Luke Decker and Slavery: His Cases with Bob and Anthony, 1817-1822

Merrily Pierce"

Luke Decker, farmer, judge, and militia officer, owned and traded slaves in the Northwest Territory, Territory, and the state of Indiana despite laws prohibiting such practices. As a member of the proslavery element in the Old Northwest, Decker encouraged the establishment of slavery in the territory, a plan that nearly succeeded under Indiana Territorial Governor . By the time was ready for statehood in 1816, however, settlers against slavery outnumbered those, like Decker, who supported it. The institution was outlawed by the 1816 state Constitution, but slavery did not die out. In Knox County, where Decker resided arid slavery was concentrated, some slave owners continued to hold slaves, believing that the Consti- tution was not retroactive. In July, 1816, barely a month after the Indiana Constitution was written, two of Decker's slaves-Bob, nominally an indentured servant, and Anthony, a slave for life-escaped from his possession and fled to Orange County, a Quaker stronghold in the southern part of the state. Decker pursued his slaves and had them cap- tured. Confronted by the Quaker-influenced court in Paoli, he used all of his influence in his determination to regain possession of the two men. Decker's cases were before the court for five years, from 1817 to 1822. Summaries of the court proceedings in early county his- tories and in other accounts attest to their importance.' A study of

* Merrily Pierce, a former aquatic biologist, is currently serving as a staff aide for transportation, environment, and parks to the chairman of the Board of Super- visors, Fairfax County, Virginia. History of Pike and Dubois Counties, Indiana (Chicago, 18851, 301-302; His- tory of Knox and Daviess Counties, Indiana (Chicago, 1886), 86; Jacob P. Dunn, Jr., Indiana: A Redemption From Slavery (Boston, 18881, 432; Leander J. Monks, Logan Esarey, and Ernest V. Shockley, eds., Courts and Lawyers of Indiana (3 vols., Indi- anapolis, 1916), I, 64; Gayle Thornbrough and Dorothy Riker, eds., Journals of the General Assembly of Indiana Territory, 1805-1815 (Indiana Historical Collections, Vol. XXXII; , 19501, 965. INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY, LXXXV (March, 1989). "'1989,Trustees of 32 Indiana Magazine of History these histories and of recently discovered documents related to the cases demonstrates their significance with regard to the history of slavery in early Indiana and corrects numerous misconceptions. Because Decker was a member of the proslavery element in the Old Northwest and because many citizens of Orange County were morally opposed to slavery, the cases also exemplify the battle be- tween the pro- and antislavery forces that divided Indiana Terri- tory politically in its early years. Decker’s attempts to regain possession of Bob and Anthony are among the first proceedings to challenge the legality of both indentured servitude and slavery &er approval of the state Constitution. The lawsuits also demonstrate the legal tactics employed by pro- and antislavery attorneys as they defended the interests of their clients. Further, the cases reflect the decline of the once powerful proslavery element in Indiana. Slavery had existed in the area northwest of the Ohio River almost from the beginning of settlement. The French had intro- duced slaves in their trading centers in the mid-eighteenth cen- tury. Following the American Revolution migrants from the South, especially Kentucky and Virginia, brought slaves and a tolerance for slavery with them to the Old Northwest. Many of the pioneers who owned slaves settled in and around Vincennes, the largest French community, and in settlements in the Illinois country.2 To cope with the influx of pioneers Congress acted to organize a government for the burgeoning territory. Virginia was pressed to cede her western lands, including present-day Indiana and Illinois, to the government and did so with the Virginia Act of Session on December 20, 1783.3 The Northwest Territory was officially created by the ratification of the Ordinance of 1787. Arti- cle VI of the ordinance stated, “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory. . . .”4 The ordinance also contained modification of an important clause from the Virginia Act of Session that protected the rights of the French and other

2 For background on slavery and the slavery controversy in the Old Northwest see John D. Barnhart and Dorothy L. Riker, Indiana to 1816: The Colonial Period (Indianapolis, 1971), 164, 166, 334-35, 347-48, 352-54, 457-59, passim; Emma Lou Thornbrough, The Negro in Indiana before 1900: A Study of a Minority (Indiana Historical Collections, Vol. XXXVII; Indianapolis, 1957), 1-30; Paul Finkelman, “Slavery and the ,” Journal of the Early Republic, VI (Winter, 1986), 343-70. 3 Virginia Act of Session in Charles Kettleborough, Constitution Making in Zn- diana: A Source Book of Constitutional Documents with Historical Introduction and Critical Notes, 1780-1851 (3 vols., Indiana Historical Collections, Vols. I, 11, XVII; Indianapolis, 1916), I, 11-15. Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Article VI, in ibid., 33. See also Robert M. Tay- lor, Jr., ed., The Northwest Ordinance, 1787: A Bicentennial Handbook (Indianapo- lis, 1987), 72-76. Luke Decker and Slavery 33

original inhabitants of the territ01-y.5Those who owned slaves, be- lieving their rights were protected, were angry and confused at Congress’s failure to address the question of existing slavery. A loosely organized proslavery element emerged to eliminate Article VI and legalize slavery in the territory. The Decker family was part of this early migration from the South, and, like many other settlers from the southern states, the Deckers had owned slaves before coming to what is now Indiana. John and Dinah (Kuykendall) Decker, Luke Decker’s parents, had migrated with other Dutch families from New York in the mid- eighteenth century and settled in Hampshire County, Virginia (now West Virginia), where Luke was born about 1760. The family farmed and bought land near the upper reaches of the Potomac River. They also bought slaves. One was a woman named Rachel, whom the family called “Rach.”‘j After the Revolution the Decker clan moved west, settling first in Kentucky, then near Vincennes, Indiana, about 1784. Claiming land near the Duchis River, they began farming in what is now known as Decker Township.7 They brought their slaves with them and may have purchased more along the way. When John Decker died in 1790, he bequeathed four female slaves to his wife and chil- dren. Luke Decker inherited all of his father’s lands and tenements and, after the death of his mother, the slave “Ra~h.”~

The clause from the Virginia Act of Session stated, “the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vincents, and the neighbour- ing villages who have professed themselves citizens of Virginia, shall have their possessions and titles confirmed to them, and be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties.” Kettleborough, Constitution Making, I, 13. This clause was modified in the Ordinance of 1787 to read: “saving, however to the French and Ca- nadian inhabitants. . . their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to the descent and conveyance of property.” Ibid., 27. John Decker purchased a slave named Rachel on two occasions, the second time with his son, Luke Decker. “I, Jeremiah Claypool. , . for g50. . . have sold to John Decker, a Negro wench named Rachel and her descendants. . . .” Bill of sale, November 7, 1778, recorded March 14, 1781, Hampshire County, Virginia, Deed Book V, p. 157, Hampshire County Clerk’s Office, Romney, West Virginia. “Jere- miah Claypool.. . to John Decker of Ohio County.. . and Luke Decker of Hamp- shire Co., Va. for E200 . . . a certain negro slave named Rachel and her children with their future increase. . . .” Bill of sale, March 10, 1784. Hampshire County, Vir- ginia, Deed Book V, p. 105, ibid. Records of land purchases, marriages, etc., per- taining to the Decker and Kuykendall families can be found in Clara M. Sage and Laura S. Jones, comps., Early Records of Hampshire Co., Va. . . . (1939; reprint, Baltimore, 1976), and the Hampshire County, Virginia, Deed Books, Hampshire County Clerk’s Office, Romney, West Virginia. 7 The Decker clan included John and Dinah (Kuykendall) Decker; sons Isaac, Joseph, Abraham, Moses, and Luke; three daughters; and members of their own and their children’s families. Information concerning the Decker family, including their early land claims at Vincennes, can be found in Barnhart and Riker, Indiana to 1816, 278-79; American State Papers: Public Lands (serial set 028), I, 85; ibid. (serial set 034), VII, 682-85. 8 Last Will and Testament of John Decker, Albert G. Porter Papers (Indiana Historical Society Library, Indianapolis). In addition to “Rach,” Decker bequeathed “Catz,” “Ann,” and “Phebe,” but he owned male slaves as well. See Harry and others v. Decker and Hopkins, 1 Walker (Miss.) 36 (1818). 34 Indiana Magazine of History

Establishing his presence in Vincennes affairs, Decker served as justice of the peace for Knox County, as judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and as an officer in the militia.s He forged ties with members of the French community, probably purchased slaves from them, and traded at posts organized by the French along the Mis- sissippi River and in Louisiana.lo It may have been this association and a desire to continue trading slaves that led him to a position of influence in the effort to eliminate Article VI of the Ordinance of 1787 and to establish slavery in the Northwest, and later Indi- ana, Territory. One of the first acts of the proslavery element in the Old Northwest was to petition Congress for suspension or repeal of Ar- ticle VI. In 1793, as judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Decker received a letter from Arthur St. Clair, governor of the Northwest Territory, written in response to a petition from mostly French set- tlers who had requested interpretation of the article prohibiting s1avery.l’ St. Clair’s response, that Article VI was not retroactive, gave settlers who had owned slaves before 1787 permission to con- tinue holding them and gave slavery a firm hold in the territory. Even without St. Clair’s encouragement slave owners found effec- tive ways to circumvent Article VI. Many entered into long-term indentures with their unwitting slaves or bequeathed them as property, as John Decker had, to the next generation. Decker and the proslavery element sought William Henry Harrison as their ally when Harrison arrived in Vincennes in 1801 as governor of the newly created Indiana Territory.12 Originally from Virginia, Harrison wished to attract other wealthy settlers from the South and to please those in the territory who owned slaves. Claiming to represent a majority of settlers and encouraged

9 Decker was appointed justice of the peace for Knox County and a judge of the Court of Common Pleas in 1792. He was reappointed to the Court of Common Pleas in 1797. Thornbrough and Riker, Journals of the General Assembly, 965. 10 The French in Vincennes were trading slaves along the Mississippi as early as 1766. Thornbrough, Negro in Indiana, 1. Decker also had established a trading network with the French, probably well before the dates mentioned. “Luke Decker left with his Negroes for your shores . . . You will help me by obliging him. . . .” Antoine Marchal, Vincennes, to Louis Nicolas Fortin, Baton Rouge, April 4, 1804, Lasselle Family Papers (Indiana Division, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis). “. . . Decker is leaving today with Mr. Baird with the intention of finding some buyer for his Negroes along the coast.” Fortin, Baton Rouge, to Marchal, Vincennes, May 31, 1804, ibid. Letters quoted are from translations prepared by Liliane Krasean. Both originals and translations are located in the Indiana Division, Indiana State Library. Governor Arthur St. Clair to Luke Decker, October 11, 1793, quoted in Dunn, Indiana, 245-46. 12 Decker, in Harrison’s government, continued to serve as justice of the peace until December 13, 1813, and as judge of the Court of the General Quarter Sessions from 1800 until January 1, 1806. Louis B. Ewbank and Dorothy L. Riker, eds., The Laws of Indiana Territory, 1809-1816 (Indiana Historical Collections, Vol. XX; In- dianapolis, 1934), 850. Luke Decker and Slavery 35 by the proslavery element, Harrison sponsored a convention in 1802 to petition Congress, among other things, to repeal Article VI. In addition to himself, he appointed Decker, Francis Vigo, and Wil- liam Prince to represent Knox County. When Congress failed to act on the petition, Harrison and the territorial judges, acting un- der powers that granted them the right to use laws from the origi- nal thirteen states to govern the territory, adopted in 1803 a law from a Virginia code that required slaves brought into the territory to fulfill their contracts.’3 In 1805, after Indiana moved to the second territorial stage of government, the first legislative assembly further legalized forced servitude by passing a law that permitted any person owning or purchasing a slave outside the territory to bring them into the ter- ritory and bind them into service. The terms of the indenture were to be recorded with the county clerk within thirty days. After sixty days any slave not agreeing to the terms could be sent out of the territory and sold. Slaves, then, could either accept an indenture, usually lasting between twenty and forty years, or be taken out of the territory and sold for life.I4 Decker must have availed himself of this legislation for he had at least one indentured servant, Bob, with whom he had made a contract in 1804. Decker and General Washington Johnston were elected to rep- resent Knox County in the second territorial legislature. In the first session, which met in the fall of 1807, the legislature adopted yet another resolution to Congress reiterating that slaves had ex- isted in Indiana Territory before the Ordinance of 1787 and asking for a suspension of Article VI.15 Near the close of this session the governor approved the passage of a bill entitled “An Act Concern- ing Servants,’’ a revision of the 1805 indenture laws specifying how servants were expected to perform. Decker probably concurred with this legislation also, for, during the second session of the legisla- ture in the fall of 1808, he led a committee to amend the act by further defining and restricting servants’ actions.16 The proslavery element was powerful in Knox County, where Vincennes was located, and in the Illinois counties to the west. Opposition to slavery, however, was beginning to develop there and in the rest of the territory. After the turn of the century large num-

