Talk:Amistad
|
|
An event mentioned in this article is an August 26 selected anniversary.
I changed this: The ship was taken over by a group of free Africans, since they were not free but in chains when the rebelled. The sentences sounds as if the Africans attacked the ship rather than being enslaved on the ship itself. The fact that their enslavement was illegal is mentioned later in the first paragraph, but doesn't change the fact that it was enslavement. Also, I don't think that the selling into slavery in Africa was illegal, only the transport across the ocean. AxelBoldt 00:06 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
What does "illegally sold into slavery" mean? Under whose laws was the selling of slaves legal/illegal? -- Zoe
- The slave trade was illegal under a treaty between Spain and Britain. This is why the ownership papers of the Africans on board the Amistad were forged -- i.e., to indicate that they had been born in Cuba as slaves rather than being kidnapped from Africa. Such forgery, accomplished through bribes to government officials, was common practice at the time. If the trial court had found that the group of Africans had been born in Cuba, the Africans would have been ajudicated slaves (i.e., property) and returned to Ruiz and Montez under the Treaty of 1789.-- NetEsq 00:57 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
- The Africans were kidnapped and sold into slavery in Mendiland. Does the mentioned treaty apply there? If not, in what sense was the initial selling into slavery illegal? I think only the transport across the ocean was illegal.
- Now that I think about it, maybe not even the transport was illegal, since it was done by Portuguese, not Spaniards. The sale in Cuba was the first illegal act. AxelBoldt 01:37 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
It was finally judged illegal by American Supreme Court, I believe Ericd
Importation of slaves into the United States after (mumble, 1809, I believe) was illegal. But obviously, buying and selling slaves was not illegal, as it went on unil 1865. Where did the kidnapping and enslavement take place? Who had jurisdiction to say that, in this place at this time, it is illegal? -- Zoe
They were kidnapped in Mendiland (now Sierra Leone), sold to a Portuguese trader, shipped across the Atlantic on a Portuguese ship and sold in Cuba. Cuba belonged to Spain, and importing new slaves into Spain was illegal. I don't know who had jurisdiction in Mendiland in 1839. AxelBoldt 02:13 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
Please read the syllabus of the Supreme Court opinion, which is linked to from the article:
- [T]hese African negroes had been, a very short time before they were put on board the Amistad, brought into Cuba by Spanish slave traders in direct contravention of the treaties between Spain and Great Britain and in violation of the laws of Spain.
- The negroes were never the lawful slaves of Ruiz or Montez, or of any other Spanish subject. 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 of the most solemn edicts and declarations of that government.
There is no mention of Portuguese slave traders, nor is L'Amistad referred to as a "slave ship." Rather, L'Amistad was a merchant schooner which (by the by) carried slaves along with other cargo, and the Africans who were on board L'Amistad were kidnapped from their home in Sierra Leone and sold into slavery in violation of the laws of Spain.
Note: Sierra Leone is not mentioned anywhere in the Supreme Court opinion. [Added: Sierra Leone is mentioned, but only in the context of a tribunal where the Treaty of 1789 could be adjudicated.] However, this fact is set forth in the companion book to the PBS series, Africans in America: America's Journey Through Slavery. (Johnson, Charles, Patricia Smith, and WGBH Series Research Team, Africans in America: America’s Journey through Slavery (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1998), p. 353.) -- NetEsq 02:32 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
The syllabus does not say that they were "sold into slavery in violation of the laws of Spain". That's my point. Why did you insert the phrase "sold into slavery" to your quote of the syllabus? Where they were kidnapped and sold into slavery (Mendiland, current Sierra Leone), the laws of Spain were most likely not in effect (but the English laws might have been, I'm not sure). They were imported into Cuba in violation of the laws of Spain (by Portuguese, not Spaniards, as the syllabus wrongly states). AxelBoldt 18:41 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
- [T]hey had been, in April, 1839, kidnapped in Africa, and had been carried in a vessel engaged in the slave trade from the coast of Africa to Cuba for the purpose of being sold, and . . . Ruiz and Montez, knowing these facts, had purchased them . . . . -- 40 U.S. at 519 (Syllabus).
- [T]hey were, in the land of their nativity, unlawfully kidnapped, and forcibly and wrongfully, by certain persons to them unknown, who were there unlawfully and piratically engaged in the slave trade between the coast of Africa and the island of Cuba, contrary to the will of these respondents, unlawfully, and under circumstances of great cruelty, transported to the island of Cuba, for the unlawful purpose of being sold as slaves, and were there illegally landed for that purpose. -- 40 U.S. at 525-526.
- [T]hey 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. -- 40 U.S. at 589.
Nowhere in the Supreme Court's opinion is there any evidence that the court "established that the slaves had been captured in Mendiland (current Sierra Leone) in Africa, sold to a Portuguese trader in Lomboko (south of Freetown) in April 1839, and brought to Havana illegally on a Portuguese ship." Specifically, there is no reference to Mendiland, no reference to a Portuguese trader in Lomboko, and no reference to any Portuguese ship.
- Our article doesn't say that "the court established that" but rather that "it was established...", which it was. All accounts agree on those points. AxelBoldt 00:40 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)
- This is not the way the passage reads; the use of the passive voice makes it appear that the court established these facts, which -- by virtue of the different factual findings set forth in the Supreme Court opinion -- is not the case. -- NetEsq 04:49 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)
- [W]ere they not slaves under the Spanish laws? . . . If they are not, it is on account of some special law or decree. . . . Has such a law been produced in the present case? The first document produced is the treaty with England of 23d September, 1817. . . . But it carefully limits the ascertainment of any infringement to two special tribunals -- one at Sierra Leone and the other at Havana. The next is the decree of December, 1817, which authorizes negroes brought in against the treaty to "be declared free." 40 U.S. at 546-547.
- I still don't understand why their initial kidnapping and sale into slavery was considered illegal. Whose laws were violated? AxelBoldt 00:40 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)
The finding of the Amistad court was that the laws of Spain were violated. The court made no distinction between the "initial kidnapping" (which occurred in Sierra Leone), the transport (which took place across the Atlantic Ocean) and the sale (which occurred in Cuba). Pursuant to the Treaty of 1789, all of these acts -- which were part of the illegal slave trade -- were illegal under the laws of Spain. -- NetEsq 04:49 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)
Disambiguation
The article regarding The Amistad (the ship) and The Amistad (the U.S. Supreme Court case) need to be separate. United States v. The Amistad should not be a redirect to this page containing information regarding both; they are two separate things with the same name (the case is commonly referred to as simply "The Amistad", not "United States v. The Amistad"). If someone would like to disambiguate, it would be appreciated. If not, I will do it myself when I finish what I am currently working on. Skyler 20:43, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)