FREE ESSAY ON AMISTAD CONFLICT

AMISTAD CONFLICT

The Amistad Conflict
In January 1839, fifty-three African natives were kidnapped from eastern Africa and sold
into the Spanish slave trade. They were then placed aboard a Spanish slave ship bound for
Havana, Cuba. Once in Havana, the Africans were classified as native Cuban slaves and
purchased at auction by two Spaniards, Don Jose Ruiz and Don Pedro Montez. The two
planned to move the slaves to another part of Cuba. The slaves were shackled and loaded
aboard the cargo ship Amistad (Spanish for friendship) for the brief coastal voyage.
However, three days into the journey, a 25-year-old slave named Sengbe Pieh (or Cinque to
his Spanish captors) broke out of his shackles and released the other Africans. The
slaves then revolted, killing most of the crew of the Amistad, including the cook and
captain. The Africans then forced Montez and Ruiz to return the ship to Africa. During
the day, the ship sailed due east, using the sun to navigate. However, at night Montez
and Ruiz would change course, attempting to return to Cuba. The zigzag journey continued
for 63 days. The ship finally grounded near Montauk Point, Long Island, in New York
State. The United States federal government seized the ship and its African occupants --
who under U.S. law were property and therefore cargo of the ship. On August 29, 1839, the
Amistad was towed into New London, Connecticut. The government charged the slaves with
piracy and murder, and classified them as salvage property. The fifty-three Africans were
sent to prison, pending hearing of their case before the U.S. Circuit Court in Hartford,
Connecticut. The stage was set for an important, controversial, and highly politicized
case. Local abolitionist groups rallied around the Africans' cause, organizing a legal
defense, hiring a translator for the Africans, and providing material support. Meanwhile,
the Spanish government pressured the U.S. President, Martin Van Buren, to return the
slaves to Spain without trial.
(http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/misc/barber.1840.amis.capt.html#initial.investigation),1.
The trials and arguments revealed much about contemporary attitudes toward slavery. The
ultimate decision made by the courts had many implications and created conflicts within
the United States over slavery.
The conflict at hand was that the Africans said  that they are not natives of Africa, and
were born free, and ever since have been and still of right are and ought to be free and
not slaves; that they were domiciled in the island of Cuba, or in the dominions of the
Queen of Spain, or subject to the laws
thereof.(http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/court/supreme/1841.01.decision.2.htm)
The United States argued that its treaty with Spain required it to return ships and
property seized by U.S. government vessels to their Spanish owners. The Supreme Court
called the case peculiar and embarrassing. It ruled for the Africans, accepting the
argument that they were never citizens of Spain, and were illegally taken from Africa,
where they were free men under the law. The Supreme Court accepted that the United States
had obligations to Spain under the treaty, but said that that treaty never could have
been intended to take away the equal rights of [the
Africans].(http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/court/supreme/1841.01.decision.2.html)
The Supreme Court also rejected a fairly novel argument by the United States. The U.S.
argued that the Africans should not be freed because, in commanding a slave ship and
piloting it into the United States, the Africans violated the laws of the United States
forbidding slave trade. The Supreme Court stated that the slaves could not possibly
intend to import themselves into the United States as slaves, or for sale as slaves.
(http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/court/supreme/1841.01.decision.2.html) Senior
Justice Joseph Story wrote and read the decision of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled
that the Africans on board the Amistad were free individuals. Kidnapped and transported
illegally, they had never been slaves. Although Justice Story had written earlier that
...it was the ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression,
and to apply force against ruinous injustice, the opinion in this case more narrowly
asserted the Africans right to resist unlawful slavery. The Court ordered the immediate
release of the Amistad African. 
Following its decision, the Supreme Court submitted its statement to the lower court
where the case originated. The statement indicated that the decision of the circuit court
was in part upheld and in part reversed. The part that was upheld related to the freedom
of the Africans. The part that was reversed related to Judge Andrew T. Judson's
application of the Congressional Act of March 3, 1819. Judson's decision authorized the
President to return the Africans to Africa. Ultimately, the abolitionists arrange for
their return in early 1842.
