EOTO #2: The Black Codes

    Following their defeat in the Civil War, the Southern Confederacy begrudgingly gave the newly Free African American population their freedom, but in their racial pridefulness and megalomania they passed the Black Codes; a set of restrictive laws meant to make the vast difference between slavery and freedom as minute as possible. The Southern elite couldn't stomach the idea that the Black population was approaching economic independence and they enacted many laws to try and maintain Black people as a cheap labor force through a system scarily similar to slavery.

    In late 1865, Mississippi and South Carolina instituted the first of the Black Codes. The Mississippi law required Black people to have written evidence of employment from a White man by the second week of January and if not, they were to be labeled as vagrants and subject to arrest or fines. Not only were they subject to arrest, but they had to forfeit earlier wages. These vagrancy laws led to a morally reprehensible system of prison labor that exploited the wording of the 13th Amendment, specifically the "duly convicted" clause, and practically reinstituted slavery back into the Southern economy. White men would take advantage of these laws by searching for unemployed Black men and having them arrested for forced plantation labor. Even worse, White men would find a random Black man, claim that he owes him a debt and force him to work it off, essentially kidnapping him. The Black men couldn't simply take their kidnapper to court, as many courts were rigged in the White man's favor and would believe his words over the Black man. This was a form of "debt peonage," which was already outlawed in the country at this time, though ignored because it was currently only harming Black people. From these mass arrests came the birth of "chain gangs." 

    These Black Codes also included "apprentice laws," which allowed for the forced labor of Black children, laws prohibiting Black people from owning firearms and certain property, and from testifying in court cases not concerning other Black people. You would like to think that there were a few good people in the South who would be willing to pay Black Americans their due wages regardless of what society felt, but even this possibility was eliminated by the Black Codes, as they even consisted of "anti-encitement" measures. These laws were designed to punish those who offered higher wages to a Black laborer that was already under contract, illustrating how these Black Codes even went so far as to violate White people's right to give someone a fair wage in order to impede Black progress. 

    The Black Codes brought outrage in the North, prompting the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which required southern states to ratify the 14th Amendment, giving equal protection of the Constitution to former enslaved people and to allow Black men to vote, before rejoining the Union. This ushered in a period of Radical Reconstruction in which the 15th Amendment was passed and many Black men were elected to state governments in the South and to Congress. 

    Though the Black Codes were an egregious violation of human rights and inspired the laws that would create the Jim Crow era, they were crucial in the ushering in of Radical Reconstruction and thus the Reconstruction Amendments that are so important in protecting human rights today.

EOTO#1 Reaction

    In modern US History classes, the timeline is often taught as something like this: Slavery existed from the birth of the United States of America, eventually the North didn't want slavery anymore, whereas the South did and got angry, which led to the Civil War. However, the Civil War did not simply spring up out of nowhere. There were many events that contributed to the rising tension between anti-slavery advocates and pro-slavery factions, which ultimately reached the boiling point that was Secession and the Civil War. Many of which gave us a tiny preview of the inevitable future, such as Bleeding Kansas. 

    Bleeding Kansas particularly caught my interest because it illustrated just how far anti-slavery supporters were willing to go to advance abolition and forcefully bring slavery to it's end. Following the Kansas and Nebraska act of 1854, pro-slavery settlers moved into new territories to scare abolitionists away and anti slavery advocates also moved to fight back. This led to a period of guerrilla warfare between an anti slavery militia led by John Brown and a pro slavery militia, which quite literally could be considered a preview of the Civil War.

    Along these lines, Nat Turner's Rebellion realized the White slaveholders' greatest fear, especially after hearing the recent news of the Haitian Revolution. Nat Turner was an enslaved man that believed he was an agent of God meant to deliver his people from slavery through violence. He gathered some other slaves and led a revolt, killing 75 white people in the process. This scenario calls to mind Thomas Jefferson's famous quote about slavery being akin to holding "a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go," for he could bite back for his mistreatment and the Haitian Revolution and Nat Turner's Rebellion are both prime examples of Black people justifyingly "biting back." 

