La Amistad Hdt What? Index
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JOSEPH CINQUÉ (SINGBE PIEH) OF LA AMISTAD HDT WHAT? INDEX JOSEPH CINQUÉ LA AMISTAD 1215 June 15, Monday (Old Style): At Runnymede, John Lackland, King of England found it expedient to place his seal upon one or another predecessor screed to the Magna Carta, promising not democracy but merely increased feudal power to the barons (even this would not become established until 1297). By the bye, this “Magna Carta” thingie actually is a rather disappointing screed to peruse (I have carefully inspected it both in its surviving originals and in fair translated text). There are no ringing declarations of principle or grand pronouncements either in a preamble or at any point in the text and the document contains, at most, 3 clauses which remain a part of our modern legal structure. The existence of such a document does establish, however, that it was becoming permissible to place specific limits upon the powers of the ultimate executive agent of the nation — and then, becoming feasible to enforce said restrictions. The clause which we today would consider most relevant is #39 which offers that “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” It has been pointed out that that, and a buck and a quarter, will buy you a cup of java anywhere in America today, but it also needs to be pointed out that it wouldn’t even buy you a cup of java in England in 1215. For one little thingie, this right to trial by a jury of one’s peers was provided only to freemen — and 5 guys out of every 6 in England at that time were mere serfs.1 READ THE FULL TEXT 1. What makes the document most relevant for our present context is how it would figure in the deep background for the La Amistad case at law in 1841. The document would constitute a large portion of the motivation for John Quincy Adams agreeing to present the case before the US Supreme Court (his take not having anything at all to do with slavery but being merely that one of his illustrious personal ancestors had been a signatory to this document — and that the seizure of the vessel by the federal government had been a violation of this principle created by his illustrious personal ancestor). HDT WHAT? INDEX LA AMISTAD JOSEPH CINQUÉ 1783 John Quincy Adams visited the British Museum in London to view the seal of his supposed ancestor2 upon the original parchment of 1 of the 4 survivors3 of the 36 or more Magna Carta exemplifications that had been issued at Runnymede over the great seal of John Lackland, King of England.4 2. Although there appears to be no substantial basis for Abigail Adams’s assertion, she claimed their family to have descended from the Earl of Winchester, Saer de Quincy or Saire De Quincy or Saer de Quency, who had been born in 1155, married circa 1180, placed his seal among the others upon the document on or after June 23, 1215, and died November 3, 1219 in Damietta in the Holy Land. 3. Two are now on display at the British Library (one fair copy by legend recovered from a London tailor’s shop, one badly scorched in a structure fire), a third is in the archives of Lincoln Cathedral, and a fourth in the archives of Salisbury Cathedral. 4. Later, John Quincy Adams would consider his representing the blacks of the La Amistad as of the greatest importance, since the Amistad had been seized by the USS Washington without warrant, in a “gross violation” by the US government of a principle of habeas corpus that supposedly can be found –at least to the sensibilities of later generations– vaguely suggested within that foundational document — which his supposed eponymous ancestor had helped to create. In other words, JQA’s indignant argument before the US Supreme Court wasn’t pertaining to the human dignity of the captured blacks — he had no particular regard for black folks. He was protesting a disregard of the honor of his own illustrious white ancestor. HDT WHAT? INDEX JOSEPH CINQUÉ LA AMISTAD 1788 October: In March, first Massachusetts and then Pennsylvania had forbidden their citizens to participate in any way in the slave-trade. In this month Connecticut did the same. “An Act to prevent the Slave-Trade.” “Be it enacted by the Governor, Council and Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That no Citizen or Inhabitant of this State, shall for himself, or any other Person, either as Master, Factor, Supercargo, Owner or Hirer, in Whole, or in Part, of any Vessel, directly or indirectly, import or transport, or buy or sell, or receive on board his or her Vessel, with Intent to cause to be imported or transported, any of the Inhabitants of any Country in Africa, as Slaves or Servants, for Term of Years; upon Penalty of Fifty Pounds, for every Person so received on board, as aforesaid; and of FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS for every such Vessel employed in the Importation or Transportation aforesaid; to be recovered by Action, Bill, Plaint or Information; the one Half to the Plaintiff, and the other Half to the Use of this State.” And all insurance on vessels and slaves shall be void. This act to be given as evidence under general issue, in any suit commenced for recovery of such insurance. “... if any Person shall kidnap ... any free Negro,” etc., inhabitant of this State, he shall forfeit £100. Every vessel clearing for the coast of Africa or any other part of the world, and suspected to be in the slave-trade, must give bond in £1,000. Slightly amended in 1789. ACTS AND LAWS OF CONNECTICUT (edition of 1784), pages 368-9, 388. Connecticut’s plan was to accomplish this great thing very gradually, without rushing so much as to interfere with anyone’s agenda. Children born to slaves after 1792 would be free and all existing slave children would be emancipated when they reached the age of 25. This might indicate, to the unwary, that by the time that the captives of the La Amistad would arrive in that state’s prison system, slavery there would have been a thing of the past. However, Connecticut’s approach would be so utterly gradualistic that it would never emancipate any females who had been, at the time of the enactment of this legislation, over 21 years of age, or any males who had been over 25 years of age! (There still would be, according to the US Census, even in 1840, a small number of slaves in Connecticut. This New England state actually would not be clear of human enslavement until, “free at last,” Death would come to collect its oldest surviving slave — in the Year of Our Lord 1848!) HDT WHAT? INDEX LA AMISTAD JOSEPH CINQUÉ “It is simply crazy that there should ever have come into being a world with such a sin in it, in which a man is set apart because of his color — the superficial fact about a human being. Who could want such a world? For an American fighting for his love of country, that the last hope of earth should from its beginning have swallowed slavery, is an irony so withering, a justice so intimate in its rebuke of pride, as to measure only with God.” — Stanley Cavell, MUST WE MEAN WHAT WE SAY? 1976, page 141 How could Connecticut’s elimination of slavery have possibly been made more gradual? For instance, in this year, because Rhode Island would no longer register a vessel for an enslaving voyage, Cyprian Sterry of Providence simply got aboard his vessel and went with it down the bay and down the sound to a port with a customshouse along the Connecticut shore — and there obtained clearance papers for the projected voyage to the coast of Africa! W.E. Burghardt Du Bois: Connecticut, in common with the other colonies of this section, had a trade for many years with the West Indian slave markets; and though this trade was much smaller than that of the neighboring colonies, yet many of her citizens were engaged in it. A map of Middletown at the time of the Revolution gives, among one hundred families, three slave captains and “three notables” designated as “slave-dealers.”5 The actual importation was small,6 and almost entirely unrestricted before the Revolution, save by a few light, general duty acts. In 1774 the further importation of slaves was prohibited, because “the increase of slaves in this Colony is injurious to the poor and inconvenient.” The law prohibited importation under any pretext by a penalty of £100 per slave.7 This was re-enacted in 1784, and provisions were made for the abolition of slavery.8 In 1788 participation in the trade was forbidden, and the penalty placed at £50 for each slave and £500 for each ship engaged.9 W.E. Burghardt Du Bois: In the Eastern States, where slavery as an institution was already nearly defunct, action was aimed toward stopping the notorious participation of citizens in the 5. Fowler, LOCAL LAW, etc., page 124. 6. The number of slaves in Connecticut has been estimated as follows: — In 1680, 30. CONNECTICUT COLONIAL RECORD, III. 298.