EOTO # 2 The Reconstruction Era Reaction

 EOTO # 2 REACTION

The Reconstruction Era was a critical period in the United States. This was right after the American Civil War, when Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House in 1865. It was a difficult time as the nation was rebuilding itself and redefining the concept of freedom for millions of enslaved African Americans. It was a time of great challenges as well as hope, struggle and political reform. 

In 1865, the Government established the Freedom Bureau. This agency was established to provide aid to the newly freed slaves. This Bureau played an important role in providing shelter, food, education and job training for formally enslaved individuals. 

In 1865, the Reconstruction Era saw the confirmation of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery throughout the United States. In 1868, the 14th Amendment granted citizenships and equal protection under the law to all individuals born or naturalized in the United States. In 1870, the 15th Amendment provided voting rights regardless of race, color or previous conditions of servitude. 

The Reconstruction Era was not without serious political and social upset especially in the South. First, most Southerners despised “Carpetbaggers”, which were Northerners who moved to the South after the war in efforts to get rich and acquire political power. Second, the rise of African American political representation challenged the white-dominated social and political order. This lead to the rise of the white supremacist organization like the Ku Klux Klan and the implement of Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, which put restrictions on African Americans.

The Compromise of 1877 marked the end of the Reconstruction era and the South regaining control of it’s own affairs. This happened with a political agreement where the Southern Democrats agreed to support the Republican candidate Rutherford B.Hayes, in the Presidential election in exchange for the removal of the federal troops from the South.

The Reconstruction Era was a period of hope and progress but also had conflicts of destruction due to the rise of segregation, voter suppression, and racism in the South. The struggle for equal rights would continue throughout the 20th century, leading up to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. 

References:

www.study.com

www.history.com

Trial Reaction from Plessy v. Ferguson

 Trial Reaction from Plessy v. Ferguson

We heard in class several debates on the pros and cons of segregation from the Plessy v. Ferguson trial.

This debate left a dark mark in American history with the introduction of the legal doctrine "Separate but Equal". Some of the pros in favor of racial segregation were very powerful. The idea that separate facilities were acceptable as long as one was provided for each race was suitable for people especially in the South. 

People supported the segregation law because it was a way of preserving traditional values. This was in line with the societal norms and customs of the time. People were in fear and were raised with prejudices. They were afraid of racial integration. They believed that mixing races would lead to social unrest and wanted to avoid potential conflict. Another reason for embracing segregation was economic concerns. Some white people, again especially in the South, believed that racial segregation would protect their economic interest and job opportunities. They feared that integration would lead to increased competition for jobs and resources.

The segregation laws also maintained order in society. They felt being divided was a way to avoid tension and conflicts between races. It was also influenced by the belief of the states' rights and adherence to the law. The "Law of the Land" needed to be respected. People were afraid of change and were afraid of new exposure and ideas. People has limited interaction with people from different racial backgrounds.

As many pros there was for racial segregation, there was also arguments on the other side against racial segregation.

The "Separate but Equal" doctrine was met by many cons or oppositions. The facilities between the two races were far from being equal. The facilities of the African American people were inferior in terms of quality and resources. This often led to outrage and opposition for a desire of change.

The segregation was also a violation of the Civil Rights of African Americans. Individuals that valued civil rights and equality were very dissatisfied. This also took an emotional toll on the African American's self-esteem, always feeling inferior to the white race. This was a barrier of social progress and racial harmony. This was another hurdle for social and development in the United States.

African Americans were often in fear of violent enforcement. If these laws were challenged, like by people from the "Freedom Riders" or Civil Rights Activists, they were often met with violence and harassment.

The "Separate but Equal" doctrine delayed progress towards racial equality. It took decades for America to overturn these laws with struggles that included the Civil Rights Movement.