    It's clear to see that in the years before the Civil War, arguably since the moment the colonists landed, there was an undercurrent of tension over the issue of slaver just waiting to boil over and these events demonstrated that there would only be one way the Country would put the debate to rest; violence.

Gone With the Wind

 I took a class a few years ago called Multiculturalism and Social Justice in the American Musical Theater, and though it is not a musical, that's where I first heard of the infamous "Gone With the Wind." It is a staple of American art and a critically acclaimed classic that is known and deeply respected by anyone who considers themselves a movie buff or critic. The fact that I heard about this movie in a class about a topic not even remotely related to it demonstrates how important this film was to the country's cultural consciousness.

Within the first 20 minutes of the movie you can see that the setting is a very romanticized version of the South. There's a shot of Scarlet, the heroine, played by Viven Leigh, standing with her father looking off into the sunset after he shows her and the audience a glimpse of his worldview with the following quote: "Land is the only thing that amounts to anything, for 'tis the only thing in this world that lasts." This scene is accompanied by an absolutely beautiful orchestral arrangement that made even me swoon a little! The score and scenery of this film does a masterful job at developing the idea of the South being an open expanse of land full of wonder and beauty. Whether this was true to history or not is an entirely different conversation.

Reinforcing this romantic idea of the South is the character of Mammy, played by Oscar winner Hattie McDaniel, and her treatment both of the O'Hara family and by the O'Hara family. She is a domineering figure in the house, constantly scolding the O'Hara daughters for behaving unladylike or like "po' white trash." She seems to command respect among the daughters though, as she has been a motherlike figure present throughout their whole lives. She is the defining image of a hard-working woman and is the glue that keeps the family together throughout the movie. Though I love her character in the film, I believe her portrayal could have given the white audience a rose-tinted view of slavery. One devoid of brutality, and one that instead treats slaves as if they were a part of the family. That being said, the darker undertones of slavery slip through the cracks at some points in the film. Normally, Mammy's the one telling Scarlett what to do and giving her advice, but when she warns her about Ashley's return from the war being a bad thing, Scarlett orders her to pack her bags like Mrs. O'Hara told her to, resulting in an uncharacteristically quiet and taken aback Mammy, a subtle reminder of the social hierarchy at this time. Another illustration is in Scarlett's treatment of Prissy, another female slave working in the O'Hara estate. In order to make her work faster she threatens to sell her further South, threatens to whip the hide off of her, and she smacks her when she finds out she doesn't know how to deliver a baby. 

The film uses many devices to develop this romantic idea of the Civil War South, maybe to make for more effective storytelling, maybe to mask inconvenient truths, or maybe some of both. Regardless of the reason, I still find the film to be a magnificent and extremely entertaining window into this country's past. From both an artistic standpoint and a historical standpoint.

Mock Trial: State v. Mann

Your Honor… gentlemen of the Jury, we are gathered here today to argue whether the defendant’s treatment of that slave woman is deserving of a $5 fine. You good sir, whipped this young lady, for some trifling offense, which of course prompted an escape attempt… and you shot her with her back turned. We find your actions cruel, unwarranted by, and extremely disproportionate to the offense, indicting you with assault and battery. Although lesser in many ways, these people are doubtless human just like us; fellow image-bearers of the Creator. They breathe oxygen and bleed red, which I’m certain is a color you are very acquainted with seeing. In that case, this should truly be a charge of attempted murder in which, we could subject you to branding of a hot iron or loss of your ears, yet we’re only asking for $5.  

