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 hap