Declared To Be Free:

Teaching About The Amistad Trial

Tiffany Middleton & Howard Kaplan,

American Bar Association Division for Public Education

Michigan /Great Lakes Regional Social Studies

Conference

October 18, 2013

A History of the Amistad Captives, by John Barber, 1840.Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Timel

ine

1787:The Migration or Importation of

such Persons as any of the

States now existing shall think

proper to admit, shall not be

prohibited by the Congress

prior to the Year one thousand

eight hundred and eight, but a

tax or duty may be imposed on

such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each

Person. Article I, U.S. Constitution

Timel

ine

Prohibition of international

slave trade:1802 - Denmark1807 – British Empire1808 – United States

1820 – Spain1853 – Brazil1867  - Cuba

Timel

ine

Abolition of domestic slavery:1794 – France (reintroduced 1802)

1804 – Haiti (independence)1834 – British Empire

1865 – United States1886 – Cuba1888 – Brazil

A History of the Amistad Captives, by John Barber, 1840.Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.

1839

“Mural No. 2, The Court Scene,” one of three murals painted by Hale Woodruff, in 1939, in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Amistad mutiny.

Image courtesy of Talladega College

1839-1841

Cons

ider

:

How are rights discussed?  What rights?What rights claims are being made or denied?Do you think the claims

were persuasive?

“Keep Cool”

The Colored American,

November 2, 1839

“ We have been highly pleased, for some weeks past,

with the independent and fearless tone of the N.Y. Sun,

while discussing the rights and wrongs of

the Amistad affair. ...

Ever since the capture of the Amistad, and the

confinement of the Africans, the editors of these latter

papers have been growling and firing volley upon

volley of abuse from their smut-machines upon these

men, because, forsooth, they had dared, after having

been stolen from their native land, and torn from the

arms of their wives and children, and forced on board

a slave-ship, being bound in irons and otherwise

cruelly treated, to break their shackels and assert their

“inalienable rights to life, LIBERTY,”

etc.”

Plea of Cinque and the other

Mende captives, N

ovember 19,

1839, in the U.S. District Court

for the District of Connecticut

... and still of right are and ought to be free,

and not slaves...

... and being of right free as aforesaid were

incited by the love of liberty natural to all men,

and by the desire of returning to their families

and kindred, to take possession of said vessel,

while navigating the high seas as aforesaid

near said Island of Cuba, as they had right to

do, with the intent to return therein to their

native country, or to reach an asylum in some

free State where Slavery did not exist, in order

that they might enjoy their liberty under the

protection of its government ...”

Judge Andrew Judson’s

decision (excerpts), U.S.

District Court for the

District of Connecticut

GEDNEY et al. v. L'AMISTAD.

... These Africans come in person, as our law

permits them to do, denying this right.

… If, by their own laws, they cannot enslave

them, then it follows, of necessity, they cannot

be demanded. When these facts are known by

the Spanish minister, he cannot but discover

that the subjects of his queen have

acquired no rights in these men.

They are not the property of Spain. His

demand must be withdrawn.”

Supreme Court argum

ents

of John Quincy Adam

s

(excerpts) ... The moment you come,

to the Declaration of

Independence, that every

man has a right to life and

liberty, an inalienable

right, this case is decided.

I ask nothing more in behalf

of these unfortunate men,

than this Declaration. ...”

Supreme Court opinion

(excerpts) ... and the United States are bound to respect their

rights as much as those of Spanish subjects. The

conflict of rights between the parties under such

circumstances, becomes positive and inevitable, and must

be decided upon the eternal principles of justice and

international law. ... there could be no doubt of the right

of such American citizens to litigate their claims ...

... never could have intended to take away the equal

rights of all foreigners,

... there does not seem to us to be any ground for doubt,

that these negroes ought to be deemed free; and that the

Spanish treaty interposes no obstacle to the just assertion

of their rights.”

“Appeal to the Friends of

Liberty.” New

York

Comm

ercial Advertiser,

September 5, 1839.

... Under these circumstances, several

friends of human rights have met to

consult upon the case of these

unfortunate men, and have appointed

the undersigned a committee to employ

interpreters, able counsel, and take all

the necessary means to secure the

rights of the accused. ...”

Simeon S. Jocelyn, 34 Wall street.

Joshua Leavitt, 143 Nassau street.

Lewis Tappan, 122 Pearl street.

New York, Sept. 4, 1839.

1841

Creole Case

1842

Howard Kaplan312.988.5738

Howard.Kaplan@americanbar.org Tiffany Willey Middleton312.988.5739

Tiffany.Middleton@americanbar.org