The Fugitive Slave essay
The case of Jim is very complex because this case involves the controversy in legislation and norms of different states. At the same time, the case of Jim should be tried objectively and this case should not be vulnerable to the impact of conscience or other subjective factors. In fact, the case of Jim should be tried carefully and both the position of Jim’s attorney and the position of Jim’s owner should be considered carefully. However, the analysis of the case reveals the fact that Jim should be tried in Massachusetts because he is a citizen of the state, where slavery does not exist and the court should respect the rights of Jim as a citizen of the state and the US.
At this point, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the due process was violated in case of Jim because he did not have the possibility to have a jury. In fact, the first trial was quite superficial and did not provide Jim with the possibility to defend himself. Instead, the court just took the decision in favor of Jim’s owner without careful consideration the case. However, the first trial could be highly subjective because the federal judge was financially interested in sending Jim to Virginia. Therefore, the judge could not take the decision objectively. Instead, he probably expected the higher financial benefits, in case of taking the decision in favor of Jim. In such a context, the jury could prevent the subjective decision being taken by the judge in the course of the first trial. Therefore, the decision of the court was not objective and the trial did not follow the due process.
In this regard, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the due process implies the substantive process. Instead, the case of Jim was tried superficially within the substantive process. The substantive process implies the careful and full analysis of the case and fair trial. Jim should have opportunities to make his case undergoing the substantive process. The substantive process is very important for the objective trial and, more important, for taking the adequate, fair and objective decision.
Furthermore, the due process implies the prohibition against vague laws. In case of Jim, the Fugitive Slave Acts are vague laws. They are implemented by states, where slavery is practiced, to maintain slavery, although they contradict to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Fugitive Salve Acts were implemented to protect the rights of slave owners specifically. However, they contradicted to the US Constitution in regard to the violation of human rights of people living in the US. At any rate, the Fugitive Slave Laws contradict to the Bill of Rights incorporated in the US Constitution. In fact, the Fugitive Slave Laws cannot be expanded on non-slavery states, such as Massachusetts. In fact, these laws actually turn people, who live as free men in non-slavery states, into slaves as they have to be returned to the states, where slavery persist. Hence, it is obvious that the Fugitive Slave Laws are vague and the due process is not observed in relation to Jim, if he is transferred to Virginia without fair trial.
In addition, the due process clause incorporates the Bill of Rights. The case of Jim and the requirement of his owner violate the Fifth Amendment for the Fugitive Slave Acts, in their essence, limit rights and liberties granted to all Americans and, therefore, contradict to the US Constitution. According to the Fifth Amendment, state laws cannot limit rights of the US citizens and violate federal legal acts and norms, including the US Constitution. In fact, the Fugitive Slave Acts contradict to the US Constitution and Jim’s right to the due process was violated.
Therefore, Jim has the right to fair trial. He has been living in Massachusetts for three years as a free citizen. Consequently, he has the right to fair trial as any other citizen in the state and the country. Jim has equal rights and liberties just like any other person in the US and Massachusetts. He cannot be sent to Virginia without the fair trial. Instead, he should be treated as any other citizen of Massachusetts. At the moment he is equal to any citizen of Massachusetts and he cannot be just transferred to Virginia upon the claim of his owner. Instead, his case should be carefully considered and the decision should be taken only upon the detailed study of all circumstances of the case.
In terms of the due process clause Jim’s human rights defined by the Bill of Rights should be respected. In this regard, the duty versus conscience dilemma affects not only the position of Jim’s attorney but also the position of Jim’s owner. He ignores the Bill of Rights and norms of the US Constitution which incorporated the Bill of Rights. In fact, Jim’s owner claim that Jefferson was a slaveholder is irrelevant to the content of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, Constitutional norms grounded on the Bill of Rights should be respected by all parties involved in the trial and Jim’s constitutional rights and liberties should be respected. In fact, Jim’s owner refers to conscience, when he denies human rights granted to citizens, including Jim, by the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. His appeal to the fact that Jefferson was slaveholder himself does not necessarily mean that slaves should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. On the contrary, Jim’s attorney is reasonable in his appeals to the Bill of Rights and Constitutional norms which grant American citizens with basic human rights and liberties. Jim is a citizen of the US as he lives in Massachusetts and is a recognized community member.
Therefore, Jim should be tried in Massachusetts and stay in Massachusetts because he has equal rights and liberties compared to other citizens of the state. There is no objective reason for transferring Jim to trial in Virginia. In such a context, Jim should be tried as a free man and citizen of the US, who has Constitutional rights and liberties and, therefore, he is under the protection of Constitutional norms and federal laws. He should not be denied of his right to the fair trial, including the jury trial.
In addition, Jim’s owner has to prove first that his claims are just because there is no evidence that Jim is his slave, while there are plenty of witnesses, who can prove that Jim is a free man living in Massachusetts for three years. Taking into consideration the fact that the first court decision could have been financially motivated, the case of Jim should be tried fairly. In fact, Jim’s owner claims are not grounded on any facts but his claims. Therefore, it is possible to presuppose that he just wants to transfer Jim to Virginia, where it may be easier for him to make him his slave. From this standpoint, Jim’s owner’s actions are quite doubtful from the legal point of view. Consequently, the detailed study of the case and analysis of all circumstances is essential.
Thus, the analysis of the case of Jim reveals the fact that the due process was violated in the course of his trial. He was denied of the jury and the opportunity to have a fair trial. At the same time, he is a free citizen of Massachusetts, living in the state for three years. In such a situation, he should be tried just like any other citizen of the state. In addition, Jim’s owner has to prove his rights on Jim first, before his demand to return Jim to him can be satisfied. In fact, the case of Jim violates the due process and contradicts to the US Constitution because, if the demand of Jim’s owner is satisfied, his rights will be violated. In such a situation, Jim should stay in Massachusetts or, at the least, he should have the right and opportunity for fair trial.
