1

Elizabeth Buell
ENC 3315
The Amistad Case

Rhetorical Analysis of the Arguments Made During the Amistad Case
Bias, as defined by Merriam Webster dictionary, is an inclination of temperament
or outlook; especially: a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment: prejudice. In
situations that deal with bias, the real story cannot always be clear. This means justice
cannot be attained simply and easily. In the case of The Amistad, bias can be openly
identified; this is the whole reason the case became a difficult, lengthy, and emotional one.
In 1839, over 50 Africans from West Africa were kidnapped from their home and illegally
sold in a slave market in Havana, Cuba. Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montes from Spain purchased
the men and gave them new Spanish names to try to prove they were born slaves. They
took the slaves aboard the Amistad and set sail to plantations on the coast, to sell the
Africans. After horrible mistreatment by Ruiz and Montes and confusion as to what was
happening and where they were, the Africans broke free. Like any kidnapped person, they
armed themselves and went after their kidnappers. After the revolt, the ship drifted for two
months and ended up in New York waters. Naval officers spotted the ship and took
custody of the African men.
From the beginning of the trial, bias was apparent in the way they treated the men
and the situation. Ruiz and Montes painted a picture of piracy, mutiny, and unnecessary
violence committed by the slaves. No one was concerned about the treatment of the men
or whether they were actually slaves and not just kidnapped men from Africa. Theyre
defense lawyer, Mr. Baldwin was only concerned about property law. He argued that if the
2
Africans were born in Cuba, they would be slaves of the Spaniards and returned to Spain;
if they were born in Africa, they would be free men and returned home.
Mr. Baldwin was the defense lawyer for the African men. He based most of his
argument upon the fact that the U.S. had no obligation to return the men to Spain because
of the constitution, property law, and the ban of the slave trade. The recovery of slaves for
their owners, whether foreign or domestic, is a matter with which the executive of the
United States has no concern. The Constitution confers upon the government no power to
establish or legalize the institution of slavery. (Baldwin Argument). He is stating that it
was never U.S. law or in U.S. power to deal with the recovery of slaves. He says that it is
not obligated that they return the slaves to anyone, whether or not they are actually slaves.
It is not only incumbent on the claimants to prove that the Africans are domiciled in
Cuba, and subject to its laws, but they must show that some law existed there by which
"recently imported Africans" can be lawfully held in slavery. (Baldwin Argument). This
quote from Baldwins argument basically portrays his argument that the Spaniards need to
prove that they were born slaves on a Cuban plantation, otherwise they were born free men
and they are not slaves of the Spaniards. So, whether or not they were born slaves, even
though they were not, the U.S. had no legal obligation to return them to any foreign
country because they do not support the slave trade.
On the other-side, the Attorney General, Mr. Gilpin, was the prosecutor for the
United States during the trial. Although he was the voice for the United States, he really
advocated for Spain and keeping relations with them good. The instance of the Spanish
minister, for the vessel, cargo, and negroes, to be restored to the Spanish owners, in which
3
claim those of Messrs. Ruiz and Montez were merged; that of the Spanish vice-consul, for
the slave Antonio, to be restored to the Spanish owner. (Gilpins Argument). He wanted
everything including the ship, cargo, and slaves to be sent back to Spain via Ruiz and
Montes. Here is the authentic certificate or record of the highest officer known to the
Spanish law, declaring, in terms, that these Negroes are the property of the several Spanish
subjects. We have it countersigned by another of the principal officers. (Gilpins
Argument). Gilpin had the advantage during this trial because he had signed papers with
the Africans names stating they were born in Cuba on plantations. Although these were
fake documents, he still had the upper hand because those type of documents are hard to
prove, especially when the men were born in Africa with no documentation to prove so.
The case went back and forth and both parties portrayed their arguments to the jury.
