Buying out slave owners

Their lack of personhood was upheld even when it was to the detriment of whites. When George Wythe, mentor to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, was murdered in 1806 his murderer went free even though he was hated in the community and the crime had a witness. Wythe, twice a widower and childless, had long since freed most of his slaves at the time of his death. Unlike most members of the planter class he had been a part of he was not only solvent but cash rich- he had interests in banks, shipping, rental properties, etc.. Several of his former slaves worked for him for wages including his cook Lydia Broadax (Broadnax in some accounts). There was also a mulatto boy who lived with him named Michael Brown, rumored by some to be his son, to whom he gave unusual affection: he educated him, the child lived in Wythe’s house (not the servant’s quarters), Wythe had named Thomas Jefferson as the child’s guardian in the event of his own death, and- most importantly- he listed the child as a major beneficiary in his will. (Far from the sole beneficiary and he did not inherit the majority of the estate, but he inherited enough to make him wealthier than most free white people.) Wythe’s will also said that in the event of Michael Brown predeceasing him his share of the estate went to Wythe’s great-nephew and foster-son George Wythe Sweeney.

Sweeney was bad news all around- a boo-hiss almost cardboard villain who was a major disappointment to his namesake. He was a drunk, a gambler, he had forged checks on his uncle’s account, his uncle had already told him “I’ve bailed you out before, I’m not doing it again”, and his uncle was rumored to be on the verge of disinheriting him altogether. Sweeney was also, in spite of numerous bailouts, in trouble with men he owed gambling debts to again, and he forged another check on his uncle’s account and knew that when/if his uncle found out about it he’d at very least be disinherited and probably prosecuted. He may also have known about Wythe’s will and how much more he stood to gain if Michael Brown died before or at the same time as Wythe.

Sweeney came into the kitchen of his uncle’s home in Williamsburg soon after he forged the check but before his uncle learned about it. He told the cook, Lydia, that he had some spices for his uncle’s food and in front of her opened a packet and poured it into the tea and the soup. Lydia, Michael and Wythe all ate the food; Lydia, who didn’t eat as much as the others, became violently ill but recovered while Michael was soon dead and Wythe was in agony and obviously terminal. He did recover his senses long enough to realize what had happened, at which point he altered his will to completely disinherit the grandnephew, then died a few days later.

Lydia had witnessed the entire thing and her evidence added to Sweeney’s motives (he was the only person who had something to gain from Michael Brown’s death and he had much to gain from his greatuncles) and his known criminal character would have hanged Sweeney. Pretty much everybody agreed that Sweeney needed hanging: this wasn’t like a Jim Crow era case of the community turning a blind eye to a killer, Wythe was well respected and in some circles beloved and Sweeney was universally despised. Add to this that Lydia was not only free but she could read and write and owned property (Wythe had bought a small house for her to live in and left it to her in his will). Nevertheless she was not allowed to testify even though she had the crucial information and without her there was only circumstantial evidence. Sweeney was acquitted by the jury; the only justice is that his freedom was all he got.

There’s some evidence that appeals were made to then president Thomas Jefferson, who in addition to everything else was executor of Wythe’s estate, asking him to please find a loophole or use his presidential authority to make one. He was silent on the issue, perhaps because of the ‘state’s rights’ matter, though the fact this was the era when he was dealing with the fallout from Sally Hemings being made public may also have had some bearing. (He was outed as a concubine holder in 1803 but the ripples continued for years in whispers and occasional editorials.)

Anyway, even a literate property owning free person of color was not considered a full fledged human under Virginia law.

You’re welcome. You might want to check out the “Reaction” section on the wiki page on the Dred Scott decision for more info on how the abolitionist and slaver proponents reacted to the decision.

This isn’t exactly correct. The Dred Scott case concerned a slave who spent time in a free state and territory, and then was returned to a slave state before initiating his suit for freedom. The Supreme Court held that Missouri wasn’t required to enforce the law of Illinois conferring freedom on all those (except fugitives) within its boundaries. Illinois could still enforce its own law against slavery if persons held as slaves within Illinois brought suit within Illinois.

It’s true that many Republicans feared an extension, a follow-up ruling if you will, that would have invalidated a state law against slavery within its own boundaries as well. Dred Scott, however, was not such a ruling.