Chapter 6 take the first step to freedom

Brother Lu: Hello! Knowing that you are waiting, I will continue to write the last letter. The court debate over the request for "habeas corpus" against three little black girls continued for several days.The content of the debate is getting closer and closer to some fundamental arguments, driven by the Armstar's black lawyers.For example, about racial equality, about respect for life and freedom, about slave owners' arguments about the "materialization" of human beings, such as "I don't know what I can't do", and "I do nothing but the people themselves".Xunzi advocated, and so on.

However, in the end they did not get the "habeas corpus" they expected in the Federal Circuit Court.Judge Thompson believes that this is no longer a simple situation of signing a "habeas corpus".The two Spaniards' claim to the "property" of the Negroes on the Armstad had made the debate a debate of abstract theory.Arguments have also involved a basic hearing on the merits. Therefore, the judge believes that such an argument should not come to an adjudicative result in this court.Instead, the case should be returned to the lower court where it was originally filed.The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.If you disagree with the judgment made by the District Court, you can go to the Circuit Court, and you can even go to the Supreme Court.

Since this case has aroused strong public repercussions, in order to avoid misunderstandings, Judge Thompson specifically stated that he himself, like everyone present in the court, is full of abhorrence of slavery. But he must abide by his oath and deal with it according to the law.Abstract theoretical questions about liberty should not form the legal basis for his decision. In fact, this conclusion has long been expected by lawyers.But as a first step in challenging justice, they don't consider themselves a failure.Fueled by the unusual practice of asking for a "habeas corpus" for a black man, the case has been propelled nationally by the press and has been thrust to the forefront of the anti-slavery movement.Through these three little black girls, they showed the racially prejudiced public the weakness and helplessness of blacks in this society. They also exposed the sharp conflict between slavery and natural law to the public through this case.

During this time, the court also announced that Connecticut had decided not to criminally prosecute blacks for "piracy" and "murder" because "Armstad" had been intercepted in New York. At the same time, the sailors who talked with the black people on the beach before the coastal defense team discovered the "Armstad" also formally filed a complaint with the court about the "ship disaster relief" cargo of the "Amstad". divided into requirements.They claim that before the arrival of the coastal defense team (1304-1374), Boccaccio (Giovanni, had already controlled the "Armstad" situation. Therefore, in the future civil case trial of the Federal District Court, there is already Three groups of people who made separate property claims on the "Armstad".

That was the end of the first round.The case is back in federal district court in Connecticut.But, through this round, everyone, North and South, judge and President, saw the determination of those radical anti-slavery people on the case.As for the two Spaniards, it was only at this time that they woke up like a dream and realized that the United States is not a "big Cuba". The main trial process you see in the movie shows the situation of the "Armstad" case in the Federal District Court.Spielberg was serious when he portrayed the atmosphere outside the courtroom.Still, moviegoers can be a little confused.Movies frequently show some silent American Christians, handing Bibles to black people outside the courtroom, or kneeling and praying outside the prison.You may feel strange looking at these shots, not to mention the blacks on the "Amstad" who came directly from Africa.Therefore, they do appear to be very contrasting and uncoordinated.

However, this was indeed the case at the time.Just as the radical anti-slavery activists have a lot of religious thinking, among the people, there is unreserved sympathy for these blacks, and those who extend a helping hand are only tools of the will to achieve its own goals.Different voluntarists have different theories, and they are also a group of devout believers.I must emphasize again that the religious atmosphere in the United States at that time was very strong.In fact, even today. In the movie, there is an episode that reflects social conflict over the issue of slavery, and the threats that radical anti-slavery activists receive from opposing sides.Just outside the court, the black defense lawyer was suddenly knocked down with a stick.Although this plot is fictitious, in history, the real situation is much more serious than this.

For example, the Tai Peng brothers I mentioned earlier who were actively involved in this case.Because of their anti-slavery stance, their home and business were ransacked several times in 1834 by mobs.The following year, an anonymous man offered a $100,000 reward for their heads.Since then, they have received all kinds of threatening letters without interruption. Their home has become so unsafe that they cannot find an insurance company willing to insure their family property. Therefore, it should not be too much to say that they devoted themselves to the preparation of the "Armstad" case with a kind of dedication.Since this is a property ownership complaint case, the main contents of their research are as follows: 1.The law of the development of human understanding of chemistry.As human beings are, the key to defense is to prove that the black people on the "Armstad" were not slaves, and therefore they were not the property of others.Instead of arguing from the perspective of "whether slaves should be the property of others".

Because the U.S. federal government recognizes that it is the state's right to decide whether slavery is legal.In other words, the law that the federal court can rely on is: a slave who comes out of a place where slavery is legal, you must recognize him as someone else's property.Because at this point, the federal government has no legislative power and cannot interfere with the execution of local laws.It follows that Cuba is also a place where slavery is legal, and if the Negroes on the "Armstad" were legal Cuban slaves, then, no matter what your point of view, according to the law, they must be recognized as Montai and Luiz's "property".This is what it means for those who challenge the judiciary to obey the original law, because the law is a contract of the people in a democratic system.

As for the theory of equal freedom, slaves should not be the property of others at all, which can be discussed and advocated in court.But as Justice Thompson pointed out, the judiciary does not base its decisions on concrete facts on abstract theories.Abstract theory is the basis for the work of the legislative branch. Therefore, the first thing black lawyers have to do is to use the original law wisely to win a seemingly hopeless case, and in the process serve as the chairman of the editorial committee of the General Political Department of the Kuomintang Revolutionary Army.The People's Communist Party of China pushes a higher level of legal issues to the Supreme Court when appealing, and uses the judicial review power of the Supreme Court to make the Supreme Court make a ruling on a wrong piece of legislation.If this step is not successful, then, in this process, at least the popular foundation of the original wrong legislation has been shaken.In the United States, the law is originally a contract of the people. Therefore, changing the ideas of the majority of the people is a powerful impetus for re-legislation.

