Freedom Suits and the Legal Challenge to Slavery in Early America

In years leading up to the freeing of enslaved individuals and the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, courageous enslaved individuals began to challenge the systems put in place through the usage of the legal system. One of the most remarkable of the individuals, the landmark case which was the catalyst for the abolition of slavery, was Elizabeth Freeman, better known as, ‘Mum Bett.’ 

Mum Bett was a formally enslaved woman who made the bold decision to fight for her freedom through a legal suit, although not being able to read or write. Her case, Brom and Bett v. Ashley (1781), became a legal precedent and one of the first in the series of ‘freedom suits’ in Massachusetts, which helped establish a legal precedent that would continue to contribute to the eventual end of slavery. Mum Bett’s legal victory in her case played a crucial role which then later helped to lead to the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts. The case demonstrated how enslaved individuals actively shaped the fight for freedom by using the legal system to hold America accountable for the  principles founded in the Declaration of Independence. 

While the American Revolution was something that boosted ideals of liberty and equality, they remained largely rhetorical statements until they were tested in court. The Massachusetts Constitution enacted in 1780 declared that, “all men are born and created equal.” However, the existence of slavery still existed in the state, which helped to reveal a tension between the language written in the constitution and in social practices. Mum Bett, who, “after her successful freedom suit that lead to the end of slavery, adopted the name Elizabeth Freeman” was enslaved in Massachusetts by Colonel John Ashely. Despite her injustices, status, and not knowing how to read or write, Mum Bett was still intelligent and was deeply aware of the inequities that she faced. After learning about a newly ratified Constitution in Massachusetts, which was created on the basis that ‘all men are born free and equal,’ she decided to take the brave step to challenge her enslavement and slave owner in a legal battle. Freeman’s lawsuit forced the Massachusetts Supreme Court to confront the contradiction directly. Her case represents more than an individual petition for freedom. It marks an example in which revolutionary ideals were transformed into legal rights. With the help of Mum Bett’s attorney Theodore Sedgwick, she filed a complaint against her enslaver, alongside another individual named Brom. The case was brought as a civil lawsuit under a plea that is used to recover wrongfully held property. In reading the court records, her enslaver claimed, “the said Brom and Bett are and were at the time of Receiving the original Writ the legal servants of him the John Ashley during their lives.” However, their lawyers responded that they were not “the servants…during their lives,” invoking an idea that they were unlawfully held under a system which was incompatible with the state’s newly established Constitution. Freeman’s attorney challenged this claim by arguing that they were not legally bound as lifetime servants under a constitution that recognized universal freedom. The court awarded them their freedom along with a small sum for their ‘damages.’ This landmark decision marked one of the earliest legal victories and the main catalyst which often goes unspoken about in regards to the abolition of slavery in a post-Revolutionary United States. The case showed that the promise of this equality that had been written in the Massachusetts Constitution could be enforced through the courts, at least at this time only in the state of Massachusetts.

Freeman’s legal action also challenged assumptions about who has the ability to shape constitutional meaning. Constitutional interpretation is left up to the interpretation of judges or legislators, yet Freeman’s case demonstrates the idea that even individuals who were denied legal status and rights could influence the development of legal precedents. By initiating her lawsuit, Freeman not only asserted her own principles, but also applied the principles contained within the Massachusetts Constitution. Examining it this way, Freeman functioned as a constitutional interpreter who invoked the authority of the states’ document to challenge the legality of her own life. 

Mum Bett’s legal battle was not only a victory for herself, but it was a critical step in the movement towards the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts. Her case laid groundwork for other legal battles, for example, the legal battles of Quock Walker, who was another formally enslaved individual who used the court system to fight for his freedom. His series of trials ended in a landmark 1783 case of Commonwealth v. Jennison, in which the chief justice of the Massachusetts court, William Cushing, declared that slavery had no place in the Massachusetts Constitution, given the state constitution’s declaration that, ‘all men are born free and created equal.’ Cushing wrote that, “In short, without resorting to implication in constructing the constitution, slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence.” This ruling effectively ended slavery in Massachusetts, not through any other federal legislation yet, but through legal reasoning within the state’s Constitution. These cases, and the lawyers who argued them, set powerful precedents for what was yet to come in the civil rights fight in the United States. The legacy of these early freedom suits lives on not only in the lives of those they freed, but they also live on within the Constitution, and set precedents that helped create legal documentation, including the Emancipation Proclamation, and other future legislations. 

The cases brought by Elizabeth Freeman and Quock Walker demonstrate that the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts was not simply just the result of a shift in moral attitudes, but also the product of constitutional argument and judicial enforcement. By taking this to the court and compelling them to interpret the Constitution based on the principle that “all men are born and created equal,” Freeman and other enslaved individuals helped to transform their own lives as well as the law. The legacy of these early freedom lawsuits illustrates how powerful constitutional language can be used in helping marginalized groups demand accountability and acceptance from legal institutions.