With dread 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 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 a mcqueen, 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 ancestor 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 affirmes 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 implies 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 happens, had pioneered many of the freedom suits in maryland. And duval knew 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 savely savely slavely in ooel in llegal 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 at the heart of the stories essential fact. Slave holders throughout the entire period from 1800 to 1860, were separating families and selling people or attempting to sell them into the inter slave sleeve interstate slave trade with deception and with speed. This is what we michael sudden sales. Slave holders use this tactic of sudden sale, deceive the enslaved, not tell them what is happening. Sell them quickly. Transport them to washington d. C. Out of maryland, and then on the ships or on the train to the deep south to louisiana to the sugar fields or cotton fields of mississippi. These sudden sales were quite obviously meant 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 freedom suit, having been sent to louisiana if they were from maryland . So today, we are going to concentrate on the story, on the case of james ash, versus william h. Williams. This is a freedoms to prior to dred scott, where chief Justice Roger tiny also wrote the majority opinion and, i think it is important because this is a case where tiny creates a sort of legal fiction that he will later deploy and dred scott. I think you will see what i mean by the end. Here only when we look at cases like james ash versus william h. Williams and the long history of freedom suits can we see that the challenge they posed under the constitution, with such that roger tani was willing to go to Great Lengths to avoid recognizing black american 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. When we are going to expose today. So first, james ash. He is part of a large family from Prince George is county marilyn. He was enslaved and many of the people in his family werent slaved of course. He is a brother in law of daniel bell, and a brother in law of an 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 and washington d. C. That moved from was living as a free women in the 18 twenties. Lucy bell lives to the age of 99 she dies in the summer of 1862. Just after washington d. C. Emancipation is affected in the middle of the civil war. The point is, in 1860 to, age 99, she saw the last of her children and grandchildren free. But the struggle for their freedom goes back to the 18 thirties. Think about this as a 30 year, three generation, more than 30 years, three generations struggled for freedom. Using the courts where possible. Negotiating, navigating, accumulating legal knowledge, and passing it on. In 1860 to her children and bell, daniel bell and Caroline Bell bought a headstone for her. She is buried a Congressional Cemetery with a headstone dedicated to their mother. William h. Williams was one of the most notorious slave traders and washington d. C. He owned the yellow house. There was a slave jail and in the parlance of the day was sometimes called, weve already looked at one case. And williams is case she checked out the other day that one was similar in that george Millers Tavern was a slave pan. We talked about that. William h. Williams is by the 18 thirties, the single largest slave jail in the city of washington. It is called the yellow house james ash was taken there, and held their. We will see why in just a second in 1839. In a few months later, a man named solomon north rip was taken to the yellow house you may know him as 12 years is a slave, he is the author of 12 years as a slave. The movie came out a couple of years ago, it was an Academy Award winner film. Solomon north reverse kidnapped and taken to be sold to louisiana and the southwest. He was taken to the yellow house after he was kidnapped, and he wrote about it this way. This is how north rub described the yellow house. The. Room was about 12 feet square. Walls of solid masonry. The floor was of heavy the heavy plank. There was one small window crust with great iron bars with an outside shudder securely fastened. The furniture of the room in which i was consisted of the wooden bench on which i sat, an Old Fashioned dirty box stow. Beside these and either sell there was neither bed, nor blanket, nor anything of or whatever. The yard extended from the house about 30 feet. And one part of the wall it was a strongly iron door opening into a narrow door covering 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 close with sealed. The top of the wall supported when end of the roof, which ascended inwards performing a kind of open shed. Underneath the roof, the outside, presented the only appearance of a quiet residence. A stranger looking at it would never have dreamed of its ex trouble uses. Strangers it may seem, within plain sight of the same house looking down from its commanding height upon was the capital. The voices of patriotic representatives boasting of freedom inequality and the rattling of the four slaves chained almost cool mingle. A slave pen within the very shadow of capital. We can see that right here. Weve got capitol square. Heres the yellow house. Were going to talk about the bells where ash is in just a second. 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 sudden sales. 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 proviso. Ill quote this here. He shall not carry he, gerard, her at nephew he shall not carry them out of maryland or sell them to anyone. Either of which 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 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. 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 perioda and why is ash suddenly sold against the 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 joeseph 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 on that memorial. 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 right here 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 kinds 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 then we have a second strike the freedom suit stemming from the arm studied, that the deed is good. The deed is valid, and it cannot be overturned. We have a third kind of track as well. What an bell will claim. That their track is living as a free person for more than ten years, was de facto freedom. Under the law. The maryland courts had pretty much decided that. And bell, potentially from 1824 to 1834 or 36. By 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, and the court might determine that she is free. We have three different pathways. Well, so, after daniel bell negotiates, this is what sets everything in motion including ashes seizure and 1839 in his attempt to actually sell. Him this is a little complicated. Let us wrap arm minds around. It susan are stead clearly is attempting to subvert the will the date of many mission. She is in touch with the green fields. She essentially tells them that daniel bell has been manipulating robert arm stead, her deceased husband. That daniel bell needs to be dealt with. The first step that she takes in order to possibly make deed of menu mission this deed of emancipation, unfounded and unsound, is to attempt to sell daniel and get daniel out of the picture. So daniel bell is summarily sold by, we think the green fields. I am honestly not sure, but there seems to be a connection there. The minute the word gets out that daniel has negotiated this deal of many mission it comes full circle and his slave holder selves him. In an attempt, as we discussed, to get him out of washington d. C. , separated for marry and the children. Then Susan Armistead will be able to deal with susan and the children marianne the children. This is a dramatic moment because and september of 1885 daniel bell is seized on the navy yard. Hes at the shop, and slave traders these are not policemen. They are not constables. These are hired thugs. They work for the slave trade they work for william. People like that. They rushed the blacksmith shop. We can imagine there are four or five of them. They take down daniel bell down to the. Ground and they hall him off the floor. It appears he is taken to the yellow house and september of 1835 daniel bell is sees he sees that he is about to be sold so he sues. His trial does not take place because his friend of his, i marine colonel at the navy yard, he seeks his help, and that marine colonel helps daniel bell by his freedom. Daniel bell negotiates for his freedom in that very moment, and he pays over 1000 dollars. This is two years wages. Think about that today. Two years full wages. Just by his freedom. The bell family recognizes that Susan Armistead is not going to let go. She is already attempted to have daniel bells sold separately. At this moment, daniels sister and bell files her petition for freedom. She sues gerard green field in tennessee for her freedom, claiming that she had been living as a free woman. He does not respond the case goes on, summons after summonses. It drags on for years, but heres what we need to know. Although i and bell had been living as a free woman, with lucy bell, her mother and now daniel bell had bought his freedom. And;aa14÷ presumably the steet h mary and the children liberating them, the fact of the matter was, the green fields had been quietly bequeathing them to others all along. Between 1824 and 1836 from one generation to the next. Essentially ana bell had been passed down on paper from one green field to another. The precariousness of animals situation was that she too could be seized like her brother. And summarily sold possibly before she could get a freedom suit and play but what particularly silver with her would her children. So look at her children. The terms of that will work for her, not for her children. Gerard greenville possibly could attempt to sell the children word of animals freedom suits spread quickly and the green field family, and Susan Armistead, within a month of that began trying to maneuver, to overturn the deed of emancipation for mary bell. We had daniel and mary bell over here, and we have and bell suing gerard green field, and we have james ash. Susan armistead biden her time, waiting for the right opportunity to seize marry and the children as her property. She drags out she drags it out for as long as she can on roberts will. She continues this whole time to hire out mary and the children. She is hiring them out and merriest claiming her freedom mary goes and gets a freedom certificate from the court based on the deed. It is probably the case that mary bell tried to negotiate with Susan Armistead. Probably. But, Susan Armistead would not budge. Years go by. We are not sure of the timing, or how it was coordinated, but in 1839, as an bells freedom suit against gerard tea green field has sort of stalled in court, gerard tea green field decides to sell james ash. Sudden sale, if he can execute the sale maybe he can get around the provisions and that 1824 will. So in 1839 in december, just like daniel bell, james ashes sees, taken to the yellow house and he is potentially going to be sold south. This is the lawsuit that ash brings against william h. Williams. He is at the yellow house and he is being held there, and james ash files his freedom suit against william h. William. This is the case that will go to the Supreme Courts quartz and tani is the precursor for the decision of dred scott. What this ash argue and what does williams argue . What does tani decide . Ask argue that the will, the terms of the will have to be followed. There is an old principle and law that the intent of the will needs to be carried out. That was ashes position. The intent of the will was that if he was sold he should be free. In washington d. C. In the jury trial the jury agreed and awarded ash his freedom a month later, and bell wins her