Amistad (case)

This article is about the Supreme Court case. For other meanings see Amistad.

The Amistad, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 215 (1841), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting from the rebellion of slaves on board the Spanish schooner Amistad in 1839.

The rebellion broke out when the schooner was traveling along the coast of Cuba and the ship was taken over by a group of captives who had earlier been kidnapped in Africa and sold into slavery. The Africans were later apprehended on the vessel near Long Island, New York by the United States Navy and taken into custody. The ensuing widely publicized court cases in the United States helped the abolitionism movement along. In 1840, a federal trial court found that the initial transport of the Africans across the Atlantic (which did not involve the Amistad) had been illegal and that they were not legally slaves but free. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding on March 9, 1841, and the Africans travelled home in 1842.

Rebellion at sea, and capture

On June 27, 1839, La Amistad, a Spanish vessel, left from the port of Havana destined for Puerto Principe, both of Cuba (which, at the time, was a Spanish colony). Masters of La Amistad were the captain Ramón Ferrer, José Ruiz, and Pedro Montez, all of Spanish origin. With Ferrer was his personal slave Antonio. Ruiz had with him 49 African slaves, entrusted to him by the Governor-General of Cuba. Montez had with him 4 additional African slaves, also entrusted to him by the Governor-General of Cuba. 40 U.S. 518 at 587-8

On July 2, 1839, one of the Africans, Cinqué (who was also called Sengbe Pieh), managed to free himself and the other captives. They killed the ship's cook, Celestino, (who had earlier scared the slaves by describing how they would be killed and eaten upon arrival) and the captain in a struggle that also killed two Africans. Two sailors escaped. The slaves spared the lives of the two purported slave owners, José Ruiz and Pedro Montez, upon the understanding that they would return the ship to Africa. They also spared the captain's personal slave.

However, the navigator deceived the Africans and steered the Amistad north along the coast of the United States where the ship was sighted repeatedly. They dropped anchor half a mile off Long Island, New York on August 26, 1839 at Culloden Point. Some of the Africans went on shore to procure water and provisions from the hamlet of Montauk, New York, and the vessel was subsequently discovered by the United States naval brig U.S.S. Washington. Lieutenant Gedney, commanding the Washington, observed some of the slaves on shore and, assisted by his officers and crew, took custody of the Amistad and the rebel slaves. He subsequently took them to the state of Connecticut and presented a written claim under admiralty law (that is, a libel) for salvage of the vessel, the cargo, and the Africans. Gedney allegedly chose to land in Connecticut because, unlike in New York, slavery was still technically legal there (though extremely rare), and hoped to profit from the slaves.

Gedney then relinquished all captured slaves into the custody of the U.S. District Court for the Connecticut District, at which time proceedings began. Id.

Parties

There are several parties involved in The Amistad cases.

Lieutenant Gedney filed a libel (19th century legal term for a lawsuit) for the slaves and cargo on board La Amistad as property seized on the high seas. Id.
Henry Green and Pelatiah Fordham filed a libel for salvage, claiming that they discovered La Amistad first. Id.
Ruiz and Montez filed libels requesting that their slaves and cargo be returned to them. Id.
The Office of the United States Attorney for the Connecticut District, representing the Spanish Government, libelled that the slaves, cargo, and vessel be returned as the property of Spain. Id. at 588-589
Antonio Vega, vice-consul of Spain, libelled for the slave Antonio, on the grounds that this slave was his property. Id. at 589
The slaves, denying that they were slaves, property, or that the court could return them to the government of Spain. Id.
José Antonio Tellincas, with Aspe and Laca, who claimed goods on board La Amistad. Id. at 589-590

Lower Court Proceedings

A case before the Circuit Court in Hartford, Connecticut, was filed in September 1839, alleging mutiny and murder. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, because the alleged acts took place on a Spanish ship in Spanish waters.

Various parties then filed property claims to the slaves, to the ship and to its cargo before the lower District Court: Ruiz and Montez, Lieutenant Gedney and Captain Henry Green (who had met the Africans while on shore on Long Island and claimed to have helped in their capture). The Spanish government asked that the ship, cargo and slaves be restored to Spain under the Pinckney treaty of 1795 between Spain and the United States. Article 9 of this treaty holds that "all ships and merchandises of what nature soever, which shall be rescued out of the hands of pirates or robbers on the high seas, …shall be restored, entire, to the true proprietor." The United States filed this claim on behalf of Spain.

The abolitionist movement had formed the "Amistad Committee", headed by New York City merchant Lewis Tappan, and had collected money to mount a defense of the Africans. Initially, communication with the Africans was difficult, since they did not speak English or Spanish. Professor Willard Gibbs learned to count to ten in their native Mende language, went to the harbor of New York City, and counted out loud until he located a person able to understand and translate. That person was James Covey, a twenty year old sailor, of the ship Buzzard, a British man-of-war. Covey was himself a former slave from West Africa.

The abolitionists filed charges of assault, kidnapping, and false imprisonment against Ruiz and Montez. Their arrest in New York City in October 1839 outraged conservatives and the Spanish government. They were eventually released on bail and left for Cuba.

On January 7, 1840, all the parties (except for Ruiz and Montez, who were represented by the Spanish minister) appeared before the U.S. District Court for the Connecticut District and presented their arguments. Id. at 590

The abolitionists' main argument before the District Court was that a treaty between Britain and Spain of 1817 and a subsequent pronouncement by the Spanish government had outlawed the slave trade across the Atlantic. It was established that the slaves had been captured in Mendiland (also Mendeland, current Sierra Leone) in Africa, sold to a Portuguese trader in Lomboko (south of Freetown) in April 1839, and taken to Havana illegally on a Portuguese ship. The Africans were therefore not slaves, but victims of illegal kidnapping and free to go. Their papers wrongly identified them as slaves that had been in Cuba since before 1820, a common practice in Cuba condoned by government officials.

U.S. President Martin Van Buren, who did not have strong opinions on the slavery question but was concerned about relations with Spain and about his re-election prospects in the southern states, sided with the Spanish position; he ordered a U.S. schooner to New Haven Harbor to return the Africans to Cuba immediately after a favorable decision, before any appeals could be decided.

The District Court however agreed with the abolitionists, ordering in January 1840 that the Amistad and its cargo be given to Lieutenant Gedney and the Africans be returned to their homeland by the U.S. government. (The federal government had outlawed the slave trade between the U.S. and other countries in 1808, and a law from 1818, amended in 1819, provided for the return of all illegally traded slaves.) The captain's slave was declared the rightful property of the captain's heirs and was ordered restored to Cuba (he escaped to Canada). In detail, the District Court ruled as follows:

It rejected the claim of the U.S. Attorney, argued on behalf of the Spanish minister, for the restoration of the slaves. Id.
It dismissed the claims of Ruiz and Montez. Id.
It ordered that the slaves be delivered to the custody of the President of the United States for transportation to Africa, since the slaves were, in fact, free. Id.
It allowed the Spanish vice-consul to claim the slave Antonio. Id.
It allowed Lt. Gedney to claim one-third of the property on board La Amistad. Id.
It allowed Tellincas, Aspe, and Laca to claim one-third of the property. Id.
It dismissed the claims of Green and Fordham for salvage. Id.

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, on order of Van Buren, immediately appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court for the Connecticut District (today known as the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit). He challenged every part of the District Court's ruling except the concession of the slave Antonio to the Spanish vice-consul. Tellincas, Aspe, and Laca also appealed the denial of their salvage. Ruiz and Montez, as well as the owners of La Amistad, did not appeal. Id.

This court affirmed (upheld) the District Court's decision in April 1840 Id. . From there, the U.S. Attorney appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the Court granted certiorari. Id.

Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court

On February 22, Attorney General Henry D. Gilpin began the oral argument phase before the Supreme Court. Gilpin first entered into evidence the papers of La Amistad which stated that the Africans were Spanish property. The documents being in order, Gilpin argued that the Court had no authority to rule against their validity. Gilpin contended that if the Africans were slaves (as evidenced by the documents), then they must be returned to their rightful owner - in this case, the Spanish government. Gilpin's argument lasted two hours. "The Amistad Case and its Consequences in U.S. History" by Clifton Johnson

John Quincy Adams, former President of the United States and currently a Congressman from Massachusetts in the House of Representatives, had agreed to argue for the Africans, but when it was time for him to argue, felt ill-prepared. Roger Sherman Baldwin, who had already represented the slaves in the lower cases, opened in his place. Id.

Baldwin contended that the Spanish government was attempting to manipulate the Court to return "fugitives". In actuality, Baldwin argued, the Spanish government sought the return of slaves, who had been freed by the District Court - a fact that the Spanish government was not appealing. Covering all the facts of the case, Baldwin spoke for four hours over the course of the 22nd and the 23rd. Id.

John Quincy Adams rose to speak on February 24. First, he reminded the court that it was a part of the judicial branch, and not part of the executive. Adams introduced correspondence between the Spanish government and the Secretary of State, criticizing President Martin van Buren for his assumption of unconstitutional powers in the case. Id.

"This review of all the proceedings of the Executive I have made with utmost pain, because it was necessary to bring it fully before your Honors, to show that the course of that department had been dictated, throughout, not by justice but by sympathy — and a sympathy the most partial and injust. And this sympathy prevailed to such a degree, among all the persons concerned in this business, as to have perverted their minds with regard to all the most sacred principles of law and right, on which the liberties of the United States are founded; and a course was pursued, from the beginning to the end, which was not only an outrage upon the persons whose lives and liberties were at stake, but hostile to the power and independence of the judiciary itself." Id.

Adams argued that neither Pinckney's Treaty nor the Adams-Onís Treaty was applicable here. Article IX of Pinckney's Treaty referred only to property, and did not apply to people. The Antelope decision (10 Wheat. 124), which recognized "that possession on board of a vessel was evidence of property" Supra note 1 at 515 , Adams said did not apply either, since the precedent there was established prior to the prohibition of the foreign slave trade in the United States. Adams concluded after eight and one half hours of speaking on March 1 (the Court had taken a recess following the death of Associate Justice Barbour). Supra note 23.

Attorney General Gilpin concluded oral arguments with a three-hour rebuttal on March 2. Id.

Decision of the Supreme Court

On March 9, Associate Justice Joseph Story delivered the Court's decision. Article IX of Pinckney's Treaty was ruled off topic since the Africans in question were never legal property. They were not criminals, as the U.S. Attorney's Office argued, but, rather, "unlawfully kidnapped, and forcibly and wrongfully carried on board a certain vessel" Supra note 1 at 588. . The documents submitted by Attorney General Gilpin were not evidence of property, but, rather of fraud on the part of the Spanish government. Lt. Gedney and the U.S.S. Washington were to be awarded salvage from the vessel for having perfomed "a highly meritorious and useful service to the proprietors of the ship and cargo" Id at 597. .

When La Amistad came into Long Island, however, the Court believed it to be in the possession of the African slaves on board, who had no intent to become slaves. Therefore, the Adams-Onís Treaty did not apply, and the President was not required to return the slaves to Africa. Supra note 23.

"Upon the whole, our opinion is, that the decree of the circuit court, affirming that of the district court, ought to be affirmed, except so far as it directs the negroes to be delivered to the president, to be transported to Africa, in pursuance of the act of the 3d of March 1819; and as to this, it ought to be reversed: and that the said negroes be declared to be free, and be dismissed from the custody of the court, and go without day." Supra note 1 at 597.

The one dissenting justice also essentially agreed with these findings.

After the trial

The Mende greeted the news of the Supreme Court's decision with joy. Free at last, the survivors—35 men and boys and three girls—were brought to Farmington, Connecticut by abolitionist supporters, a village considered "Grand Central Station" on the Underground Railroad. Charles Ledyard Norton was a child in Farmington at the time and he wrote of the Mendi's arrival in his journal:

"Barracks were erected and here the former captives made their home. Cinque was a born ruler. Ably seconded by his lieutenant, Grabeau, he maintained a very creditable degree of discipline among his followers. They were, for the most part, free to roam about, except for regular school hours, and townsfolk soon ceased to fear them. Anxious mamas at first trembled and kept their children behind bolted doors, but before long it was no uncommon sight to see the big grown-up blacks playing with little white children in village dooryards."

The Amistad committee continued to instruct the Africans in English and Christianity and collected donations to pay for their return. Along with several missionaries, the surviving 36 Africans travelled back to Africa early in 1842, and a mission was erected in Mendiland. The Amistad committee later evolved into the American Missionary Association, an evangelical organization which continued to support the Mendi mission, argued for abolitionism, and eventually established many schools for freed slaves in the U.S.

In the following years, the Spanish government continued to press for compensation, and several lawmakers from southern states introduced resolutions into Congress to pay. These efforts were supported by presidents James K. Polk and James Buchanan, but they all failed.

Cinqué, once returned to Africa, is often said to have set himself up as a slave trader. No surviving documentation supports this claim and opinion among reputable historians seems to range from "not proven" to "presumed innocent". What little evidence we have are oral accounts from Africa and a claim by William A. Owens to have seen letters, written by AMA missionaries, suggesting that Cinqué was a slave trader.

The United States faced an incident similar to the Amistad case in the Creole case of 1841.

Legacy

A simplified version of the events described was made into a movie called Amistad in 1997. It was directed by Steven Spielberg and starred Anthony Hopkins as John Quincy Adams, Morgan Freeman as one of the Abolitionists, Djimon Hounsou as the Africans' leader Cinqué and Matthew McConaughey as their lawyer. This film also depicts the initial transport of the slaves from Africa to Cuba, showing brutal murders and death by starvation and suffocation, and drowning of slaves. This is, however, a dramatisation; while drowning slaves was a recognised practise in the trade, there are no accounts of mass executions on that ship (or on the Amistad).

There is a statue of Cinqué beside the City Hall building in New Haven, Connecticut. In March 2000, a replica of the Amistad was launched from Mystic Seaport in Mystic, Connecticut. Its mission is to educate the public on the history of slavery, discrimination and civil rights. The vessel is currently homeported in New Haven, Connecticut, where the Amistad Trial occurred. It also travels to port cities for educational opportunities. The official name of the vessel is the Freedom Schooner Amistad.

The Historical Society of Farmington Connecticut offers walking tours of village homes that once housed the Africans while funds were collected for their return home, as well as the grave stone of Foone, who drowned in the Farmington River. Similarly, the Oberlin Heritage Center (Oberlin, OH) provides tours of the one-room schoolhouse where one of the Amistad captives (Sarah Margru Kinson) studied, beginning in August 1846, at the suggestion of abolitionist Lewis Tappan.

References

External links

Legal background on the Amistad case by Michael Peil (includes case documents)
-- Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
Gilder Lehrman Center's "Amistad Page"
The Amistad Case from the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School]
Portraits and narrative from the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery
"The Legal Path of the Amistad Case" from The Museum of America and the Sea
"The Amistad Case and Its Consequences in U.S. History" by Clifton Johnson
A chronology of the trials

Amistad-Prozesse | Amistad(barco) | Amistad (nave) | アミスタッド号事件

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Amistad (case)