Amistad Trials Rhetorical Analysis by Robert Hellmuth

The Amistad trials of the nineteenth century were a shameful blotch on the United States
misuse of its court system. In it, over forty Africans who were illegally abducted from their home
village in Africa, illegally transported by slave-trade pirates to Cuba, and sold illegally to Cuban
slave-trade merchants named Don Jose Ruiz and Don Pedro Montes, were persecuted for piracy
and murder, facing the death penalty and or subjugation to servitude, by the men who were once
their oppressors, Ruiz and Montes. Many arguments were made for and against them; however,
for the purposes of this analysis, three specific newspaper accounts of varying nature written in
1839 will be compared. The first of them to be reviewed and analyzed is a discrete argument
written by Ruiz and Montes, a letter aiming to achieve acquittal before any trial began. It was
written from them to the population of New London, Connecticut where the Amistad trials
began. The first of these arguments is based solely in deception and lies. The next argument to be
dissected is the most concise, one based in factual evidence, containing logical appeals that
address the paradoxes of this trial. It argued that there was no legal basis to persecute the
Amistad Africans upon. This argument was one proposed by the Hartford Courant, a local
Hartford, Connecticut newspaper. The last argument to be discussed is a newspaper account
written by John Quincy Adams, the defending lawyer of the Amistad captives; it was published
in the popular New York Journal of commerce. This argument written by Adams is easily the
most comprehensive and compelling of the three to be analyzed, making appeals to logic and
emotion on the basis of factual evidence.
The letter written by Ruiz in Montes to be published in New London, Connecticut local
newspapers was written in hopes of being exonerated of any crime whatsoever. The argument is
not explicitly stated, but given the circumstances and facts, can easily be determined that they are
making a plea for freedom under false pretenses. It appeals to emotion with a cloying, gracious
tone whilst fallaciously relying on false premises throughout in hopes of establishing rapport
with the audience that is local newspaper readers of New London: the location in which the
Amistad trials began. This letter is not one written out of gratitude, but out of chicanery in hopes
to gain popular favor of the New London population.
In this letter, Ruiz and Montes play the role of two harmless, respectable fellow human
beings who are just happy to be relieved of the ordeal which they encountered. In this said
ordeal, Montes and Ruiz frame themselves as victims of a savage mutiny in which ruthless
African buccaneers overtook their ship, exposing both Ruiz and Montes to brutal conditions
which surely would have resulted in an awful death. They however mention not the nature of
these alleged pirates, leaving out the critical fact that these pirates were actually at one point their
captives aboard the Amistad. They deceivingly cover up the entire nature of the ordeal which is
that Ruiz and Montes were both participating in the highly illegal African slave trade, a crime
punishable by death. The alleged buccaneers aboard the ship were in actuality illicitly captured
from their homeland in Africa who later rebelled against their oppressive captors, Ruiz and
Montes, in hopes of escaping servitude.
Ruiz and Montes make attempts to publicly express benign gratitude to Lieutenant
Commander T.R. Gedney. They thank Gedney and the United States Navy excessively for
saving them from these savages who seemingly overtook them without reasonable cause. They
thank the US Navy in a saccharine manner for their decision in seizing the Amistad and for
providing them with genuine hospitality. They continue to express gratitude to have taken
measures in protection of their cargo, which they fail to disclose, includes the Africans aboard
the Amistad. All of these statements of gratitude are deceptively made to engender sympathy
among the readers: the population of the town in which they may face capital punishment.
They then continue to express indebtedness to the the Nation [the US] whose flag they
[the Navy] so worthily bear, assuring that the act will be greatly appreciated by their home
nation and the Queen of Spain. The wording used in the beginning of this statement displays a
subservient gratitude to the audience whilst appealing to their patriotism. The following clause
suggests that the home nation of Ruiz and Montes, which is Spain, will be so thankful that we
will receive appraisal from the queen of Spain.
Overall, the foundation of this letter of seeming gratitude is built upon lies, fallacious
emotional appeals, and a pseudo-affinity with America. It was a deceptive trick in which they
attempted to gain favor of the public in hopes of exculpation for the crimes that which they
committed. The premise of this entire argument is one lacking not even a paucity of truth: that
Ruiz and Montes are both innocent men. The next argument unlike that of Ruiz and Montez, is
one which relies far more on logic and facts than emotion.
The Hartford Courant, a local Hartford, Connecticut newspaper, later published an article
suggesting a trial against the Amistad captives would be one based in absurdity with neither legal
nor logical premise. The argument begins with a background statement regarding the US laws
against participation in the African slave trade, that is participating in the African slave trade is
the equivalent of engagement in piracy, and one is liable to be charged as a pirate for doing so.
This bit of background information is foreshadowing the accusation or suggestion that one or
more persons have engaged in participation in the African slave trade, a crime that is taken very
seriously.
The following in regards to the persecution of the Amistad captives is one loaded with
disdain, ridicule, and overtones of sarcasm. It suggests that it would be very extraordinary if
the Africans aboard the Amistad, who were unwillingly extracted from their homeland, should
be charged with homicide and piracy under the circumstantial conditions that they encountered
in which they were attempting to disentangle themselves from their oppressive captors,
participators of the illicit African slave trade, in hopes of escaping the grim fate of servitude.
This is a brazen appeal to logic which attempts to engender skepticism among the audience in
regards to any trial against the African captives aboard the Amistad: how should anyone in
illegal confinement be charged with capital punishment for attempting to escape the confines of
criminal slavery, a crime also punishable by the death penalty under the same violation, piracy?
Any sane person would more than likely agree that such a trial would be preposterous and
paradoxical, however, this is the trial that the Amistad abductees faced.
The last statement of this article continues to deride the idea of the plausible outcomes of
the Amistad trials by stating that it would be incredible if both parties, that is Ruiz and Montes,
and the Africans aboard the Amistad, should both be declared guilty and face the exact same
punishment, the death penalty, and possibly the same verdict, violation of piracy laws. How
ludicrous of a result this would be, and how could any intelligent being suggest this to be a
reasonable trial? These are the questions the Hartford Courant is attempting to provoke to their
audience of readers.
Overall, this entire argument is based on strong logical appeals by the suggestion of
paradoxical outcomes of this trial, and the nonsensical grounds in which this trial was based. The
entire premise of this newspaper account, entirely contrary to that of the letter written by Montes
and Ruiz, is rooted in fact: that the Africans aboard the Amistad were innocent men, abducted
from Africa, sold to Ruiz and Montes, violators of the laws against the African slave trade. The
following argument to be reviewed is the most comprehensive of the three. A letter written by
John Quincy Adams to the New York Journal of Commerce in November of 1839 displays an
argument based in fact, logic, and emotion.
John Quincy Adams wrote this article in 1839 to the New York Journal of Commerce to
be published in hopes of persuading its large audience to the favor of the Africans aboard the
Amistad in the Amistad trials. The letter begins with a sympathetic yet factual description of how
the Africans aboard the Amistad arrived in the US. It accurately portrays the group of Africans
as victims of deception. The letter displays that neither maliciously, willingly, nor coincidentally
did these Africans arrive upon our coast, they arrived here under the deceit of their oppressors,
Ruiz and Montes. It tells how they were duped into believing they were returning to their
homeland in West Africa, however, due to their ignorance of navigation, Ruiz and Montes were
able to steer them to the US. The purpose of this brief introduction is to provide a concise
background to the reader and portray the unfortunate circumstances in which the Africans
arrived in the US.