freedom suit. James ash has won his freedom suit on the basis of the will. And bell wins her freedom suit on the basis of having lived for ten years as a free woman. She did not even get to deal with the will. She was also involved with 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, and bell had purchased property in the city. She had bought property. She had built a house. She had made contracts. Chinese decision and dread scott should be ringing in your head. She bought property in the city, built a house, made contracts, and unbelievably, she had even hired enslaved persons from the green field. So she had a contract with the green fields. Can an enslaved person make contracts . This is of course, the issue and the judges say, that these acts are quote, inconsistent with the condition of slavery. The green fields knew about this, did nothing in response, so the jury could confer that and oboes free. James ashes when his case. Williams appeals to the Supreme Court, but now this case raises a vital question doesnt not . It is now before the Supreme Court and it comes to the court and 1943 and it raises this vital question of whether an enslaved person can receive a request of freedom through a will. If an enslaved persons 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 poses this fundamental question of whether slaves were property under law or human beings. Now not surprisingly, the slave traders are in the most unambiguous position as possible. William h. Williams argument is the following, quote, knee grows, by the laws of maryland, our property precisely on money in the funds or household effects. Unquote. They even cite queen bee hepburn and John Marshalls decision suggesting that property should govern all of these matters. They say that the quest of freedom, freeing and enslaved person to a will leads to a repugnant conclusion that enslaved people or something other than property. This is much the same logic that roger tani would deploy in dred scotts case. What are ashes argument james ash has a young attorney named Joseph Bradley whose anti slavery and abolitionist and leaning, he had defended an abolitionist editor reuben crown dull in a sort of very controversial trial. Highprofile liable 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 cites queen v. Have bird. He points to divulge dissent that says the courts should lean in favor of freedom in favor of liberty. Bradley also had made the argument and i quote, although they are personal property, yet they are also recognized as persons and i technical problem tied to the constitutional question here about our enslaved people persons under the meaning of the constitution. We talked about that in this class and what does that mean . Now it may surprise here that roger be tani upheld ashes freedom in this case, in 1843. James ash achieved a stunning victory, did he not . His case is one of only of a handful of freedom suits in the Supreme Court to be affirmed for freedom. And tani renders this opinion that is meant to in his view keep the Property Rights of slave holder sleeve holders protected. Nevertheless, ash achieves a stunning victory after all asked takes on the yellow house, william h. William. He wins his freedom at trial and then it is upheld at the Supreme Court level, and so why . How . Tanis opinion says that ashes freedom, and he says this without a hint of irony, took effect the moment he was sold. The moment he sold, he is free which seems like a counter contradictory argument. What is he really saying on the one hand what taney is he is recognizing that the Property Rights of sleeve holders like himself, that he believed in, pointed went away, and the principles of the intent of the will pointed another way. One is a Public Policy matter about the constitutional Property Rights and how they take effect in across the United States, and the other is a private civil matter, but nonetheless extremely important in the law for how wheels are administers administered. Okay. He clearly wants to protect the property right concept of the slave holding class, and he does not 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 laws and constitution. He was not going to do that. So what does he do . He creates a legal fiction, i think. That is this. That there are three people involved in this will and be quest. Wrap your mind around this. There are three people. There is maria green field who writes the will. There is james ash, the chattel, the enslaved property who has no rights in tawnys view and who is simply a piece of property. He simply accepts that the attorneys make. Then theres james ash in the same body, a latent, free man. The sort of thinking, this sort of magic trick in a way, evil magic trick, is meant to make it possible for taney to affirm the Property Rights. That the Property Rights were not violated, because ashs freedom takes effect the moment he was sold because there were three people. Three beings, if you will in this transaction. So, let me pause. Do you have any questions at the moment . What happened to maribely bell and her children . That is a great question. And bell has won her freedom but not appeal to the Supreme Court. Large parts of the bell family are free. Lucy bell has negotiated, the grandmother has negotiated for her freedom. But mary bell and the children, there is the deed of manu mission. Daniel bell has negotiated for his freedom and bought his freedom. Mary bell is still in this unclear state. She ends up suing for her freedom in 1844 to try to clarify that she knows that Susan Armistead is trying to overturn turn the dday menu mission. She suits for freedom in the court to try and clarify once and for all her freedom after all she has a deep that has been signed and notarized and witness. She has a certificate of freedom from the court that says she is a free woman and yet, is it is still murky, it is still not a sure thing. So she suits for her freedom because in part she hears through the grapevine that Susan Armistead is about to sell one of her children. But in 1847 in