However, in this case, they never had much confidence in winning the lawsuit.Because, as you already know, the Spaniard who filed this property application had a pass issued by the legitimate Cuban authorities, which contained proof of the legal slave status of these blacks in Cuba.This is the most direct and effective court evidence.As a witness, the only one on board who stood on the side of the Spaniards was Antonio, the former captain's little black slave.Cuban authorities are willing to provide sufficient witnesses, such as officials issuing passes, etc., if required.In other words, Cuba can easily provide a perjury group supported by the government.

On the side of the blacks in "Amstad", they could not provide any valid identification.They were sold naked to Cuba with nothing.They have no relatives and no witnesses in this distant foreign country.They don't even have a concept of what the court is and what kind of cooperation they need.Even their lawyers couldn't explain it to them. The only "evidence" for the lawyers was that none of them spoke the Cuban language.However, in court, this is not direct evidence.The Spaniards can argue that their living environment is that of slaves.Ming Liliang edited twenty-nine volumes, Fanwen twenty-six volumes, and poems three volumes. Yu Mingjing and even those children did not learn Spanish just because they had been living among black slaves. .Later in court, such an excuse did appear. You know, the courtroom is a place where evidence is important.At this point, blacks are completely at a disadvantage.That is to say, black people have no direct evidence at all in court, but only circumstantial evidence.In this case, if the judge is completely impartial, the result may be between two.And if the judge deliberately favors the Spaniard, you can hardly accuse him of being unfair.Because the Spaniard had enough direct evidence, the judge could have emphasized that he was trying evidence. Another important reason why black lawyers have no confidence in winning the lawsuit is that Judge Judison of the Federal District Court is a well-known racial prejudice. In the movie, there was a plot of changing judges.On the one hand, it shows that the administrative branch is trying to interfere in the judicial trial, and on the other hand, it wants to reflect the black lawyer's distrust of Judge Judison.In fact, the executive branch of President Van Buren did intervene in the judiciary by "Plekhanov". , and quite serious.But "changing judges" is a fictional plot.Although the plot is fictitious, the problems reflected are completely real. In historical reality, the presiding judge of this district court was Judge Judison at the beginning.but.His racially biased stance made black lawyers try to bypass him in the first place.Therefore, in this sense, it is those lawyers who want to "change judges".It's still the same idea as in the movie, which is that they don't want the case to fall to Judge Judison. So, how is it possible to bypass a judge who has already taken the case?They asked for a "habeas corpus" for their three children, and rushed to the upper-level Federal Circuit Court, which can also be said to be the first attempt to "go around".But, as you already know, it didn't work out.So they made a second attempt. They pointed out that the place where the "Armstad" was intercepted in the United States was Long Island, New York. Therefore, it was illegal for Lieutenant Genie of the Coast Guard to take the personnel of the "Armstad" to Connecticut.Because, that's why the "Armstad" case entered the federal district court in Connecticut.If it can be proved that Lieutenant Jini's actions were illegal, Emperor Wen of the Han Dynasty often sent envoys to ask about the scriptures.According to the "Tao Te Ching", the case has nothing to do with Connecticut, but should be heard by the federal district court in New York.In this way, not only can Judge Judison be bypassed, but the trial can also be held in a free state like New York.Even from the perspective of the right time, place and people, isn't it more beneficial? Not only that, but black lawyers further argued that these blacks were born free and were "free natives" in Africa. Although they were kidnapped, they managed to rehabilitate themselves during the "Amstad" riot. free.Therefore, they were in a free state and came to the free state of New York, where there was no slavery problem. Therefore, they should have been able to "go away" freely.And it was Lieutenant Genie of the Coast Guard who illegally took them to Connecticut and locked them up. Such an act of depriving them of their freedom again is illegal. Therefore, the court investigation of the exact location of the "Armstad" began before the "positive case" was heard.This in itself is a very lengthy process.On-site inspections are also required, and court hearings must be conducted for witnesses from all parties.You may ask, isn't it clear that the "Armstad" was seized on Long Island, New York?However, the "Armstad" is a ship, and it floats on the water.This resulted in the so-called "open sea" in the legal sense whether it stopped in the waters belonging to New York or outside the waters of New York. Because, as soon as this question was raised, Lieutenant Genie's lawyer argued that the "Armstad" was discovered in the "open sea", so according to the high-level generalization of all objective things in the legal society, including all specific substances, In addition, the Coast Guard has the right to take a ship that has a problem in the "far sea" to any state. The problem is that the so-called "far sea" is only a legal concept, and the distance from the shore is not as "far" as it appears literally, and it is indeed a "disputable" issue.What's more, the ocean is not land, and the ship passes without a trace. Once "Armstad" leaves, it is really difficult to go back and determine its position, and the disputed distance is only one mile or two miles away. . In short, in the end, the court could not determine that it was illegal for Lieutenant Ginny to take the black man from the "Armstad" to Connecticut. In any case, this case must be tried to the end under Judge Judison.In the film, we see, when the lawyer hears that the case is going to be heard by Judge Judison, religious ethics, propaganda fatalism, asceticism and pessimism.Lord, I couldn't control my emotions at once, and swept everything on the table to the ground.So, why did this judge make black lawyers feel so disappointed and even angry?Because it is not the first time they have played against each other. Before the young Judison became a judge, he was involved in a famous race-related case in Connecticut.This case was later recorded in a movie, which became a true historical story for Americans to reflect on racial issues.This movie is also often broadcast on TV, and we bumped into it several times while watching TV. The protagonist of this case is a white woman named Crandale. In the movie, her image is very thin and slender.She came to a country village in Canterbury, Connecticut, and opened a black school, and the girls seemed to come there too.The school attracted many black children from other places.Canterbury is a pretty conservative place.Such a school quickly aroused dissatisfaction from the local conservative forces, led by a neighbor of the school, Mr. Judison, who is also a judge today and a member of the town management committee at that time. In May 1833, the Connecticut state legislature passed a bill under enormous pressure from conservative forces.In this bill, it is stipulated that foreign private schools can only be opened with the consent of the town's management agency.This is a typical example of American partition.A group of people in a place and development are two indispensable factors. , They are conservative, so they pass a conservative law, that is, everyone has a conservative contract.Then, the peace of their conservative life can be maintained, unbroken by external influences. This is especially true in the field of education.Americans still cannot bear to let others decide how to educate their children.Therefore, today, there is no unified teaching material in the United States, and the teaching materials are all selected by a "school management committee" elected by local residents.The content of textbooks in each school may be different and varied.In this way, the quality of teaching in some places may be seriously affected.However, an "ideal of partition" is real for Americans.What to teach your own children, never let the federal government interfere. However, under this Connecticut law, Crandall is breaking the law.So she was sent to court because of this, and the black school faced disbandment.At that time, it was the two brothers Tai Peng and one of the black lawyers in the "Armstad" case who provided legal services for Clendelle together, and even raised the funds needed for her to fight the lawsuit.There were three lawyers who stood opposite them in court, and one of them was Judge Judison today. Nothing illustrates Judge Judison's racial stance more than his closing arguments before a jury.In his closing argument, he told the jurors that this Commonwealth is a white country, and every American should be proud of it.This view has been mistaken for prejudice, even to the point where our children are told that uniform laws are at their heart and substance.It is for the proletariat to understand and transform the world, which is wrong.He warned that what appeared to be a case about black education was actually a case of some seeking some level of recognition for widespread racial mixing.That is, trying to put