The next section of the letter depicts the nature of the Africans aboard the Amistad. It
begins with the factual claim that they arrived in Cuba under statutory violation of the laws of
that island, of Spain, and of the US in which such perpetration is punishable by the death penalty
under piracy. It argues the crimes for which the Africans should be tried; such as conspiracy,
mutiny, homicide, and capture; were all committed under their natural right to liberty against
their captors Ruiz and Montes, perpetrators of slave-trade piracy who illegally purchased these
Africans as their property. This section argues for the natural right to liberty for these Africans,
that all actions taken to free themselves were based in constitutional freedoms. It is written in
hopes of facilitating understanding of the reader, to explain why it is the Africans undertook such
actions and why such actions were rational and justifiable.
The anteceding segment was rooted in fact, and composed to engender guilt among the
audience and provoke sympathy towards the Africans for the harrowing circumstances under
which they were to be persecuted. It illustrates the ignorance of the Africans understanding of
our laws and language, whilst to be tried in our court of law under deprivation of speech in their
defense. It then further arises guilt by illustrating the grim helplessness of these individuals in a
nation whose foundation was based upon compassion and justice, a scenario in which to try these
individuals under such circumstances would be a revolting paradox. Adams then asks the
audience what have we done?, placing blame upon our nation to allow such a disastrous
display of inconsideration to occur. The purpose of this statement is written to the audience to
encourage action to fix this mistake.
The last section begins by describing the authoritarian actions undertaken by our own
Navy in regards to the seizure of the African. They inconsiderately ventured beyond their
jurisdiction of the state by disarming the Africans, seizing them and the cargo aboard the ship,
detaining the Africans without warrant of arrest under the blind acceptance of testimony
provided by the prior oppressors of the Africans, Ruiz and Montes, returning the Africans to
servitude. It is told immediately after, these Africans were tried for piracy and homicide, on top
of the claim that they were property of Ruiz and Montes. This argument dabbles into the
contradiction of accusing property of piracy and murder leading into the decision made by the
circuit judge that is that the US does not obtain the right to persecute homicide or piracy
committed in foreign vessels, but that the District Court may try them for whether or not they are
slaves, and until determination of location of the trial, they shall be subjugated as slaves. This
entire section is based in paradoxical contradictions of our law and the unfairness of the trial, for
which we have allowed our mantra of innocent until proven guilty to become antithetical in the
Amistad trials, guilty until proven innocent.
Adams closes this argument with three questions that greatly challenge the pride of pour
nation, summarizing the entirety of his argument: Is this compassion? Is it sympathy? Is it
justice? The clear answer to all three of these questions is no, quite the contrary. He closes with
the powerful challenge to the audience, But here the case now stands? This ties his entire
argument of appeals of logic and emotion rooted in factual evidence of the unfairness of our trial.
The purpose of this argument is to show how absolutely absurd and shameful it is to try these
Africans under such despicable conditions. It is made to make the audience challenge these
irrational decisions made by our court, it arises guilt that should engender compassion towards
the victims of this unjust trial, in hopes of enacting change among the audience and the northern
regions of the US where these trials did occur.
Overall, among these three arguments of newspaper account, the one proposed by Adams
is the greatest and most comprehensive. It contains the greatest appeals rooted in factual
evidence. The argument proposed by the Hartford Courant is a great one as well, short but sweet,
it concise argument proposed simply points out the paradoxes of this trial that should arise great
concern among their readers. The worst and most shameful argument of this analysis is that
proposed by Ruiz and Montes who make a petty attempt at engendering pride among the readers
of their letter for treating them so well, discretely arguing for exculpation without actually
making any explicit points, flattering the reader in a cloying manner, whilst doing all atop the
foundation of lies, under the premises that they are innocent men.

Link to Articles Referenced
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/AMI_NEWS.HTM
1
st
) "After the capture of the Amistad by the crew of the Washington, Jose Ruiz and Pedro
Montes wrote a letter addressed to the newspaper subscribers of the New London, Connecticut
which was published in local newspapers"
2
nd
) "The Hartford Courant published an article expressing the opinion that no legal grounds for
action against the Amistad Africans existed"
3
rd
) "John Quincy Adams expressed the following in a letter dated November 19, 1839 written to
and published in the New York Journal of Commerce"