Research: Justice Harlan's Dissent

After studying and presenting a mock trial on the very historically famous case Plessy v. Ferguson, our class looked further into the dissent of Justice John Marshall Harlan.  What was found is a bold argument that stuck out from the social norm. 

In his dissent, Justice Harlan points out that our constitution is color-blind and our justice system should not rule on the separation of it.  He also draws reference to the very obvious: separate but equal would not be for the benefit of all people, it would be for the distinct benefit of white people who refused to treat those of color equally. 

I believe Justice Harlan was so moved to write about this losing argument because he knew the ruling was plain wrong.  I also think Justice Harlan knew that one day this ruling would be overturned and he wanted to be vocal that he was not a part of the majority who put it into action.

By writing this piece, I think Justice Harlan hoped for an expedited call for change.  Rather than remaining silent and hoping people realized the mistake that was made, he needed to cast the first stone toward speaking against this ruling.  With his very clear depiction of wrong, Harlan likely hoped some may change their mind on the matter. 

Obviously, this was a bold message for Justice Harlan to display in such a time as 1896.  Many in the period, including his fellow justices, likely disliked him for speaking out.  However, in today’s time, many would commemorate his boldness and honor him for not following the majority.

When looking at law today, I think Justice Harlan’s dissent left a lasting impact.  Our progress and push for a more inclusive way of life have certainly lead to constitutionally color-blind actions being established.  Since the outspokenness of Justice Harlan, law has undoubtedly shifted in a positive way.

Sources: http://fys1000.blogspot.com/p/plessy-post-prompt.html

Mock Trial Argument: Regents of University of California v. Bakke

For our final trial, the class is arguing the supreme court case University of California v. Bakke.  The side I fell on was an emotional appeal and fairness argument for the University of California.  Just as the case in real life concluded, our side lost a close fight. Below is the script I read when making my argument.

"Hello, your honor.  Today, I stand before you to argue the emotional appeal and fairness of the University’s decision for affirmative action.  Our country has been blemished with ugly discrimination for far too long and it’s this university’s obligation to assure adequate space is provided for minorities that wish to apply to this institution.  Yes, I see why Mr. Bakke is upset that he was rejected twice, but in all fairness your honor, his scores wouldn’t be accepted even if our program didn’t exist.  As mentioned, our university feels obligated to assure fairness for those individuals that may not have the same educational upbringing where they were raised, simply because of their color and social class.  We must use this program to remedy past discrimination and to facilitate health services in our underserved areas.  This program also helps us increase our academic diversity for the profession.  Let’s remember the notes of this case from a few of our court justices:  Justice Brennan believes programs that use racial classifications to remedy past discrimination serve a compelling state interest and are thus constitutional.  Justice Marshall also agrees that The Equal Protection Clause permits the use of racial classifications to remedy our past. Continuing with the trend, Justice Blackmun feels the court is ill-equipped to handle cases involving admissions programs but does point out that race must be taken into account in order to combat racism.  So your honor, as you can see, this process is one that is fair. As an argument on emotion, we must realize the lack of opportunity for our minority individuals and what this program provides.  Let’s not let them down, again.  Thank you."

Sources:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdQW5408DiE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukcC6JZKo0I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v._Bakke

Research: Pop. Constitutionalism & Non-Judicial Precedent

Picture of the Author: Dean Smith

In class, we read an academic paper by Dean Smith regarding popular constitutionalism and non-judicial precedent.  As a way to better understand these two concepts, we’ve been tasked with briefly explaining them in a blog-post format. 

The theory of popular constitutionalism is one that says dialogue among the nation outside of the courtroom can have a direct change on the meaning of the United States Constitution. As the Constitution is frequently regarded as a “living document,” this very dialogue becomes a catalyst for change.  It is a representation of “more voices than those of judges alone.  That is the essence of popular constitutionalism” (Smith).

Non-Judicial Precedent is an idea that national dialogue found in Popular Constitutionalism leads to statutes preceding a Supreme Court decision.  You can primarily find these within a social movement that directly represents a wanted change in government. “A wide range of social actors-- activists, journalists, industry leaders, lobbyists, legislators, and others-- contribute to the creation of what he (Gerhardt) has dubbed non-judicial precedents” (Smith).