Africans and Americans on a complete equal footing. Clendelle's lawyer argued that according to the Constitution, a citizen who goes to another state should also enjoy his rights in the original state.Therefore, the legislation in Connecticut in 1833 violated the spirit of the Constitution.Judison immediately declared that blacks were not citizens and therefore should not have constitutional rights. This question escalated to the civil rights of some free blacks who were not clearly defined at the time.This was not really resolved until the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution after the Civil War.Radical anti-slavery activists argued that the "Crandale case", the defense of black citizenship in court, was still an "advanced" judicial challenge. However, in fact, the United States even has a more complicated problem than we can imagine, that is, under the premise of partition, there is still such a situation, that is, Americans are citizens of two countries. .Each letter is followed by notes. , they are both citizens of the United States and of the state in which they are located, a small country with considerable sovereignty.At that time, it should be said that there was no law proving that the two citizenships could be automatically switched to each other.That is to say, even if the federal government has clarified the citizenship of free blacks, at that time, as a state, it still could not recognize his citizenship in this state.This is what I told you before, the United States was like a United Nations. Because the "Crandale case" is an "advanced judicial challenge", although the radical anti-slavery activists have further clarified many basic concepts among the people through the debate of this lawsuit, it can be said that in history Another push in progress.However, as far as the case itself is concerned, in the Supreme Court of Connecticut, it still lost to the conservative forces headed by Judison. The lawyers of the "Crandale case" certainly know that the success of the case itself is a major measure of the success of the judicial challenge.However, as I mentioned earlier, in the challenge, the original public contract must be abided by, and the rules of the game agreed upon by everyone must be followed.So, lost the lawsuit, had to watch black schools close and students drop out and go home. Their failure meant Judison's victory.It is generally believed that Judison's legal talents in this lawsuit and his conservative stance are one of the reasons why he quickly achieved his current status in Connecticut. Knowing this background, you can understand why the news of Judison's acceptance of the case caused the black lawyers of the "Armstad" to have such an impulsive reaction.Leader of the Spiritual Socialist Group in the "Crandale Case" which touched on very similar issues. One of the leaders of the "New Order" since 1919. , They once fought against Judison and lost one game.Now they meet again, but the opponent has become the referee! Due to the sacred status of traditional judicial independence in the United States, as a sworn judge, generally speaking, he still takes a very serious attitude towards the professional ethics required by this position.What's more, judges are also under the supervision of the system. In the United States, if a judge is unfair, he will immediately be sued to the court of appeals and become the defendant himself.However, while maintaining the fairness of the trial, some of his basic positions, such as leaning towards conservatives or liberals, will still affect his ruling invisibly, although such influence is within the limit permitted by law . Looking back now, and carefully observing the entire trial process of Judge Judison, it is fair to say that he is still trying his best to adjust the balance and strive for justice.There is nothing to suggest that because of his racial prejudice, any detail violated the rights of these black people to a fair trial.In fact, from the very beginning, people felt something. When the trial began, the black side of the "Armstad" case encountered an unexpected problem.It took a lot of effort for the linguists to find out, and the black interpreter who had finally "borrowed" from the British warship was seriously ill in New Haven.The black side, who already lacks evidence, is complacent and forgets the words used by Wei Wangbi of the Three Kingdoms.Yi refers to the thoughts of sages; Xiang is the hexagram image; their own testimony becomes an important part of the evidence.Without this translation, black people simply cannot testify for themselves.The probability of winning the case will be greatly reduced.So the lawyer asked for an extension of time for the black man to testify. To the great surprise of the lawyers, Judge Judison not only agreed to postpone the testimony of blacks until