Civil War, and none of his papers have survived. 17 W. M. Paxton, Annals of Platte County, Missouri (Kansas City, Mo., 1897), 842–43. 18 Seventh United States Census, 1850, Platte County, Missouri, Slave Schedule. 19 Paxton, Annals of Platte County, Missouri, 842–43. 12 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made no provision for counsel, habeas corpus, or jury trial for the accused. The claimant had only to provide proof of the alleged slave’s identity and ownership, whereupon a commissioner, or other court official appointed by a federal circuit court, would issue a certificate of removal, allowing the claimant to take the fugitive back to the state or territory from which he had fled. The law was designed to make the process of rendition easier and cheaper for slaveholders, as growing Northern hostility to slavery made reclamation more difficult. While Freeman was apprehended easily enough, Ellington’s hopes for a speedy disposition of his claim were quickly disappointed, as counsel immediately jumped to Freeman’s defense. They procured a writ of habeas corpus, a legal action designed to keep the accused from unlawful imprisonment, from Judge Stephen Major of the Marion County Circuit Court. The writ commanded Deputy Marshal Stapp to deliver Freeman to Judge Major’s court. Upon the return of the writ of habeas corpus, Freeman’s counsel asked for time to plead the return and consult with their client. The court instructed the sheriff, into whose custody Freeman had been delivered, to give counsel the opportunity to consult with their client. The case was adjourned until the following morning, June 22.20 When the court reconvened, Freeman’s counsel protested that they had not been given enough time to prepare their pleas to the return of the writ of habeas corpus. Judge Major gave them until the afternoon of the same day; by that time, the defense team had prepared several pleas and offered a wealth of documentation to support Freeman’s claims. They challenged the authority of Commissioner Sullivan to issue a warrant for the arrest of Freeman, as well as the authority of Deputy Marshal Stapp to carry out the warrant. In other pleas, they asserted that Ellington, now a citizen of Missouri, “had no right to reclaim Freeman as owing him service in Kentucky; the laws of Kentucky forbidding the importation of slaves into that state. . . . It was urged that the fugitive could not be governed by the law of Missouri, and the master had forfeited the right of reclamation by removing.” The meat of the defense’s case, however, rested on their assertion that the state had the right to determine the underlying fact of the case—whether John Freeman really was Ellington’s escaped slave. Concerned that Freeman would not receive fair treatment at the hands of Commissioner Sullivan—a federal officer and native of the slave state of

20 Indiana Free Democrat, June 30, 1853. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 13

Maryland—they hoped to have the facts of the case determined by Judge Major, whose issuance of a writ of habeas corpus had already interfered with federal law regarding fugitives. The defense likely believed that a local judge might be more influenced by the high state of feeling in Freeman’s favor, and thus more willing to give the accused a fair hearing. The important plea concerning the supremacy of state over federal law with respect to fugitives from bondage began a legal battle between the contending parties over whether the state court of Judge Major, or the court of United States Commissioner Sullivan, would hear and determine the facts of the case.21 John Freeman provided certificates from Brunswick County, Virginia, and Walton County, Georgia, as proof of his emancipation. Georgia law required that free persons of color were appointed guardians. Creed M. Jennings and Warren J. Hill, both in the mercantile business, served as Freeman’s guardians in Walton County, Georgia. As evidence supporting Freeman’s guardianship, defense submitted to the court documents stating that Hill had been appointed guardian for Freeman, a “free man of color,” on January 9, 1837. In another document, dated February 22, 1832, the Walton County Court had appointed Creed Jennings guardian. A certified document dated May 20, 1844, signed by Warren Hill, stated: “John Freeman, is a free man of color, lawfully emancipated, has been a resident of this county for the space of twelve years or more, and is a man of steady habits and honest character. Therefore, he is privileged to trade for himself, and it is hoped will not be molested.” Hill again asserted Freeman’s free status by signing a certificate dated June 9, 1838:

John Freeman, the bearer of this, by profession a painter, disposed to seek employment in the adjacent counties, begs to be recom- mended to those strangers who may be disposed to employ him, which I do most cheerfully, as I consider deserving patronage, the confidence and patronage of a liberal community, and can recommend him as pretty well skilled in his profession, and of honest, industrious, and steady habits, and recommend him to a kind and hospitable reception among those he may chance to go among.

Freeman’s attorneys also filed business receipts proving Freeman had traded for himself. Finally, they submitted an indenture between Hill and John

21 Ibid. 14 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

P.H. Briscoe, dated January 15, 1844, contracted for the sale of Freeman’s lot in Monroe, Walton County. Shortly after this sale, Freeman moved to Indianapolis. The volume of paperwork submitted to the court supporting Freeman’s claim to freedom was overwhelming. Surprised by this, Ellington’s attorneys asked the court for time to inspect the papers and to prepare responses to the pleas of the defense. Judge Major adjourned the hearing until the next day.22 On Thursday, June 23, the court heard arguments on the matter of the jurisdiction of the case, the most important plea offered by Ketcham, Barbour, and Coburn. Liston opened the proceedings, arguing that the pleas of Freeman’s attorneys were irrelevant because they concerned matters over which the state had no jurisdiction. The question for the state court to decide was simply whether Freeman was now properly in U. S. jurisdiction—if so, the state court’s authority was at an end. Liston supported his contention with the legal precedent established in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, which had declared that on the subject of fugitive slaves, Congress had exclusive jurisdiction. Barbour objected, stating that Prigg v. Pennsylvania was not applicable to the Freeman case because the identity of the accused was in dispute, making this a case regarding identity rather than fugitive reclamation. Joseph G. Marshall, an advocate for defense counsel, followed Barbour and made a “clear and forcible speech in favor of the jurisdiction of the Court (Judge Major’s court) in this case.”23 Marshall, an Indiana Whig who had formerly run for governor and a congressional seat, was one of the most well-known and highly respected attorneys in the state.24 Jane Ketcham recalled that her husband had a higher opinion of Marshall than any other man at the bar, and compared his courtroom demeanor to that of a “lion.”25 Marshall did not disappoint his audience. He declared that the state had the right to determine who her citizens were and how the question of citizenship should be tried. The state had the right to protect her citizens from illegal and improper restraint by virtue of her sovereignty. According to the Indiana Free Democrat, his argument for the state’s jurisdiction of the case created great excitement among the spectators. At one point he was interrupted by Judge Major and asked to