l3 Francis S. Philbrick, ed., The Laws of Indiana Territory, 1801-1809 (Collec- tions of the Illinois State Historical Library, Vol. XXI; Springfield, Ill., 1930), 42-46. 14 “AN ACT concerning the introduction of Negroes and Mulattoes into this Territory,” in Philbrick, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1801-1809, 136-39. Terms of indentures in Thornbrough, Negro in Indiana, 8-12. Jacob Piatt Dunn, Slavery Petitions and Papers (Indiana Historical Society Publications, Vol. 11, No. 12; Indianapolis, 1895), 515-17. Ifi“An Act Concerning Servants,” in Philbrick, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1801- 1809,463-67;“AN ACT to amend an act, entitled ‘An Act concerning Servants, and for other purposes,’” in ibid., 657-58. 36 Indiana Magazine of History bers of Quakers had begun to emigrate from the South-many from -in part to escape slavery. They settled first in northern Kentucky; many then moved to the Cincinnati hinterland in Ohio, then spread into the Whitewater valley and other areas in southern Indiana Territory. Strongly democratic and, of course, opposed to slavery on religious as well as economic grounds, they influenced political development where they settled. In addition to the Quakers, antislavery settlers from both northern and southern states arrived in the territory in increasing numbers. Many resided in Dearborn County on the Ohio border. In 1805 and again in 1807 citizens of this county petitioned Congress in protest of the terri- tory’s indenture laws and requested annexation to Ohio, a free state. No action was taken on the 1807 Dearborn petition, but Congress responded to a petition from residents of Clark County, to the south of Dearborn, assuring them that Article VI would not be re- pealed.17 In the fall of 1808 Decker and Johnston served on a committee in the second session of the territorial legislature to report on these and other petitions for or against admitting slavery in Indiana Ter- ritory. In his report Johnston penned an impassioned plea urging his fellow legislators to reject admission of slavery, stating that it was not expedient to petition Congress for repeal of Article VI and that a bill before the legislature to repeal the indenture laws should pass. The report stunned Johnston’s colleagues; but when the bill, supported by the antislavery faction, came before the legislative council, it failed to pass the first reading.ls In 1809 the separation of Indiana Territory from the Illinois counties to the west of Vincennes cost the proslavery element the support of slave owners there.lg Decker and two relatives were among the signers of a petition to President Thomas Jefferson in 1808 protesting the division.20After reapportionment of the result- ant smaller Indiana Territory, slavery was an important issue in the election on May 22, 1809, of new representatives, councilors, and delegate to Congress. An admirer of Harrison’s won as repre- sentative from Knox County, and Decker and William Prince were elected as councilors to serve in the rump session of the legislature

17 Dunn, Slavery Petitions, 515-17, 518-20; Dunn, Indiana, 360; see also Barn- hart and Riker, Indiana to 1816, 347-52. 18 Thornbrough and Riker, Journals of the General Assembly of Indiana Terri- tory, 232-38. 19 Ewbank and Riker, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1809-1816, 102-103; Kettle- borough, Constitution Making, I, 54-56. 20 Clarence Edwin Carter, comp. and ed., Territorial Papers of the United States: Vol. VII, The Territory of Indiana, 1800-1810 (Washington, D. C., 1939), 627-30. There may have been considerations other than slavery. Decker, and perhaps other members of his family, owned land in Illinois. Luke Decker and Slavery 37

held in the fall of 1809.21It was the election of delegate, however, that caused the most excitement by igniting regional differences over slavery and other issues. Those from the western part of the territory supported Thomas Randolph, the proslavery, Harrison choice. The antislavery southeast rallied around Jonathan Jen- nings of Clark County. Though Randolph lost by only a small mar- gin, it was a significant defeat for Harrison and the proslavery element.22Yet another defeat was suffered in 1810 when the reap- portioned legislature voted to repeal Harrison’s 1803 law forcing blacks brought into the territory to fulfill their contracts, the 1805 laws that legalized indenture agreements, and the subsequent 1807 revision of those laws.23 The number of slaves registered in Indiana Territory at any one time was small. The first accurate census, taken in 1810 after separation from Illinois, revealed a population of 23,890 white citi- zens and 630 blacks. Of the blacks, Dearborn County listed 92 free and no slaves, Clark 40 free and 81 slaves, Harrison 12 free and no slaves, and Knox County 249 free and 135 slaves.24Not all slaves were registered (Decker never registered his), and some of those listed as “free,” especially in Knox County, were probably inden- tured. Some people were neither slaves nor indentured servants but had been emancipated in other states and territories and had migrated to Indiana or had been born free in the territory. Slave owners, including Decker, ignored the repeal of the in- denture laws. Those indentures made before 1810 continued in force, and servants were still brought into the territory and bound to serve as before. Harrison’s resignation as territorial governor in 1812 and the transfer of the territorial capital from Vincennes to Corydon in Harrison County in 1813 further reduced the influence of those who supported slavery, yet influential citizens continued to hold slaves. Thomas Posey, Harrison’s successor, professed to be against slavery, but when he died, he bequeathed six slaves to his children. Two indentured servants belonging to Posey were sold in Vin- cennes in 1818. The courts also sanctioned the legality of indenture agreements.25 Slavery was no longer a major political issue by the time Congress passed the Enabling Act in 1816 permitting dele- gates to be chosen for the constitutional convention. In Corydon the state’s founding fathers incorporated Article VI into the Con-

21 Thornbrough and Riker, Journals of the General Assembly of Indiana Terri- tory, 315n. 22 Carter, Territorial Papers, VII, 655. 23 Ewbank and Riker, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1809-1816, 138-39. 24 Thornbrough, Negro in Indiana, 22. 25 Ibid., 12-13, 28. Decker served as an associate circuit court judge in 1814, but there are no records of his involvement in slave-related cases. Decker’s appointment as associate circuit court judge in 1814 was his last service to the courts in Indiana. Ewbank and Riker, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1809-1816, 851. 38 Zndiana Magazine of History

stitution’s Article XI, Section 7. In Article VIII a double check against slavery stated, “no alteration of this constitution shall ever take place so as to introduce slavery or involuntary servitude in this State. . . .”26 After June 29, 1816, slavery and involuntary and indentured servitude were officially forbidden; yet, amazingly, once again, no provisions were made for slaves and indentured servants already in the state. The status of slavery in Knox County did not change for sev- eral years. Slave owners, believing that the Constitution was not retroactive, continued to hold slaves as before. In Vincennes, where the legality of slavery had been recognized for decades in the courts and the majority of citizens approved of indentures, the first of seven freedom suits, in which slaves sued their owners, was begun in October, 1817. Predictably, in only one case of these seven did the court rule in favor of the slave in spite of the new Constititi~n.~~ Beyond the boundaries of Knox County most of the residents of Indiana readily recognized the illegality of slavery. The future implications of the constitutional ruling prohibiting slavery were probably clear to Decker also. Perhaps it was business as usual, but there is evidence that Decker, or a member of his family, em- barked from Vincennes by boat in July, 1816, with a group of slaves to sell in the South. The slaves escaped in Mississippi and sued for their freedom. The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in their favor in 1818, citing Article VI and the new Indiana Constitution well in advance of the courts in Indiana.28 Bob and Anthony also left Decker’s possession in July of 1816. Perhaps they escaped from the party of slaves being taken south, for those slaves risked being sold for life, but the circumstances regarding their escape are unclear. They fled to Orange County, sixty miles east of Vincennes, where Decker found them in Paoli the following January. He had them captured by the sheriff, Zachariah Lindley. The destination turned out to be a fortunate one for two fugi- tives in search of shelter and assistance. Half a dozen years before, Quaker Jonathan Lindley, members of his family, and another small caravan of Quakers fled from the spread of slavery in North Carolina and settled in the Blue River area of Indiana Territory.

Sfi Article XI, Section 7, Constitution of 1816, in Kettleborough, Constitution Making, I, 117; Article VIII, Section 1, ibid., 112. z7 Thornbrough, Negro in Indiana, 25. Harry and others v. Decker and Hopkins, 1 Walker (Miss.) 36 (1818). In an unpopular action a Mississippi Supreme Court judge overruled a lower court deci- sion and freed the slaves. They had claimed that one John Decker had taken them from Virginia to Vincennes about 1784 and had held them in slavery in violation of Article VI and the new Indiana Constitution. Unfortunately, the circuit court records that might further identify “Decker” and “Hopkins” have not been found. There is little doubt, however, that “Decker” is Luke Decker. Luke Decker and Slavery 39

Others soon followed. Early in 1816 Governor Thomas Posey ap- pointed one Zachariah Lindley sheriff and ordered him to organize the new county and county seat, which were named after the county and town that the Quakers had left behind in North Carolina. The Lindleys and their friends and neighbors had brought with them their democratic principles and strong abhorrence of slavery.29 Decker had perhaps heard of the Lindleys but probably over- estimated his own influence. Bob and Anthony were returned to Decker but on custody of bail. David Raymond, president judge of the Second Circuit, served Decker with writs of habeas corpus re- questing that he appear before the court with his slaves to present his reasons for detaining them.30 Decker hired Charles Dewey, a recent arrival in Paoli from Massachusetts, to defend him despite the fact that Dewey had not yet applied to the bar. Orange County lawyers Henry Stephen and James B. E. Goodlet prepared pleas on behalf of the illiterate slaves.31 Decker and Dewey appeared before Judge Raymond in the presence of the sheriff on January 30,1817, in the house of Thomas Lindley where Raymond was residing.32 Though both cases were presented before the court at the same time, they were considered as separate cases, apt recognition of the two different types of black bondage in the state. Decker, in his return to Bob’s writ of habeas corpus, stated that he had rightly held Bob as an indentured servant under the terms of a fifteen-year contract signed in 1804 for a sum of four hundred dollars. He charged that Bob “did fraudently, secretly, and without consent. . . abscond and absent himself. . . and remain concealed. . . until the 29th of January. . . ,” leaving two years of his contract unfulfilled. As proof, Decker presented a copy of the

29 History of Orange County, Indiana (1884; reprint ed., Paoli, Ind., 1986), 412, 450, 855. In addition to his position as sheriff, Zachariah Lindley served as justice of the peace in Washington County in 1814. Ewbank and Riker, Laws of Zndianu Territory, 1809-1816, 861. 30 Writ of Habeas Corpus for Bob, a free man of colour, and Writ of Habeas Corpus for Anthony, a free man of colour, Albert G. Porter Papers (Indiana Divi- sion, Indiana State Library, Indianapolis). David Raymond was appointed president judge of the First Circuit on March 4, 1816, and served until October 12. In Janu- ary, 1817, he was appointed president judge of the Second Circuit but resigned the following October. Ewbank and Riker, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1809-1816, 855. 31 Charles Dewey, an Indiana lawyer and later Supreme Court judge, arrived in Paoli about 1816, later settled in Charlestown, Indiana, and applied to the bar No- vember 3, 1817. Rebecca A. Shepherd et al., A Biographical Directory of the : Vol. I, 1816-1899 (Indianapolis, 1980), 100. Henry Stephen and James B. E. Goodlet were members of the bar in Orange County. History of Orange County, 451. 32 The first circuit court session in Orange Counts was held in February, 1816, in the house of William Lindley. By July, however, a jog courthouse had been built. History of Orange County, 448. Perhaps it was too cold to hold court there in Janu- ary, 1817, anctcourt instead was held at the house of Thomas Lindley. 40 Indiana Magazine of History indenture agreement to the court.33 In his plea Bob admitted sign- ing the indenture agreement but stated that “far from being vol- untary. . . it was extorted from him under duress-and was the mere effect of fear, force, and complusion.” Stephen and Goodlet argued that Bob had been held as a slave by Decker prior to 1804 in vio- lation of Article VI and therefore had served the terms of his in- denture.34 Although Decker had pursued his slaves to Orange County with Bob’s indenture agreement in hand, he was not prepared to defend his ownership of Anthony. In answer to the writ of habeas corpus Decker stated that he had inherited Anthony under the terms of his father’s will, his father being an original inhabitant from Vir- ginia. In an amended return, presented the same day, Decker cor- rected himself by claiming that his father had owned Anthony’s mother, “Rach,” and that Anthony had been born in passage from Virginia prior to 1787. The following day, January 31, 1817, Dewey stated that Decker was not in possession of the facts and requested permission to present an amended return at the next court session in April, 1817.35Anthony, in his plea, stated that neither Decker nor his father had had the right to hold him in slavery because he had been born in 1792, five years after the ratification of the Ordi- nance of 1787, and had therefore been held in violation of Article VI.36 For some reason, perhaps because a legal precedent had not yet been established, Stephen and Goodlet chose to rely on the an- tislavery provisions of Article VI instead of citing the new Indiana Constitution on behalf of Bob and Anthony. Decker posted $100, and Jonathan Lindley loaned him $50 more to meet a $150 bond to insure his presence at the next court session to be held in April. Then Decker turned for aid to old friends sym- pathetic to his proslavery position. Perhaps unsure of Dewey, he hired Henry Hurst, member of the bar in both Vincennes and Pa- oli, who had witnessed Bob’s indenture agreement in 1804.37Hurst and Dewey succeeded in having the cases transferred out of Or- ange County to Pike County in the First Circuit in the proslavery part of the state where William Prince was president judge.38

33 Decker’s return to Bob’s writ and Bob’s Indenture Agreement, Porter Papers (Indiana Division, Indiana State Library). 34 Bob’s Plea, ibid. 35 Decker’s incomplete returns and Dewey’s request, ibid. 36 Anthony’s Plea, ibid. 37Henry Hurst was clerk of the General Court of Indiana Territory, 1800- 1816, a member of the Vincennes bar, and a member of the Orange County bar. History of Knox and Daviess Counties, 174; History of Orange County, 451, 453. 3* William Prince served as president judge of the First Circuit from February, 1817, to May, 1818. Dorothy Riker, ed., Executive Proceedings of the State of Zndi- ana, 1816-1836 (Indiana Historical Collections, Vol. XXIX, Indianapolis, 1947), 25, 70n; Monks, Esarey, and Shockley, Courts and Lawyers ofzndiana, 11, 627. Luke Decker and Slavery 41

Subpoenas summoned witnesses to attend the July, 1817, ses- sion of the Pike County Circuit Court at the house of Hosea Smith.39 Decker called on Abraham Snapp, George Leach, Robert Buntin, and Francis Vigo. Bob’s and Anthony’s witnesses were the Widow Pea (until 18201, Benjamin Beckes, Sr., and Peter Frederick. All were residents of Knox County. According to Pike County Sheriff Adam Hope, the subpoenas had been delivered as required, but witnesses for Bob and Anthony failed to appear for the scheduled July session of court. Fearing that the plaintiffs could not go safely to trial without them, Goodlet applied for a postponement. Then he acted to have the cases removed from Pike County before the next court session in October.*O Bob, through his attorneys, petitioned the First Circuit asso- ciate judges, Henry Brenton and Arthur Harbison, for a change of venue. In the petition he complained that “from the prejudices of the President Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, also from the prejudice of the people of Pike aforesaid, and from the undue influ- ence of Luke Decker over the minds of the people . . .” he could not have “a fair and impartial trial in any county in the First Judicial Circuit.” He requested a change of venue to any court in the Third Circuit.41 Brenton and Harbison must have been sympathetic to the cause for they granted the petition’s request. Printed sub- poenas called witnesses to appear in March, 1818, at the Jefferson County Circuit Court in Madison in the southeastern corner of the state.42

39 Two subpoenas, Pike County Circuit Court Records, Pike County Courthouse, Petersburg, Indiana. The house of Knox County merchant Hosea Smith was located in the town of Alexandria on the well-traveled Buffalo Trace between Vincennes and Kentucky. When Pike County was organized from Knox, Perry, and Gibson counties in December, 1816, the county commissioners designated the house as tem- porary courthouse, post office, and town hall. History of Pike and Duhois Counties, 274. ‘“The same witnesses were called the entire time the cases were before the court. Those having connections with the courts or government officials included: Benjamin Beckes, Court of Common Pleas, 1800-1803, and sheriff of Knox County, 1813-1819, Ewbank and Riker, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1809-1816, 850-51; Robert Buntin, clerk of Knox County Court, 17961818, History of Knox and Dav- iess Counties, 167; Francis Vigo, friend of Harrison, early trader, land owner, and militia officer, Barnhart and Riker, Indiana to 1816, 204, 274, 321,343. Application for postponement, Pike County Circuit Court Records. 41 Bob’s Petition, Pike County Circuit Court Records. See also History ofPike and Dubois Counties, 301. The courts were reorganized in 1816 under the new Con- stitution. At first there were three circuits, each composed of a president judge and two associate judges. The president judge could hold court alone or the two associate judges could hold court in the absence of the president judge. In December, 1816, the First Circuit was composed of Knox, Pike, Gibson, Warrick, Posey, Perry, Dav- iess, and Sullivan counties, all in the proslavery part of the state. The Second Cir- cuit, composed of those counties in the middle of the state, included Orange, Jackson, Clark, Washington, and Harrison counties. The Third Circuit included those coun- ties on the Ohio border considered strongly antislavery and was composed of Dear- born, Franklin, Wayne, Switzerland, Jefferson, and Jennings counties. Monks, Esarey, and Shockley, Courts and Lawyers, 71. 42 Two subpoenas, Pike County Circuit Court Records. 42 Indiana Magazine of History

Dewey wrote to David Raymond in March, 1818, to protest the move and discuss the cases. “It is contended by us for Decker,” he stated, “that, in as much as the cases were taken from Orange to Pike, because among other reasons, our witnesses reside near the latter County, it is illegal to change the venue to a more distant court, and thereby destroy the privilege which the law has given us of having a trial near our witnes~es.”~~The Madison court con- curred. Two weeks after Dewey had written to Raymond, Hurst was granted the right to remove all of their documents and trans- fer them back to the clerk of the Pike County court, where the cases remained.44 Subpoenas were issued to the original witnesses in September, 1818, to attend the October session of the Pike County Circuit Court in Petersburg. Blank subpoenas requesting witnesses to come forth on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant were dispatched by the justices of the peace in Knox County and Illinois Territory a week later, but there is no way of knowing if any came forth. The president judge of the First Circuit, David Hart, ruled a continua- tion because Bob and Anthony were not physically present.45The cases seemed destined never to go to trial. In July of the previous year, 1817, Decker had been granted permission to remove his erroneous returns for Anthony, first pre- sented to the Orange County Circuit Court in January, 1817, from the files in Petersburg and to replace them with an amended one. The amended return may have been prepared at that time but was probably not presented to the court before the 1818 session because of the changes in venue. Decker’s amended return for Anthony, as well as Dewey’s letter to Raymond in March, 1818, give some idea of how the defense argued their cases.46 Dewey and Decker had claimed in the second return for An- thony presented before Judge Raymond in January, 1817, that Luke Decker’s father had owned Anthony’s mother, “Rach,” and that An- thony had been born in passage from Virginia prior to 1787. In Decker’s amended return for Anthony, Hurst, armed with a copy of John Decker’s will, elaborated on this defense. Quoting the clause from the Virginia Act of Session, Hurst stated that John Decker

