Caitlin Barebee

ENC 3315

September 7, 2014

Freedom for Free Men

At the oration of Plymouth in 1802, John Quincy Adams said, “Courage and perseverance

have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air†(Nota-�

ble Quotes). He said this without any fore-knowledge to the schooner Amistad or the 49 Africans

aboard in 1839 that would break loose of their chains below deck and succeed in a rebellion

against the captain and crew. In 1841, Adams would later argue on behalf of those Africans’ free-

dom on “what he considered to be the cornerstone of Anglo-American rights and liberties, the

principle of habeas corpus†(The Amistad Case). As natural born citizens of a free nation, those �

citizens have certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator and no government has a power

to say otherwise, or it is the responsibility of the people of the nation to replace that government.

In the mid-19th century, The United States were coming to a crucial apex that would alter the

face of the nation states or destroy the foundation in which the country was built. In the historical

court case of The United States v. The Amistad, the argument of the Supreme Court by Attorney

General, Henry D. Gilpin, was quite insistent that the Africans aboard Amistad were owned by

Spain and should be returned thus. The argument of the original Defense Attorney for the case,

Roger Sherman Baldwin, maintained that the men aboard the Amistad were not of Spanish

origin, were not born slaves and were being illegally imprisoned as property by Jose Ruiz and

Pedro Montez. In this analysis of the court proceedings, including a newspaper article by The

New London Gazette, as well as supporting research by renowned historian Marcus Rediker from

his book entitled The Amistad Rebellion, those unalienable rights will be identified as being sti-

fled by the government and the reason why the opinions of man hold little regard to the validity

of those unalienable rights will be presented.

In 1839, President Martin Van Buren was seeking re-election and would try to manipulate

the system as best he could in order to achieve that goal. The conflict between the North and

South regarding the slave-trade was beginning to gain traction and international temperaments

were high about the issue. When the Amistad was discovered off the coast of Long Island, New

York, by Lieutenant Commander Gedney, foreign and domestic policies began to question

whether property rights superseded unalienable rights, and if slaves even possessed unalienable

rights. Taking provided documentation of surviving crew members Ruiz and Montez as proof,

Van Buren declared the ownership of the Amistad, and it’s properties, including all slaves aboard,

Spanish in origin and ordered everything to be sent back to Spain in accordance with a treaty

they held. The discussion over slave-trade was a sensitive topic, and Van Buren avoided the topic

as much as possible to keep his numbers positive in the polls. He instructed Attorney General

Gilpin to win the case against the Amistad and send the ship and cargo back to Spain.

Henry Gilpin, with the confidence of the President of the United States, presented the

convincing documentation against the Amistad argument. He argued that the manifest presented

to him by the surviving crew members, Ruiz and Montez, was legitimately signed and sealed by

the Governor of Cuba, declaring rightful purchase and ownership of the slaves aboard. Such pa-

perwork clearly designates ownership to be by the Queen of Spain, and thus all cargo should be

shipped back to Spain in accordance with their maritime and slave laws. The Spanish Ambassa-

dor relayed the information back to Spain, and Queen Isabella II, blindly agreed to whatever she

was told to be correct and summoned the ship to be returned before the case was even closed.

Gilpin continued to provide due and sufficient proof of property to be that of Spain, and even

addressed Admiralty Laws of the United States for Lt. Com. Gedney's portion of property claims

from the salvage of the ship. The admiralty law only applied to property/cargo found and did not

include “life salvage†because it is a mariner's dutyto save the lives of others in peril without ex-�

pectation of reward. Thus, Gilpin concluded, the slaves aboard the Amistad were owned by Spain

and, under Spanish slave law, would also be returned to Spain with the ship. The success of

Gilpin's argument relied on the legitimacy of the documents provided by Ruiz and Montez be-

cause the slaves aboard were unable to communicate due to a language barrier.

Defense attorney, Roger Baldwin, was able to bridge that barrier and build an argument

that created reasonable doubt about the legitimacy of the ship manifest. After research about the

language the slaves were speaking, Baldwin discovered it was an Afican language of the Mendi

people located in the Sierra Leone. With the assistance of three translators, Baldwin was able to

uncover the fact that the slaves were free-born African citizens, sold illegally into the slave-trade,

and imprisoned by Ruiz and Montez on the Amistad, where they staged a rebellion and over-

threw the ship. His argument was sound and, as he progressed, more details regarding the

Amistad weighed in his favor. It was concluded that the manifest produced by Ruiz and Montez

was actually the manifest from another ship, named the Tecora, in which their African names had

been scratched out and replaced with Spanish ones. The success of Baldwin's case relied heavily

on the word of the Africans and the obviousness of their lack of Spanish descent. His knowledge

of property laws, and of slave laws, allowed him to seemingly invalidate The United States' case

that the Africans were property of Spain and, in additon, the unfounded claim by President Van

Buren.