Sources: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10811680.2014.860828

Class Video: The March

During a recent class, we watched a documentary covering the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960s.  The short film was centered around the buildup and result of the March on Washington D.C.

One thing that immediately struck my attention was how the movement was saved by young people.  At a time where people, specifically in Birmingham, AL., were pushing every button they could, it is amazing that young people showed up to continue the fight.

Phillip Randolph, the founder of an all-black working railroad, knew that demonstrations needed to be expanded outside of Birmingham.  He specifically said that this fight was one that should be focused on Congress and other government, stemming the idea for a major march on Washington’s capital.

Randolph sent his right-hand man Bayard Rustin to Birmingham to pass this message and encourage a national fight, not just a southern one.  During this time, blacks were attempting to enroll at Birmingham University and were denied due to race.  This forced President John F. Kennedy to finally get involved, helping the fight.

To pull this off with national attention, the organizers needed anyone and everyone to show up.  Over on the West Coast, Harry Belafonte was the “pied piper” of Civil Rights within the Art’s Community.  Belafonte helped organize a plan for many famous personalities to speak, sing, and stand along-side those participating in the march to gain more attention.

On the day of the march, loads of people were swarming the nation’s capital for this peaceful demonstration.  By 9:30 a.m., over 40,000 people were on the grounds.  By 10:30 a.m., 100 busses an hour were arriving full.

One of the most important events of this day was the “I have a dream” speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  This was King’s first start-to-finish speech televised on screens across America. As we all know, this speech and day have been remembered and noted ever since.

Following the march, proposals were presented by President Kennedy, but he soon after was assassinated.  However, in the year following the march, the act was finally put into effect as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This historical event sheds much-needed light on a first amendment right that has proven its ability to work.  The act of peaceful protest has forced the country to change time and time again.  When people can peacefully come together as a unified body to voice their desires, action will be taken.  Unfortunately, it seems our country is currently forgetting that quality as acts of violence and destruction is taking its place.

SOURCES: Video viewed in class. 

Class Video: Klansville, USA.

Last week, our class watched a video on the Klu Klux Klan in North Carolina.  The assigned name of this North Carolina chapter was known as Klansville, USA.  The person at the head of this chapter was a man by the name of Bob Jones.

Bob Jones was born in 1930 and grew up in Salisbury, N.C. as the son of a railroad worker.  His father and mother had both been in their local chapter of the K.K.K in the ‘20s.  Jones jumped around from job-to-job in his adult life and was considered “white trash” by most.  Before joining the Klan, Jones would not admit he was racist unless he felt a need.

After a dying down of the Klan in the 1930s due to bad press, the Klan began to rise again in the 1950s with the passing of Brown v. Education.  White men felt that they were not being paid enough attention as the progression of blacks continued.  After joining the Klan, Jones was quickly chosen to be the grand dragon.

Alongside radical preacher George Dorsett, Jones began holding rallies for thousands of people all across North Carolina.  There was live music, hotdogs, and many other amenities for an entire family.  With an intensified fight for equality in North Carolina on the rise, Klan recruiting became extremely important. 

In addition to the festivities at rallies, Dorsett would preach a powerful sermon proclaiming segregation was justified in the bible.  Following the sermon, members would set a gas covered cross on fire as the hymn “old rugged cross” played.

By the summer of 1965, Bob Jones grew the Klan to nearly 2,000 paying members.  However, as violent retaliation began among other Klans, Jones reminded his supporters that their fight was for political support against unwanted government, not violence. 

In 1965, a white housewife was gunned down by Alabama Klansmen, causing the Government to take a harsh stance on the group.  This struck a nerve in North Carolina, causing Klans to rally every night for four months straight proclaiming “we are unjustly being treated as an enemy.”

The House on American Activities Committee held hearings about the Klan on capital hill.  As things were not going their way, Klan members got upset when Bob Jones took the stand and did not speak up for them.  An FBI informant took advantage of the situation and urged Dorsett to create his own group, hoping this would dissolve the Klan.

Many did join Dorsett’s group but in favor of the FBI agent, the group did dissolve as Dorsett was not a good leader.  Shortly after, Jones was arrested and prisoned for one year for not presenting legal documents. His members quickly resented joining the once-powerful group, even so far as to staple membership cards to a cross and burn it.

Overall, the Carolina Klan did not obtain any of the goals they were striving to achieve.  Following his sentence, Jones went back to working as a lightning rod salesman. As time went on, many former members would go and record to say they felt shameful for their few years in the Klan.  This falling of Klansville, USA was a major step to the end of such a large outpour of racial discrimination.   

SOURCES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL-DFSKV8uU 

Mock Trial: Brown V. Board of Education

In continuation of our study on historical court cases, the class presented a mock trial of Brown v. Board of Education.  In this trial, students took the famous consolidation case and presented separate sides in front of our acting judge, Professor Smith.  In this equal protection case, a clear question was set: Is the state law mandating segregation in schools covered by the 14th amendment?

The first side to argue were those of Brown.  The question first pitched was if two separate facilities based on race could actually be equal.  Response statements included that with separation, one race would always be inferior to the other, calling out the flaws in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Other points made in favor of Brown were that having separate schools hurt the economy due to the lack of opportunities presented for blacks.  Going along with the bashing of Plessy v. Ferguson, one student stated that while separate but equal may look good on paper, it is certainly the opposite in real-life.

Of course, the valuable point of stare decisis was quickly brought up by the side arguing for the State of Kansas.  Presenters urged the judge to stand-by the decision already made in Plessy v. Ferguson.  Other arguments acknowledged that inequality was still very real, but would get better as time progressed, and shouldn’t be dealt with brashly.

State decision was also a big plea by the Kansas side.  The students felt that the matter should be a state choice, not one decided by the federal government.  The thought that a number of different social classes were mixing was universally unliked.  A compromise proposed by the state was to charge establishments that don’t follow separate but equal correctly but to keep the action in place.

Following all arguments, our judge found that separation was unconstitutional, thus overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.  Looking through the lens of that time, I also agree with this call.  A breakthrough was needed in this ongoing fight for equality, and African Americans got just that. 

Sources:  NOTES TAKEN IN CLASS 

EOTO Research: The Jazz Age

Bix Beiderbecke once said, “One thing I like about Jazz, kid, is I don’t know what’s going to happen next.”  This quote by Beiderbecke certainly helps demonstrate the point I made with my assigned EOTO on the Jazz Age.  What is that point exactly?  It’s that this age brought new experiences for all people in the U.S.  It was also a trailblazing age for multi-racial crowds and entertainers. Those involved, as Beiderbecke pointed out, truly didn’t know what would happen next.

Jazz music is said to have originated from African American communities in New Orleans.  The music style was very influenced by the roots of blues music and ragtime style.  In the 1920s, it became known as a major form of musical expression.

Jazz Music is characterized by call & response vocals with swing and blue notes and polyrhythms/improv. The music style became a staple as illegal speakeasies during the prohibition era.  With over 32,000 speakeasies within New York and Chicago, we can only imagine the amount of Jazz music played. 

Fitting with the “counterculture” of speakeasies, Jazz was perfect for the illicit environment.  Al Capone, one of the most notable crime bosses ever, was a huge fan and supporter of Jazz music and always hired struggling musicians to play.

In fact, Capone was known for hiring all races of musicians and would regularly give them a challenge.  If they could play a set he hadn’t heard, he would generously tip them with an extra $100.

As those of all different races collectively shared a love of this genre, the discrimination gap began to shrink some.  While there were still many race issues for some time after the Jazz Age, this was the start of acceptance for multi-racial crowds and hobbies.  Most consider this age a big stepping stone for our society.

Notables during the Jazz Age include Louis Armstrong, Jelly Roll Morton, Benny Goodman, and Tommy Dorsey.

Sources: 

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

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/a-culture-of-change/ 

Class Video: A Look At Reconstruction

Going along with our historical ventures into the first amendment and how it’s affected people throughout history, our class was instructed to watch a video on reconstruction.  This extremely well put together documentary offered insight I was not aware of during the post-civil war era.  Listed below are a few takeaways that were most interesting to me. 

Following the start of the civil war, thousands of slaves ran away and found refuge in safe houses.  These slaves, alongside freed black men, would join in the fight for the union.  The impact of this was great as there were over 180,000 black men fighting for freedom.

Following the war, Abraham Lincoln said that some black men should have the ability to vote.  This was one of the many breaking points for his eventual assassin John Wilkes Booth.  Booth would finally go on to kill Lincoln in 1865 after many debunked attempts.

During this time following the Civil War, other interesting things were happening as well.  One of the most fascinating for me is the newspaper postings of former slaves attempting to find their families.  To know that some closure may have been reached after a life-long journey of wonders is very special.  However, it is also extremely sad to hear stories of those who didn’t receive any information on their loved ones after so much effort.

The Southern Democrat Andrew Johnson took over as President following Lincoln’s assassination.  Right out the gate, he proved to not withhold the same morals as Lincoln did.  Frederick Douglas quickly said that Johnson was “no friend of the black.”

Johnson continuously made promises to the south to keep the “black issue” under control while still accepting their freedom.  One of the ways he restored order within the states was by giving pardons to previous confederate leaders.  It is astonishing to me that because of these pardons, many men would lawfully return to political leadership within the USA.  The result of this would again cause government limitations on blacks.

One of the biggest ways Southern white men kept blacks as an inferior race was through black codes.  These laws recognized slavery was abolished but still kept as little change as possible.  In fact, the code required black adults to sign a contract requiring a year of work under a white employer.  If they didn’t sign, they’d be auctioned off to serve off their fine.  Yes, you read that correctly. SERVE!  How was this “slavery 2.0” allowed to happen?

Furthermore, many kids were legally taken from their parents without consent.  A white person would deem the black parent “unfit for parenting” and would take them in to “teach” skills like farming and nursing.  I don’t know about you, but that sounds like free labor to me.  Again, how could this happen?  How could parents have no say in a matter involving their own kids?

Along with the already racists acts put in place by the government, private racial hate groups began to form as well.  The biggest of these groups was the KKK, one we’re very familiar with today.

 

Eventually, Congress met again and had enough of these discriminatory acts.  Against the veto of President Johnson, Congress passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1866.  From there, changes began to be made as birth-right citizenship was put into place.  While this also caused many riots and further discrimination, it was a major stepping stone for improvement. 

The 14th amendment was next to be put into action and would redefine the rights of all free people.  Some Southern states refused to ratify the 14th amendment so were shut out from Congress until they did.  However, this amendment and the 15th amendment would help make a major shift for blacks in the USA.  While hate groups still remained in full force, African American’s finally had rights from the government. 

SOURCES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiXxQpBLMuk&feature=emb_title

EOTO Spotlight: Civil Unrest

In a recent class, students were asked to research a given topic and present that topic to the class for further understanding.  This ”EOTO” process included the following topics:  Andrew Johnson, John Wilkes Booth, Freedman’s Bureau, Election of 1876, Hiram R. Revels, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

During the EOTO for the presidency of Andrew Johnson, the student pointed out the number of things Johnson changed following President Lincoln’s assassination.  While Congress wasn’t meeting, Johnson used his power to allow former confederate leaders to hold a place in government.

Because of Johnson’s change, 60+ former confederate leaders were elected and the south used this to create separation.  Congress did impeach President Johnson but one vote saved the President from the removal of office.  All states did rejoin the union during his presidency. 

The student that presented John Wilkes Booth spoke on Booth’s many plans to cause President Lincoln harm.  In fact, Booth has a plan to kidnap Lincoln but failed to show up last minute.  During the night of Lincoln’s assassination, audience members in the Peterson House thought the deadly act was apart of the place.  Quickly, they realized it was not.

The Freedman’s Bureau was founded by President Lincoln in 1965 as a relief for southerners and former slaves in the South.  The Bureau quickly lost support, especially as former confederates joined congress following Lincolns death.  Before its eventual dismantle by congress, the Freedman’s Bureau built many houses and schools for the poor.

As presented to us, the Election of 1876 was one for the ages.  Running mates Rutherford Hayes and Samual Tilden were up against a very odd happening.  Tilden received the popular vote while Hayes received the electoral college.

Because of this issue, the compromise of 1877 was created to lay some rules for the election decision.  The first was that Hayes would become President.  The second was that democrats would respect African American’s.  The third was that federal troops were removed from the South.  The final was Hayes had to appoint a southern cabinet. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was passed to punish African American’s in the South.  The act was rarely enforced.  It was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. 

The final presented person was Hiram R. Revels.  Revels was the first African American elected to congress.  He was a trailblazer for the black community and often fought for civil rights and the rights of minorities.

Overall, this EOTO experience was very educational.  I was able to learn a lot more about the topics presented in a faster time.  I’m looking forward to our next round of presentations.

SOURCE: NOTES TAKEN IN CLASS BASED ON POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS

Mock Trial: State V. Mann

During class, a mock trial was conducted based on the historic case State V. Mann.  Here, I’ll write a brief overview of the trial and its conclusion.  Going into this trial, my heart wanted to side with the state, however, law at that time would force a difference in opinion.

First, let’s talk about what this case was about.  In Chowan County, North Carolina, a slave by the name of Lydia was rented to John Mann.  One day, Lydia attempted an escape from Mann after receiving lashes as a punishment.  Mann drew his gun and shot Lydia, wounding her but not killing her.

The matter was taken to court where Mann received a fine of $10.  Believing he did no wrong, Mann took this case to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.  The court found Mann not guilty of battery and had the State repay Mann his money. 

In our class, many arguments for the State deemed it unfair Mann should getaway for the damage of another person’s property.  While Mann was the renter, the slave belonged to Elizabeth Jones and he had now damaged her property. 

Other arguments for the State included the fact Lydia, while technically owned property, was still human and deserved justice.  One presenter even brought up the age-old saying “An eye for an eye.” 

Religious reasoning was also brought into play by the State.  Unanimously, arguers felt some sort of kindness, and reasoning was expected, as instructed by God.  They strongly felt this type of deliberate action was harsh and unjust. 

On the other side of the argument, the legal defense for Mann believed property has no right under God and shouldn’t be treated as so.  As a renter of Lydia for one year’s time, Mann felt he possessed the power to treat her as he saw fit.

Mann’s defense also cited a law in North Carolina’s sister-state Virginia where slaves could lawfully be shot and killed as property.  According to presenters for Mann, a slave has the duty to obey and a slave master has the duty to discipline if not followed.  The disciplinary action used is solely up to the master’s discretion.

Following the conclusion of both arguments, the judge ruled in favor of John Mann and just like the real case, had the State reimburse the monetary fine. 

For me, this ruling makes sense for the time it was set.  While, as mentioned, my heart wants to side with the State’s initial ruling, the bottom line is law during this time had no way of achieving any justice for Lydia as “property.” 

Sources: 

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-state-v-mann

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_v._Mann

Notes From Class

EOTO Research: The Underground Railroad

The Underground Railroad will always be a vital part of American history. The railroad was a system run by abolitionists for the freeing of runaway slaves.  Spanning from the late 18th century until the American Civil War, the system saved thousands of slaves and forced change in the U.S.

Quakers are believed to be some of the first organized groups to run a system like the Underground Railroad.  In fact, George Washington once said a quaker tried to “liberate” one of his slaves in 1786.

In the 1800s, a Quaker abolitionist Isaac T. Hopper designed a network in Philadelphia that helped runaways.  During this same time, North Carolina Quakers were laying the groundwork for routes and shelters, according to History.com.

The actual term Underground Railroad first appeared in a Washington newspaper in 1839 after a slave named Jim was tortured until he confessed his plans of running away using the railroad.  By the mid-1840s, the term became very well known around the country.

Staying with the railroad theme, those who transported runaway slaves to their destinations were called conductors.  Furthermore, the locations that the slaves reached were labeled as “stations,” “depots,” and “safe houses.”  These places were typically schoolhouses, private homes, or churches run by people called “stationmasters”.

Many notorious routes stretched through Pennsylvania and into New England, heading toward Canada.  Others would go through Ohio on the way to Iowa and Indiana.

Notable abolitionists who were apart of the Underground Railroad include John Brown, William Still, Thomas Garrett, Levi Coffin, and the very famous Harriet Tubman. 

It is safe to say that without the Underground Railroad, our advances and eventual end of slavery may not have happened as quickly.  With things like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, the fight only became more apparent and voices became much louder for the end of such a horrifying act.  The fight was on and it wouldn’t end until change was made. 

