Hazel Scott EOTO

• Hazel was born June 11th, 1920 and passed October 2nd, 1981
  
• Was a Trinidadian-born jazz and classical pianist, singer, and actor
  
• Was a critically acclaimed performing artist and an outspoken critic of racial discrimination and segregation.
• She used her influence to improve the representation of Black Africans in film. 
  
• Hazel was the first black woman to host a network show (The Hazel Scott Show) with a 15-minute series that aired 3 nights a week
  
• She fought for equality and fair treatment of blacks in Hollywood and refused to perform at segregated venues while she was touring. 
  
• Her T.V show was soon cancelled as a result of her testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee. 

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmujUkwU19I

Fair Housing Act

The Fair Housing Act of 1968, also known as the Civil Rights Act, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financial of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status, and disability. ​

​

This act made it illegal to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing, including against individuals seeking a mortgage or housing assistance, or in other housing-related activities​

​

It was approved after one week after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. 

Initially, powers given to enforce the act were weak, but congress asserted its authority to legislate the act under several different parts of the United States Constitution.​

​

Pressures to pass the bill was being put on the federal government by. Such organizations as the National Association for Colored People (NAACP), the American GI Forum, and the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing. ​

​

The president at the time, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968 after it failing to pass in 1966 and 1967.​Initially, powers given to enforce the act were weak, but congress asserted its authority to legislate the act under several different parts of the United States Constitution.​

EOTO Trial - Andrew Jackson

     After hearing Brady state his case about Andrew Jackson, I learned that he was Pro-Slavery. Jackson generally wanted his slaves to be treated well, as they were the source of his wealth. He wanted to treat them with great humanity, feed and clothe them, and work them in moderation. Occasionally, Jackson could be cruel and whip his slaves for running away or being impudent. When talk about abolishing slavery came about, Jackson believed abolishing slaves would put too many people out of work and it be a threat to national unity. He believed abolishing slaves would disrupt the South's hard work and success, but not only that, he also wanted it as a way to further white supremacy. He believed that diving the country would not help and cause war (which it did). 

Plessy vs Ferguson

Today I’m going to be talking about the 1892 incident in which African American train passenger, Homer Plessy, refused to sit in a car for blacks. This law was passed by Louisiana state legislature in 1890 which required “equal, but separate.” This does not sit as equal to me. Plessy had every right to refuse to move as his constitutional rights were violated. Duly arrested and imprisoned, he was then brought to New Orleans for a trial and convicted of violating the 1890 law. He then filed a petition against the judge in that trial, arguing that the segregation law violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.  

As stated, in the 14th and 15th amendment, that it guarantees all citizens “equal protection of the laws” and the 15th stating “The right of citizens of the U.S to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the U.S on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude.” If the 14th amendment is trying to state that everyone born or neutralized in the U.S are citizens and should be treated equally, but if there is still segregation, it’s violating that amendment. The court ruled that while the object of the 14th amendment was to “create absolute equality of the races before the law”, but such equality extended only so far as political and civil rights and not social rights.  

This contradicts itself, saying that people of color are allowed to be equal with everyone else on a political view, but in the real world they are to be treated differently just because of their own color? The arbitrary separation of citizens, on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude inconsistent with civil freedom and equality. If a black and white man choose to occupy the same public conveyance on a public highway, it is their right to do so and no government, proceeding alone on the grounds of race, can prevent it without violating the personal liberty of each. Plessy did nothing wrong and stood up for racial segregation that violated his rights. Thank you.  

 

  

Mississippi's War: Slavery and Secession

    After Lincoln got elected on November 6th, he had the power to appoint people to hold federal offices. This terrified southerners, as Lincoln might appoint an abolitionist. White Southerners feared loosing money and their way of life. By 1860, the South had the 4th largest economy in the world, and could not afford to loose their slaves or their business with cotton. 

    At this time, cotton was a gold mine. people were addicted to cotton because it was so valuable. Everybody wanted it. The south was dependent on slaves for cotton. Mississippi during this time had more slaves than free people in their state. Cotton was the engine that drove Mississippi's economy.  

    Slavery became a very emotional issue, as some people thought it was a horrible thing to own slaves. Most folk who who defended slavery were justifying it on christianity. Using the bible verse "Slaves obey their masters". Slavery started to tear the nation apart. Wealthy southerners were afraid if Lincoln freed their slaves, it would be a financial disaster. Lincoln said he would reimburse the slave owners for the labor they would loose, but they weren't interested in that. It was a slap in the face to their way of life, they did not want to give up their slaves. 

