Nowhere in America during the 1840's and for many decades after, was a black man allowed to sit in a courtroom as a witness or a defendant.– Lindsey Sowers

1) I could find no supporting evidence that President Van Buren campaigned for reelection via train. 2) There are repeated references to a coming 'civil war' by former Vice President Calhoun during a presidential dinner with Van Buren, and Spain's minister to Washington, Angel Calderon de la Barca if the slaves are given their freedom, but the Amistad trial occurs in 1840-1841. And again by John Q. Adams during his opening statement (while munching on Altoids) before the supreme course case. - Andrew Mullins

The version of the hymn “Amazing Grace” that was set to a traditional tune named “New Britain” (i.e. the version that many Americans are familiar with today) was not actually published until 1847, meaning that the church choristers could not have sung it to the imprisoned Africans of the Amistad in 1839. Source: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-04-30/complicated-story-behind-famous-hymn-amazing-grace

~Will Everett

As we discussed in class, one of the major points of the case regarding the Mende was opted out; and that in particular was the treatment of the Mende while in captivity during the trials. So many people came to see these Mende people, most of them being there because they found it amusing; it was a source of entertainment (much like the zoo). There was almost no evidence of those large gatherings of people stopping in to observe these men. The only people apart from the Amistad Committee came to visit were the Christians who took pity on them as they saw slavery as sinful. –Robert Dallas

I had a lot of questions regarding the accuracy of the trials, especially Cinque's “Give us free” moment and John Quincy Adams's speech at the end. Adams's speech transcript can be found here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/amistad_002.asp He does discuss the Declaration of Independence, correspondence between Calderon and Forsyth, and does mention Cinque a few times. However, this speech is much longer and much more in-depth than what is shown in the movie, and his mentions of Cinque have nothing to do with any conversations they had together. Instead, he refers to Cinque and another Mende, Grabeau/Grabbo, as having “barbarious names”, and affirms that they are not slaves. Cinque seems to just be used as the example Mende, not the primary hero in the story, as the film's Adams asserts. –Erin Shaw

Queen Isabella of Spain wasn't a little girl in charge of a country in during the trial, she was 19 in 1839, and had been ruling without a regent for six years. Her mother had been regent prior to her turning 13. –Jessie Fitzgerald source- https://www.britannica.com/biography/Isabella-II-queen-of-Spain

John Quincy Adams’ portrayal is quite different from historical record. The extent of John Quincy Adams' relationship with Cinque was changed. There was no historical record of Cinque having a personal meeting in John Quincy Adams’ home. With no record of Adams’ having a personal relationship with Cinque to the extent shown in the movie. -Kyle Moore

The movie shows Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. When in fact, Van Buren, following the political traditions of the time, did not personally campaign for his presidency. – Courtlyn Plunkett https://millercenter.org/president/vanburen/campaigns-and-elections

The inaccuracies that most bothered me was the Mende people’s ability to understand aspects of western culture so easily on their own. For example, the scene where Cinque understood based on the stars that the ship was not actually sailing East was inaccurate. The Mende on that ship did not understand navigation by stars. Also, it felt weird how easily some of the Mende suddenly started to understand and speak English, and how one of them figured out the story of the Bible just from looking at one. It reminds me of the past examples of films we have watched in which the non-Europeans had a sudden understanding of European ways and speech. – Carolyn Stough

Does present a few powerful, unforgettable scenes of the horrors of the Middle Passage. –Lindsey Sowers

West Africans themselves sold other tribes to Portuguese and Spanish slave traders. Former president John Quincy Adams came out of retirement to win the freedom of the slaves and have them returned to Sierra Leone. - Andrew Mullins

During the celebration on the boat scene it shows kids singing “Yahweh” as well as a couple of people prostrating in what looks like Islamic prayer. I thought it was a great depiction of the diverse religions of Africa at the time. –William Roszell

The American ship that first encountered the Amistad upon its arrival in America really was called the Washington, as is briefly visible in the film. ~Will Everett

There was a language barrier between the Mende and the Americans, creating problems as the Mende weren't able to defend themselves. This is accurate and the movie did a good job immersing the audience in the language barrier. –Maryanna Stribling

The threats and concerns of Senator John C. Calhoun were accurate to what he had been arguing during the 1830s. In 1828, Calhoun anonymously published South Carolina Exposition and Protest to argue for nullification, meaning a state had the “right to reject federal laws” if they saw them as harmful. Calhoun’s ideas supported that the South had the right to secede if its freedoms were encroached upon. In the movie, having a discussion on such a touchy subject during a state dinner was probably used for dramatic effect. The tension between Calhoun and Van Buren stresses how important it was for Van Buren to keep the South happy at this time and for Calhoun to ensure that the existence of slavery was defended, not undermined. “The Tariff of Abominations: The Effects.” History, Art, and Archives, United States House of Representatives. http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/The-Tariff-of-Abominations/. -Maddie Shiflett

In the beginning of the movie while in the courtroom they used the real name of man who was buying the Mende slaves illegally, Jose Ruiz. Also, in the courtroom everyone was fighting over the rights of who gets the ship and everything on it, including the Mende people; which also is accurate. –Caroline Collier

The movie accurately portrayed the language barrier between the Mende people and the Americans and the difficulties that arise from it. – Courtlyn Plunkett

They had a lot of the general storyline correct in this film. What happened to the Mende is correct, as is the way the Spanish men tried to trick the Mende by sailing East during the day but North West at night. I also really enjoyed the portrayal of John Quincy Adams as an old curmudgeon. Overall the general events and plotline was correct (minus Morgan Freeman’s character). – Carolyn Stough

Reading about the middle passage and learning about the horrific and terrifying elements involved is tough. Seeing a film depiction is heart-wrenching. Viewers are forced to see the horrors of the middle passage and the treatment of the African captives as nothing more than animals. Spielberg taps into every emotion with the Middle Passage sequence and inhibits the viewer from only being sad or angry at slavery; the viewer is also sickened and disturbed. It’s frightening and the idea that Spielberg does not shy away from highlighting the gruesome details allows for the slave history of the middle passage to receive the attention that it needs. While there are some problems—like the chiseled bods of the captives for instance—the movie and the horrifying imagery reminds all of what happened and that what happened was morally and inherently wrong. -Lake Wiley

The language barriers that caused a break down in communication was explored in this movie to show how they had to over come another obstacle. With the lack of subtitles in certain parts the audience got a feel for what it is like to be unable to understand one another. How do you think they decided how and when to use subtitles? Do you think that audiences were drawn away from the movie because it was heavily subtitled?– Grace Corkran

Like Grace says in her comment before, I thought it was an extremely interesting and important directorial choice that Spielberg made when choosing to not include subtitles at the beginning of the movie. It helps show the confusion that the enslaved peoples would have had been brought to a new world and how confusing it would have been. Would the story have been different if they chose to add subtitles to the film for all scenes or is it better the way the movie portrayed it? — Ellora Larsen

Cinque was completely portrayed as a Jesus character - an idealized tragic hero. His Christ comparisons only become stronger as the Mende (or just that one guy) become more engrossed in Christianity. However, it is interesting that while the story posits him as the hero, he is never the one to save himself, unless he is literally killing a lion or a man. White men must do the saving for him, and while they may use “his words”, he and the other Mende are still not given agency in their own story. Cinque also becomes more useful as he becomes more Americanized, while the other prominently African Mende are not useful at all to the white cause. –Erin Shaw

When Baldwin first visits the Africans in prison when they are in an outdoor courtyard, there is a disagreement over where he can place his table because the two groups (Mende and Temne) have divided the space amongst themselves. Were the Amistad Africans all Mende? And what is the significance of having a specific part in the film where emphasis is placed on the disagreement that would arise because of differing ethnic groups? -Maddie Shiflett

The multiple references to the coming Civil War raise a lot of questions for me. Of course, the Civil war was not fought until twenty years after the events of the movie, but multiple characters treat it as if it is an inevitability. Is this the movie doing the same thing Last of the Mohicans did and setting the stage for a conflict that nobody was sure would happen? Unlike LotM, this movie is set in a time in which the seeds for the conflict being foreshadowed were already sewn; the Civil War was the result of long-boiling tensions. Still, would John Calhoun actually have threatened Martin Van Buren with it so explicitly? (Justin Curtis)

The Tecora was showing flying an American flag (1:22:57) Is there any reason for this? It seems unlikely to be a mistake in the movie. Would the Portuguese fly an American flag to avoid detection and search by the British?-Jessie Fitzgerald

While Amistad is intense and thought-provoking film about the horrors of the slave trade, the movie still goes back to the same narrative where the helpful whites come to the rescue to help the slaves escape the institution of slavery (that the whites created). While there were many whites fighting for or supporting the gradual emancipation of slaves, all of their roles were not like knights in shining armor like the film at times portrayed.-Lake Wiley

I agree with you, Lake. In this Article I found, it states it perfectly: “While the film is loosely based on the true story of a group of Mende people from Sierra Leone, who in 1839 overpowered their Spanish captors aboard the slave ship La Amistad, it is largely a tale of white hero worship. The movie gives little time to the bloody slave mutiny led by Sengbe Pieh (called Joseph Cinque in the United States). Instead, Mr. Spielberg devoted most of the two and a half hours to the jumbled aftermath in the U.S. justice system, where white lawyers defend the poor Africans.” The real question is - Why? http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1997-12-30/news/1997364099_1_amistad-sengbe-pieh-white-abolitionists –Lindsey Sowers

