parts: the Legislative Assembly (House of Commons), the Legislative Council (Senate) and the Executive Council (Cabinet). The British-appointed governor oversaw it all. In the late 1850s, the governor general still held significant power, especially with respect to international matters. Internal political power, however, rested in the elected Legislative Assembly, as it controlled the purse and decided which party would form the government (that party’s leader became premier, or in modern parlance, the prime minister). Macdonald had been Canada’s joint premier, with Étienne-Paschal Taché and George Étienne Cartier, since 1856. He was also attorney general of Canada West, although everyone regarded him as representing the entire colony in legal matters. The Anderson case was a complex challenge that Macdonald needed to meet with consideration for its legal and domestic political ramifications, and its effect on Canada’s dangerous and shifting relationship with the United States and an increasingly truculent Britain.
Macdonald was torn by the case. His personal opinion sided with Anderson and the abolitionists. 31 In April 1856, he had involved himself in a similar case relating to a fugitive slave named Archy Lanton, whom American authorities wanted returned. Macdonald wrote to the provincial secretary arguing that the local magistrates had badly mishandled the case in allowing the Americans to retrieve Lanton without a hearing. He said, “There is so much reason to fear that Lanton, a man of colour, fugitive from the United States, was a victim of a scheme to kidnap him.” 32 Macdonald ordered that the magistrates responsible for allowing Lanton to be taken back to the United States be fired.
Macdonald’s major political rival was Reformer George Brown. The two had clashed for years and seen political rivalry escalate to personal hatred. Macdonald concealed his feelings with barbed wit but Brown was transparently contemptuous toward his Conservative enemy. Because Brown was one of the abolitionist movement’s chief spokesmen, it would have been politically hazardous for Macdonald to enthusiastically support Anderson. Macdonald sought to avoid political problems by ordering Matthews to “require evidence of criminality sufficient to sustain a chargeaccording to the laws of the Province before extradition should follow.” 33 In other words, stick to the law.
The court heard a deposition from one of Digges’s slaves and then testimony from his son, both of whom had been present at the stabbing. It also heard an interpretation of the Fugitive Slave Law, which decreed that Digges had been legally obliged to try to stop anyone suspected of being a runaway slave. Finally it was Anderson’s turn. He testified that it had not been his intention to kill Digges. He explained that he had needed to use force to escape from the situation and from the United States in order to be free.
Matthews took little time to come to a decision. He explained to the court that his interpretation of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty led him to rule that Anderson should be extradited to the United States. The final step would be for the Canadian government to approve of the court’s decision. It would be up to Macdonald.
Missouri’s governor, Robert Stewart, was in a political pickle as treacherous as Macdonald’s. Should he remain quiet and allow the Canadians to decide a property issue involving one of his citizens? Should he use the power of his office to exert pressure on Canada and be seen by the people of his state, and indeed the people of the South, as doing so? Or should he do nothing? To do nothing would mean surrendering to the northern abolitionists and to Canadians, who had for some time been placing enormous pressure on slave states such as his and, in so doing, helping to make the secessionists’ case.
Stewart decided to join Missouri senator James Green, who had also been carefully following the Anderson case, and the
Macdonald was torn by the case. His personal opinion sided with Anderson and the abolitionists. 31 In April 1856, he had involved himself in a similar case relating to a fugitive slave named Archy Lanton, whom American authorities wanted returned. Macdonald wrote to the provincial secretary arguing that the local magistrates had badly mishandled the case in allowing the Americans to retrieve Lanton without a hearing. He said, “There is so much reason to fear that Lanton, a man of colour, fugitive from the United States, was a victim of a scheme to kidnap him.” 32 Macdonald ordered that the magistrates responsible for allowing Lanton to be taken back to the United States be fired.
Macdonald’s major political rival was Reformer George Brown. The two had clashed for years and seen political rivalry escalate to personal hatred. Macdonald concealed his feelings with barbed wit but Brown was transparently contemptuous toward his Conservative enemy. Because Brown was one of the abolitionist movement’s chief spokesmen, it would have been politically hazardous for Macdonald to enthusiastically support Anderson. Macdonald sought to avoid political problems by ordering Matthews to “require evidence of criminality sufficient to sustain a chargeaccording to the laws of the Province before extradition should follow.” 33 In other words, stick to the law.
The court heard a deposition from one of Digges’s slaves and then testimony from his son, both of whom had been present at the stabbing. It also heard an interpretation of the Fugitive Slave Law, which decreed that Digges had been legally obliged to try to stop anyone suspected of being a runaway slave. Finally it was Anderson’s turn. He testified that it had not been his intention to kill Digges. He explained that he had needed to use force to escape from the situation and from the United States in order to be free.
Matthews took little time to come to a decision. He explained to the court that his interpretation of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty led him to rule that Anderson should be extradited to the United States. The final step would be for the Canadian government to approve of the court’s decision. It would be up to Macdonald.
Missouri’s governor, Robert Stewart, was in a political pickle as treacherous as Macdonald’s. Should he remain quiet and allow the Canadians to decide a property issue involving one of his citizens? Should he use the power of his office to exert pressure on Canada and be seen by the people of his state, and indeed the people of the South, as doing so? Or should he do nothing? To do nothing would mean surrendering to the northern abolitionists and to Canadians, who had for some time been placing enormous pressure on slave states such as his and, in so doing, helping to make the secessionists’ case.
Stewart decided to join Missouri senator James Green, who had also been carefully following the Anderson case, and the
Similar Books
