Expert Witness At Hearing Compares Boston Trust Act of 2010s To Resistance To Fugitive Slave Act During 1850s

Editor’s Note: A guest witness who appeared Tuesday, March 10, 2025 before the Boston City Council’s Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee compared a local ordinance that limits cooperation by Boston police with federal immigration authorities with efforts in Boston (and in Massachusetts more generally) to resist the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850..Neenah Estrella-Luna, a consultant who has a doctorate in law and social policy from Northeastern University, spoke during the hearing as part of a panel invited by the city council’s subcommittee.Estrella-Luna describes herself as “a researcher, educator, advocate, and consultant focusing on issues related to social justice, social relations, and democratic governance” and says that she “collaborates with grassroots organizations and policymakers to develop and advocate for policies and practices that support social equity in law.”A transcript of the portion of her remarks focusing on resistance in Boston to the Fugitive Slave Act during the 1850s is below. It is based on a video of the hearing.^^^^^^^^^^ .What I'd like to start with is emphasizing both the importance but also the historic precedence of the Boston Trust Act.This law is nothing new for Boston. Boston, number one, has been a sanctuary for those needing protection going back to our original foundings and to the origin of the city of Boston as a city under this United States.And Boston as a city has actually resisted federal efforts to impose obligations that we don't agree with. That is part of our history also.For example, I think we can be proud of Boston's refusal to capitulate to the many federal initiatives around the fugitive slave laws in the 19th century, slave laws that were imposed by Congress in the early and middle part of the 19th century. And I think it's important to remember that these federal fugitive slave laws were imposed on the states like Massachusetts at the behest of what were the oligarchs of the 19th century, people who were determined to maintain systems of oppression and marginalization, people who were determined to maintain systems of white supremacy.Boston, let's be clear, was by no means innocent in any of these systems. But it did, to its credit, resist forced complicity with the enslavement of black people. So when the federal government through Congress and with the support of the Supreme Court imposed the Federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Boston resisted. The court -- or I'm sorry, the law -- mandated that local authorities, what at the time were local law enforcement, assist with the seizure of self-emancipated black people and return them to slavery. It also allowed citizens – civilians -- to be deputized in order to enforce the return of human beings to enslavement. And Boston said no.The citizens and the city of Boston successfully prevented the seizure of many emancipated black people. However, in 1854, a federal judge -- a federal judge, not a local judge, a federal judge -- forced the return of Anthony Burns, a self-emancipated black man of slavery. Burns was seized from our jails, from a Boston jail, and returned to enslavement.In response, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted the Personal Liberty Law in 1855, to prevent any further complicity with enslavement -- by requiring, by the way, due process of law. By enforcing rights. So I see the Boston Trust Act as a descendant, if you will, of that personal liberty law, adapted to the modern era.Boston's Trust Act makes clear that we are not agents of the federal government, and we can choose not to participate in the enforcement of federal civil laws that are contrary to our values and that actually harm the city -- harm our neighbors.

Expert Witness At Hearing Compares Boston Trust Act of 2010s To Resistance To Fugitive Slave Act During 1850s

Related Stories