Gone With The Wind Reaction

 

Gone with the wind was a, in my opinion, a rollercoaster of a movie about the American Civil War. Although it is about the American Civil War, the film doesn’t follow the solders, rather, it follows the story of a woman by the name of Scarlett O’Hara. 

Scarlett O'Hara

Scarlett O’Hara is the character that the film follows. She is a white woman who lives at her families cotton plantation in Georgia. When we are first introduced to Scarlett, we see her as, in short, an arrogant
brat who just wants the best of life. Immediately this puts a bad taste in my mouth because of the way she acts and behaves towards people. The only point’s where she plays as the sweet and honest girl is when she is in front of the man she wants to marry. Of course, it is later revealed that he will instead be marrying Scarlett’s best friend. We do see her attitude change over the course of the movie although it isn’t by much. 

Moving on to one of the more controversial aspects of the movie is how we see the ownership and treatment of slaves as well as the showing of the Confederate flag. 

Because the movie is primarily focused around Scarlett we don’t see much of how Slaves are treated in the movie. For a majority of the movie Scarlett treats her slaves with care, for the most part. In the movie there are two notable slaves, Mammie and Prissy. The actor who played Mammie, Hattie McDaniel, did win a award for her role in the movie. However, the actor who played Prissy was more notable. Not much is known about Prissy in the movie. She is perceived as "dumb" and "clumsy", but her treatment is a different story.

Prissy would often be criticized due to her actions as a result of how she is portrayed. at one point in the film, Prissy is slapped across the face by Scarlett. During the time that this movie takes place this would be normal behavior and treatment of slaves. 

The Confederate flag is shown in the movie during one particular scene where we see confederate soldiers
who have lost their lives during the battle. This scene has been discussed many times in news articles and TV interviews in the past. One of theme you can watch here by Inside Edition. some say that the movie should be banned and some say it should be put in a museum. Personally I don't think it should be banned. its a great movie that talks about the history of slavery and the American Civil War. Movies like this should be shared so we as a nation can study our own history. This can help us improve ourselves and help us avoid any situations in the future that can be caused by not viewing a movie like this. 

Overall the movie is great and perfectly fits into what we are studying as a class. I am excited to see the rest of the movie and see how it all unfolds.

State v Mann

In the case of State v Mann a slave whose name is Lydia, was escaping the decided punishment of John Mann, a resident of Chowan County, North Carolina. Although there are countless cases similar to this, this one stands out in particular due to its complex story.

John Mann was found Guilty of Assault and Battery by the Chowan County Court, which resulted in him being charged $10 for his crime. We are here today to argue that this fine should be upheld as the technicality of the case is unlike what we have seen in the past. 

John Mann

In other cases, and times, Slave owners had the power and ability to do what they wanted to their slaves. In North Carolina, a slave state, this would be true. Some may believe that John Mann was acting accordingly when in fact he wasn’t. These rules over slaves only apply to those whose slaves belong to them. These rules and regulations will not apply if the slave does not belong to the man punishing them. This is true for this case against John Mann. It is also true for the basic property and protection laws that we already have and because Slaves are considered property the rules would apply in this case as well.

 

You were told that John Mann was a slave owner who was punishing Lydia for her supposed wrongdoing. However, the slave Lydia was not owned by John Mann, rather, Lydia was owned by a woman named Elizabeth Jones. John Mann hired Lydia for work, as was permitted by Elizabeth Jones. Because of this Mann did not own Lydia and therefore could not punish her in a way an owner would punish his or her slave. Some may say that because Lydia was being rented out by Mann, it would give Mann temporary ownership of Lydia, however this would not be the case. 

 

This is no different from a landlord renting out his property to renters. I, as the landlord, own the property that I am renting. The tenants have a right to be there because they are paying me rent, however this does not give them the right to make changes to the property without my, the landlords, permission. The same rules would apply to this case. Because John Mann was not the true owner of Lydia, he did not have permission to punish her in any way without Elizabeth Jones’s prior permission. 

 

In this case the reason behind Mann’s decision of punishment is irrelevant. It does not matter what Lydia did or said to cause John Mann to decide a punishment. The fact of the matter is, Mann did not have the right to “Damage” another person’s property as he did not own said property. This would make him guilty of Assault and battery.

As stated, before John Mann did not own Lydia their fore the rules of property laws could and will apply. We stand by our decision to fine John Mann $10 due to the preexisting laws and regulations of property ownership and the care of.

Town Hall meeting Review

 During the town hall meeting, I was intrigued to hear what each side had to say. Some arguments I never would have thought of before.

Almost all of the Pro-Slavery arguments had similar styles and ways of thinking. A lot of the arguments revolved around the economic values of slaves but what I found most surprising about pro-slavery arguments is that they never said they treated their slaves badly.

 

Jefferson Davis

One of the more common arguments of this nature is with Jefferson Davis and George Washington. Both men said that they did not treat their slaves in a negative way. Jefferson Davis even mentioned that he often got their slave's teeth checked and made sure they were in peak health. George Washington said that his slaves received food and shelter and stated that he did not discriminate who was and wasn’t a slave.

 

Two names and arguments that also stuck out to me were Pro-Slavery activists George Fitzhugh and Daniel Webster. Fitzhugh had a unique argument, saying that slaves were incapable of surviving on their own and that slavery was a way for them to survive. Daniel Webster argued that Slave states should remain slave states and free states should remain slave states. Another unique argument as he wants states to decide what is best rather than the people. He also argues that slaves who have escaped to the North should be brought back to the person they were enslaved by.

 

John Brown

I believe that the best and most intriguing argument I heard was from John Brown. John Brown argued that all slave owners were cowards. Brown also wanted to start a slave revolution. Knowing a little bit
about him I believe that he is completely serious, but I also believe that he isn’t right in the head. One of the other things he did was capture some slave owners and kill them. He was later sentenced to death. Definitely one of the more interesting people in today's debate.

 

Town Hall Meeting

    Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is John C. Breckinridge, and I am from Kentucky. Born January 21st, 1821, and died May 17th, 1875, I come from a family most prominently known for its practices in law and politics, something I picked up myself later in life. I graduated from Centre College in Kentucky and went on to study law, like my family members, at Princeton University and Transylvania University, with a goal to become an attorney. In my later years, I became the 14th, and youngest, Vice President of the U.S. for the Democratic party serving from 1857-1861. Immediately after I was a Confederate officer during the American Civil War serving from 1861-1865. 

         Today I will be convincing you why I, as a free American, should be able to own and keep slaves. Not only will I convince you that it is my religious right to own slaves, but also my constitutional rights based on the 1st, and 13th,  Amendments. The laws that were put in place to prevent slavery, I will be using to prove why I have a right to own and keep slaves.
 
    The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. As a religious man I believe that because it says in the Bible that I am free to own slaves, I should be able to do so. After all, the FA says that the government cannot prohibit the exercise of my chosen religion. To further my point let's read some bible verses.

Exodus 20:17

Exodus 21:2-7

Exodus 21:20-21

Deuteronomy 15:12-18

The story of Abram (later Abraham)

    Like I said before I am a religious man so I will follow the rules of this Bible. That also means I will follow the rules regarding slave-owning and treatment. My reports show that slaves have been treated properly under my ownership.
 
    Although the 13th Amendment was put into place to prevent slavery, it can still be used to promote slavery. Section 1 of the 13th Amendment states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”. This only prevents slavery and “Involuntary servitude” which means involuntary labor. With this information in mind let’s put these scenarios in play.
 
Scenario 1: From your point of view, I am a slave owner who is forcing others to do my work for no pay. Now you confront me about it, but I say that these men are not being forced to work for me, it’s voluntary.
 
Scenario 2: From your point of view, I have “slaves” with me being forced to serve manual labor. However, when you ask me why I have slaves I will say that these men have committed a crime and they are being punished for it.
 
    In both scenarios, I am technically not owning slaves because in scenario 1 the work they are doing is not Involuntary and in scenario 2 they are being punished for a crime they have committed against me.
 
    I believe that it is well within my rights as a free American, that I can own and keep “slaves”. The act of the government preventing me from owning slaves is a violation of my constitutional rights, as proven above, and will not be tolerated.

Sources

• https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-C-Breckinridge

• https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/13th-amendment#:~:text=The%2013th%20Amendment%20to%20the%20United%20States%20Constitution%20provides%20that,place%20subject%20to%20their%20jurisdiction.%22

• https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i

• https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2011/novemberdecember/feature/the-man-who-came-in-second

• https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments

Does The Bible Support Slavery?

 

     There are many references to Slavery in the Bible Most notably in the Old Testament. There are countless stories in which slavery has been mentioned and used to progress a story. One of the more notable stories is the story of Abram, later to be known as Abraham, and his wife's slave. Although Modern day Christians denounce slavery there is no doubt that slavery can be acceptable according to the Bible. 

Yes, the Bible Does Support Slavery (Brad and Elliott)

    The Bible views slavery as normalized. Numerous times The Bible mentions slavery casually without ever prefacing it with words of disapproval. From this, it can be surmised that slavery is acceptable and tolerable. The Bible does view certain parts of slavery as sinful, but slavery, as it was practiced in the United States in the times of the late eighteenth century to the early nineteenth century, is acceptable.

    Leviticus 25:44-46 makes many statements that align with how slavery was practiced at this time. It can concluded that the slave trade is allowed from the line “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you.” Slave breeding and auctioning are also allowed from the line “You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” This line also specifically appointed slaves to be viewed as property. The Bible also specifically states that slaves may be inherited from the next line: “You can give them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.” Therefore the slave trade as a whole as it was practiced in the United States, is permitted by The Bible.

    The Bible’s words also align with how slave owners treated their slaves. From Exodus 21:20-21: “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies under his abuse, the owner must be punished. However, if the slave can stand up after a day or two, the owner should not be punished because he is his owner’s property.” This clearly states that corporal punishment against slaves is acceptable, as long as the slave is not killed from the punishment. It also acknowledges that slaves are property to their owners. Furthermore, this excerpt and the surrounding context say nothing about the reason for which a slave shall be punished, meaning that it can be reasoned that slaves can be punished at any time for any reason as long as the punishment does not result in the death of the slave.     Modern assessments of Christianity often view slavery as a sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2414, an over 900-word articulation of the modern catholic christian viewpoint, states that enslavement is a sin under the seventh commandment. The seventh commandment, “thou shall not commit adultery”, is completely unrelated to the issue of slavery, however. Adultery strictly means a relation between a married person and someone other than their spouse, this has nothing to do with slavery. Even if modern Christian organizations wish it wasn’t true, the bible, and consequently the word of god, allows slavery as it was practiced in the United States. Most of the bible’s pro-slavery sentiment comes from the Old Testament, which is the basis of the bible and is a mandatory part of any translation or accepted version of the bible. Even the New Testament features ideas in support of slavery.

No, The Bible Does Not Support Slavery (Kasen and Jonathan)

The Bible uses the word slavery and servants in biblical times the word slave was seen as servants. In the bible, a common way to pay off debts was to do work under the person you owe debts to as a servant. The Bible has considered slavery a sin in some of its testaments and religions; it's a sin to participate in slave trades and slave ownership. Most religions also were against slavery and believed it had been a sin.

    In the Catholic Bible and religion, the bible says about the seventh commandment for as stated: “The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.” This quote represents that slavery is sin and is considered selfish. This quote also represents the fact that this commandment forbids slavery and all acts that lead to it. The Catholics stated earlier that this is a sin.

    In the New Testament of the Christian Bible, there are some references to anti-slavery movements and anti-slavery positions in the verse Timothy 1:10 the New Testament comments on other issues as well but keeps its main focus in this section on anti-slavery “the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine”. This verse says that slavery is also immoral and explains that those who practice it are not uncorrupted.

    It is definitely true that religions such as Christianity and Baptists especially condoned slavery at one point in history as did the different branches such as Baptism. The Southern Baptist Convention originally admitted to slavery endorsement and admitted they were wrong about their positions on Slavery. They admitted to making mistakes in their beliefs in this quote and statement: “Be it further RESOLVED, That we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest, and we recognize that the racism which yet plagues our culture today is inextricably tied to the past.” The Southern Baptist Convention is based on beliefs originally stated in the beliefs of the Bible and the Christian religion.

    In conclusion, the opinions on slavery have changed over time and the views have altered in recent years. Different religions all over the world have different opinions on slavery and we are at a point where most religions and cultures accept the fact that slavery has not always been the same.

    Finally, there is much more evidence in the Bible, most notably the Old Testament to say that yes, slavery is supported. the only reference to anti-slavery movements is in the New Testament. Based on this we can conclude that although the Bible as a whole both accepts and denounces slavery we can say that Judaism supports slavery. We can make this assumption because Judaism only refers to the Old Testament while Christianity refers to both the Old and New Testament. 

Sources:

Abraham Image

Slaves Image

Old Testament Image
catechism of the catholic church 2414

The U.S. Supreme Court Video

    After Watching the Supreme Court videos, I learned many new things about the Supreme Court and how they managed and handled cases. One of the things that I learned was that the Supreme Court reviews thousands of petitions a year from across the country. Now, I knew that there were a lot of petitions to the Supreme Court but not as many as what was stated. Another thing that I learned was how many of those same cases made it to trial. In the video, it said out of the 7000 cases they deal with in a year only about 100 of those cases are even considered. 

    This leads me to the most important takeaway from the video. Because the Supreme Court has all these submissions, they must be careful about what cases they want to consider. Some of these submissions are, of course, outlandish but most of them can also have a deep impact on both the person and the U.S. Some of these submissions have the potential to change laws already passed and affect millions of people across the U.S. In one case, one of the Justices said that Congress has no right to ban or abolish Slavery. These actions were one of the events leading up to the Civil War. 

    This was the fact that was most surprising about the Supreme Court. Another surprise for me was to learn that the Justices must wait for people to bring problems that they want to discuss to court. For example, if a Justice wanted to talk about a certain topic, then they had to wait until someone brought it to the court's attention through a petition. It was my prior understanding that members of the Supreme Court could bring up topics that they wanted to discuss whenever they wanted. 

    Overall, this video changed the way I thought about the Supreme Court because it showed me how tough and demanding a job like this is. Not only Do they have to go through thousands of documents a year, but they also have to be very selective on what petitions they bring to their court as it will have a long-lasting impression on the wellbeing and state of the U.S.