January 7, 1840, but also announced that the court would be moved to New Haven, where the black interpreters were located.This not only ensures that blacks have a chance to appeal for themselves in the court, but also, New Haven is located in the free state of New York, and the atmosphere inside and outside the courtroom will be very different from that in Connecticut.In any case, you have to admit that this decision is in favor of black people. Much of the history has to be erased while you're watching this movie.What you see is often some of the best moments in the courtroom.In fact, a court debate includes countless days and nights of hard work by these lawyers, which can be said to be very boring.At the same time, this is even a system engineering.I don't know how many people are providing information, raising donations, and contacting assistance for this case. Among the radical anti-slaveryists, there were actually many factions.The reason is very simple. A lot of their thinking comes from religion, so even the conscience and energy of different religious sects used Mencius' terms.Conscience, the innate moral goodness and knowledge, will make a big difference in opinions.As for the general anti-slavery attitude, the differences in ideas and viewpoints are even greater.Opponents of slavery, for example, disagreed about how and how long it would take to accomplish abolition.Many of them still hold various degrees of racial prejudice.In this case, however, it was a fairly successful coalition of anti-slavery camps.They attempted to unite all forces against slavery with the utmost tolerance.That is to say, all people gather at the most basic starting point, that is, the pursuit of universal humanity and humane care for black people. Such a huge camp has even reached outside the United States.They finally found a like-minded Briton, Mandon, to testify for the black side of the "Armstad" case.Manden was also an anti-slavery activist.His special status made his testimony a strong support to prove the free identity of black people. After the Spaniards and the United Kingdom signed an agreement to stop the overseas slave trade, the United Kingdom assigned some officials to participate in related work in accordance with the agreement with the Spaniards.Manden is one such official.He was sent to Havana in 1835 to oversee the protection of some freed blacks.Mandon is very suitable for such a job, he is a very sense of justice.From the beginning of the "Armstad" case, he has been concerned about the progress of the case.Before testifying, Manden had actually returned to the UK.When he left Havana, he learned that the Cuban authorities were preparing to prosecute these blacks for "piracy" and "murder".This made him feel very uneasy.When he was convinced that these blacks were imported illegally, he traveled thousands of miles from England to the United States to testify. Manden had been to the United States before, and he was a fairly well-known person here.At that time, Britain had just abolished slavery in its colony of the West Indies.Therefore, when meeting with the then President of the United States, Angelo Jackson, he also tried to persuade President Jackson to immediately proceed to abolish slavery in the South.He wanted to take advantage of the president's fame and positivism, also known as "positivism."Only "positive" facts are admitted.In modern times, therefore, I told him very subtly that it is most appropriate that such an action as emancipating slaves should finally be associated with the name of a general with extraordinary experience like you.These words can not be regarded as excessive compliments. General Jackson was the first president of the United States from a poor immigrant family.He made it to the White House only on his own, and on the battlefields of the Anglo-American War that began in 1814.He made a great change in the political atmosphere in the United States and further promoted the construction of the system.The United States has completely broken the political gap between the rich and the poor. At least white people can get absolute one vote per person. It is also from this time.This civilian president is well aware of the complexity of the slavery problem in the American South, and of course he understands that this is far from the time to be "famous" by freeing slaves. Therefore, President Jackson turned to his secretary with self-mockery and said, you use paper to light the fire, and then get a barrel of dynamite.As soon as I sit on the barrel, you give the fire primer to this Dr. Mandon.In the blink of an eye, he will definitely make me "famous". Obviously, last time, Manden's "upper lobbying" did not work.This time, he came to actually do his part for the black people in the "Armstad" case. On a November afternoon in 1839, Judge Judison held a