Hubbry Logo
Elizabeth FreemanElizabeth FreemanMain
Open search
Elizabeth Freeman
Community hub
Elizabeth Freeman
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Elizabeth Freeman
Elizabeth Freeman
Elizabeth Freeman
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Elizabeth Freeman (c. 1744 – December 28, 1829), also known as Mumbet,[a] was one of the first slaves to file and win a freedom suit in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in Freeman's favor, found slavery to be inconsistent with the 1780 Constitution of Massachusetts. Her suit, Brom and Bett v. Ashley (1781), was cited in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court appellate review of Quock Walker's freedom suit. When the court upheld Walker's freedom under the state's constitution, the ruling was considered to have implicitly ended slavery in Massachusetts.

Key Information

Any time, any time while I was a slave, if one minute's freedom had been offered to me, and I had been told I must die at the end of that minute, I would have taken it—just to stand one minute on God's airth [sic] a free woman—I would.

— Elizabeth Freeman[1]

Biography

[edit]

Freeman was illiterate and left no written records of her life. Her early history has been pieced together from the writings of contemporaries to whom she told her story or who heard it indirectly, as well as from historical records.[2][3]

Freeman was born into slavery on April 4th, 1744, on the plantation of Pieter Hogeboom in Claverack, New York, where she was given the name Bet. When Hogeboom's daughter Hannah married John Ashley of Sheffield, Massachusetts, Hogeboom gave Bet, around seven years old, to Hannah and her husband. Freeman remained with them until 1781, when she had a child, Little Bet. She is said to have married, though no marriage record has been located. Her husband (name unknown) is said to have never returned from service in the American Revolutionary War.[4]

Throughout her life, Bet exhibited a strong spirit and sense of self. She came into conflict with Hannah Ashley, who was raised in the strict Dutch culture of the New York colony. In 1780, Bet prevented Hannah from striking a servant girl with a heated shovel; Bet shielded the girl and received a deep wound in her arm. As the wound healed, Bet left it uncovered as evidence of her harsh treatment.[1] Catharine Sedgwick quotes Elizabeth: "Madam never again laid her hand on Lizzy. I had a bad arm all winter, but Madam had the worst of it. I never covered the wound, and when people said to me, before Madam,—'Why, Betty! what ails your arm?' I only answered—'ask missis!' Which was the slave and which was the real mistress?"[1]

John Ashley was a Yale-educated lawyer, wealthy landowner, businessman, slaveholder, and community leader. His house was the site of many political discussions and the probable location of the signing of the Sheffield Declaration, which predated the United States Declaration of Independence.

Brom and Bett v. Ashley (1781)

[edit]

In 1780, Freeman either heard the newly ratified Massachusetts Constitution read at a public gathering in Sheffield or overheard her master discussing it in the home. She heard what included the following:[1]

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

— Massachusetts Constitution, Article 1.

Inspired by these words, Bet sought the counsel of Theodore Sedgwick, a young abolition-minded lawyer, to help her sue for freedom in court. According to Catherine Sedgwick's account, she told him: "I heard that paper read yesterday, that says, all men are created equal, and that every man has a right to freedom. I'm not a dumb critter; won't the law give me my freedom?"[1] After much deliberation, Sedgwick accepted her case, as well as that of Brom, another of Ashley's slaves. It is to be considered, however, that Brom was added to the case to strengthen it as "women had such limited legal rights" during the 18th century.[5] Sedgwick had not acted on the issues of slavery until he represented Freeman.

Sedgwick enlisted the aid of Tapping Reeve, the founder of Litchfield Law School, one of America's earliest law schools, located in Litchfield, Connecticut. They were two of the top lawyers in Massachusetts, and Sedgwick later served as a US Senator. Arthur Zilversmit suggests the attorneys may have selected these plaintiffs to determine the status of slavery under the new state constitution.[6] This meant that when Sedgwick took on the case, he hoped to find an answer to the question of constitutionality regarding slavery in Massachusetts through his representation of Freeman in court. Hence, Brom and Bett v. Ashley (1781) was a "test case".[7]

The case of Brom and Bett v. Ashley was heard in August 1781 by the County Court of Common Pleas in Great Barrington.[8] Sedgwick and Reeve asserted that the constitutional provision that "all men are born free and equal" effectively abolished slavery in the state. When the jury ruled in Bett's favor, she became the first African-American woman to be set free under the Massachusetts state constitution.

The jury found that "Brom & Bett are not, nor were they at the time of the purchase of the original writ the legal Negro of the said John Ashley."[9] However, like many slave owners, Ashley refrained from admitting to the true nature of his actions. While arguing for his right to own Brom and Bett in court, Ashley described them as his servants for life rather than slaves.[10] This intentional word choice underscores the attempts at minimizing the reality of the institution of slavery.