The case was tried and ruled in favor of the Spaniards. However the case was appealed and
wen through another whole trial. What was different about this one was that it was a bench
trail instead of a jury trial. The government tried to manipulate the outcome of this trial by
appointing a young judge who would be concerned about his reputation and happened to
be catholic. They believed he would rule in favor of Spain because of the catholic ties
there. Despite their efforts, he ruled in favor of the Africans and wanted all of them to be
returned home to West Africa, the ship and cargo to return to Spain, and the Spaniards to
be jailed because of lying and slave trading. After this trial, it was appealed again and
taken to the Supreme Court.
After numerous times he was asked, former president John Quincy Adams finally
advocated on behalf of the Africans before the Supreme Court. During his speech in front
4
of the Supreme Court, Adams did not focus much on facts or property law; he focused on
natural law. He was the first person to argue about natural law and the treatment of the
African people. This Court would not decide but on a due consideration of all the rights,
both natural and social, of every one of these individuals. I have endeavored to show that
they are entitled to their liberty from this Court. (Adams Argument). He wanted people
to understand that it did not matter whether they were slaves or not, they were still men
and had rights. The words slave and slavery are studiously excluded from the
Constitution Slaves, therefore, in the Constitution of the United States are persons,
enjoying rights and held to the performance of duties....(Adams Argument). Adams was
the only one in this trial who openly admitted the bias that was going on from the very
beginning. He also made numerous comments on the immoral practice of slavery in
general, rather than the specific situation at hand. Adams also argued about U.S. law and
how it was bias of the U.S. to extend their sympathies to the Spaniards only, with out
asking the Africans into consideration. For I inquire by what right, all this sympathy, from
Lieut. Gedney to the Secretary of State, and from the Secretary of State, as it were, to the
nation, was extended to the two Spaniards from Cuba exclusively, and utterly denied to the
fifty-two victims of their lawless violence? (Adams Argument). He basically called out
the U.S. naval officers who discovered the ship and the officers of the courts for assuming
the Africans were the ones at fault.
At the end of the Supreme Court trial, they ended up ruling in the Africans favor
and they were given their freedom. However, the court did not acknowledge Adams
stance on natural law and slavery. They based their ruling off of the facts and property law.
5
It, then, these negroes are not slaves, but are kidnapped Africans, who, by the laws of
Spain itself, are entitled to their freedom, and were kidnapped and illegally carried to
Cuba, and illegally detained and restrained on board of the Amistad; there is no pretense to
say, that they are pirates or robbers. We may lament the dreadful acts, by which they
asserted their liberty, and took possession of the Amistad, and endeavored to regain their
native country; but they cannot be deemed pirates or robbers in the sense of the law of
nations, or the treaty with Spain, or the laws of Spain itself; at least so far as those laws
have been brought to our knowledge. Nor do the libels of Ruiz or Montez assert them to be
such. (Supreme Court Opinion). The Supreme Court did not want to set a precedent on
the subject of slavery even though it was starting to become a pressing matter of the times.
Because it was a very controversial topic, they did not want to step on any toes.
This trial, though it seems to have very unanimous opinion to people nowadays,
was a very controversial one during the time period. This was pre-civil wartime and
slavery was very much still happening almost widespread. It was not till this case that the
topic was even open for discussion. After the trial, it gave abolitionist groups opportunities
to be heard be people across the country. It was a groundbreaking end result in the eyes of
the civil rights activists of the time and could quite possibly be the start of a lot of the
more widespread anti- slavery movements. If the Supreme Court would have set a
precedent on the subject, they could have started the Civil war a lot earlier.
6
Works Cited
Adams, John G. "Argument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the
United States." Argument of John Quincy Adams. Yale University Law School,
1841. Web. 07 Sept. 2014.
Baldwin, Roger. "U.S. v. Amistad -- Mr. Baldwin's Argument." U.S. v. Amistad. Cornell
University Law School, Jan. 1841. Web. 07 Sept. 2014.
Gilpin, Henry. "U.S. v. Amistad -- Attorney-General Gilpin Argument." U.S. v. Amistad.
Cornell University Law School, Jan. 1841. Web. 07 Sept. 2014.
U.S. Supreme Court. "U.S. v. Amistad -- Opinion of the Court." U.S. v. Amistad -- Opinion
of the Court. Cornell University Law School, 1841. Web. 07 Sept. 2014.