Curricular Resources > 1981 Volume cthistory > Unit 3 (81.ch.03) > Section 7

Connecticut History - 1981

CONTENTS OF CURRICULUM UNIT 81.ch.03

Unit Guide

The Struggle for Equality by Connecticut Blacks in the 18th and 19th Centuries

John Roper

Tools for this unit:

Your feedback is important to us!

After viewing our curriculum units, please take a few minutes to help us understand how the units, which were created by public school teachers, may be useful to others.

Give Feedback

ACTIVITY 2 Mock Trial: Crandall v . the State of Connecticut

Several aspects of this trial have been staged because the case involved two issues:

1. Prudence Crandall violated a state law by boarding black girls from out-of-state in her home for the purpose of education
2. Prudence Crandall contended that the law in question was unconstitutional.

The case came before the County Court, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Errors before finally being dismissed on a technicality. In order to include all the legal issues of the case in this simulation, some aspects of the Supreme Court trial have been added to the lower court proceedings. Testimony of people who were not actually witnesses at the trial has been added in order to present the issues more fully. The testimony is based on actual opinions and/or statements of each individual. The testimonies of some witnesses as well as the roles of supporting attorneys have been omitted as they are superfluous. Roles may be assigned in the following manner:

Judge Joseph Eaton presiding justice Windham County Court

Andrew T. Judson prosecuting attorney

Philip Pearl-witness for the prosecution

Levi Kneeland witness for the prosecution

William W. Ellsworth defense attorney

Samuel May witness for the defense

Prudence Crandall the accused

A bailiff

the rest of the class to act as jury members

Courtroom Procedure

1. Prosecution opening statement
2. Defense opening statement
3. Prosecution witnesses
____ A. Prosecution questions each prosecution witness
____ B. Defense cross examines after each witness
4. Defense witnesses
____ A. Defense questions each defense witness
____ B. Prosecution cross examines after each witness
5. Defense gives closing statement
6. Prosecution gives closing statement
7. Judge charges the Jury
8. Jury deliberates
9. Jury foreman announces verdict

Instructions to the Teacher

1st day

1. select students to play the roles of judge, attorneys, and witnesses. If additional lawyers are desired, the names of the supporting attorneys are included in the essay.
2. brief students concerning background of the case.
3. allow lawyers and witnesses time to prepare testimony.

2nd day

1. begin courtroom procedure as described.

3rd day

1. finish courtroom procedure if necessary and discuss the trial as it actually took place, as well as the eventual outcome of the school.

Instructions to the Lawyers

1. Prepare your opening statement
____ The jury knows very little about the case in order that they remain impartial. It is your responsibility to inform them of the facts of the case. Explain clearly the issues of the case and emphasize the position you intend to prove. As a result of your opening statement the jury should be able to understand the nature of the charges, your position, and how you intend to prove that position.
2. Prepare the testimony of your witnesses
____ Assume the jury knows nothing. You will provide most of the information through your witnesses. Therefore, it is critical to your case to ask questions that will clearly prove your points. Avoid irrelevant and confusing questions. Make sure your witnesses understand the purpose of their testimony so that they avoid answers under cross examination that may be harmful to your case.
3. Prepare your closing statement
____ Sum up to the jury the important points you have made through your statements and through witness testimony. Be logical and specific and try to make the jury believe that your reasoning is absolutely correct.
4. Special Instructions
____ At any time object to the judge if you think your opposing lawyers are doing something unfair such as putting words in the witness’s mouth, badgering the witness, or doing anything which you think is improper.

Instructions to the Judge

1. Maintain order in the court.
2. Resolve disputes between lawyers. Sustain objections if you agree with them; overrule if you disagree.
3. Follow courtroom procedure.
4. Give instructions to the jury.
5. Ask the foreman to announce the verdict.

