Board of Regents v. Bakke

    Today in court we heard the very hard-fought case Board of Regents v. Bakke, where Alan Bakke, a white man, on equal protection grounds challenged the quota system of the University of California Medical School that reserved 16 out of 100 seats of each entering class for "qualified" minorities. 

    The University's legal team brought many strong arguments in their favor. They pointed at the fact that many other universities are also installing affirmative action programs in an effort to redress a long history of minorities being wrongfully excluded from their respective institutions; going so far as to claim that "affirmative action isn't just a policy, but a promise." They made it clear that race is only one aspect taken into account in the selection process and argued that their approach actually aligns with the equal protection clause and passes the strict scrutiny test established by the Supreme Court. They claimed that their goal to redress past racial discrimination and to foster a diverse student body qualified as a "compelling state interest." They cited the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as being very similar to their affirmative action program, as they were are both based upon a system that have discrimination built in to them and try to counter act that and that both do not intend to put any group at a disadvantage but to recognize unfair discrimination and level the playing field. Next came their economic argument, reminding the court that the national economy is hurt after the war and it would be foolish to keep the economy separate when uniting it could fix it must faster. Not only that, but education and medicine affect the nation's economy the most! Since diversity benefits both fields,  removing it not only damages said fields but the national economy as well. Concluding with a strong legal argument, they clarified that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not for treating everyone the same but to bring equal opportunity to all. Not only that, but the program passes both the "compelling interest" and "narrowly-tailored" parts of the strict scrutiny test.

    Bakke's team retaliated with equally strong arguments. They opened their argument with their main idea; the14th amendment's whole purpose was to eliminate discrimination by race and its not fair to replace one discrimination for another, which is what this program does. The Equal Protection Clause was meant to encourage judgement based on neutral metrics, which in this case would be grades and test scores. The University shouldn't lower its standards in order to meet a rigid racial quota and shouldn't just hand over someone else's opportunity to someone less-deserving. They also proposed a very questionable suggestion... that these minorities should just go to HBCU's because "it's better to be with your people." I found that argument very Plessy-like and disregarded it as a weak point.

    The judge understandably came to a very hard decision, as they were great points on both sides. He ultimately followed the historical version of this case and ruled for Bakke, reasoning that the goal of the University's affirmative action program was fine but the execution of it as a rigid racial quota violated the 14th amendment. He suggested that race just be taken into account when reviewing applicants, rather than the sole determining factor for admission, which I am in agreement with.

EOTO #3 Reaction

   

    The period of American History before the Civil Rights movement was characterized by white supremacist violence and terror brought on by the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan. The catalyst of this era of terror and bloodshed was ironically a seemingly harmless movie called Birth of a Nation. Though you would think a movie to be harmless, its portrayals of African Americans as monsters who only wanted to prey on white women and the KKK as righteous heroes meant to save the country led to the incredibly problematic resurgence of the KKK. The NAACP tried to sue the film for defamation of African Americans, but unfortunately, they failed. This new second coming of the Klan target of terror was much more widespread than the original. They terrorized not only African Americans, but Jews, immigrants, catholics, and labor unions. Following the film, the number of lynchings in the country, especially in the North, regrettably skyrocketed. A particularly harrowing instance was that of the Omaha Courthouse Lynching, in which a white terrorist mob forcefully took Will Brown, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman, from a courthouse jail, stripped him of his clothes, hung him on a lamppost, and then shot his lifeless body.

    Another staple of this era were sundown towns. I had heard of the term before, considering I lived near former sundown town Chevy Chase, Maryland, but I didn't know the history behind them. There goal was to keep their towns all-white and discourage black people from wanting to become residents. Now how does one distinguish between a visitor and a resident of a town? Simple, residents sleep there and guests don't! So, they constantly threatened black people to not let the sun set while they were still in town. I had no idea that this practice was actually a badge of honor for these towns. In an advertisement for Edmond, Oklahoma, the mayor bragged about the fact that they had "no negroes" in their town and used it as a selling point for potential residents.

    The country's landscape at this time was so dangerous for African Americans that a man named Victor Hugo Green published the Negro Motorist Green Book in 1936. The book was a guide y for African Americans on navigating the country during segregation. It provided safe travel options for those who owned cars; giving advice on how to avoid sundown towns or specific locations that had a tendency to cause problems for black people. It became a symbol of resistance against racial inequality and was even called "the bible for black travel during Jim Crow."

