The Mysteries of History (February 24 Edition)
La Amistad, Johnson Impeachment, Germany Tries to Hire Mexico as a Mercenary, Supreme Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling on Satirizing Famous People
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana, 1905
1841 — Amistad (John Q. Adams Defends Slaves)
public domain image from wikimedia commons
On this date in 1841, John Quincy Adams, a member of the House of Representatives and a former U.S. President, defended those who had been aboard the Spanish slave ship La Amistad, who had taken over the ship in order to free themselves from bondage. Adams was a life-long abolitionist, albeit not normally an outspoken one.
Two years previously, the captives aboard La Amistad had commandeered the vessel by killing the ship’s captain and its cook. The “mutineers” promised to kill nobody else as long as the remaining crew returned them to Africa, from whence they had been kidnapped to be sold as slaves in Cuba. The crew agreed to these terms, but instead sailed for New York. The vessel was seized by American authorities off the coast of New York, but was delivered to Connecticut, which (probably deliberately) complicated matters for political reasons.
Abolitionists took the captors to court for assault, kidnapping, and false imprisonment. Spain claimed the ship and captives belonged to them. The U.S. President at the time, Martin Van Buren, found it politically expedient to support Spain’s side in the issue. Two lower courts decided in favor of the captives, but Van Buren had the verdicts appealed, which caused the conflict to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the “mutineers” and deemed them free on March 9th.
John Quincy Adams (1767-1848), who was 74 years of age at the time and known as “Old Man Eloquent,” was hired by the abolitionists to defend the captors. In making their case, Adams assailed Van Buren for abusing the office of President by interfering in a case involving the rights of individuals, and siding with a foreign nation (Spain) while doing so. At the climax of his argument to the court, Adams addressed the justices, pointing to a copy of the Declaration of Independence which was hanging on the courtroom wall, and saying, “I know of no law, statute or constitution, no code, no treaty, except that law … which is forever before the eyes of your Honors.”
In other words, the Constitution must be defended and abided by. That is exactly what the Supreme Court Justices, the President, and many other government officials pledge they will do when they take office.
Adams’ powerful arguments swayed the court to find in favor of the captives, as the lower courts had already done, and agreed that they should be sent back to Africa, according to their wish. However, a subsequent President, John Tyler (not the next one, William Henry Harrison, because he died after only 1 month in office after catching his death of cold while delivering a long speech at his inauguration) refused to allocate federal money to pay for the captives’ passage. And so the Abolitionists raised money to send the former captives back to their home.
President Tyler, by the way, ended up a traitor, siding with the Confederacy during the Civil War, and then dying a few months into it, in early 1862.
Questions: Who was the leader of the slave rebellion aboard La Amistad? When did the former slaves arrive back home? How long had they been gone (how long was it between when they were kidnapped and when they were repatriated)? Did all of them return, or did any remain in America? How did their lives turn out? Have you seen Steven Spielberg’s movie “Amistad”?
1868 — Andrew Johnson Impeached
public domain image from wikimedia commons
Some may think it’s too bad that presidents can’t be impeached for being impaired. Okay, enough with the fruity jokes. Anyway, as that doesn’t seem to be the case, only a few Presidents have been impeached. Andrew Johnson, who was never elected President but who was sworn in as such because he was Vice President when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, was the first one to be impeached.
NOTE: To be impeached means that charges of misconduct have been brought against a public official. It doesn’t mean the impeached person has been found guilty, and even if they are found guilty, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will be removed from office as a result.
Johnson was the only Senator from a seceding State who sided with the Union at the outbreak of the Civil War. Once that great conflict was over, though, and Lincoln had been assassinated in revenge by a rabid rebel, Johnson saw to it that Reconstruction in the South basically returned conditions for blacks there to being very similar to what they had been prior to the war. Johnson’s turnabout included most of those who had attempted to overthrow the government getting off scot-free.
Not only were the traitors allowed to “skate,” some of those who had been key figures on the other (Union) side of the war were targeted for reprisal, specifically and most egregiously Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War. Johnson tried to illegally remove Stanton from office, thus resulting in the impeachment proceedings against Johnson.
There were not quite enough votes to find Johnson guilty of an impeachable offense, though; still, Stanton did remain in office, also.
Questions: How long did Stanton remain Secretary of War? What type of working relationship did Johnson and Stanton have after this? Did they see each other much in the course of their duties, or did they avoid each other as much as possible? What role, if any, did former Civil War General and future President Ulysses S. Grant have in all of this? How did Johnson’s life turn out? How much longer was he President? How did Stanton’s life turn out? Who was the next President to be impeached, and was he found guilty?
1917 — Germany Caught Trying to Bribe Mexico
public domain images from wikimedia commons
While Germany was losing World War 1, they connived and conspired to get Mexico involved in the war, sending a message to the Mexican government through diplomatic channels that came to be known as the “Zimmermann Telegram.” In it, Germany offered to give Mexico the United States’ Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona (much of the land that they had lost in the Mexican-American War, but not California) if Mexico agreed to enter the war and help them defeat America.
British intelligence intercepted the telegram, though, and sent its deciphered contents to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had it made public the next month (March) and, although he had campaigned on the slogan “He kept us out of the war” changed his mind and the following month (on April 2, to be precise) supported the immediate entry of the United States into the global fray. Four days later, Congress officially declared war on Germany.
America, Britain, and its allies won the war; Germany and its bunker buddies lost.
image generated using Bing Image Creator
Questions: Had the Zimmermann Telegram not been intercepted, do you think Mexico would have agreed to get involved with the war on Germany’s side? If they had, do you think it would have made a difference in the war’s outcome? If Mexico had gotten involved and Germany had still lost, do you think America would have taken any of Mexico as spoils of war?
1988 — Supreme Court Overturns Falwell v Hustler
public domain image of 1988 (“Rehnquist”) U.S. Supreme Court from wikimedia commons
In 1983, pornographic magazine Hustler published a truly disgusting parody of “Reverend” Jerry Falwell, who was so upset by it that he sued the magazine and won an award of $200,000 for his understandably hurt feelings.
The Supreme Court, because of the Constitutional implications at play (freedom of speech and freedom of the press) heard the appeal, and found in favor of Hustler — not because what they published was accurate or was even remotely beneficial to anybody, but because of the ramifications of allowing a precedent to stand that could be used in the future by other public figures who were parodied.
And so it was that on this date in 1988, the Court unanimously overturned the original (lower court) verdict, finding that Hustler’s portrayal of Falwell, although distasteful, rude, crude, unrefined, and vicious (my words, not theirs), was nevertheless covered under the rights of free speech and press.
public domain image of Jerry Falwell in 1985 from wikimedia commons
Questions: Had the Supreme Court decided otherwise, what type of parodies may have been prevented? Do you see that as a good thing or a bad thing? What, if any, limits should be put on free speech and freedom of the press? What is the result if the limitations are too lax (perhaps in this very case)? What is the result if the limitations are too strict? Did Falwell and Hustler publisher Larry Flynt ever become friends?
