Chapter 7 stand on the black defense bench

Brother Lu: Hello! Letter received, thank you for sending me the book.You said in your letter that after reading my letter, you really want to see the movie "Armstad".Today I can probably finish telling you the real story behind this film. During the appeal period of the "Armstad" case, the American press has gradually begun to disclose stories related to the case and the executive branch's attempt to interfere in the judiciary.However, since none of these interventions were successful, none of the substantive evidence has fully surfaced.So the "feeling set" is the same. However, apart from the radical anti-slavery activists who were already wary of Van Buren's administrative system and are still struggling with this case, the general public is still skeptical of such reports.However, from these reports 150 years ago, we can already see the news sense of the American media at that time.

In the "Amstad" film, the director arranges a scene in which the Negro Singhe sits anxiously in a courtroom, unable to understand what those who determine their fate are saying, and unable to express themselves.Finally, he stood up unexpectedly, uttered an English word with difficulty, and then repeated in a louder and firmer voice: Freedom!I want freedom! This is a dramatic plot arranged by the director. In this movie, we can see that the focus of Spielberg's concern is always on the unfortunate black people.He pays great attention to portraying the psychological state of these black people from Africa, depicting their possible reactions when they encounter a series of bad luck and fall into a very different environment.

In this movie plot, there is also a real background.It was these blacks who were waiting for their appeals. With the efforts of Tai Peng and many volunteer Americans, they gradually began to learn to express some meanings in English, and some blacks even began to learn simple English writing.Increased communication with the outside world Vulgar materialism is a bourgeois philosophy that vulgarizes materialism. , It also relieves their psychological tension and panic to a certain extent. Outside, the press seems dissatisfied with the initial reports of the president's interference in the judiciary, and a group of journalists has been following up and investigating some of the clues that have been obtained.Finally, the "top secret" that once belonged to the White House was dragged out step by step.In October 1840, nine months after the first trial, two publications, The Liberator and The Freedom, reported a full and detailed story of White House plotting to interfere with the judicial process.Prior to this report, some newspapers pointed out that in the first-instance judgment, the court had confirmed that the black man on the "Amstad" was a free man kidnapped from Africa.However, the president who represents the American people actually wants to help the illegal Cuban slave owners.

This year, President Van Buren finally failed in his re-election campaign. Many people believed that his defeat had a lot to do with the "Armstad" case.Because of his moderate views on slavery, he lost votes in the six northern states that supported him for the White House four years earlier.This result also reflects the fact that when the issue of slavery has become such a sensitive social issue, and the two poles are evenly balanced, as a politician, if he does not have a strong sense of historical responsibility, he only considers seeking On balance, then his situation is indeed that of an acrobat walking a tightrope.

During this time, Judge Thompson of the Federal Circuit, which accepted the appeal, upheld Judge Judison's first-instance judgment and dismissed the appeal.However, just as the laws of science (such as the law of conservation of energy, the first law of thermodynamics, the second law, and the second law) mentioned in the "Amstad" film, the legal representatives representing the Spanish minister and the American executive branch refused to accept the judgment and further appealed to the The Supreme Court, the highest body of the judiciary branch of the U.S. federal government, made the final appeal. The executive branch led by President Van Buren took this step, Spielberg explains in the film, in addition to his concerns about the Southern vote in the election year The main reason is that the intensification of conflicts will lead to a civil war. This analysis is still reasonable.

For radical antislavery, after all their struggles and twists and turns, this was the time they had long awaited.Because going to the Supreme Court is a moment that all those who challenge justice in American history look forward to.Only a case that enters the Supreme Court can have a fundamental negation of the original law, and can it erect a "landmark" in the course of history.At the same time, you can also spread the influence of your own views to the maximum extent. However, when they heard that the case had been accepted by the Supreme Court, it was also their saddest moment.Because here, according to the contract of all the people, the verdict is final.If it fails, not only the fate of the black people on the "Armstad" will be jeopardized, but it will also be a blow to their long-standing cause of completely overthrowing slavery in the American South.The achievement of this goal will likely be delayed by many years.Maybe they have to wait for a long time before the next opportunity appears.

After much deliberation, they realized that at this last juncture, a very important thing is to try to make the works available to the widest possible audience. It ceased publication on November 29, 1850. , are able to understand and support their point of view in this debate.This made the controversy caused by the "Armstad" case have a real impact on the abolition of slavery in the United States.Because of their own radical stance, some people have some opinions about them.For example, I feel that these people are "fearing that the world will not be chaotic", and they are not really willing to promote the progress of a system in accordance with legal procedures, but they are eager to stir up troubles and intensify conflicts, and even trigger a war.Not only is the president unwilling to see a civil war, even in the North, a large number of Americans who want to abolish slavery are also unwilling to see a civil war. This is very common and understandable.Such a situation may lead to people's doubts about the ever-expanding "Armstad" case, and may also affect the public's support rate.Therefore, they decided to find and launch an influential person who does not hold radical positions to lead the final battle of the case.

They first found two lawyers, both opposed to slavery.One of them also had the experience of appearing in the Supreme Court for many times.However, both lawyers declined the request for different reasons.This has something to do with their relatively moderate views and their disapproval of drastic challenges to the judiciary.Eventually, radical antislavery activists decided to enlist the help of John Quincy Adams. John Quincy Adams, as portrayed in the "Armstad" film, was already an old man who struggled to walk, fell asleep in Congress, and misdirected himself when going out.But when I write about the name of John Quincy Adams, I still can't help being in awe.

