Talk:United States v. The Amistad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Illegal enslavement?

I changed this: The ship was taken over by a group of free Africans, since they were not free but in chains when the rebelled. The sentences sounds as if the Africans attacked the ship rather than being enslaved on the ship itself. The fact that their enslavement was illegal is mentioned later in the first paragraph, but doesn't change the fact that it was enslavement. Also, I don't think that the selling into slavery in Africa was illegal, only the transport across the ocean. AxelBoldt 00:06 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

What does "illegally sold into slavery" mean? Under whose laws was the selling of slaves legal/illegal? -- Zoe — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 3 January 2003 (UTC)

It was finally judged illegal by American Supreme Court, I believe

Ericd — Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 3 January 2003 (UTC)

The slave trade was illegal under a treaty between Spain and Britain. This is why the ownership papers of the Africans on board the Amistad were forged -- i.e., to indicate that they had been born in Cuba as slaves rather than being kidnapped from Africa. Such forgery, accomplished through bribes to government officials, was common practice at the time. If the trial court had found that the group of Africans had been born in Cuba, the Africans would have been ajudicated slaves (i.e., property) and returned to Ruiz and Montez under the Treaty of 1789.-- NetEsq 00:57 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

The Africans were kidnapped and sold into slavery in Mendiland. Does the mentioned treaty apply there? If not, in what sense was the initial selling into slavery illegal? I think only the transport across the ocean was illegal.

Now that I think about it, maybe not even the transport was illegal, since it was done by Portuguese, not Spaniards. The sale in Cuba was the first illegal act. AxelBoldt 01:37 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

Importation of slaves into the United States after (mumble, 1809, I believe) was illegal. But obviously, buying and selling slaves was not illegal, as it went on unil 1865. Where did the kidnapping and enslavement take place? Who had jurisdiction to say that, in this place at this time, it is illegal? -- Zoe — Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 3 January 2003 (UTC)

They were kidnapped in Mendiland (now Sierra Leone), sold to a Portuguese trader, shipped across the Atlantic on a Portuguese ship and sold in Cuba. Cuba belonged to Spain, and importing new slaves into Spain was illegal. I don't know who had jurisdiction in Mendiland in 1839. AxelBoldt 02:13 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Please read the syllabus of the Supreme Court opinion, which is linked to from the article:

[T]hese African negroes had been, a very short time before they were put on board the Amistad, brought into Cuba by Spanish slave traders in direct contravention of the treaties between Spain and Great Britain and in violation of the laws of Spain.

The negroes were never the lawful slaves of Ruiz or Montez, or of any other Spanish subject. They are natives of Africa, and were kidnapped there, and were unlawfully transported to Cuba in violation of the laws and treaties of Spain, and of the most solemn edicts and declarations of that government.

There is no mention of Portuguese slave traders, nor is L'Amistad referred to as a "slave ship." Rather, L'Amistad was a merchant schooner which (by the by) carried slaves along with other cargo, and the Africans who were on board L'Amistad were kidnapped from their home in Sierra Leone and sold into slavery in violation of the laws of Spain.

Note: Sierra Leone is not mentioned anywhere in the Supreme Court opinion. [Added: Sierra Leone is mentioned, but only in the context of a tribunal where the Treaty of 1789 could be adjudicated.] However, this fact is set forth in the companion book to the PBS series, Africans in America: America's Journey Through Slavery. (Johnson, Charles, Patricia Smith, and WGBH Series Research Team, Africans in America: America’s Journey through Slavery (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1998), p. 353.) -- NetEsq 02:32 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

The syllabus does not say that they were "sold into slavery in violation of the laws of Spain". That's my point. Why did you insert the phrase "sold into slavery" to your quote of the syllabus? Where they were kidnapped and sold into slavery (Mendiland, current Sierra Leone), the laws of Spain were most likely not in effect (but the English laws might have been, I'm not sure). They were imported into Cuba in violation of the laws of Spain (by Portuguese, not Spaniards, as the syllabus wrongly states). AxelBoldt 18:41 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

[T]hey had been, in April, 1839, kidnapped in Africa, and had been carried in a vessel engaged in the slave trade from the coast of Africa to Cuba for the purpose of being sold, and . . . Ruiz and Montez, knowing these facts, had purchased them . . . . -- 40 U.S. at 519 (Syllabus).

