Short History of Freedom Suits in Missouri
As early as 1807, under Missouri territorial statutes, people held in wrongful servitude could sue for freedom if they had evidence of wrongful enslavement by petitioning the appropriate court. The territorial statute was codified in Missouri state law in 1824 and remained in effect until after the Civil War. Most of the people using this law to obtain freedom were enslaved Africans or their descendants. Historians collectively refer to the cases as "freedom suits."
The law distinguished whether a person was legally enslaved or free. If all Africans brought to the United States remained enslaved, the law was not essential. However, segments of the African population obtained their freedom through manumission or were born free. This led to a situation where it was necessary to establish a procedure to legally determine the status of black persons in society, whether they were free or slave. The freedom statute provided the legal mechanism that made it possible for judges to determine free or slave status and established a measure of legal protection for free blacks and slaves living in Missouri.
Freedom suits followed a general, proscribed pattern. The statute outlined the requirements for an enslaved person to obtain freedom through the judicial system. The Petition to Sue for Freedom was the first step in the legal process governed by the Missouri statutes. The circuit court granted permission to sue when several conditions, including the posting of bonds, were met. Suits included a petition to sue for freedom, a charge of trespass of false imprisonment, court approval of the suit, summoning of witnesses, depositions, and final disposition of the case. If the court approved the suit, and the plaintiff could not afford an attorney, one was provided for him or her at the state's expense. In 1845, the General Assembly ended the ability of enslaved people to sue as paupers and therefore, plaintiffs had to rely on lawyers willing to take their case for free or significantly reduced rates. Dred and Harriet Scott, like most enslaved people, were not permitted to learn to read or write and were thus unable to sign their names to their petition for freedom. They made their marks with an "X".
In most cases, plaintiffs based their wrongful enslavement cases on residence in a free state or territory. Winny v. Whitesides (1824) established Missouri's judicial criteria for eligibility for freedom and set an important and original precedent for Missouri Courts. If an enslaver took an enslaved person to free territory, such as Illinois, and established residence there, the enslaved person was free under the terms of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance (a federal law that prohibited slavery in all United States territory north and west of the Ohio River). Winny won her case for freedom under the provisions of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance. The 1820 Missouri Compromise also included provisions to limit the spread of slavery. Under both these legal mandates, an enslaved person was free even if returned to slave territory, giving rise to the phrase "once free, always free." Dred and Harriet Scott sued for their freedom because they had been residents of Illinois and the Wisconsin, both part of the Northwest Territory where slavery was outlawed.
Many Missouri cases applied the "once free, always free" precedent, most of which originated as freedom suits filed in St. Louis. In addition to the cornerstone case of Winny v. Whitesides, the validity of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance was also upheld by the courts in decisions handed down in Merry v. Tiffin & Menard, LaGrange v. Chouteau, and Theoteste alias Catiche v. Chouteau. The idea that residence in Illinois could lead to an enslaved person's freedom was upheld in numerous decisions, including Julia v. McKinney, and Wilson v. Melvin. Nor did residence at a military post prevent emancipation, according to Rachel v. Walker. All these cases clearly established the doctrine of "once free, always free."
The Missouri Supreme Court, when led by Judge Mathias McGirk (1820 - 1841), placed a premium on adhering to the law irrespective of political considerations when determining freedom suits. This attitude changed, however, with the appointment of William Napton and William Scott to the Missouri Supreme Court in the mid-1840s.
St. Louis Circuit Court Freedom Suits
A relatively large number of people initiated freedom suits in St. Louis, given St. Louis's comparatively small African American population. Enslaved people had easier access to information and legal advice in the city and a higher level of autonomy and mobility. In St. Louis alone, between 1806 and 1865, nearly three hundred enslaved people took legal action to achieve the fundamental right for freedom, including Dred and Harriet Scott. The records that comprise the freedom suits brought forth in the St. Louis Circuit Court detail how people pursued such suits in Missouri.
Dred and Harriet Scott were among the last people to petition for freedom in St. Louis (1846). They won their case before a jury in the lower court on the basis of having resided in free territories, but their enslaver appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which ruled against the Scotts in 1852.
The 1852 decision, overturning the precedent set by Winny v. Whitesides, ended enslaved Missourians’ ability to sue for freedom based on residence in a free state. Although the freedom statute remained on the books until 1865, the Missouri Supreme Court continued to be pro-slavery and no longer recognized the "once free, always free" doctrine.
Freedom Suits Film
View film on the Internet Archive
This short Macromedia Flash film offers a glimpse into the pursuit of freedom by African and Indigenous Americans in St. Louis during the nineteenth century. While it does not answer questions about these cases because so many of the details remain unknown, it introduces some of the plaintiffs, the words they used in pursuit of their freedom, and the world in which they lived. The film includes excerpts from the cases themselves. It also includes photographs and other images that are not of the plaintiffs but help illustrate this compelling story. Organizing these cases and placing them online constitutes a step toward recovering the details of life at a time when freedom itself was not guaranteed.