The court assessed damages of thirty shillings and awarded both plaintiffs compensation for their labor. Ashley initially appealed the decision but a month later dropped his appeal, apparently having decided the court's ruling on the constitutionality of slavery was "final and binding."[6]

Sedgwick (its author) and Ashley both served on the committee that approved the Sheffield Resolves (resisting British rule), prior to finding themselves opposing each other in this case.[clarification needed]

Relationship with the Sedgwicks

[edit]

After the ruling, Bet took the name Elizabeth Freeman. Although Ashley asked her to return to his house and work for wages, she chose to work in attorney Sedgwick's household. She worked for his family until 1808 as a senior servant and governess to the Sedgwick children, and in fact, the name "Mumbet" that Freeman is commonly called was invented by the Sedgwick children.[11]

The Sedgwick children were known to have a close relationship with Freeman as she was an integral part of the family. Of the Sedgwick children, Catharine Sedgwick later became a well-known author and wrote an account of her governess's life. Also working at the Sedgwick household during much of this time was Agrippa Hull, a free black man who had served with the Continental Army for years during the American Revolutionary War.[12]

Freeman is believed to have spent over two decades acting as a motherly figure for Theodore and Pamela Sedgwick's children, as Pamela was suffering from a mental illness that prevented her from being fully present.[11] From the time Freeman gained her freedom, she became widely recognized and in demand for her skills as a healer, midwife, and nurse. After the Sedgwick children were grown, and Freeman spent around 20 years collecting money,[5] Freeman moved into her own house on Cherry Hill in Stockbridge, near her daughter, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

Death

[edit]

Freeman's actual age was never known, but an estimate on her tombstone puts her age at about 85. She died in December 1829 and was buried in the Sedgwick family plot in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. Freeman remains the only non-Sedgwick buried in the Sedgwick plot. They provided a tombstone inscribed as follows:

ELIZABETH FREEMAN, also known by the name of MUMBET died Dec. 28th 1829. Her supposed age was 85 Years. She was born a slave and remained a slave for nearly thirty years; She could neither read nor write, yet in her own sphere she had no superior or equal. She neither wasted time nor property. She never violated a trust, nor failed to perform a duty. In every situation of domestic trial, she was the most efficient helper and the tenderest friend. Good mother, farewell.[2]

Legacy

[edit]
Statue on a short stone pedestal of a black woman in a long dress and bonnet, holding a scoop in one hand and a slaip of paper in the other
Statue in Sheffield

The decision in the 1781 case of Elizabeth Freeman was cited as precedent when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard the appeal of Quock Walker v. Jennison later that year and upheld Walker's freedom. These cases set the legal precedents that ended slavery in Massachusetts. Vermont had already abolished it explicitly in its constitution.[2][3][6][13]

The gold bead necklace visible in the portrait of Freeman was re-made into a bracelet and carries her nickname.[14] This necklace was re-made by Catharine Sedgwick as she obtained it after Freeman had died.

Freeman is the namesake of the Elizabeth Freeman Center, a Berkshire County organization dedicated to combating domestic and sexual violence.[15]

A celebration of Elizabeth Freeman's role in the walk to freedom included unveiling a statue in her honor by the Sheffield Historical Society in August 2022.[16][17]

Connection to W. E. B. Du Bois

[edit]

Civil Rights leader and historian W. E. B. Du Bois claimed Freeman as his relative and wrote that she married his maternal great-grandfather, "Jack" Burghardt.[18][19] However, Freeman was 20 years senior to Burghardt, and no record of such a marriage has been found. It may have been Freeman's daughter, Betsy Humphrey, who married Burghardt after her first husband, Jonah Humphrey, left the area "around 1811" after Burghardt's first wife died (c. 1810). If so, Freeman would have been Du Bois's step-great-great-grandmother. Anecdotal evidence supports Humphrey's marrying Burghardt; a close relationship of some form is likely.[2]

In the media and arts

[edit]
  • Season 1, episode 37 of the television show Liberty's Kids, titled "Born Free and Equal", is about Elizabeth Freeman.[20] It was first aired in 2003, and in it, she was voiced by Yolanda King.[20]
  • The story of Elizabeth Freeman was featured in season 1, episode 4, of Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Freeman's lawyer, Theodore Sedgwick, is the fourth great-grandfather of Kyra Sedgwick, one of the guests of the episode.[21]
  • The Portuguese fiber artist Joana Vasconcelos created a large installation in Freeman's honor in 2020 entitled Valkyrie Mumbet for the MassArt Art Museum (MAAM) in Boston, MA.[22]
  • Elizabeth Freeman's identity as a determined individual was captured in the book written for children and adolescents titled "A Free Woman On God's Earth: The True Story of Elizabeth "Mumbet" Freeman, The Slave Who Won Her Freedom" by authors Jana Laiz and Ann-Elizabeth Barnes.[11]
  • Freeman and her contributions are honored at D.C.’s Museum of African American History, and Philadelphia’s Museum of the American Revolution.[11]

Impact as a pioneer

[edit]

