The amistad episode
This is a case of some Africans, captured and sold to slavery, who rebelled or, put in the language of their ‘owners’, mutinied and killed two sailors. They were under the ownership of two Cubans, Ruiz and Montez, and were on transit to a Caribbean plantation. These two were spared on condition that they return the Africans home. Deception ensued about sailing the ship and they landed on the shores of Montauk, Long Island in the United States of America, and steered off to New London, where the slaves were arrested after the two Cubans denounced them as pirates and murderers. (The Amistad Case)
A lot of deception is noted in this case, and it majorly builds up to one question: is an African (slave in this context) a human being or property? Did the slaves have any rights? Again, it is wise to note that this Amistad Case took place after the abolition of slave trade in the world. Was it therefore a clear illegality in a just world? Their act of killing the captors and subsequently their mutiny seemed to make the case worse and more complex. The complexities involved included the slaves being taken to New London instead of the nearby New York, simply because slavery had not yet been illegalized at New London.
The Amistad case took a twist with the involvement of international governments. The Spanish Government wanted the slaves extradited to Cuba where the laws there favored slavery. The then US president, Van Buren too wanted the same to avoid his proslavery attitude, but the case was already in the US jurisdiction. There was many stakes in the case to be gained (or lost depending on the way it was handled). According to Osagie, the entrepreneurial pro-slavery government sensed possible political potential in this case which came at a time when the elections were near. (Osagie) There were reservations though because the politically charged environment could not enable Van Buren to hand over the Africans to Spanish authorities much as he could have wished to.
All from the outset deemed the Africans because of their color (Gordon-Reed). The result was a contest between the natural rights of an individual and property rights in slavery. This paved way for a showdown between the abolitionists and those favoring slavery, and the ensuing legal and diplomatic battles to follow. (Osagie) With the abolitionists on board, the slaves had fair representation and they won their freedom. Nevertheless, the slavers were not happy. They appealed in the Supreme Court in their greed for salvage claims and this ushered in John Quincy Adams to the scene in defense of the slaves.
According to Denise Henderson, Adams’ defense for the Africans was in stages. The first one was the Amistad Case itself in which he began by mentioning the necessity of the case being decided based on universal natural law. This meant that no other arguments were to take center stage at the expense of the rights and liberties of the slaves. Adams mentioned a fact that the Africans knew of no other laws but those of nature. This he prayed that the Court should deliver to them. He pointed out anomalies in the government that leant on the side of slave traders, which of course went against the Declaration of Independence. According to him, the case was in front of the Supreme Court because the whole nation was virtually in sympathy with the slave traders. This sympathy was a gross violation of the statutes that make up the United States of America.
The second line of defense was the inalienable rights vs. public vengeance. This was a reaction to a letter written to the Secretary of State by the Spanish envoy to the US; that the slaves be handed over for the satisfaction of public vengeance. According to the US constitution, slaves were persons, not property. They therefore deserved the human dignity that befits a man. The Spanish government’s want for the slaves to burn them in vengeance against what they had done was therefore according to him a mockery of the justice system.
In his ruling, Justice Story, after considering the supplications made in the Court, declared that the Africans were free people, having been illegally kidnapped in Africa. They were unlawfully transported to Cuba to be sold as slaves against all laws and treaties made with Spain. These laws declared that the African slave trade was unlawful. They had thus been contravened. This meant that the Africans had no case to answer. (The Amistad Case: Supreme Court Arguments and Decision)
A lot of deception is noted in this case, and it majorly builds up to one question: is an African (slave in this context) a human being or property? Did the slaves have any rights? Again, it is wise to note that this Amistad Case took place after the abolition of slave trade in the world. Was it therefore a clear illegality in a just world? Their act of killing the captors and subsequently their mutiny seemed to make the case worse and more complex. The complexities involved included the slaves being taken to New London instead of the nearby New York, simply because slavery had not yet been illegalized at New London.
The Amistad case took a twist with the involvement of international governments. The Spanish Government wanted the slaves extradited to Cuba where the laws there favored slavery. The then US president, Van Buren too wanted the same to avoid his proslavery attitude, but the case was already in the US jurisdiction. There was many stakes in the case to be gained (or lost depending on the way it was handled). According to Osagie, the entrepreneurial pro-slavery government sensed possible political potential in this case which came at a time when the elections were near. (Osagie) There were reservations though because the politically charged environment could not enable Van Buren to hand over the Africans to Spanish authorities much as he could have wished to.
All from the outset deemed the Africans because of their color (Gordon-Reed). The result was a contest between the natural rights of an individual and property rights in slavery. This paved way for a showdown between the abolitionists and those favoring slavery, and the ensuing legal and diplomatic battles to follow. (Osagie) With the abolitionists on board, the slaves had fair representation and they won their freedom. Nevertheless, the slavers were not happy. They appealed in the Supreme Court in their greed for salvage claims and this ushered in John Quincy Adams to the scene in defense of the slaves.
According to Denise Henderson, Adams’ defense for the Africans was in stages. The first one was the Amistad Case itself in which he began by mentioning the necessity of the case being decided based on universal natural law. This meant that no other arguments were to take center stage at the expense of the rights and liberties of the slaves. Adams mentioned a fact that the Africans knew of no other laws but those of nature. This he prayed that the Court should deliver to them. He pointed out anomalies in the government that leant on the side of slave traders, which of course went against the Declaration of Independence. According to him, the case was in front of the Supreme Court because the whole nation was virtually in sympathy with the slave traders. This sympathy was a gross violation of the statutes that make up the United States of America.
The second line of defense was the inalienable rights vs. public vengeance. This was a reaction to a letter written to the Secretary of State by the Spanish envoy to the US; that the slaves be handed over for the satisfaction of public vengeance. According to the US constitution, slaves were persons, not property. They therefore deserved the human dignity that befits a man. The Spanish government’s want for the slaves to burn them in vengeance against what they had done was therefore according to him a mockery of the justice system.
In his ruling, Justice Story, after considering the supplications made in the Court, declared that the Africans were free people, having been illegally kidnapped in Africa. They were unlawfully transported to Cuba to be sold as slaves against all laws and treaties made with Spain. These laws declared that the African slave trade was unlawful. They had thus been contravened. This meant that the Africans had no case to answer. (The Amistad Case: Supreme Court Arguments and Decision)
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment