1

Macey Colavecchio
ENC 3315

On July 1, 1839, fifty-three Africans, recently kidnapped into slavery in Sierra Leone and
sold at a Havana slave market, revolted on board the schooner Amistad. They killed everyone on
board but two Spaniards in order for them to sail back to Africa. Instead, the ship was taken off
Long Island by a US revenue cutter on August 24, 1839. In this assignment, I will analyze three
arguments from Roger Baldwin, Attorney General Mr. Gilpin, and newspaper clippings from the
time period. After the ship landed, the Africans were put into prison and a legal battle over their
rights and the property of the ship ensued; the American cutters captain filed for salvage rights
to the Amistads cargo; the two Spaniards claimed ownership themselves; Spanish authorities
demanded the Africans to be taken back to Cuba and tried for murder. The controversy that
unfolded in the American courts between 1839 and 1841 involved politics, criminal law,
international law, and property law.
The slave trade had been outlawed in the United States for over 30 years, except that the
institution of slavery itself still resided in the South. To begin to end slavery would mean to start
a war with the South and no one was willing to pull the trigger, as well as sacrifice the benefits
of slavery (In cotton mills that the north depended on the cotton picked by the slaves, for
example). The nations attention was caught as the Amistad case entered the court. In my first
analysis, I bring Roger Baldwins argument. He was asked to represent the Africans of the
Amistad. He begins his argument for when the Africans came into the jurisdiction of New York:
They came there without any wrongful act on the part of any officer or citizen of the
United States. They were in a state where, not only no law existed to make them slaves,
but where, by an express statute, all persons, except fugitives, &c., from a sister state, are
declared to be free.

2
Here, in Baldwins eyes, the slaves are free. And it would be inconsistent with the principles of
the American government to help and give force to a foreign slave law. He stated that the
recovery of the slaves for their owners is not a matter for the US. And all persons within the
limits of a state are entitled to the protection of American laws. He goes on, contended that the
Spanish government was trying to manipulate the Court to return their fugitives. He contended
that the Africans could not be returned as property because under Spanish law, any Africans
introduced to Spanish territory after 1820 were free. And since these Africans are guilty of no
crime they fought for their freedom- and were illegally enslaved they are not Spanish
property. Later on he did argue that Ruiz and Monte were the criminals, not the Africans who
fought for their freedom and that the two Cubans deserve that penalty of death for piracy. Mr.
Baldwins principal legal goal was to win the freedom of the Africans because their situation was
more important than it seemed at that moment. The entire nation was watching, and Baldwin
points that out here:
This case is not only one of deep interest in itself, as affecting the destiny of the
unfortunate Africans, whom I represent, but it involves considerations deeply affecting
out national character in the eyes of the whole civilized world

After hours of speaking, Mr. Baldwin did eventually altar the destiny of the Africans with a 7-1
victory in the Supreme Court. He was successful because he proved that the Africans were not
born in Cuba on plantations on a basis of laws that already existed. He settled the case over that
the Africans were human beings, not property and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the
district court which at the time could not try criminal cases. Baldwin argued that the African of
the Amistad were not ever slaves and protected by the laws of the state. His argument is narrow,
property-law based rather than moralistic, broad-based attack on slavery.
3
On the same side of the Africans was John Quincy Adams and his argument was very
different from Mr. Baldwins argument, but still brilliant. At times his argument was eloquent,
and also a political declamation. He used rhetoric in an emotionally charged setting; Baldwin had
been arguing for the Africans in the lower courts but on February 22, it was Adams turn. I
wanted to explore the differences and similarities between two arguments that were on the same
side but argued separate things. Adams argument was centered on the principle of habeas corpus,
which ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention.
Adams took an opinion contrary to that of the federal government, which was specifically
expressed by President Martin Van Buren. He was a practicing lawyer and member of the House
of Representatives, and overall stressed that the rights of his clients to their lives and liberties are
extremely important and that justice must be served in this court. Justice, as defined is The
constant and perpetual will to secure to every one his own right. He demanded that the rights of
his clients to be protected by the Court and urged that justices to declare the Amistad captives as
free men, not slaves.
I learned though my research Adams motivation in arguing for the Africans he was a
strict abolitionist and viewed the practice of slavery contrary to the nations core principles of
freedom and equality. His opening for the argument was mainly symbolic where he focused on
representing the nation as a whole as it was created through justice. Adams delivered several
rhetorical devices in his speech his repetition of truth and freedom enforce the values that
the Constitution stands for while he never calls or refers to the Amistad captives as slaves. These
strategies are effective for the audience of the Supreme Court; Adams argument lasted for over
four hours and was over 130 pages long and he was still able to clearly define his argument and
win the case.
4
Adams argument was that justice was needed in this trial, attacking Van Buren for abuse
of executive power, deflated the U.S attorneys argument that the treaty with Spain should
override U.S. principles of individual rights. To appease a foreign nation, Adams argued that the
president committed the, utter injustice in a suit between parties for their individual rights. He
asked the court to consider what justice is the constant and perpetual will to secure one his
own right. The Africans exercised their rights to fight against oppression; they were free men
by the law or nature and had every right to resist enslavement. By Spains own laws, he argued,
the Africans were illegally enslaved. And if the President could hand over free man on the
demand of a foreign government, how could any man woman and child in the U.S. be sure of
their blessing of freedom? If President had the power to send the Africans to Cuba, he would
equally have power to seize 40 Americans and send them overseas for trial. He quoted the
Declaration of Independence:
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. (PG 45)
This was an example of an ad populum argument that was aimed at appealing to the
supposed prejudices and emotions of the masses. If the Africans had been legally recognized as
slaves of the Spanish, then they would have been seen as property. Adams also argued for their
freedom as people, never calling them slaves. The Constitution no where recognizes them as
property. The words slave and slavery are studiously excluded from the Constitution, and
concludes that Slaves are person enjoying rights. He argued for the Court to send them home to
Africa.
Newspaper accounts from the London Gazette of the time during the Amistad trial give
5
an interesting perspective on what Americans point of view on slavery was during the time.
After reading several articles, I realized that the motivation of the article is to report on the story
of the Amistad in a way that makes Africans look savage and guilty. Through the use of
semantics and the tone of the article is conveys that the London Gazette was not on the side of
the Africans. The Africans motivation in killing the captain of the ship was to re-secure their
freedom and they spared Montes and Rues because they needed people to navigate the ship back
to Africa but in the copy, when the Africans overthrew the ship, Montes and Rues were treated
with the greatest severity, and suffering from two severe wounds. The article compliments the
Spainards, as gentlemanly and intelligent, also the most striking instance for complacency
and unalloyed delight.
I will be finishing my analysis on
the political cartoon to the right, (The
Results of Abolitionism (Cartoon).
1835. Library Company of
Philadelphia.) It is an illustration of the death of Captain Ferrer in July 1839. There are 8 African
men, some holding weapons, attacking the captain of the ship. Their faces are enraged and the
caption is seen raising his hand to help in a cry of despair. To the right is one white man who is
climbing the rope to escape from the chaos. This cartoon gives some evidence about the view
Americans had about the Abolitionist movement. Although the dating of the cartoon is about
four years earlier than the actual case it gives viewers the idea that abolition at this time was
considered a minority group the cartoon mockingly attacks the abolition cause. Therefore, we
can conclude that the Amistad case had a significant effect on the abolition movement.