The movies shows that American audiences and film makers were willing to confront the issue of slavery in a very realistic way. The level of violence and the exploration of slavery on film showed the changing cultur in America, people were willing to have this conversation about their past. The need for a white savior though was still present in this film and shows that audiences are not entirely willing to explore their history without a reedeming white guy to show that even at their worse, they still have figures that were ahead of their time and accepting to all. –Grace Corkran

Morgan Freeman's character is completely unnecessary outside of being the modern viewpoint on the issue of racism. Since he is Morgan Freeman, it is hard to consider him as a character in this time period. And since he is playing the same character he always plays, wise black man who white people can sympathize with, it is difficult to remove him from his modern context. He serves almost as a proxy for the audience, reflecting anti-racist attitudes and the modern interpretation of slavery as a heinous crime. He is never given his own story or reflection, and is hardly developed as a character, because the modern audience can project their insecurities about race relations onto him. If Morgan Freeman says it, everyone agrees. –Erin Shaw

Stephen Spielberg has a wide variety of movies in terms of subject matter and level of seriousness. For example, in the same year as Amistad, he released The Lost World. Amistad is one of his more serious movies like Schindler's List in 1993 and Forrest Gump in 1994. He then produced Saving Private Ryan the year after Amistad in 1998. What this says about the 1990's, looking at Spielberg specifically, is that there was an even mix of films based largely on entertainment and those that touched on more serious subjects that had not been discussed much before, such as the horrors of slavery in Amistad. The 1990's was a time in which filmmakers focused on making money, with the use of special effects, sequels, etc. However, films also started touching on more important issues and included stories that would never have made it on screen a few decades prior. “Steven Spielberg.” IMDb. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/. -Maddie Shiflett

Amistad depicts a lot of the historical cruelty of slavery but is still a Spielberg Hollywood movie. The Hollywood influence is mostly in the character portrayals. Depicting the 40-year-old Roger Baldwin by late 20’s Matthew McConaughey as one influence. The movie frames the American characters, (Baldwin, Joadson, and Quincy Adams) as the moral center of the movie with their morality developing as they get close to Cinque and learn more about his life. The movie even adding the relationships between Cinque and Adams’ to further the theme of the Americans being the moral center in the movie. -Kyle Moore

As we talked about a few times in class before, the 1990s were a time of increased realization and push of multiculturalism. This movie takes the story of an enslaved group of people would have NEVER been even thought of to be a good movie before the 1990s since it was such (and still is) a touchy topic for people to watch or address. This movie shows the push to have more tough conversations in America and how difficult and truly awful of a practice it was but at the same time, how important it was too early Americans. Spielberg liked to push the limits of stories that were traditionally made into movies by going toward more difficult subjects like he did with Schindler's List. Amistad seems to fall along the trend of telling real stories that are incredibly hard for people to deal with. Without the new push for multiculturalism and to touch on more important issues and stories, Amistad would have never been made.– Ellora Larsen

The readings were good first person accounts from key abolitionist actors of the day, the movie depicts the Amistad case as being about a “turning point to end slavery”and the supreme court decision around it. According to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, the movie Amistad is misleading in that it depicts the supreme court's decision was “convinced by John Quincy Adams plea to repudiate slavery in favor of the natural rights of man” when in reality the case was about the illegality of the Atlantic slave trade which was outlawed internationally by 1840. Cite: Foner, Eric. The Amistad Case in Fact and Film http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 - Andrew Mullins

In comparing the story of Equiano to the journey Joseph Cinque endures, there are definitely significant portions of Equiano's story that Spielberg likely pulled inspiration from with this film. That isn't to say that Cinque and Equiano couldn't have had similar paths in regards to the slave trade (their journeys getting to the Americas aren't exactly standout cases), but, given the major role Equiano plays as a voice for African Americans and abolitionists, there is definitely a case to be made here. The three major points of Equiano's journey (at least in my argument) are his capture by slave traders, his horrible journey on the ship, and his conversion to Christianity. All three of these aspects can be seen through Joseph Cinque in this film; even Christianity, while it is definitely downplayed in this film, was a major part of defining Cinque's character and connecting him to his real-life counterpart (whom multiple accounts say was very serious when it came to his conversion to the Christina faith). –Robert Dallas

Tappan's account of meeting with Cinque and the other Africans was very similar to Baldwin's role in the movie, so it was interesting that Tappan's character was removed from these scenes. I wonder if they utilized these accounts to help write the scenes in the jail. The conversations with Cinque, the use of an interpreter who was also captured in Africa, and the account of the kidnapping itself are all consistent with Tappan's letter. I also found it interesting that they mentioned the man with the sharpened teeth, who died in the movie. However, it seems there was much more Christianity involved in the lives of the Africans than just that one guy with the Bible. Maybe this is just because Tappan was one of the evangelicals trying to save slaves. –Erin Shaw