 

Plessy v. Ferguson Reaction

    Today in Court we heard the controversial case of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which a black man, barely distinguishable from a white man, challenged a Louisiana statute on 14th Amendment "equal protection" grounds calling for segregated train cars after he was forcibly removed for sitting in the whites-only car. Both sides had some particularly strong arguments.

    Plessy's team brought very strong arguments. They recentered the case, making clear that the question before the court wasn't whether or not history is moving away from segregation but whether they would decide to move with it. Emphasizing that history was clearly moving towards equality, citing the 13th amendment as precedent. They made sure to appeal to the Court's moral compass, asking why we have any right to judge another for something they could not even choose, such as their skin color; calling into question the absurdity and hypocrisy of punishing a man who was only 1/8 African American when they would not do the same for a man who was only 1/8 Caucasian! Arguably their strongest point, segregation is a huge financial burden on the country's economy! Tax payers have to pay double the amount for amenities/infrastructure and eliminating the need to pay for two separate systems would allow different federal expenditure, strengthening the country economically. De jure segregation also forces African Americans to be cut off from society and stunts their and the country's cultural growth, citing New York as a example of how integration benefits and diversifies the country's culture through dialogue and art. Wrapping up their argument with a strong argument from law, they claimed that the separate car law was based solely on race and the Constitution is color blind. The country was founded on the concept of personal liberty! The government should not be able to infringe on a man's right as personal sitting where he desires.

    Ferguson's team also came with some pretty compelling arguments. At the outset, they also recentered the case to being about upholding the state's authority to protect public order and reflect the public's will. They beseeched the Court to think critically about what type of precedent could stem from this decision, one they believed to be a dangerous precedent of striking down state actions all across the country and endangering the very idea of federalism the government was founded on. They offered a strong economic counterargument to Plessy's team using the success of the Black community in Galveston, Texas, often referred to as "the Wallstreet of the South," as an example of Black economic success separate from the White economy. Furthermore, integration could actually cause racial tensions that make customers uncomfortable and damage the economy even more than funding two separate school systems, so integration is too costly for what it's worth. They made clear that segregation has been at the bedrock of our country's society for so long that turning it on its head so abruptly would cause more harm than good. Finally, their argument from law somewhat followed the same line of logic as their opponents... the Constitution is colorblind. Therefore, as long as the facilities and services provided to both communities were equal, there is no problem with them being separate. They concluded their argument clarifying that the 14th amendment called for an end to discrimination, not integration. Called for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

    Though all that should really matter in the courtroom is the law, I found both sides' economic arguments the most interesting. I never had thought about how taxing sustaining segregation must have been for the country and I hadn't heard a lot about huge pockets of Black wealth being generated in the country during such trying times for African Americans. The judge brought the decision down to only the 14th Amendment. A state reg that forces the separation of African Americans and Whites in state cars does not seem inherently bad on paper, "but the state is not being as neutral as it would like us to believe. Any child could see the disparity between the two cars." He decided to reject Louisiana's claim that they were making them equal and ruled in Plessy's favor. I agree with his decision for the same reasons and I'm glad he did not follow the actual historical ruling that established the horrid "Separate but Equal" doctrine for almost 60 years.

Reconstruction: America After the Civil War

    

    Reconstruction is a period of American history I feel is largely glossed over in our country's educational system. Our collective consciousness usually goes from the end of Slavery straight to Jim Crow, but not many know that there was long period of potential prosperity and great opportunity for African Americans within those two milestones. In fact, there were many Black congressmen and women during this period.

    The Reconstruction Era was the process of the country trying to come to terms with the consequences of the Civil War; namely the abundance of newly freed men and women within their country now. The biggest question needing answering was "Who was a citizen? and what defines one?" The main conflict in the era derives from the difference in how the North and South viewed the end of the War: Grant thought that their military victory symbolized a victory for their ideals as well, but Lee believed the North simply had more manpower than them and confessed no wrong. As a result, the two halves of the country talked right past each other during their supposed peace treaty. Hence why, there was such a vitriolic reply from the South once the federal government took action to benefit African Americans.

    The federal government's first act of business was to establish a federal agency known as the Freedmen's Bureau to provide land for the newly freed men. They planned to make good on their promise of 40-acres and a mule, but Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who Frederick Douglass declared "not a friend of the black man," used the land to softly restore the South. This documentary finally taught me what people currently mean by "reparations" for African Americans. I always thought it was about wanting compensation for having to endure slavery but its more concrete than that. It's about a debt owed by the country; a federal promise they failed to keep and still owe the descendants of formerly enslaved African Americans. In the Reconstruction era, we see a story as old as time within this country's history; African Americans experience a brief moment of potential prosperity and opportunity... only to have it stripped away from them by the system that supposed to protect them.