22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 William W. Woollen, Biographical and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana (New York, 1883), 432–48. 25 Jane Merrill Ketcham Reminiscences, John L. Ketcham Collection. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 15

proceed in a less declamatory manner. After Marshall finished his argument, Coburn elaborated on the idea of habeas corpus, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, and Kentucky law regarding the importation of slaves.26 In his opinion, Judge Stephen Major found the position of Freeman’s counsel untenable. He wrote that the state of Indiana had surrendered her sovereignty with regard to the return of fugitive slaves. The case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania had settled the question of jurisdiction over fugitive slaves “in favor of the exclusive jurisdiction in the United States, and that no State Legislation can control it, and consequently no State officer, unless he is vested with authority, by act of Congress, can exercise any jurisdiction over the question of freedom or slavery.” After citing several legal authorities and cases in support of his opinion, Judge Major asserted that Commissioner Sullivan was fully competent and invested with authority to settle the issue. Freeman’s attorneys had hoped that Major would adopt a state’s rights argument and be willing to decide the merits of the case. By deferring the case to Commissioner Sullivan, however, Major affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Prigg v. Pennsylvania. It was now up to Freeman to prove his identity to a Federal court-appointed officer.27 Despite this apparent setback, Freeman’s counsel delayed proceedings with specious legal arguments, attacking the validity of Sullivan’s authority. In response, Liston and Walpole produced a document showing that Sullivan had been appointed a commissioner in June 1850. Freeman’s attorneys objected, claiming that the commission did not specify the powers to be exercised under the appointment, and had been made prior to the 1850 law. After Major admitted the commission into evidence, however, Freeman’s counsel argued that in 1841, Sullivan had also been elected a justice of the peace in Indianapolis and that both state and federal constitutions forbade the holding of two offices of trust by the same person. Again, Major sided with Ellington’s attorneys, declaring that he was not competent to rule on the legitimacy of Sullivan’s powers as commissioner. The defense’s legal strategy was focused both on keeping the suit before the state court, and also, by focusing on technicalities, extending the litigation period so that Ellington’s attempt at reclamation would be time-consuming and

26 Indiana Free Democrat, June 30, 1853; Paul Finkelman, “Sorting out Prigg v. Pennsylvania,” Rutgers Law Journal 24 (Spring 1993), 605–664. Justice Joseph Story’s decision in Prigg stated that Congress held exclusive jurisdiction over fugitive slave rendition, but states could pass legislation to aid the implementation of the Fugitive Slave Law. States were not required, however, to enforce the law. 27 Finkelman, “Sorting out Prigg v. Pennsylvania.” 16 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

expensive. But after the judge’s rulings, Freeman’s fate would be decided by Commissioner Sullivan, whose fair-mindedness would prove to be more than could have been expected by Freeman’s lawyers. Interestingly, William Sullivan, like Ketcham and Barbour, would be another Democrat-turned- Republican after the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Freeman, who had already been confined by the Marion County Sheriff for nearly a week, was now remanded to the custody of Federal Marshal John Larne Robinson.28 Robinson, a Kentuckian who had just turned 40 years old at the time of Freeman’s arrest, was a loyal, pro-Compromise Democrat and remained so until his death on the eve of the Civil War. He had already enjoyed a distinguished political career, serving three terms in Congress from 1847 to 1853. After leaving Congress, he was appointed by President Franklin Pierce to serve as marshal of the Southern District of Indiana. Robinson was an intimate friend of Democratic political boss Jesse D. Bright and a notorious Northern doughface, according to his political opponents. Ironically, Robinson had voted against the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 while in Congress. At a meeting before constituents in Aurora, he claimed he voted against the act because he did not want to agitate the subject of fugitive slaves. After the law was passed, however, he opposed any repeal or modification of it.29 Robinson was not in Indianapolis at the time of Freeman’s arrest, but arrived in the city a few days later to take custody of the prisoner.30 During the case, he became the primary target and villain of the Free Soil and abolitionist press. After Freeman was delivered to Marshal Robinson by the Marion County sheriff, the parties of the hearing reconvened in the commissioner’s court. Liston requested that the cause be continued for two weeks to allow his client to take depositions to establish his claim, whereupon Ketcham made a motion that his client receive security against costs accrued in preparing his defense. Though Freeman’s attorneys provided their services gratis, Ketcham reasoned that “the Fugitive Slave Law contemplated a fair investigation. This would call for the taking of depositions and large expenditures of money; not only by the claimant, but also by the alleged fugitive. Suppose after the accumulation of heavy costs, this claim should be defeated, and the prisoner released, who shall pay these costs?” Even if

28 Indiana Free Democrat, June 30, 1853. 29 Aurora Standard, June 12, 1851. 30 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-present; http://bioguide.congress.gov /scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=R000343; Indiana Free Democrat, June 30, 1853. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 17

