As distasteful as it was in the public mouth, Brode contends that extraditing Anderson on the murder charge was the only legally justifiable choice, and that the British court should not have had -- and perhaps did not have -- the authority to reverse the decision of the Anderson when it was made by the Canadian panel.
Throughout the book, Brode's argument is well-reasoned, if a little overloaded with technical details. He is fair in presenting the strong moral case that fueled people's desire to see Anderson remain in Canada, but he is more fair in determining that the law must apply to everyone. Had Anderson actually been extradited and stood trial, it might have served to further the cause of the abolitionists even more, and exposed the true injustices of slavery once and for all. Of course, from a vantage point nearly one-and-a-half centuries in the future, we know that the slavery issue was soon to be decided regardless, but Canada at the time had...
This case would still prove to be a sensitive subject today; returning someone to slavery for any reason is certainly abhorrent and something to be avoided. However, Canada's law being what it was at the time, Brode's repeated assertion that extradition was the correct legal choice for Anderson is completely true. A moral system can only work if each moral instance is applied universally; obviously, the system of slavery is immoral by this definition, but if a system of law is to approach morality, it must remain consistent. In the end, a technicality allowed the legal system to behave morally and quasi-consistently, but Brode's tome lets us know it was a close call.
Brode, Patrick. The Odyssey of John Anderson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989.
Patrick Brode, the Odyssey of John Anderson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989, xi.
