This paper reviews Patrick Brode's The Odyssey of John Anderson (1989), a historical and legal account of the 1860 extradition case involving an escaped Missouri slave living in Canada. The review traces Anderson's life from enslavement through his escape and killing of a pursuer, to the multi-jurisdictional legal battles that followed his arrest in Brantford. It examines Brode's central argument that objective application of existing law—not moral sentiment—was the only just standard available to the Canadian and British courts, and considers how the case illuminates racial attitudes, colonial legal identity, and the abolitionist movement in North America and Britain.
The paper models evaluative synthesis: rather than simply describing what Brode argues, the reviewer assesses the strength and fairness of those arguments, noting where Brode is "well-reasoned, if a little overloaded with technical details." This technique — summarizing, then judging the quality of the source's reasoning — is the hallmark of a strong book review at the undergraduate level.
The review opens with historical context and a thesis statement about Brode's purpose, then moves chronologically through the book's content (Anderson's life, his escape, the arrest, the legal proceedings), before pivoting to a sustained evaluation of Brode's legal-moral argument in the final two paragraphs. This structure mirrors the source text's own arc while keeping the reviewer's critical voice present throughout.
In November of 1860, John Anderson, an escaped slave who had been living in Canada for several years, was charged with murder. The murder had occurred seven years earlier in Missouri during Anderson's escape; the victim was a white slave owner attempting to prevent Anderson from fleeing. Anderson's guilt was never in any serious question, but the case stirred up emotions and legal battles in three different countries, and for a brief time had an enormous impact on the slavery debate in North America. In his book providing an account of the event, Canadian author and lawyer Patrick Brode explores the various legal angles of the Anderson case and the issues it touched during this highly volatile and transitional time in the legal and social development of the New World.
Brode's thesis seems to be that fairness was not really in anyone's mind, except perhaps for a few of the judges who heard the various cases. The story of John Anderson, as Patrick Brode tells it, reveals that a media frenzy accompanying a court case where race is on the line is far from a modern phenomenon, and that any man can become a symbol for more abstract concepts — but that in so doing, his individuality and personal history may be lost.
Brode's book The Odyssey of John Anderson quickly moves through Anderson's early life as companion and guardian for his master's two daughters and then the reputation he earned as a defiant and uncooperative slave, culminating in his sale from his lifelong master, Moses Burton, to the crueler Colonel Reuben Ellis McDaniel, with whom he would face "the harsher and more common face of slavery." Life as McDaniel's slave, separated from his wife and child, soon became too much for the free-spirited Anderson, and he planned and executed an escape without raising any alarm.
Bounty hunters were soon on his trail, however, and in a scuffle Anderson killed a man with his knife. He made it to Canada and avoided detection despite the violent excitement and the fact that the bounty hunters were still pursuing him, and he essentially disappeared for six years. It is here that Brode's story really takes off. The first three chapters of Odyssey cover the first thirty or so years of John Anderson's life — from sometime around 1831 to 1860 — when it is revealed to Canadian authorities that Anderson is wanted for murder back in Missouri and he is arrested and jailed in Brantford.
It is the legal battle that took place regarding Canada's potential extradition of John Anderson — an escaped slave accused of murder in a country whose legal ties were allied with the abolitionists in Britain and the United States, but whose social sympathies were often far more racist than most cared to admit — that most interests Brode. Fairness is paramount to this practitioner of the legal profession and recorder of history. He does not glorify John Anderson as many of his proponents at the time did, nor does he denigrate the judges who initially found his crime fully worthy of extradition. Instead, he attempts to peer back through nearly one hundred and thirty years of history and objectively render one of the most impassioned legal cases of its time.
One of the things Brode cites as causing so much uproar in the case — much of it eventually working against Anderson — was the interference of a British court in the Canadian extradition proceedings. Anderson's arrest was quickly discovered and reported to various officials, which led to a review by a three-judge panel to determine whether John Anderson should be legally extradited to the United States on the charge of murder, despite the fact that Canada had long been, traditionally and in some ways legally, a safe haven for fugitive slaves from the United States. Arguing before this panel on behalf of Anderson was Samuel Black Freeman, who according to Brode was eloquent but not actually skilled at arguing the legal aspects of a case: "Despite his ability to sway a jury, Freeman…was not renowned for his facility at arguing the fine points of law."
Unfortunately for Anderson, the case did not hinge upon the swayed hearts of a jury, but on the legal knowledge and expertise of three Canadian judges. One of these judges determined that Anderson should remain in Canada; the other two, however — ruling correctly in Brode's opinion — determined that murder was an offense that according to Canadian and international law demanded extradition regardless of the circumstances, and that Anderson should be returned to Missouri to face trial. This caused a public uproar among abolitionists in all three countries involved, but it also created a stir within the Canadian legal world regarding the stature and respectability of the Canadian judicial process.
Brode notes that "in the minds of many of the people the objectivity of the courts was already highly suspect" and subject to political persuasions, and many saw this decision as caving to American desires. Others would become even more incensed when the British courts issued a writ that essentially rendered the Canadian court's decision moot — to the point that it began "to overshadow sympathy for Anderson." Eventually, Anderson was kept in Canada on a technicality. He then left for England and eventually Liberia, where all historical traces of him end. The impact of his life and legal battle extended much further than the few months of trials, writs, group rallies, and journalism that kept it in the public eye, and it is these long-term and far-reaching ramifications that Brode really contends with in Odyssey.
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 a century and a half in the future, we know that the slavery issue was soon to be decided regardless — but Canada at the time had no way of knowing that, and moral justifications cannot lead to a fair execution of the law.
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.