View Document Frames
"The Africans," Emancipator, 7 Nov. 1839.
From the New Haven Record.
THE AFRICANS.
We have witnessed with regret the eagerness with which reports have been caught
up and published, unfavorable to the African's confined in this city, and the disposition
manifested to alienate from them the sympathy of the public, and even to enlist it
in favor of Ruiz and Montez. We refer to not the marvelous fabrications which have
filled the columns of Bennett's Herald, but to papers which are accounted respectable.
A paragraph indited by the editor of the Hartford Courier has had considerable circulation,
in which it is stated that the business of Cinquez was to conduct slaves from the
interior to the coast, to supply the slave ships: and the authorities given are the
boy Antonio, who understands no African language, and the editor of the New Haven
Herald, who, the day after the interpreters Pratt and Covey arrived was "informed
that Cinquez acknowledged that he had sold slaves."
We are now able to state on good authority, that the three interpreters, Ferry, Pratt
and Covey, each of them, affirm positively that Cinquez has told them no such thing,
nor any thing like it: nor do the gentlemen who conducted the examinations with the
two latter, and took minutes of all the answers, remember any such statement. Cinquez
then said, as he says now, that he was the son of a chief, or head man and that he
sometimes trafficked in merchandise. Pains have been taken again to examine Cinquez
and several of the other prisoners in reference to this particular point. Cinquez
denies ever having been engaged in the slave traffic, and the others deny any knowledge
of his having been so engaged.
But suppose all that has been said to be true. Are not slavery and the slave trade
the "peculiar institutions" of Africa, as well as of Cuba and a part of
the United States? Is it a less crime for a poor benighted African to sell those
who are slaves according to the laws and customs of the country, than for a high-born
Spaniard, educated, as Ruiz had been, in Connecticut, to purchase men, just from
the slave ship, knowing them to be the victims of that abominable traffic which the
laws of his own and every civilized country denounced as the vilest of crimes? Further:
Can men who are not willing to speak at all severely of the slavery and the slave
trade which are legalized in this country, say, as the above mentioned editors do,
that an African slave dealer can have no claim upon our human sympathies: Really,
we think there is"something morbid in the conduct of certain gentlemen."
Must the little children and boys, who compose a large part of the whole, be cut
off from the sympathy of the public, for the supposed crime of one of the number?
There is no evidence that any of the number even possessed a slave in Africa. Mr.
Tappan's supposed information to the contrary was obtained hastily, when the means
of communication were very imperfect. If it were true, with what face can these editors
impute slave holding, or slave dealing, even as a crime--unless they have recently
become abolitionists? At any rate, they ought not to be ignorant that the claim of
these Africans on our interest and our efforts in their behalf, does not rest at
all on their personal character, but on the fact that they are victims of the accursed
slave trade, and as such cast in the providence of God upon us for protection.
Advantage has been taken of the prosecution of Montez and Ruiz, to make an impression
unfavorable to the Africans, and favorable to their oppressors. The act of instituting
the suit has been eagerly and without waiting for inquiry, imputed to bad motives.
Odium has been cast upon it as a measure of the abolitionists. Strange, that justice
cannot be sought in a court of law for oppressed and imprisoned strangers among us,
without incurring censure! Justly as these Spaniards deserve to suffer, the real
object of the prosecution was not to recover damages, but to bring before a jury
the question of the right of these Africans to liberty.
The attempt has been made to discredit the testimony of the Africans. That their
testimony is admissible in court has been decided by Judge Inglis. That the main
facts of their story are true, no one can doubt who is acquainted with the nature
of the testimony and the manner in which it was taken. Not only are these facts altogether
credible in themselves, but the Africans were examined separately, and cross-examined,
and some of the examined not only through the interpreters, Pratt and Covey, but
through Ferry, who used a different language from them; and they all agree in testifying
positively to these facts, and with every appearance of honesty and truth. It is
the perfect coincidence of their separate testimony which gives it its strength.
The "dangerous weapons" which it was said in a way to excite alarm and
suspicion, the prisoners had obtained were nothing but common jack knives, some of
which were brought them by the interpreters, inconsiderately, and without the knowledge
of any one else, and others by boys who went in as visitors. It was very proper that
the knives should be taken from them; but no one acquainted with the circumstances
can suppose for a moment that they wanted them for any other purpose than their own
amusement and convenience.
Those editors who do not choose to manifest any interest in favor of the Africans,
ought at least to be careful not to mislead the public respecting the case.
The Africans are making encouraging progress in acquiring the English language under
their instructors, and their interest in the matter continues unabated.