43 Charles Dewey to David Raymond, March 13, 1818, Porter Papers (Indiana Historical Society Library). 44 Court document, Pike County Circuit Court Records. 45 Four subpoenas, Pike County Circuit Court Records. A fourth circuit had been added to the Indiana court system in January, 1818, and Pike County had been transferred to this Fourth Circuit. David Hart, an attorney from Gibson County, was elected president judge of the new circuit on January 27, 1818, the same date William Prince was reelected to the First Circuit. Monks, Esarey, and Shockley, Courts and Lawyers, I, 63. 46 Decker’s amended return for Anthony, Pike County Circuit Court Records. For a much edited version see History ofPike and Dubois Counties, 301-302. Luke Decker and Slavery 43 had been a citizen of Virginia, which had sanctioned slavery long before 1787, and that he had migrated with his family and slaves to St. Vincents (Vincennes),also before 1787, where he died shortly thereafter. From John Decker’s will he quoted, “I likewise give and bequeath unto my wife Dinah a negro wench named Rach during her natural life, and at her death to revert to my son Luke.” Hurst then added that “Rach” was the mother of Anthony and that after Dinah‘s death “Rach” and Anthony had reverted to Luke Decker, who continued lawfully to hold Anthony as his slave until Antho- ny’s escape in July, 1816.47 It is not clear if Dewey’s comments to Raymond concerning Anthony were actually used in court, but they are valuable none- theless because they reflect some of the arguments used in justi- fying slavery. Expressing his own and the popular proslavery interpretation, Dewey stated, “The act of session from Virginia to the U.S. of Northwestern Territory issues all the rights of the in- habitants at the time of session-to hold slaves was one right-and to hold the issue of slaves in the same bondage with their parents was another right.”48 With respect to the ordinance and Anthony’s mother, Dewey explained, “I think that it is pretty clear that the ordinance could not retroact so as to emancipate a slave then in being-because no legislature can divest an invested right.” More importantly, Dewey noted the contradictions in legislation, which were enthusiastically exploited by proslavery forces, that implied acceptance of slavery. “That the existence of slavery after the pas- sage of the Ordinance was contemplated by Congress is certain, because that instrument repeatedly distinguishes between free and bond-and so do the ordinances of 1800 and 1809-and the same dis- tinction is perceived through the whole course .of our territorial legi~lation.”~~

47Zbid.;Last Will and Testament of John Decker, Porter Papers (Indiana His- torical Society Library). 4R Dewey to Raymond, March 13, 1818, Porter Papers (Indiana Historical Soci- ety Library); Decker’s amended return for Anthony, Pike County Circuit Court Rec- ords. The clause from the Virginia Act of Session modified in the Ordinance of 1787 never specified the rights granted to the original settlers. Kettleborough, Constitu- tion Making, I, 27, 49 Dewey to Raymond, March 13, 1818, Porter Papers (Indiana Historical Soci- ety Library), Decker’s amended return for Anthony, Pike County Circuit Court Rec- ords. Kettleborough notes: “On the subject of slavery, the Ordinance is self- contradictory. By Article VI, slavery and involuntary servitude are expressly pro- hibited. But the institution is inferentially recognized by the provisions restricting suffrage to, and basing apportionment of representatives upon, the number of ‘free male inhabitants,’ authorizing the admission of States when the population aggre- gated ‘sixty thousand free inhabitants.’ ” Kettleborough, Constitution Making, I, 27x1. Dewey cites Section 4 of the Ordinance of 1800 (Creation of Indiana Territory) re- peated in the Ordinance of 1809 (Creation of Illinois Territory), which also makes the same distinctions. Zbid.,42, 55. Dewey also cites the following examples of ter- ritorial legislation related to servants and free blacks: Laws of the Indiana Terri- tory. . . (Vincennes, 1807), 89-91, 345-46, 373; Ewbank and Riker, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1809-1816, 310, 485; Acts of Assembly of the Zndiana Territory, passed at the Second Session of the Fifth General Assembly of Said Territory. . . (Lexington, 1816), 29. 44 Indiana Magazine of History

In Bob‘s case Dewey stated: “Decker claims Bob by the en- closed indenture-and contends that he is bound to perform specifi- cally-Perhaps the claim may be favored by the analogy drawn from the authority which the common law gives the master over the servant. . . But the doctrine is more strongly implied by a Statute in revised Code 341-344 which certainly implies that both master and servant shall perform spe~ifically.”~~ Stephen and Goodlet had, at some point after presenting their cases before Judge Raymond, cited the antislavery provisions of the new Indiana Constitution, at least in their defense of Bob, for Dewey argued: “We deny that the Constitution forbidding invol- untary servitude has any thing to do with this case; because, that service cannot be said to be involuntary, which the party has freely contracted to.. . Nobody denies that an apprentice may be in- debted to serve until his majority, and yet this is certainly as much within the prohibition of the constitution as the case in question.” Adding his opinion, he stated, “It is most evidently for the benefit of this class of people, as well as for the whole community that they should be enabled to make contracts for labor; it is all that can save them from pauperism-but who will contract with them unless a specific performance can be ~ompleted?”~~ It is difficult to know exactly what happened after October, 1818, for the record is sparse for the remaining years that the cases were before the court. Only a court order to have Anthony present in person at the October, 1819, session of court and subpoenas for the original witnesses to be present in March, 1819, May, 1821, and February, 1822, survive to show that at least one of the cases was still active.52 The United States census in 1820 showed 190 slaves still in the state, 118 of whom were in Knox County, the remainder scat- tered mainly in counties bordering Kentucky.53In that same year the , acting on an appeal from the Knox County Circuit Court, overturned one of the earlier Vincennes freedom suits. In the landmark case, State v. LasseZZe, the court, finally citing the Indiana Constitution, declared slavery and invol- untary servitude illegal once and for all.54In 1821, in a similar suit

50 Dewey to Raymond, March 13, 1818, Porter Papers (Indiana Historical Soci- ety Library). Dewey refers to the revised 1805 code, “An Act Concerning Servants,” 1807, Laws of the Indiana Territory (Vincennes, 1807), 340-47; see also Philbrick, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1801-1809, 463-67. 51 Dewey to Raymond, March 13, 1818, Porter Papers (Indiana Historical Soci- ety Library). 52 Court order and subpoenas, Pike County Circuit Court Records. 53 U.S., Fourth Census, 1820, p. 190. See also Barnhart and Riker, Indiana to 1816, 458-59. 54 State v. Lasselle, 1 Blackford 60 (1820). In the earlier suit a group of anti- slavery attorneys arranged for Polly to sue her master, Hyacinth Lasselle, member of an old French family, for her freedom. The Knox County Circuit Court decided in favor of Lasselle. The case was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court; the de- cision was reversed; and Polly was allowed to go free. Barnhart and Riker, Indiana to 1816, 459. Luke Decker and Slavery 45

designated The Case of Mary Clark, a Woman of Color, indentured servitude, the pernicious form of legal slavery, was also abol- i~hed.~~ Decker’s cases were finally decided sometime in 1822. An ex- cerpt from the summary in History of Pike and Dubois Counties, Indiana states, “Thus, after nearly five years of contest, the case was decided before J. R. E. Goodlet, Henry Brenton, and T. J. Withers, that Bob and Anthony should not be held, and that Luke Decker should pay the costs of the suit.”56 Unfortunately, further details are missing, but any decision would have been a legal for- mality. Bob, under an indenture agreement that expired in Sep- tember, 1819, was no longer bound to serve, and his name does not appear on documents after that date. Anthony would have been legally free after the State Supreme Court ruling in 1820. Both men had apparently been in the custody of the sheriff of Orange County, Zachariah Lindley, since April, 1817, and presumably free from that time.57 Decker’s cases against Bob and Anthony did not result in land- mark decisions to abolish slavery and indentured servitude in In- diana, nor did they bring recognition to those in Orange County who were courageous enough to confront a man of Decker’s repu- tation. They did not even stop Decker from trading in slaves. None- theless, the cases do demonstrate the political and regional dimensions of the slavery problem in the early years of the state, the determination of slave owners to keep their slaves, and the equal determination of those against slavery to free the victims of the practice. Attorneys for both parties employed arguments that had been used for decades in debating the legality of slavery. Little is known about the background of Bob and Anthony; yet Stephen and Good- let could claim that Bob had been a slave before signing his inden- ture agreement, which was likely, and that Anthony had been born after 1787. They could thus cite Article VI of the Ordinance of 1787 on behalf of both men. Since the Indiana Constitution of 1816 re- affirmed the Northwest Ordinance’s antislavery provisions, it is surprising that Stephen and Goodlet did not initially cite both documents on behalf of the plaintiffs. To circumvent the restric- tions against slavery Harrison and the proslavery element in the territory had legalized indenture agreements contracted with slaves.

55 The Case of Mary Clark, a Woman of Color, 1 Blackford 122 (1821). s6 History of Pike and Dubois Counties, 392. 57 The whereabouts of Bob and Anthony are a mystery until October, 1818. At the October 7 court session, after Judge Hart had granted a postponement because Bob and Anthony were not physically present, it was agreed by attorneys for both parties that Bob and Anthony had been returned to the custody of the Orange County court in April, 1817, because of the change in venue. Document, Pike County Cir- cuit Court Records. 46 Indiana Magazine of History

Even though the indenture laws had been repealed in 1810, Deck- er’s attorneys argued that their client could claim Bob because the act repealing the laws was not retroactive. For this reason they could also claim that he was bound to serve as specified in the 1807 act concerning servants. Even the new Constitution implied that indentures made before 1816 were valid. Congress had never specified the special privileges granted to the original inhabitants of Indiana Territory by the clause from the Virginia Act of Session, but as Dewey noted, the proslavery element interpreted the statement to mean that property in slaves was their vested right. That property was then bequeathed to the next generation as a way of circumventing Article VI. Luke Deck- er’s claim to Anthony conformed to this interpretation. Decker’s father was cited as the original inhabitant rather than Luke him- self so that the son’s inheritance of Rach (and Anthony) could be proven with his father’s will. Luke Decker, of course, was also an original inhabitant and a former resident of Virginia and along with his father had purchased Rach “and her children and their future issue” before coming to Vin~ennes.~~There is no way of knowing if Anthony was related to Rach. Dewey also employed other arguments that were frequently used to justify slavery: that the Northwest Ordinance was not retroactive and that it and sub- sequent territorial legislation implied acceptance of slavery. Decker’s cases were not the first in which the legality of slav- ery was challenged after the Constitution went into effect. Ray- mond, as president judge of the First Circuit, had presided over a case in Knox County in October, 1816. The case was settled out of court in favor of the master.59Stephen and Goodlet challenged the legality of slavery, however, a good ten months before the freedom suits in Vincennes were begun. Unlike those suits, some of which were forced in order to test the Constitution, Decker’s cases against Bob and Anthony do not appear to have been initiated in order to establish a legal precedent. Rather, Stephen and Goodlet sought the freedom of the men involved. Regional differences in attitudes toward slavery were ex- ploited by attorneys for both parties. Decker almost certainly had

5R Bill of sale, Hampshire County, Virginia, Deed Book V, p. 157, Hampshire County Clerk’s Office. 59 In October, 1816, after Raymond had been appointed president judge of the First Circuit, he ruled in a case in Vincennes, Ma-sou-pe-con-gah (The Owl) v. Thomas Jones. The “Owl” claimed a crosscut saw and a black girl. Raymond appar- ently ruled in favor of the “Owl” without freeing the girl. The case was later settled out of court. For a discussion of this case see Thornbrough, Negro in Indiana, 16. One county history that included a summary of the case said of Raymond, “We think. . . he was from one of the Southern States, with slavery predilections.” His- tory of Knox and Daviess Counties, 185-86. Confirmation of the judge’s southern origins can be found in Myrtle Maris Mavity, “Early Wills of Orange County, Indi- ana,” in Orange County Heritage, comp. and ed. Arthur J. Dillard (Paoli, Ind., 1971), 224. Luke Decker and Slavery 47 no intention of having his cases come before the court in April in the home of an antislavery Quaker, even if he did post bond to the contrary. In maneuvering the cases into the proslavery part of the state, the defense had no doubt counted on a change of venue to Knox County, where the cases would have been heard in Vin- cennes, but had to accept Pike County as a compromise. Decker still had a decided advantage, as Bob’s petition illustrated, for the first trial had to be postponed when, for unknown reasons, wit- nesses for Bob and Anthony failed to appear in court. Realizing that a fair trial was impossible under those circumstances, Stephen and Goodlet requested a change of venue to a circuit where citizens were more sympathetic to their cause. Perhaps by seeking a court in the eastern part of the state, in Jefferson County, far from wit- nesses, they invited reversal of their strategy on legal technicali- ties. The cases were returned to Pike County. Although the attitude of David Hart toward slavery is not known, Decker probably had lost an important advantage when Pike County was transferred out of the First Circuit into the new Fourth Circuit. Hart ordered yet another postponement because Bob and Anthony were not pres- ent. The Lindleys, Stephen, and Goodlet had won a quiet victory in April, 1817, when Decker had to surrender custody of Bob and An- thony and they were returned to Orange County, if, in fact, they had ever left. Although documents that could provide definite proof for events occurring after October, 1818, are apparently not extant, it is probable that the cases were delayed by technicalities until decided by formality in 1822. By October, 1818, Decker had noth- ing to gain in continuing the cases anyway. Harry and two other slaves were gone in Mississippi, and Bob and Anthony were out of reach in Orange County. William Prince, one judge that might have been sympathetic to his cause, was now in another circuit. Nearly sixty years of age, and apparently undaunted, Decker continued to participate in the business of buying slaves. In De- cember, 1818, Simon Vannorsdell, Vincennes resident and slave trader, tried to purchase two black women and two black children as slaves from Jonathan Purcell.60 The sale, through agent David