Instructions to the Witnesses

1. Make sure you understand the reason for your testimony and the points you’re trying to make to the jury.
2. Work with the lawyers in making the questions you will be asked so that you will have a clear understanding of your testimony.
3. Try to anticipate questions that the opposition may ask you under cross-examination. Prepare answers in advance to avoid confusion on the witness stand.
Instructions to the Bailiff
1. Arrange the court
____ (figure available in print form)
2. Swear in each witness
____ The Participants

Andrew Judson

(Adapted from Report of the Arguments of Counsel in the Case of Prudence Crandall, Plaintiff in Error vs. State of Connecticut , Before the Supreme Court of Errors, pp. 15-22, and Prudence Crandall by Christopher Collier, unpublished)

1. The Connecticut General Assembly in May, 1833 passed an act which read, “That no person shall set up or establish in this state any school, academy, or literary institution or harbor or board, for the instruction or education of colored persons, who are not inhabitants of this state . . . without the consent in writing, first obtained of a majority of the civil authority, and also of the select-men of the town in which such school, academy, or literary institution is situated.” If it is proven that Prudence Crandall boarded and instructed one colored girl not from the state of Connecticut, she is guilty of violating the law.
2. According to the United States Constitution, the federal government has no control over education. The state governments have always exercised this power. The General Assembly has controlled Connecticut Schools since 1717.
3. The framers of the Constitution did not include blacks as citizens.
4. The right to vote is not a guaranteed privilege. In Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and many other states blacks cannot vote. In Connecticut, Negroes do not have the right to vote and therefore are not citizens.
5. Citizens in the United States are not entitled to participate in all the rights which belong to the citizens of any other state. States have the right to set up restraints for the general good of the whole. States have the right to protect their citizens from the overwhelming effects of bad population and pauperism.
6. The purpose of the law which Prudence Crandall is accused of violating is to prevent colored people from other states from intruding into any Connecticut town without the permission of the local authorities.
7. A school for colored girls in the midst of Canterbury will destroy real estate values and do harm to the town’s prosperity.

Levi Kneeland

(Adapted from Prudence Crandall , by Christopher Collier Unpublished)

1. Local Baptist minister who allowed the girls at Miss Crandall’s school to worship in his church when they were refused elsewhere.
2. An unwilling witness testifying only under the threat of imprisonment.
3. Reluctantly told the court that he had prayed with the girls at the school several times, had eaten with them and had heard them recite lessons. He was under the impression that some of the girls were from New York and Rhode Island.

Philip Pearl

(Adapted from Statement of Facts Respecting the School for Colored Females , pp. 8-10)

1. He was not a witness at the trial but had headed the legislative committee that wrote the school law. His views reflect those of many Canterbury and Connecticut residents of the time, and therefore his testimony has been included.
2. Slavery had started centuries ago and has brought much suffering to Negroes. The State of Connecticut began in 1784 a gradual abolition of slavery.
3. The Constitution and laws of the state of Connecticut have given Negroes all rights and privileges of white citizens except the right to vote. Blacks enjoy a very favorable position. They have equal rights in education, persons, and property, as well as freedom to choose any occupation.
4. Connecticut has no duty to educate those from other states or countries, many of whom would take up residence in Connecticut. It is a fact confirmed by painful and long experience that colored persons are an appalling source of crime and pauperism. The great number of Negroes in criminal courts, prisons, and asylums for the poor show us clearly the reason to legislate against the education of blacks from out of state.
5. Although we should help Negroes, we also have a greater obligation to protect our own citizens from a host of colored emigrants who would rush from every quarter when invited to our colleges, and schools. If there may be circumstances where it might be advisable to admit Negroes to a school, that decision should be left up to the civil authority and select-men of that town.

