104:(1824) in which the state supreme court held that a slave was free after having been held illegally in a free state and "once free always free." Specifically, the it held that "if an officer of the United States Army takes a slave to a territory where slavery is prohibited, he forfeits his property." The case was based on a woman, "Winny," who petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court, and her case established the Missouri precedent for freeing slaves who had lived in free territory. She claimed that her owner Phoebe Whitesides had imprisoned her without cause. Whitesides had moved from North Carolina to St. Louis, Missouri. If she were declared free, her nine children and grandchildren would also be declared free. This case went to trial and the St. Louis circuit court on 13 February 1822. The jury's decision freed Winny and her descendants. Whitesides appealed the case and it came before the Missouri Supreme Court in 1824. Again, the court decision favored Winny and her descendants. The court ruled, "We are clearly of opinion that if, by a residence in Illinois (Whitesides) lost her right to the property in the defendant, that right was not revived by a removal, of the parties to Missouri."
130:
petitioner to St. Louis where he sold her and the child to one Joseph Klunk who has recently sold her and said child to one
William Walker, who is a dealer in slaves & is about to take your petitioner and the child down the Mississippi River, probably to New Orleans for sale. That said Walker now holds your petitioner and child in slavery, claiming her as his slave, and your petitioner prays that your petitioner and said child may be allowed to sue as a poor person in the St. Louis Circuit Court for freedom & that the said Walker may be restrained from carrying her & said child out of the jurisdiction of the St. Louis Circuit Court till the termination of said suit. November 4th, 1834
94:. Rachel sued for freedom based on having been illegally held as a slave during lengthy residence in free territories. Although the lower court ruled against Rachel, Spalding appealed the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. In 1836, it ruled in favor of Rachel in one of the decisions that established "its tendency to enforce the laws of the neighboring free states" that a slaveholder forfeited rights to a slave by taking the person into free territory.
148:
of the
Missouri Supreme Court said that Stockton had "willfully procured a slave and held her, unlawfully, in free territories, an act punishable by forfeiture of the slave, as decreed by territorial law." With this ruling, he was supporting the laws of the neighboring free territories and states and
129:
for about two years, holding your petitioner a slave during that time at that place arranging her to work for & serve himself & family at that place. At which place her child James Henry was born he being held by this
Stockton during that time as a slave. That afterwards he brought your
67:
While slaves had no legal standing as citizens, under an 1824 Missouri state law, they were entitled to file as "poor people" to sue for freedom. If the court believed that the case had substantive grounds, it would assign counsel to represent the slave. The law further provided that the
149:
closing a loophole by which Army officers had tried to argue they could keep slaves. Stockton had argued that he had no choice in his assignments with the Army, so should not have to lose his slave property as a result.
97:
By the time the case reached the State
Supreme Court, it involved only Rachel. After her victory, she had to file a separate suit to free her son James Henry but was successful. The court continued with the precedent of
120:
woman aged about twenty years of age represents that about five years ago she was claimed and possessed as a slave by one
Stockton, who then took your petitioner to the territory of Michigan, where he resided at
79:, (present-day Wisconsin), both in the Michigan Territory (a free territory) at that time. Stockton had returned with Rachel and James Henry to St. Louis, where he sold them. The second owner resold them to the
248:
id=Kt_qJU3SVs8C&pg=PA127&dq=Neither+Fugitive+nor+Free:+Atlantic+Slavery,+Freedom+Suits,+and+the+Legal+Culture+of+Travel,&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false Edlie L. Wong,
42:, where she won in 1836. The court ruled that an Army officer forfeited his slave if he took the person to territory where slavery is prohibited. This ruling was cited as precedent in 1856 in the famous
55:
Rachel's was one of 301 19th-century freedom suits found among St. Louis
Circuit Court records in the 1990s; it is the largest group of case files in the country available to researchers. The
34:. She petitioned for her freedom and that of her son James (John) Henry from William Walker (a slave trader), based on having been held illegally as a slave in the free territory of
83:
156:
for her son James Henry; as he was born to a woman held illegally as a slave in a free state (and freed on those grounds), he was also free, according to the principle of
294:
68:
slaveholder must allow the slave time to consult with counsel and prohibited taking the slave from the jurisdiction of the court until the case was heard.
71:
In the case, the court assigned Josiah
Spalding as counsel to represent Rachel in her case. She had been held by the army lieutenant Thomas Stockton at
324:
309:
314:
304:
49:
211:
299:
229:
191:
169:
319:
266:, Vol. 14, No. 3, "A Ray of Hope, Extinguished: St. Louis Slave Suits for Freedom". Winter (1994–93)
39:
56:
44:
267:
251:
Neither
Fugitive nor Free: Atlantic Slavery, Freedom Suits, and the Legal Culture of Travel
8:
100:
126:
87:
30:" filed in the St. Louis Circuit Court by an African woman named Rachel who had been
122:
207:
59:'s research center maintains a searchable database online of the freedom suits.
145:
230:
St. Louis
Circuit Court Historical Records Project: 1834 Nov Case Number 82 –
288:
215:
76:
72:
153:
80:
27:
152:
Rachel's success in this case gave her the basis to successfully sue for
91:
38:
by a previous master, an Army officer. Her case was appealed to the
254:, New York University Press, 2009, p. 135, accessed 26 January 2011
35:
247:
135:
Rachel (her mark) for her self and child James Henry (p. 1 of 24)
117:
31:
75:(present-day Minnesota), and her son had been born in 1834 at
160:
in which the child gained his social status from his mother.
107:
Following is a transcript of Rachel's petition for freedom:
268:
http://collections.mohistory.org/media/CDM/gateway/86.pdf
198:, Missouri Digital History, accessed 18 February 2011
192:"Timeline of Missouri's African American History"
86:, who planned to take them "downriver" (down the
286:
16:Freedom suit in Missouri Supreme Court (1836)
295:Activists for African-American civil rights
232:Rachel, a woman of color v. Walker, William
111:To the Judge of the St. Louis Circuit Court
187:
185:
225:
223:
182:
287:
243:
241:
220:
325:African-American history of Missouri
238:
13:
310:Freedom suits in the United States
50:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
336:
210:, Law School, Yale University
315:1834 in United States case law
305:United States slavery case law
272:
257:
201:
1:
175:
7:
163:
139:
10:
341:
235:, accessed 26 January 2011
170:American slave court cases
125:, on the east side of the
116:The petition of Rachel, a
62:
264:Gateway Heritage Magazine
40:Supreme Court of Missouri
158:partus sequitur ventrem,
300:Missouri state case law
196:Missouri State Archives
57:Missouri History Museum
137:
132:
113:
45:Dred Scott v. Sandford
133:
114:
109:
90:) for likely sale in
278:Wong (2009), p. 137
101:Winny v. Whitesides
214:11 August 2007 at
127:Mississippi River
332:
320:1834 in Missouri
279:
276:
270:
261:
255:
245:
236:
227:
218:
205:
199:
189:
123:Prairie du Chien
48:case before the
23:Rachel v. Walker
340:
339:
335:
334:
333:
331:
330:
329:
285:
284:
283:
282:
277:
273:
262:
258:
246:
239:
228:
221:
206:
202:
190:
183:
178:
166:
142:
65:
17:
12:
11:
5:
338:
328:
327:
322:
317:
312:
307:
302:
297:
281:
280:
271:
256:
237:
219:
200:
180:
179:
177:
174:
173:
172:
165:
162:
146:Mathias McGirk
141:
138:
84:William Walker
64:
61:
26:(1834) was a "
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
337:
326:
323:
321:
318:
316:
313:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
293:
292:
290:
275:
269:
265:
260:
253:
252:
244:
242:
234:
233:
226:
224:
217:
216:archive.today
213:
209:
204:
197:
193:
188:
186:
181:
171:
168:
167:
161:
159:
155:
150:
147:
136:
131:
128:
124:
119:
112:
108:
105:
103:
102:
95:
93:
89:
85:
82:
78:
77:Fort Crawford
74:
73:Fort Snelling
69:
60:
58:
53:
51:
47:
46:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
24:
19:
274:
263:
259:
250:
231:
203:
195:
157:
151:
143:
134:
115:
110:
106:
99:
96:
81:slave trader
70:
66:
54:
43:
28:freedom suit
22:
21:
20:
18:
92:New Orleans
88:Mississippi
289:Categories
176:References
212:Archived
208:"Curiae"
164:See also
144:Justice
140:Decision
36:Michigan
32:enslaved
154:freedom
118:mulatto
63:History
291::
240:^
222:^
194:,
184:^
52:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.