Elizabeth Freeman has been noted as "the Rosa Parks of her time".[11] Freeman's actions helped to inspire the abolitionist movement.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Elizabeth Freeman

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Elizabeth Freeman (c. 1744 – December 28, 1829), known as Mum Bett or Bett, was an enslaved woman of African descent who resided in , and successfully sued for her freedom in 1781. Enslaved by Colonel John Ashley from around 1757, Freeman overheard the public reading of the Constitution of 1780, which declared that "all men are born free and equal," prompting her to seek legal emancipation. Joining a writ of replevin with fellow enslaved man Brom, represented by attorney , her case against Ashley argued that continued enslavement violated the state's foundational principles of natural rights and equality under law. On August 22, 1781, a Berkshire County jury ruled in their favor, declaring Brom and Freeman not Ashley's property and awarding each 30 shillings in damages, a verdict that contributed to the effective end of legal in by establishing judicial precedent against the institution. After gaining freedom, Freeman worked as a paid domestic servant, , and healer in the household of Sedgwick, where she helped raise his children and saved earnings to buy land and build her own home on Cherry Hill in Stockbridge by around 1807. She died at age approximately 85 and was buried in the plot, remembered in accounts by Sedgwick's daughter Catharine Maria Sedgwick for her intelligence, independence, and steadfast character.

Early Life and Enslavement

Origins and Birth

Elizabeth Freeman, known initially as Bett, was born into slavery sometime between 1742 and 1744 in Claverack, (now Columbia County). The scarcity of contemporary records for enslaved individuals leads to variations in reported birth years, with most historical accounts converging on circa 1744 based on later biographical reconstructions. Her parents were enslaved Africans, and under colonial New York's legal framework, which followed Dutch and later English practices, enslavement status passed hereditarily from to child, ensuring Freeman's bondage from birth. Freeman's early enslavement occurred on the estate of Pieter Hogeboom, a prominent Dutch settler and landowner in Claverack who operated a typical of the region's agrarian economy reliant on enslaved labor. Hogeboom's holdings reflected the entrenched system of hereditary in northern colonies, where enslaved people comprised a significant portion of and farm labor despite the smaller scale compared to southern plantations. She grew up on this property with her younger , Lizzy, but the sisters experienced separation in when Hogeboom distributed enslaved individuals as gifts among family members, a practice that underscored the profound familial instability imposed by northern enslavement dynamics. Such disruptions were routine, as enslaved people were treated as transferable property without regard for kinship ties.

Acquisition by the Ashley Family

Elizabeth Freeman, born circa 1744 in , to enslaved parents held by Pieter Hogeboom, was transferred to the Ashley family as a gift from Hogeboom to his daughter Hannah upon her marriage to Colonel John Ashley Jr. on October 26, 1758. This customary practice among colonial elites involved gifting enslaved individuals as part of marriage alliances, relocating Freeman—then approximately 14 years old—from New York to the Ashley residence in . In the Ashley household, a middling colonial home led by John Ashley, a local and militia , Freeman was known as Bett and performed domestic labor including cooking, childcare for the family's four children, and other household tasks. Such roles characterized enslaved service in rural , where holdings were typically small-scale and integrated into family operations, differing from the field labor dominant on Southern plantations. During this period, Bett married a fellow enslaved man whose identity remains undocumented in primary records, and she gave birth to a daughter, also named Elizabeth (later known as Betsy), likely in the early 1770s. Her husband died while serving in the Revolutionary War, leaving Bett to raise the child under continued enslavement to the Ashleys.

Path to the Freedom Suit

Influence of the Massachusetts Constitution

The Massachusetts Constitution, ratified on June 15, 1780, included in its Declaration of Rights Article I: "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights." This provision, drafted under the influence of , lacked any explicit reference to or , yet its plain language prompted enslaved individuals like Elizabeth Freeman to interpret it as incompatible with their continued bondage. Freeman, enslaved in the household of Colonel John Ashley, reportedly overheard a public reading or discussions of the document shortly after its adoption, leading her to recognize its potential applicability to her situation despite her status. Freeman's response emphasized personal agency rather than reliance on elite advocacy alone; she proactively approached Theodore Sedgwick, a local attorney with known opposition to , to pursue legal freedom under the constitution's terms. Sedgwick, though supportive of abolitionist principles among Berkshire County elites, served in a representational capacity prompted by Freeman's initiative, highlighting her determination to leverage the document's textual guarantees for immediate liberty. This approach contrasted with prevailing gradualist policies in other northern states, such as Pennsylvania's 1780 act permitting continued enslavement of those already held while freeing future generations born after a set date, or New York's 1799 law phasing out slavery over two decades. Unlike those jurisdictions, enacted no dedicated anti- legislation post-1780, relying instead on judicial interpretations of the to dismantle through freedom suits like Freeman's, which tested the preamble's scope against existing practices. By 1783, such cases had effectively eradicated in the state, with data showing a drop from approximately 4,000 enslaved individuals in 1776 to none by decade's end, underscoring the 's role in enabling rapid, case-driven abolition absent statutory .

