The Case of the Slave-Child, Med

Anyone who has spent time in the papers of prominent abolitionists will find familiar themes in the story of Med. Med was a six-year-old enslaved child whose status was the focus of Commonwealth v. Ames (1836), a trial that Karen Woods Weierman argues was the connective tissue between the 1772 Somerset v. Stewart case in Britain and the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case. In the years prior to Med's case, northern state courts had become increasingly intolerant of slavery's presence—typically in the form of enslaved people brought north, temporarily, in the service of their enslavers. At issue in Commonwealth v. Ames was whether Med's enslaver, Mary Aves Slater of New Orleans, could return to Louisiana with Med after bringing her onto free soil during a sojourn to Boston. The case highlighted, in particular, the problem of deciding the fate of enslaved and emancipated children. Med's enslaved mother remained in Louisiana, a fact the Slater family sought to exploit in trying to keep Med as their property. Those seeking to free Med, an effort orchestrated by the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society (Bfass), lamented the separation of Med from her mother but insisted the child's freedom was paramount. Their opening argument stated this clearly: “But is there really any inhumanity in making this child a free citizen of Massacchusetts? Surely not.... Is it unkindness to the mother? Not if she desires the true good of her child” (p. 43

Argument (complex analysis · Commonwealth · Political science · Sociology · State (computer science · History · Law · Medicine · Race, History, and American Society