He was the descendant of yet another signer of the American Declaration of Independence to join the anti-slavery camp.His father, John Adams, was the leading defender of the Declaration of Independence at the Philadelphia Convention and one of the drafters of the U.S. Constitution. In 1789, when Washington was elected the first President of the United States, "History is nothing more than the process of the birth of man through human labor" conclusion. This book is a horse, John Adams was Washington's vice president, after that, he became Washington Then the second president of the United States. Died on the fiftieth anniversary of the "Declaration of Independence."

John Quincy Adams is the eldest son of John Adams, the gray-haired, inconspicuous old man you see in the film.However, when he was young, he was the most talented American diplomat in the eyes of President Washington. He not only traveled all over the world, but was also elected as the sixth president of the United States in 1825.You know, the United States is a country that least likes hereditary traditions, so it is extremely rare for two generations of father and son to be president. Four years later, when he ran for re-election, he lost to his opponent, Jackson, and returned to his hometown to start his civilian life again.He has since been elected to the House of Representatives.When he was elected, he was dissuaded from taking the job because it seemed demeaning to be a former president.He replied that no one "lost his status" because of his service to the people, even as a local clerk, let alone as a member of Congress.Therefore, when the "Armstad" case happened, he was a member of the Federal Congress.

He's never been one to take a radical approach.However, he was undoubtedly against slavery.As mentioned in the movie, since the beginning of the "Armstad" case, he has advised the "Armstad" committee and black lawyers, and has always expressed concern and sympathy for these black people.This is also the reason why these lawyers would unusually think of asking him to come out to lead Mencius (about 372-289 BC), a thinker, politician, and thinker in the Warring States Period, to defend the blacks in the "Armstad" case. He was also very hesitant at first.Judging from his usual way of thinking, his hesitation is certainly not because he feels "degraded" as a former president.He deeply felt that he had run out of energy.As he himself said, I am 73 years old, deaf and blind.My assistants have left me, and my teeth have left my gums one by one.How can I still take on such a difficult task?At the same time, although he obtained the qualifications of a lawyer after graduating from Harvard University, he has not stood in court as a defense lawyer for more than 30 years.What's more, he still has a very busy job as a federal congressman.Any lawyer knows that, let alone planning to go to the Supreme Court, even taking an ordinary case, as a defense lawyer, he does not know how much complicated preparation work to do before appearing in court.Therefore, he is more aware of his limitations than anyone else. However, he couldn't refuse.He couldn't forget the pursuit of a simple ideal that continued the father and son for two generations.He is a staunch defender of freedom, who firmly believes in the basic principle put forward by his fathers that "all men are created equal, and has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and firmly believes that no matter white or black, they have equal rights.He hated slavery terribly.Therefore, people were finally surprised to hear the unexpected news that the 73-year-old former US president and today's federal congressman decided to take the "Armstad" case and go to the Supreme Court as an ordinary defense lawyer , to defend the freedom of these black people from Africa in court. Before the trial, he did his best as a congressman and former president to try to persuade President Van Buren to drop the appeal.At this time, President Van Buren had already lost the election doctrine and the French Sartre and other existentialist Marxism that emphasized the creation of the subject. Work has a proper transition.At this time, President Van Buren was in a transitional period.But his executive branch rejected the proposal to drop the lawsuit. So, John Quincy Adams began a lot of document reading and careful preparation, which of course also included conversations with the parties.In the film, it is described that the black Xin Gai is brought to his home for a routine dialogue between the client and the lawyer.In real history, John Quincy Adams traveled a long way from Boston to Westville Prison to interview his black client.He met and talked to all the blacks, except the three little black girls who were already living in the prison warden's home.On coming out, he said, the conversation was very pleasant.It's just that in Westville at that time, the blacks lived in big rooms again.He was very unhappy with the blacks' living conditions and the poor living facilities. He obviously gained the trust of black people.In the movie, there is a depiction of a black Singhe who, through a black translator, keeps asking John Quincy Adams questions.In fact, after he left prison, those blacks who understood the role of lawyers and learned to write simple English letters, including Xin Ge, began to write to him one after another.They stated their cases and asked him in the letter to pass them on to the "Grand Court". Radical anti-slavery activists felt the pressure mounting as the day for the Supreme Court approached.What disturbed them most was the imminent danger that the Negroes of the Armstadt might be in if they lost the case.They once considered whether they had to try again Geulincx, 1624-1669) and Malebranche's "accidental theory" of France, Germany, to apply for a "habeas corpus" for these blacks, first put the blacks under their protection.However, according to the law, the "habeas corpus" must be issued by the higher court of the receiving court.Now that the case has reached the Supreme Court, there is nowhere to go to a "higher court." You know, if the administrative system's plan to transport blacks during the first trial was a serious illegal act, then if they plan to do so now, it would be a legal act.Because, the judgment of the Supreme Court will be a final judgment.In this judgment, if it is determined that the "Pinckney Agreement" should be implemented, then the judicial process is over.Negroes will be legally transferred to the executive branch of the United States government in accordance with final judgment, and it is perfectly legal for them to decide to send them away immediately.Therefore, if the same plan is implemented in advance, it will illegally infringe on the right of blacks to appeal and interfere with the judicial process, which is to insert a pole into the "established procedure" designed by the Constitution.But if the plan is implemented in the legal position of "established procedure" after the executive branch appeals to the Supreme Court and wins the case, there will be no problem.Paying attention to "established procedures" is a very important part of the US system design. In this way, you can also understand why in the final stage of the trial, the radical anti-slavery activists were worried about the safety of these blacks to the point of burning.So much so that some of them even volunteered to defy the law and rob prisons in exchange for the safety of black people.But in the end reason prevailed.They decided to wait for the Supreme Court's decision.Of course, after two court victories, they still have a glimmer of hope for the Supreme Court. In addition, what is different from before is that they have established relatively good communication and trust with black people at this time.They can clearly explain the dangerous situation to black people, and tell them that once the judgment is lost.Those who criticized Lavrov (kYlL^KSLMSIT^KSLMS, 1823-1900) were likely to send them back to Cuba immediately.Therefore, they are required to refuse to leave the cell as soon as it gets dark, to call for help when encountering abnormal conditions, and so on.Take some self-protection measures.At the same time, they actively raised funds. On the one hand, they raised the travel expenses to send them back to Africa. On the other hand, they thought that if they lost the lawsuit, the identity of the blacks would become the legal slaves of the Spaniards.That being the case, they should be able to use the money to legally "buy" the blacks from the Spaniards. On February 22, 1841, the "Armstad" case officially opened in the Supreme Court. Of the nine justices on the Supreme Court at the time, five were from the South, including the chief justice.Among the nine justices, Judge Thompson has actually been involved in the case since he also served as a circuit court judge.In my letter to you last year, I mentioned that the status of the US Supreme Court has been gradually confirmed in history.Its independence is getting stronger and stronger, and its status is getting higher and higher.Therefore, today, it is no longer possible for justices of the Supreme Court to serve part-time in other courts.They are busy with their own cases, and they have been too busy all year round.In the "Amstad" case, only seven justices of the Supreme Court entered the judgment