At her trial, Celia's lawyers could not adequately defend their client.
1.) How could Celia tell her story when slaves could not testify?
2.) How could Celia defend her actions when the judge said the law prohibiting rape did not apply to slaves?
3.) How could Celia's lawyers say that Newsom was the wrongdoer when Missouri law held that a slave was owned property?
4.) The only person protected by the law when it came to rape of a slave was the slave owner. He was allowed to sue a rapist for trespass on his property! During Celia's trial, time-honored rules of evidence were ignored. Hearsay, which is absolutely forbidden to prove the truth of an assertion, was used to tell her story. But even hearsay was twisted to suit the prosecution's side. The judge threw out all testimony on Celia's reasons for striking Newsom. On October 10, 1855 Celia was convicted of murder. She was sentenced to be hung the next month
Sommerset vs. Stewart
U.K. Case
Baron Mansfield said that an American slave (Sommerset) brought to UK by master. Escapes and tries to fit in with other free blacks, does not and is captured, waiting to be sent to Jamaica. Emancipationists get writ of Habeouscorpus, hope something big will happen. Get ruling that says that there are no slaves allowed in the UK. Creates chaos because if no one can have slaves in UK, repercussions for owners. Creates conflict of laws between slaves/no slave regimes. Court can choose statutory law can support/create slavery. Mansfield ignores law of VA and enforces law of UK. Affirms that no UK court will intervene with the return of a runaway slave. Masters are told to bring slaves to UK at their own risk. 19th Century Sommerset provides model for antislavery legislation lawyers trying to do away with slavery. Never adopted by US courts, provides ters and framework to talk about slave issues.
Consensus: Slavery could not be challenged in slave states, integral of drafting of constitution. Antislave lawyers challenge slavery outside of slave states. How do Northerners and Midwest see slavery?
Fugitive Slave- debate about runaways, Congress passes Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Refines slavery federalism creates procedure of legal capture of runaways. Empowers slave owners and agents to hunt down runaways. Professional slave catchers get permits for the seizure of runaways. They got a certificate from a federal Judge empowers owner to haul back accused to his state. Congress basically legalizes kidnapping, free blacks can be brought with no identification and be called a runaway. Empowers masters to kidnap, masters can seek civil damages from accomplices. MA/PA not happy with these laws, no state had more than 1 federal judge. 1836 NY Chancler says unconstitutional and should be changed. Prigg vs PA, fugitive slave law was voted constitutional. Story fought with difficult decision walk a tight rope, wanted to offer proslavery nationalism. Story is antislavery.
Dred Scott
In 1846, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet filed suit for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court. This suit began an eleven-year legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision declaring that Scott remains a slave. This decision contributed to rising tensions between the free and slave states just before the American Civil War.
The records displayed in this exhibit document the Scotts' early struggle to gain their freedom through litigation and are the only extant records of this significant case as it was heard in the St. Louis Circuit Court. On March 6, 1857, after eleven years of litigation, the United States Supreme Court denied Dred Scott his freedom, claiming that neither free blacks nor slaves had rights in the United States and Congress had no right to prevent the spread of slavery. The inflammatory pro-slavery decision proved one of the most controversial ever made by the United States Supreme Court. The Dred Scott case had brought the country to the brink of civil war. Federal Court can hear cases of different states is amount is over 500, Scott cannot sue because he’s a slave
Had Civil War not occurred
- constutionality of the caste system
- creation of a new proslavery constitution
Protawney blurs line between freedom and slavery, can a black be a member of the community, be entitled to immunities granted by constitution. Invents history, says only eligible if eligible during the ratification of the constitution. But does not mention that there were free blacks at the time of ratification Says constitution was written for only certain people, those not included would be forever excluded. Some refute him and say that states have rights and can make citizens of those who they please. Says state citizenship was for local purposes only, how can state rights not extend to the federal level, ignoring the constitution. Fear Article IV sec II afraid blacks free blacks will be eligible, and that free blacks will screw up local social control laws. With these free blacks in institutional twilight zone. Twaney blurs the line Says to many free blacks roaming around Lincoln says this case is dangerous, and can create a proslavery constitution.