small hearing for Dr. Mandon in his office.After several twists and turns, the judge finally approved the full text of the testimony to be published on the news media.Manden's testimony became one of the most powerful testimony in the "Armstad" case. Manden's testimony largely bolstered what radical antislavery had been asserting, that the blacks had just been imported from Africa.During his work in Cuba, Mandon assisted hundreds of black Africans who were intercepted by British and Spanish patrol boats and smuggled into Cuba.After being freed by the court, Mandon helped them register and determine their age.Before he testified, he contacted the black people on the "Amstad", and he judged them to be "recently imported" from his professional perspective of working with Cuban blacks.He pointed out that the passes issued by Cuban officials were false, and pointed out that the practice of issuing false documents through bribery is very common in the local area. Mandon also took questions from lawyers for both parties.In answering these questions, he emphasized that legal slaves are rarely sold in the slave market in Havana in this form, and such slave markets generally provide black Africans brought in illegally.At the same time, when answering questions about the language of Cuban slaves, he said that when he visited some plantations in Cuba, he was surprised to find that those black Africans were able to learn Spanish so quickly. Manden said that after the "Armstad" incident, he conducted a survey in the Cuban slave market and found an insider.The insider told him that he had not only seen the blacks on the Armstar, but also knew who had transported them to Cuba.At the end, the man couldn't help sighing "What a pity".Manden asked him why, and he said that he felt that these black people would definitely be executed in the United States for "murder" and other crimes, so it was a pity that there was such a "large amount of valuable African goods".Mandon confirmed that if the blacks were returned to the Spanish authorities in Cuba, they would die. Prior to this, the Spanish minister's remarks to the US foreign minister seemed to be verifying Manden's statement.The envoy warned that the condoning of the Armstad slave rebellion undoubtedly encouraged other slaves to revolt. During this period of time, the Spanish Minister Agaz, on behalf of his queen, frequently urged the President of the United States to return the "Armstad" and all its passengers.As you already know, both President Van Buren and his foreign minister had ample incentives to wish this event sooner.He didn't want to make himself internally and externally troubled for the dozens of blacks on the "Amstad".They also wish they could push the boat over and give it away.However, Foreign Minister Forsythe from Georgia could only helplessly tell the Spanish envoy that the reason why the US President could not immediately implement the "Pinckney Agreement" and return the "Armstad" was because of this The current status of the case has "beyond the authority of the executive branch". However, no matter how Forsyth explained, as the queen's envoy, Agaz still couldn't understand the crux of the problem.He couldn’t understand what it means to say, “Under the U.S. constitutional system, the judiciary is an independent part of the U.S. government, and the president cannot interfere with the judicial process.” Therefore, Foreign Minister Fosses could only comfort him by saying, anyway, this means , the final decision is always made by the federal government.I hope he is relieved. The reason why Forsyth appeased the Spanish minister in this way is because the executive branch has always had great hopes for the federal district judge Judison.Because, apart from his racial stance, everyone knows that he is also a politically ambitious person who participates in political parties.What's more, if Judge Judison is willing to cooperate with the president, except that blacks have no direct evidence to defend themselves, the "Pinckney Agreement" can be a powerful crutch that judges can use.Therefore, after repeated analysis, both Fossy and the administrative branch are quite confident in the court's first-instance judgment. However, even if there is no problem in the first-instance judgment, President Van Buren knows that this is not a result that can be rested back.why?That is, when the U.S. Constitution designed this system, it paid great attention to the tight fit of every detail and structure.One of the most important points is the strict setting of "established procedures".Americans are quite practical, for them, rather than talking about theoretical concepts, it is better to technically stipulate the operational details of the system, and then strictly implement them. For example, instead of educating judges on professional ethics, it