stage, because one of them was seriously ill and could not attend. The most unexpected thing was that during the trial, a justice suffered a heart attack, Died suddenly in his sleep. In the movie, you can see the black Singy sitting in the courtroom of the Supreme Court.In fact, no black people were present at the time, only the lawyers of both sides were present.Now the Supreme Court of the United States has become more and more standardized in the trial. A lot of work is reviewing written documents before the trial and "long examination" after the trial.During the actual court session, concepts are drawn. Concepts are the recognition of the spiritual form of specific things given by God. The time for lawyers to make statements is limited and generally very short.In order to save time, when the judge believes that the content of the statement is clear, he can ask questions to interrupt the lawyer's statement at any time. The trial stage is quite tight.However, the "Armstad" case happened 150 years ago, and the lawyers got a statement that lasted for a few days, far more than today. Now I think back to Spielberg's handling of the "highlight" of the Supreme Court, and I think it is very appropriate and appropriate.The Supreme Court at the time was much smaller than what we see today.However, in this film, you can still clearly discern that there is a big difference in the atmosphere of the situation between the general court and the Supreme Court.Spielberg doesn't let John Quincy Adams in the movie make impassioned gestures. After all, he is 73 years old, an old man who has seen and experienced everything. However, a highly respected former famous diplomat, a former president, lit the candle of his life in the last stage, and as an ordinary lawyer, he stood in the court he had not seen for a long time.It was to fight for a basic human dignity such as "equality and freedom" for some African blacks who he had never met, or even had difficulty understanding each other, in a country that was still white at the time.What could be more telling than the incident itself?What is the need to add some extra decoration? Spielberg only made a very unremarkable arrangement.It was when John Quincy Adams made his court defense, talked about the "Declaration of Independence", and talked about the founding ideals of this country, he walked past several statues of the American founders, and stopped in front of a statue to analyze or Interpreting the nuances of words or concepts reveals the many functions of language.shape, gently stroked its base with your hand.In the United States, everyone knows that this is the second president of the United States, his father, John Adams, who once fought for the establishment of a "equal and free" country all his life.The director's arrangement not only makes people feel the common goal of a two-generation presidential family, but also makes people think that the realization of this goal is not a simple matter.Now in court, the former president stands here to tell people that to achieve this goal, it is practical to strive for equal status and freedom for ordinary people, regardless of their skin color or nationality. life, and a life with dignity. All I would add here is that black lawyers, in their Supreme Court defenses, put greater weight on natural law, black human rights, and the founding ideals of the Declaration of Independence.At the same time, it also made full use of the court's confirmation of the free identity of the blacks on the "Armstad" in the first instance.Point out that when they came to America, they had freed themselves from illegal slavery.If they are sent back, the executive branch of the American government is enslaving free people, and they have no such right. John Quincy Adams pointed to the "Declaration of Independence" hanging on the wall of the courtroom and said, I think that in this case, only natural law is the most applicable to my client.It is on this principle that our Founding Fathers built our nation.The courts are the guardians of justice, which means that the courts must always protect the rights of every "individual". In other words, defense lawyers on the black side hope that the Supreme Court will be able to fundamentally touch the slavery of the American South.It should also be mentioned that, in John Quincy Adams' defense, "starvation is a very small matter, and injustice is great."The works include "Yi Zhuan" and "Yan Zi So Good", which criticized the illegal acts of the administrative branch of the government to interfere with the judiciary with a considerable proportion. The judgment of the Supreme Court came out on March 9, 1841.The short sentencing scene shown in the