Editing United States v. The Amistad (section)

==Arguments before Supreme Court==
On February 22, 1841, [[U.S. Attorney General]] [[Henry D. Gilpin]] began the oral argument phase before the Supreme Court. Gilpin first entered into evidence the papers of ''La Amistad'', which stated that the Africans were Spanish property.<ref>https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2003/spring/amistad-1.html</ref> Gilpin argued that the Court had no authority to rule against the validity of the documents. Gilpin contended that if the Africans were slaves, as indicated by the documents, they must be returned to their rightful owner, the Spanish government. Gilpin's argument lasted two hours.<ref name="Johnson">[http://www.tulane.edu/~amistad/amessays.htm Clifton Johnson, "The Amistad Case and Its Consequences in U.S. History"], Amistad Research Center – Essays, Tulane University</ref>

[[John Quincy Adams]], a former U.S. president who was then a [[U.S. Representative]] from [[Massachusetts]], had agreed to argue for the Africans. When it was time for him to argue, he said that he felt ill-prepared. [[Roger Sherman Baldwin]], who had already represented the captives in the lower cases, opened in his place.<ref name="Johnson"/>

Baldwin, a prominent attorney, contended that the Spanish government was trying to manipulate the Supreme Court to return "fugitives." He argued that the Spanish government sought the return of slaves who had been freed by the district court but was not appealing the fact of their having been freed. Covering all the facts of the case, Baldwin spoke for four hours over the course of February 22 and 23.<ref name="Johnson"/> (He was of no relation to the Court's Justice [[Henry Baldwin (judge)|Henry Baldwin]].)

Adams rose to speak on February 24. He reminded the Court that it was a part of the [[judicial branch]] and not part of the executive. Introducing copies of correspondence between the Spanish government and [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] [[John Forsyth (politician)|John Forsyth]], he criticized President Van Buren for his assumption of [[constitutionality|unconstitutional]] powers in the case:<ref name="Johnson"/>

{{blockquote|This review of all the proceedings of the Executive I have made with utmost pain, because it was necessary to bring it fully before your Honors, to show that the course of that department had been dictated, throughout, not by justice but by sympathy – and a sympathy the most partial and injust. And this sympathy prevailed to such a degree, among all the persons concerned in this business, as to have perverted their minds with regard to all the most sacred principles of law and right, on which the liberties of the United States are founded; and a course was pursued, from the beginning to the end, which was not only an outrage upon the persons whose lives and liberties were at stake, but hostile to the power and independence of the judiciary itself.<ref name="Johnson"/>}}

Adams argued that neither [[Pinckney's Treaty]] nor the [[Adams–Onís Treaty]] applied to the case. Article IX of Pinckney's Treaty referred only to property and did not apply to people. As to ''[[The Antelope]]'' decision (10 Wheat. 124), which recognized "that possession on board of a vessel was evidence of property,"<ref>''Supra'' note 1 at 545.<!--?--></ref> Adams said that did not apply either since the precedent was established prior to the prohibition of the foreign slave trade by the United States. Adams concluded on March 1 after eight-and-a-half hours of speaking. (The Court had taken a recess following the death of [[Associate Justice]] [[Philip P. Barbour|Barbour]] on February 25.)<ref name="Johnson"/>

Attorney General Gilpin concluded oral arguments with a three-hour rebuttal on March 2.<ref name="Johnson"/> The Court retired to consider the case.