Amistad Case Study

In this legal study, the case of United States v. Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad, 40 U.S. 518 will be examined in relation to a supreme court precedent in the freeing of slaves in the American North . The date of the Supreme Court trial was 1841. The initial location of the Amistad trial began in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Hartford, Connecticut, but was eventually tried in Washington D.C. in the U.S. Supreme Court. The liberation of illegally kidnapped slaves was a major shift in the Northern cause for the abolition of slavery in the 1840s. Slavery, after all, was still legal in the U.S., but the Supreme Court Chief justice Joseph Story defined illegality of the kidnapping of the slaves
from Sierra Leone. In essence, the Supreme Court upheld the individual rights of the Amistad slaves to be freed (and returned home to Africa, which inspired the abolitionist movement in the North to gain greater public support for their cause against slavery in the South. The historical background of United States v. The Amistad is founded on the increasing intolerance for slavery as a part of American life in the northern states. A Portuguese slaver ship named the Amistad was seen drifting on the coast of Long Island, which soon discovered by the U.S. Coast Guard ship USS Washington. The salves had freed themselves, and killed the captain and the cook. The thirty-nine slaves ordered the remaining crew to sail them back to Africa, but instead, they sailed for the United States. During this time, the slave trade had been made illegal by Spain and Great Britain, which made The Amistad’s slave cargo illegal under international law. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut initially charged the remaining slaves with murder, but this was overturned. Eventually, the case was tried in the U.S. Supreme Court in terms of evaluating the rights of slaves that had been illegally kidnapped under international law. In the Supreme Court case of 1841, the primary parties involved were the surviving crewmembers of the Amistad (José Ruiz and Pedro Montez), Lt.
Thomas Gedney, the captain of the Washington that filed a lawsuit to claiming the rights and cargo of the ship. Antonio Vega, the vice-consul of the Spanish government, argued the claim of owning a slave. Most importantly, the thirty-nine surviving slaves were the primary party involved in the case being judged. Also, John Quincy Adams organized the legal defense for the slaves. President Van Buren was also involved in the political and legal oversight of the case in terms of its impact on the legally mandated slave trade in the United States. These are the important aspects of the various parties involved in the trial of United States v. The Amistad, which involved many different parties claiming the rights to the ownership of the slaves and the cargo that was on board the Portuguese
schooner. The argument of both parties involve the legal rights of the slaves in terms of domestic law and the overarching illegality of the slave trade in terms of international law of the high seas. Chief Justice Joseph Story oversaw the arguments put forth by the U.S. government, the Spanish, government, and the British government that the slaves were not to be judged under domestic U.S. law, but through the legality of international law. Since the Amistad was a Spanish vessel, the slaves had been illegally kidnapped under the Treaty of Ghent, which was an agreement between Great Britain and Spain to make slavery illegal below the equatorial line. However, President Von Buren sought to free the slave, but Secretary of State John Forsyth forbid this because he was acting outside of presidential powers. Therefore, the primary argument of the U.S. government was to free the slaves, but the international lawsuits brought forth by the governments of Spain and the salvaging of the Washington sought to seek compensation for the slaves as property/cargo. More so, the Spanish government argued that Pinckney’s Treaty of 1795 made the slaves their property, which was a territorial alliance made between the Spanish and American governments. Also, the British government brought a libel claiming that the U.S. government must free the slaves under the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, which had forbidden the slave trade. The ultimate issue of United States v.
The Amistad was the issue of freemen status and property rights for the thirty-nine slaves that were being tried in the context of domestic U.S. law and international law. The Supreme Court justices had to decide if international law was a more important legal vantage point than the domestic legality of slavery in the United States: In the larger American system of law, the trial defined a new application of federal jurisdictional procedure and lengthy process of appeal” (Rediker 67). This was the ultimate issue that would decide the freedom or enslavement of the Amistad slaves in the Supreme Court
case. The Supreme Court’s final decision of the case defines a logical conclusion that the Treaty of Ghent was violated by the crewmembers of the Amistad, but more importantly, that Pinckney’s Treaty was invalid because the kidnapping of the slaves occurred in international waters, and not in the United States. Chief Justice Story refutes the basis of the slaves as Spanish property because slavery had recently been made illegal in Africa, as well as in the context of the slaves being illegally transported to Cuba:
It is also a most important consideration in the present case, which ought not to be lost sight of, that, supposing these African negroes not to be slaves, but kidnapped, and free negroes, the treaty with Spain cannot be obligatory upon them (Story para.16).
In this manner, the legality of Great Britain’s claim through the Treaty of Ghent and the illegality of slavery was the foundation for the Supreme Court’s decision to free the slaves, and return them back to Africa as freemen. Certainly, the institution of slavery was legal in the United States, but the Amistad case had to be tried within the context of international law. More so, President Von Buren’s desire to free the slaves was satiated due to the pressures of political influence coming from Great Britain, and also due to the domestic pressure of Northern Abolitionist groups that sought to free the slaves. In an unusual alteration of legality, the Supreme Court’s decision made international law a priority over U.S. domestic law in freeing the slaves. In a broader historical context, the Abolitionist Movement was not popular in New England, but this case created more sentiment for the abuse, murder, and treatment of slaves that occurred on the Amistad ship during slave transportation from Africa. After the Amistad slaves were discovered, many Abolitionist Movements supported the cause by providing legal assistance and funding to protect their rights. The Abolitionists formed the “Amistad committee”, which was formed to serve this purpose: “The committee’s intent was to meet the legal defense of the Africans and, to rally public support of other abolitionists” (Osagie 8). In this manner, the historical background of United States v. The Amistad defines a period in American history in which the abolitionist movement was inspired by these trial proceedings, which galvanized the increasing political tensions between North and South on the issue of slavery. Finally, I would evaluate this case as being conducted in a legally ethical and logical procession due to the illegality of slavery under international law. Certainly, the American government did not always follow British or Spanish mandates of international law, but in this case, it was used accordingly through the power of the judicial branch of the federal government. The Treaty of Ghent is the most important legal document that made the Spanish argument void and null, since the crewmembers of the Amistad had acted illegally by originally kidnapping the Africans. More so, a posteriori argument related to Pinckney’s Treaty were not valid in terms of kidnapping under international law in Africa, which actually vindicated the rights of the slaves to free themselves from their captors. I also found it extremely interesting how political pressure from President Von Buren, Abolitionist groups, and the British government influenced some of the new perceptions of international law as a guiding principle in freeing the slaves. The Amistad case was a pivotal juncture for the Abolitionist movement in North, since it exposed the horrors and brutality of slavery on a national scale.