Kenneth Sutton

ENC 3315
Professor Marinara
September 7, 2014
The Amistad Case


John Quincy Adams was a lawyer in the Amistad case who defended the rights of
the Africans. Mr. Adams made the argument that the Africans had been kidnapped from
their home brought to Cuba then illegally sold; while abroad the Amistad in transit to be
sold else where they attempted to regain their freedom and in doing so killed the captain
of the ship. John Quincy Adams use of inductive reasoning and his logical appeals in the
defense of the Africans would have the courts see through the hasty generalizations made
by plaintiffs. Pedro Montez and Jose Ruiz two Spaniard Cubans abroad the Amistad
vessel who had illegally bought and now claimed the rights to the Africans. John Quincy
Adams was an abolitionist and believed that every man women and child had the right to
be free, at this time in the United States, no person could buy or claim the rights of a
person that was not born a slave.
President of the United States Martin van wanted the slaves and cargo to be sent
back to Cuba to maintain an amicable relation ship with Spain. The Presidents the
attorney representing the Spanish minister asked that if the claim of the Spanish minister
was well founded, to make such order for the disposal of the vessel, cargo, and slaves, as
would best enable the United States to comply with their treaty stipulations. But if it
Jessica Territo 9/8/14 9:51 AM
Comment [1]: Adding an introduction
could help other readers understand what they
are about to read before you start diving into
the details.
Jessica Territo 9/8/14 9:48 AM
Comment [2]: Watch for spelling and
punctuation for possessives
should appear, that the negroes were persons transported from Africa, in violation of the
laws of the United States, and brought within the United States contrary to the same laws;
he then prayed the Court to make such order for their removal to the coast of Africa,
pursuant to the laws of the United States, as it should deem fit. The court wanted
documented proof of ownership of the Africans and cargo that was abroad the Amistad
ship so it could fulfill its treaty with Spain or investigate the claims further. That claim
countered by defense for Cinque and other Africans, with the exception of Antonio, with
a claim filed an answer, denying that they were slaves, or the property of Ruiz and
Montez, or that the Court could, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
under any treaty, exercise any jurisdiction over their persons, by reason of the premises;
and praying that they might be dismissed. John Quincy Adams arguments would have
the District Court of Connecticut rejected the claim made by the Attorney of the United
States on behalf of the Spanish minister, for the restoration of the negroes under the
treaty; but it decreed that they should be delivered to the President of the United States, to
be transported to Africa, pursuant to the act of 3rd March, 1819.
The attorney of the United States on behalf of the Spanish minister would file an
appeal On the part of the United States, it has been contended. That due and sufficient
proof concerning the property has been made to authorize the restitution of the vessel,
cargo, and negroes to the Spanish subjects on whose behalf they are claimed pursuant to
the treaty with Spain, of the 27th of October, 1795 The President pushing the matter of
the treaty with Spain and hastily wanting over look the facts of the case depriving the
Africans of their freedom. The attorney of the United States on behalf of the Spanish
minister would site the eighth article of the treaty which provides for cases where the
Jessica Territo 9/8/14 9:56 AM
Comment [3]: Is this another document? If
so, the name of the attorney is useful and title
of document.
shipping of the inhabitants of either state are forced, through stress of weather, pursuit of
pirates, or enemies, or any other urgent necessity, to seek shelter in the ports of the other.
There may well be some doubt entertained, whether the present case, in its actual
circumstances, falls within the purview of this article.
John Quincy Adams would argue that under the ninth article provides, "that all
ships and merchandise, of what nature soever, which shall be rescued out of the hands of
any pirates or robbers, on the high seas, shall be brought into some port of either state,
and shall be delivered to the custody of the officers of that port, in order to be taken care
of and restored entire to the true proprietor, as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be
made concerning the property thereof. Mr. Adams was stating that without proof of
ownership the Africans should be free. The court would also concur with Mr. Adams and
want proof that the Africans fall within the description of merchandise, in the sense of the
treaty. That there has been a rescue of them on the high seas, out of the hands of the
pirates and robbers; which, in the present case, can only be, by showing that they
themselves are pirates and robbers; and, that Ruiz and Montez, the asserted proprietors,
are the true proprietors, and have established their title by competent proof. The court
would put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs Ruiz and Montez to present evidence and
essential facts that that in the courts opinion would establish proof. In presenting their
documents and testimonies, the court would find that the documents presented were
thought to be fraudulent and at thus void. What we proceed upon is this, that although
public documents of the government, accompanying property found on board of the
private ships of a foreign nation, certainly are to be deemed prima facie evidence of the
facts which they purport to state, yet they are always open to be impugned for fraud; and
whether that fraud be in the original obtaining of these documents, or in the subsequent
fraudulent and illegal use of them, when once it is satisfactorily established, it overthrows
all their sanctity, and destroys them as proof. Fraud will vitiate any, even the most solemn
transactions; and an asserted title to property, founded upon it, is utterly void. In their
hast Ruiz and Montez would make it clear to the court that these Africans never were the
lawful slaves, or of any other Spanish subjects 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 the most solemn edicts and declarations of that government. By
those laws, and treaties, and edicts, the African slave trade is utterly abolished; the
dealing in that trade is deemed a heinous crime; and the negroes thereby introduced into
the dominions of Spain, are declared to be free. Ruiz and Montez are proved to have
made the pretended purchase of these negroes, with a full knowledge of all the
circumstances. The courts finding and in conjunction and irresistible is the evidence in
this respect, that the District Attorney has admitted in open Court, upon the record, that
these negroes were native Africans, and recently imported into Cuba. Mr. Adams and
the interpreter further illustrated this by trying to communicate with the Africans with the
Spanish language with no avail. The court would raise its opinion affirming the lower
courts ruling, changing the final destination of the Africans from being shipped back to
letting them go free in the United States. Upon the whole, our opinion is, that the decree
of the Circuit Court, affirming that of the District Court, ought to be affirmed, except so
far as it directs the negroes to be delivered to the President, to be transported to Africa, in
pursuance of the act of the 3rd of March, 1819; and, as to this, it ought to be reversed:
and that the said negroes be declared to be free, and be dismissed from the custody of the
Jessica Territo 9/8/14 10:01 AM
Comment [4]: Great point and good way to
support it.
Court, and go without day. I believe that Mr. Adams had part in changing where the
Africans would end up, his belief that everyone should be free.



Jessica Territo 9/8/14 10:02 AM
Comment [5]: Most of your essay was to
prove this opinion which is great. Maybe delve
more into why you believe this

Be careful about fragment sentences.

Overall great use of excerpts from the
documents. They all supported each other.