Reconstruction Video Reflection

When the Reconstruction Period first came everyone truly desired the sense of freedom, but that was far from what came out to be. The Northern reconstruction plan never really failed, but it was never really given the chance to succeed. The North won the big war, however, they were not prepared for the backlash from the South. Due to the fact that the white southerners were used to slavery, some did not want to abide by the law. (white supremacists). Many African Americans were lynched because of this which I think is absolutely terrible.

It is crazy in today’s how even just a rope hanging on the ceiling of a garage of an African American Nascar driver can be thought of like a noose representing a hate crime with no evidence at first. It is crazy how that can still strike a nerve in African Americans today even if they do not know the backstory or if it’s real. Racism today is nothing like it was back then.

I affirmatively believe it has gotten truly better, however, I always try to stay out of any racism topic of discussion because I have had no issue with that myself or from my ancestors. To me, since my ancestors and myself have not experienced it, it just brings up negativity and most of the time fakeness amongst people that think they have experienced the exact same thing as an individual that goes viral. God made humans equally and wonderfully made. It does make sense how individuals especially darker skin Americans feel about how their ancestors had been treated and sympathy for change and equality. However, it should not trump a person’s life in a negative way. Life is not supposed to be lived in the past moments. An individual should strive for what the future holds.

https://video.alexanderstreet.com/watch/episode-1-9 

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/reconstruction 

https://www.ushistory.org/us/35.asp 

Mock Trial Reflection

There were some interesting ideas that I learned from both groups presenting the State vs Mann mock trial. Slave rental was normal in North Carolina which is crazy to comprehend if that really happened in today’s society. It is basically saying that the slaves were “objects” to rent, not normal human beings. The relationship between the slave owner and slave was filled with fear on both sides. It was due to the fact that the owner was scared that the slave might run away and the slave feared that he/she might be treated super poorly.

Here are some of the bullet points that I thought were impactful points from both groups…

• Protestant Christian community (doctrine of the apostles) accept it as moral to have slaves because the work of the slave owner improves the slaves well being.

• The Bible talks about slaves in a good way. Abraham had slaves; Jesus never spoke out about slavery. 

• Western traditions are based on Greco-Roman traditions (slavery was never really mentioned.) 

• A slave is a piece of property just like a sack of flour whether we like it or not within the law.

Within both groups presenting it was clear to me that the group that one me over was the team of Mann. The group had much stronger points. Lydia getting shot in the back was her fault because she didn’t obey the rules as I believe the right ruling in 1829. However, it would be completely different in our society today. Our society today is very soft and any act of violence especially killing someone demands a jail sentence unless they are acting out of self-defense which can be hard to defend unless there’s concrete evidence.

VSVS

Battle of Fort Sumter Pro-Slavery EOTO Debate

Fort Sumter was an island fortress located in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. The attack on Fort Sumter took place in April 1861 and marked the official beginning of the American Civil War. The Civil War lasted 4 years. It cost the lives of around 620,000 Americans and freed 3.9 million enslaved people from bondage. 

Beauregard’s nineteen coastal batteries unleashed a heavy barrage on Fort Sumter, eventually firing an astonishing 3,000 shots at the fortress in thirty-four hours. By Saturday, Apr 13, artillery fire had broken through the fortress’s five-foot-thick brick walls, inflicting fires within the post. Along with his stores of ammunition depleted, Anderson and his Union forces had to surrender the fort shortly after 2:00 in the afternoon. No Union troops had been killed throughout the bombardment, however, two men died the subsequent day in an explosion that occurred during an artillery salute control before the U.S. evacuation. The bombardment of Fort Sumter would play a serious half in triggering the war. Within the days following the assault, Lincoln issued a demand with Union volunteers to crush the rebellion, whereas the stacking of Southern states together with Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee solidified their lot with the Confederacy.

After Lincoln’s election and the secession of the southern states, small numbers of enslaved people began showing up at Union forts in the hopes of taking refuge. But Union commanders were not charged with protecting slaves and promptly returned them to their masters. One such slave, a teenager, made his way across Charleston Harbor to Fort Sumter in March of 1861 to appeal to Major Anderson but was turned over to marshalls in Charleston.   

With Union troops in their midst, white residents of Charleston were increasingly concerned about runaway slaves. Of even greater worry, however, was the possibility of a slave uprising. Mary Chestnut, the wife of prominent Charleston politician and Confederate colonel James Chestnut, started keeping a diary in February 1861. As events unfolded across Charleston Harbor on April 12, she wondered how the action at Fort Sumter would impact the future.

With the start of the Civil War, desperate refugees from slavery began to flood Union camps, but the government in Washington still had no consistent policy regarding fugitives. Often their fate was in the hands of the individual commanders.  Finally, on August 6, 1861, the North declared fugitive slaves to be "contraband of war" if their labor had been used to aid the Confederacy. Contrabands were considered free and were protected by the Union army.