Plessy v. Ferguson Argument

 

Plessy v. Ferguson Argument

Ladies and gentlemen, and esteemed judges,

I stand here today to solidify the argument on behalf of the side of Honorary John H. Ferguson. On June 7, 1892, the plaintiff Homer Plessy, who identifies as a black man bought a first-class ticket on the 4:15 p.m. train that was New Orleans bound for Covington, Louisiana. His decision to sit in a white railroad car on the East Louisiana Local was deliberately of wrongdoing, as it violated the established 1890 laws and Section 2 of the Louisiana Separate Car Act. Under the law, "Any passenger insisting on going into a coach or compartment to which by race he does not belong, shall be liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars, or in lieu thereof to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty days in parish prison."

It is essential to acknowledge that the "Separate but Equal" doctrine deems constitutional on intrastate railroads. The court ruled the protections of the 14th Amendment applied only to political and civil rights (like voting and jury service), not "social rights" (sitting in the railroad car of your choice") of individuals. Some blacks might argue that the "colored cars" were inferior to the "white cars" but that is solely because the colored race chooses to believe that. They chose to believe that everything that was given to a white person was better than what they were given. To put it simply, it's a matter of opinion. 

This law is not unconstitutional! The Separate Car Act does not conflict with the 13th Amendment because it does not reestablish slavery or constitute a 'badge' of slavery or servitude. As far as the 14th Amendment, it does not conflict with that either. The 14th Amendment was intended to secure only the legal equality of African Americans and whites, not social equality.

Plessy knowingly defied this law when he entered the white car, which was reserved for passengers classified as white. Regardless of one's opinion on segregation, the law of the land must be respected. Plessy's action was a direct challenge to the legal order. This was an act of Civil disobedience! His actions had the potential to ignite chaos and violence and potentially endanger the lives of innocent people. 

Ladies and gentlemen, and esteemed judges, as I conclude my argument, I uphold the need for states to have some level of freedom in making decisions about their local policies. Plessy's actions deliberately undermined and disrespected the legal order of the country. It is essential for all citizens, regardless of race, to respect the laws and norms of the nation. Otherwise, acts of civil disobedience will continue to divide the fine citizens of our country.

Thank you.

References:

www.history.com

www.britannica.com

www.supreme.justia.com

Reconstruction Video Post

 

Reconstruction Video Post

The Reconstruction video was an educational video that informed us of how after the Civil War, things were supposed to be hopeful for the African Americans. It was a national crisis back then and for some the same national crisis today. The Civil War had ended, and the Reconstruction amendments had passed. The African Americans were figuring out their place in society. The North and the South had very different views of what that should look like.

After the war had ended, Lincoln gave a speech giving black men and veterans the right to vote. Lincoln was assassinated for having those views. I’m not sure why Lincoln would pick Andrew Johnson as his Vice President because they had very different views, but I know he needed someone who was both a Southerner and a Democrat to win a national unity ticket.

 

Andrew Johnson was the first to become President from an assassination. He was a poor Southerner who blamed the plantation owners for the nation’s issues. This could explain why he required the wealthier, old Confederate landowners to personally appeal to him on an individual basis for a pardon before returning their land. This land was initially meant to be distributed to the newly freed African Americans through the Freedman’s Bureau, but though these pardons it was returned to Confederate owners.

 

The Freedman’s Bureau was created by an act of Congress on March 3, 1865, two months before Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to the Union's Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House in Virgina. From the beginning the Bureau faced hostility from a variety of sources including many white Southerners and President Andrew Johnson.

The Reconstruction under Johnson came with Black codes in place from strict local and state laws that said where and how enslaved people could work and how much they would make as far as pay. The code made sure that African Americans stayed subordinate and inferior to the white race. 

On December 4, 1865, the 39th Congress met as a group of 15 committee members to review the credentials of the newly elected legislators from various Confederate states. Within the group were 9 representatives and 6 senators. The group questioned whether or not the confederate states should be granted membership into the House of Congress. After reviewing the case, the committee rejected the Southern member's request to join them.

When the 39th Congress convened on December 4, 1865, some of the newly elected legislators from former Confederate states presented credentials, expecting to be seated in the Senate. Questions about the validity of the credentials prompted the House and Senate to establish a Joint Committee on Reconstruction. This 15-member committee, composed of 9 representatives and 6 senators, investigated "the conditions of the States which formed the so-called confederate States of America" to determine whether they "are entitled to be represented in either House of Congress." Following its investigation, the committee refused to admit the Southern members.

Although President Johnson tried to bring the country back together by creating a reconstruction plan for the country, most moderates and radicals were against it. This led to increased tension in the country. People engaged in violent riots in different cities across the country. People got hurt trying to express their opposition.

The country finally started to shift into a different direction when Congress passed new amendments and acts giving rights to all American citizens regardless of race. Although it was a challenge to get both sides to agree, eventually Congress convinced southern states to abide by the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1966 gave all people born in America citizenship. Amendments, like the 13th and 14th Amendments, helped reconstruct America. Southern states were forced to ratify and oblige by these amendments. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment required states to honor the rights of all citizens and grant them due process of the law. The country continued to show progress when African Americans started to become elected to congressional positions despite their previous "slave" roles. This, along with the election of Republican Ulysses S. Grant gave Americans hope that America can become a nation that accepts each individual despite differences in race.

References:

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/freedmens-bureau

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/civil_war/VictoryTragedyReconstruction.htm

 

American Anti-Slavery Society

 American Anti-Slavery Society post

The American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS) was a main activist arm for the immediate abolition of slavery. It was founded in 1833 under the leadership of William Lloyd Garrison. The society sponsored meetings, adopted resolutions, signed anti-slavery petitions that were sent to Congress. They also published in large quantities journals and enlisted subscriptions and printed and distributed propaganda with agents and lectures to carry the message of anti-slavery to audiences in the North. 

William Lloyd Garrison

Most of the participants were from religious groups and philanthropic backgrounds as well as some members of free black communities. Some member included: Theodore Dwight Weld and Arthur and Lewis Tappan and Lawyer Wendell. These individuals were committed to the moral and political principal that slavery was a sin and a violation of fundamental human rights. There were also six black members serving on the first Board of Managers.

Theodore Dwight Weld

Arthur and Lewis Tappan

The meetings were most effective when they had the testimonies of former slaves like Frederick Douglass and William Wells Brown. 

Frederick Douglass

These meetings did not come without opposition from the public that were in favor of slavery. They would invade meetings, attack speakers and burn presses. There was opposition from businessmen in the North because they relied on the imports from the slave states.

In 1839, the National organization split over differences. Garrison and his followers were more radical and denounced the U.S. Constitution as supportive of slavery. They insisted on sharing with women, like Angelina and Sarah Grimke organizational responsibilities. This helped with the early advocacy of Women's rights. The Tappan Brothers were less radical and formed the Foreign Anti-Slavery Society which advocated moral suasion and political action and led to the beginning of the Liberty Party (an early advocate of the abolitionist which broke away from the AASS to advocate the view that the constitution was an anti-slavery document) in 1840.

By 1840 the society had members totaling around 200,000. With the division in leadership most of the activities were carried out by state and local societies.

The society played a pivotal role in the larger abolitionist movement, which sought to end the institution of slavery and promote civil rights and equality for all individuals. They also played a crucial role in promoting the Underground Railroad. This helped house and find safe routes of enslaved individuals escape to the North and Canada. The American Anti-Slavery Society was formally dissolved by 1870, after the Civil War and Emancipation.

References: 

www.brittanica.com

www.americanabolitionists.com

Mock Trial State V. Mann Reaction

State v. Mann Reaction

On trial today we heard several arguments for and against John Mann. 

John Mann

John Mann was on trial for the assault and attempted murder of a slave named Lydia. Lydia belonged to Elisabeth Jones but was on loan to John Mann at the time of this incident. She was brutally beaten by John Mann for not obeying him and while she tried to run away, he shot her in the back. 

The state charged John Mann with assault and attempted murder, and he was fined $10 for his punishment. Mann appealed this on the following arguments.

The State argued that America had Christian values such as the Golden Rule where "Treat others how you would want to be treated." and we are God's children. John Mann did not display any of those values in this case and should pay the fine of $10.00.

