Hudgins v. Wright

Background

Unlike Mum Bett, Jackey Wright did not benefit from an association with a prominent legal family to record her story, and thus, the details of her life are scarce. However, although it is difficult to reconstruct the lives of Jackey Wright and her children from court documents related to her freedom suit, the details of her enslavement since birth are clearer. Jackey was most likely born into slavery to the Temple family in Prince George County Virginia, and then through a series of transfers, sold along with her mother Phoebe, to a Sir John Peyton in Gloucester County New Jersey (Appeal from the Richmond Chancery District Court). Next, Houlder Hudgins purchased Jackey from Peyton’s estate in 1794 for 55 “pounds cash” (sic) and sold Jackey and her two infant children to a negro trader, Richard Cox, who took them as far south as Petersburg Virginia, when Jackey initiated the freedom suit in 1806 (Appeal from the Richmond Chancery District Court).

The Suit

Jackey Wright, represented by attorney G.K. Taylor, initiated her freedom suit in 1806 by obtaining a writ of ne exeat against Richard Cox from the Chancery District Court, which prohibited Cox from leaving the county while the case was being adjudicated (Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Report 1808: 134). Wright presented her bill of complaint against Hudgins and Cox, in forma pauperis (this waives court fees for an indigent plaintiff) on behalf of herself and her children to Chancellor George Wythe. (Appeal from the Richmond Chancery District Court). Wright’s freedom suit was based on the claim that her maternal heritage was Native American and not African as the defendants, Hudgins and Cox claimed. In Virginia, American Indian enslavement was abolished in 1705, and thus if Wright and her children were Native American, they could not be held in bondage. (Appeal from the Richmond Chancery District Court). Both the plaintiff and defendants called witnesses to provide testimony establishing the lineage and legal status of Wright and her children. Jackey called five different women to testify on her behalf: Mary Denhart, Pattey Burg, Frances Temple, Mary Wilkinson, and Elizabeth Pendergrass (Appeal from the Richmond Chancery District Court). Each woman testified that Jackey’s grandmother, who they refer to as Indian Hannah, was a woman with blue eyes, copper complexion, and long black hair (Appeal from the Richmond Chancery District Court). This testimony established that Jackey was descended from a Native American maternal line.

Chancellor Wythe accepted this testimony and ruled that the Wrights were “various shades of white and thus entitled to their freedom”(William and Mary Law Library Wythepedia). Wythe’s decision also stated that the Virginia Declaration of Rights established freedom as the birth-right of every human being”, and thus, the burden of proving the legitimacy of ownership always falls on the slave owner (William and Mary Law Library Wythepedia). Hudgins and Cox appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court which upheld Wythe’s ruling while discounting his reasoning. Judge Lyons of the Virginia Supreme Court delivered the court’s decision, clarifying that birth-right of freedom Wythe cites in his decision applied exclusively to “white persons and native American Indians, but entirely disapproving thereof, so far as the same relates to native Africans and their descendants” (Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Report 1808: 144).

Impact

The Virginia Supreme Court decision of Hudgins v. Wright illustrates the in-depth process of racialization occurring through the Virginia judicial system. While Chancellor Wythe’s lower court decision observed a universal principle of freedom as interpreted from the state’s Bill of Rights, the Supreme court placed specific racial conditions on freedom and humanity. Article 1 of the Constitution of Virginia Bill of Rights states that “all men are by nature equally free and independent” (Virginia Legislative Information System). Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision denies the humanity of those of African descent and strips them of their right to freedom. However, this deeply racist interpretation of liberty created an opportunity for Jackey Wright, an enslaved woman, to successfully appeal for her and her children’s freedom. Wright’s success in obtaining freedom for her and her children through the court challenges the concept that slavery was a monolithic and unchallenged institution in Southern states during the Revolutionary Era. Not only did Wright stand up to both a slave owner and a slave trader (who legally represented the right to own and sell slaves), she enlisted the help of other women, both free and enslaved to testify on her behalf. This demonstrates that enslaved women as “protectors of family heritage” could use their knowledge of family ties to aid other enslaved women in their legal petitions for freedom (Schweninger 2014: 37, 40). Hudgins v. Wright represents an extraordinary case of legal agency and power from an enslaved woman in a slave state.