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. 

Town Hall Reflection

The town hall meeting today was full of opinions as anti-slavery activists and speakers came together to attempt to persuade the town to join the abolitionist movement. Everyone at the town hall meeting took a different approach with some giving anecdotes about their own stories and others looking more at the impact slavery has on our country. 

While everyone's arguments took a stand against slavery, one really stuck out to me, Richard Allen. Mr. Allen was first to present at our Town Hall meeting, but his argument stuck out most to me. He is a very persuasive speaker which was only exemplified by his clear passion for the issue. 

I found Mr. Allen's argument the most compelling because he incorporated both a story about his life and a call to action which incorporated biblical ideals.

Richard Allen was born into slavery and fought hard for his own freedom. At a very young age he found himself under the control of Mr. Sturgis who was the new master of both him, his siblings and his parents after Mr. Chew sold them. Mr. Allen grew up without hope for a better day, but he still sought comfort in the Methodist church he attended.

Years later, Mr. Allen's plantation was visited by Reverend Freeborn Garrettson who shared the gospel with the slaves and planted to seed of anti-slavery ideals which would grow in Mr. Allen's head. 

Mr. Allen decided that he would make a deal with his master and work for his own freedom. Once Mr. Allen found himself a free man, he founded a church for other former slaves. He worked hard to make sure people found peace with the Lord as they entered their new lives. 

Mr. Allen's argument was also engaging for me because he focused in on God's view of slavery. During this time many people are using the Bible as evidence on both sides of the slavery argument, but Mr. Allen's was different.

He argued that the ideas of slavery that were planted into people's heads came directly from Satan. Mr. Allen also believes that God would never side with hatred, but instead work hard to seek freedom for his children.

In the end, Mr. Allen argued that slavery hurts both the master and the slave, so it should be abolished.

Overall, the town hall meeting was lovely. It was a joy to get to hear from so many others who are fighting alongside me to end this cruel practice. 

I will never forget the things I heard from Mr. Allen and many others as they spoke of their anti-slavery ideals and their own lives. 

Town Hall Meeting

My name is Sarah Louisa Forten Purvis. I am an anti-slavery poet from Pennsylvania and am a part of the Female Literary Association. Many people know me because of the wealthy family I come from. However, I am defined by much more than my family’s wealth. One of my most well known accomplishments is co-founding The Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society alongside my mother, sisters, Lucretia Mott and Mary Ann M’Clintock. We formed this society to give women a way to help their fellow sisters. We work mostly to fundraise for drives against slavery and provide supplies to help runaway slaves survive their new lives. 

My poems have often been used in support of many abolitionist campaigns. I began writing at the age of seventeen and was published by the Liberator. Some of my most famous poems include The Grave of the Slave, An Appeal to Women and The Slave Girl’s Farewell. It was important to me to use the talents I was gifted with to help my fellow brothers and sisters escape the horrors we are oppressed with today. God blessed me with the kind of providence that placed me in a life which prevented me from facing the evils of slavery myself, but I am sympathetic toward the same oppression because of my heritage and the discrimination I did face. 

Today I stand before you to urge you to stand up alongside your brothers and sisters and fight for their freedom which we, as a nation, claim to stand upon. My white sisters have found virtue from their fairness, so we should work together to help our enslaved sisters make it to the other side. It does not matter if we ourselves have faced this cruelty because we all recognize it is not right, so we should do something about it. 

I believe you cannot consider yourself a good person if you stand on the side of slavery, on the side of an institution that is built upon taking advantage of those we stand beside. In the end we all bleed the same, so why are we acting so divided? We can know that slavery should be stopped because slaves right now are wishing to die because that would be a better alternative to the life they are living. When our brothers and sisters begin to look toward death as their only escape from the cruelty they face in their lives, we need to make a change. 

At the end of our lives when we are buried, both slaves and masters are put in the ground together, so where do our souls go when we are all put into the same ground? We all end up side by side, buried in the dirt so why do we believe it is okay to oppress one another and rule over each other while we are alive? Our souls are all equally valued by the God up above, so why do we not value each other the same way. God is on the side of the slave as He looks down on them fighting for their liberation. We must make a choice today to stand by our brothers and sisters who are fighting for the right to their lives.

Imagine a young girl sitting with her mother on a West Indian Island with the sun barreling down on them, crying because her life’s story has become too much to bear. The mother tries to comfort the girl while breaking down herself because in just one day they are going to take her baby girl away. 

I leave you today with my poem, A Slave Girl's Farewell, about this girl and the horrors we are making her and so many others face;

Mother, I leave thee-thou hast been

Through long, long years of pain

The only hope my fond heart knew;

Or e’er shall know again.

The sails are set-my master waits

To bear me far from thee;

I linger-can I give thee up,

And cross the fearful sea?

Oh, let me gaze! How bright it seems

As busy memory flies

To view those scenes of other days,

Beneath those bright blue skies.

The little hut where I have played

In childhood’s fearless hours-

The murmuring stream-the mossy bank,

Where I have gathered flowers.

I knew not then I was a slave,

Or that another’s will,

Save thine, could bend the spirit’s pride;

Or bid my lips be still.

Who now will soothe me at my toil,

Or bathe my weary brow?

Or shield me when the heavy lash

Is raised to give the glow?

Thy fond arms press me-and I feel

Thy tears upon my cheek;

Tears are the only language now

A mother’s love can speak.

Think of me, mother as I bend

My way across the sea;

And midst thy tears, a blessing waft,

To her who prays for thee.

Bible Challenge

Over the years many scholars and individuals have used the Bible as evidence for their anti-slavery and pro-slavery arguments, with each side taking specific verses and interpreting them to fit their own agenda. Now, it is understood that the slavery era was a negative time in our history and should not be supported. However, there is still some conflict within circles as to where the Bible stands on the slavery argument.

During the time of slavery, many believed that the Bible condemned slavery. However, this is not accurate. The Bible did in fact condone the act of slavery. Many white slaveholders of the time relied on the teachings of the Bible specifically from Genesis 9:25 and its statements such as, "A slave of slaves shall you be to your brothers" to solidify their views that slavery was religiously supported.

There were other parts of the Bible, including the story of Abraham where his slave Hager had an angel tell her to "return to your mistress and submit to her." Describing how religious figures such as angels wanted slaves to obey their masters because that was looked upon as the "holy thing to do". Many also viewed Jesus' acceptance of slavery as a reason to support these practices. Statements including, "not one word of criticism did the Lord ever utter against slaver. He was quick to attack moral evil but not slavery" are what swayed people to not view slavery negatively.

Also Charles Hodge, a Presbyterian theologian between 1851 and 1858, stated, "to call slavery sinful was a direct impeachment of the word of God", explaining that to think slavery was something wrong, was to go against Christian beliefs.

Therefore, based on quotes directly from the Bible itself and theologians of the 1800s, slavery was condoned by the Bible and Christianity.

While some people argue that the Bible is in support of slavery, these claims often come from specific verses that were taken out of context and manipulated to fit human ideas. Many books and scenarios in the Bible are clearly against slavery. As pointed out in the Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument, we see that the Bible never specifically mentions slavery by name when arguing for or against it. Instead, it describes and discourages similar scenarios. In Exodus 21, the text talks about how a man who steals and sells another man should be put to death himself. This emphasizes a passage of the Bible that speaks directly to undesirable consequences given for putting other human-beings under conditions of slavery. 

Slavery is not only seen as an action that requires punishment, but it is also seen as the consequence of transgression. As expressed in Slavery and Sin: The Fight against Slavery and the Rise of Liberal Protestantism, we see that this argument could easily be taken out of context to say that the Bible was pro-slavery. However, when you put this argument into context it is clear that this passage is not about the kind of slavery that was present in America. If slavery is used as a consequence for sin, then the Bible would definitely not agree with subjecting individuals into slavery because of their race or status. 

It is also important to realize that the Bible has been translated and copied many times, so the way we interpret slavery is not necessarily the way the Greek or Hebrew words for slavery would have been interpreted in ancient times. It is pointed out in The Challenge of Bible Translation, that translations were often made with the goal of keeping the meaning the same, but there cannot be translations made for cultural differences. 

There are clearly two sides to every story and it is easy to interpret the Bible in different ways, especially because of the different cultures and languages in which it originated. While all arguments today are anti-slavery, it is important to remember that was not always the case. As source material is interpreted, it can often be manipulated to fit individual beliefs so it is important to be objective, look at the facts, and think through outside influences of the time.