William W. Ellsworth, Defense Attorney

(Adapted from Report of the Arguments of Counsel, in the case of Prudence Crandall, Pleff. in Error, vs. State of Connecticut Before the Supreme Court of Errors )

1. The record shows that pupils were born in the state of Pa., N.Y., R.I. of free parents. Black students have come here to pursue the acquisition of learning in a manner open, common, and lawful to all our population, white or colored.
2. These pupils are citizens of their respective states. As citizens, the Constitution of the United States secures to them the right of residing in Connecticut and pursuing the acquisition of knowledge.
3. If these students were white, it would be conceded that they were citizens. We have seen mo distinction in color in previous laws.
____ —the Common Law of England boasts equal principles
____ —the Declaration of Independence reads “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
____ —the Constitution of Connecticut declares, “All men when they enter into a social compact are equal in rights, and that no men or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.”
4. Blacks fought for liberty in the Revolutionary War.
5. Writers of law agree that all who are born within the jurisdiction of a state are natives and all others aliens.
6. Our government expects allegiance from our colored population and therefore blacks should expect protection and equal application of the laws from the government. They are not citizens when they have to obey, and aliens when they demand protection.
7. Even if the right to vote is denied blacks, that doesn’t mean they aren’t citizens. Women and children don’t vote, and they are citizens.
8. Article 4, Section 2 “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

Samuel May

(Adapted from Prudence Crandall by Edmund Fuller and Prudence Crandall by Christopher Collier, unpublished)

1. One of Prudence Crandall’s friends and strongest supporters. He did not testify at the actual trial.
2. There are certain inalienable rights of man that are not restricted to color. Education is one of these. The question in this case is not whether thirty or forty girls should be educated in Canterbury but whether all blacks enjoy the rights of American citizens.
3. Negroes must be permitted to find their intellectual and moral worth or else they will be kept down in hopeless degradation.
4. Article 4, section 2 of the United States Constitution says “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” The law against the school is clearly unconstitutional. Blacks are citizens and the state of Connecticut cannot deprive those in other states from one of the privileges of citizenship, education.
5. There is no such thing as an intermediate citizenship. A person either has all the rights of citizenship or none.

Prudence Crandall

1. She was charged with boarding and educating Negroes from out of state. She did not testify on her own behalf.
2. A very religious, respectable Baptist schoolmistress, formerly a Quaker.
3. Started a school in Canterbury in 1831 at the request of wealthy and prominent citizens, who had daughters of school age.
4. Admitted Sarah Harris, a black girl to the school in 1832 realizing there would be many objections by the community. She felt a moral obligation to help blacks improve their position in society.
5. When the white citizens of Canterbury threatened to withdraw their daughters from the school, she recruited black girls from other states since there weren’t enough locally to keep the school open.
6. In May, 1833 largely through the instigation of Andrew T. Judson a law was passed by the state of Connecticut making it illegal to board for the purpose of educating in Connecticut, residents of other states. Prudence felt that the law was wrong and allowed herself to be arrested, put in jail, and tried in order to prove that the law was immoral and unconstitutional.

Judge Eaton, Charge to the Jury

(Adapted from Report of the Trial of Miss Prudence Crandall Before the C ounty Court of Windham County , p. 20)

Read the following to the jury.

1. “Prudence Crandall is charged in the information before you, with a violation of a certain statute of law of this state, forbidding the setting up of a school for the instruction of colored persons, not inhabitants of this state, boarding or harboring them for the purpose of instruction.”
2. The State Legislature and this Court think that this law is constitutional. The defense thinks that it is unconstitutional and that the State Legislature has no right to pass it.
3. If you feel that the law is constitutional and that the prosecution has proven that Prudence Crandall violated that law, you must find her guilty. If, however, you feel that either the law is unconstitutional or that it was not proven that Prudence Crandall violated the law, you must find her innocent.

(Statement 1 is a direct quote. Statement 2 and 3 are paraphrased except for the last sentence which was added for the purposes of the mock trial. Judge Eaton said that if the law was unconstitutional, a higher court would decide that issue.)

The Amistad Case

The Prudence Crandall case illustrates one main theme of white attitudes towards blacks during the Antebellum period. There was a general hostility toward black improvement, especially if that improvement were to take place in one’s own neighborhood. The Amistad case illustrates the other theme. Connecticut residents were eager to help the slaves gain freedom. The fact that these slaves would be returned to Africa no doubt accounted for at least some of the willing support.