[T]hey were, in the land of their nativity, unlawfully kidnapped, and forcibly and wrongfully, by certain persons to them unknown, who were there unlawfully and piratically engaged in the slave trade between the coast of Africa and the island of Cuba, contrary to the will of these respondents, unlawfully, and under circumstances of great cruelty, transported to the island of Cuba, for the unlawful purpose of being sold as slaves, and were there illegally landed for that purpose. -- 40 U.S. at 525-526.

[T]hey were, on or about the 15th of April, 1839, unlawfully kidnapped and forcibly and wrongfully carried on board a certain vessel on the coast of Africa which was unlawfully engaged in the slave trade, and were unlawfully transported in the same vessel to the island of Cuba for the purpose of being there unlawfully sold as slaves; that Ruiz and Montez, well knowing the premises, made a pretended purchase of them. -- 40 U.S. at 589.

Nowhere in the Supreme Court's opinion is there any evidence that the court "established that the slaves had been captured in Mendiland (current Sierra Leone) in Africa, sold to a Portuguese trader in Lomboko (south of Freetown) in April 1839, and brought to Havana illegally on a Portuguese ship." Specifically, there is no reference to Mendiland, no reference to a Portuguese trader in Lomboko, and no reference to any Portuguese ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netesq (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 January 2003 (UTC)

Our article doesn't say that "the court established that" but rather that "it was established...", which it was. All accounts agree on those points. AxelBoldt 00:40 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

This is not the way the passage reads; the use of the passive voice makes it appear that the court established these facts, which -- by virtue of the different factual findings set forth in the Supreme Court opinion -- is not the case. -- NetEsq 04:49 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

[W]ere they not slaves under the Spanish laws? . . . If they are not, it is on account of some special law or decree. . . . Has such a law been produced in the present case? The first document produced is the treaty with England of 23d September, 1817. . . . But it carefully limits the ascertainment of any infringement to two special tribunals -- one at Sierra Leone and the other at Havana. The next is the decree of December, 1817, which authorizes negroes brought in against the treaty to "be declared free." 40 U.S. at 546-547. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netesq (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 January 2003 (UTC)

---

I still don't understand why their initial kidnapping and sale into slavery was considered illegal. Whose laws were violated? AxelBoldt 00:40 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

The finding of the Amistad court was that the laws of Spain were violated. The court made no distinction between the "initial kidnapping" (which occurred in Sierra Leone), the transport (which took place across the Atlantic Ocean) and the sale (which occurred in Cuba). Pursuant to the Treaty of 1789, all of these acts -- which were part of the illegal slave trade -- were illegal under the laws of Spain. -- NetEsq 04:49 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

Clarifying enslavement circumstances

I've taken out the phrase "from their homes" from the opening para after "kidnapped". If there is evidence that this is actually correct then I'd be happy to revert. I don't have any evidence that it isn't correct but it is not obviously true when compared to other west African enslavement. Also, should the phrase kidnapped be kept? This could be true but it isn't necessarily so and wouldn't be typical of slavery in Africa. It appears that it was the US Supreme Court who decided that kidnapping occurs, I haven't looked into it but I wonder if this is just their POV rather than a known fact? MLA 12:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote

"Slave-holders! Oh, my friends, do not rank the slave-holder as a common criminal—as no worse than a sheep-stealer or a horse stealer. The slave-holder is not only a thiever of men, but he is a murderer; not a murderer of the body, but, what is infinitely worse, a murderer of the soul—(hear, hear, hear)—as far as a man can murder the soul of his fellow-creature, for he shuts out the light of salvation from his spirit." (Frederick Douglass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.218.28 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The article regarding The Amistad (the ship) and The Amistad (the U.S. Supreme Court case) need to be separate. United States v. The Amistad should not be a redirect to this page containing information regarding both; they are two separate things with the same name (the case is commonly referred to as simply "The Amistad", not "United States v. The Amistad"). If someone would like to disambiguate, it would be appreciated. If not, I will do it myself when I finish what I am currently working on. Skyler 20:43, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Still working on that other thing? :) La Amistad can also mean the international park in Panama/Costa Rica, the ship replica and the movie. And it is a Spanish word. And I can imagine that such a general word can have many more meanings that have yet to pop up. So I've made this into a disambiguation page and moved this article to Amistad (ship). DirkvdM 15:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that Freedom Schooner Amistad appears to redirect to Amistad (ship). Sloppy redirecting, if you ask me... --Micahbrwn 22:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this redirect doesn't work. The article titled ~(ship) has one sentence about a ship, and the rest of the article is about the case. I think there should be two articles, and the ~(ship) article should link to the case. RPellessier | Talk 14:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradicting Informations

Look at the article on Joseph Cinqué. Is says that all of the crew except for the navigator was killed. In this article the given information is that they only killed 2 crewmembers, a cook and the captain. Can somebody verify either of these claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.241.219 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The ship had the captain, the cook, two crew members, a personal slave of the captain, and Ruiz and Montez, the owners of the Africans. Captain and cook were killed, the two crew members escaped, the captain's slave was unharmed, and Ruis and Montez promised to navigate the ship to Africa. [1] AxelBoldt 16:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Move

Not proposing one yet, just want to get the discussion started. Why not move this page to the full name of the case? If that is too wordy, why not "Amistad case" or "The Amistad case" to at least avoid the parenthetical? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM!

Duno who did it, when or why, but some people have been really dicking around with this article. I fixed what I could, but I duno if I got all of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.197.22 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

New judge in original (before appeal) case?

The movie shows the jury dismissed and the judge replaced, under pressure from Van Buren, to encourage (but in vain) a currupt decision. Did this really happen, and if so how was it arranged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.214.40 (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting question; I have never seen reference to this anywhere but in the movie. Maybe it's just a dramatization, to drive home the point that Van Buren put a lot of pressure on the judicial system on behalf of Spain, which is undoubtedly true. AxelBoldt 17:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

District of Connecticut?

What does that phrase mean? the link leads to Connecticut's state page. was this written by somebody unfamiliar with US geographical terms. Connecticut is properly a state, not a district. or perhaps there is a confusion with the District of Columbia (an entirely different place which is the capitol).

i'm not an expert on this article so i dont want to change it, but it's either wrong or an obscure term that needs to defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarscott (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 July 2005 (UTC)

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction is comprised of the state of Connecticut. The link has already been changed (not by me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.102.7 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Name change?

I think that it would be better if the name of the article were titled with the name of the case, instead of the more generic "The Amistad". That would prevent confusion with the movie and make it clearer to people looking for information about the court case that this article is indeed about it. 69.116.89.12 (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The name is definitely suboptimal. For starters, per WP:DAB#Specific topic and WP:NCON, the (1841) is meaningless -- there aren't more than one Amistad case in different years to disambiguate. The case name (or at least an official shorter case name) is United States v. Libellants of Schooner Amistad[2], which might work. We'd probably be better off with e.g. The Amistad case[3][4] or The Amistad (case), in terms of respecting the most common name. (Per WP:MOS I would prefer a lowercase C, and I believe this is one instance where "The" is justified.) As is, though, it's just confusing. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Writ of error?

I'm pretty sure its a writ of certiorari that the court issues and not a writ of error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.237.32 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Certiorari is just one of several routes by which cases can come before the court. Sources attest that a writ of error is correct in this instance. --70.226.171.245 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Dramatized violence and drowning of slaves"

I think this statement is unnecessary. Maybe it helps someone to sleep better at night when they watch "Amistad" and tell themselves that people were not brutalized like that.

This is, however, a dramatization; while drowning slaves was a recognized practice in the trade, there are no accounts of mass executions on that ship (or on the Amistad). Adria.richards 02:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording we have now is appropriate. No drownings took place on Amistad itself and as such have only indirect bearing on the case. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Id's

Is there really a purpose to have all those Id's? can't you just cite the same number? for a few citations i can understand but this seems excessive 128.61.61.35 02:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll see what I can do. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 06:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - extremely unwise in a Wiki, as someone can come along and insert a FN in between, thus invalidating the Ibid. 63.75.83.149 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the laws that were written?

There is a muddled section in the intro that begins: "Some of the laws that were written because of the Amistad and before the Amistad are: " It was added on March 9, 2008 in this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amistad_(1841)&diff=prev&oldid=197002325 I think this section needs to be clarified (what was before? what was added?), referenced and, perhaps, moved elsewhere in the article.--agr (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder charges

I'm confused about why the Supreme Court restrained itself to questions of ownership and seemingly ignored the murders of the ship's crew. Given that the captives were determined by this Court to be free, why where they absolved of charges of murder, which they were apparently guilty of? If the answer is that the Court determined the killings to have occurred within Spanish jurisdiction, would the U.S. not have desired to extradite the suspected (free) murderers to Spain, and would Spain not have pressured the U.S. to do so, rather than merely continuing to contest the question of ownership? If these facts are known, it would make a more complete article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.102.7 (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the Africans had been taken against their will, they did not commit murder per se, but rather engaged in lawful insurrection against their captors. It was reasonable, in the circumstances, to kill them to obtain their freedom. But basically, since a crime of violence had been committed against the Africans in the first place, deadly violence was considered reasonable in retaliation. Thus, no murder. Kuniklos (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the case say that, or is it your opinion? CsikosLo (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No certiorari

I removed the reference to certiorari in the prior history because, as the reporter outlines, this reached the supreme court as an appeal in admiralty, not on a writ of certiorari. Appeals in admiralty, at this point in supreme court history, were of right, not discretionary. Pmadrid (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavery legal in Connecticut?

