Marcellino and the last slave trial of Prussia

From 1735 to 1913, the Kollegienhaus, now part of the Jewish Museum Berlin, housed the highest Prussian court, the Kammergericht. In 1854, a trial that made headlines at home and abroad took place there: Marcellino, who was born in Brazil, sued against his slave status. Marcellino's trial is considered a turning point in Prussian jurisprudence regarding the status of slaves and was the "last slave trial on German soil"[1]. His story testifies to self-empowerment and solidarity in the struggle against racially structured status rights and makes it clear that the presence and resistance of colonized people can change the course of history.

The realities of life of Black people in the Prussian capital Berlin in the middle of the 19th century have so far been little researched and are hardly known in the collective memory. Since reports by affected persons are rarely handed down, their lives can all too often be reconstructed almost exclusively with sources from the state's white hegemonic perspective and are subject to gaps in knowledge and interpretations from the present.

In the middle of the 19th century, slavery in Europe and the transatlantic slave trade (enslavement trade) were largely prevented, but the practice and legal situation for slaves brought to Prussia was not clear. Prussia was one of the last countries in Europe to tolerate slavery until 1857. [2] In Brazil, it existed until 1888; in the USA, there were intensive discussions about the continued existence of slavery there in the period before the Civil War (1861).

Born near Rio de Janeiro in the 1830s, Marcellino was a slave of Dr. Ritter, who lived in Brazil. Despite some reports to the contrary, he is not identical with the geographer Carl Ritter, who was well-known at the time. In the spring of 1854, Dr. Ritter traveled to Berlin with Marcellino, having previously visited his hometown of Dresden. During the trip, there were arguments between the two. Marcellino managed to make acquaintances in Berlin and to draw the attention of some Berliners to his situation. The little-known publicist Hermann Stolp finally resorted to an "act of self-help" and registered Marcellino as his own servant. He also encouraged Marcellino to fight for his freedom before the Berlin City Court. The highest court in Berlin at the time was located in a building complex on the corner of Königstraße (now Rathausstraße) and Jüdenstraße and no longer exists. In the ensuing trial before the city court, Ritter tried to prove his "right of ownership" to Marcellino, while the opposing side argued that this had expired when he crossed the German states without slavery. In April 1854, the city court demanded further evidence from Ritter. Seven months later, however, in November 1854, the Court of Appeal, as the highest Prussian court, ruled against Marcellino's liberation.

Despite the failure in court, Marcellino remained free, the reasons for which are not clearly understood. Presumably, no authority felt compelled to return him to slavery.

The trial was also noticed internationally. Prussia appeared in some press reports as the last state in Europe on whose territory slaves still lived, although slavery itself no longer existed. [3] The case also found its way into the discussion between representatives of the northern and southern states of the USA about the legal status of runaway slaves and the question of the abolition of slavery. Peter Dumont Vroom, from 1853 to 1857 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Prussian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote a repeatedly referenced report for the U.S. Congress on the case and previous case law. [4] In a debate in the House of Representatives, Southerners compared the legal situation of the Northern states with that of Prussia and expressed the fear that their slaves could be "forced" to leave them when traveling through the Northern states due to the prohibition of slavery there. Marcellino's case prompted them to demand legal certainty for their stay with slaves in the Northern states. [5]

The tolerance of slavery by the Prussian state aroused widespread resentment in Berlin. Among other things, Alexander von Humboldt strove for a clear legal situation – against any toleration of slavery. Finally, in 1856, a commission was convened and there was passionate discussion in the conservative-dominated state parliament, which consisted of the House of Deputies and the House of Lords. The legal philosopher and member of parliament Dr. Friedrich Julius Stahl concluded: "Even if such cases occur only in long periods of time, the whole institution of slavery suddenly enters with you in the midst of our state of civil and personal freedom"[6]. He justified his clear stance against slavery and his motivation to reform the law with his Christian faith, according to which it was the "divine commandment not to treat man as a thing or as an animal"[7]. He even stylized the anti-slavery law he demanded as a "general testimony of Christian Europe against slavery"[8].

Other deputies instrumentalized Marcellino's case for their own domestic political goals. Deputy Berger compared the situation of the "black slave" with "white slavery" in Prussia: "But, gentlemen, freedom is not formal, but something material, and therefore I consider it my duty to point out to this question what the Americans already said about that sentimental uncledom, that we have much worse slaves than the n**** Marcellino. I point to the public brothels, as the worst form of slavery; I point to the condition of the workers in many countries; I point to the principle of national economy, which urges us to create this white slavery in our country as well. (Bravo right)". [9] In his speeches, Berger also referred to the situation of Russian serfs, who often traveled to Prussia with nobles, and equated slavery with serfdom. This gave rise to a debate as to whether serfdom should be prohibited by law on Prussian soil in addition to slavery. Berger argued racially by claiming that the "Russian serf belonged to a higher race of men than the n***** slave" and demanded that the "justice that the law would do to the African should not be despaired of"[10].

