Rosenfeld Susan. Encyclopedia of American Historical Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me

not to use moderation in a cause like the present! I am in

earnest. I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not

retreat a single inch—and I will be heard. The apathy of the

people is enough to make every statue leap from its

pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.

It is pretended, that I am retarding the cause of eman-

cipation by the coarseness of my invective, and the precip-

itancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this

question, my influence, humble as it is, is felt at this

moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in com-

ing years—not perniciously, but beneficially—not as a

curse, but as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony

that I was right. I desire to thank God, that he enables me

to disregard ‘the fear of man which bringeth a snare,’ and

to speak his truth in its simplicity and power. And here I

close with this fresh dedication:—

‘Oppression! I have seen thee, face to face, And met

thy cruel eye and cloudy brow; But thy soul-withering

glance I fear not now—For dread to prouder feelings doth

give place, Of deep abhorrence! Scorning the disgrace Of

slavish knees that at thy footstool bow, I also kneel—but

with far other vow Do hail thee and thy herd of hirelings

base:—I swear, while life-blood warms my throbbing

veins, Still to oppose and thwart, with heart and hand, Thy

brutalizing sway—till Africa’s chains Are burst, and Free-

dom rules the rescued land, Trampling Oppression and his

iron rod:—Such is the vow I take—so help me, God!’

Source:

Writings and Speeches of William Lloyd Garrison. Boston: R.F.

Walcott, p. 62–64.

Constitution of the American

Anti-Slavery Society, The Declaration

of Sentiments of the American

Anti-Slavery Convention, 1833

Basic principles and rules, prepared by William Lloyd Garri-

son and issued in Philadelphia on December 4, 1833, by the

founding convention of the militant, abolitionist American

Anti-Slavery Society. The constitution condemned the institu-

tion of slavery as a danger to prosperity, peace, and national

unity, as well as contrary to “natural justice,” republican gov-

ernment, and Christian belief; it called for immediate emanci-

pation of all slaves and abolition of the domestic slave trade

and opposed expatriation of the freed slaves. The society also

declared as goals the elimination of prejudice and the “intel-

lectual, moral and religious improvement” of people of color

in order to secure their civil rights and religious equality with

whites.

________________________

_______________________

Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society

Article I

This Society shall be called the American Anti-Slavery

Society.

Article II

The objects of this Society are the entire abolition of slav-

ery in the United States. While it admits that each State, in

which slavery exists, has, by the Constitution of the United

States, the exclusive rights to legislate in regard to its abo-

lition in this State, it shall aim to convince all our fellow-

citizens, by arguments addressed to their understandings

and consciences, that slave-holding is a heinous crime in

the sight of God, and that the duty, safety, and best inter-

ests of all concerned, require its immediate abandonment,

without expatriation. The Society will also endeavor, in a

constitutional way, to influence Congress to put an end to

the domestic slave-trade, and to abolish slavery in all those

portions of our common country, which come under its

control, especially in the District of Columbia, and like-

wise to prevent the extension of it to any State that may be

hereafter admitted to the Union.

Article III

This Society shall aim to elevate the character and condi-

tion of the people of color, by encouraging their intellec-

tual, moral, and religious improvement, and by removing

public prejudice, that thus they may, according to their

intellectual and moral worth, share an equality with the

whites, of civil and religious privileges; but this Society will

never, in any way, countenance the oppressed in vindicat-

ing their rights by resorting to physical force.

Article IV

Any person who consents to the principles of this Consti-

tution, who contributes to the funds of this Society, and is

not a slave-holder, may be a member of this Society, and

shall be entitled to vote at the meetings.

Article V

The officers of this Society shall be a President, Vice-Pres-

idents, a Secretary of Foreign Correspondence, a Secre-

tary of Domestic Correspondence, a Recording Secretary,

a Treasurer, and a Board of Mangers, composed of the

above, and not less than ten other members of the Society.

They shall be annually elected by the members of the Soci-

ety, and five shall constitute a quorum.

Article VI

The Board of Managers shall annually elect an Executive

Committee, to consist of not less than five, nor more than

692 ERA 4: Expansion and Reform

twelve members, which shall be located in New York, who

shall have power to enact their own by-laws, fill any

vacancy in their body, employ agents, determine what

compensation shall be paid to agents, and to the Corre-

sponding Secretaries, direct the Treasurer in the applica-

tion of all moneys, and call special meetings of the Society.

They shall make arrangements for all meetings of the Soci-

ety, make an annual written report of their doings, the

income, expenditures, and funds of the Society, and shall

hold stated meetings, and adopt the most energetic mea-

sures in their power to advance the objects of the Society.

Article VII

The President shall preside at all meetings of the Society,

or, in his absence, one of the Vice-Presidents, or, in their

absence, a President pro tem. The Corresponding Secre-

taries shall conduct the correspondence of the Society. The

Recording Secretary shall notify all meetings of the Soci-

ety, and of the Executive Committee, and shall keep

records of the same in separate books. The Treasurer shall

collect the subscriptions, make payments at the direction

of the Executive Committee, and present a written and

audited account to accompany the annual report.

