FYS State vs. Mann MOCK Trial

Throughout history, slave owners have always treated their slaves just as they would their own property, considering that they are property. From ancient civilizations to the present, slaves have been treated by their owners as they wish, with certain regulations. Since the institution of slavery has been a part of human history, essentially as long as civilization has been around, we should look to the past to fully understand how a previous civilization treated and punished its slaves. 

John Mann

Slaves under Roman control were not seen as human beings. To the Romans, slaves were barely even seen as humans to many. When one became a slave in ancient Rome, they essentially lost all aspects of life to the owner. These slaves owned nothing and lost their name, body, and humanity. Since slaves are property, slave owners could mark their slaves with a tattoo that read, “Stop me! I am a runaway!" or "tax paid" if they were state owned. Through most of ancient Rome’s history, the treatment of slaves was subject to the owners will. Since slaves are property, the owners could either choose to treat them well or treat them harshly. 

According to Roman law, “Slaves are in the power of their owners. This power is derived from the common law of nations, for we can see that among all nations alike owners have the power of life and death over their slaves, and whatever is acquired by a slave is acquired on behalf of his owner.” So if a slave tried to escape from their owner in ancient Rome, would it be justified if the owner shot the slave with a bow and arrow? It is mentioned later in Roman law that, “ neither Roman citizens nor any other people who are subject to the sovereignty of the Roman People have the right to treat their slaves with excessive and unreasonable brutality.” It goes on to state, “Excessively harsh treatment on the part of owners is also limited by a Constitution of the same Emperor; for when certain provincial governors asked him for a ruling regarding slaves who had taken refuge at the temples of gods or statues of emperors, he declared that owners were to be forced to sell their slaves if the cruelty of their behaviour appeared to be unbearable.” 

Slavery in Ancient Rome

When we examine this, the first selection of text declares that slaves are under direct control of their owner, including life and death. However, the next phrase is inserted to protect the slaves from excessive and unreasonable brutality. The last selection of texts essentially prevents abusive owners from holding possession of their slaves. So now we go back to the question: According to this selection of texts, would it be justified if an owner shot his runaway slave with a bow and arrow? While one could argue that shooting a runaway slave is excessive or unreasonable, you must also view the situation as a whole. For the Mann case, it is stated that Lydia tried to escape a minor punishment, which implies that the slave had done something wrong. Punishing a slave for doing something wrong is a very common practice in the South, and is often justified. If we look back on the laws of ancient Rome, this would not be considered excessive or unjustified, which means that Mann would have acted within his given power if he was in ancient Rome. 

Runaway Slave

Since slaves are property, a scenario of a runaway slave would be very similar to theft. A slave owner made some sort of investment in the slave, and slaves are often used to make businesses more efficient. According to the Roman law of manifest theft, “, manifest theft (essentially, the one in which a thief was caught in the act) was punished with a more severe penalty than non-manifest theft.”  So according to Roman law, if a slave attempting to escape a minor punishment was shot by an owner to prevent his property from being taken away from him, as the legal controller of the slaves life and death, the owner would not be guilty of assault.  

Script for "The Frederick Douglass Game" from FYS 100

"Hello all. Before I begin, I’d like to give you a brief introduction of myself. I am Andrew Jackson, former president, war veteran, and founder of the Democratic Party. I am from both North and South Carolina, as I consider them both to be my home. I left home to fight in the Revolutionary War when I was thirteen and became a major general in the War of 1812. After becoming a Senator, I ran for president in 1828 and beat Adams in a landslide. I am known as the “people’s president,” and favor a strong central government while also fighting corruption. While I am mostly known for being a president of the United States, I am also a lawyer, which obviously makes me very familiar with the law. During my time of practice as a lawyer, I was able to earn a reasonable amount of money. With this money, I purchased a large plot of land which I have named “The Hermitage.” I use this farm to grow cotton for steady income. On this farm I have a relatively large number of slaves, 150, that I have spent much money on.

Andrew Jackson

For us in the South, slavery is a way of life. Slavery has been a generational institution in the South that has allowed prosperity and wealth to accumulate in these great states. These plantations have been built around the practice and if slavery is abolished, the American economy will take a severe blow. The practice is used all over the world, and if we stop it, there will surely be a financial scare in the country, which is the last thing we need as we recover from two wars that I fought in firsthand. Slavery allows the South to be so prosperous, because without it we would simply not have enough workers. The free labor allows plantation owners to increase production, which means more distribution for these products. 

Without this boost, there will be shortages of various raw materials and goods such cotton, tobacco, and soybeans. The abolishment of slavery would lead to a drastic loss of production for farmers who would now have to pay for work. I only have roughly 150 slaves, and having to pay workers would change my entire business. There are plantation owners that own countless more slaves than me, and they would be hit incredibly hard. If there is a slowing or complete halt in the production of these raw materials, industries could be severely damaged from the effects of abolishment. The clothing industry would be short with cotton, cigarette and cigar companies would hurt greatly from this. All the good and honest people of this nation would be hit incredibly hard, while the rich and influential manufacturers grow in the north. The great common white man of this country will suffer while the blacks prosper and take from the whites. The inferior blacks and “red children” have already been a plague to this nation when they step out of line. This is why I relocated thousands of these “red” savages so the white man could have more land in which to prosper. 

Trail of Tears

Abolishing slavery would also mean that the money used to buy slaves would be wasted. Slaves are an investment, the money would be wasted on buying these farm tools. Since we are living in a new and growing country, this would be incredibly hurtful to plantation owners that are trying to make an honest living. Without slavery, the economy in the South simply cannot function. Any man that opposes slavery and our way of life must “atone for this wicked attempt with their lives.” “I can with truth say mine is a situation of dignified slavery.”

Religion and Slavery - Solo Project

 While religion often provides strong moral foundations for living, a rather concerning fact remains to this day; Slavery has been a major factor in the development of modern civilization just as long as religion. Although god-fearing religions such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam promote kindness and respect to others, slavery has existed in areas where these religions were practiced.

In America, the debate over slavery was based on religion from both sides. While the North wished to abolish the practice, the South wanted to keep the practice alive, using the Bible for support. According to ushistory.org, the defenders of slavery argued that Abraham owned slaves, and that the practice continued through the Roman Empire during and past Jesus’s lifetime. The defenders even argued that slavery was good for the slaves from Africa, as the slave trade was introducing Christianity to West Africa and lesser developed civilization. During the Antebellum era of southern America, Christianity was a way of life and, unfortunately, slavery was too.

In Islam, slavery is not abolished in the Quran. Throughout the Islamic and even pre-Islamic world, slavery was common. Although the Islamic approach to slavery keeps retains the humanity in the slaves, the basic principles are still the same.  

Islam has always been more giving towards slaves though. The religion has always depicted slaves as people rather than objects, and places more value on their being. Along with this, Islam only allowed certain groups to be slaves and banned the mistreatment of slaves. According to BBC, slavery in Islam is still permitted under very certain conditions.

Christianity has shifted away from slavery as well, especially in the southern United States since the Civil War. In the modern day, the Antebellum era is over, which has led to a reinterpretation of the Bible for southern Christians. The teachings of Jesus promote kindness and fair treatment to all, regardless of race or social stature.  

Although slavery has existed for thousands of years, religion has changed with the times. Though religion has been used to support slavery in the past, modern religions have done away with the practice of slavery. 

The Concerning Rise of Mob Rule and Censorship on Twitter

Opinion

Clyde Greene

Of the Eight Values of Free Expression, I believe the most relevant value today is the the 8th value, Protect Dissent, specifically on Twitter. Social media has led to the rise of mob mentality in the public. Because different platforms have unique themes or methods of communication (ex. pictures and videos on Instagram or longer videos on YouTube), different websites have different communities. One of the more increasingly dangerous communities on the internet is on Twitter. Twitter has become a hot spot for much of the mainstream internet's mob mentality. Between censorship and cancel culture, the website has never been more toxic and threatening to free speech. I find this extremely dangerous due to the influence and power that these groups have. 

Since the election of former President Trump, censorship on Twitter has become a frequently appearing topic within the twenty four hour news cycle. The polarizing election brought out the extremists from both sides of the political spectrum. While Twitter has banned accounts from both radical conservative and liberal accounts, there has been an alarming bias towards conservatives and larger conservative voices, such as former President Trump, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, and Sydney Powell. It is especially unnerving that the president of the United States can be banned from a website while using free speech. 

However, the issue is that Twitter is a private company that can freely ban accounts that violate their terms of service, which is not applicable to the first amendment. While there are definitely questionable, misleading, or even false statements made on Twitter made by accounts such as these, it still would be considered free speech according to the government. 

While there is no doubt that some of these accounts have made outlandish statements before, freedom of speech is essential to have productive discourse and democracy. Due to the immense portion of Americans that have social media accounts, it is not surprise that social media plays an enormous role in modern election campaigns. 