EOTO #4: Little Rock Nine + James Meridith

 

    In 1954, the Supreme Court declared a verdict that would dramatically alter the country's educational system forever. In the Brown v. Board decision, the Supreme Court overturned their "Separate but Equal" doctrine prescribed in Plessy v. Ferguson and declared that separating children in public school on the basis of race was unconstitutional. This decision reverberated throughout the country, sparking outrage in some, fear in others, and hope in many. Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas would become the first battleground for the war on segregation. Fought by nine high school kids: Melba Pattillo, Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Minnijean Brown, Terrence Roberts, Carlotta Walls, Jefferson Thomas, Gloria Ray, and Thelma Mothershed. These nine soldiers became etched in history as the Little Rock Nine.

    Integration was far from easy however. On the first day of classes, Arkansas Governor Orval Eugene Faubus stationed about 270 soldiers from the Arkansas National Guard to block the school's entrance and prevent the nine's entry. This blatant protest to integration and federal power led to President Eisenhower having a meeting with the Governor and Little Rock's mayor for 18 days to try and achieve a
compromise. Eisenhower federalized the National Guard, sending the elite 101st Airborne Division to the school to ensure the safety of the nine students.

    The Nine didn't just face legal barriers but a plethora of physical ones as well. In Melba Pattillo's memoir, Warriors Don't Cry, she recounts all the violent assault and abuse she had to endure from her White counterparts during her short tenure at Central High. Everything from relatively tame pranks like spraying ink on her dress, to straight up attempted murder, like when she had a stick of dynamite tossed at her in the stairwell. Or when someone threw acid into her eyes, almost losing her vision if it weren't for a soldier from the 101st. The constant verbal and physical abuse caused immense mental strain, making her depressed; she even went so far as to consider taking her own life. Fortunately, thanks to their resilience, the country moved one giant step closer toward protecting the Civil Rights of its people.

  Following in their footsteps comes James Meredith, a civil rights activist that became the first African-American to attend the University of Mississippi. In 1961, Meredith sued the University for refusing his enrollment soley on the basis of race. In Meredith v. Fair, the district court refuted his claim and argued that he simply didn't meet the requirements to enter Ole Miss, though they somehow also admitted that the entrance requirements did deny Black applicants their equal protection rights. They required 5 Ole Miss alumni to endorse an incoming student, but since no previous students had ever been Black, Meredith was out of luck. He took the case to the Supreme Court, won, and was finally able to attend Ole Miss. But much like his predecessors, he wasn't received kindly. There were large campus riots on his first day that resulted in two deaths, prompting Meredith to require close supervision and protection by federal marshals during his time at Ole Miss.

    The fight for educational integration in this country was not easy. It involved plenty of one-sided violence and abuse, but it fortunately paved the way for the diverse education system of the country today.

Brown v. Board of Education Mock Trial

    Your Honor, do you recall the Biblical exodus from Egypt? Do you remember how Moses specifically delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt into salvation? That's right, he split the Red Sea. And just like how Moses split the Red Sea to lead to salvation, we should split our school systems to lead to the salvation of our country. The Bible provides plenty of evidence for how different the Negro is from the White man. In Genesis 9:20-27, we see God's perspective on the Negro. In this story, we see the initiation of the Curse of Ham, which was the Lord divinely rendering the Negro to its rightful place as the subservient race. Additionally, the apostle Paul exhorts servants in his letter to Titus, to be well-pleasing and not argumentative. Your honor, these Negroes in Topeka hadn't been complaining about their schooling and were actually right in the Good Lord's eyes... until some good-for-nothing Whites planted the idea in their heads that the White schools were vastly superior to theirs. Even if they were, that's as it should be considering we are not the race divinely designed to be subservient. Integration disrupts the divine order instituted by God, and Your Honor, I believe you're a God-fearing man. You understand what danger you can find yourself in by going against God's order.

    We understand and follow this divine order in many aspects of our life and it's good. For example, our faithful practice of anti-miscegenation. I won't speak on this topic for long, as I believe my colleague will go into more depth, but marriage is a divine institution, gifted to us directly from God. Given to the first of us all, Adam and Eve, in the garden of Eden as the very bedrock of human society. We understand that this divine union should not go against the divine order and we don't allow for interracial marriage. Why should we then violate divine order in the case of our public schools? Is education not also at the bedrock of society? Especially when those being directly affected are our own children! Jesus himself said in the book of Matthew "What God has joined together, let not man separate." The same applies to the inverse. "What God has separated, let not man join together."