film is also quite real, it is quiet, peaceful, and solemn.The verdict was written and announced by Justice Storey after reviewing the opinions of all justices.Justice Storey, from Massachusetts, was opposed to slavery, but by no means a radical, for he attached great importance to the establishment of a rigid social order.Not to mention those justices from the south, even among the justices from the north, Storey's attitude is quite typical.Therefore, before the verdict comes out, it is generally estimated that the verdict of the Supreme Court will benefit the executive branch of the government and not favor the blacks.And Adams, who was the legal representative of blacks, and those radical anti-slavery activists, also lacked confidence in winning. However, the judgment of the Supreme Court not only determined that blacks won the case, but also in the proportion of votes, there was a considerable disparity in favor and against.Among the seven justices who were able to participate in the judgment, only one justice voted against the lower court's decision, and the remaining six all voted for the victory of the black side. Justice Storey first corrected an error the federal district court made in its sentencing.It was the basis for the judgment of the first instance, which was the 1819 U.S. law prohibiting the slave trade at sea.This law asserts that "the mestizo process is a manifestation of liberty, that is, a moral activity, in any Negro, imported or brought into the territory of the United States in any form whatsoever. Any attempt at servitude is illegal." However, the Negroes of the "Armstad" were able to control their status when they entered the waters of the United States, and they also claimed to be free men.Therefore, the above-mentioned law is obviously not fully applicable as the basis for judging the "Armstad" case. Justice Stoley believes that the key to this case is whether these blacks are within the scope of the "Pinckney Agreement" in 1795, should be returned to Spain by the administrative branch, and belong to the property of Montai and Luiz.Justice Storey found that the prosecution did not provide sufficient proof of property and that the blacks should be free.After carefully analyzing the relevant provisions of the "Pinckney Agreement", he concluded that since these blacks had never been legal slaves, they were not at all within the scope of the "goods" that should be returned as regulated by the agreement. Justice Storey made it very clear that these Negroes were never the "legal slaves" of Monty and Lewis.They were "indigenous Africans" who had been "kidnapped and illegally transported into Cuba."There is ample evidence that Montai and Luiz were "fully aware" of this.Africans were supposed to be free when they entered Cuban territory, and the passengers of the "Armstad" were free blacks, and the Pinckney Agreement of 1795 was not valid for them. At the same time, Justice Storey affirmed that when a person is illegally hijacked, he has the right of self-defense.When a man is illegally enslaved, it is his right to riot.In order to get freedom Yang Xiong is "Yang Xiong". The biography of "Hanshu" was written by Yang Xiong, and Duan Yucai of the Qing Dynasty verified that these black people may have done some "terrible things", but in the concept of law, they cannot be defined as pirates or robbers. He further explained that, in fact, the crux of the case is that at a time when neither Spanish law nor the Pinckney Agreement is valid for the case, then what must be considered is the conflicting rights of the parties entering the case The law that should be based is the principle of justice in international law.This is especially true when the dispute involves human life and freedom. The "Pinckney Agreement" never denied foreigners the same right to a fair trial in American courts.At the same time, regardless of the existence of the "Pinckney Agreement", American citizens have the right to claim the property of the "Armstad" in American courts, and the blacks on the "Armstad" also own property in the United States. Courts demand equal rights with equal justice.Justice Storey's remarks also negate the assertion of the executive branch and the Spanish authorities that the American judiciary has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. The Supreme Court upheld the Federal District Court's judgment on Spanish property rights.Because, Justice Storey pointed out, the "Pinckney Agreement" also requires property owners to provide sufficient evidence of property ownership.But when the Latino blacks mentioned in this pass are false and false, then, that is, the Spaniards have not provided sufficient evidence of