Sandford and you all read chief Justice Roger tawnys opinion in dred scotts case. And you have read that opinion, and its notorious in American History, right . For the blatant racism in it, for the sanction that tawny gives to the concept of human property under the constitution, and for denying black citizenship, not only denying black citizenship, but denying even blacks as free, as persons under the constitution. And so, dred scott was one type of freedom suit, right . It was based on his physical presence in a free state, illinois, and his physical presence in wisconsin, a free territory. And its often presented in American History textbooks as if it were the only freedom suit in American History. To go to the Supreme Court. The only, almost uniformly, presentedup are, presented as dred scott, one man bringing a freedom suit. But when we look into it a little more closely, there were thousands of freedom suits in american courts. All of them challenging the notion of slavery under the constitution. What were looking at here is a long line of antislavery constitutionalism. Thats our subject for today. What was this, what were these freedom suits about . What did they do . And how did they challenge the concept of slavery under the constitution . Its important to recognize that these suits were beginning from day one of the United States in 1787, 1788, in fact, even before, in the colonial period as well, and certainly, in the 1780s, during the articles of confederation, these suits were coming forward, in various states, maryland, and virginia, in particular. Now, dred scotts argument, right, was that he had been on free soil and therefore was free. And its important also to recognize that had been, that argument had been reprised in previous freedom suits, in various state court, including missouri. In the 1820s, where, in particular, one case, winnie v. Whiteside, laid down the concept of once free, always free. Once having gone to a free territory, an enslaved person having been returned to a slave state, like missouri, was in missouris law, forever free. Many of these freedom suits took on some of the most high profile people of the day. And you can see here, charlotte depews lawsuit in 1830, against henry clay. Henry clay, the secretary of state at the time, outgoing secretary of state, he had been speaker of the house, he was one of the most wellknown politicians in American History, he was a perennial candidate possibility for the presidency, depew sued henry clay. Hundreds of lawsuits in washington, d. C. There were hundreds in st. Louis, missouri. There were lawsuits in new orleans. There were lawsuits in baltimore. There were lawsuits in various parts of maryland and virginia. So there were thousands of these lawsuits. And some of the same concepts that we see in dred scott, were going to talk about in just a minute, come up in some of the earlier cases. Notably, one case you all have looked into, mine am wee, mcque her lawsuit against john helpburn, what were some of the essential elements of that queen. Have helpburn case in 1813. Anybody . Her grandmother or great grandmother was free, she was then free, that they overruled most of the testimonies that she presented as hearsay. Right. Okay. Good. Excellent. So this queen case was based on the claim that she made that her ancestor ha been taken to england and resided there on free oil before three years before coming to the maryland colony. And instead of being sold as an in dentured servant, for seven years, she was effectively enslaved upon her arrival in the maryland colony. And she had been from this, this an sester had been from nice, spain, ecuador, present day ecuador today, she was perhaps ecuador, perhaps indigenous native american, from that area, of south america, and had been taken to london, resided there, but, and so despite that, chief justice john marshall, in the 1813 decision, he affirmed this hearsay rule. And it is designed to keep out oral testimony, right, about the ancestors of enslaved people. And so her free status, all of the evidence for her free status, her ancestors free status, came from depositions in which people said my mother said, or i heard about this, or it was secondhand testimony. And marshalls decision had rendered that testimony inadmissible. And in all future cases as well. And marshalls decision was designed to protect Property Rights. Right . In fact, marshall invokes the idea of property and defending Property Rights, in that 1813 decision. Now, in queen v. Hehburn, also, there is a an important dissent that we need to hold in our mind and remember. And one of the associate justice, gabriel duval, he writes a dissent in that case, in which he strongly um plies that enslaved people are not property under the law. And in particular, in cases where a persons freedom was on the line, the court should allow any and all evidence, even if it is hearsay, it should allow it in, because when a persons freedom is on the line, the court should lean in favor of freedom. In favor of liberty. Now, duval, as it happened, had pioneered many of the freedom suits in maryland. And duval new about all of the maryland cases in which hearsay had been admitted, right . Maryland, under its law, had allowed hearsay testimony. But when the Supreme Court in queen v. Hepburn, ruled in 1813 that hearsay was inadmissible, that in a way, doesnt it, shuts down a certain line of freedom suit, claiming freedom on the basis of an ancestor became so much more difficult to prove if you couldnt use the kinds of depositions that, or the kinds of testimony, oral testimony, family lore, in lieu of written documents, right . And so mia mcqueen did not win her suit in 1813, but as were going to see, hundreds of other enslaved families and enslaved people did win their freedom suits. Dred scott did not win his. But hundreds of others did. And so if we, if we compare, just for a minute, this, what are the similarities between queen v. Hepburn, and dred Scott V John Sanford . What are some of the similarities . Well, the first, you all had mentioned it is, that dred scotts claim in a way was similar, like queens right . He said he was free because he had set foot on free soil where save savely slavely in ooel illegal in illinois, and setting foot in illinois, that was immediately emans paer to, and he was immediately free because he was taken to wisconsin territory where slavery was barred under the missouri compromise above the 36 30 line. But i want to draw your attention specific specifically to another similarity between dred scotts case and queen vhepburn, and in my view this is the most important similarity between them and really it characterizes all of the freedom suits that were going to talk about, and in particular, the case that were going to look at today, and that is this. Both were familybased freedom suits. Okay . I said that we often think of dred scotts case as one man, dred scott, but Harriet Scott, dred scotts spouse, filed her freedom suit at exactly the same time. She had been taken to Fort Snelling in wisconsin territory, and she had been sold or transferred to dr. Emerson, who enslaved dred scott, think about that for a second, she was sold effectively in a free territory, so if slavery is not legal, under american law in the territory of wisconsin, how is it that Harriet Scott could be sold there . Not just taken there, but sold. Right . Their daughter eliza was born on a steamer, up the mississippi river, above the 36 30 line. Okay . Their other daughter lizzy was born in missouri, upon their return. So dred Scott V John Sanford is not just about dred scott. Its about harriet and dred and eliza and lizzy, its about a family who in various ways have different claims to freedom, right . I mean eliza is born in a free territory, and lizzy is born upon return to parents who have been effectively under law presumably possibly freed in their residence in a free territory. So first and foremost, i just want it make this clear, this is, the dred scott case is a family freedom suit. And like queen vhepburn, and many of the others that came forward in washington, d. C. The other introductory point here is this. All of these freedom suits aim toward limiting slaverys reach, right . You think about all of the freedom suits are about defining slavery as circumscribed by something. It can exist in a certain state, but not others. It can exist only by law, in this way. If there are wills or contracts, as were going to see in a minute, then slavery is void in those cases. In other words, almost every freedom suit, if we step back and look from 30,000 feet, at whats happening, all of these freedom suits are defining slavery as something local. Freedom is national, the norm, slavery is local. Freedom is national, slavery is circumscribed. Its defined. Its tightly defined. It can only go so far as the law in its particular places. And so these freedom suits again, todays point is, are the longest line of antislavery constitutionalism, that is the idea that the constitution did not confer legitimacy on slavery, so about these suits, generally. Just broadly. And then were going to look at one in particular here. Its important to recognize everything was on the line here. Black plaintiffs directed these suits. Black plaintiffs planned these suits. These were determined legal actions. Africanamericans had accumulated years of legal knowledge, legal knowhow, experience, sophisticated strategies of negotiation, and working through the law, they passed these ideas down from generation to generation, this is another theme were going to see today, lots of these cases are multigenerational. Grand parent, next generation, next generation. The second is something weve talked about in this class before, and that is that the freedom suits were civil actions, right . What does that mean, their civil actions, whats the, can the defendant slave holder testify . No, right . They cant. So in a civil action, in a civil suit, the defendant cant testify, the plaintiff, the enslaved plaintiff cant testify, but the point here is, that the defendant, slave holders, have to rely on other witnesses, they cannot use their own authority, their own sort of reputation to try to place themselves right before the court. In effect, the freedom suits put the slave holders on the defensive, right . They fundamentally, slave holders, had to defend slave holding. Individually. In these suits. And the third broad point is this. A lot of the freedom suits, in particular the ones were going to look at today, were an effort to stop, to interrupt the potential breakup of a family. The separation of families is at the heart of many of these freedom suits. Because by filing a suit, the mechanism of the court would at least for the moment delay the impending sale and breakup of a family. In fact, heres an example, just this is, you all know that my team here at university of nebraska is producing a documentary film about one of the freedom suits, in fact, the case were going to look at today, and heres a, just a story board that weve come up with, that is about this. It gives us a sense of this. Let me through. Wait, wait. Let me through. Youre holding my very free, free, see, here. Signed. Right here. Stand down. The train is leaving. Stand down. Freedom papers. Signed. My wife, mary. See . Mary, shes free. Daniel, daniel okay, at the heart of this story, a central fact. That slave holders throughout the entire period here, from 1800 to 1860, were separating families and selling people, or attempting to sell them into the interstate slave trade, with deception, and with speed. This is what we might call sudden sales. Slave holders used this tactic, a sudden sale, to the slave, not tell them whats happening, sell them quickly, transport them to washington, d. C. , out of maryland, and then on the ships, or marched, or on the train, to the deep south, to louisiana, to the sugar fields, or to the cotton fields of mississippi. These sudden sales were quite obviously meant to in some cases avert possible freedom, to avert what the law might dictate in a particular family that might have a legitimate claim to freedom. To place people suddenly out of the reach of the courts, rip them away from their family networks, remove them from the possibility of being able to contact an attorney, much less gather witnesses for their case. How could one gather witness for a freedom suit having been sent to louisiana if they were from maryland . So today, were going to concentrate on the story, on the case, of james ash versus william h. Williams. This a freedom suit prior to dred scott where chief Justice Roger tawney wrote the majority opinion. I think its important because this is a case where tawney creates a sort of legal fiction that he will later deploy in dred scott. I think youll see what i mean by the end here. Only when we look at cases like james ash v. William h. Williams and the long history of the freedom suits can we see that the challenge they pose to slavery under the constitution was such that roger tawney was willing to go to Great Lengths to avoid, as he does in dred scott, recognizing black americans as rights bearing people under the constitution. That is what the dred scott case ultimately does. This is the deep lie at the heart of the dred scott decision and one that well expose today. So, first, james ash. Hes part of a large family from Prince Georges County, maryland. He was enslaved and many of the people in his family were enslaved of course. Hes a hes a brotherinlaw of daniel bell and a brotherinlaw of ann bell. Both of whom are the children of lucy bell. The m t she was living as a free woman in washington, d. C. And was living as a free woman in the 1820s. Lucy bell lives to the age of 99. Okay. She dies in the summer of 1862. Just after washington, d. C. Emancipation is affected. She dies seeing her children and grandchildren free. The struggle goes back to the 1830s. Think about this. A 30year, three generation more than 30year, three generation struggle for freedom. Using the courts where possible, negotiating, navigating, accumulating legal knowledge, passing it on. In 1862 her children ann bell, daniel bell and Caroline Bell bought a head stone for her and shes buried at Congressional Cemetery with a head stone dedicated to their mother. William h. Williams was one of the most notorious slave traders in the washington, d. C. He owned the yellow house. It was a slave jail and in the day was sometimes called a slave pen. Weve already looked at one case, ann williams case, the film we checked out the other day. That one was similar in that george Millers Tavern was a slave pen. William h. Williams is by the 1830s the single largest slave jail in the city of washington and its called the yellow house. James ash was taken there and held there. Well see why in just a second. This was in 1839. A few months later a man named solomon northrop was taken to the yellow house. You may know solomon northrop from 12 years a slave. The movie came out a couple years ago, Academy Award winning film. Solomon northrop who was kidnapped and taken to be sold to louisiana and to the southwest, was taken to the yellow house after he was kidnapped. He wrote about it this way this is how northrop described the yellow house. The room was about 12 feet square. The walls of solid masonry. The floor was heavy planked. There was one small window crossed with outside iron bars. The furniture of the room consisted of the wooden bench on which i sat, an Old Fashioned dirty box stove. Besides these there was neither bed, nor blanket, nor anything whatever. The yard extended rearward from the house about 30 feet. In one part of the wall there was