No. The slave trade was not against the 'law of nations' at that time. The Court said that even though slavery is morally wrong, it couldn't ignore that many powerful countries had allowed it for a very long time, which made it legal under international rules. A judge's job is to follow the law, not personal feelings. Because Spain's laws allowed slavery, Spanish citizens could legally own people. But the court made it clear that you can't just claim people like you'd claim a box of cargo; you have to provide real proof of ownership for each person. The Spanish claimants proved they owned some of the people, so those people were returned. The Portuguese claimants couldn't prove they owned anyone, so their claim was denied and those people were freed.

Yes, the U.S. should give back the slaves to the Spanish owners, but only the ones they can prove were on the ship when it was captured. The Court agrees to return 93 slaves to Spain because that's the number they have good evidence for. But the Court won't give any slaves to Portugal because they didn't show proof of ownership, and no one from Portugal tried to claim the slaves for a long time. Chief Justice Marshall explains that even though the slave trade might seem wrong, it was still legal under international law at the time because most countries allowed it. He says each country makes its own laws, and countries that allow the slave trade can keep doing it until they decide to ban it themselves. Marshall also talks about how this case is tricky because it involves the important rights of freedom and property, which are in conflict here.

Yes, the U.S. should give back the slaves to the Spanish owners, but only the ones they can prove were on the ship when it was captured. We agree to return 93 slaves to Spain because that's the number we have good evidence for. But we won't give any slaves to Portugal because they didn't show proof of ownership, and no one from Portugal tried to claim the slaves for a long time. Even though the slave trade might seem wrong, it was still legal under international law at the time because most countries allowed it. We also say that each country makes its own laws, and countries that allow the slave trade can keep doing it until they decide to ban it themselves. This case is tricky because it involves the important rights of freedom and property, which are in conflict here.

No. The slave trade does not violate the law of nations. Although the practice is abhorrent and contrary to natural law, it was historically sanctioned by the long usage and general acquiescence of civilized nations, making it a legitimate commercial practice under international law. A nation may ban the trade for its own citizens, but it cannot impose that rule on other sovereign nations. Therefore, a foreign claimant's property right in enslaved persons, valid under their own nation's laws, must be respected. However, because the claim is to human beings who are generally presumed free, the claimant bears the burden of proof (onus probandi) to affirmatively prove ownership of specific individuals. In this case, the Spanish claimants provided sufficient proof for a portion of the Africans, but the Portuguese claimants failed to provide any specific proof of ownership for any individuals, so their claim fails.

Yes, the United States has an obligation to restore slaves to claimants from nations where the slave trade is legal, because the trade was not considered contrary to the law of nations at the time, and no nation can impose its laws on another. However, the Court is divided on this issue, and thus no principle is settled. Restitution to the Spanish claimant of the Africans found on board the Antelope when she was captured by the Arraganta is affirmed, but only for the number of Africans that can be satisfactorily proven to have been on board, which the Court determines to be ninety-three. The Portuguese claim is denied due to lack of evidence and failure to identify the owners after a significant period. Marshall explains that while the slave trade may be contrary to the law of nature, it has been sanctioned by the laws of nations through general usage and acquiescence. He states that each nation legislates for itself, and a right vested in all by consent can only be divested by consent. Therefore, the trade remains lawful to those whose governments have not forbidden it. Marshall also notes the difficulty in balancing the sacred rights of liberty and property that come into conflict in this case.

Yes, the United States has an obligation to restore slaves to claimants from nations where the slave trade is legal, because the trade was not considered contrary to the law of nations at the time, and no nation can impose its laws on another. However, we are divided on this issue, and thus no principle is settled. We affirm restitution to the Spanish claimant of the Africans found on board the Antelope when she was captured by the Arraganta, but only for the number of Africans that can be satisfactorily proven to have been on board, which we determine to be ninety-three. We deny the Portuguese claim due to lack of evidence and failure to identify the owners after a significant period. While the slave trade may be contrary to the law of nature, it has been sanctioned by the laws of nations through general usage and acquiescence. Each nation legislates for itself, and a right vested in all by consent can only be divested by consent. Therefore, the trade remains lawful to those whose governments have not forbidden it. We also note the difficulty in balancing the sacred rights of liberty and property that come into conflict in this case.

The Antelope

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot