Movie Day

 In the Heat of the Night

In the Heat of the Night is a film about the Jim Crow South and the solving of a murder of a well known rich man. One of the Suspects turns out to be a police officer.

Set in a small town in Mississippi, the story centers around Virgil Tibbs played by Sidney Poitier, an African American detective from Philadelphia who becomes invloved in a murder investigation after being falsely accused of the crime. Tibbs is teamed up with lthe ocal white police chief Bill Gillespie, a man initially unkind to Tibbs’ presence in the town. As the investigation unfolds, the film explores the tension between Tibbs and Gillespie, highlighting their contrasting views on race, authority, and justice. Over the course of the film, both men undergo a transformation, leading to an uneasy but necessary understanding of one another.

One of the most powerful aspects of In the Heat of the Night is its portrayal of Jim Crow Laws in the American South during the 1960s. At a time when the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum, the film provides a look at the prejudices that infected society. The interaction between Tibbs and the white residents of Sparta reveals the racism that defined the social order.

 Gillespie is deeply skeptical of Tibbs' abilities, not just because of his race but also due to his own pride. However, as the investigation progresses and Tibbs proves his competence, Gillespie’s attitude shifts. The mutual respect that slowly develops between the two men is a testament to the film’s message about the potential for growth and understanding, even in the face of deep-rooted racism.

Sidney Poitier, whose career was often defined by his roles in socially conscious films, delivers a masterful performance as Virgil Tibbs. His dignified portrayal of a man who maintains his composure and sense of justice, despite the constant degradation he faces, remains one of his most iconic roles. Poitier’s understated strength and poise are essential to the film’s impact, making Tibbs a character who is both relatable and heroic.

In the Heat of the Night also stands out for its exploration of Jim Crow South, especially within the police force. The film raises important questions about authority, power, and the way justice is administered in a racially divided society. Though it presents a hopeful narrative of personal growth, it also refuses to shy away from the difficult truths about the prevalence of racism and the challenges of overcoming it. The Film hits the hard stuff most people avoid head on and addresses it.

In the Heat of the Night is more than just a mystery film; it is a powerful film that still holds relevance  today. Its legacy endures as a reminder of the need for understanding and cooperation in the face of prejudice, making it a vital part of the conversation about race in America.

EOTO 2

 Thurgood Marshall & the NAACP

Most people know Thurgood Marshall as the first African American Supreme Court Justice, however he has a long history that led him there. 

Marshall was born on July 2, 1908 in Baltimore Maryland to Norma and William Marshall. His upbringing was seemingly normal, I was unable to find any key details about the youngest times of his life. He attended the Colored High and Training school in Maryland and graduated in 1925 with honors. He then went on to higher education in university.

In 1930, Marshall graduated from Lincoln University. He was rejected from the University of Maryland’s Law school due to his race which was unfortunately common at the time but ended up graduating with his law degree from Howard University. During his college years he met his mentor, Charles Hamilton
Houston. Hamilton would go on to work with Marshall for several cases.

One of their first cases after Marshall graduated was Murray v. Pearson in which Donald Gaines Murray sued the University of Maryland for rejecting his application due to his race. The duo of Marshall and Houston argued the case together and ended up with Marshall’s first major victory.

Sometime after this, Marshall joined the NAACP as a staff lawyer with Houston as his employer. He was a staff lawyer for several years arguing several cases against segregation. He was declared the Chief of the NAACP legal defense and educational fund in 1940. His department worked to create some kind of legal assault against segregation. 

After many years, he became a Supreme Court justice in which he won 29 cases. His most famous case being Brown v. Board of Education. He remained with the Supreme Court until retirement in 1991. He then focused on a more private life with his wife and children. He did occasionally serve as a visiting judge on the Second Circuit Board of Appeals. Eventually after his declining health, Marshall passed away in 1991.

Some of the cases he argued during his life.

• Smith v. Allwright (1944)

• Morgan v. Virginia (1946)

• Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

• Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Trial 3

 Bakke v. California

"Ladies and gentlemen, Your Honor. We have all been brought here today to discuss a serious matter in the world of education. While it is a blessing that we have been able to progress in this world, it has now come to interfere with other students' abilities to further their education.

Allan Bakke has been rejected from his choice school twice even though he has a higher GPA than other students that applied and were accepted. He believes this is the product of trying to give African Americans and others equal opportunities even if their grades aren’t up to par as they should be. 

While there is nothing wrong with giving these students equal opportunities, there is a different way to do this aside from taking away the opportunity from deserving students. Giving these students opportunities should not be the cause of other students losing a spot that should rightfully be there. 

When you work so hard for something only to have it taken away from you but given to a student who is intellectually not as up to par as the other. This can be seen as bias in certain situations which is unfair even if it is unintentional. If we want to give these students opportunities then we can start by having them be equally judged and selected by colleges based purely on their grades. 

I think it suffices to say that African American and other ethnicities would rather be accepted into college fairly than being accepted purely because a school is afraid of angering any one of other ethnicities. If we want to give them equal opportunities, we can start by looking at everyones applications fairly and choosing acceptances based on grades. 

I hope you all take a moment to think about my words and discover how you want to proceed with this case. Thank you."

Mock Trial

 Plessy v. Ferguson

    Ladies and Gentlemen of the courtroom, the definition of the word “segregation” is “the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others.” Segregation has been a part of our world far longer than just the end of the Civil War, therefore it is a long worn out law that should be discontinued if we have any hope of moving forward to a better future. 

    Genesis 1:4 says, “God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.” In Genesis 1:14, it says “And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years.” Neither of these verses mentions anything about separating one skin color from another. Not even with Adam and Eve did God tell us to separate one race from another, that was the cause of our own sinful nature. 

    If we were to look past flesh, biologically there are no differences between each race. The only thing that differs us from one another is the amount of melanin in our skin and the fact that we as people cannot stand something or someone who looks different. As humans, we are quite literally judging a book by its cover. Why do we have any right to judge someone based on something they didn’t choose? They did not choose to be discriminated against in this way, they did not choose to be looked at as different. I can guarantee that everyone in this courtroom today has something that makes them different from another whether it be physical or mental. How would any of us like it if we were called out and judged based on one small thing that is different from the rest? We are each made uniquely by God, so why can we not look past all of our differences to see to our hearts and to listen to our words. 

    Homer Plessy was wrongfully convicted of the crime you all say he committed. How can someone who is only 1/8th African American be arrested for sitting somewhere simply because only 1/8th of him was different from those sitting around him. Let’s turn the tables for a moment, if an African American who was only 1/8th Caucasian sat on a Black only bus no one would bat an eye. This is hypocrisy at its highest. 

    I would like to challenge you all today to look deeper than flesh to find the person lying beneath the thing we judge them for. Finally, I leave you with this verse from Galatians 5:13, “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.”

Movie:

 Gone With the Wind

Gone With the Wind is a movie set in the time period of the civil war and revolves around Scarlett O'Hara and her life both pre-war and post-war in the South. The movie shows us the timelines and different scenarios Scarlett goes through during the times of war. 

    

    Scarlett O'Hara is portrayed as a selfish, arrogant, and vain girl who is direly in love with a man who does not want her back. She tries to make him jealous any way she can to no avail and is furious when she founds out that he is engaged to be married at a party she attends. She ends up marrying the brother of her love's fiancee out of spite and want to make him jealous. 

    The talk of war is evident but it is as if the movie tries to show it from her perspective of not really knowing how close the war truly is. She hears the men speaking of it but does not seem to associate with it herself. 

    

    As the movie goes on you can see how Scarlett changes through out it. First there is the false sadness over her husbands death and the want to dance again which she eventually does with a man she had met previously, Rhett. You can see how the war runs her down as she tries to care for her pregnant sister in law and assisting the doctor with wounded soldiers. 

    None of what she does is perceived to be out of the kindness of her heart, but rather the obligation. During the height of the war, she leaves the makeshift hospital to try and flee, leaving the doctor to fend for himself all because she cannot take the smell of death any longer. During her attempt to flee she runs into absolute chaos. It is shown to us then just how detrimental the war was even to those not fighting in it. It was every man for himself out there in trying to flee before they were killed by coming soldiers. 

    In almost every civil war film, we see it from the perspective of the North, you rarely see how it affected the South(not in the way of slaves, but more so the damage it caused). Everyone was frightful of the war, even the slaves themselves. 

    At first, Scarlett is determined not to run but when she realizes her sister in law is sick and no one can help with the war drawing in, she flees back to her home where she hopes her mother can help her. She was too late in the end and realizes that her mother had passed away and the soldiers had already invaded and raided her home leaving them with nothing. 

    The whole movie does a good job showing just how damaging the war was both mentally and literally. By the end, all the colors are run down just like how Scarlett feels by the end. The very ending before it cuts is Scarlett vowing to never go hungry again. 

    That point in that moment is pivotal for Scarlett and I think we see some real change in her afterwards and more determination from her. Overall this was a great movie that explored so many different themes and pivotal moments in our history.

Town Hall Reaction

 Town Hall

    The people gathered for the town hall provided a plethora of different backgrounds and opinions. 

    

    The anti-slavery arguments were well established and researched. the speakers took their time to educate themselves and learn about he topic and the both sides of it. I could see the passion with everyone of them that they truly believe in what they were arguing for. They all concluded with the same basis that slavery was all together evil and unfair. 

    

    The pro-slavery speakers were also well educated on their causes and brought forth several economic arguments as to why slavery was helpful to them.

    

    Each's sides arguments were all contributed by years of research and pre-biased. they all made intelligent claims that kept everyone on their toes and thinking about each person's side. The people in attendance had all came from very different and also similar backgrounds which provided a certain type of diversity when it came to each person's opinion. 

    

    The argument of slavery has had several different outcomes and opinions. The abolitionists think that it is unethical, goes against morals and is overall unbiblical. They argued against slavery and that it needed to be ended ages ago. They brought forth several standpoints and made several very solid opinions. the pro-slavery people believe that slavery is overall helpful and does not go against what has been taught by the Bible. They argued that if slavery continues, the economy can continue to grow and improve with time.

    Overall each argument had its pros and cons that need to be thought about. Personally,  I think the abolition side says it the best. Slavery has been a problem for sometime and needs to be ended. The economy cannot improve and we cannot evolve as people with slavery present, it is simply unethical. From a moral standpoint, slavery is just horrid and there are no moral benefits to it.

Trial Reaction

 State V. Mann Mock Trial

    The trial heard was between John Mann and the attempted murder of the slave Lydia. The accusation against Mann was that he had tried to kill Lydia while she was on loan to him from another slave owner. the trial sought to conclude how to continue with the accusation and how to go about it.

   

    Mann had been beating Lydia and during this particularly bad beating, she tried to escape him. This ended with him shooting her in the back which brings us to the trial we heard. The state had charged Mann with a murder attempt and fined him $10 for it. After appealing the fine, Mann the arguments heard were the effects of this appealing. 

    Mann's argument was that since he didn't actually kill Lydia, he technically did nothing wrong. They used a Bible verse which said that masters could "beat their slaves" as much as they please as long as the slave does not die. He also argued that since she was trying to escape him, he was within his rights to shoot her in order to "protect others from a potential threat." Since he did not know what she would do while running he supposedly acted on defense.

    On the States side, we heard a majority biblical arguments and ethical ones as well. The state argued that since we all believe we are God's children and are made in His Image, hurting another goes against what the Bible states. The State argued Mann's guilt by displaying the disrespect shown to one of God's creatures and thus he should pay the fine. In a religious and emotional aspect, Mann's guilt is clear to see. Another point used was the appearance of other trials similar to this and how we shouldn't have to be repeating these kinds of trials over again.

    In the eyes of the court, they saw favor in Mann's argument in both the legal and moral standing. Therefore this ended with the court ruling in his favor and reimbursed him for the fine.

    Personally, I think both sides presented very well thought out arguments. Both parties clearly studied their topics and thought out what they wanted to say. The trial was a great one to watch and felt very real to me.

EOTO:

 The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

   

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was created to try to control the issue of runaway slaves and to return them to their masters. While their masters tried to keep the idea of running away from the slaves minds, some of them rebelled and ran for the free states in the North. Before this Act was comprised, masters often wouldn't go looking for the run away slaves. This, however, began to cost the masters more due to having buy more slaves to replace the runaway ones. 

The Fugitive Slave Act was incorporated during the Compromise of 1850. This Act meant that slaves could no longer travel across to free states without the possibility of being brought back. This Act even put already escaped slaves at risk. While slaves could escape and cross over into free states, the government was then responsible for finding the slaves, apprehending them, and returning the runaway slave to their master. The government was also responsible for trying these escaped slaves.

    During the 14 years of this being enacted, signs would be placed around the free states to inform both the slaves and the freed people about being on the lookout for runaway slaves and to give them over to the authorities so that they could be taken back to their master. 

    Fugitive slaves were not allowed to testify on their own while being tried. Any of these slaves could be fined up to at least 1, 000 dollars. The trials were often unfair which was to be expected in these times. Even after these trials, it can be assumed the other punishments these slaves would face once being returned to their masters.

    This Act was passed in Congress on September 18, 1850 and continued on until June 28, 1864. However the original version of this act was in 1793. As with a lot of things, this act was met with a lot of resistance and yet it took them 14 years for the act to finally be repealed. 

    This article goes into a lot of depth and detail concerning the act. It was a great resource to find when it came to studying to help educate myself on the topic I chose. The other article chosen helped me understand the more law aspect of this act and what it all entailed such as the trials the slaves faced

 Lydia  Maria  Child

Hello, my name is Lydia Child. I was known in my lifetime as an abolitionist and women's right activist. I was born on February 11, 1802 in Medford, Massachusetts. My parents, Susannah Rand Francis and Convers Francis, raised me in Medford as the youngest of six other siblings. My father was also anti-slavery which influenced me from a young age. In 1829, I married my husband, David Child, who was a lawyer and editor for a journal in Massachusetts. 

I was introduced to William Lloyd Garrison in the 1830s which began my literary career. It took three years for me to fully commit to becoming an abolitionist. After doing thorough research, I decided to start writing about slavery along with women's rights as a way to make a career for myself. I was able to publish books such as "Flowers for Children", "Fact and Fiction", and "The Freedmen's Book" among other which were all published within the years of 1829 to 1868. I was able to use my career as a way to fight for what I thought was right.

As many women did in that day, my life was not without struggle. Due to my beliefs and my gender, many sales of my books plummeted due to their contents and I had to give up my job in an editing company due to the struggles I was facing everyday. Through this, I still held strong to my beliefs and refused to relinquish them due what others said. 

During my lifetime, I was able to meet several Woman's Right's Activists like, Lucretia Mott, Lucy Stone, Mary S. Parker, and Harriet Jacobs. I was able to edit Jacob's work and mailed out copies and arranged different interview opportunities. I went to and was invited to several suffragist movements in our long fight for both the end of slavery and women's rights. 

This lifestyle continued until my death in October 20, 1880. At 70 years old, I died of heart disease in Wayland, Massachusetts. As my final calling card, I gave money to "The Home for Aged Colored Women", my family, friends, colleagues, and many other abolitionists. I lived a very fufilling life and hope the legacy I left will be continued on for years.

Article 1

Article 2

Supreme Court Blog

 S U P R E M E   C O U R T   B L O G
   

 The Supreme Court has been around since the late 1700s, deciding how certain laws should be applied to different cases. In this video, we learned how the Supreme Court works and how all nine justices cooperate with each other.