The incident began in April, 1839 when Cinque and several other members of the Mendi tribe were captured in Africa and shipped to Havana, Cuba. In June they were resold to two Cubans, Pedro Montez and Jose Ruiz. Since Spanish law prohibited the importation of slaves, the sale was illegal. Slaves were technically free as soon as they set foot on Cuban shore. Montez and Ruiz loaded their slaves on the schooner Amistad , which means friendship, and headed for Puerto Principe.

Conditions were terrible on the Amistad . A day’s ration for the slaves consisted of one plantain, some bread and one cup of water. The Africans frequently requested more food and water, and one was severely flogged when he tried to take some water for himself. Slaves were allowed on deck only to eat. The rest of the time they were chained by the neck below decks.

They suffered greatly due to the harsh conditions. The Africans chose to revolt when the cook told them they would be killed and eaten. Not understanding that he was joking, they decided to fight for their lives.

Cinque, their leader, broke the chain that bound them below decks with a nail he had found earlier. They armed themselves with cane knives and surprised the cook and the captain. Cinque killed the cook with one blow. The captain put up a fierce struggle killing one African and wounding two others before being killed himself. The rest of the crew except for Antonio, the cabin boy, Montez, and Ruiz went overboard in a life boat. ⁵² The Africans wished to sail home and so kept the Spaniards alive to navigate. During the daytime Montez held an easterly course at a slow speed. However, at night he headed the ship north westward hoping to reach the coast of the United States. They sailed for about two months in this manner and were spotted by various ships and persons on shore. Their erratic sailing aroused interest, and they became the object of much speculation. Some thought the ship to be a pirate ship; others thought her to be the fabled Flying Dutchman . Ships set out to search for the mystery ship but failed to find her. ⁵³

Finally on August 26 the Amistad landed near Montauk Point, Long Island. Two sea captains, Henry Green and Peletiah Fordham, were startled when they came across four nearly naked black men. While negotiating a deal to trade the Africans’ gold for food and water, Green and Fordham were very annoyed to see the U.S.S. Washington come into sight. They had wanted to claim salvage rights to the vessel, but Lieutenant Gedney, commander of the Washington boarded her first. He seized the crew when he realized that the ship had been taken over by the blacks. The Amistad was then towed to New London, the nearest port, and the Africans were turned over to the United States Marshall. ⁵⁴

Several legal problems mow came to the fore. Gedney put in a claim for salvage rights. Montez and Ruiz claimed the slaves as their property. The Spanish government claimed that the blacks were murderers and pirates and should be turned over to Spain under provisions agreed to in the 1795 treaty between Spain and the United States. The blacks claimed to be free and wanted to return to Africa. ⁵⁵ Under Spanish law “negroes latinos”, or long time residents of Cuba, were slaves. “Bozal negroes”, or those imported after 1820 were free. Since the Africans had only been kidnapped within the past year(1839), they had been sold in Cuba illegally. ⁵⁶ Abolitionists saw this as an opportunity greatly to further their cause. This incident had generated a lot of interest, and they could take action to help slaves without meddling in the affairs of the South. Joshua Leavitt, editor of the abolitionist newspaper, The Emancipator ; Simeon Jocelyn, formerly the white pastor of a black New Haven church; William Jay, son of John Jay; and Lewis Tappan, wealthy New York abolitionist formed the Committee for the Defense of the Africans of the Amistad . They made immediate appeals for financial and legal assistance.

The case was very complex and would be tied up in the courts for over a year and a half. In 1839 criminal cases involving piracy and murder were heard directly in Circuit Court. Those involving salvage and property claims went to District Court. The Amistad case, therefore, had to be brought before both courts. After hearing arguments in Circuit Court from William S. Holabird representing the United States government and Seth Staples and Roger Baldwin representing the prisoners, Judge Smith Thompson ruled that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction over murder and mutiny committed on a Spanish ship in Spanish waters. He then referred the property claims to District Court. Judge Andrew T. Judson of the District Court set the date of the trial for the third Tuesday in November. ⁵⁸

