Mock Trial State V. Mann Reaction: 

In the courtroom today we heard many arguments for and against John Mann. John Mann had been accused of assault and attempted murder of a slave named Lydia. Lydia was on loan to him from one Elisabeth Jones, and after a particularly bad beating when Lydia attempted to run away, John Mann shot her in the back. 

The state charged John Mann with assault and attempted murder and fined him $10. Mann appealed the fine and the following arguments were presented in court today: 

Firstly, the state presented a religious argument postulating that America is built on Judeo-Christian values, the belief that we are all God's children, and moral codes such as the golden rule. John Mann displayed a disregard for those fundamental values and a direct defiance for those principles. In analyzing Mann's actions through the lens of religion, he is clearly guilty and should be forced to pay the fine. 

Some other valuable points were made such as America being behind the rest of the world in terms of abolition and how we need to look toward the future and not the past. The rest of the world is moving forwards and so should we, because slavery is leaving an emotional hole in our society. 

Another good point was made on the subject of the economy. If slaves are of such value to the Southern economy, why are they beaten brutally and treated horribly? Why are they not held in higher respect? Slavery is even claimed to be an example of human trafficking and abuse. 

All of these arguments however are moral or ethical and therefore only appeal to emotion, not the law. The two most powerful arguments from the state side had legal backing. 

The first was the simple distinction that what John Mann did was assault and battery plain and simple. Focusing on those criminal statutes and how they should apply to African Americans as well was a powerful argument. 

The second was the argument that Lydia was not actually John Mann's slave, she belonged to Elisabeth Jones, thus, John Mann did not really have the right to punish her without Elisabeth's explicit permission. The plenary right is non-transferable, which was perhaps the strongest argument the State had on their side. 

On the side of John Mann, the arguments were a lot more legal in nature, referring to specific statutes of this time. 

The first argument being that enslaved people are property under the law and therefore, Mann was within his rights to beat her, and when Lydia ran away, she broke the slave code of travelling without permission, presenting a possible danger to others, therefore, Mann was within his rights to shoot her. 

Essentially, Mann's argument could be seen as self-defense in multiple ways. Firstly, Lydia's escape could have presented a threat, because she could have been a danger to others, robbed people, or started a slave revolt. Secondly, Mann's living revolves around his slaves, and he should not be punished for trying to protect his livelihood. 

Additionally, Lydia did not die, therefore, on Biblical and moral standing, he did nothing wrong, as according to Exodus 20-21, masters can beat their slaves as long as the slaves do not die. Slaves are not allowed to run from their masters according to the Bible, therefore, Mann was morally sound in his decision. 

This is why the court ultimately decided to rescind John Mann's fine and reimburse him. 

 Gone With The Wind Reaction: 

Gone With the Wind is not only a critically acclaimed movie, it is a movie that has transcended time. It was made nearly 100 years ago and the cultural relevance this movie still has is astounding. 

From the first sweeping notes of the score we are swept away into the opulent world of the pre-Civil War South. The backdrops, the sets, and the costumes especially are absolutely stunning. Not only are they masterful, they display a sort of excessive frivolity that only a plantation owners daughter could experience at the time. They truly highlight Scarlett's many character flaws, and the frills and ruffles and enormous hoops truly indicate their wealth, and how out of touch they are with not only their slaves, but the working class white Americans. 

This is juxtaposed beautifully with the costume Scarlett wears at the end of Act 1, where she is rundown. The plain colors, and lackluster fabric showcase not only how much the world is changing, but how Scarlett is developing as a character as well. 

Scarlett begins the movie as a spoiled, rich, entitled brat, and to be honest, she doesn't really change all that much. However, she does develop a sense of responsibility and grittiness about her. Of course, she is only doing it for a man who doesn't love her and is married to her alleged best friend, but nevertheless, she does what she has to do. She also realizes at the end of  the Act that she will do anything to avoid being in that destitute and desperate position again. 

In one of the most famous and powerful scenes, Scarlett goes out to the fields at her old plantation, Tara, and gives a powerful soliloquy claiming she will never be hungry again. 

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the movie though, is the portrayal of African Americans as slaves. Hattie McDaniel gives an Academy Award winning performance as Mammie, but the performance given by the character of Prissy, has had people up in arms in recent years. They claim that she is portrayed as too dumb and airheaded which is offensive. 