        Many claim that integration would actually be us "loving our neighbor" , but I'd argue that those who support integration don't truly love the Negro as they say they do. There are already countless lynchings that occur around the country due to White outrage at the government forcefully moving the Negroes from their place in society. And there can be no doubt that the same would happen if integration is achieved. These Whites who say that they support integration are using the Negroes as expendable pawns in order to achieve what ever wicked agendas they desire. If they truly cared for the Negro they would maintain the status quo. When we are separate, there is relative peace among the races. If we were to integrate schools, we have no idea how far parents will be willing to go to protect their children, resulting in a kind of violence against the Negro we have yet to witness.

    Your Honor, if you fear God, you will oppose integration and if you care for the wellbeing of the Negro or the public, you will also oppose integration. Thank you.

    

   

In the Heat of the Night

    In the Heat of the Night is a mystery drama and crime thriller starring Sydney Poitier, one of the most influential Black actors of this time. It follows the story of a Black detective from Philadelphia, who is tasked with working with the local police department in solving a murder case involving the death of a wealthy businessman who planned on building a factory. The story takes place in the small town of Sparta, Mississippi, a town chock-full of poverty, racism, and bigotry, which is ironically how Vergil Tibbs even got involved with the case, as the slow-witted officer Sam Wood(played by Warren Oates), arrests him as a suspect simply because he didn't believe a Black man could have more than $100 in his wallet. His relationship with police chief Bill Gillespie(played by Rod Steiger) and the residents of Sparta paint an apt picture of the horrors of the South during the Civil Rights Era, yet also tells a beautiful and engaging story of cooperation and understanding. 

    In none of Vergil's initial introductions with any native residents of Sparta is he greeted with any form of respect. He is immediately looked down upon, until either, he pulls out his police badge, or sheriff Gillespie assures them that he is working for him. Interestingly, the only exception to this pattern was Eric Endicott(played by Larry Gates), a wealthy plantation owner and prime suspect for the murder of Colbert, as he was very vocal of his opposition to his factory. When Endicott meets Tibbs, he doesn't appear to look at him with any scorn, but rather offers him a drink and talks to him about flowers. This isn't due to respect for Tibbs, however, which is made clear through his statement about a specific flower which he believed "needed to be cultivated, just like the Negro race." Endicott greeted Tibbs with no hostility initially simply because he saw him as no more than a pet or one of the plant he grows in his greenhouse. 

    Once Tibbs accuses Endicott of the murder, he slaps him and is shocked when Tibbs retaliates. He says "There was a time when I could have had you shot," and begins to cry when everyone leaves the room. This scene is perfect in depicting the social climate of America at the time, a time where racist whites, like Endicott, have to grasp with the reality that the world as they knew it was slipping away and they were rightfully losing their power over the lives and actions of African Americans. 

This scene also is an important development in the relationship between Tibbs and Gillespie. Throughout the film, Gillespie tries to assert his perceived racial superiority to Tibbs, yet constantly lashes out at him due to feeling inferior to him. He subconsciously believes that Tibbs is better than him and tries to put whoever he can behind bars to prove that he didn't need his help. Following the Endicott incident however, Tibbs claims he "can drag Endicott off of his hill" if given just two more days and Gillespie smiles saying "Oh, so you really are no different from us, huh?" Though this would be a seemingly good realization to have for a racist White man, the film frames it as a moral failing on Tibbs' part. I find this contrast in perception very interesting to watch. Whereas Gillespie now sees Tibbs' outburst as proof that he's also like the working-class who want to drag down the wealthy from their perch, Tibbs views it as a failure in his duty to find the truth and sinking to the moral plane of the local police who don't care about the truth and only want a convict.

    Tibbs only has one interaction with a Black person in the film, and its Mama Caleba(played by Beah Richards), who runs an illegal abortion clinic and their conversation also provides great insight to the social climate of the time period. Mama Caleba is confused as to why Tibbs would have chosen to be a police officer claiming that "they will chew you up and spit you out." Tibbs knows that the murderer is whoever is paying for Delores Purdy's abortion and he threatens her with jail time, saying"there's white time in jail and colored time in jail: the worst kind of time you can do is colored time." Mama Caleba talks about how her business's success had gotten her out of poverty and how she is now used to better, making Tibbs promise not to take it away before she offers any information, which he obliges. 