During the fall the Africans remained under loose custody in the New Haven jail. They were tutored in English by Yale divinity students, became celebrities, and developed much popular sympathy. Their popularity was not shared, unfortunately, by some members of President Van Buren’s administration who wanted the Africans extradited to Spain. They decided not to press the issue since the case was to be heard by Andrew T. Judson of the Prudence Crandall case fame. Since he was known to be no friend to blacks, it was thought that he would quickly turn the slaves over to the Spanish. Van Buren was so confident that Judson would rule against the blacks that he sent the naval schooner Grampus to New Haven under Lieutenant Paine with orders to put the blacks in irons and take them to Cuba after the trial. ⁵⁹

Because of the complexity of the case, Judson’s decision had to deal with many points. He ruled in favor of Lieutenant Gedney’s claim for salvage and against Captain Green’s, since Green never boarded the Amistad . He ruled that there could be no salvage rights regarding the slaves since in Connecticut slaves were not salable. Most importantly, he decided that the Africans were not slaves or Spanish subjects and should be transported back to Africa. ⁶⁰ His decision might be viewed as a personal inconsistency in light of the Crandall case. However, the decision is consistent with his beliefs in that the blacks, if declared free, would be returned to Africa.

Cinque and his group were not free, however, since the case was appealed to the Circuit Court and eventually to the United States Supreme Court. John Quincy Adams, former President, was persuaded to act as defense counsel with Roger Baldwin before the Supreme Court. Adams, among other things, emphasized the point that the blacks were free men since Spain had banned the importation of slavery. On March 9, 1841 the Supreme Court announced that the blacks on the Amistad were kidnapped Africans, and not slaves. In addition, Lieutenant Gedney and his crew were granted salvage rights to one-third of the value of the cargo. ⁶¹

Although the Supreme Court declared the blacks free, there was no provision made for their passage back to Africa. They stayed in Farmington, Connecticut while money was raised and preparations were made for the journey home. The Yale divinity students continued instruction in English, mathematics, and religion, the hope being that this group would return home as Christian missionaries. Several Africans were taken on tour to various northern cities to raise money. As time passed, the Africans became more homesick for their native country as well as restless and rebellious. A few altercations with local whites made the Amistad committee realize that the blacks had to return to their homeland. ⁶²

In November, 1842 the Africans in an emotional farewell left Farmington. Hundreds of citizens turned out and amid much crying and hugging saw them off. Only thirty-five of the original fifty-three had survived their trip to America. After seven weeks at sea, they landed in Freetown, Sierra Leone. ⁶³

That the people of Connecticut would come to the assistance of Cinque and the other Africans is praiseworthy. That they would continue to treat their own native blacks in a disgraceful and discriminatory way is not. When the Civil War ended in 1865, a great deal of attention was drawn toward ending racial policies in the South. However, as late as 1865 all Connecticut public schools were segregated. In that same year an amendment to the Connecticut Constitution proposing black suffrage was put on the ballot and was defeated by over 6000 votes. ⁶⁴ Although the United States Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted all rights and privileges of citizenship to former slaves, it could not legislate the right to vote. ⁶⁵

Not until after the Civil War did Connecticut’s blacks get equal protection under the law and the right to vote when the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (1868 and 1870) to the United States Constitution were passed. It is significant to note that these freedoms were not granted to Connecticut blacks by the initiative of the state of Connecticut but rather by the federal government. Amendments designed to protect black freedom in the racist South succeeded in accomplishing the same in supposedly more tolerant Connecticut. Connecticut may have been ahead of the southern states in abolishing the institution of slavery, but Connecticut had made little progress in overcoming the evils of that institution. Blacks were discriminated against in voting, housing, education, and employment. Connecticut’s active opposition to slavery did very little to alleviate the day to day treatment of free blacks. It seemed perfectly normal to Connecticut’s whites to oppose slavery while favoring a society that maintained the inferior status of blacks. At least on paper after almost 230 years, blacks had finally achieved political equality in Connecticut. Economic and social equality still remain an issue.

Previous Next Back to Top