Tappans account reveals again the diversity of the enslaved people captured in Africa. He mentions the “Mohamedans” another name for Muslims. I wonder why the diversity in religion was only represented in one portion of the film and not carried on throughout? -William Roszell

I think the film did a good job of addressing the religious rhetoric which supported the abolitionist movements. The film used repeated Christian imagery to parallel Cinque's 'sacrifice' and appeal to the sympathy of religious folks in regards to slavery's morality. Many of the white abolitionists in the film had religious motives. Tappan's “A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out” reveals the hypocrisy of American slavery by Christians. David Walker appeals, “have we any master but Jesus Christ alone?” The film vilified those who profited in the slave trade, therefore endorsing the contempt for hypocritical christians. –Jessica Lynch

This movie shows the horrors of slavery in a very immersive way. The audience feels as though they are on the slave ship witnessing the absolute atrocities against these people, with no way of stopping it. We can not go back in time to see slavery in action or walk on to a slave ship and see the terrible conditions fellow humans had to endure, but with this movie we can get a sense of what it might have been like. By teaching the modern audience about their stories and the trials they were put through, it gives it much needed recognition. – Grace Corkran

In terms of its portrayal of the tensions present in the United States during this time, I think that this movie shows that talk of the possibility of a civil War occurred much earlier than what is generally understood today. Of course, the Civil War was the result of years and years of building tensions and pressures. Yet, in modern discussions, the Amistad case or events of the 1830's-early 1840's are mentioned with less frequency despite their contribution to the building tension. By including John Calhoun and his talk of a possible civil war because of the Amistad situation, it reinforces that the South was already becoming unhappy with actions in the North at this time. -Maddie Shiflett

This movie is all the more powerful for being a realistic depiction of true events. Unlike in The Patriot, there is very little exaggeration or dramatization. The only thing I noticed was that the Amistad had a larger crew that was killed when the Mende took over the ship, as opposed to just the captain and cook. It does a good job of telling this story and its impact on the greater movements and unrest in America and foreshadowing the events that were to come. –Jessie Fitzgerald

I think my biggest “so what” question has to be what was the point of the birth of a child on the ship. At this time there is a slim chance they would put women on the the slave transport ship none the less put a 8 or 9 month pregnant woman. Then just minutes after the mother dies and the next day a woman jumps off the ship with the newborn?! I am not saying these voyages were not cruel and horrible, but that specific situation seemed unnecessarily horrific. –Caroline Collier

I think this movie is the most accurate out of all the one's we've seen yet. In fact, I think it can accurately serve as a teacher of our past. While yes, there are some historical errors, the overall picture that it painted is true. Did these filmmakers do anything different than others? Is it really that hard to create a historically accurate film and still be used for “entertainment” purposes? Or should movies pick a side - historically accurate and not as entertaining, or historically inaccurate but pleasing to watch.–Maryanna Stripling

How did this film attempt to portray the complexities of the transatlantic slave trade? The film repeatedly showed extended scenes of utter violence and horror that was hard to watch, leaving the viewer to think, “when will this end?” That's when the harsh reality hits you, the enslaved Africans ripped from their homes were thinking the same thing. Our discomfort while watching these scenes is only a microcosm of the trauma enslaved African people had to reconcile for the entirety of their lives. Rather than glorify the slave trade, this film shoves the death of innocent peoples right in your face, and refuses to let you disregard this unforgivable time in our past any longer.–Jessica Lynch

Ultimately, I agree that this is the most historically accurate movie we have seen in the class. It takes some liberties, but all of those liberties make the story better for audiences without sacrificing the authenticity of the movie. I feel this is true for a variety of reasons; for one, Stephen Spielberg is far more talented than the likes of Roland Emmerich (and I believe more talented than Michael Mann as well). However, that alone isn’t enough for historical accuracy: it also manages to be better because of the nature of the subject matter. The other movies were ultimately unwilling to commit to the reality of history because they are dealing with myths that a majority of Americans still believe in. Many Americans are unwilling to accept that colonization was a violent endeavor that even the “good guys” were complicit in, so Pocahontas tiptoed around that topic. Americans were unwilling to accept that Americans might be committing their own war crimes, unwilling to accept that a man considered an American Hero could also own slaves, so the Patriot provided us with a singularly black and white view of the Revolution. The slave trade, on the other hand, was so unambiguously brutal and unethical that nobody truly disagrees with that anymore (and the people who do, well, screw them), so this movie was more willing to engage with history in an intellectually satisfying way. (Justin Curtis)