Reconstruction Video Post: 

This video begins with the statement that the Reconstruction Era is the lynchpin for the anti-black hate crimes of the modern day. America after the Civil War was supposed to be a hopeful time. The Emancipation Proclamation had the executive branch on the side of abolition, the war had ended, and the Reconstruction amendments were passed. 

A spirit of hope was alive in the spirits of the African Americans. However, as the video stated: they had no idea what cliff they were headed towards. The slaves were freed, but where were they to go? The government was grappling with process of Reconstruction, and it soon became clear that the North and South had different ideas of what Reconstruction would look like. 

The surrender at Appomattox was merely the beginning of a tenuous struggle for peace. Newspaper ads began emerging highlighting the separation of slave families during the peculiar institution. When Lincoln suggested that black men could vote, he was assassinated for having those views. 

Enter Andrew Johnson, a man that no one believed would ever become President. He was the first President to gain power as the result of an assassination, and while Congress was out of session, he had all the power. 

Johnson's views were complicated. He was a poor white Southerner who hated the planter class and believed that they were to blame for all of the countries' problems. Johnson even had racist tendencies, unwilling to shake the hand of Fredrick Douglas. How were these views to affect the Reconstruction process?

While Congress was in recess, Johnson decreed that wealthy Confederates would have to personally beg him for a pardon. Johnson enjoyed having the people that he hated beg for forgiveness and eventually gave all of the land belonging to the Freedman's Bureau back to the newly pardoned Confederates. 

The Freedman's Bureau was an organization that attempted to give former plantation land to the newly freed African Americans, however the land was redistributed as a result of Johnsons' pardons. This had a devastating impact on black progress, as the African Americans were forced to enter into labor contracts working for many of their former owners. It was not "slavery" but it was pretty darn close. 

Not only were the African Americans consigned to a life of servitude yet again as a result of Johnson's poor reconstruction policies, many Southerners still clung desperately to their old way of life. This was what truly unified the Confederacy for the first time. 

The creation of the Black Codes during this period ensured that there was as little change from slavery as possible. Not only were African Americans forced to enter into labor contracts with white owners, some African American children were forced to enter into apprenticeship and were separated from their parents, subjecting them to physical and sometimes even sexual abuse. The Black Codes ensured that African Americans stayed subordinate forever. These are the effects of 6 mere months of Reconstruction under Andrew Johnson.

Additionally, Confederate generals and plantation owners were allowed to represent their states in Congress again after "meeting Johnson's terms".  Congressional Republican Thaddeus Stephens found this abhorrent. 

The very moment that the 39th Congress came into session, the clerk refused to acknowledge the Southern delegates, effectively terminating their membership in Congress. This began Congress' prominent role in Reconstruction. 

Tensions were mounting in the country, as Congress was in an explosive position, and freed people were moving toward cities. The riots in Memphis and New Orleans were horrific and opened the eyes of the Northerners to the fact that Johnson's reconstruction plan was a failure. 

Congress passed the 14th Amendment which forever changed the rights of freedmen and all American citizens. The issue was how to get the Southern states to ratify, however the 1866 midterms provided a solution: Republicans gained a majority in Congress and began to enact a new phase of reconstruction: Military Reconstruction. 

The southern states were split into districts and ruled by a US general. They were given the ultimatum that in order to gain their representation in Congress, they would have to pass the Reconstruction amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments). This was a huge step forward in the Reconstruction process. 

The 1868 Presidential election was a hopeful moment, with the election of Republican Ulysses S. Grant and the election of dozens of African Americans, who had been slaves a mere years earlier. The end of the decade provided an glimmer hope for black progress, however the future would bring even more turmoil for race relations
in America. 

 Plessy V. Ferguson: 14th Amendment Argument 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Honor, I stand before the court today to cement the plaintiff's argument that the Separate Car Law is deeply unconstitutional. I stand here to showcase that the law, plain and simple, says thusly.

I will begin with the reminder that our Declaration of Independence states: "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Our country was created and built off of these principles, and we would do well to remember them here today. 

As a nation, we are on the precipice. What this court decides today will determine how we are viewed as a nation both internally and externally. If we ignore the values that our nation was built on, how are we to move forward? How are we to be taken seriously? 

Need I remind you of our new Constitutional amendments? This nation came together to add these amendments to the constitution, meaning that the majority believes in these principles. African Americans have been given citizenship, the right to vote, and most importantly, equal protection under the law. If the court overlooks these rights, our liberty, the very fabric of our democracy, is in grave danger. 

This case specifically cites the 14th Amendment, which states: "No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Equality is not a vague, or ambiguous concept. It is unchangeable, concrete, and absolute. There should be no caveat when it comes to equality. 

Because the state law is worded in such a way that regulates the transportation system solely based on race, it is not only unjust, but un-Constitutional. The Constitution is color-blind, there is no caste system, and no dominant ruling class of citizens. The 14th Amendment was created to ensure that would be the case. 

You would have to be ignorant to overlook that the intent of the state law is to segregate based solely upon race, and doing so is a gross Constitutional breach. One of the most fundamental rights, personal liberty, is under attack. It is a man's right to choose whether or not to occupy the same car as a man of another race, and the government cannot infringe upon that right using race as the sole argument. 

"In respect of Civil Rights", and in respect of the 14th Amendment, "all citizens are equal before the law" regardless of color. We are one common nation and the sooner we as a nation can reach that point, the less aggression, and less brutality there will be. 

If this court rules against Homer Plessy today, it will forever be undermining its authority, and defeating the purpose of putting the 14th amendment in place to begin with. Not only that, but we will lose the ability as a nation to "boast about our freedoms" because we have attacked the most fundamental that our nation was built on: personal freedom and personal liberty. 

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"