|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMISTAD'S CINQUE
"A RARE VICTORY AT SEA" In June 1839, on a humid Havana night, 49 men and four children–all just arrived from Africa–were hustled into the steaming hold of the slave ship Amistad. Most of the captives were of the Mende people of West Africa. One was a born leader–Clinque, a rice farmer and the 25 year-old son of a prominent Mende family. Allowed on deck for some air at one point. Cinque used sign language to ask the ship's cook what was to become of the Africans. He was told they would be slaughtered as meat for the Spanish crew. In reality, they were destined for a grim enough fate: resale into slavery in another part of Cuba. Like many slaves on many slave ships before them, the imprisoned Africans began planning an insurrection–something most traders guarded vigorously against. But on the Amistad (ironically, the name is Spanish for "friendship"). the crew was lax, offering the Mende captives a rare chance. Using a nail he had found on deck and hidden under his arm, Cinque broke a padlock, releasing the chain that linked the captives at the neck. The men then grabbed sugarcane knives they found in the hold and crept up on deck under cover of a nighttime storm. Led by Cinque, the Africans discovered Captain Ramón Ferrer fast asleep on a mattress; the ship's cook slept nearby in a dinghy. They killed both men. Two other sailors escaped by leaping over board, leaving behind only the slave cabin boy and the two Spanish slave traders who had chartered the vessel. Cinque ordered the Spaniards to sail the Amistad back to Africa, toward the rising sun. By day, they obeyed. But at night, the traders headed northwest, toward the United States. Two months later, the schooner reached waters off New York. By then at least eight Africans had died, succumbing to thirst and illness. Cinque gave the order to drop anchor at the tip of Long Island, and he and eight others rowed ashore for provisions. The black men created quite a sensation among the people they encountered as they used gold doubloons found on the schooner to buy food and drink. Cinque was uneasy about the attention and eager to be under way the next morning. Before the Amistad could head back out to sea, however, it was seized by and American naval ship and escorted to Connecticut, beginning an 18-month legal battle over the Africans' fat. Accused of murder and mutiny, the captives were also in danger of being returned to Cuba as slaves–a course of action demanded by the Cuban and Spanish authorities and favored by by U.S. president Martin Van Buren to avoid a diplomatic crisis. The Amistad captives had support from two important sources, however: Spanish law and American abolitionists. In 1817 Spain had prohibited the importation of slaves into any of its territory, including the colony of Cuba. Africans such as the Amistad group were imported illegally and sold with false papers. Once the fraud was exposed, it fell to the American courts to determine whether the Amistad Africans could be considered slaves. While the debate raged, American abolitionists publicized the Amistad case, feeding the enormous curiosity the incident excited in the northern United States. By publishing likenesses of the captives they gave human faces to the abstract miseries of slavery. They also raised money for a legal defense and managed, against all odds, to find an interpreter for the Mende-speaking Africans. Josiah Gibbs, an enterprising Yale professor, learned a few of the prisoners' words, then chanted them over and over as he strode along the New York City docks. Eventually, he met James Covey, a Mende sailor on a British ship. Covey's translating skills proved vital to the case, enabling the Amistad defendants to testify and to follow the proceedings. The prisoners were already familiar with lawsuits: In the Mende system of law, trials were popular public events. After an initial verdict in the Africans' favor, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in February 1841, with former president John Quincy Adams representing the prisoners. At 73, frail and nearly blind. Adams claimed the day. To the astonishment of both sides, the Court agreed that the Africans had been illegally sold and were not slaves. But the long odyssey of Cinque and his companions was not yet over. Despite their legal victory, the Court offered the Africans no funds for the voyage home. Abolitionists eventually raised the money; but the wait was too long for one of the group, whose homesickness apparently led him to drown himself in a New England river. A few moths later, the 35 surviving Amistad defendants finally returned to Africa, among the very few African captives out of millions ever to return home. UNITED STATES APPELLANTS V. THE LIBELLANTS AND
MR. JUSTICE STORY, DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. This is the case of an appeal from the decree ot the circuit court of the district of Connecticut, sitting in admiralty. The leading facts, as they appear upon the transcript of the proceedings, are as followers: On the 27th of June 1839, the schooner "L'Amistad," being the property of Spanish subjects, cleared out from the port of Havana, in the island of Cuba, for Puerto Principe, in the same island. On board of the schooner were the master, Ramón Ferrer, and Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez, all Spanish subjects. The former had with him a negro boy, named Antonio, claimed to be slaves, an stated to be his property, in a certain pass or document, signed by the governor-general of Cuba. Pedro Montez had with him for other negroes, also claimed by his as his slaves, and stated to be his property, in a similar pass or document, also signed y the governor-general of Cuba.CLAMIANTS OF THE SCHOONER AMISTAD "...there doesn't seem to us to be any ground for doubt, that these negroes ought to be deemed free..." On the voyage, and before the arrival of the vessel at her port of destination, the negroes rose, killed the master, and took possession of her. On the 26th of August, the vessel was discovered by Lieutenant Gedney, of the United States brig {Washington," at anchor on the high seas, at the distance of half a mile from the shore of Log Island. A part of the negroes were then on shore, at Culloden Point, Long island, who were seized by Lieutenant Gedney, and brought on board. The vessel, with the negroes and other persons on board, was brought by Lieutenant Gedney into the district of Connecticut, and there libelled for salvage in the district court of the United States. A libel for salvage was also filed by Henry Green and Pelatiah Fordham, of Sag Harbor, Long Island. On the 18th of September, Ruiz and Montez filed claims and libels, in which they asserted their ownership of the negroes as their slaves, and of certain parts of the cargo, and prayed that the same might be "delivered to them, or to the representatives of her Catholic Majesty, as might be most proper." One the 19th of September, the attorney of the United States for the district of Connecticut filed an information or libel, setting forth, that the Spanish minister had officially presented to the proper department of the government of the United States, a claim for the restoration of the vessel, cargo, and slaves, as the property of Spanish subjects, which had arrived within the jurisdictional limits of the Untied States, and were taken possession of by the said public armed brig of the United States, under such circumstances as made it the duty of the United States to cause the same to be restored to the true proprietors, pursuant to the treaty between the United States and Spain; and praying the court, on its being made legally to appear that the claim of the Spanish minister was well founded, to make such order for the disposal of the vessel, cargo a nd slaves, as would best enable the United States to comply with their treaty stipulations. But if it should appear, that the negroes were persons transported form Africa, in violation of the laws of the United States, an brought within the United States, contrary to this same laws; he then prayed the court to make such order for their removal to the coast of Africa, pursuant to the laws of the United States as it should deem fit... On the 7th of January 1840, the negroes, Cinque and others, with the exception of Antonio, by their counsel, filed an answer, denying that they were slaves, or the property of Ruiz and Montez, or that the court could, under the constitution or laws of the United States, or under any treaty, exercise andy jurisdiction over their persons, by reason of the premises; and praying that they might be dismissed. They specially set forth and insisted in the answer, that they were native-born Africans; born free, and still, of right, ought to be free and not slaves; that they 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; that afterwards, on or about the 28th of June 1893, Ruiz and Montez, confederation with Ferrer (master of the Amistad), caused them, without law or right, to be placed on board of the Amistad, to be transported to some place unknown to them, and there to be enslaved for life; that, on the voyage, they rose on the master, and took possession of the vessel, intending to return therewith to their native country, or t seek an asylum in some free state; and the vessel arrived, about the 26th of August 1938, off Montauk Point, near Long Island; a part of them were sent on shore and were seized by Lieutenant Gedney, and carried on board; and all of them were afterwards brought by him into the district of Connecticut... No question has been hee made, as to the proprietary nterests in the vessel and argo. It is admitted, that they belong to Spanish subjects, and that they ought to be restored. The only poin ton this head is, whether the restituion ought to be upon the payment of salvage, or nr? The main controversy is, whether these negroes are the porpoerty of Ruiz and Montez, and ought to be delivered up; and to this, accordingly, we shall first direct our attention. It has been argued on behalf of the United States, that the court are bound to deliver them up, according to the treaty of 1795, with Spain, which has in this particular been continued in full force, by the treaty of 1819 ratified in 1821. The sixth article of that treaty seems to have had, principally in view, cases where the property of the subjects of either state had been taken possession of within the territorial jurisdiction of the other, during war. The eighth article provides for cases where the shipping of the inhabitants of either state are forced, through stress of weather, pursuit of pirates or enemies, or any other urgent necessity, to seek shelter in the ports of the other. There may well be some doubt entertained, whether the present case, in its actual circumstances, falls within the purview of the article. But it does not seem necessary, for reasons hereafter stated, absolutely to decide it. The ninth article provides, "that all ships and merchandized, of what nature so ever, which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates or robbers, on the high seas, shall be brought into some port of either state, and shall be delivered to the custody of the officers of that port, in order to be taken care of and restored, entire, to the true proprietor, as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property thereof." This is the article on which the main reliance is placed on behalf of the United States, for the restitution of these negroes. To bring the case within the article, it is essential to establish: 1st, That these negroes, under all the circumstances, fall within the description of merchandize, in the sense of the the treaty, 2d, That there has been a rescue of them on the high seas, out of the hands of the pirates and robbers; which, in the present case, can only be, by showing that they themselves are pirates and robbers: and 3d, That Ruiz and Montez, the asserted proprietors, are the true proprietors, and have established their title by competent proof. If these negroes were, at the time, lawfully held as slaves, under the laws of Spain, and recognized y those laws as property, capable of being lawfully bought and sold; we see no reason why they may not justly be deemed, within the intent of the treaty, to be included under the denomination of merchandize, and as such ought to be restored to the claimants; for upon that point the laws of Spain would seem to furnish the proper rule of interpretation. But admitting this, it is clear, in our opinion, that neither of the other essential facts and requisites has been established in proof; and the onus probandi of both lies upon the claimants to give rise to the cause foederis. It is plain, beyond controversy, if we examine the evidence, that these negroes never were the lawful slaves of Ruiz or Montez, or of any other Spanish subjects. 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 the most solemn edicts and declarations of that government. By those laws and treaties, and edicts, the African slave-trade is utterly abolished; the dealing in that trade is deemed a heinous crime; and the negroes thereby introduced into the dominions of Spain, are declared to be free. Ruiz and Montez are proved to have made the pretended purchase of these negroes, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances. And so cogent and irresistible is the evidence in this respect, that the district-attorney has admitted in open court upon the record, that these negroes were native Africans, and recently imported into Cuba, as alleged in their answers to the libels in the case. The supposed proprietary interest of Ruiz and Montez is completely displaced, if we are at liberty to look at the evidence, or the admissions of the district attorney. If then, these negroes are not slaves, but are kidnapped Africans, who, by the laws of Spain itself, are entitled to their freedom, and were kidnapped and illegally carried to Cuba, and illegally detained and restrained on board the Amistad; there is no pretense to say, that they are pirates or robbers. We may lament the dreadful acts by which they asserted their liberty, and took possession of the Amistad, and endeavored to regain their native country; but they cannot be deemed pirates or robbers, in the sense of the law of nations, or the treaty with Spain, or the laws of Spain itself; at least, so far as those laws have been brought to our knowledge. Nor do the libels of Ruiz or Montez assert them to be such... It is also a most important consideration, in the present case, which ought not to be lost sight of, that, supposing these African negroes not to be slaves, but kidnapped, and free negroes, the treaty with Spain cannot be obligatory upon them; 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. If the contest were about any goods on board of this ship, to which American citizens asserted a title, which was denied by the Spanish claimants, there could be no doubt of the right of such American citizens to litigate their claims before any competent American tribunal, notwithstanding the treaty with Spain. A fortiori, the doctrine must apply, where human life and human liberty are in issue, and constitute the very essence of the controversy. The treaty with Spain never could have intended to take away the equal rights of all foreigners, who should contest their claims before any of our courts, to equal justice; or to deprive such foreigners of the protection given them y other treaties, or by the general law of nations. Upon the merits of the case, then, 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... .....AND SO IT IS...IN 'THE EVOLUNTARY EXPRESSIONISM OF LIFE ENERGY'.
Description of the Newsletter Image of Cinque: Draped in traditional Mende garb and holding a staff, Cinque, leader of the Amistad insurrection, adopts a regal pose for this portrait by New Haven painter Nathaniel Jocelyn, completed while the Amistad case made its way through the courts. Sources: Time-Life Books: "African Americans: Voices Of Triumph" And "Crossing The Danger Water"
Colveyco Reading Room October 2004 Newsletter Go To Current Newsletter |
