 An Act to enable persons held in slavery, to sue for their freedom |
|
This territorial statute presented an opportunity for enslaved people to sue for their freedom in Louisiana Territory courts. It also specified how petitioners were to be treated by defendants while the freedom suit was being heard.
|
| Ann v. Henry Hight |
|
Ann was a Black woman indentured by a man who took her from Maryland to Illinois and finally into Missouri, contrary to an Illinois law that required the consent of the servant if they were taken beyond the state's borders. Upon her employer's death, the executor of his estate, Henry Hight, claimed her as a slave for life. Ann petitioned for her freedom in a Missouri court and won.
|
| Ann Williams, Ann Maria Williams, Tobias Williams, & John Williams v. George Miller & George Miller Jr. |
|
This successful freedom suit, brought by Ann Williams and based on importation bans, showed legal challenges to slavery in Washington, D.C.
|
| Arch v. Barnabas Harris |
|
This freedom suit illustrates how enslaved people presented a fundamental issue in the legal system. The central question in Arch's case was a question between personal liberty, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, versus a right to personal property, also enshrined in the Declaration.
|
| Aspisa v. Hardage Lane |
|
In this freedom suit, Aspisa sued for her freedom, arguing that her mother's residence in the free Northwest Territory before being taken to St. Louis where Aspisa was born entitled her to her freedom. Aspisa had filed previously against former enslavers including Joseph Rosati, the first Bishop of Saint Louis. A jury decided in favor of Aspisa's freedom in 1839, however, in a subsequent trial, the court determined her status was enslaved.
|
| Charles Mahoney v. John Ashton |
|
This freedom suit was based on the claim that the petitioner was descended from a free Black woman who was an indentured servant when she arrived in colonial Maryland from England. Mahoney's attorneys invoked the Somerset principle, 18th century British case law, and even the Declaration of Independence to secure his freedom, but after three jury trials, Mahoney remained enslaved.
|
| Charlotte Dupee, Charles, & Mary Ann v. Henry Clay |
|
In this freedom suit, Charlotte Dupee sought to claim freedom for herself and her children from Henry Clay, the outgoing Secretary of State and leading Whig Senator from Kentucky. While the courts did find in her favor, Charlotte continued to resist her enslavement until she and her daughter Mary Ann were ultimately manumitted 1840.
|
| Dred Scott v. Sandford |
|
Dred Scott was owned by Dr. John Emerson. Emerson took Scott into Wisconsin, a free state. While living in a free territory, Scott got married and had children, believing he and his family were free. He was later taken back to Missouri where he sued for his freedom. The case ultimately decided that black people could not sue in federal court, and Justice Robert B. Taney said that black people were never meant to be included in the body politic. Dred Scott was later central to the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
|
| Gradual Abolition Laws, Race, and Freedom in the Early Republic |
|
This module highlights the complexities of gradual abolition legislation in the Early Republic, focusing on a lawsuit to reestablish the freedom of an African American teenager from New York City named John Johnson. Johnson's experience demonstrates the new opportunities and distinct challenges that gradual abolition laws created for African Americans.
|
| I Did Not Want to Go: An Enslaved Woman's Leap into the Capital's Conscience |
|
This essay details the ordeal of Anna, or Ann Williams, a victim of human trafficking in antebellum Washington, D.C. The essay also offers an analysis of the evolution of her narrative during the nineteenth century.
|
| In the Matter of Elizabeth Denison, James Denison, Scipio Denison, and Peter Denison, Jr. |
|
Elizabeth, James, Scipio, and Peter Denison Jr. filed a writ of habeas corpus, seeking their freedom from Catherine Tucker based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory. Their enslaver claimed ownership based on Jay's Treaty, which allowed settlers of this territory to hold property of any kind, including enslaved people. While the courts eventually decided in favor of Tucker, the Denisons escaped into Canada, taking advantage of a doctrine that there was no obligation to give up fugitives from a foreign jurisdiction. They eventually returned to Michigan Territory and lived as freedmen.
|
| In the Matter of Hannah and Biddy and their children on Petition for Habeas Corpus |
|
In the decision in this case, a California judge ruled that Biddy Mason and her three children, as well as a woman named Hannah and her nine children and grandchildren, were "free forever" after their enslaver brought them into the free state of California to reside.
|
| In the Matter of Julia alias Mary Ann on Habeas Corpus |
|
In 1834, Julia successfully filed a freedom suit in St. Louis. Two years later, her mother, having secured her own freedom, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Julia, claiming that she was still being held by her former enslavers. When Julia was presented to the court, the writ was discharged, the court "being satisfied that she is contented with her situation, and does not wish to exchange it."
|
| In the Matter of Ralph on Habeas Corpus |
|
Ralph was an enslaved Black man who made an agreement with his Missouri enslaver to purchase his freedom. In order to earn the sum, Ralph was permitted to move to Dubuque in order to work in the lead mines. When he failed to pay the money after several years, his enslaver came to Dubuque with the intention of taking Ralph back to Missouri. Ralph appeared before the Court on a writ of habeas corpus, where the Court found that as slavery was prohibited in Iowa Territory, he was entitled to his freedom. This case was the first case heard by the Supreme Court of Iowa.
|
| Indenture of John Johnson |
|
Following his successful petition for freedom, John Johnson entered into a contract of indenture for four years in exchange for the $150 loan Johnson secured over the course of obtaining his freedom.
|
| James Ash v. William H. Williams |
|
In this freedom suit, James Ash was freed from enslavement by the Circuit Court of D.C., based on provisions in the will of his former enslaver. She stipulated that her enslaved people were not to be taken out of Maryland or sold. Should either event occur, they were to be declared free for life. Ash's new enslaver appealed the verdict, but it was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
|
| John Johnson v. Sosthene Allain |
|
John Johnson filed a petition for freedom in a New Orleans court, asserting that although born free in New York, he had been illegally sold into slavery and was now being held on a sugar plantation. Johnson and his attorneys invoked New York's gradual abolition laws to establish his free status. The Louisiana court ruled in his favor and Johnson claimed his freedom.
|
| Juan Domingo Lopez v. Francis Phillips |
|
In this colonial era freedom suit, attorney Samuel Chase argued that slavery was "odious to the British Constitution" and freedom a "Natural Right" two years before Lord Mansfield did the same in Somerset v. Stewart.
|
| Julia, alias Mary Ann v. Robert Duncan |
|
This freedom suit was brought on behalf of Julia, a child under the age of 21 who was unlawfully enslaved in St. Louis by the man who sold her free mother into slavery in Louisiana. Although the court granted Julia her freedom, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by her mother two years later shows that Julia was still being held by her enslaver.
|
| Margaret Quando v. Thomas Wheeler |
|
This colonial freedom suit was brought by Margaret Quando, a free Black woman, on behalf of her two daughters, who were caught up in an indenture scam by Thomas Wheeler. The court found in favor of the Quando women.
|
| Matilda v. Isaac Vanbibber |
|
Matilda was a Black girl, aged twelve or thirteen, who was brought into Indiana Territory and later forcibly removed to Missouri Territory and sold as a slave. In her petition for freedom, Matilda argued that she earned her freedom while in Indiana Territory by virtue of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which banned slavery in the new territories.
|
| Milly v. Mathias Rose |
|
In this freedom suit, Milly sued for her freedom on behalf of herself and her two children Eliza and Bob. Milly argued that she should be free on account of being held in slavery in the free Illinois Territory.
|
| Mima Queen & Louisa Queen v. John Hepburn |
|
This unsuccessful freedom suit, brought by Mina Queen, reflected legal challenges to slavery and hinged on the Supreme Court's decison that hearsay about family genealogy could not be used as evidence, setting later precedent.
|
| Peter and others v. Susanna Elliott and Rachell Elliott |
|
This freedom suit was brought forth by 22 enslaved people who were freed by a deed of manumission that was then contested by the executrixes of the former enslaver upon his death. The court found in favor of the re-enslavement of Peter and the other 21 freedmen.
|
| She's Been Her Own Mistress: The Long History of Charlotte Dupee v. Henry Clay, 1790-1840 |
|
This essay refocuses the story of Charlotte Dupee v. Henry Clay on Charlotte herself, detailing her long struggle navigating the strategies and pathways to freedom.
|