Reconstruction Documentary Reaction

The massacre in Charleston at Mother Emanuel church occurred when a 21 year old drop out with deep hatred for African Americans went to the church and attended bible study before opening fire. The hatred that fueled this violent act dates all the way back to the Reconstruction era at the end of the Civil War. 

During the Reconstruction era, violence was an accepted part of life and worked in tandem with Jim Crow laws. It all began when Robert E Lee surrendered at Appomattox to Ulysses Grant and ended the Civil War. Newly freed slaves began to scatter, but there was still a question as to how they were supposed to start new lives. 

Ulysses S Grant treated the blacks as equal citizens because he knew that having black soldiers was essential to ensure the war ended in abolition, but once it actually ended African Americans' status as citizens was put into question. People began to walk to the places where they had last seen their family members and many posted newspaper ads to try to find them. The 13th amendment was passed in Congress, but it had yet to be ratified by many states. 

President Abraham Lincoln was a big part in ensuring Reconstruction had a positive ending, but when he gave a speech about giving black men the right to vote, many people were in opposition. Shortly after that speech, Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. President Andrew Johnson was sworn in not long after Lincoln died and took Reconstruction in a different direction. 

President Johnson set up new state governments in the south and gave them complete authority over the black populations to control them in any way they saw fit. At the time President Johnson was sworn in, Congress was not in session so he had complete control.

Many efforts like the Freedmen's Bureau and 40 acres and a mule took wrong turns when Johnson took office. President Johnson ordered Major General Oliver Howard to take the land given in 40 acres and a mule and return it back to the white confederates. This meant many slaves had nowhere to go and were forced into labor contracts with their past owners simply so they could make enough money to survive.

Racism was the deepest legacy of slavery and it was not going to be wished away simply because the 13th amendment had been passed. Many different laws and regulations were passed like the Black Codes and the Vagrancy laws which only applied to black citizens and forced them back into submission. The white planter class even had the authority to take children from "unfit" parents and put them under apprenticeship where they would be used for their labor and there was no protection from abuse.

The Klu Klux Klan was also created in Tennessee around the same time as the Black Codes. This group acted similar to the slave patrol, but this time controlling freed blacks. Families were often targeted by the klan if they were well off economically or if their children were in school.

Under Johnson, many white confederates forced their way back into Congress where they could once again destroy freedom and equality for the black community. Thaddeus Stevens and other House Republicans called for change and the clerk ignored all southern delegates when calling roll, meaning they were no longer part of Congress. After this Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Johnson's veto, which established birth right citizenship. 

Over the next few months riots broke out in towns like Memphis and New Orleans. Many soldiers came back from war with weapons they had bought from the government which resulted in mounted tensions. Confederates went on the hunt and burnt down many houses and churches. Terror went on in Memphis for 3 days before the army gained control. When mobs broke out in New Orleans, many people realized Johnson's Reconstruction plan was not working because he gave black citizens no rights.

The 14th amendment was passed shortly after, redefining rights. This included the law that no state could deny due process and equal protection to any citizen. This also stated that every person born in the United States would be a citizen. 

In order to get states to pass the 14th amendment, they were divided into five military districts which was ruled by generals who forced confederate states to create new laws and constitutions. This also allowed black men to not only vote, but also to hold office. The southern states were told that if these new laws were not passed, the would not be allowed to re-enter the union. This was slightly controversial at the time because not even northern states also black men to vote at this time. At the time, Tennessee was the only southern state still in the union. 

While Reconstruction originally appeared to be a failure, changes to the Constitution may not have been made without the original failed attempts. Within a decade, freedmen went from being slaves to being established into political society. Although it was not a journey without many road blocks. 

Plessy v. Ferguson Reaction

Today the court was presented with the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. The facts agreed by both parties include that Louisiana state law stated all private corporation railroads must provide separate accommodations for white and African American citizens. Homer Plessy, a known African American, bought a first class ticket. He was taken off the train, arrested and fined. The lawyers on the side of Plessy want this law struck down in its entirety, making a claim under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. 

The first party to speak was the lawyers on the side of Homer Plessy. The lawyers argued that segregation was a system built to keep African Americans from being able to have full citizenship. They argued that unfair institutions of the past should be destroyed to allow African Americans to move forward. 

The lawyers on the side of Plessy had a strong biblical argument, referencing Genesis 1:4 and Galatians 5:3 to express the point that we were all created equally by God to humbly serve each other and God. The biblical argument was also made that God did not intend for us to be separated, but that the idea of segregation came into the world alongside our sin. We were also reminded in the biblical argument that Homer Plessy is only 1/8 African American. 

The impact segregation has on the economy was made clear to us as we were urged to consider the way taxpayers must pay double for infrastructure due to the need of creating two buses, two schools, and two restrooms simply to ensure segregation continued. The argument was made that the funding we are spending to ensure segregation continues could be used to fund other efforts. 

We also heard a cultural argument on the side of Plessy stating that cultural exchange between African Americans and whites would lead to shred benefits. It was pointed out to us that segregation suggests African American traditions are not as important as their white counterparts.

The last perspective given on the side of Plessy was that of the law. We were pointed to both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as it was pointed out that Africans Americans life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are being threatened by segregation. Ultimately, this case is an issue with the 14th amendment so we were pointed to the equal protection clause stating that no state shall deny a person equal rights.

The second party to speak was that on the side of the state, what is now referred to as Ferguson. We were pointed to Romans 3:1 which points out the importance of respecting authority and laws put in place. We were also told that the separate but equal doctrine gives all individuals access to their needs while also helping to avoid conflict in the streets. 

The State of Louisiana made a strong economic argument citing Black Wall Street in Galveston, Texas as evidence that one side is not more economically well off than the other. It was argued that integration would cause tension which could scare off customers and would ultimately be bad for businesses. Stark change puts the state at risk of economic collapse which is not necessary.

The state urged us to consider that social order and harmony are only possible if cultural norms and traditions are upheld. We were told that Jim Crow laws are not rules of discrimination, but simply a reflection of the traditions of the time. It was pointed out that relations of different races have always been a sore subject, so it is in the main interest of both races to live harmoniously separated lives. We were told segregation is not meant to take down African Americans, but it gives them a way to continue to live out their different customs and ways of life.

The biblical argument on the side of the state was given referencing Deuteronomy 32:8 and Leviticus 19:19 to push the argument that according to divine order each race has its own place and purpose. We were told that the cure on Ham's descendants in Genesis 9:20 is what forced the African Americans into a life of servitude. The state believes that integration would deny the will of God and go against divine judgement.

The law argument on the side of the state argued that federal law should not intrude on the rights of the states. Each state has different cultural needs, so there should not be a one size fits all law from the federal government concerning segregation. The argued that segregation was standard and fit alongside the Constitution as long as the amenities were of equal value and met the same standards. 

While there were strong arguments made on both sides, Judge Smith ruled on the side of Plessy. The decision was based on the 14th amendment and the evidence that the state was not being as neutral as they wanted the court to believe. The state of the separate railroads was determined to not be equal, hence the judgement on the side of Homer Plessy. 

EOTO: Forty Acres and a Mule

Forty Acres and a Mule refers to the promise of land being redistributed to freed black families in 1865. Some formerly enslaved families were also given Army mules which is where the name of this event originates from. General William Tecumseh Sherman was an American soldier during the Civil war who fought on the side of the union. The idea for forty acres and a mule was not his own, but was presented to him and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton by black leaders in Georgia. 

At the end of the war, General Sherman passed field order number fifteen stating that four hundred thousand acres would be taken from wealthier families and redistributed into sections of forty acres which would be given to past slave families to give them a place to start fresh. About forty thousand freedmen settled on this redistributed land over several months after the order was passed.

The land which was given to freedmen was taken from wealthy confederates. Many people believe this was done as a way to financially devastate them for the hardship they had put the slaves through. 
The main purpose of this event though, was not to take land from the wealthy, but it was to give freed slaves a place where they felt safe to start new lives. Many of these slaves could not remember a time when they were free and they felt threatened by the wealthy white men who made up the society they were being forced into. 

There was intense discrimination during this time because many white men still felt they were better than the slaves and they wanted to ensure they themselves stayed in a place of power. Due to this discrimination, the freed slaves sought somewhere in the South where they could have land to themselves and not have to face discrimination and hate at every turn. This thought was what prompted the leaders to find space for these people to live their lives as they saw fit in a place where they could seek refuge. 

While the idea behind this promise was secure, it did not plan out in the way that was expected. It promised a way toward economic independence and freedom. However, the legacy of forty acres and a mule is not one of freedom and equality, but instead of broken promises.

Despite all the land that had been redistributed by June of 1865, President Andrew Johnson ordered for it to be returned to the original owners shortly after. President Johnson benefited himself from white supremacy and he ordered the land to be taken back from the former slaves and given back to the white confederates. 

When the freedmen’s land was taken away, they were forced into indentured servitude where they had to sign labor contracts, many to their former owners, in order to be able to survive. The confederate landowners were then free to underpay the freedmen and keep them in a constant state of poverty. 

Forty Acres and a Mule was a promise made to freed black men which would give them newfound independence and security in a world full of discrimination. However, President Johnson quickly made this a broken promise and forced the black population into submission once again.

EOTO Reaction #1

The first each one teach one presentations were a success as we were all taught new information about slavery and the Civil War from the side of both pro-slavery and anti-slavery events. 

The pro-slavery side taught us about conflicts like Bleeding Kansas and the Battle at Fort Sumter which eventually led to the Civil War. We also learned about important events like the nullification crisis and the secession of South Carolina from the United States. 

The anti-slavery side taught us about efforts like the Underground Railroad, the anti-slavery society, and many newspapers who published anti-slavery poems and articles. These groups all worked to abolish slavery. We also heard about many anti-slavery rebellions and the abolishment of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. 

The event I learned the most about was the Amistad case. I had heard about many of the other events during the abolitionist movement and Civil war era, but this was one I had not heard of before. 

