Why don't any of these historical recaps mention the fundamental elements of the cases? Its important to mention that admiralty and maritime was the subject matter jurisdiction, so that precedent is able to be understood as set by this case. If someone, like me, needs to know more about it, its not the details of who owns slaves and names of the judges. But generally, thank you, goid video
This has been debunked years ago. The EARLIEST reference to this "Amistad" is in ...1940. In an admitted work of Fiction. Multiple volumes dealing with slavery, legal cases involving slavery, slave uprisings etc. NEVER mention the "Amistad" at all. Biographies of John Quincy Adam's fail to mention the "Amistad Case", even in passing. Works detailing the struggle for the abolition of slavery, and landmark events involving slavery, never mention the Amistad. It wasn't until the 1980s when a work of Fiction suddenly became FACT. In the 1990s Hollywood made the Movie, and thus the "Amistad" became History. In fact, significant cases AFTER 1841 have the US returning slaves to their "owners" as "property", as that is what the Law was at the time. The USA did not interfere in other countries' laws regarding slavery. If the specific owners could not be located, then slaves were to be turned over to the Head of State of the country where the slaveowners were citizens of. Even into the 1970s exhaustive volumes giving the complete history of, in mind-numbing detail, slavery and landmark trials involving slaves, never mention the Amistad. Not only is it "historical fiction", it is offensive on 2 counts. 1) in the 1840s and 1850s, slaves who freed themselves, but arrived in the US were forcibly returned to their "masters". 2) the name of the "hero" was the actual name of a real man. A West African warlord who enslaved countless thousands of people, and sold them to slaveowners. I doubt this is a coincidence....
@@Crazy123Flame No, it's fiction. And it's whitewashing history. If this was actually real, then it means all the disgusting treatment of slaves after the "Amistad case" never happened. How could they, if the Amistad changed all that?
We always watch you in your History class :) Everytime my teacher says we are going to watch the Daily Bellringer, everyone starts cheering!
Thanks! Glad to hear you like them!
Hi man my class watches your videos and everyone really likes them thanks so much for the videos it makes class pretty fun
Glad you like the videos! I hope you find them helpful.
@@thedailybellringer we do thanks
I’m from Sierra Leone thanks
Hvem er her fra gyldendal??
Why don't any of these historical recaps mention the fundamental elements of the cases? Its important to mention that admiralty and maritime was the subject matter jurisdiction, so that precedent is able to be understood as set by this case. If someone, like me, needs to know more about it, its not the details of who owns slaves and names of the judges. But generally, thank you, goid video
They named that ship friendship? 😂
Yeeup..
Amistad supposed to mean friendship.. Shows how twisted these slave owning catholic "Christians" truly were.
movie before cinque became one of the most successful slave traders in africa. he was robbed.
We are the true isrealites. Edom will pay for stealing our identity. It is written.
Europ3an hippocracy today 😢as well, $$$%
This has been debunked years ago.
The EARLIEST reference to this "Amistad" is in ...1940. In an admitted work of Fiction.
Multiple volumes dealing with slavery, legal cases involving slavery, slave uprisings etc. NEVER mention the "Amistad" at all. Biographies of John Quincy Adam's fail to mention the "Amistad Case", even in passing. Works detailing the struggle for the abolition of slavery, and landmark events involving slavery, never mention the Amistad.
It wasn't until the 1980s when a work of Fiction suddenly became FACT. In the 1990s Hollywood made the Movie, and thus the "Amistad" became History.
In fact, significant cases AFTER 1841 have the US returning slaves to their "owners" as "property", as that is what the Law was at the time. The USA did not interfere in other countries' laws regarding slavery. If the specific owners could not be located, then slaves were to be turned over to the Head of State of the country where the slaveowners were citizens of.
Even into the 1970s exhaustive volumes giving the complete history of, in mind-numbing detail, slavery and landmark trials involving slaves, never mention the Amistad.
Not only is it "historical fiction", it is offensive on 2 counts.
1) in the 1840s and 1850s, slaves who freed themselves, but arrived in the US were forcibly returned to their "masters".
2) the name of the "hero" was the actual name of a real man. A West African warlord who enslaved countless thousands of people, and sold them to slaveowners. I doubt this is a coincidence....
The Amistad was real. The movie definitely distorts actual history, but the Amistad was real.
@@Crazy123Flame No, it's fiction.
And it's whitewashing history.
If this was actually real, then it means all the disgusting treatment of slaves after the "Amistad case" never happened.
How could they, if the Amistad changed all that?
Blah blah blah😂😂😂