— Ch. 1 · The Textual Evasion —
Fugitive Slave Clause.
~5 min read · Ch. 1 of 7
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution requires a person held to service or labor who flees to another state to be returned to their master. This specific legal language deliberately avoids using the words slave and slavery throughout the document. Historian Donald Fehrenbacher believes this wording intended to make it clear that slavery existed only under state law rather than federal law. The clause applies to individuals described as persons held to service or labor which usually included slaves but also apprentices and indentured servants. This phrasing created an ambiguity that allowed both pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions to claim constitutional ground for decades.
English Common Law Roots
Prior to the American Revolution there were no generally accepted principles of international law requiring sovereign states to return fugitive slaves. English court decisions came down on both sides of the issue regarding whether a fugitive should be returned to their former owners. The ambiguity was resolved with the Somerset v Stewart decision in 1772 when Lord Mansfield ordered that a fugitive slave from Massachusetts who had reached England was a free person. Lord Mansfield ruled that the individual could not be legally returned to his previous owners absent a long-standing local custom or positive legislation requiring the return. Law professor Steven Lubet noted that although the decision did not affect the colonies directly it established a precedent where judges were bound by English law to ignore prior legal status under foreign laws.