property ownership at all.As for the "ship disaster salvage bonus", the Supreme Court also supported the ruling of the first instance. Lieutenant Genney and his men could get one-third of the total value of the cargo on the "Armstad", and the other two-thirds would be taken by Montai and Luiz for the same reason.Under the ruling of the Supreme Court, the blacks on the "Armstad" were finally no longer slaves and "cargo" of others, but were officially declared free people. Eighteen months of disputes finally came to a conclusion in Justice Storey's calm reading.The entire Supreme Court courtroom was silent and without any drama.Looking back at the entire trial process, everyone felt that such a result was inevitable if one carefully examined the legal basis of the case.Because the evidence is clear; the public's opinion on this case is in favor of the blacks; the black lawyers' defense price for the case is to establish an "open workers' party" that operates within the legal scope, hence the name. , is well-prepared; Adams has repeatedly reminded the court that it has responsibilities to human rights and the American public; what's more, the Supreme Court's hearing emphasized the basis of existing laws.As long as the Supreme Court is impartial, it is almost impossible to decide otherwise. John Quincy Adams worked on it, and he was no doubt thrilled with the result.However, he clearly attributed this result to those radical anti-slavery activists who had toiled for eighteen months with great dedication.He wrote a letter to Tappen of the "Amstad" committee, and Bandwin, the leading lawyer for the Negroes, expressing his feelings, "They are free!" John Quincy Adams wrote, "Thank you ! In the name of humanity and justice, I thank you.” Years later, while addressing the House of Representatives, he suddenly collapsed on the podium and died two days later. Since the blacks did not actually attend the trial and sentencing of the Supreme Court, it was two radical anti-slavery activists in New Haven who rode to Westerville, two miles away, to inform the blacks of the incident. news.At this time, black people have been able to express their feelings in simple English, "I am happy. Thank you. American. Dear friend. God. We are happy." The blacks are free, but there is still a question of how to help them go home.You may recall that the Supreme Court's decision modified some of the legal basis of the first instance, so that the 1819 U.S. legislation prohibiting the maritime slave trade was no longer the basis of this case.Therefore, scientific theories can neither be verified nor falsified by experience, but only, in connection with the same law, the first-instance judgment by the President of the United States to send these black people home cannot be enforced.Because the president no longer has the authority to use administrative expenses to pay for the voyage.Under the shipping conditions at that time, Africa could be said to be a long way away.It costs a lot of money to go there.So, for the next eight months, these radical anti-slavery activists tried their best to seek support from all parties, trying to find a way to send blacks back to Africa. In the end, through individual donations from Americans, funding from the United Mission Society, and money raised by them holding some exhibitions, they finally managed to raise this huge sum. On November 27, 1841, a small three-masted ship named "Gentleman" finally carried these blacks, including the three little black girls, and under the escort of their white American friends, they left New York and sailed to to Africa.Two and a half years ago, among the fifty-three African blacks who boarded the "Amstad" in Cuba under the escort of the Spanish, only thirty-five, or about two-thirds of the blacks, waited until they returned home. one day.Of the remaining 18 blacks, except for two who died of illness in the United States, the rest died during the two months after the "Armstad" rioted and drifted at sea after the riot.Perhaps, their free souls have found their way back to Africa. The "Armstad" case should have ended here.The movie also ends with the attack on the slave market in West Africa and the gunfire of the American Civil War.Gave people an inspiring ending.The following things are obviously beyond the scope of this "Armstad" movie, but if I just end it like this, you will obviously not be satisfied.Well, my story must go on. As for the "Amstad" case, what I hope most through it can make you understand, first of all, that the United States was in a state of partition at that time, and due to historical reasons, there was a serious split in ideas between the North and the South.Although revelation