With dred scott, d. John 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, 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 courts, 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, minam mcqueen, her lawsuit against john hepburn, what were some of the essential elements of that queen. Have hepburn 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 had 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 indentured servant, for seven years, she was effectively enslaved upon her arrival in the maryland colony. And she had been from this, this ancestor had been from nice, spain, ecuador, present day ecuador today, she was perhaps african, 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. Hepburn, also, there is 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 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 slavery is illegal in illinois, and setting foot in illinois, that was immediately emancipatory, 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 specifically to another similarity between dred scotts case and queen v hepburn, 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 v hepburn, 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. Grandparent, next generation, next generation. Grandparent, next generation, next generation. The second is something we talked about in this class before. And that is the freedom suits were civil actions, right . What does that mean . 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 cant testify. About you the point here is that defendants, slaveholders have to rely on other witnesses. They cannot use their own authority, their own sort of reputation to try to place them services right before the court. In effect, the freedom suits put the slaveholders on the defensive. Right . They fundamentally, slaveholders, 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. Okay . 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, here is an example. You all know that my team here at the university of nebraska is producing a documentary film about one of the freedom suits. In fact, the case were going to welcome at today. Here is a just a storyboard that we have come up with that is about this. Gives us a sense of this. Let me through. Wait. Wait. Let me through. You are holding my mary. Shes free, free. See . Here. Signed. Right here is stand down. The train is leaving. Stand down. Mary. Freedom papers, signed. See . Mary. Shes free. Daniel, daniel. Okay. At the heart of this story is a central fact that slaveholders 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. Slaveholders used this tactic, a sudden sale, not tell them whats happening, sell them quickly, transport them to washington, d. C. Out of maryland and then on the ships or marched over on the train to the deep south, louisiana or the sugar fields or 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 witnesses 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 sis a freedom suit prior t dred scott where a chief justice wrote the majority opinion. And i think its important because this is a case where he creates a sort of legal fiction that he will later deploy in dred scott. Okay . I think you will 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 these freedom suits can we see that the challenge that they pose to slavery under the constitution was such that tawny was willing to go to Great Lengths to avoid, as he does in dred scott to avoid recognizing black americans as rights bearing people under the constitution. I mean, that is what the d re d scott case ultimately does. This is the deep lie at the heart of the dred scott decision and one that were going to expose today. First, james ash. He is 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. He is a brotherinlaw of daniel bell and a brotherinlaw of ann bell. Both of whom are the children of lucy bell. The matriarch of this family. She had already negotiated for her freedom. It appears that she was living as a free woman in washington, d. C. , had moved to 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 in the middle of the civil war. Right . The point is, in 1862, age 99, she saw the last of her children and grandchildren free. But the struggle for their freedom goes back to the 1830s. So think about this as 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 headstone for her and shes buried at Congressional Cemetery with a headstone dedicated to their mother. William h. Williams was one of the most notorious slave traders in washington, d. C. He owned the yellow house. It was a slave jail, and was sometimes called a slave pen. We have 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. We talked about that. 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. We will see why in just a second. In 1839. And a few months later, a man named solomon northrup was taken to the yellow house. You may know solomon northrup from 12 years a slave. He is the author of 12 years a slave. The movie came out a couple years ago, Academy Award winner film. Solomon northrup who was kidnapped and taken to be sold to louisiana and to the southwest was taken to the yellow house after he was kidnapped. And he wrote about it this way. This is what this is how northrup described the yellow house. The room was about 12 feet square. The walls of solid masonry. The floor was of heavy plank. There was one small window crossed with great iron bars. With an outside shutter securely fastened. The furniture of the room in which i was consisted of the wooden bench on which i sat, an