The Justices who overlook the Supreme Court, are appointed by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. There is no fixated timeline for how long each Justice can serve. They can serve until their death or until retirement unless something else were to happen.  Each Justice has to work in unison with each other to create an united front in an actual case. 

Actually getting a case to the Supreme Court is as difficult as it may seem. Cases have to go through several processes to be seen by the Supreme Court. This video goes through the procedures of having a case brought to the Supreme Court. Different cases go through different systems based on the severity of the case. There is Regional Level, State Level, and then the level in which the Supreme court would take the case. 

The two videos gave the structure of the Supreme Court and why it works the way it does. These different rules and traditions have been in placed for years. Every little detail and rule that comes along with the Supreme Court helps it remain the way it is today. 

Learning about how the Supreme Court works and why helped me see more of how America's Justice Systems works which helps us then understand why certain things have to happen regarding Supreme Court cases. Different cases require different things and while one person may think it can be a Supreme Court Case, the Justices ultimately have the final decision. 

The Nine Justices way of deciding which cases get to be brought to the Supreme Court kind of works similarly to how a Jury decides whether a person is guilty or not. They all sit in a room and then majority rules. once a vote is decided, the Justices obviously need to study and speak about the case and how to proceed with it. 

Another thing is that once a case is decided, reporters are given information early on so they can go ahead and print about it which then draws attention to the case. this means that different sources are able to print about the case as it actively goes on. 

Like I said, a Supreme Court case is a meticulous task, everyone involved has to take extra care and think everything through just to decide whether or not the court needs to represent a case. 

   In the past, the Court has made decisions in which have brought anger and a bad reputation. If the Court were to have a bad reputation this would put not as powerful and authoritative, while lawfully they are, in the eyes of the people no one will want to listen. It is extra important in the Supreme Court's case that they take extra time to look over their work to make their final decision.

Everything that the Supreme Court is today is all due to how it has evolved over the years. Each change improved it which in turned has improved the Court's authority. The Court has represented multiple cases over the years (a very famous one being Roe v. Wade) but aside from this, they have represented so many others like:

• Marbury v. Madison

• Gideon v. Wainwright 

• Lawrence v. Texas

• Miranda v. Arizona

That is only a small list of all the Supreme Court has done. In writing this, I've learned several things myself that have educated me and helped me understand more of our government and Judicial Branch.

Bible vs. Slavery

 Is the Bible for or Against Slavery?

    During the time of legal slavery, the masters would use several passages from the Bible that alluded to the Bible encouraging slavery. Other arguments have been fought using other verses that prove the Bible does not in fact encourage slavery. it is an on going fight that I believe is still being fought today.

    Slavery in the Bible has been talked about a number of times such as in Exodus with the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites and in Genesis when Joseph was sold into slavery. In both of these stories it is shown how God turns both of these situations around for good. The slave masters in the past times would not have shown the slaves these passages due to not wanting them to rebel or gain a sense of nonconformity.  

In the Bible, there are multiple accounts where slavery is mentioned as not being right or wrong. In the letters that Paul writes to Philemon about Onesimus, the slave, Paul is sending his son to Philemon to be free from slavery and to save himself. In the article about Paul and his son it states "...seems to have allowed a runaway slave to seek asylum in the home of a friend of the family". Paul also writes his letters to advise slaves to obey their masters while also addressing the masters in telling them to treat their slaves with kindness. The Bible also addresses slavery in Exodus 21:2-6 where we see the conditions under which Hebrew slaves could be free after six years of service but allows for the possibility of lifelong servitude. That could be perceived as more of a Indentured Servant rather than a life long slave depending on the circumstance.

Within the Bible there is multiple areas that mention slavery, even though each area might not agree with each other the Bible does not give a define response to slavery. The only verse speaking to slaves can be found in 1 Peter 2:18, "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." While this may look to some that God is condoning slavery, all this verse really says is that slaves should obey their masters. There is no definite way to understand how he meant this, but in every story in the Bible, God used each trial to help those who called out to Him in the end. Ask and they shall receive. 

The Bible does not confirm that slavery was okay even though it is mentioned.