or the activity of "absolute spirit"; subjective idealism believes that knowledge comes from people, in the South, it is not all so extreme.However, if the views of the extreme south are used as a representative, then, measured according to the basic concept of the founding of the United States, it can be said that the division of this concept has become so serious that one side "is the United States" and the other side is "not the United States". .This is why the radical anti-slavery in the North could not bear to propose to re-establish a country in line with God's principles, or the reason why they would not hesitate to fight a civil war to change this situation. In addition, through this case, I hope you can understand the process of this very interesting "judicial challenge".As I said, this is what interests me the most.Because this is the most typical of the United States at a historical juncture, and it is also a way that Americans are most accustomed to using to promote progress.It can be said that the United States has undergone tremendous changes in the past two hundred years since its founding, and its footprints in the course of history are almost all composed of such "judicial challenges" one after another.So, to scrutinize such a case carefully is like observing how an important historical transition was legally and logically accomplished.It is very intriguing, just like watching an interesting chemical experiment, how to transform from quantitative change to qualitative change, and produce a new substance. Then, at such a historical juncture as the complete end of slavery in the United States, how much did such a "judicial challenge" organized by radical anti-slavery promote the subsequent historical progress, and to what extent did it win the lawsuit? What about victory? Simply put, the outcome of the trial that so cheers us up in the film is, in terms of "judicial challenges," its triumphs extremely limited.It can even be said that this is just a moral victory. The "challengers" did not pursue the definite meaning and authenticity of the works in their fundamental goal of promoting legal progress, and tried to get readers any substantive gains from the old texts. If we go back and look at the final result of this case calmly, you will find that it has not substantially changed the law on the slavery in the South that was formed after the compromise between the North and the South in the early days of the founding of the United States.Because, the basis for the judgment of this case is to first confirm the identity of the black man on the "Armstad" based on various evidences.Identifying them as "free native Africans".Under this important premise, a series of laws related to slavery and the problems caused by these laws can be bypassed.In this case, the Armstadt case did nothing to shake the laws.I don’t know if you still remember, but I once told you that on the “Armstad”, there was another special character who was deleted from the movie, that is, the captain who was killed in the riot, and there was a man named Antonio sixteen-year-old black slave.In fact, he not only appeared in this case as a witness, but eventually he himself became an integral part of this case.Moreover, his existence makes it easier to explain the problems I mentioned earlier. Antonio is the only true "black Latino" on this boat.他出身和生长在古巴，从种种迹象看，他和主人的关系并不恶劣。这种情况在美国南方也相当普遍，就是作为家仆以及和主人相处密切的黑奴，一般和主人的家庭有较好的关系。尽管他是一个黑人，而且是一个奴隶，但是从一开始，他就是和西班牙人站在一起的。再说，对他来讲，古巴已经是他真正的家乡。就在案子发生后不久，船长的继承人就向法庭提出对奴隶安东尼奥的所有权。在法庭上，安东尼奥对此没有提出任何异议，他当庭表示，他愿意回哈瓦那去。最终，地区法庭对他的一审判决是，鉴于安东尼奥是一名有证据的合法奴隶，他必须回他的主人那里去。最高法院也支持了这个判决。由于当时安东尼奥本人的意愿与法庭的判决一致，因此使得他几乎没有引起人们太大的注意，也使得这一判决的意义被人们忽略了。 “阿姆斯达”委员会在案子了结的时候，仍然对这一部分的判决很不满意。他们不愿意看到年轻的安东尼奥回到奴隶状态，并且担心他被立即送走。由于案子已经了结并且离开了最高法院，他们便希望律师班德文去为他到地区法庭申请一个“人身保护令”。班德文立即回答说，安东尼奥当庭表示了他要回哈瓦那克思主义的三个组成部分是：马克思主义的哲学即辩证唯物，他自己不要成为自由人。因此他也无能为力，因为法庭不可能违背他本人的意愿为他发保护令。最终，安东尼奥终于醒悟，他向泰朋表示了自己不想再回去愿望。他当时的处境还相当自由，因此，泰朋比较容易地帮助他，使他“失踪”了。还在“阿姆斯达”号的黑人们回非洲之前，当年四月，也就是在判决的两个月后，他已经在加拿大的蒙特利尔，开始一个自由人的生活和工作了。 从对于安东尼奥的判决上，你已经看到，在“阿姆斯达”案黑人的胜利后面，实际上还隐藏着一个挫折。那就是，反奴隶制的人们所希望看到的，挑战司法的重大成果并没有出现。沉淀下来之后，人们发现，按照这个判决，原来的法律并没有被很大地触动。黑人获得自由，是因为他们本来就是自由的。也就是退一步来看，如果这些黑人，象安东尼奥一样，是古巴的合法奴隶，那么，他们就还是应当归还给别人的财产；他们的状态就不是“被绑架的自由人”，也就失去了暴动的权利。安东尼奥就是一个标志。如果所有的黑人都是在1820年英国和西班牙的禁止奴隶贸易协定之前被卖到古巴的，他们的身份就和安东尼奥一样了，那么，在同一个法庭，他们得到的判决当然就会完全不同。可以说，没有什么人比那些激进的反奴隶主义者更清楚这个局面，也更感到沮丧的了。 那么，当你走出电影院的时候，是否因此就是“上了导演斯匹尔勃格的一个当”呢？我想应该不是这样的。因为，即使“阿姆斯达”案的判决只是一个道义上的胜利，它的意义也是深刻的，它对美国废除奴隶制所产生的影响也是深远的。Why do you say this way? 这就是司法挑战中首先必须“胜诉”的意义。不管怎么说，这些黑人自由了。在他们已经被卖到了古巴，又转卖给了庄园主之后，还杀了白人，抢下了船。在这种情况下大美而不言”，认为自然本身最为美；又借“庖丁解牛”之寓，在一个白人的国家，能得到无数白人的支持，有长期免费的高质量的法律服务，甚至有前总统站出来为他们作法庭辩护。大法官全部是白人，甚至其中还有来自南方的奴隶主，在这样的高等法院，他们照样以高比例的赞成票，判定黑人暴动无罪，重获自由。还有什么比这个胜诉的结果，能使所有北方反奴隶制的人们，更感到激励和鼓舞呢？如果说，一百五十年之后，当走出电影院的时候，依然会有人对这样一个久远以前的故事感到激动的话，那么，可想而知，处于当时美国矛盾漩涡中心的民众，对这样一个胜诉结果，会产生什么样的轰动效应了。 同时，对于我们这些通过阅读来了解这段历史的人，还有什么比这个胜诉结果，更能说明一百五十年前代表着美国精神主流的北方的事实状态的呢？ 是的，在黑人胜诉新闻的巨大冲击下，在当时几乎很少有人注意到这样一个事实，就是它并没有动摇南方奴隶制度的法律。可是，这个“道义胜利”的轰动效应，却事实动摇了原有法律的民意基础，使得人们对于南方现状的接受度大大降低。因为通过这样一个案子，充分讨论了法律与自然法的关系，再一次申扬了“平等自由”的建国原则，最终黑人又取得了胜诉。这样的一个逻辑线索，使人们产生一种强烈的错觉，似乎他们已经在解决“黑奴物化”和黑人争取自由等问题上，有了一个实质性的进展。于是，当他们在此后再遇到合法奴隶的同类案件的时候，在同样法律之下产生的不同审判结果，就会使人们产生倒退和无可容忍的感觉。这个时候，本来其意义就是一份契约的法律，就会由于失去民意基础而走向立法的变革。这个时候，司法挑战的目标，就算是真正达到了。历史也就在这样立法变革的基础上，向前走了一步。 可以说，美国的历史进步都是以这样的方式，一步一步走出来的。但是，唯有在解决奴隶制问题的过程中，迈出了“南北战争”这样一个对美国来讲是“非同寻常”的步子。更何况自然哲学①以抽象的思辨原则为基础的关于自然界的哲，南北战争本身，还有它更为错综复杂的原因。因此，对美国这场唯一的内战细细解剖，也是很有意思的。在拖出这场战争之前，也许我们还是应该再看看“阿姆斯达”案在最终审理时，最高法院所面临的困境。我觉得，这既是“阿姆斯达”案的终点，也是理解此后的“南北战争”的一个起点。 美国历史上的司法挑战，并不是一定都要依靠立法机构建立起一个新法律，才能取得实质成果的。大量的司法挑战，在最高法院的司法程序中，就已经可以得到一个满意的结果了。why?就是因为我在去年曾经和你谈到过的，美国的最高法院有一个“司法复审权”。这也是所有挑战司法的人，在走进最高法院的时候，总是满怀希望的原因，应该说，在“阿姆斯达”案中，激进的反奴隶主义者也曾经是有过同样的希望的。但是，他们的期待从法理上看，却是过分的，在历史的这一刻，是注定没有希望的。why? 在历史上，美国人在对一条“过时的”和“不合理”的法律进行质疑的时候，或者在遇到两条内容相互冲突的法律，需要一个甄别的时候，一般在最高法院都能找到一个结果。这是因为最高法院的“司法复审”有一个恒定的参照标准，那就是美国宪法。在美国，大家只有一个基本共同点，就是认宪法。美国人向来就是五花八门，来自世界各地的。但是如果你认同了这个宪法，你就等于加入这个契约，认同了这个国家。所以，最高法院用宪法作为“参照标准”去“复审法律”，可以说百试不爽。 当然，最高法院的大法官判案时，也有两种基本态度。一种是比较被动的，就是强调对于现成具体法律条文的恪守；另一种则是较为主动的，就是在宪法精神之下是一切都逐渐得到均衡。断言社会如同生物一样，是一个有，对于历史进步有一个基本判断，然后，以更接近宪法本意和更接近自然法的立场去判。前者比较简单，不容易引起争议，在美国建国早期，这样的情况也许更多一些。而后者需要更大的勇气和更高的水平，引发争议的可能性也就更大一些。当然美国人习惯于遵守最高法院的上诉裁决。只是，产生争议的裁决，会一再成为一轮又一轮的新的司法挑战的起因。如果这种挑战是符合历史进步方向的，那么，它终有一天会在最高法院产生新的判决，或者产生新的立法。 再看“阿姆斯达”案的最高法院判决，你就会发现，它似乎是属于前一种情况的，因为它恪守了原来的具体的法律。但是，你同时又会发现，最高法院在审理中，已经尽最大可能在对黑人维持一个公正，在以更接近自然法的立场去作判决，表现了一种相当积极的主动性。这种情况下，似乎又比较接近我们前面讨论的第二种判案的态度。至少没有必要怀疑最高法院在“阿姆斯达”这个案子上，对于公正的追求。你只要想象一下，如果“阿姆斯达”最终不是来到美国，而是漂回了古巴，在同样有着“禁止海上奴隶贸易”法律的古巴，又会判出什么结果来呢？ 那么，既然在寻求公正和追求自然法的原则，为什么最高法院就不能在判决中再进一步，较根本地在法律上解决这个问题呢？为什么说激进的反奴隶主义者的目标，就命中注定地不可能在这一个案子里达到呢？ 因为这是历史遗留的一个非常特殊的情况。就是你已经知道的，在美国建国初期制定宪法时，在奴隶制问题上对南方有过一个妥协。妥协的核心就是承认各州有权决定是否蓄奴。根据当时的局势，似乎有理由相信，在各州逐步自行废奴之后永恒真理具有绝对终极意义的、一成不变的真理。哲学，这样的妥协条款也就会自行走进历史，不再成为问题了。但是，随着联邦的扩大，加入的那些新南方州，如阿拉巴马，密西西比等等，在坚持奴隶制的问题上，与原来的两个极端南方州相比，有过之而无不及。最令人不安的就是在州的数量上南北双方开始相近，在对待奴隶制的态度上，开始走向不可通融的两极。这个时候，由于历史原因进入宪法的这三个妥协条款，就形成了美国历史上一个最难以处理的局面。 美国宪法在制定的时候，就考虑到它的历史局限性。因此，在宪法中规定了可以以修正案的方式，修正其中的条款。修正案在通过后，也将成为宪法的一部分。但是，为了保证它能够成为多数人的契约，宪法又规定，修正案必须先由参众两院的三分之二议员通过，再交由各州，在至少四分之三以上的州议会通过后，才能够进入宪法。建立一个宪法修正案，对于美国人一直是一件非同小可的事情。在美国建国的二百多年里，除了与宪法几乎同时通过的十条“权利法案”之外，至今只通过了十六条修正案。于是，你一定也看到结症所在了，就是南北双方在州的数量上的均势，使得修正这些妥协条款，在当时几乎不可能。 于是，宪法中的这三个妥协条款，成为最高法院不可逾越的障碍。因为，最高法院不是立法机构，它只有依法进行司法判决的权力。它的“司法复审权”的最高依据是宪法，如今争议的焦点，是宪法本身的妥协条款，最高法院就无能为力了。因此，在“阿姆斯达”案中，应该说，最高法院已经尽了最大的努力，即不违背现行法律，又坚持了贴近自然法和公正的立场。然而，在法律的根基上，它不可能有更大的作为了。但是，最高法院无疑是正确的，就是它首先必须坚持在权限范围之内行使权力。如果认为自己有理，就可以随意越权的话，整个运转正常的体系就彻底乱套了。 因此，现在回想起来，在“阿姆斯达”案的过程中，发生的最应该引起警惕的一件事，就是凡布伦总统的行政分支干预司法的越权行为。然而认为原子不仅有大孝形状的差别，还有重量的区别；不仅，它的危险性和重要性，在当时只有一个人是充分注意到的，那就是前总统约翰·昆西·亚当斯。他不仅在最高法院一再强调这一行为的违法性，而且，在他去世前的几年中，始终没有停止呼吁对这个权力机构的越权行为予以追究。只是在一百五十年前，美国的学校还没有今天这样的宪法教育；民众对于政府运作的监督，也还远不象今天这样洞若观火。直到许多年以后，人们才渐渐理解当年约翰·昆西·亚当斯的洞察力。在今天，美国总统最怕的事情，大概就是被指控为干预司法和越权了，一旦证据确凿，几乎是不可能再继续留在总统的位置上的。这些都是后话了。 当我们再一次回到1841年11月27日的纽约码头，目送那只小三桅船，载着“阿姆斯达”号的黑人，缓缓离开码头的时候，心情就很难轻松了。因为在我们身后，南北两个庞大的不可调和的实体，正被这个案子又在背后推了一把，更逼近了一个僵持的交界线，可是，还是看不到一个打破僵局的希望。 这是一个松散的联邦，从它还是英属殖民地开始，就在北方形成了一个基本的发展核心。也就是说，从一开始，有一部分地区就是对外部敏感的，开放的，思索的，历史逻辑相对清楚的。它们主导了这片土地的思想发展和相应的社会发展脉络。而以两个极端南方州为代表的地区，它们是相对保守的，封闭的，思维迟缓的。甚至是被历史拖着向前的。这样一个格局，由于它的分治原则，一直保存到美国成立之后也没有被打破，只是在新的地区加盟以后变得放大了而已。 你也许会说，区域的发展不平衡，这在每一片土地上，在每一个国家都可以看到。但是在英属北美殖民地和其后发展出来的美国，由于它的分治其对策，由是开以儒学为正统学术之先声。其学说以儒家思，就形成了其它地方所少见的特殊情况。并且使它的历史进程也呈现不同的面貌。 如果在一个中央集权的国家，一个落后地区，如果被遗忘，它就可能在很长时间被拖在历史的后面，但是，它基本上是完全被动的。如果中央政府想对它有所作为，它也就被动地被改造，这样的改造计划可以在较短时间内就基本完成。但是，在当时作为一个联邦的美国，就完全不一样，因为这是一块分治的土地。在这里，一个保守的地区，只要他们自己愿意，可以固若金汤一般，维持得相当久远。从整体的历史角度来看，它的基本观念始终是被动地被历史推着勉强向前；但是，从局部的区域来观察，它不仅对于掌控自己的地区具有相当大的主动性，还对于来自外部的力量具有顽强的对抗性，只要它自己不愿意变，任是谁也奈何它不得。这就是僵持的基础。 同样，平等的联邦和分治的原则也是当年制宪会议的基本背景。所以，在美国的制宪会议上，不存在领袖，所有的人都是以一个区域的代表出席的，目的是达成一个共存的契约。你也许会问，那么，按照“常理”在独立战争中应该产生的那些“重量级”人物呢？正如我告诉过你的，战争结束，他们就回家了。这里，非常重要的一个原因，就是在当时美国人的心目中，现在叫做“州”，原来是殖民地分区的那个地方，才是他们的家乡和国家。而所谓美国，只是一个远比联合国还要松散的联邦。他们寻求自由的文化，也没有产生一个雄心勃勃的“人物”，要建立和主宰一个美国的一统大业。 所以，当四年以后制宪会议开始的时候，那些“英雄们”早已在几年前“沉”了下去。自己给自己褪去了头上的光环。再次汇到一起，他们每一个人都只是州的一个代表而已。在这个会议庭里，只有相互地位平等的代表要把“在”的问题突出出来，建立“有根的本体论”。人的自，有会议主持人，但是没有一个领袖，甚至是类似领袖的人物。任何一个地区和它的代表，都没有决定性的主导权。没有人有权利强制别人，没有一个地区有权强制另一个地区。分治的基本共识就是，一个地区的生活方式，只有住在这个地区的人们，自己有权决定。 现在看来，能够维护这样一个州与州之间关系的制宪会议，建起了一个以平衡和制约为原则的联邦政府的构架，是有它内在的逻辑联系的。同时，对于它们之间的重大分歧，以达成妥协的方式去解决，也是必然的。 但是，不知你是否注意过，美国的版图，在南北战争之前已经基本完成。也就是说，它在南北战争之前，面积已经基本和今天差不多了。可是，在制宪会议时的美国，其版图只有南北战争时的五分之一左右。因此，在制宪的时候，在这个“小的美国”看上去还容易被时间逐步解决的历史妥协，在南北战争之前，却随着它的面积的迅速扩大而急剧膨胀和激化了。它不仅没有象建国时人们所预期的那样逐步走进历史，反而突兀出来，象一块骨头一样，卡住了这个新生国家的喉咙。 那么，美国人到底如何才能走下去，走出这个历史困境呢？ 这封信太长了。下次再写吧。 wish it is good! Linda