In my mind, I didn't particularly see anything much too wrong with it other than her voice and the scene where Melanie's baby is being born and Scarlett slaps Prissy pretty hard across the face. That is obviously disquieting and unacceptable behavior, however it is historically accurate. A lot of slave owners at the time treated their slaves much, much worse than that, and I simply cannot see why people want to completely erase that reality. As uncomfortable as it is, it is a blemish in our nations history that if we try to get rid of, it will just come back bigger and uglier. 

Overall, the movie is a stunning visual and auditory spectacle that, I think, truly showcases the time in history in an accurate manner with compelling characters and a good plot. That is why, despite people trying to cancel it and it being quite outdated, the movie has stood the test of time. 

 EOTO #1-The Missouri Compromise:

At the time the Missouri Compromise was passed, the country was in a contentious position. The Louisiana Purchase had created a frenzy to move West and the subsequent creation of new states had many people, civilians and government officials alike, up in arms about whether those new states would be slave states or free states. 

This story begins in 1817 when Missouri first applied for statehood. Congress was attempting to approve Missouri's state constitution when the Tallmadge Amendment was introduced. The Tallmadge Amendment proposed prohibiting slavery in Missouri and emancipating the ones who were already there when they reached age 25. The House of Representatives passed the amendment, but it failed in the Senate, which had a more even split between the Northerners and Southerners. 

The issue was unresolved until the next summer (1819) when Congress readjourned. The North had gained considerable support for the Tallmadge Amendment, even though the Southerners were staunchly against it, and Maine had put in a request for statehood. 

The balance of the nation was on a dangerous precipice, with half of the 22 states free states and half slave states. Congress did not want to upset that balance, because that would mean them taking an inadvertent stance for or against slavery. Not only was that unacceptable at the time, it was virtually impossible given the split of Northerners and Southerners in Congress. 

Henry Clay, who was the Speaker of the House at the time, facilitated a compromise that would admit Maine as a free state, and Missouri as a slave state while also prohibiting slavery North of 36°, 30'; this way the rest of the Louisiana Territory would have guidelines when applying for statehood. 

The future brought on more issues with the Missouri constitutional convention trying to subvert the original compromise by excluding African Americans from state legislature. Henry Clay once again had to step in, threatening their statehood with an ultimatum.  Eventually in August of 1821, Missouri became the 24th state. 

Although this compromise was intended to be a fair way to resolve the slavery issue, it essentially just kicked the can down the road, while simultaneously showcasing how dangerously divisive the slavery issue would be in new territories. Neither the North or South would stop pushing for more and with each addition of new states or territories, the issue would be brought up again and again. 

Essentially, the act that started the territorial debate over slavery was declared null and void when Kansas-Nebraska allowed for territories to choose whether they would be pro or anti slave states, in a provision known as 'popular sovereignty'.  This, along with the Dred Scott decision that claimed that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in those territories, produced the violent uprising known as Bleeding Kansas that cemented the irreversible divide among abolitionists and pro-slavery individuals. 

The eventual repealing of this compromise in 1854 by the Kansas Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott V. Sandford case of 1857 that declared the act unconstitutional, is what further pushed the country towards the brink of a civil war. 

So, while this act may have seemed a winning bipartisan compromise, it was truly only the lynchpin for a very contentious and bloody battle that would lead our country to near devastation. 

 Town Hall Reaction:

The Town Hall was abuzz today with multiple voices persuading towards both the pro and anti slavery causes. 

Most of the pro-slavery arguments were economically driven. The slave owners like Jefferson, Davis, Calhoun, and Washington. The economy of the nation is intrinsically tied to farming and the plantations cannot function without the slave workers. Most people on this side
tended to believe that slavery also provides economic, and social protection it provides. It gives them purpose, shelter, and economic stability and it also enforces a social hierarchy. In this way, it is a necessity. 

There were a few Constitutional arguments, with Daniel Webster claiming that under the necessary and proper clause, Congress could enforce slavery and laws such as the Fugitive Slave Law. John C. Calhoun even argued that the South can nullify any law that the government enacts regarding slavery that the south deems unconstitutional. 