Both attorneys used very different tactics to argue their case. Gilpin used concrete evi-

dence against the Africans and Baldwin played on the emotions of the Abolitionists and the mass

opinion about human trafficking. Their motivation to win the case was also very different be-

cause of the support they were receiving. Gilpin had the obligation of his position in office and

the backing of the President of the United States during his presentation. Baldwin was being

funded by the Abolitionists and was solely motivated by the intrigue of the Africans. This con-

trast is not to discredit the incredible power the support of the President holds, but to impress up-

on the passion Baldwin needed to commit to in an argument against him.

In an article published in the Emancipater, an Abolitionist newspaper, the journalist rep-

rimands other newspapers, specifically the Hartford Courier, for publishing an article falsely ac-

cusing Cinque, the main voice among the Africans in custody, for being involved as a slave-

trader in Africa. Additionally, they blast Bennett's Herald for “marvelous fabrications†and ques-�

tion their respectability (“The Africans†). Lastly, the journalist contradicts the claim by the New �

Haven Herald that falsely accused the translators of the case for admitting to Cinque's involve-

ment. The journalist calls the justification of the accusation into question in regard to race be-

cause the other newspapers were condemning Cinque for African slave-trade, but supporting

Ruiz and Montes' conduct in regard to Gilpin's argument for the same business. The support of

the Abolitionists worked heavily in Baldwin's favor, whereas the deflection of the topic by Van

Buren, worked against Gilpin and, ultimately, lost him the case. President Van Buren's embar-

rassment in the case forced appeals at every Judiciary level until it was argued before the Su-

preme Court with John Quincy Adams standing on the side of the defense.

While John Quincy Adams won the case against The United States in the Supreme Court,

the precedence took place that men, and for that matter, women, born free, cannot legally be sold

into slavery. Additionally, slave-trading across international waters became a forefront social

conversation; raising questions about maritime conduct and principles. The Africans were given

their freedom after the victory in the Supreme Court and, at the cost of the United States, were

shipped home to Africa.

In 2012, renowned historian and distinguished Professor of Atlantic History at the Uni-

versity of Pittsburgh, Marcus Rediker, published a book entitled The Amistad Rebellion, in

which he discusses the happenings of the case with an African perspective un-established in the

court case due to a significant language barrier. Rediker poses the argument that everything the

Africans did aboard the Amistad, and during their nineteen months of imprisonment, was a func-

tion of who they were before they were enslaved. Using the documentation of everyone connect-

ed to the case, in addition to the documentation provided by all of the people that visited these

unforeseen heroes of the Abolitionist movement, Rediker establishes the amount of training each

man amongst the Africans would have had in combat due to the harshness of living in Sierra Le-

one. He describes the hierarchal system of the PORO society, in which all males of the regional

tribes would have been a part and the leadership that that person would have provided. Rank was

displayed by body scarification and tattoos, in drawings presented by many people, including the

court artists, many of these markings were visible on the Africans. He dismisses Baldwin’s ar-

gument because of his personal agenda in the Abolitionist movement, not because of his good

intention to free wrongly enslaved people. He objects to the idea that the American legal system

became the hero of the story by granting freedom to people that were already free. Rediker in-

sists the rebellion on the ship would have happened, and probably happened more often than this

one case, because of the tribal culture involved in how successfully they deliberated, organized

and executed the rebellion itself.

It is the opinion of this writer to agree with Rediker’s argument and not side with either

Baldwin or Gilpin’s presentation of the facts. While Baldwin’s testimonial is profound and

patri-otic, his constant play at emotions regarding sensitive social constructs, dramatized the event in

which made the entire nation aware of the trial. The success is significant in the course of the

Abolitionist movement and ultimately lead to the freeing of slaves across the entire country, but

slavery was already illegal all over Europe and the United States were dragging behind the

movement. Gilpin’s failure to provide sound and sufficient proof was the flaw in his argument,

along with how dismissive he was to the importance of slavery to the people of the jury. His ar-

gument was based on the way things had always been and was not prepared to face the idea that

people would want change.

This trial is a precursor to the Civil War in 1861, exactly twenty years after the Africans

were granted freedom by the Supreme Court. It ignited the conversation of slavery on a national

level and proved enslaved people still maintain unalienable rights. The Africans committed an

act of violence on account of those unalienable rights and were granted their freedom in all three

levels of the Judiciary system. It proved the power of the people against a government with it’s

own agenda, as President Van Buren clearly demonstrated. President Van Buren was not re-

elected for a second term, and I believe it is because of the role he played in the prolonged trials

of this case that the people became aware of his inability to change and the opinion he expressed

about slavery. In a letter to France in 1795, long before the events of The United States v. The

Amistad took place, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to re-

cover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived will be accompanied with violence,

with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the

end.†(Notable Quotes II). �

Works Cited

1. “The Africans†. Emancipator. 7 Nov. 1839. 6 Sept. 2014. �

2. The Amistad Case. National Portrait Gallery., n.d. Web. 4 Sept. 2014.

<www.npg.si.edu/col/Amistad>.

3. Notable Quotes. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Sept. 2014.

<www.notablequotes.com/a/adams_john_quincy.html>.

Notable Quotes. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Sept. 2014.

<www.notablequotes.com/j/jefferson_thomas_iii.html>.