Article VIII

The annual meeting of the Society shall be held each year,

at such time and place as the Executive Committee may

direct, when the accounts of the Treasurer shall be pre-

sented, the annual report read, appropriate addresses

delivered, the officers chosen, and such other business

transacted as shall be deemed expedient. A special meet-

ing shall always be held on the Tuesday immediately pre-

ceding the second Thursday in May, in the City of New

York, at 10 o’clock, A. M., provided the annual meeting be

not held there at that time.

Article IX

Any Anti-Slavery Society, or association, founded on the

same principles, may become auxiliary to this Society. The

officers of each Auxiliary Society shall be ex-officio mem-

bers of the Parent Institution, and shall be entitled to

deliberate and vote in the transaction of its concerns.

Article X

This Constitution may be amended at any annual meeting

of the Society, by a vote of two-thirds of the members

present, provided the amendments proposed have been

previously submitted, in writing, to the Executive Com-

mittee.

Source:

The Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society . . . New

York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1838.

South Carolina Resolutions

on Abolitionist Propaganda, 1835

Censorious resolutions against abolitionist propaganda

passed by the South Carolina legislature on December 16,

1835. South Carolina, among other southern states, acted to

crack down on activities of abolitionist societies in free north-

ern states directed at the slaveholding South. State lawmakers

issued a severe warning against printing or voicing anything

that condemned slavery or that might incite insurrection

among the slaves. The resolutions, fixing responsibility on the

northern states within whose borders the abolitionists orga-

nized and operated, denounced the antislavery societies as

incendiary and asserted that their activities violated the com-

pact of union among the several states. The northern states

must not, if they valued their own peace and security, abide

within their limits the fomenting of antislavery conspiracy

aimed at fellow states in the Union. The legislature appealed

to northern state governments to suppress abolitionist soci-

eties within their borders by harshly penalizing publication

and distribution of antislavery literature. It asserted that inter-

ference by northern states with slavery in the South would be

considered unlawful and resolutely resisted. Northern states

were called on to pass laws disclaiming their or the federal

government’s right to interfere with domestic slavery, and the

U.S. post office was urged to close the mail to abolitionist

literature.

________________________

_______________________

1. Resolved, That the formation of the abolition societies,

and the acts and doings of certain fanatics, calling them-

selves abolitionists, in the non-slaveholding states of this

confederacy, are in direct violation of the obligations of the

compact of the union, dissocial, and incendiary in the

extreme.

2. Resolved, That no state having a just regard for her

own peace and security can acquiesce in a state of things

by which such conspiracies are engendered within the lim-

its of a friendly state, united to her by the bonds of a com-

mon league of political association, without either

surrendering or compromising her most essential rights.

3. Resolved, That the Legislature of South Carolina,

having every confidence in the justice and friendship of

the non-slaveholding states, announces to her co-states her

confident expectation, and she earnestly requests that the

governments of these states will promptly and effectually

suppress all those associations within their respective lim-

its, purporting to be abolition societies, and that they will

make it highly penal to print, publish, and distribute news-

papers, pamphlets, tracts and pictorial representations cal-

culated and having an obvious tendency to excite the slaves

of the southern states to insurrection and revolt.

The Slavery Debate and the Rights of Women 693

4. Resolved, That, regarding the domestic slavery of

the southern states as a subject exclusively within the con-

trol of each of the said states, we shall consider every inter-

ference, by any other state of the general government, as a

direct and unlawful interference, to be resisted at once,

and under every possible circumstance.

5. Resolved, In order that a salutary negative may be

put on the mischievous and unfounded assumption of

some of the abolitionists—the non-slaveholding states are

requested to disclaim by legislative declaration, all right,

either on the part of themselves or the government of the

United States, to interfere in any manner with domestic

slavery, either in the states, or in the territories where it

exists.

6. Resolved, That we should consider the abolition of

slavery in the District of Columbia, as a violation of the

rights of the citizens of that District, derived from the

implied conditions on which that territory was ceded to the

general government, and as an usurpation to be at once

resisted as nothing more than the commencement of a

scheme of much more extensive and flagrant injustice.

7. Resolved, That the legislature of South Carolina,

regards with decided approbation, the measures of secu-

rity adopted by the Post Office Department of the United

States, in relation to the transmission of incendiary tracts.

But if this highly essential and protective policy, be coun-

teracted by congress, and the United States mail becomes

a vehicle for the transmission of the mischievous docu-

ments, with which it was recently freighted we, in this

contingency, expect that the Chief Magistrate of our state,

will forthwith call the legislature together, that timely

measures may be taken to prevent its traversing our

territory.

Source:

Henry Steele Commager, ed. Documents of American History.

New York: F.S. Crofts & Co., 1934.

Proceedings of the Anti-Slavery

Convention of American Women, 1838

Minutes of the Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women,

held in Philadelphia in May 1838. The participants were female

abolitionist groups from several different states. This account of

the proceedings includes the participants’ resolutions and let-

ters of support. Lists of donations received, a list of delegates,

additional letters of support, some resolutions, all adjournments

and other administrative actions are omitted here.

The minutes show that the women resolved to petition the

government, to boycott churches sympathetic to slaveholders,

and to educate their children according to abolitionist beliefs.

The convention stated that slavery opposes the laws of God

and called on churches to take action against it. Upholding the

First Amendment right to petitioning the government had

become especially important regarding slavery. In 1836

Congress passed a “gag resolution” in order to stifle debate

over eliminating the slave trade in the District of Columbia.

Some 500,000 petitions, more than half the signers women,

arrived in Congress between 1836 and 1840. The rule was

repealed in 1844. The night after the first meeting, a mob

stormed the convention hall and burned it.

Female abolitionist organizations such as those repre-

sented at this convention became more prominent in the early

1830s, after the Anti-Slavery Society excluded women from its

proceedings. These organizations would serve as the first steps

in the creation of the women’s rights movement. South Car-

olinians Sarah M. Grimké and Angelina E. Grimké (Weld) were

among the most notable female abolitionists.

________________________

_______________________

Proceeding of an Anti-Slavery Convention of Women,

assembled from various parts of the United States, in Penn-

sylvania Hall, in the city of Philadelphia, on Tuesday, the

15th of May, 1838. At 10 o’clock, A. M. the Convention

was called to order. On the nomination of a committee,

appointed at preliminary meeting, on Monday, May 14th,

the following officers were appointed: Mary S. Parker, of

Boston, President; [ten vice-presidents; four secretaries];

Sarah M. Douglass, Treasurer.

Wednesday Morning, May 16

The 94th Psalm was read by the President and prayer

offered by Margaret Prior.

On Motion of Juliana A. Tappan, Resolved, That what-

ever may be the sacrifice, and whatever other rights may

be yielded or denied, we will maintain practically the right

of petition, until the slave shall go free, or our energies,

like Loveyjoy’s, are paralyzed in death.

Resolved, That for every petition by the National Leg-

islature, during their late session, we will endeavor to send

five the present year; and that we will not cease our efforts

until the prayers of every woman within the sphere of our

influence shall be heard in the halls of Congress on this

subject.

On motion of Mary Spencer, Resolved, That we regard

the right of petition as clear and inalienable, and so far

from glamouring a dictatorial spirit, it is the refuge of the

most humble and powerless, and true greatness would

never turn away from such appeals.

Mary Grew offered the following resolution, Whereas,

The principles of Christ are commanded to have no fel-

lowship with the “unfruitful works of darkness;” and,

whereas, union in His church is the strongest expression of

fellowship between men; therefore,

694 ERA 4: Expansion and Reform

Resolved, That it is our duty to keep ourselves sepa-

rate from those churches which receive to their pulpits

and their communion tables, those who buy, or sell, or

hold as property, the image of the living God. This reso-

lution was adopted. [Those who voted in the negative on

the above resolution, fully concur with their sisters, in the

belief that slaveholders and their apologists are guilty

before God, and that, with the former, Northern Chris-

tian should hold no fellowship; but as it is their full belief

that there is still moral power sufficient in the church, if

rightly applied, to purify it, they cannot feel it their duty

to withdraw until the utter inefficiency of the means

used, shall constrain them to believe the church totally

corrupt.]

Thursday Morning, May 17

Lucretia Mott made some impressive remarks respecting

the riot of the preceding evening [in which the hall in

which they had been meeting was burned], and exhorted

the members of the Convention to be steadfast and solemn

in the prosecution of the business for which they were

assembled.

On motion of Margaret Dye, Resolved, That the Anti-

Slavery enterprise presents one of the most appropriate

fields for the exertion of the influence of woman, and that

we pledge ourselves, with divine assistance, never to desert

the work, while an American slave groans in bondage.

On motion of Abigail B. Ordway, Resolved, That every

mother is bound by imperative obligations, to instruct her

children in the principles abolition, by teaching them the

nature and sanctity of human rights, and the claims of the

great law of office, as binding alike on every member of the

human family.

On motion of Mary Grew, Resolved, That in view of

unparalleled sufferings of the slave, and also in relation to

the oppression of the nominally free people of color in the

United States, it becomes us, as women and as christians,

to invoke the special aid of Almighty God for the speedy

deliverance of this people from their oppressions, in that

way which will most glorify Himself.

On motion of Henrietta Willcox, Resolved, That in

view of the exigencies of the times, and the loud call for

money to aid in the dissemination of truth, this Convention

recommend to Female Anti-Slavery Societies to take

immediate measures for the formation of cent-a-week

societies, on the plan proposed by the Executive Commit-

tee of the American Anti-Slavery Society.

On motion of Margaret Dye, Resolved, That the sys-

tem of American slavery is contrary to the laws of God, and

the spirit of true religion, and that the church is deeply

implicated in this sin, and that it therefore becomes the

imperative duty of all her members to petition their eccle-

siastical bodies to enter their decided protests against it,

and exclude slaveholders from their pulpits and commu-

nion tables.

* * *

Thursday Afternoon, May 17

The President read the 6th chapter of 2d Cor., and Sarah

M. Grimké offered prayer.

On motion of Thankful Southwick, Resolved, That it is

the duty of all those who call themselves abolitionists to

make the most vigorous efforts to procure for the use of

their families the products of free labor, so that their hands

may be clean, in this particular, when inquisition is made

for blood.

Friday Morning, May 18

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment at Temper-

ance hall, but found the doors closed by order of the man-

agers [. . . Much excitement still prevailing, the managers

of Temperance Hall, fearing for the safety of their build-

ing, refused to open the doors.] A member of the Conven-

tion offered the use of a school-room. . . .

The President read the 4th chapter of 2d Cor., and

prayer was offered by Juliana A. Tappan, and Mary E.

Smith.

On motion of Sarah R. Ingraham, Resolved, That in

view of the manifestation of public sentiment, as recently

exhibited in the outbreakings of a lawless mob, resulting in

insult and abuse towards all abolitionists, and personal

injury to some of our colored friends, the case of the latter

be earnestly commended to God, and prayer be offered

that He will redress their wrongs, and protect them from

the dangers to which they may be in future exposed.

Abby Kelly offered the following resolution, which

was adopted:

Whereas, A vast portion of the wealth of the North has

accrued, and is still accruing, from the slave system, either

directly in the holding of slaves, by Northern citizens, or

indirectly by our social and commercial intercourse with

slaveholding communities; therefore,

Resolved, That we are very deeply implicated in the

sin of using our brother’s service without wages, and of

holding in our hands the gains of oppression; consequently

it is our duty to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, by

laboring devotedly in the service of the spoiled, and by

contributing with unsparing liberality to the treasury of the

slave.

On motion of Sarah M. Grimké,

Resolved, That prejudice against color is the very spirit

of slavery, sinful in those who indulge it, and is the fire

which is consuming the happiness and energies of the free

people of color.

That it is, therefore, the duty of abolitionists to iden-

tify themselves with these oppressed Americans, by sitting

The Slavery Debate and the Rights of Women 695

with them in places of worship, by appearing with them in

our streets, by giving them our countenance in steam-

boats and stages, by visiting them at their homes and

encouraging them to visit us, receiving them as we do our

white fellow citizens. [Not unanimous—a number voted in

the negative, believing that a resolution couched in such

phraseology, might, by being misapprehended, injure the

abolition cause.]

On motion of Sarah M. Grimké, Resolved, That those

of our Southern brethren and sisters who feel and mourn

over the guilt of slavery, while circumstances impose on

them the necessity of remaining witnesses of its evils and

its horrors, are entitled to our sympathy and prayers, and

that we encourage them to walk with weeping and suppli-

cation before God, that His judgments may be averted

from our beloved country. . . .

Catherine M. Sullivan offered the following resolu-

tion, which was adopted: Believing the principles of the

Anti-Slavery cause to be identical with those on which the

whole gospel rests, and that the constant and vigorous

propagation of them will equally advance the kingdom of

Christ, in the hearts and outward lives of men; therefore,

Resolved, That we increase our efforts for the spiritual

and temporal salvation of the slave, knowing that such

labors will involve the salvation of the master, the good of

our own souls, the general promotion of peace, moral

reform, temperance; the circulation of the Scriptures, the

education of youth, and the exaltation of our country to so

high a standard of morals and religion, that its example

shall go forth unto all the earth and recommend the gospel

to every creature.

On motion of Sarah M. Grimké,

Resolved, That we regard the insult and scorn, mani-

fest on our leaving the Hall on the 16th instant, as identi-

cal with the spirit of slavery at the South, and the spirit

exhibited by the Reform Convention, who have recom-

mended that the people of Pennsylvania should wrest from

the free people of color the right of suffrage.

On motion of Angelina E. G. Weld,

Resolved, That we have heard, with grief and shame,

of the burning of Pennsylvania Hall, last evening, but

rejoice in fulness of hope that God will overrule evil for

good, by causing the flames which consumed that beauti-

ful Hall, dedicated to virtue, liberty, and independence, to

light up the fires of freedom on every hill-top and in every

valley in the state of Pennsylvania, and our country at

large.

Resolved, That the delegates from different states be

now called upon, in order to pledge sums on behalf of

their respective societies, to defray the expenses of the

Convention.

[List of contributions and list of the 75 attendees

follows.]

To the Anti-Slavery Convention of American

Women:—

Dear Sisters:—With the deepest emotions of gratitude

to our Almighty Father, we congratulate you upon your

assemblage, for the second time, as a Convention. While

we rejoice in the wisdom and love that we trust will over-

shadow you in your deliberations, we cannot but contem-

plate with awe the sublime results that may emanate from

your councils.

Arduous and responsible labor is before you:-the iron

shackle that drags heavily along the plains of the South,

and the golden fetter hugged by so many of our sex, are

alike to be broken!

And this allegiance to Truth and unfaltering trust to its

power of guidance, is to yourselves an emancipation act:

from the servile degradation of ages, you arise in the moral

accountability and dignity of womanhood, and at the feet

of Jesus, imbued with the uncompromising spirit of his

teachings, declare the truths that have made you free!

Thus strong in the freedom of his giving, true to the faith

of his sustaining, the applause or contumely of the world is

hushed by the overpowering presence of the “still small

voice.” Earthly ambition vanishes, before the glorious

smile of an approving God; and worldly policy dares not

seek an entrance where it is met at every corner by the

“flaming sword” of truth.

Our whole souls are with you at this eventful time, and

we would fain all join the delegation that leaves us to be

with you at this glorious era—to move in concert upon

these first waves of a mighty revolution that is to sweep

away the strong foundations of prejudice and custom. We

feel an assurance that the same unflinching stand of prin-

ciple, the like unshaken determination of action, which

characterized your measures a year since, will mark your

decisions at the present time. May the Father of light and

love in your midst; then, indeed, all will be well.

On behalf of the Providence

Female Anti-Slavery Society.