is better to set up a procedural supervision mechanism.It makes judges have scruples about violations when making judgments, and if an unfair ruling does occur, there is also a chance for a re-examination.Of course, these oversight bodies must also be independent. Therefore, President Van Buren knew that if Judge Judison ruled that an executive branch was satisfied with the result in the first instance, then, according to judicial procedures, those lawyers who defended the blacks on the "Armstad" would definitely leave. Go to circuit court, maybe even to the Supreme Court.However, after weighing it down, they can only have confidence in the first trial, and the subsequent situation is unpredictable.Besides, it would be the best way out if the case could be resolved quickly. As a result, the executive branch under President Van Buren finally made an extraordinary move to interfere with justice.It was after the first instance verdict in the "Ames" case that if they estimated that the blacks should be handed over to the Spanish authorities, the executive branch would immediately send these blacks to Cuba.You must have seen that, in this case, they cut off the "established procedure" of justice and violated the right of these black people to appeal. So the president, through his foreign minister, secretly ordered a ship from the navy to arrive before the judgment of the first instance.Then, wait in the port of New Haven, the seat of the federal district court trial.And ordered them to ship the Negroes away on the night of the judgment, before all the people came to their senses.The White House has classified the entire operation as "top secret." The first trial of the "Armstad" case took place in January 1840, the coldest season in New York State.New Haven is a nearly frozen port.The navy at that time was nothing more than two-masted ships, and the ships were very small, so this operation was quite dangerous.In the end, it was decided that the Negroes would be embarked in New London, Connecticut, instead.It is precisely because these port towns were not big at that time, and the whole city knew that a ship came.At the same time, it is not suitable for sailing in such an ice season.So when the ship arrived in New London port after her arduous first step, the extraordinary movement immediately aroused some speculation.包括泰朋在内的极少数的人，当时就准确地猜到，这艘船的调动与“阿姆斯达”案的黑人有关，是凡布伦总统打算送他们回古巴的。可是，猜测毕竟是猜测，这个秘密依然锁在重重海雾中的双桅船里。 因此，当你在电影里看到法庭辩论的时候，实际上，黑人面临的形势，比电影所表现的更为险恶，因为，一艘随时准备运送他们回古巴的双桅船，已经整装待发。 1840年1月7日，当法庭移至纽黑文开庭的时候，双方都已经作了最充分的准备。黑人一方有三个辩护律师上场。两名西班牙人带来了他们请的美国律师。海防队的吉尼中尉和最初与“阿姆斯达”号黑人相遇的几名水手，他们都分别对“阿姆斯达”号要求“海难救助金”，也各自带来了自己的律师。 在开庭之前，有一项被确定的特殊动议，更增加了黑人一方律师的担心。就是，联邦的一名地区检察官霍拉博德，宣称西班牙公使将以当局名义，为这两名西班牙人，蒙岱和路易兹，提出财产归还要求，美国政府的行政分支也支持这项申诉。霍拉博德将一并代表这项共同申诉，要求将包括黑人在内的“阿姆斯达”号，归还西班牙。显然，凡布伦总统一直苦于无法对司法分支插进手来，又不甘“坐以待判”，所以，终于想出这最后一招。干脆也作为申诉人之一，合法闯入法庭。为自己要求执行“平克尼协定”，找到一个法庭辩解的机会。给他们本来估计还是比较有信心的“一审判决”，再加一道保险。这么一来，使得整个局势对于反奴隶主义者的一方，显得更为严峻了。 这里已经成为全美国关注的目标。不论是南方还是北方都知道，这与其说是一场“涉外官司”，还不如说是美国自己在奴隶问题上的一场法庭上的的南北战争。旁听席更是挤满了人，除了各个社区的重要人物，还有许多耶鲁大学的学生。大量神学院的学生也神情肃穆地坐在旁听席上，似乎在象征着，这块土地上对于奴隶问题贯穿始终的宗教关怀。 整个听证过程还是围绕这样一个主题，即这些黑人“究竟是合法的古巴奴隶，还是自由的非洲人”。黑人一方所提供的证人，包括了那几个与他们交谈过的人，那名黑人译员，和语言学教授（他后来也学会了这种非洲方言，并且与二十几名黑人作过交谈）。 最终，人们期待已久的黑人辛盖，在所有这些律师和其他人的努力下，在那名大病初愈的黑人译员的陪同下，终于站上了作证席。面对声称“有权拥有他们”的西班牙人，也面对要求将他们送回古巴的美国和西班牙当局的法律代表，向法官和挤满了旁听民众的法庭，开始公开为自己的自由辩护了。 在导演斯匹尔勃格的大手笔下，已经充分渲染了这场法庭戏。将来，你自己去看吧。我要告诉你的是，法庭作证和辩论进行了差不多一个星期，判决的时刻才终于来临。这一刻，在电影中，是最具有爆炸性效果的一瞬。事实上，这个判词也是具有爆炸性的，只是不那么戏剧化而已。因为裘迪森法官的判词其实内容很多，也必须援引法律依据，因此，不会只是电影里听着痛快的几句掷地有声的“硬朗词儿”。 裘迪森法官首先认定，“阿姆斯达”号是在“远海”被截获的，因此，海防队的吉尼中尉，将船上的人员带往康乃迪克州，并没有违法。所以这个法庭确实具有此案的审理权。 其次，你可别忘了，这是一个“财产申诉案”，所以法官先判定的是对于“海难救助金”的要求。对于最早在海滩与黑人接触的水手格林等人，法官首先的否定了他们的要求。因为他们根本没有登上过“阿姆斯达”，也谈不上有法律规定的“海难救助行动”。然后，对于海防队的吉尼中尉和他的下属，裘迪森法官认定，他们及时地救助了“阿姆斯达”号。因为，根据当时船上的状态，已经不可能安全地按照黑人的要求抵达非洲。因此，判定他们根据海难救助的有关法令，有权获得该船货物价值的三分之一。同时，两个西班牙人，蒙岱和路易兹，也对该船的安全起了保护的作用，因此也将以同样的比例均分余下的三分之二。 那么，人们最为关心的黑人呢？他们是否包含在“阿姆斯达”号的“货物”之内呢？ 这位大家都认为是一个种族主义者的裘迪森法官，强捺心中的激动，宣布，这些黑人生而自由，从未在古巴或是任何属于西班牙的领土上定居。他们被那些侵犯他们权利以及违反西班牙法律的人，数度绑架，并在古巴被非法买卖。他们是怀着自由的渴望，怀着重返自己的家庭孩子的热望，才奋起反抗。裘迪森法官还指出，就是在古巴，这个案子发生的时候，法律也早已不准许这类奴隶贸易的行为。 至于“海盗罪”和“谋杀罪”的嫌疑，裘迪森法官宣布，案情发生在打着西班牙旗的西班牙船只上，对象是西班牙人，美国法庭对此不作裁定，这是西班牙法律才应该处理的案件。 接下来，对于联邦地区检察官为法律代表的，西班牙公使为两名西班牙人所提出的财产要求，裘迪森法官认为是无效的。因为他们没有一份财产证明，例如发票，财产转移证，等等。他们唯一能够提供的是一张通行证，而这张通行证上的“货单”明显与事实不符。这些黑人明明是“非洲原住民”，而不是通行证上所说的“拉丁裔黑人”。 裘迪森法官说，外国公民应该明确自己国家的法律，而不应该到美国来要求这个国家去侵犯他人的权利。美国和西班牙都认为禁止海上奴隶交易的法律是存在的。路易兹口口声声说他并不知道自己买下的奴隶是非洲来的，如果真是这样，那么他唯一的补救是去找那个骗他的卖主，要回他的两万美元。如果他和蒙岱有点警惕性的话，本法庭何至于要承受这四个月来的重大责任。 最终，裘迪森法官宣布了所有的人都在等待的结果。他说，1819年3月，美国联邦议会制定如下法律：“不论以任何形式，进口或者带入美国领土的任何黑人，混血者，有色人种，只要对他们有任何占为奴隶，使役和劳役的企图，都是非法的。”在同一个法律中，授权美国总统将所有这样被带进美国的人，送回非洲。 裘迪森法官最终根据这条法律，宣布“阿姆斯达”号上的黑人为自由人，要求总统根据法律，将他们送回非洲。这个判决如果说成是一颗炸弹，也无论如何不算过分。 这个一审判决是谁也没有料到的。对于西班牙人，暂且不提。对凡布伦总统的行政分支，这肯定是出乎意外的。否则，他们也不会冒险调来那艘准备将黑人送回古巴的双桅船了。甚至对于激进的反奴隶主义者，都完全是一个出乎意外的结局。他们准备好艰苦跋涉，准备好将要面临败诉和一级级的上诉。可是，说什么也没有想到，保守得出了名的裘迪森法官，竟会态度坚决地站在他一向讨厌的激进反奴隶主义者的一边！ 说是法官站在哪一边，这句话你听了一定早皱起眉头来了。是的，这是一句有很大语病的话。因为法官的职责是秉公断案，不论最后他的判定对哪一方有利，都不能说他就是“站在某一方”。否则，这个“公平审判”的原则就要打问号了。 但是，记得我以前也和你讨论过这个问题，就是再严格的法制，也是人在参与。这里就有“人”对于法律的理解和执行的问题。尤其在历史发展的过程中，法律本身不可能已经尽善尽美。即使在某一个历史阶段已经比较成熟的法律，也会遇到新情况新案例的冲击。在这种情况下，对于司法当然是一个挑战，对于法官同样也是一个挑战。 站在历史变革的当口，法官可以借用以支持裁决的，还是一些老的法律。甚至会出现一个象“阿姆斯达”案这样一个涉外的，复杂的，前所未有的案子。在审理中，不但同时可以援引可能导致不同审判结果的美国法律，国际协定等等，而且，这样的一些法律何者为先，都会导致不同后果。这样的情况发生，首先说明了法律本身还不完善，还有“漏洞”。这种漏洞一般通过一个案子暴露出来以后，就会被立即填补。而法官对一个挑战性案例的判定，往往就是填补漏洞的一个方式。因此在美国，规定在审判时，可以援引前面的案例作为法律依据。 可是在“补漏洞”的时候，作出怎样的判定，也就是如何去“补”，就要看法官这个“人”，对于整个案情的分析和对法律的理解了。首先在案情分析上，一个公正的法官必须坚持以事实为依据。那么，在“阿姆斯达”案中，一个最关键的对于黑人是“自由人”还是“合法奴隶”的认定上，裘迪森法官的认定，还是符合事实的。其次，就是对于法律的援引。裘迪森法官如今是站在一个牵涉历史大辩论的关键案例面前，援引不同法律，显然要导出不同的结果来。例如，假定他坚持强调“平克尼协定”为先来判定的话，对于“阿姆斯达”号的黑人来说，就是一只脚已经踏进地狱了。 那么，在这种时候，是不是法官就可以任意地听凭自己的好恶“站在哪一边”了呢？其实并不是这样的。事实上，依然有一个更高的评判标准在那里，那就是黑人的律师们一再强调的“自然法”，也就是人类面临的永恒审判的标准，是否符合人性和是否人道。在人与兽之间，是否更向“人”的方向靠近。 我曾经对你讲起过，美国是一个在建国时没有给自己定出什么宏伟社会蓝图的国家，它有的只是一个看上去很乡土朴素的个人愿望，就是“人生而平等，有生命权，自由权和追求幸福的权利”。在提出这个愿望的时候，有相当多的美国人，事实上还有很大的历史局限性。例如在种族问题上的认识局限，例如在“解放自己”和“解放别人”的问题上的认识局限。但是，这个朴素的建国理想却是最贴近“自然法”的。 当一个国家的建立，以最贴近长满野花和青草的土地，以最贴近寻求真善美的人性，来作为它的立国根本。那么，即使在这块土地上还有许多半兽半人，尚未完全进化的“人”，可是，一旦遇到问题，在需要明辨“大是大非”的时候，人们的判断依据和历史进步的方向，在基本人性的标准下，是更容易搞清楚的。这也就是把复杂问题简单化。相反，假如人们热衷于建立非常宏伟的社会发展理论大厦。在无数的雕梁画栋，仙山琼阁之间，却迷失了最基本的人性的自我，这大概就是把简单问题复杂化的结果吧。 因此，面临一个历史前进关口的法官，在可以依据的法律尚有矛盾，这个矛盾有可能形成不同判决的时候，他的选择应该是判断人类进步的方向，站在历史进步的一边。判断的依据就是美国符合自然法的立国原则，也就是人性的原则。 在电影里，导演斯匹尔勃格是这样来解释裘迪森法官的选择的。他在影片中的判决之前，拍摄了一组交替的画面。一方面，是待审的黑人，在那里开始琢磨手里的圣经，而另一方面，则是裘迪森法官一个人去教堂，向上帝寻求精神上的支持。我想，导演对裘迪森法官的个人历史，当然作过深入的研究。因此在设计这一组镜头的之前，斯匹尔勃格一定也托着下巴问自己，裘迪森这家伙怎么就会出现他个人思想轨迹上一个一百八十度大转弯呢？最终，斯匹尔勃格把它归结到了宗教。 于是产生了导演运用电影手法对于人物思想过程的诠释。这组镜头表现了当时的宗教气氛，表现了这种气氛通过美国教徒对“阿姆斯达”号黑人产生影响，甚至对法官思考进程的影响。应该说，这样解释大致是不错的。因为，我们穿过宗教的形式，还是其中的人性内核，在影响美国民众对奴隶问题的思考。而对人性的思考也是裘迪森法官判决的主导原因。 但是，裘迪森法官的判决，其实还反映了一些其它问题。例如，人们以前对于这位法官的判断，主要依据是他过去所表现的种族主义者的立场。然而，实际上在种族主义和赞同奴隶制之间，并不是可以划等号的。也许，在判决的同时，裘迪森法官并没有改变他的反对种族杂居，反对完全的种族融合的观点。而且，他也完全可能，依然不同意激进的反奴隶主义者，不赞成他们不惜一切，不惜内战以达到立即废奴目标的观点。可是，这并不说明他就是一个没有起码正义感的人，也不说明他肯定就不憎恶奴隶制和奴隶贸易。在他身上，可以最集中地看到那个时代美国人的矛盾，甚至是那个时代的矛盾。 还有，就是人们还是小看了裘迪森法官身上所表现出来的，在美国法官身上相当普遍的职业荣誉感。这种职业荣誉感是与司法独立的制度紧紧相连的。当司法和法官不再成为权势的工具，被社会确立在一个独立的，神圣的，被期待是公正的位置上，那么，法官的职业自尊心和职业荣誉感也就同时被确立了。在这个时候，法官还是可能有认识上的历史局限，但是，如果他认清了历史进步的一面，他会被职业道德所驱使，更坚决地站过去。 在电影中，裘迪森法官在宣布判决的时候，还宣布了逮捕那两名西班牙人。这是不是斯匹尔勃格为了营造效果给历史添枝加叶了呢？事情本身是有根据的，只是影片将故事浓缩在一起了。历史上，两名西班牙人确实为了这个案子还在美国被捕过，但是，不是在裘迪森法官的法庭上，而是在地区法庭一审之前。What's going on here? 这是在联邦地区法庭开庭的两个多月之前，“阿姆斯达”委员会的泰朋计划向两名西班牙人提出民事诉讼。尽管胜诉的机会很小，但是，这一定会在民众中引起强烈的反响。激进的反奴隶主义者们，希望通过这个起诉，向公众说明，只要是一个人，哪怕是一个黑人，他也有权向美国的司法体系寻求公正。 为了赢得公众的同情，他们先在纽约由泰朋兄弟所办的一份报纸上，刊登了一个名叫乔治.伊.岱的纽约大学教授，写给编辑的两封信。他是一名专门教聋哑学生的教授，所以对于手语有特别的研究。他曾经和“阿姆斯达”号的黑人进行过几次手语交谈。他在给编辑的信中，详细描述了暴动的带领人辛盖对他所作的回忆。谈到他们所受到的非人待遇，谈到在哈瓦那所有的黑人都忍不住哭泣，因为他们都来自同一个地方，可是再也无法返回家乡，等等。 泰朋合法地得到了拘留证，治安警察在纽约市的一个旅馆里，以对黑人的“人身攻击罪”和“非法监禁罪”两项民事起诉，当场逮捕了蒙岱和路易兹。泰朋还将两个起诉分别在两个法院申请，一个在纽约市民事法庭，另一个在州的高级法院。律师代表黑人辛盖和弗里瓦要求总共三千美元的赔偿。 这一行动着实是捅到了南方蓄奴者的痛处。引起南方强烈的反应。南方的报刊甚至惊呼道，下一次我们就会听到南方的绅士来北方各州旅行时，被他们的仆人告上法庭，送进监狱了！ 这一举动也立即引来西班牙公使的严重抗议。在他的抗议中，还有这样“义正词严”的责问：“在什么时候和什么地方，居然听到过奴隶还有“民权””？“纽约法庭决不应该听那些黑人的抱怨。”这个时候，轮到西班牙公使阿噶兹，要为两名西班牙人要求“人身保护令”了。凡布伦总统随之又一次落入十分尴尬的境地。外交部长佛西斯只得又一次吃力地向阿噶兹解释美国的司法制度，这场民事官司是非洲原住民以个人的名义，向这两名西班牙人寻求赔偿的简单诉讼。法庭是必须平等地，不对来者进行身份区别地接案的。美国总统是无权干预这样的司法事务的。 在背地里，外交部长佛西斯还是违法地给纽约的一名检察官布特拉递了条子，希望他在这个案子里帮一把那两个西班牙人。然而，并没有起任何作用。 在纽约市民事法庭，法官英格理在经过对双方律师的听证之后发现，案子还是要回到这些黑人是“奴隶还是非奴隶”的问题。因为在当时，美国法律规定，奴隶不能对其主人按“民事法”提出起诉。但是，有一个方法可以在这个案子里，绕开这个黑人的“奴隶身份”问题，就是按“人身伤害法”进行起诉。因为在美国法律中，即使是奴隶，也可以对其主人提出此类控告。 结果，英格理法官经过审前听证，发现根据“人身伤害法”，蒙岱不算涉案，而路易兹可以起诉。于是蒙岱当庭开释，路易兹被判250美元的保释金。这一判定得到了纽约州上一级法院的认可。由于案子告上两个法庭，所以是分别审理。在纽约州的高级法院，得出的是相近的结果，也判了250美元的保释金。此后，还有另一名叫做托尼的黑人也接着提出民事诉讼，告上巡回法庭，结果又判了路易兹800美元的保释金。这个时候，路易兹实际上都已经由于辛盖的起诉坐在牢里了。路易兹的律师立即准备上诉，因为如果“阿姆斯达”号上的所有黑人，要是都群起而告之，那可怎么了的。 当时的报刊评论说，激进的反奴隶主义者的这一起挑战，如果是为了威慑南方的话，他们已经达到目的了。因为，他们终于让南方的奴隶主看到，黑人也可以有民事诉讼的权利。 凡布伦总统的行政分支有着来自西班牙的压力，只要路易兹还在牢里待着，就是一个额外的麻烦，当然很关心这个案子，可是依然无能为力。曾经接到外交部长来条子关照的纽约检察官布特拉，所能够做的就是借探望路易兹的机会，劝他交了保释金出来算了。可是，路易兹根据他在自己国家的经验，认为美国总统既然在西班牙的干涉下，希望他出来，那么，就一定能够放他出来。因此，尽管布特拉向他解释，美国总统无权干涉民事法庭，路易兹依然口气很硬地对布特拉说，放他出去是美国政府的责任，他可不想牲原则。结果，路易兹在牢里坐了四个月。大概终于相信了美国总统的“无能”，还是自己付了保金出来了。 这就是电影里有关法官宣布逮捕两个西班牙人的历史背景，也是联邦地区法庭开审之前一个不小的风波。 不管怎么说，在联邦地区法庭的第一个回合就这样结束了。但是，你也会想到，既然这不是一个法官别无选择的判定，那么，一方如果申诉了，另一方显然是有理由不服输的。激进的反奴隶主义者们很快发现，上诉的过程仍然不可避免。区别只在于，原来他们是准备在一审之后自己上诉的，现在却是他们的对手去上诉，他们则是应诉了。可是，他们一样地忧心忡忡。因为，上一级的联邦巡回法院，乃至再上一级联邦最高法院，他们的态度如何，会作出什么样的判定，都是无法预料的。提出上诉的对手，还是前面提到过的代表西班牙和凡布伦总统行政分支的联邦地区检察官霍拉博德。 在电影里，表现了律师沮丧地试图向那些狂欢中的黑人解释“上诉”的情景。这真是一件困难的事情。他必须使他们理解一件几乎无法理解的事情，法庭上面还有一个“大的法庭”，“大的法庭”如果意见不同的话，原来的法庭判决就不作数了。电影里删去了联邦巡回法庭的上诉，在真实的历史里，他们还必须对黑人说，“大的法庭”上面，还有一个“更大的法庭”。天晓得这些律师是怎么讲清楚，又是怎样才使黑人们不至于过于失望的。 律师的种种忧虑是无法告诉这些黑人的。比如，上诉的是两个国家最高当局的法律代表，他们到底算是多么“大”的对手。又比如，联邦巡回法庭的法官，就是驳回了他们对三个黑人女孩要求的“人身保护令”的同一个法官，这是否意味着一个不祥的兆头。etc. 神秘地停在码头，等着裘迪森法官判决后，就连夜将黑人送走的那艘双桅船，在这个意外的判决出来之后，只能怏怏地开走了。然而，正在为“大法庭”的出现，感到茫然和恼怒的“阿姆斯达”号黑人，却一点都不知道，他们刚刚逃过了一个怎样的“大劫”。 你一定关心上诉的经过，只能听我“下回分解”了。 wish it is good! Linda