Timeline supplement:
February 22nd, 1841 -- United States Supreme Court
The Supreme Court trial opened on the 22nd, and Attorney General Gilpin proceeded to outline the United States' case. He was followed by Roger S. Baldwin, who spoke for the next day and a half. Both presented the well-worn arguments of the case that had been debated a year before in the District Court. This time, however, the complexity of the case was greatly diminished. There were no arguments about jurisdiction, or competing salvage claims. The Supreme Court decision would rest firmly upon the issue of the Africans' status as free individuals or property. Adams spoke next, beginning on the 24th, but his speech was interrupted by the sudden death of Justice Barbour. Court proceedings were suspended until March 1st, when Adams concluded his arguments. Surprisingly, he spent the majority of time attacking the Van Buren administration and alleging various acts of interference with the judicial branch. While such accusations spoke to the injustices many felt the Africans received from the government, some critics questioned the relevance of such political attacks. It was imperative for the defense that the case did not stray from the successful formula designed in the District Court proceedings.
On March 9th, roughly a week after Adams ended his argument for the defense and Gilpin completed his closing statement for the United States, Justice Story handed down the decision of the Supreme Court. Lieutenant Gedney's salvage claims against the Amistad, her cargo, and the goods of Jose Tellincas and the house of Aspa & Laca were upheld. The Court agreed that the Africans were native Africans, illegally enslaved, and therefore not the property of Ruiz and Montez. As free individuals, they were also beyond the purview of any treaties between the United States and Spain. The Court did find an error, however, in the District Court decision. It noted that the congressional order of March 3, 1819 cited by Judge Judson did not apply in the Amistad case. That order applied to blacks being purposefully imported from a foreign country into the United States to be held as slaves. The blacks in this case were not taken from Africa to the United States (they arrived in America unintentionally), nor were they imported to be sold as slaves. Therefore, the Africans were declared unequivocally free, and their journey through the American courts was concluded at last.
It was important for the Africans to be declared free without any strings attached. If they had to have been turned over to the President, it would have meant they had to return to Africa. Even if one of the Africans had wanted to stay, he would have been forced to leave. Their future actions would have been determined by a treaty, and not exclusively by their own prerogative as free men. The Supreme Court decision declared them human beings with the right to follow their individual free will.
But, while the Supreme Court did determine the Africans to be completely free, a careful look at the decision will show that it was not a liberal decision at all. Throughout the path of the case, it was insisted by all of the judges that their decisions had been rendered only according to the letter of the law. The outcome of the Amistad case is inspiring and should be viewed as a triumph of abolitionism and the American legal system, but it remains a double-edged sword. If the Spanish government had been able to prove the Africans were indeed slaves, Justice Story would undoubtedly have found for the United States. Or if Ruiz and Montez had better "proof" of "ownership" (in other words bills of sale, and titles), the Africans would have been immediately turned over to the Spaniards. Why? Ironically, in a case before the Amistad, the United States government demanded the return of American slaves set free in Bermuda by Great Britain after the slaves had been shipwrecked there. Justice Story cites this incident saying, "Is not the resolution of the senate (the unanimous resolution) a declaration, that slaves, though liberated as persons, and so adjudged by a foreign court, are, in fact, by the law of nations, property, if so allowed to be held in the country to which the owner belongs?" The Supreme Court, in their decision of this case, admits blacks are considered property by the laws of the United States, and that the Constitution itself condones slavery as an acceptable institution.
The Amistad case was a landmark one, and very important to the future abolition of slavery in many ways. But the good is evenly weighed with the bad, and the case remains myopic in its importance. In this instance, and on account of these particular facts, the courts of America unequivocally freed black individuals, backhandedly confirming their humanity. But, it did not provide any lasting precedent for civil rights lawyers of the future. While they may have freed the Amistad Africans, the Supreme Court openly denied the argument that all blacks were human beings with natural rights to freedom.
Adam Kessler
