|
In order to place this case in context, I
ask you to think about the United States as this country existed in the
first half of the nineteenth century. We were a new country in the world
order, struggling to establish our place. It was not so long after the
war for independence, and there were decades to go before the civil war.
Our system of government, the likes of which had never been seen, was
being shaped by the actions of the chief executive, by the passage of
new laws by congress, and by the nascent jurisprudence of the American
courts. Now imagine a former president of the United
States arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court – for four
and one-half hours. Imagine the remarkable events that would give rise
to that most unusual circumstance. The historical context of this case,
and its impact on history, are among the many aspects of the Amistad
case that underscore it's significance. As with most cases, the facts
describe an unresolved conflict presented to a court for resolution.
Unlike most cases, these facts reveal bravery and avarice and diplomatic
conflict at the highest level among nations, all against the backdrop of
one of the most difficult issues our nation has ever confronted. It is
certain that the Africans who rebelled against their captors could not
imagine that their personal conflict would change the course of American
history.
In 1839, when the vessel Amistad was
towed to New London, slavery was legal in the south, as was possession
of slaves in Connecticut. Spain had outlawed slavery, with a notable
exception for those born into slavery before 1820. Therefore, a Spanish
vessel carrying slaves with proper documentation was breaking no law,
nor violating any treaty, by sailing into United States – or Connecticut
- waters. The lure of lucre led untold numbers of slave-traders to
produce or procure fraudulent papers to take advantage of that loophole.
Such was the case with the kidnapped Africans on board the Amistad when
the vessel was found in Long Island sound.
At the outset, I would like to point out
that the series of trials and appeals that are collectively referred to
as the Amistad case is truly a triumph for the rule of law, and
testament to the role of the courts in upholding the law, even in the
face of public controversy. Inevitably, issues that create conflict in
society find a forum in the courts. At the time these cases were
decided, there was strong public sentiment on both sides of the slavery
issue. Compromises regarding slavery were brokered in the political
arena before the war for independence and continued up to and beyond
former president Adams’ argument before the United States Supreme Court.
But, while these debates framed the public discourse, they could not be
permitted to interfere with – or determine - the courts’ rulings in this
matter.
Many of you know the essential facts of
this case: the kidnapping of the Mendi tribe members in Africa and their
indescribably tortured passage aboard the ship; their successful fight
for freedom on board the ship against their captors; the ensuing capture
of the ship and its “cargo” off the Connecticut coast; and the
imprisonment of the Mendi tribesmen in new haven pending resolution of
the case. This compelling and very human story continued as the
tribesmen were charged in federal court with piracy and murder.
This criminal aspect of the case was the
subject of the first trial, and was the first legal matter to be
disposed of by the court. The U.S. Circuit Court in Hartford determined
that the alleged crimes took place in Spanish territory and, thus, were
not within the jurisdiction of the district court. This is an important
affirmation of a seminal rule of law. It is a recognition by the court
that only matters that are properly within its jurisdiction can be acted
on. Do not lose sight of how powerful a statement this is. A court,
vested by the constitution with limited power granted by the people,
recognizes and acts solely within that grant of authority. It was
critically important then, and remains so today, that the court act
solely within the authority granted by our constitutional system of
government.
The second trial, then, became focused on
competing property claims: that of the surviving crew members, Ruiz and
Montez, to reclaim the ship and its contents; that of the naval officers
who presented a salvage claim for the same; and – signaling the
international magnitude of the litigation to follow – a claim by the
Spanish government for the return of the ship pursuant to a 1795 treaty
with the united states.
None of those claims initially spoke to
the fate of the Mendi as free men and women. It was not until their
attorney – hired for them by abolitionists - argued that release of the
kidnapped tribesmen was required as a matter of law and of right did the
significance of their plight take hold in the public conscience. This
presented what was ultimately the most important question: whether the
court should treat the Africans as property or as free people. This
question had decidedly political overtones that had been evaded in the
political arena for decades.
The second trial was held in the new
haven courthouse, and was presided over by district court Judge Andrew
T. Judson. Judge Judson had been appointed to the federal bench by
president martin Van Buren who, by all accounts, devoted a tremendous
effort to avoiding the slavery issue. Popular accounts of the judge’s
ruling expressed surprise, then, that he would find that the Africans
were not slaves. That conclusion was based on his finding that the
“documentation” presented by the surviving crew in their claim was not
credible. This finding effectively closed the loophole in the treaty
that, at least in this case, the slave-traders had been exploiting.
Facing international pressure from Spain,
the U.S. government appealed the ruling, which eventually found its way
to the United States Supreme Court. Understanding the critical
importance of the argument to the Supreme Court in support of upholding
the district and circuit court rulings, the abolitionists convinced
former president john Quincy Adams to argue the case. Funding to support
the litigation was provided by the abolitionists. Attorney Roger Sherman
Baldwin, grandson of roger Sherman who would later become governor of
Connecticut, was the lead attorney for the Africans. Other supporters
included Lewis Tappan of New York, who had a summer home in new haven.
Adams had previously been invited to participate in the case but had
declined. He was a member of the House of Representatives at the time,
was 74 years old, and not at all certain he could do justice to the
case. Clearly his concerns were not well founded, as he argued for four
and one-half hours. His arguments addressing the meaning of the United
States constitution must have been especially compelling for the court,
coming from the son of a founding father who was also a former
president.
Justice Story, himself among the most
distinguished justices to serve on the United States Supreme Court,
delivered the opinion of the court which begins with the simple
declarative statement: “this is the case of an appeal from the decree of
the circuit court of the district of Connecticut, sitting in admiralty.”
Following a three page exposition on the facts of the case, the court
then emphasized the actual posture of the case as it had been presented.
The opinion noted that the United States government was not asserting
any property interest, or violation of federal law. Rather, the argument
of the attorney-general on appeal spoke to the government's interest in
upholding a valid treaty between the United States and Spain. This
speaks, once again, to the maxim that the court resolves only the issues
that are properly before it. The constitutionality of slavery was not
before the court – but the status of the Mendi tribesman as free men
was. The court continued on to articulate the law governing the dispute
before it stating the inevitable conclusion that “[i]t is plain beyond
controversy, if we examine the evidence, that these Negroes never were
the lawful slaves of Ruiz and Montez, or of any other Spanish subjects.”
Once this clear statement of truth was
set down, the rule of law demanded that the men be set free. For ours is
a system of laws, and not of men. It was not the preference of the
attorney general, or President Adams, that ultimately determined the
outcome of this case. The proper operation of the rule of law in a
system of government that respects the rights of all and the freedom of
each could countenance no other result. The opinion also upheld the
right to rebel against unlawful slavery. Finally, the opinion of the
United States Supreme Court issued in 1841 signaled to the south that
slavery, where it had been abolished, would remain so under the rule of
law.
You probably already know the rest of the
story of the Mendi. Following additional successful fundraising efforts
by the abolitionists, the 35 remaining tribesmen returned to what is now
the country of Sierra Leone – 18 had not survived their three years of
captivity. Among the lessons I take away from this case, and I have
revisited it many times, is that we should never take for granted the
freedoms we enjoy. I would like to close by quoting
remarks delivered by
Justice Zarella at our recent bar admission ceremony last month.
"In a country, like ours, that is defined
by freedom for all its people, it’s sometimes easy to take for granted
this form of government as well as the freedoms it protects. It can also
be all too easy for us to take for granted the inherent promise that our
system makes to people when they walk into a courthouse. The promise is
simply this: no matter who you are, or where you come from, no matter
how much money you make, or what color your skin is, what sex you are,
or how and if you worship, you will be treated fairly, and the judge
will make his or her decision based on the facts of the case and the
applicable law. The promise is that decisions will be made free of
passion and prejudice and untainted by public opinion."
I encourage you to take a moment at the
reception in the state museum to view the panels depicting the Amistad
case that were so generously loaned to us for this occasion by Amistad
America, Inc. I know that you will be moved by what those panels
represent in the history of American courts.
|