    In 1860, Jefferson Davis was Mississippi's senator and believed that the states were sovereign and should be allowed to leave the union fo they chose. The North was mad, and so a war was coming. They called a secession convention and gathered delegates from every county in Mississippi were they argued for or against slavery. Not every Mississippian was for secession. They worried about the impact the loss of slavery would have if a war came and the war did not go they way they would like it to go. After confederate troops attacked Fort Sumter, Lincoln called up 75,000 union troops to reoccupy US properties, thus began the civil war. 

America divided

    The civil war was the war that split the nation into 2, Anti-Slavery and Pro-Slavery. It lasted from 1861-1865. The North and South were very different during these times. The North was rapidly industrializing and booming. They focused on trade, building canals, building railroads, factoring machines, moving away from farms and working with tools. The South was still focused on Agriculture and creating crops. Plantation owners dominated the south and still believed that southern wealth rested on the back of slaves. 

    In 1793, Eli Whitney created the cotton Jin, allowing slaves to collect cotton faster and easier. After a while slaves started to revolve against their masters. Slaves were poisonings their masters, fighting back, burning down barns, moving North, etc. Anything they could to stop slavery. In 1830, William Garrison created the abolition movement. The North was ok with this but the South was not. The North began to fight against slavery while the South kept defending it. Southerners would start arguing that in the North they make women and children work 10-12 hours in horrible conditions. 

    The south believed they couldn't grow without slavery, and were willing to go to war for it. The nation was split. Slave state or not? Stephen Douglas fought against Abe Lincoln on how states were allowed to vote Pro or Anti Slavery. The North and South became 2 countrys and it was time for war. 

Stephen A Douglas' thoughts on slavery

Stephen A Douglas

Good morning everyone and thank you all for listening. Before I share my thoughts let me tell you a little about my past. I was born in Brandon, Vermont in 1813. I lived with my mother Sally and father Stephen before he passed away when I was only 3 months. My mother decided to move to my uncle’s house on a farm where I lived for the next 17 years. In my early teen years, I was a cabinet maker but soon found that the appeal of law and political studies made me change my craft. Not long after that, I moved to New York to get my career going. I joined the Hubbell law firm and studied law for six months before I moved West where I knew I could obtain a law license in less time. In Illinois I obtained my law license, married my first wife, and moved to Chicago with her. When my wife Martha’s father died, we inherited a cotton plantation with 100 slaves. 

When Martha passed in 1853, I continued to derive income from the plantation but constantly denied that I ever personally owned the slaves. My position on slavery was severely debated by many historians. I didn’t really care if slavery was voted up or down, but I knew owning slaves would cause me political debates and hurt my chances running against Abe Lincoln. Lincoln pressured me to say definitively whether I believed if slavery was morally right. I said that was disputable and that the constitution allowed slavery to exist. I will confess, I believed in slavery, but to a certain point. 

For four months Lincoln and I crisscrossed Illinois, traveling over 10,000 miles to participle in seven debates. The main focus of these debates was slavery. My strategy during the debates was to present Lincoln as a fanatical black republican, whose goal was to encourage civil war, emancipate the slaves, and set blacks the social and political equals of whites. Lincoln believed slaves were human and had the fundamental right to life, liberty, and happiness. Now I didn’t disagree with this, but I believed in the inferiority of African Americans. It was up to citizens in respective states to decide whether or not they wanted slavery. Whether blacks were free or enslaved did not matter to me, what mattered was that they would never been citizens and always be inferior to whites. I wanted citizenship for whites only. In this world slavery could not exist a day or hour anywhere unless it is supported by local police regulations, which in most states it was. I was following the rules. I brought up popular sovereignty several times in the debates. The premise was simple. Let the people of the territories decide themselves whether slavery was permitted. In a country that has championed democracy, letting the people decide seemed right, if not obvious. I had many supporters with me, but popular sovereignty was difficult to put into practice. Would the people vote directly or indirectly?  If slavery were voted down, would the individuals who owned slaves have the right to keep them? With all the stirring questions my point was voted down. 

In the election of 1858, the general public did not have the opportunity to vote for Lincoln or I. In the final balloting the republicans outpolled the democrats. Although Lincoln failed to win a senate seat, his defeat was not a slip and fall. I was appointed secretary of state and won against Abe by a narrow victory. I may have won the battle, but Lincoln won the war in the 1860 president election.

Let me finish with this. The constitution allowed slavery, article 1, section 2, the 3/5 clause. Provisions allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 of a person. Owning slaves was not wrong, as it is clearly stated in thee constitution. Thank you.  