oldfashion dirty box stove and besides these in either cell 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 Narrow 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 height upon it was the capitol. The voices of patriotic representatives boasting of freedomquality and the rattling of the poor slaves chains almost comingled. A slave pen within the very shadow of the capitol. We can see that right here. Right . We have capitol square. Here is the yellow house. We will talk about the bells where ash is in just a second right here. Daniel bell works at the navy yard. We will talk about that in a second over here. A white slave holder family that the bells end up suing, they are here at armsteads residence. The white house, president s house there on the map is just down pennsylvania avenue. Where do we start with this story . Ash was seized in Prince Georges County in 1839 in one of these what i would call sudden sales. Right . 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, we are talking about between 1820 and 1860, a million and a half people sold out of maryland and virginia and delaware and sent into the south cotton south and sugar fields. A million and a half 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. For 40 years. Okay . The scope and the scale of the interstate slave trade is something we have to reckon 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. 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, the Family Networks to bring a freedom suit, which he does in december of 1839. To understand what happens, how ash, like northrup ends up in the yellow house, what set his freedom suit in motion, to understand the story of ash v. Williams, he is taking on the largest, most notorious slave trader in the city. Right . To understand, we have 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 bequeathed all of her property, including enslaved people, including james ash and including ann bell, she bequeathed all of them to her nephew, gerard greenfield, who had moved from maryland to tennessee. So he is in tennessee in 1824. He has dozens of enslaved people working in cotton fields. He is a large planter slaveholder. But she bequeaths with the following proviso. I think you see it right here on the screen. Its the key to the whole case for ash. Provided, quote im going to quote this here so you can hear it. He shall not carry them he, gerald greenfield. He shall not carry them out of the state of maryland or sell them to anyone. Either of which events i will and devise the said negros to be free for life. Okay. This will is clear. Isnt it . Its the last statement in the will, this is important, it turns out in the court case. Its the last thing in the will. Its not the first thing where theres other confusing matters. Its the final summation. She places this proviso. 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. Right . But you are probably thinking, wait a minute. The will cant be the whole story of the timing of this lawsuit. The will was in 1824. Ash is sold in 1839. What happened . What happened in the intervening period and why is ash suddenly sold against the provisions of this obvious provisions of this will . First of all, we need to recognize, for years gerald t. Greenfield the nephew did nothing. Right . He did nothing to violate the will. This will meant that gerald 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 o 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. He is hired out james ash to work. He is talking 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 ya 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 blacksmith at the Washington Navy yard. He worked here. There were about 13 enslaved africanamericans at the navy yard. There were some free blacks working at the navy yard. One of his associates at the navy yard, a black free black man named Joseph Thompson had won his freedom in court on the provisions of a will. He had filed a freedom suit. So daniel bell worked side by side with Joseph Thompson. We can be sure that they talked about these matters. Right . But in the navy yard, one of the foremen at the yard was a man named Robert Armstead. Lives right here, close to the navy yard. Robert armstead was the slaveholder who held mary and the six children. Okay . White man, a foreman in the yard, not particularly wealthy. His principal wealth really was mary and the six children. Ma mary bell. So daniel noticed daniel clearly knew that Robert Armstead two things about Robert Armstead in the summer of 1835. He knew that Robert Armstead had 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. So bell knew that armstead had signed, had put his name down on that memorial. He also knew by the way, that the three justices of the d. C. Court had also signed that memorial. Everyone probably took note of that. But he knew one other thing, too. And that was that Robert Armstead was dieing. 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. And daniel bell goes to Robert Armstead. And he asks him for a deed of manumition 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, theres chaos. But Robert Armstead signs and no the deed of emancipation for mary bell and the six children. This is the original deed of emancipation for mary bell and their children. This is a joyous moment. Right . Daniel bell is still enslaved. At the navy yard. But he appears to have negoti e negotiated for the freedom of his wife and children. Two days later, Robert Armstead dies. Okay . 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 dieing days, that he was not of sound mind. She seeks to just overturn the will on those grounds. Right . So what we have here im going to pause for a second is sort of freedom a couple kinds of freedom suits developing. Right . We have different tracks of these lawsuits. One is ashs and ann bells stemming from the 1824 will. Right . This is a potentially freedom suit based on the provisions of the will. Okay. Then we have a potential second track of a freedom suit stemming from the armstead deed. The deed is good. The deed is valid and it cant be overturned. And we have a third kind of track as well. Maybe what ann bell will claim. That third track is, living as a free person for more than ten years was de facto freedom. Okay . Under the law. In maryland courts had pretty much decided that. So ann bell potentially, from 1824 to 1834, 1836, 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 the court and the court might determine that she is free. So we have three different pathways. Right . Here. Well, so, after daniel bell negotiates the deed, this is what sets everything in motion, includes james ashs seizure in 1839 by gerald t. Greenfield and 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 the deed. She is in touch with the gre greenfie greenfields. She essentially tells them that daniel bell has been manipulating Robert Armstead, her dead 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 of emancipation unfounded, unsound is to attempt to sell daniel. Get daniel out of the picture. And so daniel bell is summarily sold by, we think, the greenfields. Im honestly not sure. There seems to be a connection there. The minute the word gets out that daniel has negotiated this de deed, it comes full circle and his slaveholder sells him in an attempt, as we have discussed, to get him out of washington, d. C. , separate him from mary and the children and then Susan Armstead will be able to deal with mary and the children and keep them and subvert the deed. Everybody with me on that . Okay. So this is a dramatic moment. Because in september of 1835, daniel bell is seized on the navy yard on he is at the shop the Blacksmith Shop and slave traders these arent policemen. These arent constables. These are hired thugs. Right . They work for the slave they work for william h. Williams, people like that. They rush the Blacksmith Shop. We can imagine there are four or five of them. And they take down daniel bell. Down to the ground. They haul him off the floor, the shop floor. And he is appears he is taken to the yellow house also. So in september of 1835, daniel bell is seized and he is about to be sold. What does he do . Of course, he sues for his freedom. His trial does not take place because theres a friend of his, a marine colonel at the navy yard that he seeks his help and that marine colonel helps daniel bell buy his freedom. Daniel bell negotiates for his freedom in that very moment. And 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. And 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 drag s on for years. Here is what we need to know. Right . Although ann bell had been living as a free woman with lucy bell, her mother and now daniel bell had bought his freedom, right, 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 1824 and 1836, over those 11 years, from one generation to the next. So essentially, ann bell had been passed down on paper from one greenfield to another. The precariousness of ann bells situation was that she, too, could be seized like her brother and summarily sold, possibly, before she could get a freedom suit in play. But more particularly, so could her children. Right . So could her children. The terms that was 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. Sue and armstead, within a month of that, began trying to maneuver to overturn the deed of emancipation for mary bell. We have daniel and mary bell over here and we have ann bell suing gerard greenfield. And we have james ash. Susan armstead waited for the right opportunity to seize mary and the children as property, as her property. She drags out the probate for as long as she can on roberts will. She continues this whole time to hire out mary and the children. Shes hiring them out. Mary is claiming her freedom. Mary goes and gets a freedom certificate from the court based on the deed. Its probably the case that mary bell tried to negotiate with e Susan Armstead. Probably. But Susan Armstead 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 against gerard t. Greenfield has sort of stahl stalled in the co 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. And so in 1839, in december, just like daniel bell, james ash is seized, taken to the yellow house and he is potentially going to be sold south. So this is the lawsuit that ash brings against william h. Williams. He is at the yellow house. He is being held there. And james ash files his freedom suit against william h. Williams. And this is the case that will go to the Supreme Court and tawnys decision is a precursor for dred scott. So what does ash argue, and what does williams argue, and what does tawny decide . Ash argued that the will the terms of the will had to be followed. Right . There was an old principal in law that the intent of the will needs to be carried out. 57 and 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. A month later, ann bell wins her freedom suit. So now james ash has won his freedom suit on the basis of the will. And ann bell wins her freedom suit on the basis of having lived for ten years as a free woman. She didnt even get to deal with the will. She was also involved in the will. But she made her case on having lived for ten years as a free woman in washington, d. C. In fact, the judges instructed the jury, think about this, ann bell had purchased property in the city. She bought property. She built a house. She made contracts. Tawnys decision in dred scott should be ringing in your head. Okay . She bought property in the city. She built a house. She had made contracts. Unbelievably, she had even hired an enslaved person from the greenfields. So she had a contract with the greenfields. So 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. All right. 