Talk:Amistad (1841)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Connecticut
 This article is part of WikiProject Connecticut, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Connecticut, United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

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

 :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)

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

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

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.

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.
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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

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)

[edit] 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?

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Writ of error?

I'm pretty sure its a writ of certiorari that the court issues and not a writ of error.

  • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Adria.richards 02:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

[edit] 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)