Plessy v. Ferguson Case: Fighting for Segregation

 DEFENDING SEGREGATION THROUGH CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS.

    In the aftermath of the Civil War and ratification of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, the Souther states faced the challenge of  restructuring society. Because of this, the South decided to develop Black Codes and later the Jim Crow laws. These laws were a direct response to the abolition of slavery and aimed to regulate the lives of African Americans in the South.

    In Ferguson's case, it can be said that the purpose of these laws were not there to control where and how formerly enslaved people lived, but were made to provide a social framework that would prevent instability and conflict between the races. These laws are rooted in long-standing customs, traditions, and norms that have shaped the way society has functioned in the South for generations.

BLACK CODES AND THE ORIGINS OF JIM CROW.

    The Black Codes were strict local and state laws that detailed the limitations placed on African Americans. They were designed to keep African Americans in a position similar to slavery by regulating their work conditions, wages, and movement. Over time, these Black Codes evolved into what we know as Jim Crow Laws. 

    In the South, these laws were especially stringent, reinforcing a system of racial segregation and white supremacy by keeping African Americans in subordinate positions. For example, African Americans were often place in a state of indenture servitude, stripped of their voting rights, and were being controlled in nearly every aspect of their lives. 

    While the North practiced segregation, the implementation of Jim Crow laws were not as intense as the South. Northern states had certain requirements, such as property ownership for African Americans before they could vote, schools and neighborhoods being segregated, and many businesses maintaining "white-only" policies. Although Black Codes were not as restrictive as it was in the South, there was still a reflection of widespread acceptance of racial segregation as a social norm. 

THE LEGAL ENDORSEMENT OF SEGREGATION.

    When it comes to Plessy v. Ferguson, we see that the Court rules in favor of segregation, upholding the principle of Separate but Equal. According to this ruling, "The doctrine held that so long segregation laws affected White and Black people equally, those laws did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." 

    The decision made it clean that the protections of the 14th Amendment applied only to political and civil rights, but did not extend to social rights.

CONCLUSION.

    The defense of both segregation, as supported by the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling was deeply rooted in customs, traditions, and norms of American society. The Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and the Supreme Court's endorsement of "Separate But equal" were all attempts to preserve a social structure that was seen as necessary for maintaining order and stability between Black and White communities. 

    While the laws may appear as discriminatory to some, they were designed to reflect social realities of the time and ensure that different races could coexist without conflict.

 

 

 

 

State v. Mann Trial Reaction Post

    The trial of State v. Mann was a pivotal case that significantly influenced slave law by reinforcing the authority of slaveholders. It involves John Mann, a man who had rented out an enslaved woman named Lidia from her owner for a period of time to work for him. When Lidia attempted to flee from Mann after the abuse she was being put through, he shot her in the back with a pistol. Fortunately, she survived, but Mann was charged with attempted murder and battery and fined $5. 

    This case went to court primarily because Mann's legal team argued that he should not be fined for harming an enslaved woman under his control. The prosecution, however, made claims concerning that whether Lidia was enslaved or not, she was still a human being. 

    The prosecuting council emphasized that Mann shot her in the back while she was unaware of the attack. Moreover, they pointed out the cruelty in Mann's actions and his complaint about the fine after inflicting harm on "property" that was not his in the first place. Furthermore, a council member highlight the prevailing racial hierarchy by stating that all bleed the same blood and come from the same place, but in the end, the white race is lifted above the black population.

    On the other hand, the defense argued that slavery was essential for maintaining the economy and way of life at the time and questioning why Mann should be punished for exerting control over an "essential item." They stress that plantation management required strict discipline of slaves, whether rented or owned, to ensure Smooth operations. Therefore, they claimed Mann had as much right to discipline Lidia as much as any other master would have. 

     The defense also brought up a religious argument, asserting that Christianity condoned Mann's action. On top of this, Mann had every right to discipline Lidia because at the end of the say, she was there to serve him and not the other way around.