december, mary bells lawsuit is an successful. Susan armistead is able to win that case, and the jury finds that Robert Armistead was not of sound mind and the deed is overturned. At this moment, desperate caused daniel bell organizes an escape for mary and the children. He helps bring to washington d. C. s, 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 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 sales down the Potomac River 90 miles to Point Lookout where it opens up into the chesapeake bay, and 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, the white crew from philadelphia are taken back to washington d. C. The crew and the captain or 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, this is armistead. There she is. Susan armistead. And we see George George pell daniel bell, mary bell with two children, caroline with two children, mary ellen, harriet and then this little scribble, is the navy yard theyre all associated with the navy yard. The slave holders whose 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, to teach the enslaved a lesson not to run away, not to escape. So they would be sold. They were sold as a deterrent and 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 piano railroad station and washington d. C. To baltimore. Daniel is desperate to try to intervene and possibly stop the sale of mary and the children. At that moment, daniel on the depot platform is sort of bludgeoned by the train conductors and the train pulls away. Some abolitionist saw this and helped daniel intervene, and so what happens to mary bell and daniel is that eventually, with help from some abolitionist, local abolitionist, daniel bell is able to raise 400 dollars and he is able to purchase merry bells freedom, but he only has enough money to purchase two of the children. So daniel and mary bell have to decide which to 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 daniel and mary bell. We do not know what happens to them. We do not know. But they are sold and they are taken away at age eight, nine, ten. So mary bell daniel, just like he purchased his own freedom now has essentially have to purchase marys freedom. Anna bell windsor freedom in court, ash wins is freedom. But this is what happens to marry bill. In fact, you can see, there were 11 bells, the Largest Family Group on the pearl where the bell family. There were 11 of them. This is the Court Document valuing them for suzanne armistead at 5000 dollars. One final comment on that. There is one final lawsuit that ellen nora bell, marys daughter, brings against Susan Armistead in 1850, 51. Just to be clear, she is eight years old. The last lawsuit is eleanor bells. She is a result and she sues Susan Armistead who is continuing to hold her as an enslaved person. She is the one who is not sold south. Eleanor of bell, that suit, there are dozens of witnesses. It is a big deal in washington d. C. In 1851 and, the same result, the jury votes for susana armistead, that robert was not of sound mind and the deed a menu mission is not valid. Eleanor bell does not win. She is not liberated until the summer of 1862 in the civil war. Great question. Let us turn, finally, let us step back as we wrap up here and think about the significance of freedom bought as an avenue of antislavery constitutionalism. When we step back and we think about what we learned today, with the story of james ash tells us and daniel bell, and and bell. Let us consider, what are the sources of the anti slavery constitutional us . One source that scholars have looked into, 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 anti slavery and clearly aimed at laying down a track of arguments that is, that slavery is not guaranteed by the constitution. Slavery is circumscribed, it is local, not national. There is one part of this, his lawyers who makes these arguments. There is no doubt about that. They are getting that antislavery constitutionalism in the record. The second area of antislavery constitutionalism is certainly the dissenting opinions. We mentioned gabriel devals and queen bee have bird hepburn. We can also talk about john mclains interests got meeting john stanford. The descent disliked evolves about freedom in that slavery is not in any way sanctioned in the constitution. Third, and this is so important. These are this is of gradual importance in my view. Blackout the abolitionists, we talked about Frederick Douglas, and you have read Frederick Douglas who in 1851 law, breaks with the garrison eons and moves to the position that the constitution is a guarantee of liberty. It is a freedom document. So douglas becomes the voice of antislavery constitutionalism. He is saying that blacks or citizens and persons. But fourth and most importantly, 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 pro slavery. That the constitution did not create a slavery based national system, but instead one based on freedom. We think about james ash, and 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 laws, certain definitions and conditions. And endurance scotts case, tani tries to displace that entire line of argument. Entirely. In his view, slavery is national. The Property Rights of slave holders our national and freedom is local or confined, but slavery is ubiquitous in taneys opinion what youve read and know well. So, and some, hes enslaved families who bring the freedom suits from 1800 or 17 90s all the way up to 1860, articulate the longest most sustained argument based around anti slavery constitutionalism. So next day, well see how the civil war transforms the constitution and thank you and see you next week and enjoy your weekend. The American Civil War has had a really grand impact around the world because people look to this nation nearly 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 statuary confederate statutes. In peoples deep feeling about the legacy of the civil war, what the civil war meant today and i think students in the classroom and general readers want to know how people feel about these issues. I got interested