Eliza J. Davis, Cor. Secretary.

To the Anti-Slavery Convention of

American Women:—

* * *

—At an Anti-Slavery meeting a clergyman, who had trav-

elled South, said he was forbidden, when there, to preach

to slaves: a slaveholder said to him, it is not safe for the

slaves to be enlightened, he could not permit them to hear

the sermon upon the mount, and said that the precept,

“Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye

even so unto them,” would open their eyes to their situa-

tion,”Therefore I forbid you to preach to them.” This cler-

696 ERA 4: Expansion and Reform

gyman observed that they could not be taught the Lord’s

prayer without witnessing its denial all around them. What

an avowal is this of the bondage of both master and slave!

The sermon upon the mount would create insurrection!

Truly the divine aspirations commencing, “Our Father

who art in heaven,” [that Father who hath made of one

blood all nations of the earth, and commanded all to love

as brethren,] are virtually denied.

We should be unjust to our feelings, did we not take

this opportunity to tender our grateful tribute of respect

and love to those friends of humanity, Misses Sarah M. and

Angelina E. Grimke, for their noble exertions in our vicin-

ity the past year; we think many a Felix has trembled, and

many a jailor, himself in bonds, has cried out, “What shall

I do to be saved?”

There are those, and the number is neither few nor

small, who think that slavery is a political affair, and women

have no concern in it; but deluded or callous must be that

heart which acknowledges that woman inflicts an injury,

but should be powerless in redressing it. “We have not so

learned Christ!” We think that to woman is committed the

precious trust of rearing our lawgivers; as she is pure and

elevated, so may she infuse her spirit into the laws of coun-

try; and heaven grant that politics may not be another

name for corruption. When statesman and philanthropist,

philanthropist and statesman, are identical terms, then may

we hope that “righteousness will flow down our streets, and

prosperity be within our walls.” May the women of this

country so purge their hearts of all ambitious views, of all

selfish aims, as to be fit and honored instruments for doing

the Lord’s work; and to be able to say, “Not unto us, O

Lord, but to thy name be glory.” May we so learn Christ

that, in the spirit of his might, we may “bind up the broken-

hearted, proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening

of the prison to them that are bound; give unto them

beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment

of praise for the spirit of heaviness.” To the ladies of the

Anti-Slavery Convention we say, may God guide your

counsels, and may you do all to his glory.

On behalf of the Society,

L. Willard, Cor. Secretary

Source:

Library of Congress. Rare Book and Special Collections Division.

National American Woman Suffrage Association Collection.

United States v. Libellants and

Claimants of the Schooner Amistad, 1841

In February 1839, Portuguese slave hunters, violating all

treaties of the time, illegally abducted a group of Africans from

Sierra Leone. The group was then taken to Havana, Cuba, a

major center of the slave trade. In Cuba the group was sold

to two Spanish plantation owners, who boarded its members

onto a schooner called the

Amistad

, which was bound for a

Caribbean plantation. On July 1, 1839, the Africans, under the

leadership of a man called Cinque, revolted and seized the

vessel, killing the captain and the cook. Two months later the

vessel was seized off the shore of Long Island by the United

States ship

Washington,

and the Africans were brought to Con-

necticut to stand trial. Murder charges against them were

dropped, but they were kept in custody because certain issues

of property rights had yet to be resolved. President Martin Van

Buren made arguments for their extradition to Cuba.

The

Amistad

mutineers, however, became a cause cé-

lèbre for abolitionists, led by financier Lewis Tappan. Yale stu-

dents taught them how to read, write, and speak English.

Roger Baldwin, future governor of Connecticut, defended

them in the lower courts. In the Supreme Court, Baldwin was

joined by former president John Quincy Adams to defend the

prisoners. The decision was written by Justice Joseph Story,

who declared that the mutineers had been free men kidnaped

by pirates and that the United States had no jurisdiction to try

them for murder. Unlike the lower courts, it also refused to

hold that they had to be returned to Africa. The case turned not

on questions of slavery but of international law. However, it

was considered a great victory for the abolitionists, and it is

now considered one of the most significant Supreme Court

cases involving slavery.

Thirty-five of the original 53 people enslaved returned

home to Africa. The remaining 18 died either in prison await-

ing trial or at sea returning to Africa. One of the mutineers,

Sarah, later returned to the United States and attended Ober-

lin College. The following is the opinion of the Court delivered

by Justice Story.

________________________

_______________________

This is the case of an appeal from the decree of the Circuit

Court of the District of Connecticut, sitting in admiralty.

The leading facts, as they appear upon the transcript of the

proceedings, are as follows: On the 27th of June, 1839, the

schooner L’Amistad, being the property of Spanish sub-

jects, cleared out from the port of Havana, in the island of

Cuba, for Puerto Principe, in the same island. On board of

the schooner were the captain, Ransom Ferrer, and Jose

Ruiz, and Pedro Montez, all Spanish subjects. The former

had with him a negro boy, named Antonio, claimed to be

his slave. Jose Ruiz had with him forty-nine negroes,

claimed by him as his slaves, and stated to be his property,

in a certain pass or document, signed by the Governor

General of Cuba. Pedro Montez had with him four other

negroes, also claimed by him as his slaves, and stated to be

his property, in a similar pass or document, also signed by

the Governor General of Cuba. On the voyage, and before

The Slavery Debate and the Rights of Women 697

the arrival of the vessel at her port of destination, the

negroes rose, killed the captain, and took possession of her.

On the 26th of August, the vessel was discovered by Lieu-

tenant Gedney, of the United States brig Washington, at

anchor on the high seas, at the distance of half a mile from

the shore of Long Island. A part of the negroes were then

on shore at Culloden Point, Long Island; who were seized

by Lieutenant Gedney, and brought on board. The vessel,

with the negroes and other persons on board, was brought

by Lieutenant Gedney into the district of Connecticut, and

there libelled for salvage in the District Court of the

United States. A libel for salvage was also filed by Henry

Green and Pelatiah Fordham, of Sag Harbour, Long

Island. On the 18th of September, Ruiz and Montez filed

claims and libels, in which they asserted their ownership of

the negroes as their slaves, and of certain parts of the

cargo, and prayed that the same might be “delivered to

them, or to the representatives of her Catholic majesty, as

might be most proper.” On the 19th of September, the

Attorney of the United States, for the district of Connecti-

cut, filed an information or libel, setting forth, that the

Spanish minister had officially presented to the proper

department of the government of the United States, a

claim for the restoration of the vessel, cargo, and slaves, as

the property of Spanish subjects, which had arrived within

the jurisdictional limits of the United States, and were

taken possession of by the said public armed brig of the

United States; under such circumstances as made it the

duty of the United States to cause the same to be restored

to the true proprietors, pursuant to the treaty between the

United States and Spain: and praying the Court, on its

being made legally to appear that the claim of the Spanish

minister was well founded, to make such order for the dis-

posal of the vessel, cargo, and slaves, as would best enable

the United States to comply with their treaty stipulations.

But if it 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 con-

trary to the same laws; he then prayed the Court to make

such order for their removal to the coast of Africa, pur-

suant to the laws of the United States, as it should deem fit.

On the 19th of November, the Attorney of the United

States filed a second information or libel, similar to the

first, with the exception of the second prayer above set

forth in his former one. On the same day, Antonio G. Vega,

the vice-consul of Spain, for the state of Connecticut, filed

his libel, alleging that Antonio was a slave, the property of

the representatives of Ramon Ferrer, and praying the

Court to cause him to be delivered to the said vice-consul,

that he might be returned by him to his lawful owner in

the island of Cuba.

On the 7th of January, 1840, the negroes, Cinque and

others, with the exception of Antonio, by their counsel,

filed an answer, denying that they were slaves, or the prop-

erty 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 rea-

son of the premises; and praying that they might be dis-

missed. They specially set forth and insist in this answer,

that they were native born Africans; born free, and still of

right ought to be free and not slaves; that they 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 know-

ing the premises, made a pretended purchase of them: that

afterwards, on or about the 28th of June, 1839, Ruiz and

Montez, confederating with Ferrer, (captain of the Amis-

tad,) caused them, without law or right, to be placed on

board of the Amistad, to be transported to some place

unknown to them, and there to be enslaved for life; that,

on the voyage, they rose on the master, and took possession

of the vessel, intending to return therewith to their native

country, or to seek an asylum in some free state; and the

vessel arrived, about the 26th of August, 1839, off Mon-

tauk Point, near Long Island. . . .

On the same day, all the libellants and claimants, by

their counsel, except Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montez, (whose

libels and claims, as stated of record, respectively, were

pursued by the Spanish minister, the same being merged

in his claims,) appeared, and the negroes also appeared by

their counsel; and the case was heard on thie libels, claims,

answers, and testimony of witnesses.

On the 23d day of January, 1840, the District Court

made a decree. By that decree, the Court rejected the claim

of Green and Fordham for salvage, but allowed salvage to

Lieutenant Gedney and others, on the vessel and cargo, of

one-third of the value thereof, but not on the negroes,

Cinque and others; it allowed the claim of Tellincas, and

Aspe and Laca with the exception of the above-mentioned

salvage; it dismissed the libels and claims of Ruiz and Mon-

tez, with costs, as being included under the claim of the

Spanish minister; it allowed the claim of the Spanish vice-

consul for Antonio, on behalf of Ferrer’s representatives; it

rejected the claims of Ruiz and Montez for the delivery of

the negroes, but admitted them for the cargo, with the

exception of the above-mentioned salvage; it 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 deliv-

ered to the President of the United States, to be transported

to Africa, pursuant to the act of 3d March, 1819.

From this decree the District Attorney, on behalf of

the United States, appealed to the Circuit Court, except so

698 ERA 4: Expansion and Reform

far as related to the restoration of the slave Antonio. . . .

The Circuit Court, by a mere pro forma decree, affirmed

the decree of the District Court, reserving the question of

salvage upon the claims of Tellincas, and Aspe and Laca.

And from that decree the present appeal has been brought

to this Court.

The cause has been very elaborately argued, as well

upon the merits, as upon a motion on behalf of the

appellees to dismiss the appeal. On the part of the United

States, it has been contended, 1. 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 pur-

suant to the treaty with Spain, of the 27th of October,

1795. 2. That the United States had a right to intervene in

the manner in which they have done, to obtain a decree for

the restitution of the property, upon the application of the

Spanish minister. These propositions have been strenu-

ously denied on the other side. . . .