Ads from the 2016 Election

One of the most recent examples of this new advertisement medium comes from the 2016 presidential election, where former President Trump's ads were extraordinarily more effective than former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's, according to the Trump campaign's digital strategist Brad Parscale. While there were obviously many other factors that influenced the election, the ad campaign was aggressive and potentially had a major influence on the campaign.

Though there have been many conservatives banned from social media platforms like Twitter, there have also been left-wing accounts with large followings that have been banned as well. In 2018, Twitter banned roughly 80 left-wing accounts with large followings. 

While the banning of important voices like the previously mentioned accounts should be concerning for many Americans, there is not much backlash from the opposite side of the political spectrum. The lack of concern is concerning in itself, as this would be a serious violation of the first amendment if these platforms were not private. The hivemind mentality on Twitter is not only effecting politics though. People with different opinions and ideas have even been affected personally due to the mob mentality on platforms like Twitter.

Within the last year and a half, mob mentality and censorship and become a much more serious matter due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The world has never had a major pandemic in the digital age, leading to the chaos that has been occurring online. 

Due to various factors such as the distrust of government, personal concerns, and fear, many people are hesitant/refusing to be vaccinated. Many people that are publicly hesitant or are not getting vaccinated are receiving backlash for their decisions. Due to the censorship on the website, Twitter has begun to remove tweets that "misleading information about COVID-19 which may lead to harm." Many tweets criticizing the vaccine have been taken down due to Twitter's crackdown on "misinformation," although the tweets are opinions from many different types of people. 

Although the First Amendment protects the right to disagree with the government, disagreeing with the mob mentality of users on social media can ruin lives. In recent years, the mob mentality on Twitter has led to the rise of cancel culture. In simplistic terms, cancel culture is like the court of the people with the jury being replaced with a reputational firing squad. Cancel culture has become a very powerful influence on the lives of the "cancelled," sometimes even ruining careers.

  

The cancel culture phenomenon is quite similar to the saying, "guilty until proven innocent," which seemingly has replaced presumption of innocence. There is constantly a new politician, celebrity, or influencer being cancelled everyday, especially in the entertainment world. This "woke" and "mob mentality" can ruin not only careers, but lives.

Cancellation and censorship pose a looming threat to democracy. The right to criticize the government or political figures is essential for democracy, and the mob mentality on social media that shuts down conversation and opinion is concerning. 

I personally am very worried about the rise of censorship and mob rule in America. The shift towards the suppression of certain voices and groups is very concerning, and very similar to what has happened in authoritarian countries in history. The right to criticize the government and speak freely is more important now than ever, but is seemingly becoming more and more of a privilege instead of a constitutional right. 

The Supreme Court of the United States

                              

Outside the SCOTUS

 The Supreme Court is the most powerful judicial body in the entire world. While the SCOTUS was once mocked at the birth of the nation, it has become one of the most respected governmental bodies in the country, upholding the law that has been the backbone of America for generations. While the While presidents appoint Justices on the SCOTUS, the Justices often serve for much longer than the presidents term who appointed them, with an average length of sixteen years.

Dred Scott

During the nations births, the Supreme Court was not viewed as a powerful or even important body. This was until John Marshall was appointed Supreme Court Justice in 1801 when the Court began to enforce its power. The Supreme Court shut down an act of Congress, as it was deemed unconstitutional. This decision is what led the Court to be respected and known for its power and authority.

This would all change in the Dred Scott Decision. In a verdict that would nearly destroy the reputation of the Court, it was ruled that the Congress would not be able to ban slavery, which angered many. This issue would be resolved with the Civil War, which resulted in the 14th Amendment.

Inside the Courtroom

The Supreme Court receives an immense amount of cases everyday, to which the Court has to select a certain few that will be fully considered. These cases that are sent to the Court are often petitions sent to argue the result of a lower court. These cases go through the members of the Supreme Court and and sorted through by a Justice and their staff. The Court meets once a week to decide which cases will be taken by the Court. When a case is taken, a meeting led by the Chief Justice is held where all members of the Court are able to speak in a respectful manner.

When the Court meets to decide a case, they must make arguments on how to resolve the case. To reach the verdict, the Justices meet in a room alone and vote. Once a verdict is met, a member of the Court will then write an opinion why the decision was made, which takes many weeks an much time. Decisions are then announced towards the end of the term when the press will immediately begin to spread the verdict.

Sources Used

Comm3390 Supreme Court, Pt. 1

Comm3390 Supreme Court, Pt. 2