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. And it raises this vital question of whether an enslaved person can receive a bequest of freedom through a will. If an enslaved person is property under the law, it would be hard to argue that they could. But if enslaved people are persons under the law, then possibly they could. It posed this fundamental question of whether slaves were property under the law or human beings. Okay . Now, not surprisingly, the slave traders take the most unambiguous position ever. William h. Williams argument is the following. Negros by the laws of maryland are property precisely as money in the funds or household affects. Okay . They even cite queen v. Hepburn and marshals decision suggesting property should govern all of these matters. Right . They say that bequests of freedom, freeing an enslaved person through a will, leads to a repugnant conclusion that enslaved people are something other than property. This is much the same logic that roger tawny would deploy in dred scotts case. What is ashs argument . James ash has a young attorney named Joseph Bradley whose an antislavery and abolitionist in leaning. He had defended an abolitionist editor in a sort of very, very controversial trial, high profile libel case in 1835 in washington. And bradley makes the argument that enslaved people are people, are human beings, of course. He positions this argument around human rights. And he, too, cites queen v. Hepburn. He points to courts should lean in favor of freedom, lean in favor of liberty. Bradley also at trial made the argument, and 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. So 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 . It may surprise you that roger tawny 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. And tawny renders this opinion that is meant to, in his view, keep the Property Rights of slaveholders 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 then its upheld at the Supreme Court level. So why . So how . Tawnys opinion says that ashs freedom he says this without a hint of irony. Right . Took affect the moment he was sold. The moment he is sold, he is free. Which seems like a contradictory argument, right . What is he really saying . On the one hand, what tawny does is he is recognizing that the Property Rights of slaveholders 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 affect in across the United States and the other is a private civil matter, but nonetheless extremely important in the law for how wills are administered. Right . Okay. He clearly wants to protect the property right concept of the slaveholding class. He doesnt want to do anything that would affirm the idea that we just mentioned that ash presented that africanamericans were rights bearing persons under the law and constitution. He wasnt going to do that. So what does he do . He creates a legal fiction, i think. And that is this. That there are three people involved in this will and bequest. Wrap your mind around this. There are three people. Theres maria greenfield, who rights the will. Right . Theres james ash, the chattel, the enslaved property, who has no rights in tawnys view and who is simply a piece of property. So he actually accepts the argument that the slave traders attorneys make right there. 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 tawny to affirm the Property Rights, that the Property Rights were not violated here. Because ashs freedom takes affect the moment he was sold because there are three people, three beings, if you will, in this transaction. So let me pause. Do we have any questions at the moment . Yeah. Lauren. What happened to mary bell and her children . Okay. This is a great question. What happens to mary bell . So ash has won his freedom, won it at the Supreme Court level and bell has won her freedom at the Circuit Court level. Its not appealed to the Supreme Court. So large parts of the bell family are free, right . Lucy bell has negotiated the the grandmother negotiated for her freedom. Mary bell and the children, there is the deed. Daniel bell has negotiated for his freedom and bought his freedom. Mary bell is still in this sort of unclear state. She ends up suing for her freedom in 1840 44 to try to clarify. She knows 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. I mean, after all she has a deed thats been signed and witnessed. She has a certificate of freedom from the court. She has taken the deed down to the court, received a certificate of freedom that says shes a free woman. And yet its still murky, its still not a sure thing. Right . And so she sues for her freedom, because in part, she hears through the grapevine that Susan Armstead is about to try to sell one of her children. Okay . But in 1847 in december, mary bells lawsuit is unsuccessful. S 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 marry and the children. He helps bring to washington, d. C. He writes a series of letters. He tries to get help from abolitionists. But he is 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. And 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 Lookout 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 is and the captain with put on trial for leading a slave insurrection. And mary and the children, along with many others on board, are sold, essentially. Here is the list of the pearl. You can see mary here. Mrs. Armstead, there she is, Susan Armstead. We see george bell, daniel bell, mary bell with two children, caroline with two children, mary ellen, marharriet and theyre a associated with daniel bell and the navy yard. The slaveholders who the people who attempted to escape, right, the slaveholders of those people really effectively wanted to send a message to the enslaved across washington, d. C. And maryland to teach the enslaved a lesson not to run away, not to escape. So they would be sold. They were sold south really as a 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 o railroad station to baltimore. So daniel is desperate trying to intervene and possibly stop the sale of mary and the children south. At that moment, you know, daniel on the depot platform 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, local abolitionists, daniel bell is able to raise 400 and he is able to purchase mary bells freedom. But he only has enough money to purchase two of the children. Okay . 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. And they do that. After the civil war, some of the children are able to reunite with mary and daniel bell. But two appear not to we dont know what happens to them. We dont know. But they are sold. And they are taken away. At age 8, 9, 10. So mary bell, daniel, like he purchased his own freedom, now essentially has to purchase marys freedom. So while ann bell wins her freedom in court and james ash wins his flreedom in court, thi is what happens to mary bell. In fact you can see how theres there were 11 bells. The Largest Family Group on the pearl were the bell family. There were 11 of them. This is the Court Document valui valuing them for Susan Armstead at 5,000. One final comment on that. There is one final lawsuit that marys daughter brings against Susan Armstead. And she to be clear, shes 8 years old. Okay . So the last lawsuit is the 8yearold. 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. 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. Eleanora bell she is not liberated until the summer of 1962 in the civil war. Okay . Great question. Lets turn finally to lets step back. As we wrap up here and think about the significance of freedom suits broadly as an avenue of antislavery constitutionalism. Okay . So 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, so lets consider, what are the sources of antislavery constitutionalism . Well, one source that scholars have looked at, one dimension of antislavery constitutionalism is the lawyers like Joseph Bradley. We talked briefly 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, is not that slavely is loc lry is local, it national. So theres one part of this is lawyers who make those arguments. Theres no doubt about that. They are getting that antislavery constitutionalism in the record. A second area of antislavery constitutionalism is certainly the decenting opinions. We could talk about john mcklain in dred scott. Its really like duvall about freedom and that slavery is not in any way sanctioned in the constitution. Third this is so important. These are in gradual of gradual importance in my view. Third, black abolitionists. We talked about Frederick Douglass. Right . You have read Frederick Douglass who in 1851 breaks with the g y garrisonians and moves to the constitution that its a freedom document. So douglass becomes the voice of one antislavery constitutionalism. He is saying that blacks, of course, are citizens, are persons under the meaning of the constitution. Fourth and most important, given what we are 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 proslavery, 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, eleanora bell. This lng liong line of freedom arguing that freedom was national while slavery was local. Freedom was national while slavery was confined to certain places, certain contingencies, certain law, certain definition and conditions. And in dred scotts case, chief Justice Roger tawny tries to displace that entire line of argument. Right . Entirely. In his view, slavery is national. The Property Rights of slaveholders are national. And freedom is local or confined, but slavery is ubiquitous in tawnys opinion, which you have read and know well. So in sum, these enslaved families who bring the freedom suits from 1800 or 1790s all the way up to 1860 articulate the longest, most sustained argument based around antislavery constitutionalism. So next, we will see how the civil war transformed this constitution and thank you. And see you next week. Enjoy your weekend. Our look at the city of san antonio continues as we sit down with author Catherine Clinton to hear about her book confederate statues and memorialization. The American Civil War has had a really grand impact around the world because people look to this nation nearly coming apart, coming back together, having a new birth of freedom and here we are in the 21st century having really quite spirited debates. The headlines, the newspapers, a lot of commentary was focusing in on