Danielle Schmidt

ENC 3315
Rhetorical Analysis of Amistad Documents

There are many documents that present the different aspects and opinions regarding the
controversial case, the Amistad, which was when African slaves rebelled on board of a Spanish
ship. The following paper will look at three documents from this time and analyze the different
stances and circumstances. One document is from Roger Baldwin, who was a Connecticut
lawyer that defended the Africans. The second is the argument of Henry Gilpin, who was the
Attorney General of the United States. The last document is a collection of newspaper articles
that were written at the time of the event.
Roger Baldwin stood for the Africans and heavily believed in their right to be free and
equal. However, his stance wasnt the most popular one at a time where slavery was very
prevalent and most people viewed African Americans as property, even though the United States
as a whole was considered a free state. Either way, I believe he knew this was going to be a
tough crowd to sell. In his address to the court, Baldwin used a combination of both pathos and
logos to successfully present his case.
In the beginning, he starts off on a pathos note. He speaks about how the case is not only
related to simply whats at stake for the Africans he represents, but also the character of our
country as whole. When speaking of the United States and its foundations, he makes a point to
use descriptive words such as genius and great to then emphasize the contrast of what has
happened in said case referring to it as inhumane and unjust. The Supreme Court are obviously
intense representatives of the United States and what it stands for so to throw the core roots and
bring natural law into play was a very smart move.
After the introduction Baldwin mainly shifts to a logos approach, however every now and
then hell throw a little bit of emotional appeal back in. For example, later on in his statement he
makes a point to ask what the people of the United States would do, and if they would assent to
such behavior or treaties. This ties right back in with what he was doing in the beginning where
he is stating that our nation is based off of the Constitution where every man is equal and that the
United States represents justice. It becomes more of a character question for the people of the
court when he refers to this. He also makes a very powerful emotionally driven statement when
he says, That these victims of fraud and piracy -- husbands torn from their wives and families --
children from their parents and kindred -- neither intended to abandon the land of their nativity,
nor had lost all hope of recovering it, sufficiently appears from the facts on this record. Baldwin
is humanizing the Africans, and relating them to the members of the court and every other person
in general.
The majority of Baldwins address to the court is based on logos, which when you
consider that his audience are people of the law who make decisions based off of facts and to set
precedents, that is the most sensible approach. Baldwin talks about how slavery is not a national
law, but is a state law. Therefore each jurisdiction is different. Considering the Africans ended up
in New York and that is a free state, they should be considered free. He also talks about the lack
of documents, which is ultimately what proves whether they were slaves or not. He points out
that the documents presented by Montez and Ruiz were fraud, therefore the Africans actually
were indeed free men that were captured unwillingly and unjustly.
Another one of Baldwins main points to the court is that in the Spanish treaty that would
be applicable to the situation, it states that merchandise that is rescued from the hands of
pirates, in relation to boat captivity, shall be returned to the true proprietors. He elaborates
on how the Africans cannot fall under the term merchandise, and also that they are not
considered pirates either. Therefore, they do not need to be returned to their alleged true
proprietors, the Spaniards. Also on that note, referring back to the false legal documents, the
Spaniards wouldnt be their true proprietors regardless.
On the opposite side, there is Henry Gilpin, who is the Attorney General for the United
States taking the stance that the Africans should be returned to Spain. His argument does not
have any pathos the way that Baldwins did, but it does have ethos and logos. His situation
differs as well because he worked for the government, and it was in their best interest to maintain
diplomatic relations with Spain. To him, rocking this boat was not a good idea.
Gilpin heavily uses ethos when he is arguing over the validity of the documents. He states
that the office that signed off on those papers is highest functionary of the government in Cuba;
his public acts are the highest evidence of any facts stated by him, within the scope of his
authority. It is within the scope of his authority to declare what is property, and what are the
rights of the subjects of Spain, within his jurisdiction, in regard to property. Hes using the
officers authority to convince the court that looking further into whether these were fraudulent
documents or not is unnecessary due to his status. He also knows that questioning an authority
figure like that would lead to an unhappy Spain, which is why I believe he emphasizes this point
first and also as heavily as he does.
Another argument Gilpin makes, using the logos appeal, is regarding whether the slaves
should fall under the term property or not. He argues that they should because at the time of
treaty that most of the nations deemed that to be true. He also points out that in the current
situation, the United States and Spain both contain parts that still view slaves as property.
Therefore, it shouldnt be that far fetched of a concept to view them as property in the situation
of the Amistad.
The newspaper accounts of this time have a variety of stances. Some of the papers
released very biased articles, while the others simply released statements from the people
involved both defending the Spaniards and the Africans. One of the more biased articles that
stand out is one written in the New London Gazette on August 26, 1839.
What stands out in this article is their descriptive language when it comes to describing
both parties. When referring to the Spaniards, they used the term whites and made a point to
describe them endearingly. Jose Rues was referred to as very gentlemanly and intelligent and
Pedro Montes was a slave owner and former ship-master. There was a large emphasis on how
the two Spaniards were treated with the greatest severity and were suffering. However, there is
no mention about any African suffering or torture. The entire other side to the story of potentially
being captured and forced into slavery is left out, while Rues and Montes were put in a light
where they were the true victims in the scenario.
On the other hand, the New York Journal of Commerce published two pieces in favor of
the Africans. At the time, New York was a free state so this type of publication made sense. The
first was a description of the horrible living conditions that the slaves endured on the ship, going
into detail about the tight space and malnutrition. It pointed out that they were so bad that many
died including women and children. The second piece was a statement that John Quincy Adams
wrote in a letter, talking about how horrible the conditions were as well and arguing that the
victims here were not the Spaniards, but in fact the Africans. His statement comes to a powerful
ending with the questions Is this compassion? Is it sympathy? Is it justice?
All three of these pieces argue different sides to a controversial issue. In my opinion,
Baldwin did it best. Considering his audience, the facts, and the situational circumstance, his
tactics and points were most accurate. He not only brought natural law into the equation, but also
pointed out the necessity to check into the documents whether Spain liked it or not. Gilpin was
too obviously just trying to stay on good terms with Spain. The United States entire foundation
is based off of justice and he is trying to argue for turning a blind eye simply because we should
just trust what is said. The Supreme Court sets the precedents and they knew that that is not
something that could just be overlooked simply due to international relations because they have a
duty to serve and the law to uphold.
It also comes as no surprise that the newspapers at the time were so all over the place in
their stances. New York was mainly the place where one could say the other side of the story
was actually prominent. They made a point to publish on the Africans behalf rather than making
it a stereotypical anyone that isnt an African is automatically the victim piece. Connecticut on
the other hand did not abolish slavery completely until 1848, so when those articles were
released in 1839 it makes sense that they were mostly anti-African.
Overall, all three pieces had different elements and circumstances that played into why
and how each one was written. Both Gilpin and Baldwin had the same audiences, but approached
it in two different manors. The newspapers had many different audiences, which is why they
ranged from paper to paper the way that they did. In my opinion Baldwin did it best, which is
heavily supported by the fact that when you fast forward in time the Supreme Court ends up
ruling in his favor.