fie Simon Vannorsdell was involved in at least three slavery-related cases, in- cluding one in 1804 in which he attempted to take two indentured servants out of the territory to be sold. Governor Harrison issued a proclamation to prevent it. Logan Esarey, ed., Messages and Letters of William Henry Harrison: Vol. I, 1800- 1811 (Indiana Historical Collections, Vol. VII; Indianapolis, 1922), 94-95; U.S. v. Simon Vanorsdall, Knox County Minute Book A, Knox County Probate Records, microfilm (Indiana Historical Society Library); Dunn, Indiana, 312-14. Jonathan Purcell, a former resident of Virgixa, was judge in Knox County for one year (1800- 1801) and judge of the Court of General Quarter Sessions (1800-1806). Purcell witnessed Bob’s indenture agreement in 1804. Ewbank and Riker, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1809-1816, 850. 48 Indiana Magazine of History

Coons, was by promissory note cosigned by Decker for four hun- dred dollars due in July, 1819. While Purcell was waiting in the stillhouse in Vincennes, promissory note in hand, the slaves were taken from Coons by force and set free. Purcell sued Vannorsdell and Decker in 1821, probably as the result of a personal feud, for recovery of the money. Because Vannorsdell had since established residence in Illinois, the suit fell on Decker, the cosigner of the note.61 Decker was defended by Samuel Judah; Purcell, by John Law.62The court granted Decker a continuation until 1823 to allow him time to gather testimony from Coons in Illinois and from An- drew Purcell, brother of the plaintiff. When testimony was not forthcoming, Purcell won a judgment against Decker, who refused to pay. Decker countersued in 1824 when Purcell’s attorney or- dered a writ of execution against Decker’s property. Ironically, Decker and Judah cited the antislavery provisions of the new Con- stitution to support their case: that at the time of sale slavery was illegal; therefore, the promissory note was invalid. Purcell changed his story, claiming that Decker had not signed the note as security but was the principal obligor. Furthermore, he said, Coons had not sold “slaves” but the “services” of three girls who were the daugh- ters of an indentured servant belonging to Purcell’s father.G3 Decker died in March, 1825, while the case was still in progress. To settle the estate, Decker’s son John filed a bill of revival. The case was dismissed in August, 1826, Purcell paying the costs of the suit. Decker bequeathed his 362-acre farm near the Duchis River in Indiana to son Asa, two hundred dollars to son John, and two farms totaling 555 acres in Illinois (St. Clair County) to his second wife Fanny to enable her to “support and raise my family of young chil- dren, that is, those I have had by her.” He left no slaves.64

61 John Decker and John Claypool, Executors for Luke Decker v. John Purcell, Porter Papers (Indiana Historical Society Library). This case, a story unto itself, is summarized here from the summary prepared for the retrial in 1826. Both Samuel Judah and John Law were noted Vincennes lawyers who prac- ticed in the area for many years. History of Knox and Daviess Counties, 197, 213. 63 Law and Purcell probably concocted their defense from an 1805 law that stated, “the children born in this territory of a parent of colour, owing service or labour by indenture according to law, shall serve the master or mistress of such parent, the males, until the age of thirty, and the females, until the age of twenty eight.” Phil- brick, Laws of Indiana Territory, 1801-1809, 139. 64 Luke Decker’s will, Knox County Will Book A, pp. 172-74, Byron L. Lewis Historical Library, Vincennes University, Vincennes, Indiana. Decker had married Sarah Harness in 1782 in Hampshire County, Virginia. They had five sons: Isaac, John, Hiram, Daniel, and Asa. After the death of his first wife, Decker married his second cousin, Trenney (Fanny) Claypool, in 1807. Their children have not been identified. She died in 1849 in St. Clair County, Illinois, where Decker had main- tained a brick home and farm in his later years. Luke Decker and Slavery 49

Author’s End Note The story of Luke Decker and Bob and Anthony began several years ago with the discovery of a collection of old Indiana docu- ments and letters in a relative’s attic in Washington, D. C. Among the papers, which had belonged to former Indiana lawyer and gov- ernor, Albert G. Porter (1824-18971, the author found John Deck- er’s will, Charles Dewey’s letter to David Raymond, and the court summary of the 1826 cases, Decker v. Purcell. Though a synopsis of Decker’s cases with Bob and Anthony appeared in the History of Pike and Dubois Counties, Indiana (Chicago, 1885), the author was not encouraged to pursue the proceedings until Eric Pumroy, then in charge of manuscripts at the Indiana Historical Society Library, Indianapolis, discovered Bob’s and Anthony’s pleas and Luke Deck- er’s returns to those pleas in some Orange County court documents among Porter’s papers at the Indiana State Library, Indianapolis. Responding to two desperate letters from a stranger, Mrs. Frank Mallott, Pike County historian in Petersburg, Indiana, persevered until she had uncovered twenty-nine original circuit court docu- ments related to the case. The chronology of the case then began slowly to unfold. When the published genealogical record of the Decker family proved inconsistent with the documents in the au- thor’s possession, and a major roadblock, Herbert Smith of Law- renceburg, Indiana, a descendant of the Kuykendall family, came to the rescue. The author is especially indebted to Pumroy for as- sistance with research and also to Mallott and Smith. Without their patience, especially during the two years the author lived in Flor- ence, Italy, when everything had to be done via the international mails, this paper could not have been ~ompleted.~~

65 The attic in Washington, D. C., belonged to the author’s aunt, and the papers found therein now constitute the Albert G. Porter Collection in the Indiana Histor- ical Society Library.