I'm puzzled by the claim that slavery was legal in Connecticut in 1839, but not in New York. What is the basis of this? My understanding was that slavery had been illegal in all the New England states since the revolutionary era, but that it continued in New York for several decades after this, and that the gradual emancipation process in New York took some time to complete itself (not sure if it was still in progress in 1839, though). I've never heard that slavery was still "technically" legal in Connecticut. john k (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Slaves were still being sold on the town green in New Haven (Connecticut) in the 19th century. The state of Connecticut did not finally outlaw slavery entirely until 1848.[5] MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

CT passed gradual emancipation in 1784, providing that children born into slavery after March of that year would become free at age 25. In 1797, another bill provided that children born into slavery could gain freedom at age 21. In 1848 the state totally abolished slavery; 54 slaves had been counted on the 1840 census.[6] Parkwells (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede

It says that the case influenced numerous succeeding laws passed in the US, but the article does not cover this topic at all - not in the section After the Trial, nor in Legacy. If there is no content in the article, that sentence has to come out of the lede.Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Amistad (1841) → United States v. The Amistad – The current article suggest that this article is about the ship itself (which is at La Amistad). But this is about a court case. This proposed title makes it clear. The title seems to be the standards abbreviated name for the case (see here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/40/518/case.html ) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it hinges on whether or not the "(1841)" in the title is enough to eliminate confusion. Note there's another redirect in place from United States v. Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad, so that's another possibility. Findlaw (see: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=40&invol=518) uses "THE AMISTAD", followed by the unwieldy full name: "UNITED STATES, Appellants, v. The LIBELLANTS AND CLAIMANTS of the SCHOONER AMISTAD, her tackle, apparel and furniture, together with her cargo, and the AFRICANS mentioned and described in the several libels and claims, Appellees". So, that's probably an argument against the move. However, I think the proposed change would be the best option. Mojoworker (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of court cases have both a long name and a short name. Citizens United is an example of a short name as is Citizens United v. FEC. In this case, uses the full long name is pretty damn ridiculous. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Needs current sources

It's unusual to have an article relying so heavily on primary sources and dated historical accounts; none of the 21st century scholarly books have been used.Parkwells (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Raise "importance" assessments of article for Projects (above)

The historian Samuel Eliot Morrison in 1965 said this was the most important court case involving slavery before being eclipsed by that of Dred Scott. As a result, I have increased the "importance assessment" of the article to "high" for the Projects above (top of page) in Supreme Court, US Law, and US History.Parkwells (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Separate historical and case

There is much more detail about the slave revolt on the ship and background to the case, and the differing political pressures than is usual in an article about a Supreme Court case. Usually that material would be summarized; it is not all relevant to the court cases, while of interest to people wanting to learn more about the revolt. The quotes from British and Spanish sources are too lengthy for an article of this kind. Have people considered having an article for the court case, and a separate article on the background of the Mende, the ships and transport, etc. in a Slave Revolt article?Parkwells (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There is an article about the ship at La Amistad. I agree that some of the background detail is more appropriate there. Mojoworker (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions about sources

"United States Congress (January 20, 1841). Public Documents Printed by order of The Senate of the United States, during the second session of the 26th Congress. Volume IV, containing documents from No 151 to No 235. Washington, D.C." is quoted from at length, but it is unclear what the quotes refer to: in some cases, they appear to be letters from foreign ministers to the US government, in others, arguments from the district court or Supreme Court proceedings. These need to be clarified, and a url added if the docs are available online.Parkwells (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Its a collection of documents and correspondence concerning the case gathered by order of the U.S. Senate, it is likely you can find it in Google books as its in the general domain, since it was produced by the US Federal government.Wowaconia (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States v. The Amistad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117085126/http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/discovery/people/bio.cinque.html to http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/discovery/people/bio.cinque.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829170221/http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/timeline/courttimeline.html to http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/timeline/courttimeline.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)