 

Gone With The Wind Observation

    Gone with the Wind is a film that explores the hardships and challenges of surviving through the Civil War the Reconstruction Era. While watching, I took the time to observed the characters and their dynamics. 

    Regarding the main character, Scarlett O'Hara, I believe there's a part of her that will always remain childlike. However, as the story progresses, Scarlett gradually awakens to the harsh realities around her and becomes determined the reconquer her world. Her famous line, "After all, tomorrow is another day," seems to be a personal mantra of survival, motivating her to keep pushing forward. Yet, I also think Scarlett fails to fully recognize the support she has from those around her, especially from Melanie Hamilton.

    Af first, Melanie is portrayed as everything that Scarlett isn't - Kind, quiet, and thoughtful - unlike Scarlett who is more bold and cutting. Their initial tension stems from the fact that Melanie marries Ashley Wilkes, the main that Scarlett loves. Because of this one-sided tension, it is hard to see Melanie as anything but an enemy. Later into the film, we see that it is Melanie's unwavering kindness and patience that becomes a source of strength for all of the characters. I even noticed that Scarlett eventually comes to depend on the women she once thought of as a rival.

    Lastly, I'd like to speak about Rhett Butler and his complex figure. While his charm and occasional heroism are undeniable, I personally believe that Butler is someone who only wishes and has a deep desire for love and acceptance. I find it interesting when he

finds Scarlett, because their first interaction is after her argument with Ashley Wilkes about her love for him. I think that this is when he fell for her. I also believe that he recognizes something of himself in her, which is why he's drawn to her time and time again. 

In the end, It seems like the filmmakers sought to balance out the heavy themes of war with somewhat of a romantic tone at times. With that being said, they were still able to capture the struggles of ordinary people who were not directly involved in the conflict.

 

EOTO #1: Slave Rebellions and Uprisings

SLAVE REBELLIONS AND ITS LASTING IMPACTS

Town Hall Meeting Reactions

Town Hall Reactions

Town Hall Meeting - Life of Harriet Jacobs

 TOWN HALL MEETING - HARRIET JACOBS

The Constitution and Supreme Court

 1.   What did you learn about the Supreme Court that you didn't already know?

        Something that I learned about the Supreme Court that I didn't know about was their historical rule on slavery, otherwise known as the 20-year rule. The Supreme Court video goes into the detail of the race division that came after a Missouri slave by the name Dred Scott used the constitution to claim his freedom. After this, the court ruled that congress would have no power to ban slavery for the next 20 years, and claimed that black people could never become citizens.

2.    What is the most important take-away point about the Supreme Court?

        The main take-away point about the Supreme Court is that the justices are there to shed light on a 200-year-old constitution. The video above goes into detail on how the Supreme Court safeguards liberty, preserves the Union, and upholds the Rule of Law. Because of this the Supreme Court has become the most powerful judicial branch in the world. Cited in the video, the narrator continues on to say, "Their legitimacy is in the constitution, but the power rest on public faith in their independence and impartiality."

3.    What was the most surprising thing you learned?

        The most surprising or interesting thing I learned was the "3 year rule." Justice David H Souter explained his experiences when coming into the Supreme Court by saying that his colleagues told him it takes about three years to fully adjust to working as a supreme justice. He then goes on to say that another colleague says that it takes five years until. What makes this so interesting to me is that Justice Souter says, ".... You really start doing your work here properly when you forget that you're here." I find it interesting that everyone has their own experiences when it comes to how much time it takes for them fully adjust to a certain environments, even when it comes to the Supreme Court Justices. 

4.    How did the video change the way you thought of the Supreme Court?

        My views on the Supreme Court has become more sincere for the supreme justices. I feel as though I have a better understanding of what the supreme court really does. Justice Stephen Breyer explains, "All of us are primarily responsible to the law, to this institution... and the public no longer has a direct ability to influence the decision through the ballot box." In my opinion, it seems as though the Supreme Court justices are there to take all of the stress that the people have on their shoulders, and move it to their desks so that they can solve the national questions that American citizen may have.