The word of the Lord says, “Masters should treat their servants justly and equally, knowing that they also have a master in heaven.” And if we consider the fact that you were not even her slave master, the Lord says to “Love your neighbor” and to “Do to others what you would have them do unto you.” You failed on both of these counts. How would you enjoy being brutally whipped and beaten for a trifling offense? Not only that, but then shot in your back afterward? Gentlemen of the Jury, I’m sure there are other slaveholders among you, you all should understand the most grievous aspect of his actions were that he subjected a helpless woman to his torment. I’m certain that even those among you who hold slaves have the common decency to not subject your women to the same pain that only a man could endure! 

How much is a human life worth? Anyone? $100? $1,000? $100,000? I doubt anyone in this room could give me an answer. Especially if I asked you how much money to buy you or your child. However, for argument’s sake, let’s briefly indulge the idea that these slaves are indeed not human. You all easily place a price on their lives at these auction blocks, yet, subconsciously understanding the abundant value of a human life, you make the price very costly. Not only that, but the cost of a slave is so great that only the wealthiest can afford, which I’m all but certain you understand Mr. Mann, considering you don’t own a single one. In your Creator’s eyes you harmed your neighbor brutally and almost stole something that can’t have a price placed on it. In your eyes, you still at the very least damaged a very expensive piece of property. Despite all of this, we are only subjecting you to a comparingly small fine of $5. Your Honor, if we begin rendering the value of human life obsolete, I fear greatly for the state of nature that this country’s headed towards. Thank you, Your Honor. 

Though I believe my argument is strong at appealing to the morality of the listener, emotions are not what a judge uses in a courtroom. We could have had strong arguments from history, ethics, norms/traditions, or religion and morality, but it wouldn't have made a difference. A court is concerned with the law and though the State had a good argument about the fact that Mr. Mann wasn't the owner of Lydia, Mann had much more law and precedent supporting his side and I wasn't all too surprised once the judge handed down his verdict in his favor much like how it went in real life.

Town Hall Reflection

The Town Hall meeting was not only entertaining, but also an educational experience. I learned much about the social climate of America through the lives of abolitionists and anti-slavery advocates. One thing I did find interesting though, was the lack of any pro-slavery arguments or advocates. This Town Hall meeting was much more akin to an anti-slavery convention where people shared their testimony and life's work towards the abolishment of slavery.

Many of the speakers' testimonies mentioned some type of a "Society," many of them being founders. Richard Allen was a founder of the Free African Society; Lucretia Mott co-founded the Philadelphia Antislavery Society; Elizabeth Buffum Chace founded the Fall River Antislavery Society; William Lloyd Garrison founded the New England Antislavery Society and co-founded the American Antislavery Society, and the list goes on. This concept of societies was entirely foreign to me before I began my research and I didn't fully grasp how big of a part they played in the movement towards abolition. There were even smaller subsections of societies. For example, all female ones, such as the Female Antislavery Society, which Abby Keller Foster served as the secretary for. 

Education and literature was a powerful force in the fight for abolition. Especially for free or escaped Blacks. The story of Francis Ellen Watkins Harper is an exceptionally powerful one on this front. She was a strong advocate for education being the way to destroy slavery. Born a free woman in Baltimore, she grew to become a poet and essayist with very striking quotes such as "True equality is not divisible. It can not only be given to some and not to others."Another great example of this method of attack is the life of Frederick Douglass, a man born into slavery, who taught himself how to read, escaped slavery, and became one of the country's most prolific and well-respected speakers.

Though education and writing books was certainly many's method of attack, some preferred to take a very direct and radical approach. Nat Turner and John Brown are the two illustrations of a violent approach to abolition, through Nat Turner's Rebellion and Bleeding Kansas. Both of these men, though one a slave and the other a free white man, believed themselves to be an agent of God, sent to put an immediate end to the abominable act of slavery, regardless of the violence it took to reach that result. Both of their first actions was to kill slave owners, though Nat Turner went as far as to kill the slave owner's family as well. Both were caught rather swiftly and put to death by hanging, but they gave the country a preview of how bloody the fight over slavery would get in the future.