This is an excerpt from Peter Iverson's Masters thesis. It was written well before the recent resurgence of popular media interest in the Amistad. If you have comments regarding this work, the changing perspective of historians regarding the Amistad, or if you would like to read the first section of this paper, which includes Iverson's history of the Amistad incident, please contact Peter Iverson at Arizona State University.

Excerpt from "The Amistad Africans and America: A Study in Response," Peter J. Iverson, University of Wisconsin, 1969.

TEMPO PRIMO

The New Negro strides upon the continent

In seven league boots...

The New Negro

Who sprang from the vigor-stout loins

Of Nat Turner, gallows-martyr for Freedom

Of Joseph Cinquez, Black Moses of the Amistad Mutiny

Of Frederick Douglass, oracle of the Catholic Man,

Of Sourjourner Truth, eye and ear of Lincoln's legions,

Of Harriet Tubman, St. Bernard of the Underground Railroad

#from Melvin Tolson's

"Dark Symphony"

(Arna Bontemps, ed., American

Negro Poetry, 39.)

THE PUBLIC RESPONSE: AN ANALYSIS

Reasons for Involvement

Public response to the Amistad Africans tells us much about the United States at the close of the Van Buren administration. Americans reacting to the Amistad issue showed the tenor of their feelings concerning many important people and issues of the day. The Africans had received active initial support from prominent abolitionists and subsequent assistance from John Quincy Adams and the British government; they had been opposed from the outset by an alliance of the Van Buren administration and the Spanish government. In order to understand general public response to the Africans, it is necessary to review why these principal participants became involved in the affair.

Important abolitionists responded immediately to provide legal assistance for the Africans. They saw the Amistad blacks as noble savages, who, though untutored in education or religion, realized the value of freedom. While genuinely and sincerely committed to fighting for the blacks' release, abolitionists perceived as well the value of the Africans as dramatic symbols in the battle against slavery. Groups like the New York State Anti-Slavery Society quickly passed resolutions expressing their "disgust, indignation and sorrow" at the "absurd and cruel" charges being leveled at the Africans "for asserting in the face of pirates their inalienable rights."1

The abolitionists, however, regarded the Africans as inferiors #as ignorant heathen bereft of education and Christianity. Thus the blacks, in striking similarity to the American blacks, were viewed not so much men as beings to be saved. Soon after their arrival in the New Haven jail, the Africans were instructed in English and the "saving knowledge of the Saviour of Sinners."2 Many abolitionists looked with "delightful anticipation" upon the missionaries being able to accompany the blacks back to Africa; Lewis Tappan's continuing interest in the Amistad mission spurred him to take a leading role in the founding of the American Missionary Association.3

Finally, abolitionist dedication to the cause increased with the firm opposition to the Africans by the Van Buren administration and leading Southern spokesmen. They pictured Van Buren in "trembling obedience to the dictation of slavery," and hailed favorable judicial decisions as "glorious news which will...cause the haughty and the bloody-minded of the South to gnash their teeth for rage!"4

The Van Buren administration, indeed, did have reason to heed Southern views on the Amistad question. Van Buren needed to maintain Southern support in the 1840 election. Moreover, both Secretary of State John Forsyth and Attorney General Felix Grundy were not only Southerners but slaveholders as well. The administration, in fact, had but recently proven its sensitivity on the fugitive slave issue.

Forsyth and Van Buren had bitterly protested British refusal to return the slaves from the American domestic slaver Enterprize, which had shipwrecked on a British island in the Caribbean; they regarded such refusal as "the strongest inducement to the flight or abduction of slaves, by fraud or force, from their masters."5 A year before the Amistad Africans landed in the United States, U.S. Minister to Great Britain Stevenson demanded that the British "refrain from forcing liberty upon such American slaves" as might enter British ports, prohibit slaves from landing in her colonies, and guard such slaves that landed until they would be claimed.6

Spain, in Van Buren's view, took a more reasonable view than Britain toward slavery and the slave trade. He thus felt it important to maintain good relations with Spain. In the case of the Amistad Africans, it meant their deliverance to Spanish authorities. Spain shared both the Van Buren fear of slave revolt and his fear of abolitionist gain through events like the Amistad rebellion.

Spanish Minister to the United States Angel Calderon de la Barca quickly warned Forsyth that those who favored emancipation would seize upon the issue and that the mutiny's success endangered "the internal tranquility and the safety of the island of Cuba."7 Claiming a responsibility to Ruiz and Montez, Spain contended that its subjects' interest provoked her own response. Yet, though Ruiz and Montez did not appeal the District Court decision, Spain continue to badger the Van Buren administration for a "proper" settlement of the matter. Clearly Spain not only worried about revolt but preferred not to have Cuban failure to enforce the slave trade ban be carefully examined.

In other words, Spain worried about the British. Britain had persuaded Spain to join in the slave trade ban and had become basically responsible for whatever effect the ban would have. Now that Britain had banned slavery in its own colonies, it pursued with added zeal its role in the suppression of the trade. Given its recent disagreements with the American government over the right of search and the Enterprize incident, the British were in little mood to be sympathetic to American or Spanish concerns. The case had provoked strong interest in Britain. The Glasgow Emancipation Society and other groups passed resolutions in support of the Amistad Africans.8 By February, 1840, Britain had directed its ministers to the United States and to Spain to speak in favor of freeing the Africans. Nearly a year later, after consulting with John Quincy Adams, British Minister to the United States Henry Fox wrote to Secretary of State Forsyth expressing the British position.9

Adams had not been before a judicial tribunal in over thirty years, but Ellis Gray Loring and Lewis Tappan persuaded him in October, 1840, to assist Roger Baldwin at the final trial. The Whig congressman felt the blacks had "vindicated their natural right to liberty" by revolting; he wanted to save both them and the United States from "the deep damnation of delivering them up to the merciless revenge of their oppressors."10 Adams, of course, had little love for Van Buren and his cohorts; he believed they had joined in an "abominable conspiracy" against the Africans.ll Thus he became an active participant not only to aid the blacks but to chastise the administration. His Supreme Court defense of the Africans would reveal both motives.

These parties of interest in the Amistad case differed among themselves over slavery, black rights, political parties, and sectionalism. The country itself, of course was divided on these issues. Viewers of the Amistad affair could not separate their opinions on whether the blacks should be free from their opinions on these issues and these parties.

Public response to the Amistad illustrates the importance of party allegiance, the divisiveness of slavery, the provocativeness of the abolitionists, the limited place of the black man, and the strong dislike of Great Britain felt in America, 1839.

Party Allegiance

While Democrats generally supported the Van Buren viewpoint that the blacks should be surrendered, they supported the opinion more than the man. There was scant praise among Democrats for Van Buren's handling of the affair: neither the trial results nor the Grampus fiasco spoke well for the President. Democrats generally reacted more strongly against those assisting the Amistad Africans; for example, the Charleston Mercury and the St. Louis, Missouri Argus both feared a growing alliance between Whigs (such as John Quincy Adams) and the abolitionists.12 The British as well, were widely condemned for supporting the Africans' right to be free.13

At the same time, there were some interesting departures from the party line. The Worcester Palladium gently suggested that "the opinion will have many supporters that they ought to be acquitted and sent home to Africa."14 The Baltimore Sun, a Democratic-leaning penny paper, contended that as the blacks were not legal slaves, they acted in the "law of common nature" and correctly defend themselves.15 The New York Evening Post waged an extensive battle against the Van Buren administration's actions. Its editors, the redoubtable William Leggett and poet William Cullen Bryant were hardly sympathetic to slavery. In addition, one of the Africans' lawyers, Theodore Sedgwick, Jr., served as the Post's mouthpiece on the affair. As "Veto," Sedgwick attacked the administration's willingness to set aside justice in fear of abolitionist triumph, "lest some slaveholder on the shores of the Mobile or the Mississippi should tremble for his property."16 Interestingly, the Democratic Post had harsh words for John Quincy Adams' handling of his position as counsel for the Africans during the Supreme Court trial.17 Perhaps Sedgwick himself had criticized Adams; the young lawyer clearly felt that unsung Roger Baldwin (a Whig) had "had the laboring oar throughout" and "ought to have the laurels."18

Adams' involvement in the Amistad case significantly influenced Whig reaction to the Africans. The Cincinnati Chronicle and the New Haven Evening Palladium had quickly supported the blacks' right to freedom 19 and the National Intelligencer (Washington, D.C.) with equal alacrity had opposed it 20, but Whigs generally refrained from editorial comment until Adams defended the Africans before the Supreme Court. Adams' speech, indeed, impressed and won comments from Whigs not so much because of the justness of the blacks' cause, but because the former Whig president had given the speech and devoted much of it to bitter criticism of the Democratic administration.