Precipitating Incident and Decision to Sue

In late 1780 or early 1781, Hannah Ashley, wife of John Ashley, attempted to strike Freeman's sister with a heated during a dispute. Freeman interposed herself between them, blocking the blow and sustaining a permanent on her arm from the hot iron, which she later displayed as evidence of mistreatment. This incident prompted Freeman to refuse further subservient tasks assigned by the Ashleys, interpreting the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution's declaration of rights—particularly its emphasis on equality and natural —as invalidating her status as . Her deliberate non-compliance represented a calculated challenge to the household's authority, weighing the risks of retaliation against the potential for legal vindication rather than opting for immediate flight, which offered uncertain prospects amid limited escape networks. Freeman then allied with Brom, another adult enslaved by Ashley, to pursue a ; as a , she required a male co-plaintiff under prevailing procedures, and together they marshaled scant personal resources to retain attorney in . This partnership underscored their proactive agency in leveraging emerging abolitionist sentiments and judicial avenues over passive endurance or clandestine evasion.

Brom and Bett v. Ashley

In May 1781, Elizabeth Freeman, known then as Bett, and Brom initiated legal action against their enslaver, Colonel John Ashley, by filing a writ of replevin in the Berkshire Court of Common Pleas in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. This procedural mechanism, typically used to recover wrongfully seized property, positioned Bett and Brom as the "property" in question and challenged Ashley's legal right to reclaim or "replevy" them following their temporary removal by the local sheriff. Ashley's refusal to comply with the initial writ escalated the matter into a formal suit, highlighting the absence of established precedents for enslaved individuals to contest their status directly in court. Theodore Sedgwick, and emerging abolitionist, led the representation , assisted by Tapping Reeve, with the explicit aim of testing the antislavery implications of the Constitution of 1780. Enslaved plaintiffs faced no formal bar to initiating such actions under procedures, though systemic barriers persisted due to their lack of independent legal standing or resources. Sedgwick's involvement reflected a strategic effort by local antislavery advocates to leverage the state's new foundational document, which declared "all men are born free and equal," against ongoing enslavement practices. Litigation costs, including court fees and related expenses, were borne by Freeman's supporters within the community, underscoring the economic hurdles enslaved individuals encountered in pursuing self-emancipation through judicial means. This communal backing enabled the suit's progression despite Freeman's constrained circumstances, as she lacked personal funds or property to pledge.

Trial Arguments and Proceedings

The trial of Brom and Bett v. Ashley commenced on August 21, 1781, in the Court of Common Pleas for Berkshire County, held in a modest courthouse in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Theodore Sedgwick, representing the plaintiffs Brom and Bett (Elizabeth Freeman), presented the core legal contention that slavery was incompatible with the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, particularly its Declaration of Rights stating that "all men are born free and equal." Sedgwick maintained that this provision rendered any claim of human property ownership void under state law, extending retroactively to those already enslaved at the time of ratification, as the document contained no exemption preserving prior slaveholding. Opposing counsel for defendant John Ashley emphasized traditional common-law property rights, asserting that Bett and Brom remained lawfully held under established precedents predating the constitution. The proceedings, spanning two days, involved testimony primarily addressing factual questions of ownership, with Ashley's side introducing evidence—likely including affidavits or witness accounts from household members or associates—to substantiate his claim of legal possession acquired through inheritance and prior purchase. Sedgwick countered by framing the constitutional text as paramount, subordinating colonial-era customs to the new foundational law without relying on extraneous philosophical appeals to universal natural rights. A composed of twelve local white male farmers, drawn from the agrarian community, weighed both the evidentiary claims of ownership and the overriding constitutional interpretation. Lacking a verbatim transcript, historical accounts indicate the jurors resolved the case on these dual grounds, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs were not Ashley's property under the prevailing legal framework.

Verdict, Award, and Immediate Consequences

On August 22, 1781, the jury in the Berkshire of Common Pleas deliberated for fifteen minutes before returning a verdict in favor of Brom and Bett, ruling that their enslavement violated the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution's declaration of rights and thus declaring them free persons. The court ordered Colonel John Ashley to pay damages of 30 shillings to each plaintiff for wrongful detention, along with nearly six pounds in court costs assessed against Ashley. Ashley complied with the ruling by releasing Brom and from bondage, though he initially filed an appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court, which he later withdrew amid concurrent legal challenges to . Elizabeth Freeman, adopting her chosen name post-verdict, immediately left Ashley's household and entered paid domestic employment with Theodore Sedgwick's family in Great Barrington, securing her independence as a wage-earning worker. The decision prompted swift filings of analogous freedom suits elsewhere in Massachusetts, such as the Quock Walker cases initiated that same year, reflecting an immediate judicial trend against chattel slavery without prompting contemporaneous legislative abolition.

Post-Emancipation Life

Employment and Residence with the Sedgwicks

Following her successful freedom suit in 1781, Elizabeth Freeman declined Colonel John Ashley's offer to continue in his household as a paid servant and instead entered into wage labor with her attorney, Theodore Sedgwick, in Sheffield, Massachusetts. This marked her shift from coerced servitude to voluntary employment, where she received compensation for her domestic services. Sedgwick's family later relocated to Stockbridge in 1784, and Freeman resided with them in their new home constructed there in 1785, continuing her paid role for over four decades. In the Sedgwick household, Freeman undertook duties including childcare for Theodore and Pamela Sedgwick's children, such as the future author Catharine Maria Sedgwick, as well as general domestic work. She also applied her expertise as a , and healer, providing care and remedies that benefited the family and community. These contributions were exchanged for wages, underscoring a market-oriented relationship rather than one of dependency or benevolence. This employment arrangement exemplified Freeman's newfound contractual freedom in the post-emancipation northern economy, where she could select her employer and presumably negotiate terms based on her skills, in stark contrast to the perpetual bondage she had escaped. The Sedgwicks reportedly held her in high regard, addressing her as "Mum Bett" in an affectionate yet professional context, reflecting the era's evolving labor dynamics for freed individuals.

Personal Independence and Family

Following her emancipation in 1781, Elizabeth Freeman worked as a paid domestic in the Sedgwick household for approximately two decades, during which she accumulated sufficient savings to purchase a modest house and land in , in 1808 alongside her daughter. This property ownership provided economic stability rare among formerly enslaved , who frequently encountered barriers to land acquisition and financial autonomy in post-Revolutionary . Freeman raised her daughter, Elizabeth "Betsy" Freeman, born during her enslavement, who married John Humphrey around the early 1800s and had at least two daughters, thereby founding a lineage of descendants in . Records indicate no sustained dependency on former employers or public aid after securing her property, reflecting her self-reliant household management into later years. Freeman maintained informal advisory roles with the Sedgwick children, recounting personal experiences and offering guidance that shaped their views on race and , as noted in family memoirs, while residing separately to affirm her independence. This arrangement allowed her to balance familial ties with proprietorship, prioritizing property rights as the foundation of post-emancipation security.

Death

Final Years and Burial

In her later years, Elizabeth Freeman lived independently in a house in Stockbridge that she purchased jointly with her daughter Elizabeth in 1808, having accumulated property through her work as a domestic servant and . She resided there until her death on December 28, 1829, at the approximate age of 85. Freeman was buried in the plot at Stockbridge Cemetery, the only non-family member interred there, with her gravestone inscribed: "ELIZABETH FREEMAN, known by the name of MUMBET died Dec. 28 1829." No records indicate a formal will or estate disputes following her death, consistent with her modest holdings of land and personal effects.

Establishment of Precedent Against Slavery

The Brom and v. Ashley decision in May 1781, rendered by county judge , interpreted Article I of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights—stating that "all men are and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights"—as incompatible with perpetual , thereby granting to (Elizabeth Freeman) and Brom. This ruling established an initial judicial that contravened the 1780 state constitution's explicit textual protections for personal , applying the document's without reliance on external moral advocacy. Building directly on this precedent, the Quock Walker cases from 1781 to 1783 escalated the challenge at the state level. In Commonwealth v. Jennison (1783), the , through Cushing's , affirmed that the constitution's equality clause rendered inherently inconsistent with the rights of freemen, as no could override the foundational principle that individuals were . The court rejected defenses based on prior slave status, holding that the 1780 constitution prospectively invalidated such arrangements through its literal terms. These rulings initiated a causal sequence via judicial enforcement: freedom suits invoking the constitution prompted appellate clarification, compelling owners to release slaves or face legal penalties, which eroded the institution's viability. Corroborating evidence appears in demographic shifts, with enslaved individuals comprising approximately 2% of ' population in the , declining to zero by the federal census as owners manumitted holdings amid the suits' ripple effects. This outcome stemmed from courts' mechanical application of constitutional text as supreme law, prioritizing textual fidelity over customary practices.

Broader Effects on Slavery in Massachusetts

The judicial decisions stemming from freedom suits like that of Elizabeth Freeman, culminating in the 1783 Quock Walker cases before the , rendered incompatible with the 1780 state constitution's declaration of natural rights, without enacting a formal legislative . Cushing's instructions to the jury in Commonwealth v. Jennison emphasized that the constitution's principles of equality precluded perpetual servitude, prompting slaveholders to manumit individuals amid growing legal risks. did not cease abruptly but faded through such releases and sales, with some owners reclassifying slaves as indentured servants—often lifelong for adults—to evade rulings, though these arrangements faced challenges in subsequent mid-1780s cases. By 1790, the U.S. Census recorded no slaves in , reflecting a sharp decline from an estimated 2,000–2,500 enslaved people in the 1770s, or roughly 2 percent of the population. The domestic character of northern slavery, characterized by small holdings (typically one or two slaves per household for household labor rather than ), enabled this gradual erosion, contrasting with the entrenched, economically vital large-scale systems in southern states. Economic pressures from the Revolutionary War, including British offers of to enslaved who joined their forces, had already spurred manumissions, with legal precedents accelerating voluntary releases to avoid losses or . votes in some communities further discharged owners from supporting emancipated individuals, facilitating the transition. These developments had negligible influence southward, where expanded amid economics, persisting until the Civil War era. Vermont's 1777 constitution, predating Freeman's case, explicitly barred adult slavery while allowing indenture for minors born to enslaved mothers until age 21, establishing an outright prohibition not directly tied to Massachusetts precedents but reflective of shared revolutionary rhetoric against hereditary bondage. The Massachusetts outcomes reinforced antislavery interpretations in the Northeast but did not propagate formal bans elsewhere before federal conflicts arose.

Limitations and Unresolved Aspects

Although the Brom and Bett v. Ashley ruling on September 22, 1781, affirmed that contravened the Constitution's guarantees of equality and for the plaintiffs, it addressed only their individual circumstances and lacked the force of statewide legislative abolition, necessitating further cases to clarify the institution's incompatibility with state law. Subsequent decisions, such as the Quock Walker trials in 1783, built upon this foundation, yet enslaved individuals remained in bondage into the 1790s, with some arrangements reframed as to circumvent evolving judicial norms. The verdict did not explicitly bar interstate importation of slaves from southern states, allowing owners to bring bound individuals into Massachusetts where they could later pursue freedom suits, thus prolonging de facto servitude pending resolution. Chief Justice William Cushing's observation that personal liberty might be voluntarily surrendered via contract opened avenues for owners to impose indentures on former slaves, as seen in post-1781 documents like Dick Morey's bill of servitude, blending legal ambiguity with practical retention of labor. Slaveholders received no compensation for emancipated individuals deemed their under prior custom, imposing direct economic losses without redress and potentially engendering localized resentments, though the limited prevalence of —fewer than 1% of the in —curbed widespread upheaval. Complete eradication thus depended on iterative precedents, public sentiment shifts, and socioeconomic pressures rather than any isolated judicial outcome, with the 1790 federal census recording zero slaves amid ongoing interpretive debates.

Historical Assessments and Debates

Views on Freeman's Agency and Selection as Test Case

Historians have credited Elizabeth Freeman with substantial personal agency in pursuing her 1781 , Brom and v. Ashley, after overhearing the Massachusetts Constitution's declaration that "all men are born free and equal" and experiencing mistreatment from her enslaver's wife, Hannah Ashley, who attempted to strike her with a broken dish. Freeman reportedly left the Ashley household to approach attorney in Stockbridge, explicitly requesting legal action to challenge her enslavement under the new state framework, an act interpreted by some as a bold, self-directed assertion of inherent akin to claiming in one's . This perspective emphasizes her initiative as evidence of individual empowerment, drawing on post-Revolutionary rhetoric to navigate the legal system without prior precedent for such suits by enslaved women. Countering this, scholars Emilie Piper and Levinson contend that Sedgwick and allied lawyers, including potential involvement from figures like Antipas Dewey, strategically Freeman as an optimal test case to probe slavery's , leveraging her sympathetic profile—marked by years of loyal service, a history of , and strong attested by locals—to maximize jury appeal and judicial impact. They argue that while Freeman may have voiced discontent, the suit's framing and timing aligned with abolitionist efforts to exploit the 1780 constitution for broader challenges, positioning her not merely as initiator but as a curated whose personal ties to influential networks, such as the Sedgwicks, facilitated the case's viability. This view prioritizes coordinated over isolated agency, noting Sedgwick's selective acceptance of cases and the rarity of enslaved individuals successfully litigating without elite sponsorship. Primary documentation remains sparse and predominantly derived from Sedgwick family recollections, including those of Catharine Maria Sedgwick, who employed Freeman post-emancipation and romanticized her resolve in familial narratives, raising questions about retrospective embellishment to align with abolitionist rather than unvarnished causal sequence. Contemporaneous records, such as court proceedings from August 21-22, 1781, in Great Barrington, show no explicit debate over orchestration, with the swiftly ruling in Freeman's favor and awarding her 30 shillings in back wages, treating the matter as a direct constitutional application without noted manipulation. Such accounts underscore a lack of primary for controversy, though modern analyses caution against overattributing transformative agency to Freeman alone given the era's structural barriers for enslaved litigants.

Connections to Later Figures and Movements

Freeman's successful , argued by on grounds of constitutional equality, contributed to his evolving anti- commitments, as he later represented other enslaved individuals in similar cases and opposed the expansion of in legal and political forums. His daughter, Catherine Maria Sedgwick, drew from personal knowledge of Freeman—gained through her residence in the family home—to portray her as a figure of and resilience in writings that critiqued 's moral failings, influencing early 19th-century literary opposition to the institution. The Sedgwick family's broader anti-slavery network, including son Charles Sedgwick's involvement in educational reforms aligned against slavery, reflected indirect threads from Freeman's case, though no direct causal link beyond familial association is documented. Her challenge to enslavement as incompatible with rule-of-law principles prefigured elements of early American libertarian advocacy for individual over hereditary status, emphasizing legal equality under written constitutions rather than arbitrary custom. claimed descent from Freeman in his , positing her as an ancestral link to his , but subsequent genealogical has refuted this connection, finding no verifiable lineage. Freeman's 1781 case predated organized 19th-century abolitionist movements, such as William Lloyd Garrison's founding of the in 1833, limiting direct influences to nascent legal precedents rather than activist campaigns.

Cultural Representations

Depictions in Media, Arts, and Literature

Catharine Maria Sedgwick, niece of Elizabeth Freeman's lawyer , depicted Freeman in her 1853 manuscript "Mumbett," later published as "Slavery in ," portraying her as a wise and dignified figure who influenced the positively during her time as a paid domestic after gaining freedom. This literary representation romanticizes Freeman's post-emancipation relationship with the Sedgwicks, emphasizing familial bonds over the initial enslavement under John Ashley and the adversarial legal context. Modern biographies, such as "One Minute a Free Woman: Elizabeth Freeman and the Struggle for Freedom" by Emilie Piper and David Levinson (2010), provide detailed, research-based accounts of Freeman's life, highlighting her agency in initiating the while grounding the in primary documents rather than sentimentalized heroism. Similarly, Mary Wilds's "Mumbet: The Life and Times of Elizabeth Freeman" (1999) focuses on verifiable historical events, though some portrayals in popular literature overstate the case's direct role in racial justice movements, interpreting it more as a milestone in abolition than the constitutional technicality it represented—namely, the incompatibility of with Massachusetts's 1780 Declaration of Rights. In theater, Jesse Waldinger's play "Mum Bett's Minute" dramatizes the 1781 trial, with performances featuring actors like Marla Robertson as Freeman, emphasizing the courtroom drama and her pursuit of freedom under the new state constitution. These stage depictions accentuate Freeman's eloquence and resolve, sometimes amplifying emotional elements for audience impact at the expense of the case's procedural focus on legal interpretation rather than overt moral advocacy. Documentary-style media, including short films like "A Free Woman: The Story of Elizabeth 'Mum Bett' Freeman" and PBS segments, portray Freeman as a healer and community figure who leveraged overheard constitutional debates to challenge her enslavement, often framing her victory as a foundational step toward broader in the North. Such representations, while inspirational, can introduce biases by prioritizing narrative heroism over the precedent's limitations, as it did not immediately dismantle all practices in the state and relied on selective application of declarations.

Memorials, Sites, and Recent Recognition

Elizabeth Freeman is buried in the plot, known as the "," within Stockbridge Cemetery, , where her gravestone marks her death on December 28, 1829. A bronze statue depicting Freeman holding a scoop and a document, symbolizing her labor and legal victory, was unveiled on August 22, 2022, in , on the 241st anniversary of her verdict. The site stands near the former Ashley House, her enslaver's residence, now a historic property managed by . The Ashley House in features the Elizabeth Freeman Exhibit, first installed in 2011 and revamped in 2025 to incorporate recent archaeological and historical research on enslavement in rural and northern slavery contexts. In April 2025, a bust of Freeman was installed in the State Senate Chamber, marking her as one of the first two women and the first person from to receive this honor. The Elizabeth Freeman Center, established in 1974 in Berkshire County, provides services for survivors of domestic and sexual violence, drawing on her legacy of pursuing legal freedom as a symbol of against .