John Breckinridge had a very interesting viewpoint, claiming that according to the First and Thirteenth amendments, it is within his rights as a free man own slaves.  The Bible has multiple verses that say slavery is okay, and thusly the government cannot restrict it because it is a facet of religion. In fact, slave owners are saving the souls of slaves by baptizing them in the faith. The 13th amendment even, allows slavery in cases of "voluntary servitude" and "crime and punishment", according to Breckenridge. 

The abolitionist voices on the other hand, claim that slavery is not a political, but a moral issue. Even the Grimke sisters, who grew up on a plantation, were staunch abolitionists because they witnessed firsthand the brutality against the slaves. Slaves were treated as possessions, and the slave owners could only be persuaded through violence and bloodshed to stop, according to John Brown's extreme stance. 

Slavery is said to be an evil created by men and is very un-Godly. According the Constitution, all men are created equal, not just all white men. Many abolitionists pointed out that slavery was staunchly against this principle outlined in the Declaration of Independence. William Lloyd Garrison mentioned the lack of social equity and the principles he fights for in his newspaper: The Liberator.

I think Abe Lincoln put it best though, when he said that to not allow African Americans their place in society, is to put our country behind in innovation, and be close minded to the possible contributions that African Americans can make. It has been said that only an unenlightened man is afraid of change, and it is clear from the Town Hall meeting today that it is time for our country to make a radical change. 

 Town Hall Meeting: 

My name is Thomas Jefferson. Most people know me as the Third President of the United States, but there is a lot more to my name than just that. I served as a member of the Virginia legislature in the House of Burgesses, wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a delegate and governor to Virginia, and drafted treaties with France before becoming the Minister to France for three years. I was the Secretary of State for President Washington until Alexander Hamilton angered me to the point of resignation. Then I retired from politics...until the next election, which I lost...but still became Vice President of the Adam's administration. I then won the very contentious election of 1800. During my tenure as the President, I made the Louisianan Purchase: the single largest territorial purchase in US history which doubled the land of the country. Before, during, and after my tenure in office, I was an active voice in the argument against abolition. 

I have always been a slave owner and throughout the course of my life I have owned 600 slaves. I even had children with one of my slaves: one Sally Hemings, who was only 14 at the time this relationship began. Additionally, the only ten slaves I ever freed were members of the Hemings' clan.

When I was in Paris, under French law, my slaves were technically free and yet, they were not given permission to leave me, nor did they choose to. In fact, "as far as I can judge from the experiments which have been made, to give liberty to, or rather to abandon persons whose habits have been formed in slavery is like abandoning children. These slaves choose to steal from their neighbors instead of work...and in most instances were reduced to slavery again". 

My views on the freedom of African Americans are most explicitly described in my novel: Notes on the State of Virginia. The African American race I believe to be distinctly inferior to the Caucasian one. Not only are African Americans as "incapable as children" their "unfortunate coloring...is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation" of them. Separate nations of blacks and whites cannot live peacefully together as one. 

I have spent my life building a nation built on equality in which everyone is avoided certain unalienable rights. However, in terms of slavery my actions speak louder than my words. Though the nation I am building affords all people these rights, I believe it is distinctly undemocratic and Anti-Revolutionary for a government to forcibly enact abolition, especially given that slavery is intrinsically tied to the economy. 

My beautiful homeland of Monticello is my prized possession, married to the economic structures of this time. Farming is essential. It is, of course,  inconceivable that I should work my own land and the land is of no value unless it is worked, thusly the land is tied to the slaves I possess. Slavery is like "holding a wolf by the ear. we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go" 

Biblical Slavery: 

It seems to us now that slavery is completely and unequivocally reprehensible. However, at the time slavery was prevalent, the mostly Christian slaveholders used the Bible to justify the practice of slavery. 

According to Time magazine, one story from the book of Genesis served as the basis for slaveholder arguments. The “Curse of Canaan”  follows Noah and his sons as they leave the ark. Noah became drunk and naked, and his youngest son Ham happened upon him and told his other two brothers, who covered him up without seeing his nakedness.

 Due to Ham’s shamefulness, his son Canaan was cursed and destined to be “a servant of servants.” Although this seems a far reach, the popularized version of this verse was taken and used to further the slaveholder argument, with Canaan being portrayed as African American, and his descendants destined to be slaves. 

Old Testament language was more slavery driven, mentioning laborers in the fields and harvests, with verses such as Leviticus 25:44 and Exodus 23:16. 

A lot of scripture mentions slavery. It isn’t a question of whether or not slavery exists in the Bible, it is more a question of what slavery meant in the Bible, versus what slavery was in practice. Biblical slavery is more about servitude in the Lord, while modern slavery became a brutal practice able to be justified through simple scriptural mention. 

Biblical verses that simply mention the words slavery, servitude, servant, or master  offhand are: Luke 7:3 and Matthew 18:25-31. These simple mentions of slavery in the Bible were enough for the slaveholders in early America to justify their actions. 

The way the slaveholders twisted the Biblical words is what helped to further their agenda. The verses were taken out of context of the larger Biblical timeline and used to support an evil practice. One such instance is Ephesians 6:5-7. “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people” 

This excerpt is taken from the apostle Paul’s exhortation when he was a prisoner himself. Paul uses the comparison of servant and master to highlight that no matter what earthly position one holds, they are all subject to Christ in the same way: in “sincerity of heart” Neither can hold true power over the other because the Lord is still the most High. The slaveholders took the verses and made them fit with what they wanted. 

 A lot of verses like 1 Timothy 6:1 and Titus 2:9  have language regarding the level of servitude slaves must exhibit to their master: “Those who are under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect, so that the name of God and our teaching may not suffer abuse”. 

What the slaveholders tended to ignore about scripture, was the language directed towards how masters should treat their servants. Verses like 1 Timothy 6:2 and Colossians 4:1 undoubtedly claim that masters should treat their servants with equal respect: “Those whose masters are believers must not take advantage of them because they are brothers but must give better service because those who will profit from their work are believers and are beloved.” The Bible without a doubt condones the ill treatment of slaves, saying: “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, realizing that you too have a Master in heaven”. 

The slaveholders were in no way deemed superior by the Bible and slaves in no way inferior, and yet the issue was twisted so far that the words of the Lord became unrecognizable. 

The American slaves were deeply religious people themselves, thus it is hard to understand how two groups of people could follow the same God, yet have two distinct understandings of the same scripture. This is the question that confounded the public throughout early America and beyond, and what makes race relations in America such a complex, nuanced issue. 

 

 Supreme Court Video: 

I've always thought the Supreme Court was the most interesting branch of government. It may have been the procedure, it may have been the prestige, but it was likely more the mystery. To have a governmental body that is fairly stagnant and detached from the public, yet with such far reaching power stirs a sense of fascination in the public sphere. I think the video said it best: the court's power rests in public faith, their independence, and impartiality; their legitimacy in the constitution. 

The court has no authority other than what has been built through legacy. The Marbury V. Madison case of 1803 gave the court the majority of its power. Previously, the court had very little guidance from the Constitution regarding what their role was. Chief Justice John Marshall's pivotal opinion, establishing judicial review, is what made the court what it is today: 

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" -John Marshall, Marbury V. Madison (1803)

What is amazing about this branch of government is that it is essentially self-made. Without this case, and the subsequent cases that followed, the court would have never established its authority and created precedence. It is through these precedencies that gives the court their power through public faith, independence, and impartiality. 

The court's authority has been tested though. The 1857 case Dred Scott V. Missouri ruled that the court had no power to ban slavery. This case, and the Plessy V. Ferguson (1896) case undermined the court's authority for years because it isolated a large majority of the population: the abolitionist, anti-slavery movement. When the Reconstruction amendments were passed post Civil War, the nuance of the slavery issue was put to rest once and for all. However, the court's interpretation of the new Constitution would be tested through the next century and the Civil Rights era. 

Something Associate Justice Kennedy said in this video really stuck out to me. He said, "We have 200 years of detachment". Today's courts have an easier job than the court of John Marshall. They can look back at what the courts have interpreted in the past and choose to implement stare decisis or not. These decisions that overturn precedence are landmark for a reason, and the amendments that may or may not follow influence political discourse for decades. The far reaching, long lasting power of the Supreme Court to check the other branches of government and interpret a 200 year old document is what makes it the most powerful branch of government in my eyes. However, with this power comes great responsibility to the laws of our nation. 

I would not say that this video drastically changed my views on the Supreme Court, but it did give me a better understanding of the procedure and lift some of the mystique. I would say that it strengthened my views though. It reminded me of the great weight of responsibility the court has and we have as Americans to make sure the most powerful court in the world stays impartial and un-influenced by outside forces. Our democracy depends too much upon it.