    Their short conversation displays not only the psychology of a community who had been mistreated horribly by the systems designed to protect them, but also the solidarity within it for those who found ways out of the pit they were placed in.

    Overall the film is very entertaining. Not only for its plot, but also the peek it gives the audience into the social climate during the Civil Rights Era.

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.

Town Hall Meeting

 Greetings, my brothers and sisters in Christ, my name is Richard Allen. Formerly known as "Negro Richard," which should tell you all you need to know about my past. I owe the simple fact that I am standing before you here today to our all-powerful and loving Father up above. 20 long years I spent subjugated by the detestable institution of slavery, an institution that does nothing but callously tear the humanity away from both the slave and the slaveholder. I was born into bondage, already "owned" by a Quaker lawyer, a man who claimed to believe in the same loving God that I serve, yet subjected his fellow man to evils that no one deserves. While I was still a child(what age I do not know), I was sold to Mr. Stokely Sturgis, a plantation owner in Deleware. I had a mother and five siblings, however I don't have much recollection of them, as Mr. Sturgis had some financial problems and sold my mother and two of my siblings away when I was still young. I only had an older brother and sister left, which I thank the Lord for everyday for not leaving me completely alone. I can't help but consider myself more fortunate than my fellow brothers and sisters in bondage. 

Mr. Sturgis, though unconverted, encouraged us to attend the church service meetings of the local Methodist Society, one of the few that welcomed my people, enslaved or free. For this decision, I am eternally grateful! I was able to find the joy of the Lord for the first time! My brother, sister, and I sought the Lord and ensured we diligently completed our work as well; for there were rumors surrounding Mr. Sturgis that allowing us to attend those services would be the end of him. Though I had what the world would consider a good and humane master, I couldn't help but see slavery as a bitter pill I was forced to swallow every morning. The Lord graciously answered my prayers following the start of war, when Reverend Freeborn Garrettson visited our plantation and convinced Mr. Sturgis that our enslavement was sinful and immoral. I then convinced him to allow us to buy our freedom and he obliged, leading to me being a free man five years later, at the ripe age of twenty. 

I moved to Philadelphia six years later and began preaching. Once I saw my African brethren who though desperately in need of hope and spiritual fulfillment, didn't attend public service I was ignited with the Spirit of our Father in Heaven. I preached wherever there was room, preaching up to five times a day! I cultivated a small community of approximately 40 colored men and women and decided to build a house of worship for us with the help of my great brothers Rev. Absalom Jones, Dorus Ginnings, and William White. Our forced removal from St. George's Church, which mind you we had been attending for far longer and more often than some of those white folks, inspired our decision to construct the Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, as well as establishing the Free African Society. 

Slavery brings damage to even the free man. Your horrible excuse for the enslavement of my brother's and sisters has caused you who would oppose slavery to still see us as your lesser, rather than fellow sons and daughters of the great Lord up above. The book you read and preach from every Sunday, that you claim to believe, tells you the same yet you deny it in reality. We do not. I pray the Lord may open your eyes before you stand before him! At the Free African Society we put the words of James, brother of Christ Jesus, into practice. Not only did I assist my recently freed brethren and my brethren in the pursuit of freedom via the Underground Railroad, but during the Late Awful Calamity in Philadelphia Brother Jones and I with the FAS served and nursed our white counterparts who fell ill with Yellow Fever. Just for the despicable and slanderous Matthew Carey to lie on our good names and convince the public that we were actually taking advantage of them during their plight, as if we weren't susceptible to the disease as well! We put our own health at risk to help those who wouldn't do the same for us. Why, you ask? It's the same reason we must abolish slavery.The love of Christ. For it is the only reason and only power that can overcome the barrier of hatred between the white man and colored man. 

Supreme Court

   Though I lived in Washington, DC and took a class all about Constitutional Law and its relationship with the Court, I realized there was a lot I didn't know as well as took for granted. I never would have guessed that there was a time where the Supreme Court was not respected as a branch of government by the American people. This mini-documentary did an excellent job at framing the history and function of the Supreme Court as a story of gaining the people's trust. 

    Ironically, the "Supreme" Court had no power or authority as a fellow branch of government until John Marshall's tenure as chief Justice. The real beginning of the Supreme Court's journey to become a powerful equal to its Legislative and Executive counterparts can be traced back to the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. In delivering the Court's opinion, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional. He envisioned the Court's role as expounding on the Constitution, making the Constitution a crucial tool in constructing this nation. This was the start of the Supreme Court's story of gaining not only the people's trust, but also their respect.