Freeman were fortunate enough to win his case, his legal fees threatened to ruin him financially. Ketcham quite logically concluded that his client was “entitled to be made safe. He is forced to make the costs, and if the claim was false, he should have security against him who compelled him to make them.” Ellington’s lawyers maintained that according to the 1850 law, Freeman had no right to introduce any evidence to show his free status; a trial to determine the question of freedom or slavery must be held in a slave state. The Fugitive Slave Law’s defenders always asserted that the fugitive could get a jury trial in the state from which the slave had escaped, but such an assertion was more fantasy than reality. Unwilling to grant Freeman security for costs, Ellington did agree, probably on the advice of his lawyers, to grant Freeman thirty days to prepare his defense. More than likely, Ellington conceded such latitude to allay the feelings of an aroused Indianapolis citizenry. In fact Walpole declared that these thirty days would be “days of sorrow to his client—days of mobs and riots & c.” Sullivan refused to grant security to Freeman; however, perhaps sensing the mood of the city, generously gave Freeman’s counsel nine weeks from June 27 to prepare for trial. This extended time was crucial to Freeman’s lawyers, who would have to travel extensively to find additional proofs of their client’s innocence.31 Freeman’s attorneys attempted to get their client released on bail, claiming that every citizen had the right to be admitted to bail, except those accused of a capital offense.32 Ketcham told the court: “It was necessary that Freeman be admitted to bail to accomplish the purpose for which the court granted a continuance. He must be taken to Georgia to be identified—to prove himself to be what the law of nature designed him—a free man.” Ellington refused all offers of indemnity, and Sullivan decided that he did not have the authority to release Freeman on bail. Marshal Robinson threatened to move Freeman to the Jefferson County jail in Madison, along the Ohio River, in response to rumors circulating throughout the city that citizens might attempt a rescue. The editor of the Indiana State Sentinel, the leading Democratic paper in the state, provided statements to support the claim. Calvin Fletcher recorded in his diary that he had

31 Indiana Free Democrat, June 30, 1853. 32 Freeman’s counsel offered a note issued in sixty days, payable by the state bank in the amount of $1,600; a bond signed by prominent citizens of Indianapolis in the amount of $4,000; or a recognizance for any amount acceptable to Ellington. They argued that this was a generous offer when Freeman’s value, because of his age, could only be $600 to $800. 18 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

Calvin Fletcher (1798–1866). The attorney and banker was one of the prominent Indianapolis residents who lent his influence to keeping Freeman in the city during his incarceration. Courtesy, Indiana Historical Society John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 19

gone to see Rawson Vaile, the editor of the Indiana Free Democrat, about raising money to tender the marshal against Freeman being taken away. The entry provides another piece of evidence as to how Freeman’s situation attracted the concern of important local men. The marshal decided to keep his prisoner in Indianapolis, but Freeman was forced to pay three dollars a day for a guard to keep him from being rescued. The press dubbed the marshal “Ellington’s watch dog.”33 On the day after Freeman’s arrest, Coburn and Ketcham had written letters to the Walton County, Georgia, clerk for testimony in support of Freeman’s papers. The clerk delivered the letters to Leroy Patillo, a 56-year-old merchant and postmaster of Monroe, where Freeman had formerly lived. Patillo knew the accused intimately and, in a return letter dated July 6, corroborated Freeman’s claim to freedom and the authenticity of his papers. He asserted that Freeman arrived in Walton in 1831, with free papers, which were recognized by the inferior county court, and that Freeman remained in Walton until he left the area in 1844. Patillo claimed that there were hundreds of people who could verify Freeman’s residence in Walton County during the period between 1831 and 1844. Freeman had lived continuously in Monroe, with the exception of a short trip to Florida with a former county clerk to serve as a cook in the Second Seminole War in the spring of 1836. Patillo described Freeman as of “medium size, well- made, and a black negro.” Based on his knowledge of his former friend, Patillo asserted that Ellington’s claim was fraudulent.34 Having not received Patillo’s letter in the mail, Ketcham made the long, arduous trip to Monroe, much of it on horseback, to interview witnesses personally.35 He reached Monroe on July 13 and began interviewing former acquaintances of Freeman. He found everything in the town just as Freeman had described it, and, conversing with its citizens, was able to substantiate his client’s free status. After taking depositions, Ketcham showed a daguerreotype to a crowd of people gathered at the post office, “who with one voice and acclamation, pronounced it to be Freeman’s, and a most excellent likeness.” Finally, Ketcham interviewed Freeman’s former guardian, Warren J. Hill, who pronounced all of the certificates in Freeman’s

33 Indiana Weekly State Sentinel, June 30, 1853; entry for June 27, Thornbrough, Riker, and Corpuz, Diary of Calvin Fletcher, 5:84–85. 34 Indiana American, January 20, 1854, reprinted in Charles Money, “The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 in Indiana,” Indiana Magazine of History, 17 (June 1921), 188. 35 Jane Merrill Ketcham Reminiscences, John L. Ketcham Collection. 20 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

possession to be genuine. John Freeman’s reputation for truth and honesty was confirmed, and his story aroused the interest and sympathy of many of Monroe’s citizens. Ketcham accumulated an abundance of evidence, and praised the hospitality and cooperation shown to him by the citizens of Monroe in a statement which appeared in the Indiana Free Democrat:

I must here tender to those southern gentlemen whose acquain- tance I made, and who expressed their interest in Freeman’s behalf, my kind regards. And, especially, the citizens of Monroe, for the promptness with which they afforded me every facility to forward the object of my visit. And I am under special obligation to Hon. Warren J. Hill, who gave me the hospitality of his house, and who took a deep interest in Freeman’s matters. Judge Hill is a whole- hearted southerner, highly esteemed by all his neighbors, and was nominated by the Democratic party for the State Senate, just before I got to Monroe.

Remarkably, Ketcham also persuaded Leroy Patillo to come to Indianapolis and personally identify Freeman, further illustrating the depth of feeling between the accused fugitive and his “old” friend. 36 The indefatigable lawyer followed up his trip to Georgia with an August 9 letter to Howell Cobb, governor of Georgia. Ketcham laid out Freeman’s case, arguing that a great injustice might be done to a well-respected man, who had always “demeaned himself with propriety,” was economical, industrious, and had acquired a “handsome” property. Ketcham stated that Freeman relayed to him the details of an encounter with the governor, who had eaten in his oyster shop on a stop in Monroe. Ketcham hoped that Governor Cobb could either visit Indianapolis, or write to verify that he remembered Freeman in Georgia prior to 1836, making it impossible for Freeman to have been Ellington’s slave. In an effort to assure Cobb that Indiana was “sound” on the fugitive slave issue (or to curry favor with the governor), Ketcham wrote: “Indiana has always been forward to furnish every facility to the South in reclaiming her fugitive slaves. . . . I need not say to you that I am no abolitionist; I am a Kentuckian by birth and a democrat from the cradle.” Nonetheless, in an obvious case of mistaken