The case sparked many disputes. The United States was already torn, divided in into two
parts, the North and the South. The North promoted abolitionism and emancipation, while
the South endorsed slavery particularly because of its agrarian economy. The South needed
the labor of the slaves for production. During the American colonial period, slavery was
legal and practiced in all the commercial nations of Europe. The practice of trading in
and using African slaves was introduced to the United States by the colonial powers, and
when the American colonies received their common law from the United Kingdom, the
legality of slavery was part of that law. Trade in slaves was abolished shortly after the
formation of the United States, by act of Congress. Many states took steps to abolish
slavery within their borders even before the formation of the federal government, and
several states even routinely emancipated slaves who came within their borders. At the
time of the Amistad case, then, slave trade was illegal throughout the United States, but
the legality of slave ownership varied from state to state. In New York and Connecticut,
the primary states involved in the Amistad case, slavery was illegal.
Another issue at hand was salvage. Who lawfully had the right to claim the property of
the ship? Salvage is the reward given to persons who voluntarily assist a ship or recover
its cargo from impending or actual peril or loss. To make a valid claim of salvage, a
claimant must prove: the event involved a ship and its cargo, or things committed to and
lost at sea or other public, navigable waterways; the ship or its cargo have been found
or rescued; the service performed by claimant must have been of benefit to the property
involved in the rescue. A salvor (one who salvages) must have the intent and capacity of
committing a salvage, but does not need have the intention of keeping the property. The
salvor need not have even given physical assistance to the rescue of the ship or
property. Various types of peril are allowed. The most common cases involve abandoned
ships or ships in danger of sinking. However, as argued by claimants in the Amistad case,
the death or disability of the crew, or the seizing of the ship by pirates, can also
support a claim for salvage. Typically, a salvage must occur on the seas. As such, the
salvage claim by Green and Fordham is peculiar, in that it involved activity committed
entirely inland. 
This leads to the most important point of all. Does the salvaged property include the
Africans? In other words, should the Africans be considered slaves and therefore
someone's property? In the following quotation from the Supreme Court decision, Justice
Story explains why it is not within his jurisdiction to decide whether or not it is moral
or ethical to keep people are property. He insists that in the eyes of the law, it is his
duty to merely judge whether or not the act has been done, and whether it is an act
within the scope of authority.
(http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/court/supreme/1841.01.decision.2.html), 14.
It is not denied, that under the laws of Spain, negroes may be held as slaves, as
completely as they are in any of the states of this Union; nor will it be denied, if duly
proved such, they are subject to restoration, as much as other property, when coming
under the provisions of this treaty. Now, these negroes are declared, by the certificates
of the governor-general, to be slaves, and the property of the Spanish subjects therein
named. That officer is the highest functionary of the government in Cuba; his public acts
are the highest evidence of any facts stated by him, within the scope of his authority.
It is within the scope of his authority, to declare what is property, and what are the
rights of the subjects of Spain, within his jurisdiction, in regard to property. Now, in
the intercourse of nations, there is no rule better established than this, that full
faith is to be given to such acts to the authentic evidence of such acts. The question is
not, whether the act is right or wrong; it is whether the act has been done, and whether
it is an act within the scope of authority. We are to inquire only whether the power
existed, and whether it was rightly or wrongly exercised.
(http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/court/supreme/1841.0.decision.2.html),14.
However, Justice Story stipulated that the outcome of this case could not only affect the
Africans in question but the whole nation and the foundation of freedom that it was built
upon.
This case is not only one of deep interest in itself, as affecting the destiny of the
unfortunate Africans, but it involves considerations deeply affecting our national
character in the eyes of the whole civilized world, as well as questions of power on the
part of the government of the United States, which are regarded with anxiety and alarm by
a large portion of our citizens. It presents, for the first time, the question, whether
the government, which was established for the promotion of justice, which was founded on
the great principles of the revolution, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence,
can, consistently with the genius of our institutions, become a party to proceedings for
the enslavement of human beings cast upon our shored, and found, in the condition of
freemen, within the territorial limits of a free and sovereign state?
(http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/court/supreme/1841.01decision.2.html), 34.
The Amistad case gave the nation a wake up call. The United States realized that there is
an evident conflict on the issue of slavery. This conflict escalated years later into the
bloodiest war in American history, the Civil War. The result of the war was the most
significant legal development since the first Amistad case. It was, of course, the
abolition of slavery. With the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, the U.S.
Constitution guaranteed that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist
within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.(
http://www.nps.gov/malu/frames/amend13.htm),1.
Works Cited
http://amistad.mysticseaport.org
http://www.nps.gove/malu/frames/amend13.htm