Another point was made that if America's economy in the south is doing so well due to the slave's work, why would you beat them? It's like the saying "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." 

Other points that were made on how America is behind the rest of the world in abolition. The rest of the world is moving forward, and we should look to the future and not the past.

The first argument was John Mann was guilty of assault and battery and how the laws should be applied to African Americans as well.

The second argument was a strong one that John Mann did not have the right to harm and punish Lydia because she did not really belong to him. She belonged to Elizabth Jones and did not have her permission to assault her. This right could not be transferred.

These points were all based on morals and not the law. 

The arguments on John Mann's side were more on the laws during this time in history.

The first argument in favor of Mann was that slaves were property under the law and so Mann had the right to beat her since Lydia ran away. She broke the law of travelling without permission and could be a danger to others, so he had the right to shoot her.

A second point was that this could have been in self-defense because Lydia posed a threat to others by running away, she could have harmed someone. Plus, it took away from his profits of earning a living on his property.  

According to the bible, masters are allowed to beat their slaves as long as they do not die, and Lydia did not die. 

In the end the court found Mann not guilty and gave him back his $10.00 and wiped away the charges.

Thomas Ruffin

The Missouri Compromise of 1820

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE OF 1820

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a law that was addressing the growing tensions over slavery issues. The nation was divided not only geographically but also morally. This was an attempt to balance the interest of slave-holding and non-slave-holding states as America expanded westward. This was becoming a pressing concern. The south was a slave-holding territory, and the north was a non-slave-holding territory. Maintaining a balance between these two groups was pivotal to avoid a political crisis. 

In 1817 Missouri applied for statehood. Congress was going to approve Missouri's state constitution when the Tallmadge Amendment was introduced. This amendment banned slavery in Missouri and emancipated the ones that were already there. The House of Representatives passed the amendment but failed in the Senate. 

Henry Clay proposed that Congress admit Missouri to the Union. On May 3, 1820, the House passed the Senate version of the bill, and President James Monroe signed it into law, and admitted Missouri to the Union as a state that allowed slavery. This would upset the balance of power in congress and tip the scales on pre-slavery states. To maintain the balance Maine, which was part of Massachusetts at this time would be a free state. 

A significant aspect of the Missouri Compromise was the establishment of the 36°30' parallel as the boundary for future slavery in the Louisiana territory. Slavery would be prohibited in all new territories north of this line, while it would allow slavery south of the line. Although this eased tension a bit, it did not address the real issues of slavery itself. This would divide the north and the south for future conflicts.

The Missouri Compromise would go on for 34 years before it was appealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This allowed for territories to choose whether they would be pro or anti slaves states. This was known as a "popular sovereignty" This was very controversial since it overturned the Missouri Compromise which made Kansas a free state. There was also controversy in 1857, with the US Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford which ruled the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. This made abolitionists very angry thinking the government could legalize slavery in any state. The uprising violence was known as Bleeding Kansas. 

Although the Missouri Compromise was put in place to help with the slavery issues that divided the North and the South, the underlying issues of slavery and states' rights would continue to build up, eventually leading to the bloodiest conflict in American history.

References:

www.history.com

www.britannica.com

www.archives.gov

 

Gone with Wind Movie Blog (Part 1)

 Gone with Wind Movie Blog (Part 1)

The Gone with the Wind movie is a classic film that was released in 1939 but is still watched today. Hence, that's why I am blogging about it! 

The movie was made as a tribute to the best-selling novel written by Margaret Mitchell in 1936. The movie won eight Academy Awards and two Honorary Awards. The movie opens up with the famous theme song which sets the stage. The first scene is the slaves working in a cotton field. This tells you the era takes place in the South, Georgia to be exact. The timing is right before the American Civil War in April 1861 This is right before the outbreak of the Amercian Civil War between the Confederate South and the Unionist "Yankees" from the North. 