a strongly ironed door opening into a narrow covered passage leading along one side of the house into the street. The doom of the colored man upon whom the door leading out of that passage closed was sealed. The top of the wall supported one end of a roof which ascended inwards forming a kind of open shed. Underneath the roof the outside presented only the appearance of a quiet residence. A stranger looking at it would never have dreamed of its uses. Strange as it may seem within plain sight of this same house looking down from its commanding house upon it was the capital. The voices of representatives boasting of freedom and equality and the rattling of the poor slaves chains almost comingle. A slave pen within the very shadow of the capitol. We can see that right here. Weve got capitol square. Heres the yellow house. Were going to talk about the bells where ash is. Daniel bell works at the naval yard over here. Well talk about that. A white slave holder family that the bells end up suing are here at armsteads residence. Where do we start with this story . Ash was seized in Prince Georges County in 1839 in what i would call a sudden sale. He was taken quickly and sent to the yellow house. Williams planned to transport him and send him to louisiana. When we pull back and look at the broad scope of this interstate slave trade, were talking about between 1820 and 1860 1. 5 Million People sold out of maryland and virginia and delaware and sent into the south, cotton south and sugar fields. 1. 5 Million People. 186,000 children. At least 260,000 spouses separated. Okay. One scholar has estimated that every 3. 6 minutes between 1820 and 1860 a family was broken up and a person was sold. A person was sold every 3. 6 minutes for 40 years. The scope and the scale of the interstate slave trade is something we have to recon with and think about as americans and understand this forced migration. Every 3. 6 minutes for 40 years. Ash was one who was taken, sold, sent to the yellow house and its there that he has somehow the resources, probably because he was a member of the bell family and they are not far away. In 1839 he has the resources to bring a freedom suit which he does in december of 1839. So to understand what happens, how ash like northrop ends up in the yellow house, what set his freedom suit in motion, to understand the story of ash v. Williams hes taking on the largest most notorious slave trader in the city. To understand, weve got to step back. Its complicated because it involves everyone in the bell family. James ash claimed his freedom on the basis of the provisions in an 1824 will, the will of maria greenfield. She had no children of her own. She bequest all her property, including her people, including james ash, including ann bell, she left them all to gerard greenfield, her nephew. Hes in tennessee in 1824. He has dozens of enslaved people working in cotton fields. Hes a large planter slave holder. She bequeaths with the following p proviso. Ill quote this here. He shall not carry he, gerard, her at tnephew he sh not carry them out of maryland or sell them to anyone. In those events, i set them free for life. This will is unarguably clear. Its the last statement in the will. This is important for the court case. Its the last thing in the will. Its the final summation and she places this. He shall not carry them out of the state of maryland, i. E. , to tennessee, and he shall not sell them to anyone, whether in maryland or elsewhere. Okay. Youre probably thinking, wait a minute, the will cant be the whole story here of the timing of this lawsuit. The will was in 1824. Ash is sold in 1839. What happened . What happened in the intervening period . Why is ash suddenly sold against the provisions of this obvious provisions of this will . First of all, we need to recognize for years gerard t. Greenfield, the nephew, did nothing. He did not to violate the will. This will meant that gerard t. Greenfield in tennessee had to keep james ash and ann bell, his sisterinlaw, and others who fell under its provisions in maryland. He could not sell them. So in this situation ann bell in particular moved to washington, d. C. Lived on her own. She hired herself out. She effectively lived as a free woman in a free manner. James ash was unable to do that. He was it appears continuously enslaved on a plantation in Prince Georges County, but probably hired out by gerard greenfield in tennessee. Hes hired out james ash to work. Hes taking all of the proceeds of course. Well, thats the situation until in the summer of 1835, 11 years after this will, there is a riot and a strike at the navy yard. Theres chaos in the city of washington and in that moment daniel bell, anns brother. James ashs brotherinlaw, daniel bell decides to begin a delicate negotiation for the freedom of his wife mary and her six children. Now bell was an enslaved black smith at the Washington Navy yard. He worked here. There were about 13 enslaved African Americans at the navy yard. There were some free blacks working at the navy yard. One of his associates at the navy yard, a free black man named joseph thompson, won his freedom in court on provisions of a will. He filed a freedom suit. Daniel bell worked side by side with joseph thompson. We can be sure they talked about these matters, right . In the navy yard one of the foreman at the yard was a man named Robert Armstead. Robert was the slave holder who held mary and the six children. Okay . A white man, a foreman in the yard, not particularly wealthy. His principle wealth really was mary and the six children, mary bell. So daniel clearly knew that Robert Armstead in the summer of 1835, he knew that robert signed a memorial for the abolition of slavery in washington, d. C. This was circulated in 1828, 1,000 or more white men signed it. 90 white men at the navy yard who worked there signed this petition, this memorial which was sent to congress saying slavery should be abolished in the district of columbia. Bell knew that armstead put his name down. He knew the three justices of the d. C. Court also signed that memorial. Everyone probably took note of that. He knew one other thing too. That was that Robert Armstead was dying. He was sick. We dont know the cause. Increasingly his health was failing. He left the navy yard. He couldnt work any longer. He was effectively in the alms house. Daniel bell goes to Robert Armstead and asks him for a deed to free mary and his six children. He does this in the late summer of 1835. Washington, d. C. Is in the middle of this labor strike, this riot. Theres confusion and chaos. Robert armstead signs and notarizes and has witnessed the official deed of emancipation for mary bell and the six children. You can see their names on the screen. This is the original deed for mary bell and their six children. This is a joyous moment, right . Daniel bell is still enslaved at the navy yard, but he appears to have negotiated for the freedom of his wife and his children. Two days later Robert Armstead dies. His widow Susan Armstead begins what will become a twodecade effort to overturn this deed. Susan armstead, the widow, takes the position that this deed is invalid because robert was out of his mind in his dying days, that he was not of sound mind. She seeks to just overturn the will on those grounds. So what we have here well pause for a second is a couple different kind of freedom suits developing. We have different tracts of these lawsuits. One is ashs and ann bells stemming from the 1824 will. This is a freedom suit based on the provisions of the will. Then we have a second tract of a freedom suit stemming from the armstead deed, that the deed is good, the deed is valid and it cant be overturned. Then we have a third kind of tract as well. Maybe what ann bell will claim. That third tract is living as a free person for more than ten years and was de facto freedom under the law. Maryland courts had decided that. Ann bell from 1824 to 1835, 36. If she has been living as a free woman for more than ten years, she could file a freedom suit and claim for once and for all that she is free. We have three different pathways right here. So after daniel bell negotiates the deed this is what sets everything in motion, including james ashs seizure in 1839 by gerard t. Greenfield in his attempt to suddenly sell him. This is a whole family. Its a little complicated. Lets wrap our minds around it. Susan armstead clearly is attempting to subvert the will sorry subvert the deed. She is in touch with the greenfields. She essentially tells them that daniel bell has been manipulating Robert Armstead her deceased husband and that daniel bell needs to be dealt with. The first step that she takes in order to possibly make this deed unfounded, unsound, is to attempt to sell daniel. Get daniel out of the picture. So daniel bell is sold by the greenfie greenfields. The minute the word gets daniel has negotiated this deed it comes full circle and his slave holder sells him in an attempt, as we discussed, to get him out of washington, d. C. , separate him from mary and the children and than Susan Armstead can deal with mary and the children and keep them and subvert the deed. Everybody with me on that . Okay. This is a dramatic moment because in september of 1835 daniel bell is seized on the navy yard. Hes at the shop in the Black Smith Shop and slave traders these arent policemen. These arent constables. Theyre hired thugs. They work for the slave traders. They work for william h. Williams, people like that. They rush the black hsmith shop. They take down daniel bell, down to the ground. They haul him off the floor, shop floor. He it appears is taken to the yellow house also. So in september of 1835 daniel bell is seized and hes about to be sold. And so what does he do of course . He sues for his freedom. Now his trial does not take place because theres a friend of his, a marine colonel at the navy yard that he seeks his help. That marine colonel helps daniel bell buy his freedom. Daniel bell negotiates for his freedom in that very moment. He pays over 1,000. This is two years wages. Think about that today, in todays terms. Two years full wages to buy his freedom. Well, the bell family recognizes that Susan Armstead is not going to let go. Shes already attempted to have daniel bell sold and separated, right . At this moment daniels sister, ann bell, files her petition for freedom. She sues gerard greenfield in tennessee for her freedom claiming that she had been living