United States vs. The Amistad (1841)

In February of 1839, Portuguese slave hunters abducted a large group of Africans from Sierra Leone and shipped them to Havana, Cuba, a center for the slave trade. This abduction violated all of the treaties then in existence. Fifty-three Africans were purchased by two Spanish planters and put aboard the Cuban schooner Amistad for shipment to a Caribbean plantation. On July 1, 1839, the Africans seized the ship, killed the captain and the cook, and ordered the planters to sail to Africa. On August 24, 1839, the Amistad was seized off Long Island, NY, by the U.S. brig Washington. The planters were freed and the Africans were imprisoned in New Haven, CT, on charges of murder. Although the murder charges were dismissed, the Africans continued to be held in confinement as the focus of the case turned to salvage claims and property rights. President Van Buren was in favor of extraditing the Africans to Cuba. However, abolitionists in the North opposed extradition and raised money to defend the Africans. Claims to the Africans by the planters, the government of Spain, and the captain of the brig led the case to trial in the Federal District Court in Connecticut. The court ruled that the case fell within Federal jurisdiction and that the claims to the Africans as property were not legitimate because they were illegally held as slaves. The case went to the Supreme Court in January 1841, and former President John Quincy Adams argued the defendants' case. Adams defended the right of the accused to fight to regain their freedom. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Africans, and 35 of them were returned to their homeland. The others died at sea or in prison while awaiting trial.

A case before the Circuit Court in Hartford, Connecticut, was filed (September 1839). Slavery was still legal in Connecticut, although not widespread. The Africans were charged with mutiny and murder. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, because the alleged acts occurred on a Spanish-flag ship in Spanish waters as Cuba was a Soanush colony. This began the complicated legal process. Various parties filed property claims the captives, the ship, and the cargo. The British entered the picture because they had a treaty with Spain and argued that the Amjistad Afrucabs should be set free, n eliminating the slave trade so The Van Buren Administration mindful of the need to carry the Southern states in the up coming 1840 election attempted to return the Africans to Cuba. The issue became more complicated when it was discovered that they were not Cubans, but Africans. While slavery itself was legal in the United States and Cuba, the slave trade was illegal. This thus called into question the status as slaves. The ensuing court proceedings and diplomatic maneuverings that resulted energized the fledgling abolitionist movement in the United States. Former president John Quincey Adams took up the cause of defending the Africans. The First Congregational Church, Thomaston, Connecticut raised money for the Amistad captives (1840). Both the Cuban buyers and Queen Queen Isabella II of Spain claimed ownership. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court as United States v. Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad, commonly cited as U.S. v Amistad (1841). The high court ruled that the Africans had been illegally transported and held as slaves, and ordered them freed. 

Had this not been decided as was would have affected and been an unconstitutional act because the time of slavery had been over since 1808 which meant that transporting slaves was illegal and against the law. If this case had no been decided this way it would have also continued this transportation of slaves which meant the continuation of such acts. As a result if anyone would intend to prohibit this act it would have been a lot worse because now the plantation owners could defend themselves if they let it happen once there would never b no end it this chain. As for the rich plantation owners if this case would have been decided this way this meant more slaves, more land, more money. Fortunately, it was decided otherwise, and prevented any more scandal than what was already created.

McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819)

Discuss how the American system of government would have evolved had this not been decided as it was:

The justices first addressed the issue of whether the Constitution gave Congress the power to establish a national bank.  They acknowledged that it was not within the enumerated powers of Congress, authority explicitly given to Congress in the Constitution, to establish a national bank.  He also noted that there is nothing in the Constitution restricting the powers of Congress to those specifically enumerated.   Rather, only the “great outlines” of the powers of the three branches are specified.  Instead of listing every power of Congress, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make “all laws which shall be necessary and proper” for exercising the powers that are specifically enumerated.  This means that Congress has the authority to pass any law that is “necessary and proper” to exercise its power as specified in the Constitution, even if the Constitution does not explicitly give Congress the authority to pass that specific law or to regulate that specific matter.  This is the principle of unenumerated powers.  The justices noted that the Constitution expressly gives Congress the powers to “lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies.”  Because a national bank would be “necessary and proper” to allow Congress to exercise these enumerated powers, the Court concluded that the Constitution gave Congress the authority to establish one.

The second issue the Court considered is whether the state of Maryland had the authority to tax a branch of the national bank operating within its borders.  The Court determined that it did not.  In their decision, the justices declared that “the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them.”  In other words, if the United States Congress passed a law within its authority under the Constitution, a state legislature could not pass a law to interfere with that action.  “The power to tax is the power to destroy,” they decided.  Allowing a state to tax a branch of the national bank created by Congress would allow that state to interfere with the exercise of Congress’s constitutional powers.  Thus because “states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control” the operation of constitutional laws passed by Congress, Maryland could not be allowed to tax a branch of the national bank, even though that branch was operating within its borders.  The law passed by the Maryland state legislature imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States “is unconstitutional and void.”

Had this not been decided as it was would have meant that the Constitution had to be completely different to how it was at this time Article I Section VIII had to be revised and some parts of it deleted because this is one things that the Supreme Court took into consideration in order to make a decision. The system of government would have evolved in the sense that the second national bank would have not been created and made a difference in the economy after the series of wars that the united states had faced. which would as a result also allowed Maryland to tax a branch to help the economy of a single state if the Constitution was not as was.