> It is wrong to act as if you somehow should be looked at differently by the law because you had a "legitimate political cause."
I don't see it the same way as you. I see this as a complaint about the law itself, not a claim that the law shouldn't be enforced because of a "legitimate political cause." If slavery were still legal, and a slave complained publicly about the practice, you (hopefully) wouldn't tell the slave "hey, slavery is legal, that's how it works."
I think that's kind of an absurd comparison because a slave would be made a slave simply because he exists not because of anything he had done. If you know the consequences of your actions before choose to act and you go ahead anyway then you have, in my mind, stated that you find those consequences to be acceptable. It is odd to me that Hammond would then complain about his prosecution like it was some kind of surprise.
Okay then, imagine the slave runs away, thus breaking the law, and the penalty is being captured, returned, and perhaps beaten or otherwise punished.
Also, I've seen a couple of people claim that Hammond seems surprised, but in the article it is very clear and explicit that he expected this to happen.
I don't see it the same way as you. I see this as a complaint about the law itself, not a claim that the law shouldn't be enforced because of a "legitimate political cause." If slavery were still legal, and a slave complained publicly about the practice, you (hopefully) wouldn't tell the slave "hey, slavery is legal, that's how it works."