36 Indiana Free Democrat, July 28, 1853. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 21

identity, “we feel that justice should be done.” There is no evidence that Cobb responded to Ketcham’s letter.37 Freeman’s fugitive slave case was one of the most striking in the decade prior to the Civil War because of the lengths to which Freeman’s attorneys were willing to go to prove and secure his freedom, but even more so because of the cooperation and eagerness of the “southern gentlemen” to see justice for the alleged fugitive. Few African Americans received such respect in the antebellum period, even in the Northern states, and the case illustrates Freeman’s standing in both the Indianapolis and Monroe communities. In his statement to the Free Democrat, however, Ketcham seemed to disassociate the activities of Freeman’s counsel from the taint of abolitionism, pointing out that Judge Hill was a “whole-hearted southerner,” and a Democratic nominee for the Georgia State Senate. The attempt to preserve his client’s freedom was an effort to secure justice to a wrongly accused man, something that all Union-loving citizens, North and South, bound by Democratic Party principles, could unite behind. For most of its history, Indiana had been dominated politically by the Democratic Party, and Ketcham’s careful insertion was designed to prevent any potential party division over slavery. In less than a year, however, Illinois senator Stephen Douglas’s Kansas-Nebraska Act, approved by a Democratic-dominated Congress, would divide the party over the extension of slavery, and Ketcham would align himself with the new People’s or Anti-Nebraska Party. Ketcham did not intimate to anyone that he was bringing the Monroe postmaster to Indianapolis. After arriving back home on July 21, a month after Freeman’s initial arrest, Ketcham notified Ellington’s legal team that he had brought someone from Monroe to identify Freeman. Both counsels, Postmaster Pattillo, and a number of Indianapolis citizens, assembled at the jail to see Freeman. After being asked to survey the room for any “strangers” he might recognize, Freeman’s eyes were slowly drawn to Patillo, whereupon he excitedly seized his former friend and the two emotionally embraced and conversed with one another.38 Ellington’s claim had been seriously undermined, but there was even more supporting evidence arriving with John Coburn, who was trying to locate the real Sam.

37 Ulrich B. Phillips, ed., “The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander Stephens, and Howell Cobb, Volume 2.” Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911 (Washington, D.C., 1913), 331–34. 38 Indiana Free Democrat, July 28, 1853. 22 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

Jane Merrill Ketcham (1819–1911), wife of Freeman’s lawyer John Ketcham, preserved much of the story of Freeman’s trial and the work of his counsel in a later family history. Courtesy, Indiana Historical Society John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 23

John Coburn traveled to Greenup County, Kentucky, and Samuel Merrill traveled to Canada to obtain more evidence on Freeman’s behalf. Coburn was able to trace Sam to northwest Ohio, in Salem, Columbia County, where he learned the runaway went by the name of William McConnell. Coburn found men in Salem who knew William McConnell and his bodily marks. Their description of him matched that of Sam given in the affidavits filed by Ellington. Coburn and Merrill learned that McConnell had fled to Fort Malden, near Amherstburg, Canada, just across the Detroit River from Michigan, upon passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Merrill had the honor of finding the real Sam, alias McConnell, in Canada, “sitting in front of his cabin writing poetry,” as his daughter romantically recalled. Coburn later prevailed upon Henry A. Mead, a relative of Ellington’s, and James E. Nichols, both slaveholders and men of standing and wealth from Greenup County, Kentucky, to accompany him to Canada to identify the real Sam. Mead and Nichols were well acquainted with Sam, his history and identifying marks. They both recognized the former slave at his home in Canada and met as old friends, conversing freely about Ellington and their former acquaintances. Both Mead and Nichols testified in depositions that the real Sam, Ellington’s former slave, lived in Canada.39 While Freeman’s attorneys were traveling, taking depositions, and procuring valuable evidence, Ellington brought three witnesses to Indianapolis on July 25 to “identify” Freeman. Jonathan Liston telegraphed the marshal, requesting that the court officer supervise an examination of Freeman’s body. The witnesses having been unable to identify Freeman based on his general appearance, Liston and Ellington requested a closer look at Freeman’s body for marks or scars. Freeman’s counsel protested this examination, but Robinson ordered Freeman to expose a portion of his body in front of Ellington’s witnesses. The Indiana Free Democrat indignantly reported that Freeman’s “back, legs, and other portions of his person were examined for marks by which to recognize him, and it is reported that the witnesses are now prepared to swear that Freeman is Ellington’s slave.” Ellington’s witnesses were prepared to testify falsely in court that Freeman did belong to Ellington based on his bodily marks. Robinson was severely censured by much of the press for forcing Freeman to “strip” and allowing

39 Jane Merrill Ketcham Reminiscences, John L. Ketcham Collection; Money, “Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 in Indiana,” 189–90. In the Seventh United States Census, 1850, Mead appears as Armistead Mead, living in Greenup County, Kentucky, farmer, age 44, born in Virginia, $10,000 in real estate; James E. Nichols appears living in Greenup County, Kentucky, farmer, age 59, born in Virginia, $2,600 in real estate, slave schedule shows him with 32 slaves. 24 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

such an examination. Again, the Free Democrat complained that Robinson “seemed to regard himself as the special agent of the claimant,” and had “thrown almost every conceivable obstacle in the way of the defense.” The paper also questioned Robinson’s authority to allow the strip search under the “infamous” Fugitive Slave Law.40 Not to be outdone in denouncing the marshal, the Madison Banner questioned the credibility of Ellington’s witnesses, as well as Robinson’s motivation for giving the slaveholder so much latitude in the prosecution of his claim:

It will surely seem strange that so many men, who profess to have been well acquainted with Freeman of course, or they would not of all others have been chosen as witnesses by Ellington, should seek other marks of identification than the features and countenance. And what is as strange as the conduct of those men, is the fact that John L. Robinson, the marshal, a man who ought to have some little respect for his State, even if he has none for himself, would permit such proceedings as have never been heard of elsewhere than perhaps in the quarters of the detested men whose ostensible occupation is to buy and sell human flesh. Ellington and his men may have a motive—the former to satisfy thirst for gain and an effort to relieve himself of the odium that will attach to him if Freeman shall be proven to be a free man after the affidavit that he is his slave, and the latter it may be a bribe; but none can be seen for Robinson, unless it be a natural hate of justice or a penurious desire to obtain the five dollars that he will lose if Freeman is not returned to slavery.41

Robinson defended his actions in the Indiana State Sentinel, claiming that after his proposal to move Freeman to Madison, Freeman’s counsel offered three dollars per day to keep their client in jail at Indianapolis. Robinson asserted that he put the matter of the guard fee into the hands of a deputy, George McQuat, and refused to accept responsibility for Freeman’s expensive accommodations. He also claimed to stand falsely accused of refusing bail for Freeman, noting that it was Commissioner Sullivan who

40 Indiana Free Democrat, July 28, 1853. 41 Indiana Free Democrat, August 4, 1853 (Madison Banner quotation). John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 25

held authority over the right of bail.42 However the contending parties arrived at the cost of guard, Freeman’s team believed that it was crucial for their client to stay in Indianapolis for consultations, supervise exam- inations, and ensure that Freeman would not be taken across the river and either delivered to Ellington or sold. Sullivan set the hearing to decide Freeman’s fate for August 29. As July gave way to August, Freeman’s defense team had acquired overwhelming evidence to support their client’s case for freedom. Postmaster Patillo had left Indianapolis and returned home. He wrote a letter from Monroe dated August 8, in which he reported to Ketcham: “Some four or five of our most respectable citizens who have known John Freeman from the time he came to this place will go to Indianapolis and will probably reach there on Friday or Saturday before John’s trial. . . . There is a great deal of interest felt here for John.”43 Freeman’s former guardian Creed M. Jennings, who had heard of the case, was also traveling north from Alabama to identify and testify for Freeman. In an arranged meeting, Freeman and Jennings each recognized the other and fondly relived old memories, providing further evidence as to Freeman’s true identity.44 John Ketcham anxiously wrote to his sister-in-law, Julia Merrill, on August 12: “I am on my way to Richmond, Virginia to gather up more testimony in Freeman’s case—with the truth on our side we shall yet have hard fighting.” Later in the month, he was more optimistic and wrote Julia that “We can hardly fail of success.” Ketcham, Coburn, and Barbour had proven that Freeman had been free since at least 1831, and that Ellington’s real slave, Sam, or William McConnell, was now living in Canada. They had gone to remarkable lengths, traveling extensively, interviewing, taking depositions, and securing the assistance of Freeman’s acquaintances in Kentucky, Georgia, and Alabama. Sullivan’s postponement of the hearing gave the attorneys the time they needed to gather conclusive proof, and they were confident of success. Not only did they have the preponderance of evidence on their side, but they also had the support of public opinion.45

42 Frankfort Weekly Crescent, February 18, 1854 (Robinson’s reference to the State Sentinel indicates that his letter was originally published there). The Seventh United States Census, 1850, lists George McQuat in Marion County, Indiana, age 29, born in Kentucky, merchant. 43 Leroy Patillo to John L. Ketcham, August 8, 1853, John L. Ketcham Collection. 44 Indiana State Journal, August 26, 1853. 45 John L. Ketcham to Julia Merrill, August 12, August 22, 1853, John L. Ketcham Collection. 26 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

The Indiana State Journal building, 1850. The Freeman case captured public opinion via accounts and editorials in Indianapolis and other state newspapers, including the State Journal. Courtesy, Indiana Historical Society

Throughout the summer of 1853, newspapers all over Indiana editorialized on the trial of John Freeman. The editors of some of the state’s leading papers argued vehemently over the merits of the case and the Fugitive Slave Law. The Democratic editor of the Sentinel, William J. Brown, surprisingly expressed sympathy for Freeman:

There were great, and honest doubts in the minds of this community, whether Freeman was a slave. He had resided here for ten or twelve years—by his industry he had accumulated property; he had married a wife, and was the father of many children. He claimed to be a free man. We desired that he might have time to establish that fact, if it was true. If he is a slave, we confess that we would prefer to see his owner receive a fair price for him, to taking him back to slavery.46

Brown asserted that no one would desire to see this man dragged from his home and family. At the same time, he wrote, “We have an orderly people

46 Indiana State Sentinel, July 28, 1853. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 27

at Indianapolis—a law-abiding people. A vast majority desire to see the laws executed.”47 His belief in the “law-abiding” citizens belied his earlier concerns of a rescue, rumors of which he had passed along to Ellington’s attorney Liston. Such rumors aside, Brown was most likely accurate in his assessment of public opinion in Indiana regarding the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. Most Hoosiers supported the compromise measures, as their love for the Union was greater than their sympathy for the plight of African Americans. However, the fugitive law was not popular, and there are many instances of Hoosiers’ interference with its enforcement. Certainly the Freeman case did nothing to make the law more palatable. The Fugitive Slave Law became increasingly more difficult to enforce in the northern half of Indiana during the 1850s.48 Even south of Indianapolis, where many residents had strong cultural ties to the South, many Hoosiers disliked the law. According to historian Nicole Etcheson, “Upland Southern Midwesterners particularly disliked the provisions of the fugitive slave law that called for Northerners to be part of the slave-catching posses.” While Hoosiers rejected “New England, abolitionist fanaticism,” they also resisted an “oppressive” planter class that threatened their liberties by forcing them to become slave catchers.49 Northerners began to suspect that a “Slave Power” was at work, determined to nationalize slavery by the Fugitive Slave Law and the extension of slavery into the Federal territories. According to the National Era: “The press in Indiana do not favor negro-catching. The editor of the Rising Sun Republican is in favor of every man catching his own negro. He thinks that the business is ‘too low for a decent man to stoop to.’”50 For many Indiana citizens, the Freeman case provided the first exposure to the heavy-handed enforcement of the fugitive law. The gross injustice perpetrated on Freeman not only discredited the law in many Hoosiers’ minds, but also portended the division of the