Thus the Galena, Illinois Northwestern Gazette and Galena Advertiser spoke of Adams nearly to the exclusion of the Africans, and the Albany Evening Journal concentrated its focus on the "great influence" it felt Adams' argument would have with the Court.21 The Detroit Daily Advertiser's correspondent praised above all Adams' "castigation" of executive interference, and the Jonesborough (Tennessee)Whig cheered his "caustic" attack on United States Attorney General Henry Gilpin.22 Of all the Whig papers, only the New Haven Evening Palladium appeared sufficiently furious with Van Buren over the Grampus episode to label him "a monarchist in spirit" and suggest his impeachment.23 And the Grampus, of course, had been in New Haven harbor.

Slavery and Sectionalism

Secondly, the Amistad case illustrates the extent of divisiveness felt over the slavery issue. The clearest indication of this sectional reaction came in a heated exchange between Congressman Samuel Pickens of South Carolina and "Veto": defense lawyer for the Africans, Theodore Sedgwick, Jr. of New York.

Pickens asserted that slavery was a natural and necessary institution without which the South would be ruined. Since men were neither perfect nor pure, all men could be free and equal. From the time that Cain had slain Abel, man's natural state had been war. Slavery had been produced by war, conquest, and force, "and it is state necessity and the internal law of self-preservation that will ever perpetuate and defend it."24

Labeling Judge Andrew Judson's District Court decision a "base outrage" on "civilized life," Pickens implied that "great popular excitement" in the North had unduly influenced judicial opinion. The white race of the South had to "be alive to the relations they bear their fellowmen in other regions," warned the South Carolinian. In former times, it had been a question of securing individual private rights in society; now, "the great struggle is to preserve the separate independence of different communities"25

Sedgwick answered with a blistering critique of the South. The "ultras" of the North might be the abolitionists (a "handful" of the population), but the "ultras" of the South, according to the New Yorker, were "the whole population." Slavery seemed to make all southerners lose command of themselves, and respect for others. produced a "fever," an "insane temper," an "abdication of reason."26 The North could not see how slave interests were endangered by the Amistad case, but it could also not disregard the slaveholding majority on the Supreme Court, nor the raising of the "whole Southern voice" in "one united appeal" to the passions, prejudice, fears, and interests of these judges.27

If the South was "bent upon arming like a single man" to defend and promote slavery, Sedgwick knew that the North would "unite to check it [slavery]#to hedge it in#to overthrow it." He hoped that such a conflict would never occur, for it would endanger the nation. Yet, if it should happen-if "evil temper, arrogance, and blindness should force it on"#clearly God would not side with the slaveowners' cause.28

Pickens and Sedgwick were not alone in viewing the Amistad issue as directly related to slavery and sectional division. A number of northern newspapers felt the case's drama would provoke wide debate on the institution of slavery. Such a subject, the Boston Atlas noted, "the members from a certain part of the country have shown such an unwillingness to have broached."29 A letter writer to the New York Spectator hailed the "providential" arrival of the blacks as one which would re-expose the "atrocities of the slave trade," and re-establish the notion that the trade would continue as long as slavery itself existed.30 The Boston Evening Transcript viewed the Amistad question as one "of universal interest, involving great national and social relations."31

Both North and South expressed concern at the outset of the case that sectional feeling might endanger proper judicial consideration. The New York Commercial Advertiser noted that more in the North than the abolitionists thought the blacks should be free, and expressed its hopes that citizens from the slave states would not interfere.32 "Amen! to that with our whole heart," added the Weekly Dispatch of the same city.33 On the other hand, the Charleston Mercury early in the case became worried over extensive public sympathy in the North for the blacks.34