Further Reading & Sources:

https://www.history.com/topics/us-politics/stephen-a-douglas#:~:text=History.com%20Editors-,Stephen%20A.,War%20(1861%2D1865).

 https://civilwaronthewesternborder.org/encyclopedia/douglas-stephen#:~:text=%5Bhe%5D%20continued%20to%20derive%20income,moved%20his%20home%20to%20Chicago.&text=Douglas's%20position%20on%20slavery%20is%20one%20debated%20by%20historians.

 https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3284

Slavery & Religion

Although we view religion as holy intuitions, slavery was an upheld establishment from the start of time. From slaves in Babylon to slaves in modern-day Africa, many people use their religious ideology to supplement their actions. However, as all things do, religion moves with time and all social ideas. Therefore, slavery has been condemned and shamed by heads of all major religions in some way.

 Genesis IX,18-27 tells the story, incorrectly known as, “The Curse of Ham,” this was the ultimate misinterpretation that lead to Africans to be placed into slavery. “The Curse of Ham '' is actually “The Curse of Canaan”, Canaan and his descendents were cursed into servertudie under the transgressions of Ham. Christians saw Canaanites to be black and considered their enslavement as a way to save their souls.Truthfully it has been proven that Canaan and his descendents are not black at all, rather they were cursed early day lebanonese, Jordanians, Syrians, and Palstanians. With the Bible as the way of passage for the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, the bible also became a tool to keep slave obiendent. Slaves were encouraged to attend church where sermons promoting slaves to promote their earthly masters were preached; the publication of the ‘slave bible’ assisted in the push of slavery within Christianity as portions scriptures, including the Exodus story, were removed to prevent rebellious thinking.

Islam and Christianity worked hand in hand, as the Arab-controlled Trans-Saharan slave trade was the institutional foundation of slave trading on the contintent of Africa. This was witnessed by European Christians during the ‘age of expedition’. Although the Islamic religion promoted the taking of war prisoners and those in debt as slaves, Christians during these early periods looked to the Bible as the ultimate source of knowledge therefore they slavery as a result of ‘sin’. They turned to Genesis IX, 18-27 as the answer.

With long standing hostility between Islam and Christianity, Jews became the trading middle men between both religions. Aaron Lopez and Jacob B. Rivera were two prominent jewish slave traders. They were known to have 184 large vessels and 342 small coasters. With 20 rum distilleries under their belts, the men made consistent routines to Guinea; where they were known to trade around 180 gallons of rum per male slave. They would ultimately bring them back to Charleston North Carolina to be sold.

At the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade, African religious beliefs and practices were numerous and varied. Slavery was a common practice in religion. The bible stipulates the treatment of slaves in the Old Testament, which involved a variety of methods, statements, and restrictions. Different religions have different views on slavery. In the Jewish practice, slaves were given a range of treatments and protections. They were to be treated as extended family. They were property, but could also own material goods. Christians accepted slavery as an institutuion. Slavery in various forms has been a part of the social environment for much of christianitys history. Catholics would tend to welcome africans and convert them simply and with little fuss. Islams encouraged kindess towards slaves, while accepting slavery as an institution. When comparing slavery and religion back then and now its very different. Religion now welcomes with open arms and encourages people of all races to get involved. 

In conclusion, slavery may have been held up by religious instutions in the past, however, our religious beliefs reflect those of our social beliefs. Christians and Jews could not deny the occurrence of  slavery, it is something that occurs in the holy books they preach from, slavery is apart of their history. Islam ,however, appeared during this time and flowed with the current circumstances. Culture is to humans as water is to a fish, but the link between slavery and religion is simply the worm on the line.

            References 

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://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/slavery_1.shtml

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

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/religion/history.html

 

https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/slavery.html

https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/islam-and-the-question-of-slavery/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/slavery-and-the-jews/376462/

Supreme Court

In this weeks blog I'm sharing what I learned during the supreme court video. I found this video very interesting. Even though I am not much into government/court cases, I found the explaining of the supreme court system fascinating. 

During the videos, they mentioned several times how powerful the supreme court is. "Being joined into the supreme court is like being struck by lightning." It took almost 200 years for America to accept the courts power. The best know power of support is judicial review, or the court declaring a legislative or executive act. The court established this in the case of Marbury vs Madison in 1803. 

During a case, lawyers on opposing sides are given 30 minutes to make their arguments before the court. The attorneys can be expected to answer direct and constant questions throughout their appearance. Oral argument is an hour of high drama. The court is tense at these times. A few days after hearing arguments, the justices gather in their conference room to vote on the case. 

There are nine supreme court justices during a court cases. This makes a lot of sense because there is no way the case could end in a tie. A few days after hearing arguments, the justices gather in their conference room alone to vote on the case. 

Overall I think these videos made my interest for supreme court/court cases rise. In 8th grade we read 12 angry men which I absolutely loved! In the beginning of quarantine I watched a movie on Ted Bundy, which showed his mannerisms in court and how the court reacted to him and I couldn't stop showing everyone this movie. 

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca8qSuWxcG8&t=622s