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.