The Supreme Court trial of the Amistad Africans brought on further expression of sectional feeling. The Charleston Courier''s Washington correspondent said that "the northern people" might prevent the Spanish from claiming the blacks, if the Court ordered the Africans' return to Spanish authorities.35 However, the Portland, Maine Transcript feared the Southern influence among Court members might lead to a "deliberate and merciless sacrifice of innocence to the god of slavery.36

The Amistad question continued in the United States after the Africans left for home. Twelve years after the blacks' departure, Congressman Joshua Giddings of Ohio still had to speak out against indemnification of the Spanish. He called the affair an "exceedingly dangerous" example to slavery interests, but warned antislavery men were "as willing to meet the issue on the Amistad case as on any other subject."37

Thus, from beginning until end, the Amistad question indicated the divisions already apparent within the United States by 1839. It showed the ideas of differences between regions firmly established and the tensions between them to be increasing rather than decreasing. With a small Maine literary magazine decrying the god of slavery and a Carolinian congressman warning the white race of the South about its relations with other regions and a New York lawyer quite certain that, when the time came, God would be on the North's side, one could hardly question the divisive effect of slavery.

The Abolitionists

In the light of widespread northern support for freeing the Amistad blacks, one might expect the abolitionists to receive some credit for their assistance to the Africans. The Amistad Committee, after all, procured legal assistance and medical aid, and by its immediate action had greatly improved the Africans' chances for freedom. Nonetheless, this prompt support merely spurred criticism from North and South. As has already been noted, northern non-abolitionist papers who advocated freeing the blacks quickly pointed out that more than just the abolitionists supported the Africans.38 These comments revealed both irritation with the abolitionists for taking on the Amistad Africans attheir cause and concern that abolitionist "officiousness" which would "dry up the public bounty which else would flow out like water."39

Americans who thought the Africans should be returned to Spanish authorities at first saw the blacks as merely providing the abolitionists with "a kind of safety valve by which to let off their superfluous philanthropy."40 But when the abolitionists moved to have Ruiz and Montez jailed on charges of assault and battery and false imprisonment of the Amistad Africans, this reaction turned to rage. The abolitionists, they charged should either leave the blacks, alone, or "just stand in their shoes altogether."41 The National Intelliencer denounced the "misguided zealots" who were guilty of "frivolity" and "wantonness" in "making sport of the laws, and perverting the powers of courts to factious and fanatical ends."42 Later, Congressman Pickens would picture those of "affected benevolence" leaping with joy over the murder of a white man "if it be only perpetrated by a black and savage hand"; he decried "that modern sympathy which can find no objects on which to exercise its benevolence but what are of the black race."43

Even those citizens who thought the Africans should be free questioned the wisdom of jailing the Spaniards.44 This feeling reveals the kind of problems faced by abolitionists who wished to move with more than deliberate speed in eliminating slavery and generally improving conditions for the black man. The abolitionist became a scapegoat for a society which wished to deal with the slavery question at a more "reasonable"#in other words, slower-pace. If the Amistad case can be considered indicative, the abolitionist would have to disregard censure and not deviate from his aims; his applause would consist of the results he achieved.

The Black Man in America

White American reaction to the approach of the "long, low black schooner" suggests extensive fear of blacks and black rebellion. Northern and southern papers speculated wildly about the black men seen in command of the battered vessel which zigzagged near the American shore. Except for those who suspected the Amistad as a Haitian government vessel 45, Americans most often accepted the notion that the Africans were pirates, aboard a "piratical craft" which flew a "red and black piratical flag."46 As soon as the blacks had been apprehended by theWashington, many newspaper editors rushed to assure their readers that "the blacks have been guilty of piracy and murder and will be dealt with accordingly."47 Some papers wondered if the blacks were cannibals; others simply called the Africans "savages," or "genuine negroes presenting all the repulsive features of the race."48

After the basic facts surrounding the Amistad revolt had been learned, many Northerners, at least, decided the blacks should be free to go home on the grounds that they had been illegally enslaved. They thus judged the Africans as men, free men, who had asserted their natural rights by taking over the Amistad. The blacks, as men entitled to liberty, could therefore be praised for having a "natural sense of the value of freedom," for "striking a blow for freedom," for "rising to shake off the chains imposed upon freedom."49 Some Northerners went so far as to liken the mutiny to Americans rising to throw off British rule.50 In the person of Cinquez, such men saw a black Osceola51 possessing "the true elements of heroism."

Such praise must be considered in the perspective of the Africans of the Amistad as neither American slaves nor American free blacks. It must also be remembered that the Amistad blacks wished to reside not in the North, but in Africa. Northerners, it seems fair to conclude, would be far more inclined to hail black revolt when the blacks neither hailed from nor intended to go to the United States.

This conclusion is strengthened by a recollection of Northern response to the blacks' suing Ruiz and Montez for assault and battery and false imprisonment. The blacks might have been illegally enslaved, yet should not be allowed to seek revenge through the judicial system: so concluded even most white Americans who thought the Amistad blacks should be free. White reaction to the jailing of white men by blacks provides a telling insight into the limits of actual black rights in 1839. White Americans seemed to be saying, in sum, that there existed a great difference between what the law guaranteed and what black Americans could expect under the law.

Anti-British Sentiment in America

The Amistad affair, finally, reflected the vibrant anti-British feelings throughout the country. When the British government suggested, through a letter sent by British Minister to the U.S. Henry Fox, that as the Amistad blacks clearly had been illegally enslaved, the American government should let them return to Africa, Americans responded by extensive criticism of British interference. Many Southerners, of course, saw the British action as an extension of the recent Enterprize incident; Britain appeared to be indirectly and directly working to eliminate slavery in America.

Congressman Pickens expressed this view in his article in the Washington Globe. Pickens thought Britain was attempting to gain influence in Cuba through the Amistad affair; in control of Cuba, she would hold "the exposed coast of Florida at her mercy." By encouraging the abolition sentiment in America, Britain was maneuvering to eliminate the commercial rivalry of the United States.52 He saw Judson's decision as an indication of "base subserviency to British feeling and British interest."53

John Forsyth played upon American fear of continuing British attempts to dominate the United States in his response to British Minister Fox. He curtly replied that he could not interfere in the judicial process; the Charleston Courier saw him bidding "Mr. Bull" to call again when he "had nothing to do."54 Other papers, holding widely different views about what should be with the Amistad blacks, praised the "exceedingly proper" tone and spirit of Forsyth's reply, while condemning the "impertinent" nature of Fox's request.55 The Philadelphia Public Ledger, which had earlier supported the Amistad Africans right to gain liberty by any means ("as fully as we admit the same rights in our fathers of the Revolution"), expressed the common view of a great many Americans by seeing Fox's request as "too much in that arrogant style which the British government is beginning to assume toward us." The Public Ledger declared: "It is time for us to stop this, and we hope that the nation will show an united disposition to stop it."56 If the Amistad case, again, is viewed as representative, the Ledger did not have to worry about Americans deviating from their anti-British tradition.

Conclusion

The arrival of the Amistad Africans, black men who had successfully rebelled against slavery, thus ignited a sectional debate of significance within the United States. The immediate support of the blacks by leading abolitionists, when contrasted to the immediate denial by the federal government of the Africans right to be free, indicated how firmly different forces in the nation were committed to the slavery issue. General public response to the Amistad revealed the importance of party allegiance, the divisiveness of slavery, the limited place of the black man, and the extreme aversion to the abolitionists and Great Britain shared by Americans at the close of the Van Buren administration.

80

FOOTNOTES

1. Cincinnati Philanthropist, October 22, 1839.

2. Liberator, June 26, 1840, January 17, 1840.

3. Emancipator, February 6, 1840.

4. Ibid.

5. Forsyth to United States Minister to Great Britain Stevenson, March 27, 1837, William Jay, A View of the Action of the Federal Government in Behalf of Slavery (New York, 1839), 73-74.

6. Ibid., 76.

7. Executive Documents, No. 185. 26th Cong., 1 sees., 10.

8. Philanthropist, December 10, 1839.

9. ( Montpelier) Vermont Patriot, January 27, 1841.

10. Emancipator, January 16, 1840.

11. Ibid.

12. Charleston Mercury, September 11, 1839; ( St. Louis) Missouri Argus, September 19, 1839.

13. See 77-79 of this section for the American response to British interest in the Africans, and Baltimore Sun,
February 17, Washington Globe, January 7, Charleston Courier, February 20, 1841.

14. Worcester Palladium, September 4, 1839.

15. Baltimore Sun, September 18, 1839.

16. New York Evening Post, reprinted in Emancipator, February 1, 1841.

17. New York Evening Post, March 11, 1841.

18. Sedgwick to Baldwin, March 18, 1841, Baldwin Papers.

19. The Chronicle may well have been spurred by the Philanthropist's early attention to the case; the Evening
Palladium, of course, had the impetus of local interest. See Cincinnati Chronicle, September 14, 1839, New Haven Evening Palladium, October 28, November 4, 1839.

81

20. Washington National Intelligencer, October 24, 1839.

21. ( Galena, Illinois) Northwestern Gazette and Galena Advertiser, April 2, 1841, Albany Evening Journal, March 1, 13, 1841.

22. Detroit Daily Advertiser, March 23, 1841, ( Jonesborough, Tennessee) Whig, March 24, 1841.

23. New Haven Evening Palladium, June 1, 1840.

24. Washington Globe, January 7, 1841.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid., February 3, 1841.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Boston Atlas, quoted in the New Haven Daily Herald, September 4, 1839.

30. New York Spectator, October 1, 1839.

31. Boston Evening Transcript, September 14, 1839.

32. New York Commercial Advertiser, quoted in the New Haven Evening Palladium, October 11, 1839.

33. New York Weekly Dispatch, quoted in the New Haven Evening Palladium, October 11, 1839.

34. Charleston Mercury, September 11, 1839.

35. Charleston Courier, February 20, 1841.

36. Portland ( Maine) Transcript, February 27, 1841.

37. Joshua Giddings, "Speech to the House on the Amistad Question," December 21, 1853, Anti-Slavery Micro-Cards, WSHS.

38. See footnotes 32-33.

39. "Humanitas," New York Spectator, September 13, 1839.

40. New Orleans Times-Picayune, September 25, 1839.

41. New Haven Register, quoted in the Washington Globe, October 30. 1839; New Orleans Times-Picavune, October 29, 1839.

82

42. Washington National Intelligencer, October 24, 1839.

43. Washington Globe, January 7, 1841.

44. New Haven Evening Palladium, November 4, 1839.

45. ( Annapolis) Maryland Gazette, August 26, 1839

46. Baltimore Sun, August 26, 1839.

47. New Orleans Times-Picayune, September 7, 1839; see also Cincinnati Daily News, and Cincinnati Gazette, quoted in the Philanthropist, September 17, 1839.

48. Charleston Courier, quoted in the Charleston Mercury, October 23, 1839; New York Herald, October 5, 1839.

49. Cincinnati Chronicle, September 7, 14, 1839; Bridgton (New Jersey) Chronicle, December 7, 1839; New York Weekly Dispatch, September 7, 1839.

50. Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 24, 1841.

51. An interesting comparison, given black assistance to the Seminoles at this time.

52. Washington Globe, January 7, 1841.

53. Ibid.

54. Charleston Courier, February 20, 1841.

55. Baltimore Sun, February 17, 1841; Charleston Courier, February 20, 1841, Southport ( Wisconsin) Telegraph, March 9, 1841.

56. Philadelphia Public Ledger, February 24, 1841.

83

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES:

Government Documents:

"Africans Taken in the Amistad," Executive Documents, 26 Cong., 1 sees., No. 185 (March, 1840).

"Report on the Amistad Case," House Reports, 26 Cong., 2 sees., No. 51 (January 4, 1841).

"Negroes Taken on Board Schooner Amistad," Senate Documents, 26 Cong., 2 sees., No. 179, IV (February 9, 1841).

"Case of Schooner Amistad," House Documents, 27 Cong., 3 sees., No. 191, IV (February 27, 1843).

"Report on Case of Schooner Amistad," House Reports, 28 Cong., 1 sees., No. 426, II (April 10, 1844).

"Message on Case of Amistad," Executive Documents, 31 Cong., 2 sees., No. 29, III (February 14, 1851).

"Report on Case of Spanish Schooner Amistad," Senate Reports, 31 Cong., 2 sees., No. 301, I (February 19, 1851).

"Report on Amistad Claim," Senate Reports, 32 Cong., 1 sees., No. 158, I (March 29, 1852).