As a model of a complete prohibition of slavery, laws in France and England were cited both in the House of Deputies and in the House of Lords, by which the right of ownership of slaves from the colonies immediately expired upon entering the countries mentioned. In the 10th session on February 21, 1857, however, Baron von Malzahn pointed out the double standards of English legislation: "More than half a century ago, England passed a very similar law, declaring that every slave who sets foot on English soil will thereby become free. But it is known, gentlemen, that in the vast territories where English power is predominant, slavery and the slave trade have since that time increased in the most cruel way"[11]. In the end, however, the advocates of an anti-slavery paragraph won and the result was passed as a law on February 21, 1857: "Slaves shall be free from the moment they enter Prussian territory. The master's right of property is extinguished from this point on"[12].

With this, Marcellino was also finally free. Humboldt wrote a little self-righteously to his friend Alexander Mendelssohn: "I have enforced a very clear anti-slavery law on Mr. Simons [note: the Prussian Minister of Justice Ludwig Simons]. […] It has been wrongly believed that since Frederick II every slave who touched Prussian soil would be free"[13]. For this reason, but even more so because of his fundamental rejection of slavery, Humboldt advocated legally binding action on the anti-slavery question in Prussia.

Marcellino remained in Berlin and, as a presumably minor, was given a guardian for some time, received lessons with financial support from the Prussian king and began an apprenticeship as a carpenter. In the years 1860-62 he worked as a waiter in the Kroll Etablissement, an important entertainment venue in the Tiergarten at the time (today the Tipi tent stands on the site of the establishment also called the Kroll Opera).

Four years after his liberation, he married a laundress from Berlin in the Berlin Cathedral, whom he supported in her work. For the marriage, however, Marcellino needed a full name. At his request, the Prussian king allowed him to use his own first name as his family name and to precede the first name Friedrich Wilhelm, presumably as a sign of gratitude to the king. The wedding in the Berlin Cathedral attracted attention and a large audience appeared. [14] Marcellino gave up his job as a waiter and from then on worked as an interpreter for various merchants; his fluent German language skills and modern clothing style were interpreted by the press as a sign that he had "long ago exchanged his tropical homeland for rough Germany and the gods of his fathers for the Christian god". Unfortunately, his place of residence in Berlin at that time has not been handed down.

In 1862, Marcellino presumably stood up for two black servants of an Ottoman horse dealer. The latter had taken up residence at Hollmannstraße 9-10 – a street in Kreuzberg that ran along the new building of today's Jewish Museum, but no longer exists today – and, according to various reports, kept his employees like slaves, mistreated them and cheated them out of their wages. While the press reported extensively on this and scandalized the horse dealer, even defaming him in an anti-Semitic way, a group of "blacks living in Berlin, who have thrown themselves together from different parts of the world for the metropolis of German science and intelligence"[16] gathered in front of the house for several weeks to show their solidarity and demand payment of the wages to the two servants. Marcellino acted as the group's spokesman, presumably not least because of his good knowledge of the language and law. However, the sources here are very thin, only in an article in the "Wiener Kirchenzeitung für Glauben, Wissen, Freiheit und Recht" Marcellino is named as the spokesman for the group. August Sabac el Cher, the valet of the Prussian Prince Albrecht and father of Gustav Sabac el Cher, probably also took part in these protests.

Although the matter was still unfolding in the same year, it remains an impressive example of the often unremembered self-organization, action and arbitrariness as well as solidarity of Berlin blacks, who had already created a mobilizable network against slavery two decades before the state of German colonial rule and a decade before the founding of the nation-state of the German Empire. The case also illustrates the presence of Black people in Berlin in the mid-19th century, who often worked in private households as servants or came to Berlin for education. [17]

Marcellino's further life has only been handed down in fragments. He left Berlin for some time and finally returned to the city after various activities. According to the Berlin address book, he lived from the mid-1860s at Ziegelstraße 4 and Brüderstraße 3 in the center of Berlin. In 1872 he was employed as a porter of the Zoological Garden. He planned to expand his original program and also wanted to organize ethnological shows on the grounds. Whether Marcellino's repeated employment as a porter and waiter was connected with the exoticization of his skin color for the purpose of attraction is probable, but cannot be proven. Together with his wife, who continued to work as a laundress, Marcellino lived in the new antelope house, which was completed in oriental style. In 1875, Marcellino was dismissed for unknown reasons and then worked again as a waiter. He died a short time later in the Friedrichsberg district, which at that time represented a border between today's Friedrichshain district and Lichtenberg, from excessive alcohol consumption as a result of a bet.

Despite the many gaps and ambiguities in his biography, Marcellino's eventful life illustrates a history of agency and self-confidence in fighting for one's own freedom, finding a place in society, and standing up for the rights of others. In addition, Marcellino's legal trial shows that transnational colonial discourses and policies, as well as discourses on human rights and territorial orders, were already being publicly discussed in Berlin three decades before the state-regulated colonial expansion. The last slave trial in Berlin is still a point of reference for considering the development of equal treatment today. [18]