This case centered around a Spanish ship that abducted and transported fifty three slaves from Africa which violated treaties from many different countries. While aboard the ship, the slaves and plantation owners fought each other for control of the ship. The ship ended up in Long Island, New York after the battle for control of the boat. 

Once the slaves ended up in New York, abolitionists worked to keep them in the state. Abolitionists worked through different efforts to raise money to keep the slaves in the North where they could remain free. The case was later taken to court to decide what to do with the slaves. 

The slaves were represented by John Quincy Adams in the Supreme Court. The ruling was ultimately that the slaves had not been rightfully taken when they were taken onto the ship. Once the slaves won the case, it was ordered that they would be returned to their homeland where they could once again live as freed people. 

Gone with the Wind Reaction

Gone with the Wind is a timeless movie which takes place in the South during the time of the Civil War. This movie focuses on many themes and issues as it explores what life may have looked like for the main character Scarlet as war began and her life changed. 

The women in this movie are portrayed by powerful actors, including Hattie McDaniel and Vivien Leigh, many of whom went on to win awards for their performance. These women are faced with circumstances that were very different from the life they believed they would live. They went from being told how to dress and when to sleep, to being on their own to figure out how to survive in the face of their homes being destroyed.

Women of this time were forced to mature rapidly as they became the head of the household while their husbands, brothers and fathers were away fighting in the war. It was not in their nature to take care of themselves or to develop an independent lifestyle. They had to lose their fragility in an effort to be strong for themselves and those around them. 

This sense of independence and resilience is exemplified in Scarlet as she works to get herself, Prissy, Melanie and Melanie's baby, Beau away from the approaching attacks in Atlanta and safely to her home in Tara.

Scarlet challenges societal expectations and takes charge to keep everyone safe. She is not worried about what women are supposed to be doing, but instead she forges ahead and makes her own way.

Scarlet evolves from a boy crazy young lady to an independent woman who has control over her own future. She stops thinking about herself as someone who needs to be won over and she takes steps to change her own future. 

While she does become more independent, it cannot be overlooked that she is still fawning over Mr. Ashley Wilkes, Melanie's husband. This is what drives her actions, so while she becomes more independent and challenges norms, it can also be said that she did not change much at all because she was still motivated by selfish desires. 

The same evolution Scarlet had has been seen in many other women because of different wars. War takes the men into battle which leaves the women to run the household and forces them to develop a new sense of independence. 

However, it can also be seen that circumstance does not eradicate who you truly are. Scarlet fell back into the same pattern of thought because she was ultimately still the same person even though the war caused her to come out of her shell. 

Mock Trial: NC v. Mann

 The case before you rests of the shoulders not only of history, morals and norms but also on the law of the current time. The bottom line is that slaves are not people, they are property. It does not matter whose control they are technically under, they are still property of their masters whether that be temporary or otherwise.

As seen in Mima Queen v. Hepburn the judge ruled that freedom could not be obtained because there was no actual evidence. They ruled that nothing could be achieved off of hearsay evidence. In the case that stands before us, there is no actual evidence as to how the scenario played out. We do know that Ms. Lydia was shot in the back. However, by whom and for what reason we do not know because of the lack of concrete evidence. Therefore, no charges can be brought against Mr. Mann as the only evidence is hearsay. 

The North Carolina Slave Code was developed as a police system to control the slaves. This code became a method of controlling labor to ensure that slaves stayed in line and did their work as they were told. Under the Slave Code, masters had absolute authority over their slaves. Mr. Mann was simply expressing his right under the Slave Code to control his slaves when the incident occurred with Lydia. While Lydia was not technically his slave, he had bought her labor which would have made him her master and allowed him to have the same rights as any other master under the law. 

The contract clause in State v. Hale also stands in favor of Mr. Mann. This says that all kinds of property are protected under the law meaning the owner has absolute control and authority over them. Since slaves were considered property at the time, they would have also been protected underneath this clause as their owners property. In Fletcher v. Peck, it is stated that “the Contract Clause covered every type of contract” which would include the contract masters have over their slaves stating that they own them and that the masters have absolute authority. 

Judge Thomas Ruffin made the decision in State v. Mann not to convict Mr. Mann of assault under the law and belief that slaves were “insensible property, unworthy of any sort of protection from their owners, regardless of the form of cruelty or barbarity employed”. The ruling was made that slaves could be treated as “mere property with ‘no will of his own’ and ‘no appeal from his master’ to the courts”. Ruffin ultimately decided that “it would be the imperative duty of the Judges to recognize the full dominion of the owner over the slave, except where the exercise of it is forbidden by statute”. However, at this time battery or exertion of force are not forbidden by the statue. Under this same reasoning, I urge you to consider that Mr. Mann did nothing inherently unlawful. Ms. Lydia was under his authority at the time of the alleged accident and therefore he had the right to punish her however he saw fit.

In conclusion, I ask that you consider all the aspects of this case, but most importantly the law. Ms. Lydia is a slave who under the law has no right to petition the court and she also has no rights against her master. Therefore, Mr. Mann was justified because masters have absolute authority under the law to handle their slaves the way they see fit.