"Message on Case of Schooner Amistad," Executive Documents, 32 Cong., 2 sees., No. 20, III (January 17, 1853).

"Report on Case of Schooner Amistad," Senate Reports, 35 Cong., 1 sees., No. 36, I (February 2, 1858).

Papers:

John Quincy Adams, Papers. Wisconsin State Historical Society (microfilm edition).

Roger S. Baldwin, Papers. Sterling Library of Yale University.

Joshua Giddings, Papers. Wisconsin State Historical Society (microfilm edition).

84

Reports:

American Anti-Slavery Society Reports, 1-7, 1834-40.

New England Anti-Slavery Society and Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society Reports, 1833-41.

Addresses:

Adams, John Quincy, Argument of John Quincy Adams Before the Supreme Court of the United States. in the Case of the United States, Appellants vs. Cinque and Others. Africans. New York, 1841.

Baldwin, Roger S., Argument of Roger S. Baldwin, of New Haven, Before the Supreme Court of the United States. in the Case of the United States Appellants vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans. New York, 1841.

Giddings, Joshua, "Speech Before the House of Representatives," December 21, 1853, Antislavery Micro-Cards, Wisconsin State Historical Society.

Books:

Barber, John, A History of the Amistad Captives, New Haven, 1840.

Committee for the Defense of the Africans, Africans Taken in the Amistad, New York, 1840.

Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society, Slavery and the Internal Slave Trade in the United States. London, 1841.

Jay, William, A View of the Action of the Federal Government in Behalf of Slavery. New York, 1839.

Representatives of the Society of Friends, An Exposition of the African Slave Trade 1840-50. Philadelphia, 1851.

85

Published Writings:

Abel, Annie H. and Frank J. Klingberg (ed.), A Sidelight on Anglo-American Relations 1839-1858 ("Furnished by the Correspondence of Lewis Tappan and Others with the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society"). Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1927.

Aptheker, Herbert (ed.), A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States, vol. 1. New York, 1951.

Dumond, Dwight (ed.), Letters of James G. Birney. 1831-57. 2 v. New York, 1938.

Newspapers:

Albany Argus, 1839-40.

Albany Evening Journal, September, 1839; 1840-41.

Baltimore Sun, 1839-41.

Boston Courier, 1839-41.

Boston Evening Journal, 1839-41.

Boston Evening Transcript, 1839-41.

Bridgeton ( New Jersey) Chronicle, 1839-41.

Charleston Courier, 1839-41.

Charleston Mercury, 1839-41.

Cincinnati Chronicle, September, 1839.

Cincinnati Daily News, 1839- June, 1840.

Cincinnati Daily Times, October, 1840-41.

Columbus ( Georgia) Enquirer Sun, 1839-41.

Detroit Daily Advertiser, March 1840-41.

Detroit Free Press, 1839-41.

Dover ( New Hampshire) Enquirer, 1839-41.

Emancipator ( New York), 1839-41.

Flemingsburg ( Kentucky) Kentuckian, July 1840-41.

Florida Herald and Southern Democrat ( St. Augustine), 1840-41.

Freeman's Journal ( Cooperstown, New York), 1839-41.

Globe ( Washington, D.C.), 1839-41.

Independent Chronicle and Boston Patriot ( Boston), 1839.

Liberator ( Boston), 1839-41.

Lowell ( Massachusetts ) Courier, 1839-41.

Madisonian ( Washington, D.C.), 1839-41.

Maryland Gazette ( Annapolis), 1839.

Missouri Argus ( St. Louis), 1839.

Nashville Republican Banner, January-June, 1840; 1841.

National Aegis ( Worcester, Mass.), 1839-41.

National Intelligencer ( Washington, D.C.), 1839-41.

New Hampshire Patriot ( Concord), 1839-41.

New Haven Daily Herald, 1839.

New Haven Evening Palladium, 1839-41.

New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1839-41.

New York Anti-Slavery Standard, 1840-41.

New York Atlas, August, 1840-41.

New York Evening Post, 1839-41.

New York Herald, 1839-41.

New York Log Cabin, May, 1840-41.

New York Mercury, 1839-41.

86

New York Spectator, 1839-41.

New York Weekly Dispatch, 1839-February, 1840.

New Yorker ( New York), 1839-41.

Northwestern Gazette and Galena Advertiser ( Galena, Illinois), 1839-41.

Ohio State Journal ( Columbus), 1839-41.

Pennsylvania Freeman ( Philadelphia), 1839-41.

Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1839-41.

Philanthropist ( Cincinnati), 1839-March, 1840.

Portland ( Maine) Transcript, 1839-41.

Richmond Enquirer, 1840-41.

South Carolinian ( Columbia), 1839-41 (scattered issues).

Southport ( Wisconsin) Telegraph Courier, 1841.

The Time O'Day ( Petersburg, Virginia), August-October, 1839.

United States Gazette ( Philadelphia), July-December, 1839.

Vermont Patriot ( Montpelier), 1840-41.

Vicksburg Daily Whig, October, 1840-41.

Weekly Ohio Statesman (Columbus), 1839-41.

The Whig ( Elizabethson-Jonesborough, Tennessee), 1839-41.

Worcester Palladium, 1839-41.

The Yeoman ( Richmond), 1840.

87

SECONDARY SOURCES:

Periodicals:

Baldwin, Simeon E., "The Amistad Captives," paper read before the New Haven Colony Historical Society on May 17, 1886. Papers of the NHCHS, IV, 331-70, 1888.

Dinsmore, Charles A., "Interesting Sketches of the Amistad Captives," Yale University Library Gazette, IX, (January, 1935), 50-55.

Gallagher, Buell G., "The Amistad Incident and the Founding of the American Missionary Association," The Talladegan, LVIII, No. 4 (May, 1941), 1-4.

Lewis, Alonzo, "Recollections of the Amistad Case," The Connecticut Magazine, IX, No. 1, 127-28.

Books, Bulletins, Pamphlets:

Bemis, Samuel F., John Quincy Adams and the Union. New York, 1956.

Bontemps, Arna, American Missionary Association Archives in Fisk University Library. Nashville, 1947.

Bontemps, Arna (ed.), American Negro Poetry. New York, 1963.

Bontemps, Arna, Story of the Negro. New York, 1948.

Brawley, Benjamin, Negro Builders and Heroes. Chapel Hill, 1937.

Donnan, Elizabeth (ad.), Documents Illustrative of the Slave Trade to America. Washington, D.C., 1930-35.

Duckett, Alvin L., John Forsyth: Political Tactician. Athens. Georgia, 1962.

DuBois, W.E.B., The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to United States of America. New York, 1954.

Dumond, Dwight, Antislavery. New York, 1961.

Filler, Louis, The Crusade Against Slavery. New York, 1960.

History of the American Missionary Association. New York, 1874.

Hollander, Barnett, Slavery in America: Its Legal History. New York, 1963.

88

Hurd, John C., The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States. Boston, 1858.

Johnson, Allen (ed.), Dictionary of American Biography, I. New York, 1928.

Julian, George W., The Life of Joshua R. Giddings. Chicago, 1892.

Litwack, Leon, North of Slavery. Chicago, 1961.

Mannix, Daniel P. and Malcolm Cowley, Black Cargoes. New York, 1962.

McDougall, Marion, Fugitive Slaves. Boston, 1891.

Osterweis, Rollin G., Three Centuries of New Haven. 1638-1938. New Haven, 1953.

Owens, William A., Slave Mutiny. New York, 1953.

Ryder, Charles F., Fifty Years of the American Missionary Association.

Schlesinger, A.M., Jr., The Age of Jackson. Boston. 1945.

Seward, William H., The Life and Public Service of John Quincy Adams. Auburn, 1851.

Smith, Charles B., Roger B. Taney: Jacksonian Jurist.. Chapel Hill, 1936.

Soulsby, Hugh, The Right of Search and the Slave Trade in Anglo American Relations. 1814-1862. Baltimore, 1933.

Swisher, Carl B., Roper B. Taney. New York, 1936.

Van Deusen, Glyndon G., The Jacksonian Era.. New York, 1959.

Warner, Robert, New Haven Negroes, A Social History. New Haven, 1940.

Warren, Charles, The Supreme Court in United States History. Boston, 1923.

Wilson, Henry, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America.. Boston, 1872, vol. 2.