 Broadside Reacting to the Fugitive Slave Act |
|
This broadside was distributed in Boston following the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
|
 California Proposition 6 |
|
A proposed amendment to the California that would have banned involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime. This measure failed in the 2024 election, meaning the State of California remains one of 16 states that still allows forced labor. A similar ballot measure also failed in 2022.
|
| 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.
|
| Code Noir |
|
A set of laws in French colonies that regulated the lives of enslaved and free black people. The code primarily defined slavery, but it also expelled all Jewish people from French colonies and required Black people to be Catholic and not protestant. The Code Noir demonstrates the way enslaved people's lives were regulated under French colonial rule.
|
| Colorado Repeal Exception To Constitutional Ban On Slavery |
|
Colorado's repeal of the constitutional exception to slavery ended involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime.
|
| Debt Recovery Act |
|
The Debt Recovery Act of 1732 was a British law that allowed enslaved people to be used as collateral for loans. This sharply contrasted the Spanish colonial policy that prevented enslaved people from being used as collateral.
|
| Defining Race & Lifelong Servitude in the Colonial Americas |
|
This module links Spanish colonial documents from the turn of the sixteenth century to British colonial innovations in the seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries, demonstrating how European colonists developed a racialized hierarchy that justified the widespread enslavement of Africans and their descendants.
|
| 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.
|
| Edward Gantt v. Thomas Baldwin |
|
This case centers on the whereabouts of a mixed race woman named Fanny who was enslaved by Edward Gantt. Gantt claimed that while aboard a steamboat captained by Thomas Baldwin, Fanny went missing. Gantt brought an action in trover against Baldwin to recover the monetary value of Fanny, $1,500. Witnesses deposed on behalf of Baldwin claimed that no such woman was ever on board, and also described the people of color who worked on the boat as well as those enslaved by passengers.
|
| El Requerimiento |
|
Citing papal and royal legal authority, the Spanish Requirement of 1513 informed Indigenous Americans of Spain's rights of conquest, stating that if Indigenous Americans defied Spanish authority and Catholic conversion, they could be justly put to death and/or enslaved.
|
| Emancipation Proclamation |
|
The Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime measure that freed the enslaved people in territories occupied by confederate forces. Given by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, the document represents the first step in ending American slavery by declaring those enslaved within confederate territories free and protected by the United States military.
|
| Emmanuel Downing to John Winthrop |
|
Downing's letter to Winthrop shows changing colonial attitudes to race and practices of enslavement.
|
| Equal Protection, Reconstruction, and the Meaning of the 14th Amendment |
|
This teaching module discusses the 14th Amendment and the implications of equal protection under the law, featuring a webinar with Kate Masur, author of the 2021 book, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction.
|
| Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 |
|
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 gave power to Article IV Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution that stated slave owners were allowed to recover escaped slaves. The Fugitive Slave Act required anyone who found a fugitive to return them, across state lines to the slave owner. It put fugitive slaves at risk of recapture for the rest of their lives. This fugitive slave policy was later superseded by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
|
| Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 |
|
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a part of the Compromise of 1850. The act addressed weaknesses in previous fugitive slave acts by penalizing officials who did not aid in returning escaped slaves. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 rendered Habeas Corpus irrelevant.
|
| 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.
|