As the reality of war sunk in, slaveholders in the South hoped that their slaves would remain loyal to them. Some did, and the slave uprising that numerous people feared never came. But the exodus of enslaved people who crossed Union lines and made their way to freedom steadily increased after guns were fired at Fort Sumter. By 1863, approximately 10,000 former slaves flooded Washington. By the end of the Civil War, as many as 40,000 fugitives had made their way to the Union capital. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fort-sumter-the-civil-war-begins-1018791/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43597823 

https://fortsumtertours.com/about-ft-sumter/ 

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

Albert Taylor Bledsoe a Pro-Slavery Advocate

Albert Taylor Bledsoe was a well-known pro-slavery advocate among the southerners in the early to late 1800s. He was born in Frankfort, Kentucky, and was the oldest of 5 children. Like many young men of promise in this period, he joined West Point, a US military academy as a cadet from 1825 to 1830. He later expanded his ideas and values into multiple career paths, which included being a clergyman (minister) in 1835 with Bishop Smith as his assistant in Kentucky. In 1838 Albert became a lawyer in the same courts as Abraham Lincon and Stephen Douglas. He was also a college professor of mathematics and advanced calculus at numerous colleges from 1833-1861. Adding on he was an acting assistant secretary of war in the Confederate army in 1861. Bledsoe was a go-getter with pursuing knew carriers however he was most known for being a southern apologist debating why slavery should always exist in society.

Albert Bledsoe’s most well-known books included the Essay on Liberty and Slavery (1856) and the Southern Review (1868). In both books that he published, he was recognized as the “epitome of an unreconstructed southerner” trying to prove his point on slavery and succession. Albert Bledsoe had a fighting wit about slavery. Bledsoe argued that the natural state of humans was in society, not in nature and that humans in society needed to have restraints on their actions. That is, he argued that liberty was greatest when humans were allowed to exercise only the amount of freedom they were naturally suited to. Some had to be muted along with others who were entitled to freedom.

Most literature called forth by slavery controversy is topical and superficial, but Bledsoe was profound enough to see the real crux which was in the issues from the French Revolution. For over 20 years Bledsoe continually attacked the romantic postulates underlying this movement. A believer in the necessity of divine sanctions for government, Albert denied the existence of natural rights. The natural rights of a man on if he is naturally good he is regarded as a grand heresy of the modern world and the source of all social disorder (slavery).

Another key position of Albert Bledsoe was that libertarianism rests upon a false metaphysic, for it is wrong to suppose that liberty and order are opposed principles. This misconception, seemingly one of the confusions of political thought, assumes liberty and order limit one another and that to boost one while we must somehow diminish the other. Bledsoe sought to show that they are mutually sustaining and that the boost in one promotes a boost in another.

Bledsoe agreed that the slaves were not burdened to having to make many decisions taking care of themselves. Additionally, a great deal of the slave owners treated their slaves very well and took care of them like ordinary employees. Slaves were protected from crime by their owners. Bledsoe was annoyed when slavery was abolished because he believed many slaves did not want to leave. Keep in mind that if the slaves left their plantation they would have to find another job or owner to work for otherwise they would not make any money. Those are few ideas for Albert Bledsoe, but Bledsoe had many more ideas to try and turn the South into pro-slavery, yet it failed and historians say it caused his downfall.

“If liberty were an equal blessing to all, then all would have an equal right to liberty. But if one accepts the fact of this difference (slavery) between races, corollary follows that complete equality would result in terrific inequality.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Taylor_Bledsoe 

https://archive.org/details/essayonlibertysl01bled/page/6/mode/2up 

https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2581&context=etd 

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ABT7109.0001.001/35?rgn=full+text;view=image

Bible Team Challenge John & Skyler

 

The Bible is very contradicting in the views of slavery. We will discuss the possible arguments on why The Bible could be seen as for or against slavery. Most were not “slaves” from their birth, or for their whole life, or because of their race—for instance, the Roman jurist Gaius (second century) claimed that most slaves were prisoners of war who actually would have been slaughtered if not made slaves.

Further, slavery was generally not organized by race but by circumstance and economics (for example, foreigners, debtors, and so on). (Exodus 21:16)

Why the bible could Pro-Slavery

When discussing the Bible, people often only reflect on the joy and good it brings; they don't really think about what the Bible might have been justified for. In other words, believe it or not, the Bible has been used as a justification for why slavery was “okay” and not demeaning or discriminative. One way people have used the Bible to do so, Bishop Willam Meade claims that if one is to commit an act of misdeed and not be seized, that person is getting justice from God. He would've been the only one to see the act committed. As well as, throughout the Bible, their people have been able to notice not once does the Bible condemn slavery? This can be questionable and also can be seen as where the argument comes from. It can also be questionable that in the book of Philemon, St. Paul, who returned to his “master” and claims it is not out of the ordinary to be a “servant” or “slave” as the second reference. Most of the people who had slaves were Christians. Now, the claim has been made that saying slavery is anti-christian would also meet the remark that you're going against God if you believe this. So many were quite disputed on the topic, but there are many reasons for why the Bible could've been the justification for slavery.

