Question
As the American Revolution—with its bedrock rhetoric of freedom and inherent rights—gained traction, the hypocrisy of slavery was thrown into ever-starker relief. This was especially the case in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts law deemed enslaved people not only as property, but—under certain circumstances—as persons. This meant that they could legally challenge enslavers' rights to “own” them. If an enslaved individual could prove that an enslaver had broken the law—for example, by means of an illegal purchase or a rescinded offer of freedom—then they could win their freedom in the courts. By 1780, almost 30 individuals had brought such suits against their enslavers.
Then Massachusetts adopted a new state constitution, which stated that “all men are born free and equal.” The precedent for lawsuits having been set, an enslaved woman named Elizabeth Freeman successfully sued for her own emancipation. But this case was different. Freeman sued on the grounds that slavery violated the new state constitution. Her victory was the beginning of the end of slavery in Massachusetts. In 1791, the federal census listed zero enslaved persons in the state.
What differentiated Freeman’s anti-slavery lawsuit from previous anti-slavery lawsuits in Massachusetts?
A
Previous suits argued that slavery violated the state constitution, while Freeman’s suit argued that her enslaver had broken a particular law.
B
Previous suits argued that enslavers had violated specific laws, while Freeman’s suit argued that slavery violated the state constitution.
C
All of the previous suits had failed, while Freeman’s suit was successful.
D
Freeman’s suit failed, while the previous suits were successful.
Massachusetts law deemed enslaved people not only as property, but—under certain circumstances—as persons. This meant that they could legally challenge enslavers' rights to “own” them. If an enslaved individual could prove that an enslaver had broken the law—for example, by means of an illegal purchase or a rescinded offer of freedom—then they could win their freedom in the courts. By 1780, almost 30 individuals had brought such suits against their enslavers.
Then Massachusetts adopted a new state constitution, which stated that “all men are born free and equal.” The precedent for lawsuits having been set, an enslaved woman named Elizabeth Freeman successfully sued for her own emancipation. But this case was different. Freeman sued on the grounds that slavery violated the new state constitution. Her victory was the beginning of the end of slavery in Massachusetts. In 1791, the federal census listed zero enslaved persons in the state.
What differentiated Freeman’s anti-slavery lawsuit from previous anti-slavery lawsuits in Massachusetts?
A
Previous suits argued that slavery violated the state constitution, while Freeman’s suit argued that her enslaver had broken a particular law.
B
Previous suits argued that enslavers had violated specific laws, while Freeman’s suit argued that slavery violated the state constitution.
C
All of the previous suits had failed, while Freeman’s suit was successful.
D
Freeman’s suit failed, while the previous suits were successful.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
B
Previous suits argued that enslavers had violated specific laws, while Freeman’s suit argued that slavery violated the state constitution.
Previous suits argued that enslavers had violated specific laws, while Freeman’s suit argued that slavery violated the state constitution.