as a free woman. He doesnt respond. The case goes on. Summons after summons. It just drags on for years. Heres what we need to know although ann bell had been living as a free woman with lucy bell, her mother, and now daniel bell had bought his freedom and presumably this deed with mary and the children liberated them, the fact of the matter was that the greenfields had been quietly bequeathing them to others all along between 1834 and 1836. Essentially ann bell had been passed down on paper from one greenfield to another. The precariousness of ann bells situation was that, well, she too could be seized like her brother and summarily sold before she could get a freedom suit in play, but more particularly so could her children, right . So could her children. The terms of that will were for her, not for her children. Gerard greenfield possibly could attempt to sell the children. Now word of ann bells freedom suit spread quickly in the greenfield family. Susan armstead within a month of that began trying to maneuver, to overturn the deed of emancipation. Well, Susan Armstead bided her time and waited for the right opportunity to seize mary and the children as property, as her property. She drags out the probate on roberts will. She continues to hire out mary and the children. Shes hiring them out. Mary is claiming her freedom. Mary gets a freedom certificate from the court based on the deed. Its probably the case that mary bell tried to negotiate with Susan Armstead. But susan would not budge. Years go by. Were not sure of the timing or how it was coordinated, but in 1839 as ann bells freedom suit has sort of stalled in the courts, gerard t. Greenfield decides to sell james ash. Sudden sale. If he can execute the sale, maybe he can get around the provisions in that 1824 will. So in 1839, in december, just like daniel bell, james ash is seized, taken to the yellow house and hes potentially going to be sold south. So this is the lawsuit that ash brings against william h. Williams. Hes at the yellow house and hes being held there. James ash files his freedom suit against william h. Williams. This is the case that will go to the Supreme Court and tawneys decision is a pre curser for dred scott. What does ash argue . What does williams argue . What does tawney decide . Ash argued the terms of the will had to be followed. There was an old principle in law that the intent of the will needs to be carried out. That was ashs position. The intent of the will was that, if he were sold, he should be free. In washington, d. C. In the jury trial the jury agreed and awarded ash his freedom. Tawney. A month later ann bell wins her freedom suit. James ash has won her freedom suit on the basis of the will. Ann bell wins her freedom suit on the basis of living as a free woman. In fact the judge instructed the jury think about this ann bell purchased property in the city. She bought property. She built a house. She made contracts. Tawneys decision in dred scott should be ringing in your head. She bought property in the city. She built a house. She made contracts. Unbelievably she even hired an enslaved person from the greenfields. So she had a contract with the greenfields. Can an enslaved person make contracts . This is of course the issue and the judges said that these acts are, quote, inconsistent with the condition of slavery. The greenfields knew about this. Did nothing in response. So the jury could infer that ann bell was free. So james ash has won his case. Williams appeals to the Supreme Court. But now, this case raises a vital question, doesnt it . Its now before the Supreme Court and it comes to the court in 1843. It raises this vital question of whether an enslaved person can several a bequest of freedom through a will. If a slave person was property under the law, it would be hard to argue they could. If an enslaved person was a person under the law, then they could. It poses the question whether the slaves were property under the law or human beings. Now, not surprisingly, the slave traders take the most unambiguous position possible. William h. Williams argument is the following negros by the law of maryland are property precisely as money or household effects. They even cite queen v. Hepburn and john marshals decision suggesting that property should govern all of these matters. They say that bequests of freedom leads to a repugnant conclusion, that enslaved people are something other than property. This is much the same logic that roger tawney would deploy in dred scotts case. What is ashs argument . James ash has a young attorney named Joseph Bradley whos antisla antislavery in leaning. He had defended an abolitionist editor in a very controversial trial, high profile libel case in 1835 in washington. Bradley makes the argument that enslaved people are people, are human beings of course. He positions this argument around human rights. He too cites queen v. Hepburn. He points to the dissent we talked about. The dissent that courts should lean in favor of freedom, lean in favor of liberty. Bradley also at trial made the argument i quote although they are personal property, yet they are also recognized as persons and are so called in the constitution of the United States and are capable of receiving a bequest of freedom. Ashs argument through bradley is tied to the constitutional question here about are enslaved people persons under the meaning of the constitution. We talked about that in this class. What does that mean . Now, it may surprise you that roger b. Tawney upheld ashs freedom in this case in 1843. James ash achieved a stunning victory, didnt he . His case is one of only a handful of freedom suits at the Supreme Court to be affirmed for freedom. Tawney renders this opinion that is meant to, in his view, keep the Property Rights of slave holders protected. Nevertheless, ash achieves a stunning victory. After all, ash takes on the yellow house. He takes on william h. Williams. He wins his freedom at trial and its upheld at the Supreme Court level. So why . So how . Well tawneys opinion says that ashs freedom he says this without a hint of irony took effect the moment he was sold. The moment he was sold, hes free which seems like a contradictory argument, right . What is he really saying . On the one hand what tawney does is hes recognizing the Property Rights of slave holders like himself and that he believed in pointed one way and the principals of the intent of the will pointed another way, right . One is a Public Policy matter about the constitutional Property Rights and how they take effect across the United States. The other is a private civil matter, but nonetheless extremely important in the law for how wills are administered. Okay. He clearly wants to protect the property right concept of the slaveholding class and he doesnt want to do anything that would affirm the idea that we just mentioned that ash presented, that African Americans were rights bearing persons under the law in the constitution. He wasnt going to do that. So what does he do . He creates a legal fiction, i think, and that is this there are three people involved in this will and bequest. There are three people. Theres maria greenfield, the one who writes the will. Theres james ash, the chattle, the enslaved property who has no rights in tawneys view and is simply a piece of property. He actually accepts the argument that the slave traders attorney makes. And theres james ash in the same body, a latent free man. This sort of thinking, this sort of magic trick in a way, evil magic trick, is meant to make it possible for tawney to affirm the Property Rights, that the Property Rights were not violated here because ashs freedom takes effect the moment he was sold because there are three people, three beings, if you will, in this in this transaction. So let me pause. Do we have any questions at the moment . Yeah, lauren . What happened to mariby bell and her children . This is a great question. Ash has won his freedom. Won at the Supreme Court level. Ann bell has won her freedom at the circuit level. Its not appealed to the Supreme Court. Large parts of the bell family are free. Lucy bell has negotiated for her freedom. Marib mary bell and her children, theres the deed. Daniel bell has bought his freedom. Mary bell is still in this sort of unclear state. She ends up suing for her freedom in 1844 to try to clarify she knows that Susan Armstead is trying to overturn the deed. She sues for freedom in the court to try to clarify once and for all her freedom. After all she has a deed signed, notarized and witnessed. She took the deed down to the court and received the certificate of freedom that says shes a free woman. Yet its still murky. Its still not a sure thing. She sues for her freedom because in part she hears through the grapevine that Susan Armstead is about to sell one of her children. In 1847, in december, mary bells lawsuit is unsuccessful. Susan armstead is able to win that case and the jury finds that Robert Armstead was not of sound mind and the deed is overturned. Now at this moment desperate, daniel bell organizes an escape for mary and the children. He helps bring to washington, d. C. He writes a series of letters. He tries to get help from abolitionists. Hes the driving force daniel bell is the driving force behind what becomes the largest slave escape attempt in American History on the pearl, a ship, a vessel that daniel bell helps set in motion to bring from philadelphia to washington, d. C. In april of 1848 77 enslaved people get on board the pearl and the pearl on a dark night sails out of washington, d. C. Down the potomac river, 90 miles to point look out where it opens into the chesapeake bay. By that time a steamer had caught up with the pearl and the vessel is boarded and captured and all of the 77 enslaved people and the crew, a white crew from philadelphia are taken back to washington, d. C. The crew and the captain are put on trial for leading a slave escape and mary and the children are along with many others on board are sold essentially. Heres the list of the pearl. You can see mary here. Mrs. Armstead, there she is. We see george bell, mary bell, caroline with two children, mary ellen, harriet and this scribble is navy yard right here. Theyre associated with daniel bell and the navy yard. The slave holders who the people who attempted to escape, the slave holders of those people, really effectively wanted to send a message to the enslaved across washington, d. C. And maryland