 

One of the main characters is Scarlett O'Hara. She is a very spoiled and strong-willed girl. She is the daughter of the owner of the plantation, Tara. Scarlett is in love with a man named Ashley Wilkes. She learns that he intends to marry his cousin, Melanie Hamilton. She is so upset, that at a party, at the Wilkes' home (Twelve Oaks), Scarlett is determined to win Ashley over by confessing her love for him and to marry her instead of Melanie. Ashley declines her advances. Little does she know there is a man, Rhett Butler, who she saw earlier at the party, hiding in the study and has heard the whole conversation!

Out of spite, anger but not love, Scarlett decides to marry Melanie's brother, Charles. The war breaks out and most of the men enlist to fight against the South. Scarlett learns that her husband Charles, has died of pneumonia and the measles. She now must mourn her husband according to customary rules of mourning. She agrees to go to Atlanta with Melanie to a charity fundraiser for the soldiers and runs into Rhett Butler again. He is a successful Blockade runner. Since she doesn't really want to mourn, Rhett comes up with a bid to dance with any woman and he picks Scarlett. She is thrilled just to get out of mourning for a bit and have a great time. Both Scarlett and Rhett have very similar personalities and play off one another throughout the movie. 

Ashley comes back for Christmas break and asks Scarlett to watch after his wife since she is now pregnant. Scarlett still in love with Ashley does it for him. As Atlanta is under attack and being evacuated, Scarlett and the servant Prissy must deliver Melanie's baby on their own. When Scarlett feels Prissy is not working fast enough to help her, she slaps her across the face. This proves the social hierarchy going on in this era. She has Prissy find Rhett and asks him to take the three of them back to her Tara home. As they flee through the burning city, and are somewhat out of danger, Rhett feels bad he is not fighting in the war and hands Scarlett the reigns to finish the trip without him. He confesses his love for her and knows she can do it because she is strong. 

 

When she finally makes it home, she sees her house still standing but learns her mother has died and her father is depressed. She is happy to see her house servants still there, Mammy and Pork, but they do not know how to farm. They are in need of food, especially for the baby. Since the barn has burned down, she must find food. The closing scene, she finds a carrot and is determined to survive. Scarlett shouts up to the sky: "As God is my witness, as God is my witness, they're not going to lick me. I'm going to live through this and when it's all over, I'll never be hungry again. No, nor any of my folk. If I have to lie, steal, cheat or kill. As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again."

Not sure the video works on the blog

I can't wait until part 2 begins to see how the movie continues and ends!

References: 

www.britannica.com

www.youtube.com

www.paulinebartel.com

Town Hall Reaction

 Town Hall Reaction

The Town Hall was great to listen to and watch. All the students portrayed different key figures and their voices to persuade their point of views on pros and cons of slavery. This topic was a very complex subject because it's a dark subject in the United States history.

Most of the leaders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John C. Calhoun, and Jefferson Davis was for pro-slavery. The reason for their beliefs is that they thought they were providing the common man with the benefit of cheap labor. The enslaved workers helped keep faming alive in the country. This was also great for helping provide food on the table for the owner's families. A lot of the leaders felt that this was acceptable because the slaves were paid with water, food, and a place to live for their services. This helped with the economy to have slaves working on the farms and plantations because it was hard to recruit white laborer to the farm. There were also many leaders including John Breckinridge, saying that since slavery was not mentioned in the bible negatively, it was acceptable. John Calhoun felt he was protecting his white Southerns by defending American Slavery. They felt the value slaves gave to their owners is larger than the value of their freedom. 

Slaves did not feel like they were protected. They were treated like property. Slaves got abused and beaten to keep them in line especially if they were working too slow or tried to run away. One slave that was lucky enough to escape from Maryland was Frederick Douglass. He taught himself to read and write and went on to become a prominent activist, author and public speaker.

Abraham Lincoln was by far the great abolitionist! He was against slavery. He felt it was an injustice, and that all people should be treated equal. President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, calling to liberate all enslaved people in the United States. Millions of enslaved people were declared forever free. Lincoln's leadership during the Civil War and his commitment to ending slavery marked a turning point for American history. 

Reference links:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com

http://www.history.com

http://www.britannica.com