THE NATION WAS IN CRISIS IN 1850, with the Southern states threatening to secede over the question of slavery in the Mexican Cession. Henry Clay, and later Stephen Douglas, brokered a compromise to save the Union, in which California was admitted to the Union as a Free state, Texas relinquished its claims to New Mexico and other territory in exchange for the assumption of its debts by the federal government, and the slave trade was abolished in Washington, D.C. One further element of the Compromise of 1850 stuck much closer to Oberlin. In a major concession to the South, Congress enacted an amendment to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 – in reality, a completely new law – that virtually federalized the rendition of runaway slaves.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was deeply unpopular in the North, and not only among abolitionists. Its central feature was the authorization of U.S. commissioners – a class of part-time subjudges whose powers were otherwise very limited – to preside over all fugitive slave proceedings and to issue “certificates of removal” at the request of slave owners. The goal of the Act was to override the jurisdiction of state courts in the North, which were thought to be too protective of runaways. That was bad enough, but other aspects of the law made it even more objectionable. Alleged fugitives were prohibited from testifying in their own defense, could not demand jury trials, and were denied the right to appeal. The certificate of a Southern court – obtained ex parte by a slave owner – was deemed conclusive proof of slave status and escape. The commissioner was left to decide only the question of identity, which could be based on “a general description of the person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be.” Moreover, the commissioner was to be paid a fee of $10 for allowing rendition, but only $5 for denying the certificate of removal.