. . . The only parties now before the Court on one side,

are the United States, intervening for the sole purpose of

procuring restitution of the property as Spanish property,

pursuant to the treaty, upon the grounds stated by the

other parties claiming the property in their respective

libels. The United States do not assert any property in

themselves, or any violation of their own rights, or

sovereignty, or laws, by the acts complained of. They do

not insist that these negroes have been imported into the

United States, in contravention of our own slave trade acts.

They do not seek to have these negroes delivered up for

the purpose of being transported to Cuba as pirates or rob-

bers, or as fugitive criminals against the laws of Spain.

They do not assert that the seizure, and bringing the ves-

sel, and cargo, and negroes into port, by Lieutenant Ged-

ney, for the purpose of adjudication, is a tortious [legally

wrongful] act. They simply confine themselves to the right

of the Spanish claimants to the restitution of their prop-

erty, upon the facts asserted in their respective allegations.

In the next place, the parties before the Court on the

other side as appellees, are Lieutenant Gedney, on his libel

for salvage, and the negroes, (Cinque, and others,) assert-

ing themselves, in their answer, not to be slaves, but free

native Africans, kidnapped in their own country, and ille-

gally transported by force from that country; and now enti-

tled to maintain their freedom.

No question has been here made, as to the proprietary

interests in the vessel and cargo. It is admitted that they

belong to Spanish subjects, and that they ought to be

restored. The only point on this head is, whether the resti-

tution ought to be upon the payment of salvage or not? The

main controversy is, whether these negroes are the prop-

erty of Ruiz and Montez, and ought to be delivered up; and

to this, accordingly, we shall first direct our attention.

It has been argued on behalf of the United States, that

the Court are bound to deliver them up, according to the

treaty of 1795, with Spain, which has in this particular

been continued in full force, by the treaty of 1819, ratified

in 1821. . . . The ninth article provides, “that all ships and

merchandise, of what nature soever, which shall be res-

cued 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.” This is the article

on which the main reliance is placed on behalf of the

United States, for the restitution of these negroes. To bring

the case within the article, it is essential to establish, First,

That these negroes, under all the circumstances, fall within

the description of merchandise, in the sense of the treaty.

Secondly, 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, Thirdly, That

Ruiz and Montez, the asserted proprietors, are the true

proprietors, and have established their title by competent

proof.

If these negroes were, at the time, lawfully held as

slaves under the laws of Spain, and recognised by those

laws as property capable of being lawfully bought and sold;

we see no reason why they may not justly be deemed

within the intent of the treaty, to be included under the

denomination of merchandise, and, as such, ought to be

restored to the claimants: for, upon that point, the laws of

Spain would seem to furnish the proper rule of interpreta-

tion. But, admitting this, it is clear, in our opinion, that nei-

ther of the other essential facts and requisites has been

established in proof; and the onus probandi of both lies

upon the claimants to give rise to the causes. . . . It is plain

beyond controversy, if we examine the evidence, that these

negroes never were the lawful slaves of Ruiz or Montez, or

of any other Spanish subjects. They are natives of Africa,

and were kidnapped there, and were unlawfully trans-

ported 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 pre-

tended purchase of these negroes, with a full knowledge of

all the circumstances. And so cogent 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, as alleged in their answers to the libels in the case.

The Slavery Debate and the Rights of Women 699

The supposed proprietary interest of Ruiz and Montez, is

completely displaced, if we are at liberty to look at the evi-

dence of the admissions of the District Attorney.

If, then, these negroes are not slaves, but are kid-

napped Africans, who, by the laws of Spain itself, are enti-

tled to their freedom, and were kidnapped and illegally

carried to Cuba, and illegally detained and restrained on

board of the Amistad; there is no pretence 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 endeavoured to regain their native coun-

try; 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.

This posture of the facts would seem, of itself, to put an

end to the Whole inquiry upon the merits. But it is argued,

on behalf of the United States, that the ship, and cargo, and

negroes were duly documented as belonging to Spanish

subjects, and this Court have no right to look behind these

documents; that full faith and credit is to be given to them;

and that they are to be held conclusive evidence in this

cause, even although it should be established by the most

satisfactory proofs, that they have been obtained by the

grossest frauds and impositions upon the constituted

authorities of Spain. To this argument we can, in no wise,

assent. There is nothing in the treaty which justifies or sus-

tains the argument. . . . What we proceed upon is this, that

although public documents of the government, accompany-

ing 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. . . . Fraud will vitiate any,

even the most solemn transactions; and an asserted title to

property, founded upon it, is utterly void. . . and it is just as

applicable to the transactions of civil intercourse between

nations in times of peace. . . . In the solemn treaties

between nations, it can never be presumed that either state

intends to provide the means of perpetrating or protecting

frauds; but all the provisions are to be construed as

intended to be applied to bona fide transactions. . . .

It is also a most important consideration in the present

case, which ought not to be lost sight of, that, supposing

these African negroes not to be slaves, but kidnapped, and

free negroes, the treaty with Spain cannot be obligatory

upon them; and the United States are bound to respect

their rights as much as those of Spanish subjects. The con-

flict of rights between the parties under such circum-

stances, becomes positive and inevitable, and must be

decided upon the eternal principles of justice and interna-

tional law. If the contest were about any goods on board of

this ship, to which American citizens asserted a title, which

was denied by the Spanish claimants, there could be no

doubt of the right of such American citizens to litigate

their claims before any competent American tribunal,

notwithstanding the treaty with Spain. A fortiori, the doc-

trine must apply where human life and human liberty are

in issue; and constitute the very essence of the controversy.

