Brom of Sheffield

Overview

Brom (also spelled Bram) was an enslaved man in the household of Colonel John Ashley of Sheffield, Massachusetts, who in 1781 became the named first plaintiff in the freedom suit Brom & Bett v. John Ashley, Esq. (Commonplace). He had been enslaved in the Ashley household since at least 1771, where the family’s account books show him carting iron ore, running courier errands, and working with unusual autonomy (Commonplace). After winning his freedom in August 1781, he disappears from the historical record entirely: no birth or death date, no surname, and no account of his later life survives (Massachusetts Historical Society).

Enslaved in the Ashley household

Brom was enslaved in Colonel Ashley’s home by 1771 (Commonplace). In that year, Colonel Ashley owned five enslaved people over the age of fourteen, while his son, General John Ashley Jr., enslaved three others over fourteen (Commonplace). One possible origin for Brom is that he was sold by Captain Ruluff Dutcher of nearby Canaan, Connecticut — Colonel Ashley’s son-in-law — after Dutcher inherited an enslaved man called “Broom” or “Abram” from his father in 1758, but no transactions survive to confirm this theory (Commonplace).

The earliest Ashley account book shows Colonel Ashley entrusting Brom with trips beyond his watchful eye (Commonplace). Brom made frequent trips carting ore from Ashley’s open pit in Salisbury, Connecticut, back to the Ironworks in Sheffield, carried goods as a courier from the Ashley store to Salisbury, and took wagon trips to Claverack to fulfil wheat orders (Commonplace). Another enslaved man, Caesar, frequently carted heavy loads of ore alongside Brom from the Salisbury “Ore Hill” back to Sheffield, and by 1780 Caesar was carting some loads on his own (Commonplace). Beyond operating with the most autonomy of all the enslaved people in the household, Brom may also have had some training to work in Colonel Ashley’s bloomery forge (Commonplace). He may even have been the “Colonel Ashly’s negro” who drove a sleigh in the January 1773 cold from Sheffield to Westfield for General Ashley’s mother-in-law, Mrs. Mary Ballantine (Commonplace).

The freedom suit

In May 1781, Brom sued Colonel Ashley for his freedom as Bett’s co-plaintiff — Bett being the woman who, on winning the case, took the name Elizabeth Freeman (Commonplace). The legal team, Theodore Sedgwick and Tapping Reeve, had decided to get one of the Ashleys’ male slaves to join the suit, reasoning that an enslaved woman would not have the same credibility as a man in court; Brom agreed to take part, lending his name to the suit (Princeton). Their strategy was to seek a writ of replevin — a court order for the return of unlawfully held property — from the Berkshire County Court of Common Pleas, ordering Ashley to turn Brom and Bett over to the sheriff because they were not his legal property (Princeton). When Ashley refused, the case went to the County Court in Great Barrington for a jury trial (Princeton).

Sedgwick’s principal argument was that slavery was inherently illegal under the newly ratified Massachusetts Constitution, whose first article declared that “all men are born free and equal” (Massachusetts Historical Society). Sedgwick had been one of the authors of the Sheffield Declaration, the 1773 Sheffield resolves whose equality language the Constitution echoed (Princeton). The trial opened on 21 August 1781, with Reeve and Sedgwick present, as were Brom and Bett (Princeton). The trial lasted only two days, and Brom and Bett did not take the stand; the entire trial was conducted solely by the lawyers, while Ashley, though present, did not testify either — though he presumably submitted documentary evidence of his purchase of Brom and Bett (Princeton).

On 22 August 1781, the jury found in favour of Brom and Bett, ruling that they were free persons who had never legally been Ashley’s property, even though he had paid for them (Princeton). The jury ordered Ashley to pay thirty shillings in damages plus court costs, which Princeton itemises as £5 14s 4d (Princeton). Ashley said he would appeal, with a hearing scheduled for October, but after the related Quock Walker and Zach Mullen cases were decided against the enslavers, he dropped his appeal and “confessed judgment” — assenting to the original verdict that Brom and Bett had never been his legal slaves (Princeton). The Massachusetts Historical Society calls Brom & Bett v. John Ashley, Esq. one of the most important legal cases in Massachusetts history (Massachusetts Historical Society).

What the record does not show

Almost nothing is known about Brom’s life as a free man (Massachusetts Historical Society). Like Freeman, Brom ceased all work and contact with the Ashley family following his suit, and the details of his life after gaining his freedom are lost to history (Commonplace). That silence is itself striking: other people formerly enslaved by the Ashleys — Caesar, Harry, and Zach Mullen — kept working for the family for wages after emancipation, while Brom never appears in the account books again (Commonplace).

Two claims sometimes attached to Brom do not survive scrutiny (Commonplace). There is no evidence to suggest that Brom was Bett’s “common-law husband,” and in her 1781 freedom suit Bett was labelled a “spinster” — in her later Stockbridge land transactions she was addressed as “singlewoman Spinster,” rather than widow (Commonplace). Nor is there evidence that Brom moved with the Sedgwicks to Stockbridge (Commonplace). A more recent theory — that Brom changed his name to Cato Brum, went to work for the Sedgwicks as their “horse-servant,” and ended his life in prison — seems implausible, especially given Catharine Sedgwick’s descriptions of Cato as youthfully misbehaved (Commonplace). Brom’s name survives chiefly where the record first put it: at the head of the case caption, ahead of the woman whose determination drove the suit (Commonplace).

FAQ

Who was Brom? Brom (also spelled Bram) was a man enslaved in Colonel John Ashley’s Sheffield, Massachusetts, household by 1771 (Commonplace). He worked with unusual autonomy, carting iron ore, running courier errands, and travelling to Claverack on wheat business (Commonplace). No surname, birth date, or family details are recorded for him (Commonplace).

Why is Brom’s name first in Brom and Bett v. Ashley? The legal team decided to add a male plaintiff because an enslaved woman would not have the same credibility as a man in court, and Brom agreed to join (Princeton). His name therefore leads the caption of a case that Bett herself had set in motion (Princeton).

What happened to Brom after he won his freedom? Nothing is recorded (Atlas Obscura). Unlike other people formerly enslaved by the Ashleys, who kept working for the family for wages, Brom ceased all work and contact with them after the suit (Commonplace). The details of his life after gaining his freedom are lost to history (Commonplace).

Was Brom Elizabeth Freeman’s husband? There is no evidence for that claim (Commonplace). In her 1781 freedom suit Bett was labelled a “spinster,” and her later land transactions address her as “singlewoman Spinster,” not widow (Commonplace). The suggestion that Brom was her common-law husband lacks substantiation (Commonplace).

What this profile does not claim

This profile does not claim a birth date, birthplace, surname, family, or later life for Brom, because no source supports any of them. It does not claim that he came to Ashley via Captain Ruluff Dutcher, drove the January 1773 sleigh, or trained in the bloomery forge — the sources present each of those as a possibility or an unconfirmed theory. It does not claim that he was Elizabeth Freeman’s husband, that he became Cato Brum, or that he moved with the Sedgwicks to Stockbridge; the best recent scholarship finds no evidence for the first and third of those and calls the second implausible (Commonplace). It does not claim the thirty shillings in damages was per plaintiff, because the sources are ambiguous on that point. What it does claim is what the record firmly supports: that a man called Brom was enslaved in the Ashley household, did trusted work for it, lent his name and standing to a freedom suit in May 1781, won, and then vanished from the written record.