47 Indiana State Sentinel, July 7, 1853. 48 One example of northern Indiana hostility to the law can be found in the Waterhouse case. Benjamin Waterhouse, along with other abolitionists, helped three slaves escape to Canada in the summer of 1853. Indictments against three abolitionists were dismissed. Waterhouse was tried and found guilty, but only sentenced to one hour in jail and a $50 fine by a sympathetic jury. See Charles Money, “The Fugitive Slave Law in Indiana (concluded),” Indiana Magazine of History 17 (September 1921), 275–76. 49 Nicole Etcheson, The Emerging Midwest: Upland Southerners and the Political Culture of the Old Northwest, 1787–1861 (Bloomington, Ind., 1996), 115–16. 50 National Era, August 11, 1853. 28 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

Democratic Party which would occur with passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in May 1854. Pro-Southern Indiana Democrats and editors, like William Culley of the Madisonian, denounced the Sentinel for its allegedly compromising attitude on the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law. Mistakenly referring to Brown’s apparent role in agitating for a rescue attempt to gain Freeman’s freedom, Culley wrote:

We see him [Brown] acting spokesman—not Speaker—for a small body of abolitionists in the capital of Indiana, if not aiding and abet- ting in their designs to rescue an alleged fugitive from justice, unless his alleged master would consent to sell him for such a price as they might dictate! “I tell you,” said this spokesman to the counsel for the plaintiff, “that your client must sell the negro, if proven to be his slave, for a fair price, or THERE WILL BE A RESCUE!!” Here there is not only a connivance with the abolitionists in their plans to rob the master of his property, and to throw a firebrand into the midst of a peaceable community, manifested, but there is a blow menaced against both the fugitive law of Congress and the law of Indiana against the admission and succor of blacks in this State.51

The Madisonian was a short-lived paper which expressed the sentiments of the proslavery Southern wing of Indiana Democrats, and was typical of several papers published in the southern tier of counties along the Ohio River. Any call for justice, the expression of sympathy, or material aid given to African Americans was considered “abolitionist,” an epithet not to be desired by most Hoosiers. The Madisonian folded after the Democratic defeat in the 1854 state elections. Rawson Vaile’s Indiana Free Democrat, the organ of the party’s Free Soil wing, was at the other end of the political spectrum and of all Indiana papers covered the Freeman trial the most extensively. The Free Democrat’s editor was highly critical of the manner in which the Fugitive Slave Law was being enforced. He condemned Commissioner Sullivan for not admitting Freeman to bail, and abused Marshal Robinson for his role in the exam- inations of Freeman’s body. He called the case “a disgrace to the State.” 52

51 Indiana Sentinel, July 21, 1853 (Madisonian quotation). 52 Indiana Free Democrat, August 11, 1853. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 29

Even Henry Ward Beecher, now a resident of New York, joined the chorus of protests. He wrote an article to the New York Independent, subsequently published in William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator, in which he castigated Ellington, Robinson, and the Fugitive Slave Law:

This American people have laws within which men may violate every sentiment of humanity, smother every breath of Christianity, outrage the feelings of a whole community, crush an innocent and helpless family, reduce a citizen of universal respect and proved integrity to the level of a brute, carry him to the shambles, sell him forever away from his church, his children, and wife; all this may be done without violating the laws of the land—nay, by the laws, and under the direction of a magistrate!53

Other papers joined the protest. The New Albany Tribune called Freeman’s refusal of bail and imprisonment a “mockery of justice,” asserting that “the presumption of the law is, or should be, in favor of the freedom of the negro.”54 In fact, the Fugitive Slave Law stipulated that the accused was not presumed innocent, but guilty, and could offer no evidence in his defense. Only by the aid of sympathetic and diligent counsel and an impartial commissioner was Freeman given the opportunity to prove his standing as a free citizen. Pleasant Ellington, facing increasing pressure from a hostile press and public, made one last determined effort at reclamation. Shortly before the hearing, Ellington, having returned to Missouri after Freeman’s arrest, came back to Indianapolis with his son. The two men visited Freeman in jail, hoping to expose Freeman’s “deceit.” Young Ellington represented himself as coming from Georgia and being well-acquainted with Freeman there. Freeman offered no recollection of the man, even as Ellington’s son insisted that they had known each other in Georgia. The ruse was foiled, further displaying Freeman’s honesty and Ellington’s duplicity. Unable to use his son’s testimony, or refute the impressive amount of evidence contradicting his claim, Pleasant Ellington, upon the advice of Jonathan Liston, decided to abandon his attempt at reclamation the weekend before the trial. According to Oliver H. Smith, Ellington “locked himself in his

53 The Liberator, July 29, 1853; also printed in the Indiana Free Democrat, August 4, 1853. 54 Indiana State Journal, July 2, 1853 (New Albany Tribune quotation). 30 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

room, and in the night left the city and walked to a station on the Madison railroad; got on the cars, made the best of his way to Kentucky, and has not returned since.”55 Commissioner Sullivan dismissed the case and released Freeman from jail on Saturday, August 27, 1853, ending his three-month ordeal. Freeman’s release caused a jubilant celebration by his friends and supporters. In an exaggerated fashion, the Free Democrat boasted that the people of Indianapolis, and indeed the whole state, rejoiced at the out- come of the case.56 John Freeman had retained his freedom, and Pleasant Ellington returned to Missouri empty-handed, having lost valuable time and money. Afterwards, Freeman’s supporters, antislavery men and women, and abolitionists used the case to expose the dangers of the Fugitive Slave Law. They made resolutions and held public meetings. Newspapers around the state reported on the Freeman trial and weighed in on the injustice perpetrated on a free man, as well as on the efficacy and justice of the law. On Monday August 29, the day originally set for the trial, a group of local citizens held a public meeting at Masonic Hall to celebrate Freeman’s release. Abolitionist George W. Julian, hoping to use the event to increase antislavery sentiment, spoke at length on the dangers of the Fugitive Slave Law. Julian cheerfully recollected:

On the day of the trial Ellington became the fugitive, while Freeman was preparing his papers for a prosecution for false imprisonment. The large crowd in attendance was quite naturally turned into an antislavery meeting, which was made to do good service in the way of “agitation.” The men from Georgia were on the platform, and while they were complimented by the speakers on their love of justice and humanity in coming to the rescue of Freeman, no quarter was given to the Northern serviles and flunkeys who had made haste to serve the perjured villains who had undertaken to kidnap a citizen of the State under the forms of an atrocious law. The meeting was very enthusiastic, and the tables completely turned on the slave-catching faction.57

55 Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches, 279. 56 Indiana Free Democrat, September 1, 1853; Money, “Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 in Indiana,” 192. 57 Julian, Political Recollections 1840–1872, 133–34. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 31

Masonic Hall, 1850s. After Freeman was released from jail, many of his supporters gathered at the hall for a celebration. Courtesy, Indiana Historical Society

According to the National Era, the Masonic Hall audience, including Free-Soilers, and “Hunker Whigs and Democrats,” adopted the following resolution: “That as the act of Congress, commonly called the Fugitive Slave Law, has here, and in many other parts of the country, been the occasion of great injustice, wrong and suffering; and as these things will be likely to continue, as necessary fruits, so long as it remains upon the statute-book, and especially as it requires and justifies wrong, in many of its provisions, it ought to be immediately repealed.”58 The audience’s approval of the resolution, one that apparently appealed to those of different political leanings, illustrated the wide support Freeman had received and the hostility to the law, at least as it was currently written. That same evening at Masonic Hall, the “colored” citizens of Indianapolis held a meeting and adopted several resolutions. The resolutions condemned Ellington and Marshal Robinson, and advocated the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. They expressed gratitude to Ketcham, Coburn, and Barbour for their tireless efforts on behalf of Freeman, and thanked Freeman’s Southern friends

58 Letter from Dr. Samuel W. Ritchey (Indianapolis resident and supporter of Freeman) printed in National Era, September 15, 1853. 32 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

who had come to his aid. They also expressed joy “at the great change in the public sentiment of this State in the past two years, anxiously hoping that our friends may go on in their efforts until every law which militates against us may find no place in the statute books of Indiana.”59 A change in public sentiment was occurring in Indiana, even if it was yet politically impotent. The Freeman case contributed to the growing feeling against the perceived aggressions of a “Slave Power,” led by a planter aristocracy, accused of trying to nationalize slavery by forcing Northerners to become slave-catchers and extending slavery into the Federal territories. The Whig Indiana State Journal looked at the case from another vantage point and optimistically predicted that the cooperation between Northerners and Southerners in their efforts to prove Freeman’s free status augured well for the future of the Union:

The five Southern gentlemen who came here to testify on behalf of JOHN FREEMAN, left yesterday, highly delighted with their visit, and all they noticed among us. Two of them, being anxious to know more of our State, directed the Journal to be sent to them for one year. Whenever there shall be more intercourse between North and South, there will be less talk about a dissolution of the Union. One railroad connecting North and South will do more to bind the Union together than all the resolutions that could be adopted in a day.60

Other papers around the state editorialized on Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law. If not advocating outright repeal, most papers at least called for modifications of the law in its express provisions or its enforcement. The Fort Wayne Sentinel, one of the leading Democratic papers of the state, declared that “a more flagrant case of injustice we have never seen,” and that the law needed an amendment to give greater protection to “free persons of color”:

As it now stands almost any of them might be dragged into slavery. If Freeman had not had money and friends he must inevitably have been taken off into bondage.

59 Indiana Free Democrat, September 1, 1853. 60 Indiana State Journal, August 31, 1853. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 33

George Washington Julian (1817–1899), Indiana congressman and one of the state’s leading abolitionists. Julian considered the Freeman case an important example of the evils of the Fugitive Slave Law. Courtesy, Alamy Stock Photo 34 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

Any poor man, without friends, would at once have been given up and taken away, and it was only by the most strenuous exer- tions that he was rescued. A law under which such injustice can be perpetrated, and which holds out such inducements to perjury, is imperfect, and must be either amended or repealed. The American people have an innate sense of justice, which will not long allow such a law to disgrace our Statute books.61

The Indiana Sentinel, whose editor William J. Brown had expressed the hope that Freeman, if proved to be a slave, could at least be purchased in order to save him from bondage, refused to criticize the Fugitive Slave Law. Brown credited the law with saving Freeman from being kidnapped, deducing that “had the fugitive slave law not been passed, Ellington could have seized Freeman and carried him out of the state, and sold him as a slave, without any process of law whatever.” Ignoring many facts of the case, he argued that Freeman had been given due process and had his claims investigated, proof that the rights of the accused were secure.62 The Brookville Democrat disgustedly reported that Freeman, “over whom so much fuss has been made by the free-soilers, has been released from confinement in the jail of Marion County. We hope his friends will now be satisfied that he is at liberty, and cease the eternal cry of persecution of the colored race. Ellington, the claimant, could not prove the identity, and the claim was abandoned.” The editor neglected to tell his readers that Ellington had repeatedly falsely sworn and, with the collaboration of a federal marshal, had nearly succeeded in carrying into bondage a free man. Newspaper editors who rejoiced at Freeman’s release also expressed outrage that he had been forced to remain in jail while the case was continued. Editorials harshly condemned Ellington and Marshal Robinson, who was declared by one paper to be an “obsequious doughface.”63 The Free Democrats of Rush County, where Robinson lived, accused the marshal of “prostituting his high and respectable office to the detestable crime of kidnapping” and requested President Pierce to remove Robinson from his office.64 Although Ketcham, Coburn, and Barbour had volunteered their

61 Indiana State Journal, September 8, 1853 (Fort Wayne Sentinel quotation). 62 Indiana Sentinel, September 8, 1853. 63 Indiana Sentinel, September 22, 1853 (Brookville American quotation). 64 National Era, October 6, 1853. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 35

