In Patricia A. Reid\u2019s \u201cSlavery and Abolition: a Journal of Slave and Post Slave Studies,\u201d she references a quote by Fredrick Douglas that indicates an interest system regarding runaway slaves. Douglas once said \u201cwhite men have been known to encourage slaves to escape, and then, to get the reward, catch them and return them to their masters\u201d (365). This statement describes how the retrieval of slaves became somewhat of a business for white men during the 19th<\/sup> century. Previously, I had known it was common for a reward to be given for a man to return another person\u2019s slave. Yet, I never guessed that whites working alongside slaves in lower class jobs during this period would try to influence them into escaping only to have an upper hand in securing the reward. It is shameful at best but, it reiterates the idea that slaves were not considered people but, were property used for monetary gain.<\/p>\n An interesting situation that Reid details in her work was the predicament of being a free black within Pennsylvania. Reid describes how slaves and free blacks could easily integrate into Pennsylvania society because, this state, unlike Ohio, did not record free blacks (367). For slaves, this seemed like a blessing in disguise, as it was a close state in terms of distance in which they could feasibly assimilate into society. Yet, Reid reveals how this apparent blessing was actually a detrimental issue for black individuals of any status during the 19th<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n Even though Pennsylvania enacted personal liberty laws in 1826, which were supposed to halt free blacks from being wrongfully uprooted and returned to slavery, the very system of the state essentially negated this law. Though this law was in effect, the free blacks were not granted a trial by jurors, or any due process of the law, leaving the decision of their case up to a white authority (369). As free blacks were not recorded in the state, if they did not have a strong white authority to speak on their behalf, like in Richard Allen case, they were left with little proof of their position (368). With this type of system in effect, the freedom of free blacks in Pennsylvania was unfortunately always in danger. Without strong white support behind them, a posse of slave catchers could appear and carry a number of blacks back to the south to be sold back into slavery, which is what occurred with the Morgan family. Though Pennsylvania tried to halt these practices with their laws, the system they had in place negated such affects, leaving free blacks generally unprotected in an often hostile environment.<\/p>\n After reading over Henry\u2019s post, I completely agree with his questions regarding why both Maryland and Pennsylvania did not have significant legislation reflecting their people\u2019s views. Though Pennsylvania did have a gradual emancipation policy, this was a limited route to abolition at best. Maryland meanwhile, did not feature such laws but, did have white slave owners releasing their slaves, which is what happened with the Morgans. In regards to Henry\u2019s potential answer, I\u2019d have to agree once again. Slavery as a whole was a critical social issue that had caused the Founding Fathers, as well as the Constitutional Convention. Though the United States had grown in many ways at the time of this issue, the idea of total abolition was still a distant possibility for the country as a whole. Even if people viewed it as wrong, it was so deeply ingrained into American culture that it was going to take a war that ripped the country in two to end this practice for good.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Patricia A. Reid\u2019s \u201cSlavery and Abolition: a Journal of Slave and Post Slave Studies,\u201d she references a quote by Fredrick Douglas that indicates an interest system regarding runaway slaves. Douglas once said \u201cwhite men have been known to encourage slaves to escape, and then, to get the reward, catch them and return them to … <\/p>\n