Prigg Vs. Pennsylvania
The case between Edward Prigg and Margret Morgan demonstrated one of the complications that arose out of the Fugitive Slave Laws. The case began when Margret Morgan, a slave to Edward Prigg's father, was granted her freedom. This was not a formal change, merely a promise that she could do as she pleased. After her former owner's death, his son, Edward Prigg, decided to go to Maryland and bring Margret Morgan and her children back with him to Pennsylvania. It was his plan to reinstate them as slaves . The Personal Liberty Law of 1826 decreed that no person could be brought into the state of Pennsylvania to be held as slaves. Prigg was arrested and tried upon his return to the state with Margret and her family. Prigg argued in front of the Supreme Court that the Personal Liberty Laws were unconstitutional. He argued that the crime that he was being charged for was a perfectly legal act under the constitution. In the end, the judges did condemn Prigg and Margret was allowed to be free. The Personal Liberty Laws were in fact in violation of certain articles in the constitution. In this example, Prigg claimed that he was acting under article IV section II of the constitution, which clearly states that criminals or fugitives cannot escape punishment or recapture by leaving their state for another. The Personal Liberty Law that had passed in 1826 directly stated that anyone, including escaped slaves, could not be brought into Pennsylvania and kept as a slave. This contradiction made the Personal Liberty Laws controversial.
Read more about this topic: Personal Liberty Laws
Famous quotes containing the word pennsylvania:
“The discovery of Pennsylvania’s coal and iron was the deathblow to Allaire. The works were moved to Pennsylvania so hurriedly that for years pianos and the larger pieces of furniture stood in the deserted houses.”
—For the State of New Jersey, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)