Jessica Territo

The Amistad Case

Basic human rights are believed to belong justifiably to every person yet
tradition, circumstance and ignorance have abused those over history. The Amistad
trials near the end of the nineteenth century were a perfect example of those
inalienable rights being taken away.
The story of the Amistad began in 1839 with a Portuguese ship, the Tecora,
transporting hundreds of kidnapped natives of Sierra Leone for the Spanish slave trade.
Hunger, inhumane conditions and death lessened the number of captured people to thirty-
six when the ship arrived at its destination of Havana, Cuba where they were illegally
classified as Cuban-born slaves and sold to Don Jose Ruiz and Don Pedro Montez. Enter
La Amistad, the cargo schooner where the eventual revolt of the Africans led by Sengbe
Pieh, or Cinque occurred. After the overthrow of Ruiz and Montezs power, the Africans
ordered the Cubans to sail east, back home to Africa. Little did they know, the two men
changed course and ended up in Montauk Point, Long Island, New York where the
Federal survey brig, Washington, seized the Amistad.
Language barriers and lack of understanding on the U.Ss part led the Africans to
being wrongly accused of piracy and murder. Immediately following the capture of the
ship and its cargo, the legal struggle of the Africans for freedom and to regain their
total innocence was waged in the lengthy battle, which ultimately involved the former
President of the United States, John Quincy Adams.
The arguments made during this long trial are revealed through these three
documents. Roger Sherman Baldwin, Henry Gilpin and John Quincy Adams were the
attorneys on this case. The United States was at a tipping point with the Civil War
between the North and South looming overhead and a power struggle constantly waging
between members of the government. With their knowledge in domestic and international
law, these three men of high stature were about to embark on a testimony of race,
morality and justice.
Roger Sherman Baldwin was the principle lawyer representing the Africans, or
the Mende, in the case of the Amistad. In the article The United States, Appellants, v.
the Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad The Supreme Court shows Mr.
Baldwins arguments which are clearly stated in support of the Mendes absolute
freedom. The Connecticut born lawyer was determined to put an emphasis on natural
rights while arguing that under the laws governing slavery in Spanish territories and the
United States, the Mende could not be considered slaves. The motivation of Baldwin to
win the case wasnt only for the Africans freedom; it was a chance to show the world the
influence of the United States. It presents, for the first time, the question whether the
government, which was established for the promotion of Justice, which was founded on
the great principles of the Revolution, as proclaimed in the Declaration of
Independencecan become a party to proceedings for the enslavement of human beings
cast upon our shores, and found in the condition of freemen within the territorial limits of
a Free and Sovereign State? The Arguments for the Africans freedom were ones based
on hard truths of legal precedent. By the law of the state of New York, a foreign slave
escaping into that state becomes freeThe United States as a nation have prohibited the
slave trade as inhuman and piratical, and they have no law authorizing the enslaving of its
victims. Facts were prevalent in Baldwins argument which called to the logic and
understanding of the Supreme Court when they would eventually reach a verdict. All in
all, Baldwins winning argument was the simple fact that Spain was making moved to
abolish the slave trade in accordance with Great Britain. By the treatyof the 28th of
June, 1835, which is declared to be made for the purpose of "rendering the means taken
for abolishing the inhuman traffic in slaves more effective," and to be in the spirit of the
treaty contracted between both powers on the 23d of September, 1817, "the slave-trade is
again declared on the part of Spain to be henceforward totally and finally abolished, in all
parts of the world. With his fervent knowledge on laws domestic and international,
Baldwin gave an impassioned appeal for these wronged human beings.
On the other side of the courtroom, Henry Gilpin, the Attorney General of the
United States, stood in defense of Spain, who technically owned the vessel, cargo and
slaves. The Supreme Court describes Gilpins argument as one for the return of
property or goods without separation between humans and cargo or the ship itself.
Gilpins job was to keep the United States and Spain is good company with each other
even if it was at the cost of his own moral compass. The principle is universally
admitted, that, wherever an authority is delegated to any public officer, to be exercised at
his discretion, under his own judgment and upon his own responsibility, the acts done in
the appropriate exercise of that authority, are binding as to the subject matter. Without
such a rule there could be no peace or comity among nations; all harmony, all mutual
respect would be destroyed; the Courts and tribunals of one country would become the
judges of the local laws and property of others. Taking a very legal and reserved stance
on the case which was understandable considering his title, his last remarks were
amicable towards the Spanish, the United States, in this instance, has pursued the course
required by the laws of nations; and if the Court are satisfied, on the first point, that there
is due proof concerning the property, then it ought to be delivered entire, so that it may be
restored to the Spanish owners. Although, Henry Gilpin was the defense lawyer for
Spain, he still had the opportunity to question the morals of the slave traders, which
wouldve tiptoed into the collective consciousness of the United States. The Mende were
human beings forced out of their country, abandoning their families and treated worse
than livestock. Yes, they killed other human beings, a great offense, but could it be
considered a defense, if the roles were reversed? Gilpin was aware of all this but had a
duty to withhold.
The former President of the United States and member of the House of
Representatives, John Quincy Adams, gave the closing argument in support of the Mende
captives. A longtime opponent of slavery and staunch believer in constitutional law,
Adams was the ideal man for the Mende. Facts, unlike Baldwin and Gilpin, were not as
important to Adams as were his use of metaphor and emotional response. During his
lengthy speech before the Supreme Court, he brought up arguments based on the
principles of the Declaration of Independence and called on the Court to recognize the
natural rights of the captive Africans. I know of no law, but one which I am not at
liberty to argue before this Courtexcept that law, (pointing to the copy of
the Declaration of Independence), two copies of which are ever before the eyes of your
Honors. I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature
and of Nature's God on which our fathers placed our own national existence. The
circumstances are so peculiar, that no code or treaty has provided for such a case. That
law, in its application to my clients, I trust will be the law on which the case will be
decided by this Court. Baldwin and Adams were on the same page as to their motivation
to set these men free. Still, Adams was speaking in a broader spectrum, commenting on
slavery in general rather than the case at hand.
Baldwin, Gilpin and Adams all spoke as truthfully as possible in these
circumstances, which had seen no precedent before them. Ultimately the decision was up
to the Supreme Court for the final verdict. After careful deliberation, the Mende were
presented their rightful freedom that was largely influenced by Baldwins narrower
arguments rather than Adams soliloquy. Despite the win for the Mende, the trial seemed
gratuitous because freedom shouldve never been taken away from the Africans in the
first place. Yet, these documents give clear insight to how the people of the time period
viewed ethics and remind todays world the importance of basic human rights. The
Amistad trial had created opportunities for the abolitionist movement to be heard on a
larger platform and possibly provided a path to the eventual civil rights movement.










Bibliography

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 40 U.S. 518; 10 L. Ed. 826. (1841)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/baldwin.htm

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 40 U.S. 518; 10 L. Ed. 826. (1841),
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/gilpin.html

ARGUMENT OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. AVALON PROJECT. YALE LAW
SCHOOL. (1841),
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/amistad_002.asp