Dodd, Talbott & Parsons’ Indianapolis City Directory and Business Mirror for 1862. Despite the considerable (and mostly unrecouped) costs of defending himself in 1853, Freeman was able to maintain his home on North Meridian Street and his oyster saloon business, as evidenced by this city directory. 36 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

legal services, the costs of procuring evidence and other court fees nearly bankrupted Freeman. His financial losses did not go unnoticed by the press, and sympathetic papers complained loudly about the merits of a law that could force such hardship upon an innocent man. Freeman later sued Ellington and Robinson for damages, but received no remuneration for his losses. He was awarded damages in the amount of $2,000 from Ellington, a sum which was never paid; his suit against Robinson was ultimately dismissed by the Indiana Supreme Court because the suit was commenced in Marion County, rather than the county of Robinson’s residence.65 The case of John Freeman was by far the most important fugitive slave case in Indiana. There are several extraordinary aspects of the case which give it such significance in Indiana political history. Freeman had lived in Indianapolis nearly a decade, started a family, formed friendships, and gained the confidence of the community. His situation was unique in this period of Indiana history, as most Hoosiers were deeply prejudiced, their racism codified in state law. Not only had Freeman gained a level of respect not usually afforded to black citizens in the antebellum period, he also had many friends in the South. The highly unusual circumstance of Southern slaveholders traveling thousands of miles to help secure the freedom of an African American man makes this case one of the most unusual in the antebellum period. Leroy Patillo of Georgia and Creed Jennings of Alabama positively identified Freeman. Henry Mead and James Nichols of Greenup County, Kentucky, Pleasant Ellington’s previous home, helped Freeman’s attorneys find the real Sam in Canada. Without the help of these Southerners, Freeman would likely have been sent into slavery. The influence of public opinion was also striking, likely playing a role in Sullivan’s decision to continue the case until both legal parties could pro- cure the evidence needed to support their claims. Coburn’s, Barbour’s, and Ketcham’s tireless work, the support of prominent Indianapolis residents, Southerners seeking justice, and an aroused Indianapolis citizenry were all decisive in saving a free man from the pit of slavery. In addition to the unique circumstances surrounding the Freeman trial, the case had a significant impact on Indiana’s antebellum political climate. The Freeman trial revived a dormant antislavery movement in the state and began the process of eroding Hoosiers’ acceptance of the Compromise measures as a final adjustment of the sectional dilemma over

65 Money, “Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 in Indiana,” 194. John Freeman and the Fugitive Slave Law 37

slavery. Less than one year later, the Kansas-Nebraska Act would cause a realignment of political loyalties in the state and inaugurate a new era of party strife. According to George W. Julian, the arbitrary enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 aroused people who had previously been unmoved by the slavery question.66 The Brookville American, a Whig paper, declared that the “Fugitive Slave case in Indianapolis has largely increased the antislavery feeling in Indiana.”67 After discussing the indignities perpetrated on Freeman, the New Castle Democratic Banner stated that “such occurrences as these must necessarily add much strength to the organization of the free soil party. They are strong weapons and will not be suffered to rust in their hands. The advocates of the ‘finality’ of the fugitive slave law will lose much ground in consequence of the proceedings in the Freeman case.”68 Democratic, abolitionist, and Free Soil accounts of the event often clashed, characterized by claims and counterclaims. Truthful accounts are probably less important, however, than the use to which the opponents of slavery were able to put Freeman’s case. Democrats lost political ground as a result of their support of the Fugitive Slave Law, while their adversaries found the trial to be of great propagandistic value. Attorney Oliver H. Smith in his Early Indiana Trials and Sketches, published in 1858, was the first Indiana historian to interpret the significance of the Freeman affair. After summarizing the case, Smith, who had on several occasions represented slave holders in fugitive slave hearings, professed: “This case presents much for reflection; it shows the great caution that should be observed on the part of slave-holders in pursuit of fugitives, in making affidavits, and the vast importance of the commissioner issuing the writ, giving full time to the parties after the arrest to get the proof of identity before a certificate is obtained. While it is right and proper, that the Constitution and laws should be enforced in such cases, it is highly important that every safeguard should be thrown around the free man of color.”69 Another Indiana historian proclaimed:

[The case] brought home to the people as nothing could, or ever had done before, the fact that innocent people were likely to be

66 Julian, Political Recollections, 1840–1872, 101, 147. 67 Indiana Free Democrat, September 22, 1853 (Brookville American quotation). 68 Indiana Free Democrat, August 11, 1853 (New Castle Banner quotation). 69 Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches, 279. 38 INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

drawn again into the shackles of slavery, an institution which they had come to hate and which they thought wrong anywhere and especially contrary to democracy. Not only was one part or one section of the state brought to realize the wickedness and injustice of the law, but from every part of the state newspapers commented on the case and scored the law.70

Indiana historian Jacob Piatt Dunn unequivocally declared that the Freeman case “was a large factor in the carrying of the State by the People’s Party in 1854.”71 Hoosiers had never been enthusiastic about the slave-catching business, but Freeman’s persecution at the hands of the slave catchers made the enterprise even more repulsive. His ordeal demonstrated clearly how the Fugitive Slave Law could be perverted by slave hunters in order to kidnap free African Americans into bondage. The law failed to provide the necessary safeguards for the protection of free black citizens. Another nineteenth-century Indiana historian thought the case merited discussion “from the fact that it displayed upon the part of certain public officers an overzealous effort to rob a man of his freedom”—a reference to Robinson and his associates.72 Fugitive slave cases such as that of John Freeman sowed the seeds for the creation of a new political party, which would emerge in spring 1854 after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The contentious fugitive slave issue contributed to a realignment of political parties and became an important factor in bringing about the Civil War.

70 Money, “Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 in Indiana,” 197–98. 71 Jacob Piatt Dunn, Indiana and Indianans: A History of Aboriginal and Territorial Indiana and the Century of Statehood (Chicago, 1919), 508. 72 Max R. Hyman, ed., Hyman’s Handbook of Indianapolis (Indianapolis, Ind., 1897), 74.