The treaty with Spain never could have intended to take

away the equal rights of all foreigners, who should contest

their claims before any of our Courts, to equal justice; or

to deprive such foreigners of the protection given them by

other treaties, or by the general law of nations. Upon the

merits of the case, then, there does not seem to us to be

any ground for doubt, that these negroes ought to be

deemed free; and that the Spanish treaty interposes no

obstacle to the just assertion of their rights. There is

another consideration growing out of this part of the case,

which necessarily rises in judgment. It is observable, that

the United States, in their original claim, filed it in the

alternative, to have the negroes, if slaves and Spanish prop-

erty, restored to the proprietors; or, if not slaves, but

negroes who had been transported from Africa, in viola-

tion of the laws of the United States, and brought into the

United States contrary to the same laws, then the Court to

pass an order to enable the United States to remove such

persons to the coast of Africa, to be delivered there to such

agent as may be authorized to receive and provide for

them. . . . The decree of the District Court . . . contained

an order for the delivery of the negroes to the United

States, to be transported to the coast of Africa, under the

act of the 3d of March, 1819, ch. 224. The United States

do not now insist upon any affirmance of this part of the

decree; and, in our judgment, upon the admitted facts,

there is no ground to assert that the case comes within the

purview of the act of 1819, or of any other of our pro-

hibitory slave trade acts. These negroes were never taken

from Africa, or brought to the United States in contraven-

tion of those acts. When the Amistad arrived she was in

possession of the negroes, asserting their freedom; and in

no sense could they possibly intend to import themselves

here, as slaves, or for sale as slaves. In this view of the mat-

ter, that part of the decree of the District Court is unmain-

tainable, and must be reversed.

The view which has been thus taken of this case, upon

the merits, under the first point, renders it wholly unnec-

essary for us to give any opinion upon the other point, as

to the right of the United States to intervene in this case in

the manner already stated. We dismiss this, therefore, as

well as several minor points made at the argument.

As to the claim of Lieutenant Gedney for the salvage

service, it is understood that the United States do not now

desire to interpose any obstacle to the allowance of it, if it

is deemed reasonable by the Court. It was a highly meri-

torious and useful service to the proprietors of the ship and

700 ERA 4: Expansion and Reform

cargo; and such as, by the general principles of maritime

law, is always deemed a just foundation for salvage. The

rate allowed by the Court, does not seem to us to have

been beyond the exercise of a sound discretion, under the

very peculiar and embarrassing circumstances of the case.

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

. . .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 Court, and go without d[el]ay.

Source:

Cornell Law School. The Legal Information Institute. The

United States Appellants, v. the Libellants and Claimants of

the Schooner Amistad . . . Available on-line. URL: www.

law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/opinion.html. Accessed

October 2003.

Seneca Falls “Declaration of

Rights and Sentiments,” 1848

Proclamation issued on July 19, 1848, at the Seneca Falls

(New York) Convention on the rights of women; it is also

known as the “Seneca Falls Declaration and Resolutions,” the

“Declaration of Independence for Women,” and the “Declara-

tion of Women’s Rights.” Modeled on the Declaration of Inde-

pendence, the document outlined the unequal and unjust

treatment of women and argued that women had rights to

equality under the law in all spheres, including education,

religion, free speech, and employment opportunities. Its most

controversial resolution called for the enfranchisement of

women, thus marking the beginning of the woman suffrage

movement in the United States.

________________________

_______________________

1. Declaration of Sentiments

When, in the course of human events, it becomes neces-

sary for one portion of the family of man to assume among

the people of the earth a position different from that which

they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of

nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect

to the opinions of mankind requires that they should

declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men

and women are created equal; that they are endowed by

their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among

these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to

secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving

their just powers from the consent of the governed. When-

ever any form of government becomes destructive of these

ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse

allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new

government, laying its foundation on such principles, and

organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem

most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence,

indeed, will dictate that governments long established

should not be changed for light and transient causes; and

accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are

more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to

right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are

accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpa-

tions, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design

to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty

to throw off such government, and to provide new guards

for their future security. Such has been the patient suffer-

ance of the women under this government, and such is

now the necessity which constrains them to demand the

equal station to which they are entitled.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries

and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having

in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny

over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid

world.

He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable

right to the elective franchise.

He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the forma-

tion of which she had no voice.

He has withheld from her rights which are given to

the most ignorant and degraded men—both natives and

foreigners.

Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the

elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representa-

tion in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all

sides.

He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law,

civilly dead.

He has taken from her all right in property, even to the

wages she earns.

He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as

she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they

be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant

of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her

husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her

master—the law giving him power to deprive her of her

liberty, and to administer chastisement.

He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall

be the proper causes, and in case of separation, to whom

the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be

wholly regardless of the happiness of women—the law, in

all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy

of man, and giving all power into his hands.

After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if

single, and the owner of property, he has taxed her to sup-

The Slavery Debate and the Rights of Women 701