Plessy v Ferguson Reflection

 Plessy v Ferguson was set in 1896 in New Orleans. This case is regarded as one of the worst decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history. 

Homer Plessy was 1/8th black and 7/8ths white. Because he was mixed-race, he would not be able to board a "white only" train car in the state of Louisiana. That is exactly what Homer Plessy did. He
boarded a "white only" rail car and was charged under the Separate Car Act of 1890. The Separate Car Act of 1890 stated that rail cars must be equal, but separate. This case is where we get the term "separate but equal". Plessy violated this Act by getting into the "white only" railcar and was charged for it.

For the people defending Plessy, they came up with many strong arguments. I really liked some of the main points they made. One of these points was along the lines of "when will America be true to what they put down on paper." Another point was that the law only says white or black but not mixed race, so how can they apply it to Plessy? I liked the business aspect of the argument, where the race of the person holding the dollar has nothing to do with the business aspect of it. If you segregate the economy, you are also hurting the economy. Another good point was that the 14th Amendment does not put borders in the word citizen, we are all citizens.

The people defending the state of Louisiana also made good points. Someone brought up a blame the victim argument. This means he knew exactly what he was doing and that he was breaking the law. Someone brought up how separate, but equal is not unconstitutional. They said that separate rail cars must be maintained to keep the peace. Another person said that by staying separate, African Americans can grow their own money and make a lifestyle suitable to them. My favorite point was bringing up Black Wallstreet. Black Wallstreet is a town of only African Americans where the economy flourished with segregation.

Both sides of the argument made important points and brought up many facts that I did not know about the case. This was a very well-done mock trial and helped me learn much more about the case than I knew before.

KKK in Reconstruction Era EOTO

 I did my presentation on the rise and fall of the first Ku Klux Klan. The KKK was an organization that dedicated itself to an underground campaign of violence against Republican leaders and voters (both Black and White) in an effort to reverse the policies of Radical Reconstruction and restore White Supremacy in the South.

Targets for the Ku Klux Klan were white Republicans and black institutions. When I say black institutions, I am speaking of black schools and black churches.

Former confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Pulaski, Tennessee in 1865. By 1867, local branches had met and formed the "Invisible Empire of the South." The first chosen leader of the Ku Klux Klan was Nathan Bedford Forrest, the former confederate general.

There was a hierarchy in the Ku Klux Klan, that went from "Grand Wizard" to "Grand Dragons" to "Grand Titans" to "Grand Cyclopses".

By 1870, there were branches of the Ku Klux Klan in nearly every southern state. The Klan would wear masks along with their signature long, white robes and hoods.

Each branch of the Ku Klux Klan acted on its own, but they all acted for the same goal of defeating Radical Reconstruction.

The Ku Klux Klan is made up of small farmers and planters, lawyers, merchants, physicians, ministers, and especially law enforcement officers.

The Ku Klux Klan flourished especially in regions of the South where black people were a minority. One major attack was in 1871. In South Carolina, 500 masked men attacked the the Union County Jail and lynched 8 black prisoners.

In 1871, the government started to put their foot down and slow down or stop the Ku Klux Klan completely. They created the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 designated certain crimes committed by individuals as federal offense. There were three parts to this Act. The first part states "conspiracies to deprive citizens of the right to hold office, serve on juries, and enjoy equal protection under the law" is a federal offense. The second part "authorizes the President to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and arrest accused individuals without charge." The third part of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 gives the government authority to "send federal forces to suppress Klan violence."

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 led to the fall of the Klan in South Carolina and other areas. Even though the Klan was gone for around thirty years, it ended up being revived in 1915.

"Band of Angels" Reflection

In "Band of Angels", we see a different view on slavery than "Gone with the Wind". We see slaves treated as if they were actual human beings and a part of society.

With Yvonne De Carlo playing Amantha Starr and Clark Gable playing Hamish Bond, we are introduced to a new way that slaves were treated. Hamish Bond bought Amantha Starr after she was put up for auction, when she was found out to be part African American. Starr did not expect the nice treatment of the slaves in Bond's household, and did not want to accept her new identity as a slave. As time went on, she grew fond of Hamish Bond and stayed with him, even after she was set to be a free woman.

Although it is a movie about a Civil War romance between a former slave runner and a southern beauty, who learned her mother was a slave upon her father's death, we see in depth how some households actually treated their slaves. All of Hamish Bond's slaves were dressed and treated as if they were not slaves at all. This led to a conflict with Bond's first slave, Rau-Ru. Rau-Ru was treated as Bond's own son, and this conflicted him mentally, as he felt like he was not supposed to be treated this way. This shows how slaves had accepted the way they were treated before, and a change of treatment from bad to good felt off. He thought that Bond was playing mental games with all of his slaves, and he was actually just like every other slaveowner. 

In the end, Rau-Ru had made up his mind that he wanted to kill Bond for treating him this way, but ended up saving him. This film showed a different view of slavery that most people are not used to seeing.

Mock Trial Reflection

 During this mock trial of John Mann v State of North Carolina, I learned a good amount that I had not known before. Not only did I learn about facts in the United States, but I also learned about places outside the United States as well. 

Some things that I learned about other countries are new to me. In 1806, the Foreign Slave Trade Act was passed in Great Britain that banned all slave trades going into Britain. I expected slavery to be abundant in other nations, but they actually had moved to abolish slavery much before the United States. Slavery was a sin in other countries and other countries had abolished it already.

Lydia, John Mann's slave, was being rented at the time of his ownership. Although John Mann was renting her from another owner, during that time, John Mann had full ownership of her and was allowed to do whatever with her. Then again, if slaves rebel , the South's economy would be destroyed. There were multiple reasons for Mann to shoot her, although I doubt he had all of them in mind.

I also learned about the history and events that were happening around this period of time. Some of these events include the Emancipation Proclamation, the Missouri Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the American  Anti-Slavery Society, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. All of these being passed made the United States what we are today. I learned more about John Brown and Amistad Mutiny. John Brown was a big abolitionist who led the Harpers Ferry Attack. Amistad Mutiny was a slave rebellion on a Spanish ship, where the slaves went on trial for murder. these slaves passed that trial and were free, because they acted in self-defense and were kidnapped.

Amistad Mutiny

Mann v State Mock Trial Argument

 In this Mock Trial, I played the role of a lawyer defending John Mann. My approach to defending John Mann, in order to get his money back from the State of North Carolina, was that of the norms and customs of the South at the time. John Mann had shot a slave that was trying to escape in the back. The slave lived, and decided to take John Mann to trial for his actions. Mann was fined $10 by the State of North Carolina. Mann is now back in the courtroom to get his money back from the State, as his fine was unjust and he wants it back. 

Below is my speech on the customs and norms of the South, defending John Mann.

Thomas Ruffin

"Hello everyone, I am here today to speak on why John Mann should. be given his money back and that the fine was unjust. i will be using the norms and tradition of the South to prove so. Slaves are not considered human. What slaves are, is property. By acknowledging that they are property, it is up to the owner on how they are treated and what happens to them. Would you get mad at a farmer that shot his own cattle? There is no difference in this case. Slaves can never forget their status as property, no matter how their owners treat them. By running away, this slave defied her master. Almost every slaveowner would have shot their slave if it decided to run away. If that's the case, then why are those other slaveowners, who have done this deed, not in here with us today?

Since slaves are property, their masters are able to punish them however they want. Punishment could range from physical violence, to being sold away from their family. Some slave discipline included: whippings, torture, mutilation, and imprisonment.If slaveowners are able to sexually stalk, harass, rape, and use their slaves as long-term concubines, why are they not also able to kill them. Once again, slaves are not people, they are only mere property.

In the South, killing slaves is normal and occurs frequently. During times of insurrection - either real OR rumored - enraged whites would form vigilance committees that would terrorize, torture, and kill slaves. What is the difference in John Mann's case in front of us not, if it is not as bad as these deeds.

It is a known fact that enslaved people are not citizens in the United States. In that case, they do not receive any protection from the government or the courts, if they are not citizens. So, why are we standing here today?

It is tradition in the South to have slave codes. Slave codes, by definition, are any of the set of rules based on the concept that enslaved persons were property, not people. In the slave code in 1741, It is stated that if freedom-seeking enslaved people refused to surrender immediately, they could be killed and there will be no legal consequences. Let me repeat that for you. If freedom seeking enslaved people refused to surrender immediately, they COULD BE KILLED and there will be NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. Did this slave not run away and seek freedom from her punishment? Did she not refuse to surrender? John Mann had every right to shoot this slave. It is normal for these things to happen, but the only problem that needs to be fixed is John Mann's aim."

Source