    The next big junction in the Court's journey was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857 in which a Missouri slave claimed his freedom under a Congressional act, but the Court ruled that Congress didn't have the power to ban slavery and that African Americans could never gain citizenship. This decision was a major setback on the Court's journey of gaining the people's trust and the issue of slavery was only solved through the Civil War that spanned nearly the next decade. 

    Following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, sometimes considered the "Second Bill of Rights" as it was meant to protect the people from abuse of State power. This Amendment greatly widened the Court's range of judicial power, allowing it to judge and strike down many more laws as constitutional or unconstitutional, as it now had the ability to review State congressional acts. 

    The Court also has many policies and practices in place to secure the people's trust. There are no inside stories or secrets in the Court, as they lay out everything in their opinion. They also are not a group of activists that decide to deliver an opinion on whatever they feel like whenever they feel like it. They are only allowed to give their thoughts on issues that are essential parts of cases that have to make it past all sorts of District Courts and Appellate Courts. And even after that arduous journey, the Court only accepts one hundred cases out of the thousands that it receives! The Court also delivers its opinions to media outlets almost immediately, not keeping anything hidden.

    The Court functions on an unspoken agreement. When the Court says something, the people listen and follow. And in turn, the people believe in the good faith of the Court and the idea that they truly are trying to interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be. The documentary ends off on an amazing quote that perfectly sums up the story of the Supreme Court. "The power of the Court is trust earned. The Trust of the American people."

Bible Team Challenge

  

It’s no secret that Christianity was the most powerful driving force behind the seismic wave that was American abolitionism, but ironically, it was also one of the biggest supporting forces for its arch enemy; the institution of American slavery. Slaveholders who referred to themselves as Christian argued that the Bible from cover to cover endorsed slavery. The most accessible original sources were the collection of essays in the book Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments.

Their five pronged argument was as follows...

1) the Curse of Ham was the divine initiation of slavery;

2) All the patriarchs had slaves and were considered blessed by God;

3) the moral Law sanctioned and regulated slavery;

4) Jesus accepted slavery;

5) the Apostles accepted slavery.

The Curse of Ham comes from the Biblical story in which Ham, the youngest son of Noah, is cursed by his father to have a bloodline of servants that will serve his brothers. Slaveholders made Ham black and his descendants Africans to justify chattel slavery as divinely inspired. Southerners would then go on to argue that God must endorse slavery if the patriarchs of his people owned slaves and if slavery was sanctioned in his own moral law, often quoting Leviticus 25:44-46. Though they couldn’t find much say from Jesus on the matter, they interpreted his silence on the issue as support. Finally, they used passages like Ephesians 6:5-7 to argue that apostles supported the institution of slavery as well.

 As evidenced in the previous paragraph, proponents of slavery frequently cited scripture to support their arguments. Such an approach was widely popular among proponents of slavery due to the status of the bible as the word of God. Consequently, the biblical counter argument to slavery required a greater degree of complexity, extending interpretation of the bible beyond individual verses. Thus, many abolitionist preachers, theologians, and pastors, adopted a holistic interpretation of the bible, emphasizing the overall message of the text. Jonathan Blanchard–a popular abolitionist during the antebellum era– argued for abolition and condemned the institution of slavery as intrinsically “anti-christian.” At the basis of Blanchard's position was the biblical idea of “one blood-ism” which he felt alluded to the inherent equality of mankind. Other more radical christians, such as William Loyd Garrison, elected to entirely disregard biblical scriptures that expressed a permissible attitude toward slavery. Although Garrison still expressed his belief in God, he refused to acknowledge the bible as a direct reflection of God’s values; those that shared such an argument reasoned that God represented morality, symbolism that would juxtapose a pro-slavery ideology. From a separate angle, many anti-slavery christians argued that slavery in the antebellum period varied from biblical slavery in a myriad of significant ways. The two most popular competitive arguments asserted that southern slavery broke up families–a violation of the commandments– and prohibited the possibility of freedom–a transgression against the old testament. While the complexity of the christian anti-slavery argument far exceeded that of the anti-slavery argument, all christian abolitionists expressed a gestaltist interpretation of the bible. 

In all, the bible served as a repository of religious rationale that was mainpulated to serve slavery and anti-slavery sentiments alike. In a similar fashion to the Compromise of 1850, the Holy Bible failed to decisively settle American debate over slavery. As a result the nation experienced a "theological crisis" which played an important role in the escalation of tension that led to the Civil War in 1863.