Town Hall Review: A Look Over The Countries Divide On Slavery

Last week one of my classes held a mock town hall meeting to represent the thoughts of pro-slavey and anti-slavery supporters in 18th century America.  As each student spoke in place of their historical figure, we found many intense arguments on both sides.

The argument for the pro-slavery side remained pretty consistent.  Most, if not all arguments came from white men in the southern states.  These men were against the termination of slavery as it would drastically change their economics.  Notables like William Harper and my assigned person John C. Calhoun were vocal on how the elimination of slavery would not only affect the South financially but the whole country as well.

Other pro-slavery supporters also argued the moral side of slavery.  Again, John C. Calhoun spoke up on this topic by professing all blacks should be just as grateful for slavery as whites.  He felt that it was the best living conditions and stable environment any person of color had been in.  He also felt that blacks were an inferior race to whites and had no ability to fend for themselves and adjust to society. In his mind, this was to be seen as a good thing for our country, not a bad thing.

On the contrary, there were many that originally supported slavery but changed their views over time.  One of these people was Benjamin Franklin.  Franklin had owned two slaves at one time and shared the belief of Calhoun that blacks were inferior and not able to be educated.  However, once Ben observed the opposite happen, he flipped his whole stance on the matter.

Franklin would go on to be a major supporter for the abolishment of slavery.  One quote from our town hall was, “Slavery is theft, the robbery of a person’s life, those that disagree don’t deserve freedom.”

Another person similar to Franklin was Thomas Jefferson.  Though Jefferson didn’t directly rebuke slavery, he did see it as somewhat wrong and in need of a moral change.  Instead of harsh punishment and dreadful working conditions, Jefferson attempted to make slave work more manageable.  He offered better incentives, easier crops, and overall better working time. 

Of course, with any argument, one group will be on the completely opposite viewpoint.  In this case, the abolitionists or anti-slavery groups were completely against those that were pro-slavery. 

These groups unanimously argued that the act of slavery was completely inhumane and should be put to an end.  Some, like Henry Clay, felt it should be phased out based on an economic standpoint, while others like John Brown became violent in his call for immediate action.

The anti-slavery activist wrote books, published newspapers, and even began to join the underground railroad to fight against slavery.  Many even began to have bounties on their heads from angry southerners that wanted their voices stopped.  With all of this anger and division, it became obvious destruction was on its way.  The major issue of slavery, among other things, would rock the country so greatly that it would completely divide itself. 

***

Check out my previous blog on John C. Calhoun! 

https://noahtlewis.blogspot.com/2020/09/john-c-calhoun-southern-leader-of-moral.html

John C. Calhoun: The Southern Leader of Moral, Political, & Spiritual Separatism

In the history of the Antebellum South, one man is remembered more than most for his stance on slavery.  That man is none other than John C. Calhoun.  Growing up on a South Carolina farming plantation during a boom in the cotton economy, Calhoun witnessed first hand how essential slaves were to southern living.  His father was a successful farmer that also served in public office.  After graduating, Calhoun went to Yale College and began to find his voice.  He was so insistent on his beliefs that he wouldn't go unheard.  For this reason, he followed in his father's footsteps and ran for the House of Representatives in 1810.  This would only be the first stepping stone in a long political career fighting for southern rights. 

Following his run with the House, Calhoun was made Secretary of War under President James Monroe.  It was in that time that Calhoun decided he would run for the presidential position himself in the 1824 election.  Although he didn't get the nomination for President, he did win the Vice President nomination by a landslide.  In this role, he worked alongside John Quincy Adams, but the two did not see eye-to-eye as Adams supported high tariffs and centralization.  For this reason, Calhoun reluctantly supported Andrew Jackson in the following election.  However, Calhoun still didn't see eye-to-eye with his commander-in-chief so he resigned as Vice President to serve in the U.S. Senate.  

With his platform in the Senate, Calhoun's beliefs were better heard.  He made his position on high tariffs and nullification clear and angered President Jackson.  Jackson once even threatened to travel to South Carolina and personally hang Calhoun for his "treasonous behavior".  The bad blood between the two never seemed to simmer. 

Going forward, Calhoun would continue to make his argument for slavery.  He laid grown rules for the south that suggested they could and would refuse government limitations of slavery.  Although Calhoun didn't push for succession, he made it clear that it was an option.  In fact, he once said that if abolitionist bias didn't end then ‘we must become, finally, two peoples…. Abolition and the Union cannot co-exist.’ 

As abolitionist tension continued, Calhoun led a shift in the South's defense of slavery.  He classified slavery as a "great good" that benefited all involved.  "Never before has the black race…from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually,’ he argued in Congress. ‘It came to us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and in the course of a few generations it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions."

With the help of census reportings, Calhoun added: "look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor house’ in Europe and the North."  

As we know, Calhoun would end up on the wrong side of the stick following his death.  In contradiction to his thoughts, slavery would come to an end and the South would survive it.  We also see that many African Americans have and will continue to achieve great excellence in our country, something Calhoun said could never be done in the black race.  Because of his racist and crude viewpoints, his name will always go down in history as one with negative connotation.  However, his impact will always be apparent. 

Important Sources: 

https://www.historynet.com/john-c-calhoun-the-man-who-started-the-civil-war.htm

https://www.history.com/topics/us-politics/john-c-calhoun

Research: Christian Religion & Slavery

 

Religion is humanity's most powerful mental creation. Throughout history, it has been used to define, justify, and defend actions. The institution of slavery is undoubtedly among this list, being highlighted on multiple occasions in religious text.

How Religion Condones Slavery (Alex Rucker): 

In early America, Christian slaveholders would constantly remind their slaves of a specific verse in the Bible. It comes from one of Apostle Paul's epistle, Ephesians 6:5-7, which briefly states that slaves should be obedient to their masters, as unto Christ. In the church, this verse would be given the spotlight for masters to convince their property that what they were doing was justified and in accordance with the Lord.

A more critical argument to why slavery was justified in the Bible, lies in Jesus Christ himself. Through the entire text Jesus remains silent on the issue, and never specifically calls it a sin. Slaveholders in the south would use this evidence to make claims that Jesus had no issue with the institution, saying that the Word did not spell out what was right or wrong.

According to a study in 1835 by the Charleston Mercury, the slaveholding institution cannot be considered anti-Christian. In the old testament, God and the Patriarchs approve, giving slave owners the right to have human property. They believed however that if they gave their slaves an outlet to Christ, then they would be freed from their savage like ways.

Through the lens of religion, slaveholding can definitely be defended. When it comes to the Bible it is evident to see that slavery is never outlawed outright. Because of this one can make a solid argument that Christianity has condoned slavery even though it barely speaks on it.

How Religion Condemns Slavery (Noah Lewis):

The issue of slavery as we know it was not supported by Christianity in the Bible.  While the Bible makes reference to slavery, many don’t take into consideration how slaves were treated at that time. In fact, the process of obtaining slaves was vastly different.  Many slaves in Biblical times chose serving to erase debt.  If they vowed six years of service, they would then have the option to leave a master debt-free.  A number of slaves even chose to remain with their masters following the six-year period.  Both biblical and general limitations were put in place to assure harsh practices were not used.

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh, he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her masters, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly says, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free, then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever. (Exodus 21:26)”

These limitations prove that Christianity does not condone slavery, but acknowledges its biblical time existence and offers guidance and regulation for its practice.  If the Christian faith condoned this practice, it would not directly mandate limitations in the procedure. This is similar to modern-day laws. They aren’t made to limit good things, they’re made to assure the bad things aren’t overlooked.

If you’re still on the fence after those pieces of scripture, take a look at these:

“Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)”

“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)”

These examples prove that the Bible would never condone the modern time's racial-based slavery we had in America.  Those that claimed religion did justify their practices were in direct violation of what is stated.  We know that America’s slaves were not treated with any sort of fairness.  We also know that these slaves were kidnapped and purchased without any sort of consent or willingness to serve.  As the Bible says, those with that practice “shall surely be put to death.”

So, Condone or Condemn? 

After reviewing our research, a valid argument could be made on both sides of the stance.  While the act of slavery was much different in Biblical times, it did still exist and was practiced.  However, with the overwhelming amount of Christians at the forefront of anti-slavery movements, is it fair to continue to classify Christianity as possibly racist?  That's for you to decide. 

https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-then-africans-made-it-their-path-to-freedom/2019/04/29/34699e8e-6512-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html 

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/