that to teach the enslaved a lesson not to run away, not to escape. So they would be sold. They were sold south as a deterre deterrent. Mary and most of the children were taken to baltimore for sale to be sold. This is the scene you just saw in the short film. They were taken from the b and o railroad station in washington, d. C. To baltimore. Daniel is desperate trying to intervene and possibly stop the sale of mary and the children south. At that moment daniel is sort of bludgeoned by the train conductors. The train pulls away. Some abolitionists saw this and helped daniel intervene. So what happens to mary bell and daniel is that eventually with help from some abolitionists, daniel bell is able to raise 400 and hes able to purchase mary bells freedom. But he only has enough money to purchase two of the children. So daniel and mary bell have to decide which two children will be saved and kept and which three or four children will be gone and sold. They do that. After the civil war some of the children are able to reunite with mary and daniel bell. Two appear not to have we dont know what happens to them. We dont know. They are sold. They are taken away at age 8, 9, 10. So mary bell, daniel just like he purchased his own freedom, now has to purchase marys freedom. Ann bell wins her freedom and james ash wins his freedom, but this is what happens to mary bell. There were 11 bells, the Largest Family Group on the pearl. There were 11 of them. This is the Court Document valuing them for Susan Armstead at 5,000. One final comment on that. There is one final lawsuit that eleanor bell, marys daughter, brings against Susan Armstead in 1851. Just to be clear shes 8 years old. The last lawsuit is eleanor bells. Shes 8 years old. She sues Susan Armstead who is continuing to hold her as an enslaved person. Shes the one who was not sent, who was not sold south. Eleanor bell, that suit, there are dozens of witnesses. Its a big, big deal in washington, d. C. In 1851. The same result, the jury finds for Susan Armstead, that robert was not of sound mind and the will the deed is not valid. Eleanor bell does not win she is not liberated until the summer of 1862 in the civil war. Great question. Lets turn finally to the lets step back. As we wrap up here, lets think about the significance of freedom suits broadly as an avenue of antislavery constitutionalism. When we step back and we think about what we learned today, what the story of james ash tells us and daniel bell and ann bell, lets consider what are the sources of antislavery constitutionalism . Well, one source that scholars have looked at, one dimension of antislavery constitutionalism are the lawyers like Joseph Bradley. We talked about his argument. Lawyers who, to be sure, helped enslaved families bring these cases and made arguments that were antislavery and clearly aimed at laying down a track of argument, right, that is that slavery is not guaranteed by the constitution. That slavery is circumscribed. Its local. Its not national. So theres one part of this is lawyers who make those arguments. Theres no doubts about that. Theyre getting antislavery constitutionalism is in the record. Another aspect is the dissenting opinions. We mentioned queen v. Hepburn. We can also talk about mcclains dissent. Its about freedom and that slavery is not in any way sanctioned in the constitution. Third and this is so important. These are in gradual of gradual importance in my view. Third, black abolitionists. We talked about Frederick Douglas. You read Frederick Douglas who in 1851 breaks with the garasonions and says its a freedom document. Douglas becomes one of the freedom voices of antislavery constitutionalism. He is saying that blacks are citizens, are persons under the meaning of the constitution. Fourth, and most important given what were talking about today, are the freedom suits. The enslaved families themselves who brought these cases, most of all laid down a series of arguments that the constitution was not pro slavery, that the constitution did not create a slaverybased national system, but instead one based on freedom. We think about james ash, ann bell, mary bell, eleanor bell, this long line of freedom suits arguing that freedom was national, while slavery was local. Freedom was national while slavery was confined to certain places, certain contingencies, certain law, certain definitions and conditions. In dred scotts case, chief Justice Roger tawney tries to displace that entire line of argument, entirely. In his view slavery is national, the Property Rights of slave holders are national and freedom is local, or confined, but slavery is ubiquitous in tawneys opinion which you read and know well. So in sum, these enslaved families who bring the freedom suits from 1800s or 1790s, all the way up to 1860, create the most sustained argument around antislavery constitutionalism. So next well see how the civil war transformed the constitution and thank you and see you next week. Enjoy your weekend. Enjoy, everybody. Thank you. Youre watching American History tv, covering history cspan style with event coverage, eye witness accounts, films, lectures in College Classrooms and visits to museums and historic places. All weekend, every weekend on cspan 3