References

  1. https://www.masshist.org/database/doc-viewer.php?item_id=547&pid=15
  2. https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/elizabeth-freeman
  3. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/elizabeth-freeman-her-case-for-freedom-and-the-massachusetts-constitution
  4. https://www.educatingforamericandemocracy.org/primary-source/brom-bett-vs-j-ashley-esq-1781/
  5. https://elizabethfreemancenter.org/who-we-are/elizabeth-freeman/
  6. https://wams.nyhistory.org/settler-colonialism-and-revolution/the-american-revolution/elizabeth-freeman/
  7. https://www.mawomenshistory.org/resources/biographies/elizabeth-freeman-mum-bett-c1744-1828
  8. https://commonplace.online/article/glimpses-of-their-lives/?print=print
  9. https://aaregistry.org/story/early-abolitionist-elizabeth-freeman-born/
  10. https://revolutionarywarjournal.com/elizabeth-freeman-african-american-woman-sued-1780-state-constitution-over-slavery-and-won/
  11. https://www.americanheritage.com/slave-who-sued-freedom
  12. https://elizabethfreeman.mumbet.com/who-is-mumbet/
  13. https://commonplace.online/article/glimpses-of-their-lives/
  14. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2p39.html
  15. https://www.mass.gov/guides/john-adams-architect-of-american-government
  16. https://www.masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=23&pid=42
  17. https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2015-06-22/were-number-1-the-massachusetts-constitution-heralded-and-outpaced-the-u-s-version
  18. https://www.history.com/articles/elizabeth-freeman-slavery-case-dred-scott-freedom
  19. https://ncheteach.org/resource/pleading-for-justice-mum-bett-elizabeth-freeman-and-massachusetts-first-freedom-suit/
  20. https://www.mass.gov/guides/massachusetts-constitution-and-the-abolition-of-slavery
  21. https://www.masshist.org/teaching-history-f/loc-slavery/essay.php?entry_id=442
  22. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/spotlight.html
  23. https://dokumen.pub/slavery-in-the-north-forgetting-history-and-recovering-memory-9780812295283.html
  24. https://www.academia.edu/23912789/Obtaining_Her_Liberty_The_1771_Freedom_Suit_of_Nancy_Parker_of_Andover_Massachusetts_with_Notes_and_Suggested_Readings_for_Educators_and_Researchers_on_Massachusetts_Slavery_and_Emancipation_
  25. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/elizabeth-freeman-ended-slavery-massachusetts
  26. https://www.amrevmuseum.org/read-the-revolution/one-minute-a-free-woman
  27. https://www.npr.org/2020/02/27/809723362/in-the-1700s-an-enslaved-massachusetts-woman-sued-for-her-freedom-and-won
  28. https://www.massmoments.org/moment-details/jury-decides-in-favor-of-elizabeth-mum-bett-freeman.html
  29. https://slavery.princeton.edu/stories/tapping-reeve
  30. https://www.masshist.org/features/endofslavery/end_MA
  31. https://traffickinginstitute.org/incontext-mum-bett/
  32. https://www.nepm.org/regional-news/2020-01-17/how-an-enslaved-woman-sued-for-her-freedom-in-18th-century-massachusetts
  33. https://elizabethfreeman.mumbet.com/
  34. https://revolutionaryspaces.org/explore/exhibits/imagining-the-age-of-phillis/replevin-of-elizabeth-freeman/
  35. https://elizabethfreemancenter.org/mumbet-freeman/
  36. https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2021/02/black-families-of-great-barrington
  37. https://www.bidwellhousemuseum.org/blog/2023/09/05/bidwell-lore-the-home-of-elizabeth-freeman/
  38. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/16476373/elizabeth-freeman
  39. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h36.html
  40. https://bostonbar.org/news/the-landmark-legal-battles-that-abolished-slavery-in-massachusetts/
  41. https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/01/27/elizabeth-freeman-sheffield-slave-ashley-sedgwick
  42. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/william-cushing-instructions-to-the-jury-in-the-quock-walker-case-commonwealth-of-massachusetts-v-nathaniel-jennison-1783
  43. https://www.tomrichey.net/uploads/3/2/1/0/32100773/1790_us_census_statistics.pdf
  44. https://mackseyjournal.scholasticahq.com/api/v1/articles/21706-no-superiors-and-few-equals-how-elizabeth-freeman-helped-to-end-slavery-in-massachusetts.pdf
  45. https://primaryresearch.org/the-history-of-slavery-in-massachusetts/
  46. https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/elizabeth-freemans-legal-fight-freedom
  47. https://elizabethfreeman.mumbet.com/acknowledgement/
  48. https://dokumen.pub/standing-in-their-own-light-african-american-patriots-in-the-american-revolution-080615635x-9780806156354.html
  49. https://archive.org/details/mumbetlifetimeso0000wild
  50. https://theberkshireedge.com/review-mum-betts-minute-passion-freedom/
  51. https://berkshireolli.org/event-6367872
  52. https://filmmakerscollab.org/films/a-free-woman-the-story-of-elizabeth-mum-bett-freeman/
  53. https://www.pbs.org/video/elizabeth-mum-bett-freeman-hdrqnl/
  54. https://elizabethfreeman.mumbet.com/who-is-mumbet/mumbets-grave/
  55. https://www.nepm.org/regional-news/2022-08-19/a-lasting-honor-of-what-she-did-statue-of-elizabeth-freeman-to-be-unveiled-in-sheffield-mass
  56. https://thetrustees.org/place/ashley-house/
  57. https://thetrustees.org/arts-culture/new-perspectives-elizabeth-freeman/
  58. https://www.wamc.org/news/2025-04-10/elizabeth-freeman-to-be-one-of-first-two-women-first-person-from-western-massachusetts-immortalized-in-state-senate-chambers
  59. https://elizabethfreemancenter.org/who-we-are/about-us/
  60. https://elizabethfreemancenter.org/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.