Brown v. Board of Education

    The plaintiff, Oliver Brown, has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Topeka Board of Education for denying his daughter entrance to the city’s all white public schools. The denial of Oliver Brown’s daughter, Linda Brown, to the city’s all white schools is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, this violates the “equal protection clause,” which was created to prevent instances like this from occurring. 

Hopeful child and guardian sit at outside the US Supreme Court Building after the decision.

After the civil war, the southern states began attempting and succeeding to pass racist and discriminatory laws against the newly freed slaves in this country. These slaves were real people, and now that the war was over, these states were trying to take back control of their power over these people. This is why Congress took action to pass the 14th Amendment after the war. This amendment was passed to ensure these human beings basic rights. With these people now being citizens, they should be protected like a normal citizen of the United States. Unfortunately, we are still haunted by this country’s past, as we are still fighting the shadow of slavery today. However, we can change this nation forever if the court makes the right decision- the one that is backed by the Constitution. 

The plaintiff is arguing that the Board of Education violated the “equal protection clause” in the 14th Amendment. As the Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 

The “equal protection clause’s” purpose was intended to stop these state governments from discriminating against African Americans, but here we are fighting it today. While the plaintiff is arguing under the “equal protection clause,” I’d like to expand more on the 14th Amendment.  As the Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 

The “equal protection clause’s” purpose was intended to stop these state governments from discriminating against African Americans, but here we are fighting it today. This equal protection means that any person in similar conditions would be treated the same. Any person, regardless of race, shall not be denied equal protection of laws. The constitution does not specifically state that education is a fundamental right, but the 14th amendment requires equal protection when state laws are implemented. Therefore, a state government cannot create a public school system that is discriminatory or does not allow certain groups to be enrolled. The Topeka Board of Education is violating this federal protection, as the public school system cannot refuse enrollment to any race under the 14th Amendment. 

Liberty

Reconstruction

 Following the Civil War, the nation was forced to essentially rebuild itself and society. Countless slaves had now been freed and the union was made one again. While the northerners and Republicans attempted to helps the former slaves adapt to new life, many white southerners resented that idea. The federal government developed several plans, such as the Freedman's Bureau. However, Reconstruction is now known as one of the most tumultuous times in American history.  

After Lincoln's assassination, President Johnson was sworn in as president. While Johnson did not like the white and rich plantation owners, he forced these plantation owners to beg for forgiveness in order to get their land back. This seems to be Johnson attempting to boost his ego and feel above all of the people. However, he tragically hurt the former slaves more than anyone. The land that these former confederates would have received would have been the same land that the former slaves would have received through the Freedman's Bureau. The plan to help compensate these former slaves was to give them "40 acres and a mule." Unfortunately, this did not happen. Johnson ended up giving the land back to the former confederates and shut down any momentum for these freedmen. 

Reconstruction

However, the 14th and 15th Amendments gave many more rights to the former slaves, along with many other Americans. This didn't stop southerners from trying to recreate slavery. Labor contracts began to appear and laws that allowed segregation became more often. While these laws do not specifically say anything about race, companies and businesses were able to abuse this power to keep the African American population in subordination. Violence and hatred towards African Americans began to rise, along with the formation of the Klu Klux Klan. 

While Reconstruction did have its positives, such as the freedom of slaves and Amendments, it was the opportunity that could have changed the lives of millions and the United States. Reconstruction's attempt to help African Americans fueled more racism and oppression, and would finally make major strides only decades later. 

Other source-Reconstruction Video from Class

EOTO from the Other Group: Kansas-Nebraska Act and Bleeding Kansas

The construction of the transcontinental railroad was perhaps one of the most ambitious projects following the American industrial revolution. In order for the railroad to connect the nation, it needed to go through American controlled areas, such as the Nebraska Territory and the Louisiana Purchase. According to the presentations given, “Senator Frederick Douglass” wanted the these western territories to become two territories, and eventually states. I believe the presenter confused the Abolitionist Frederick Douglass with Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglass, who actually drafted the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Bleeding Kansas

 

The act proposed that through popular sovereignty, the people in these territories would decide if their territories would allow slavery. This resulted in the mass movement of pro and anti-slavery moving to the territories. Due to Nebraska being a more northern state, the state deciding to be anti-slavery was very likely. However, Kansas was more southern and became a hotspot for the controversy around the act. As both supporters and opponents of slavery poured into the state, tensions began to rise. Violence and brutality began in the state, which is now known as “Bleeding Kansas.” 

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was one of the last key events that sparked the Civil War. While the issue between the north and south was more heated than ever, the issue of the western states and slavery had not been in focus since the Missouri Compromise of 1870. If slavery was allowed in these states, more slave states could have arisen. The North desperately wanted to avoid this while the slave states tried to protect their ways, ultimately leading to the Civil War.

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.