Harry v. Decker & Hopkins

Last updated

Harry v. Decker & Hopkins (1818) was a freedom suit in which the Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that the three slaves in the case were freed based on prior residence in the Northwest Territory, established as free in 1787. Mississippi's court was the first in the South to rule on this issue and created a precedent in transit cases that was widely observed by slave state courts.

Contents

In response to a challenge related to Virginia having ceded this territory and the defendant asserting this protected the status of slavery in the region, the court held that any state may, through its constitution, prohibit slavery within its boundaries, and also through its legislature (as Indiana had done), when not constrained by the United States Constitution. Specifically, it recognized that slaves residing in the Northwest Territory became freemen per congressional passage of the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery in the territory, and could assert their rights in the state of Mississippi's courts. [1]

Background

In 1784, the Virginian John Decker moved with his slave Harry and two others to Vincennes (in present-day Indiana, then unorganized and west of the states of the United States; it was French territory that was conceded to Great Britain following the Seven Years' War). [1] Britain ceded it to the United States following the American Revolutionary War. Following settlement of a claim by colonial Virginia and its cession to the US, this area was included by Congress in the Northwest Territory by the Ordinance of 1787, which established it as a free territory. The Indiana state constitution, ratified on 29 June 1816 and confirming the abolition of slavery, went into effect in July 1816. [1]

Upon reaching Mississippi with Decker in 1816, Harry and the other two slaves filed a joint freedom suit, based on the fact that anti-slavery provisions in the Northwest Ordinance and the Indiana state constitution established the territory and state as free. Decker argued that the treaty of cession between Virginia and the United States following the Revolutionary War, ending the state's colonial claim to this territory, protected existing slavery under the earlier French law in the region. Decker asserted that the Indiana Constitution could not end slavery in the state as it would violate that treaty of cession. Decker believed that the Northwest Ordinance could be used to free only those slaves who were brought into the territory after 1787, the year it was passed.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Mississippi agreed that the treaty of cession protected the property of settlers living in the Northwest region by preserving French law, at the time of cession of the territory to the United States. This was superseded by congressional passage of the Ordinance of 1787. In the court's opinion, to view the ordinance otherwise would, "defeat the great object of the general government," and be, "inadmissible upon every principle of legal construction." In addition, they opined that, "Slavery is condemned by reason, and the laws of nature. It exists and can exist only through municipal regulations." [2] Therefore, they ruled the three slaves were free due to having been held in the Northwest Territory after passage of the Ordinance establishing it as free.

Mississippi and other slave states continued to support freedom for slaves in transit cases in which they had resided in free territories or states. By contrast, the Illinois Supreme Court and its lower courts "uniformly decided against the right of freedom" in transit cases, holding this more stringent position until 1845. [3] Illinois had also been part of the Northwest Territory and was admitted as a free state.

See also

Related Research Articles

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. The decision is widely considered the worst ever rendered in the Supreme Court's history, being widely denounced for its overt racism, perceived judicial activism and poor legal reasoning, and for its crucial role in the start of the American Civil War four years later. Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dred Scott</span> African-American plaintiff in freedom suit (c.1799–1858)

Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man who, along with his wife, Harriet, unsuccessfully sued for freedom for themselves and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott decision". The case centered on Dred and Harriet Scott and their children, Eliza and Lizzie. The Scotts claimed that they should be granted their freedom because Dred had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal, and laws in those jurisdictions said that slaveholders gave up their rights to slaves if they stayed for an extended period.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Northwest Ordinance</span> American organic legislation creating Northwest Territory

The Northwest Ordinance, enacted July 13, 1787, was an organic act of the Congress of the Confederation of the United States. It created the Northwest Territory, the new nation's first organized incorporated territory, from lands beyond the Appalachian Mountains, between British North America and the Great Lakes to the north and the Ohio River to the south. The upper Mississippi River formed the territory's western boundary. Pennsylvania was the eastern boundary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Northwest Territory</span> United States territory (1787–1803)

The Northwest Territory, also known as the Old Northwest and formally known as the Territory Northwest of the River Ohio, was formed from unorganized western territory of the United States after the American Revolutionary War. Established in 1787 by the Congress of the Confederation through the Northwest Ordinance, it was the nation's first post-colonial organized incorporated territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indiana Territory</span> 1800–1816 territory of the United States

The Indiana Territory, officially the Territory of Indiana, was created by a congressional act that President John Adams signed into law on May 7, 1800, to form an organized incorporated territory of the United States that existed from July 4, 1800, to December 11, 1816, when the remaining southeastern portion of the territory was admitted to the Union as the state of Indiana. The territory originally contained approximately 259,824 square miles (672,940 km2) of land, but its size was decreased when it was subdivided to create the Michigan Territory (1805) and the Illinois Territory (1809). The Indiana Territory was the first new territory created from lands of the Northwest Territory, which had been organized under the terms of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The territorial capital was the settlement around the old French fort of Vincennes on the Wabash River, until transferred to Corydon near the Ohio River in 1813.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fugitive slave laws in the United States</span> Laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850

The fugitive slave laws were laws passed by the United States Congress in 1793 and 1850 to provide for the return of enslaved people who escaped from one state into another state or territory. The idea of the fugitive slave law was derived from the Fugitive Slave Clause which is in the United States Constitution. It was thought that forcing states to deliver fugitive slaves back to enslavement violated states' rights due to state sovereignty and was believed that seizing state property should not be left up to the states. The Fugitive Slave Clause states that fugitive slaves "shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due", which abridged state rights because forcing people back into slavery was a form of retrieving private property. The Compromise of 1850 entailed a series of laws that allowed slavery in the new territories and forced officials in free states to give a hearing to slave-owners without a jury.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Missouri Compromise</span> 1820 United States federal legislation

The Missouri Compromise was a federal legislation of the United States that balanced desires of northern states to prevent expansion of slavery in the country with those of southern states to expand it. It admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state and declared a policy of prohibiting slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands north of the 36°30′ parallel. The 16th United States Congress passed the legislation on March 3, 1820, and President James Monroe signed it on March 6, 1820.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of slavery in Indiana</span> Aspect of history surrounding slavery in Indiana

Slavery in Indiana occurred between the time of French rule during the late seventeenth century and 1826, with a few traces of slavery afterward.

The Fugitive Slave Clause in the United States Constitution, also known as either the Slave Clause or the Fugitives From Labor Clause, is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which requires a "person held to service or labor" who flees to another state to be returned to their master in the state from which that person escaped. The enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery except as a punishment for criminal acts, has made the clause mostly irrelevant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of slavery in Missouri</span>

The history of large-scale slavery in the region which later became the State of Missouri began in 1720, when a French merchant named Philippe François Renault brought about 500 slaves of African descent from Saint-Domingue up the Mississippi River to work in lead mines in what is now southeastern Missouri and southern Illinois. These people were the first enslaved Africans brought en masse to the middle Mississippi River Valley. Prior to Renault's enterprise, slavery in Missouri under French colonial rule had been practiced on a much smaller scale as compared to elsewhere in the French colonies.

<i>Lemmon v. New York</i> Nineteenth-century freedom suit

Lemmon v. New York, or Lemmon v. The People (1860), popularly known as the Lemmon Slave Case, was a freedom suit initiated in 1852 by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was granted by the Superior Court in New York City, a decision upheld by the New York Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, in 1860 on the eve of the Civil War.

Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, 18 U.S. 374 (1820), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the proper boundary between the states of Indiana and Kentucky was the low-water mark on the western and northwestern bank of the Ohio River. Motion by the plaintiff, Handly's lessee, to eject inhabitants of a peninsula in the Ohio River was denied.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom suit</span> Enslaved persons lawsuits for freedom

Freedom suits were lawsuits in the Thirteen Colonies and the United States filed by slaves against slaveholders to assert claims to freedom, often based on descent from a free maternal ancestor, or time held as a resident in a free state or territory.

Admission to the Union is provided by the Admissions Clause of the United States Constitution in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, which authorizes the United States Congress to admit new states into the Union beyond the thirteen states that already existed when the Constitution came into effect. The Constitution went into effect on June 21, 1788 in the nine states that had ratified it, and the U.S. federal government began operations under it on March 4, 1789, when it was in effect in 11 out of the 13 states. Since then, 37 states have been admitted into the Union. Each new state has been admitted on an equal footing with those already in existence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of slavery in Illinois</span> Illinois slavery

Slavery in what became the U.S. state of Illinois existed for more than a century. Illinois did not become a state until 1818, but earlier regional systems of government had already established slavery. France introduced African slavery to the Illinois Country in the early eighteenth century. French and other inhabitants of Illinois continued the practice of owning slaves throughout the Illinois Country's period of British rule (1763-1783), as well as after its transfer to the new United States in 1783 as Illinois County, Virginia. The Northwest Ordinance (1787) banned slavery in Illinois and the rest of the Northwest Territory. Nonetheless, slavery remained a contentious issue, through the period when Illinois was part of the Indiana Territory and the Illinois Territory and some slaves remained in bondage after statehood until their gradual emancipation by the Illinois Supreme Court. Thus the history of slavery in Illinois covers several sometimes overlapping periods: French ; British ; Virginia ; United States Northwest Territory (1787-1800), Indiana Territory (1800-1809), Illinois Territory (1809-1818) and the State of Illinois.

Slavery has been forbidden in the state of Minnesota since that state's admission to the Union in 1858. The second section of the first Article of the state's constitution, drafted in 1857, provides that:

There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude from the State otherwise there is the punishment of crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Wash</span> American judge (1790–1856)

Robert Wash served on the Supreme Court of Missouri from September 1825 to May 1837. During his term, the pro-slavery judge, who owned slaves himself, wrote the dissenting opinion on several important freedom suits, including Milly v. Smith, Julia v. McKinney and Marguerite v. Chouteau. However, he did join in the unanimous finding for the plaintiff in the landmark Rachel v. Walker case.

Winny v. Whitesides alias Prewitt was the first freedom suit heard by the Supreme Court of Missouri. The case established the state's judicial criteria for an enslaved person's right to freedom. The court determined that if a slave owner took a slave into free territory and established residence there, the slave would be free. The slave remained free even if returned to slave territory, engendering the phrase "once free, always free."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Polly Strong</span> Enslaved woman in the US Northwest Territory (c. 1796–unknown)

Polly Strong was an enslaved woman in the Northwest Territory, in present-day Indiana. She was born after the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery. Slavery was prohibited by the Constitution of Indiana in 1816. Two years later, Strong's mother Jenny and attorney Moses Tabbs asked for a writ of habeas corpus for Polly and her brother James in 1818. Judge Thomas H. Blake produced indentures, Polly for 12 more years and James for four more years of servitude. The case was dismissed in 1819.

Mary Bateman Clark (1795–1840) was an American woman, born into slavery, who was taken to Indiana Territory. She was forced to become an indentured servant, even though the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery. She was sold in 1816, the same year that the Constitution of Indiana prohibited slavery and indentured servitude. In 1821, attorney Amory Kinney represented her as she fought for her freedom in the courts. After losing the case in the Circuit Court, she appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of Mary Clark v. G.W. Johnston. She won her freedom with the precedent-setting decision against indentured servitude in Indiana. The documentary, Mary Bateman Clark: A Woman of Colour and Courage, tells the story of her life and fight for freedom.

References

  1. 1 2 3 R.J. Walker, Reporter of the State, "Reports Of Cases Adjudged In The Supreme Court Of Mississippi (1818–1834)", Natchez: Printed at the Courier and Journal Office, 1834, USGenWeb project – Mississippi Archives, accessed 18 April 2015
  2. Finkelman, Paul (2000). An Imperfect Union: Slavery, Federalism, and Comity, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., p. 188
  3. Finkelman (2000), an Imperfect Union, p. 189