Why the bible could be Anti-Slavery

One could say that the bible is greatly opposed to slavery. An example of this would be the book of Philemon. It could be surprising to most people that the book of Philemon is not brought up often in reading and discussion. The book of Philemon was one of Paul’s letters to a slave owner about Onesimus; his runaway slave. If Philemon was solely pro-slavery what would you expect the apostle Paul to say? Strikingly, Paul instructs Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave . . . but as a dear brother”—and he appeals to Philemon to “receive him as you would receive me” (v. 17). Breaking this text down the apostle Paul rejects Onesimus as a slave and constructs in its place a brother to brother relationship. The slave is treated with all dignity and fairness like a brother would. Furthermore even before the actual institutional abolishment of slavery, “the work of the gospel abolishes the assumptions and prejudices that make slavery possible.”

Whether or not you believe that the bible was pro or against slavery, it can be seen in different lights by people who all think differently. Personally, I believe it was a test to see if people were truly good at heart or were not willing to serve others as God served us today through his resurrection on the cross. In our society today, the argument will never end because truly no one eyewitnesses it that is alive today, but we can see the arguments through scripture and create about slavery from our own morals and beliefs.

 

Why It’s Wrong to Say the Bible Is Pro-Slavery

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-wrong-say-bible-pro-slavery/ 

Why the Bible can be justification for slavery

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

The Value of Individual Self-Fulfillment

Free expression is seen as a big part of society today. Without free expression no one could be unique with what they believe in. We would be in a boring esk society with no room to innovate and create new opportunities. 

Here are the eight values of free expression 

• Marketplace of Ideas 

• Participation in Self Government 

• Stable Change 

• Individual Self Fulfillment 

• Check on Governmental Power 

• Promote Tolerance 

• Promote Innovation

• Promote Dissent

These eight values of expression impact people's lives on a daily basis. I believe the biggest one for an individual to have and pursue daily is individual self-fulfillment. Self-Fulfilment is a combination of hopes and dreams we have in our lives as well as taking action to make them a reality.

Everyone has freedom of speech thanks to the First Amendment. One of the big ideas is that individuals have freedom of speech, but most are not self-fulfilled. A motivational speech by Les Brown on self-fulfilment talks about how everyone has more to give with positive changes in their life, it's just a matter of having the mental fortitude to suffer sometimes when going through good change. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are, what you are doing at this very moment, life is about growing. You gotta ask yourself, what is it that I need to do to improve in areas of my life. Don’t get confused with what you are doing with who you are. During the self-fulfillment journey you have got to treat triumph and disaster the same because no one is perfect and there will be hiccups in your journey. As Les Brown says, “You can not just embark on a life changing journey by yourself, you gotta develop an appreciation for external support when changing.”

However, numerous people go through life pre-judging things. An example would be skydiving, if you have not sky dived you might be missing out on something. You do not know what the possibilities are of skydiving until you do it, you might absolutely love it. Having a closed mind can drastically impact change in a negative way. You will be unable to open your eyes on new inroads to solving a problem. We have all had ideas that we did not act on and what do you know, someone else acts on the idea and gets the positive result. That’s why self confidence is huge with change.

Les Brown also goes over charastics of the people who are self-fulfilled 

• They make their mind a fertile ground for the seed of opportunity. (Got to have an open mind if you want a sense of self-fulfillment) 

• They become involved in life. 

• They live your fantasy without making life predictable. Most people do not. 

• They challenge their fears, looking those fears in the face and taking them on. 

I greatly found his speech motivational and impactful and would suggest it to individuals who struggle with living a self-fulfilled life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SBRSxn1ZEw

http://fys1000.blogspot.com/p/speech-theories.html

https://study.com/academy/lesson/self-fulfillment-definition-lesson-quiz.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=self+fulfillment&sxsrf=AOaemvJ5hl8KtROSvANrPsUdk0CvKtmZEg:1631311694683&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP_NDQtfXyAhW0MlkFHX1EACEQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1309&bih=667#imgrc=EO1KtmNG7QfVG

The Supreme Court

 The in-class video that we watched about the Supreme Court was very engaging and had some interesting facts that I never knew about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was founded in 1789 by Article 3 of the US Constitution with deliberation and decision making in quiet in mind. . When the Supreme Court was created the Constitution granted the Supreme Court unlimited administration over all laws especially the cases that were broken within the laws of the Constitution.  

    

    The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and to deem current action constitutional or unconstitutional. It is also the final judge in all cases involving the laws of Congress and the highest law. (national supremacy) The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time. Appellate jurisdiction Is the power of the court to review decisions and change outcomes of Visions of lower courts. A state supreme court is the ultimate judicial tribunal in the court system of a particular state.

 

    

    There were some ideas outside of the basic info that I found to be intriguing. It is a very stressful job to be a Supreme Court justice. One of the supreme court justices said the job can be very overwhelming for the first 3 years. When you forget you're there then you start doing your work very properly. It completely makes sense due to all of the cases they have to widdle down to find the best cause, and to figure out the right verdict. Also, another issue that can be stressful for justices is arguing with 9 rather than 3 individuals due to the fact that there could be 3 ongoing different conversations at the same time. One thing that I greatly admired was how proper the Supreme Court is when they talked about how each justice has to shake other justices' hands, to not hold grudges on each other.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-first-supreme-court#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20was,their%20constitutionality%20was%20at%20issue. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWRoXYRsaeo