UNITED STATES V. AMISTAD
You don't have access to this content. Please try to log in with your institution. Sign In
Issued on March 9, 1841, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the United States v. Amistad was the most significant one issued by the Court on the question of slavery before the Dred Scott decision of 1857. The case arose from the seizure of the schooner La Amistad, its passengers, and cargo in 1839 by a U.S. naval vessel. Among the passengers were fifty-three Africans, a slave named Antonio owned by the captain, and two Spaniards. The Spaniards claimed that the Africans were their slaves, but the Africans asserted they were free. For the next two years, American abolitionists provided legal counsel to the Africans, hoping to secure their freedom and to record a legal victory in the battle against slavery. Unlike the Dred Scott decision, in which Chief Justice Roger Taney would say that Blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect,” Justice Joseph Story’s opinion in Amistad, based on “the eternal principles of justice and international law,” held that “these negroes ought to be deemed free” because they were entitled to equal justice in America’s courts, just like any other foreign subject, no matter his or her color. The abolitionist movement claimed a victory and termed it a triumph of justice. The decision freed the Africans but not Antonio. In other words, the case was limited to its facts. The Africans were entitled to their freedom because they had been kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery, but those held legally to be slaves could not be freed. Henry Baldwin was the lone dissenter in the case.
Contents
- MARBURY V. MADISON
- MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE
- TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD
- McCULLOCH V. MARYLAND
- COHENS V. VIRGINIA
- GIBBONS V. OGDEN
- WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
- CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE
- UNITED STATES V. AMISTAD
- PRIGG V. PENNSYLVANIA
- DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD
- ABLEMAN V. BOOTH
- EX PARTE MILLIGAN
- SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES
- UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK
- REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES
- CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
- ELK V. WILKINS
- PLESSY V. FERGUSON
- UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK
- LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
- MULLER V. OREGON
- FRANK V. MANGUM
- GUINN V. UNITED STATES
- HAMMER V. DAGENHART
- SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES
- ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES
- WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA
- OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES
- POWELL V. ALABAMA
- A.L.A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES
- UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT
- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION
- WEST COAST HOTEL V. PARRISH
- CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT
- WICKARD V. FILBURN
- WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE
- KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
- SWEATT V. PAINTER
- DENNIS V. UNITED STATES
- YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
- BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
- HERNANDEZ V. TEXAS
- GOMILLION V. LIGHTFOOT
- MAPP V. OHIO
- BAKER V. CARR
- ENGEL V. VITALE
- GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT
- KATZENBACH v. McCLUNG
- NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN
- GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
- BOND V. FLOYD
- MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
- SOUTH CAROLINA V. KATZENBACH
- LOVING v. VIRGINIA
- TINKER V. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
- NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES
- FLOOD V. KUHN
- FURMAN V. GEORGIA
- SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ
- SIERRA CLUB V. MORTON
- ROE V. WADE
- MILLIKEN V. BRADLEY
- UNITED STATES V. NIXON
- CRAIG V. BOREN
- REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. BAKKE
- FRONTIERO v. RICHARDSON
- TEXAS V. JOHNSON
- UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ
- UNITED STATES V. VIRGINIA
- CLINTON V. JONES
- BUSH V. GORE
- FRIENDS OF THE EARTH V. LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
- ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS
- LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
- CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
- SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER
- OBERGEFELL V. HODGES
- BOSTOCK V. CLAYTON COUNTY
- DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION