Brown v the Board of Education: Pro Segregation Law Argument

In the case of Brown v. The Board of Education 1954, the Browns case is that segregation within the school system is wrong and unconstitutional. I will provide information on why this is false and how segregating school systems is not unconstitutional.

Image Source

In 1896 there was a very similar case of racial segregation with a train system. An African American man boarded a white only train car. This was the Plessy v Ferguson case. The supreme court ruled that racial segregation shall be upheld. The case of Plessy v Ferguson proves that segregation is not unconstitutional as it upheld Louisiana state law. 

Let’s look at the 14th amendment shall we.

“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 part that I want everyone to pay attention to is this part. 

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;…

Now, what does this mean? 

Well, it means that no state should make or enforce laws that go against the rights of a citizen within that state. Based on this we can conclude that the state of Kansas, which this board of education resides, isn’t violating any law simply because they cannot legally do that. And remember this is a public school so the government is administrating and financing the public schools, not only in Kansas but around the country. 

Let me ask you. How is segregation of school going against these rules? How does segregating schools abridge the rights and privileges of black citizens? These black kids are still getting an education, they have the same necessities as a white kid would. They have textbooks, paper, pencils, teachers, and a place to learn. So how exactly are we violating their 14th amendment right when this is all true.

Image Source

We can also look at it another way. Take the 2nd amendment for example. The 2nd amendment states that the government shall not enforce any law that prohibits the citizens from owning and carrying a firearm. Pretty simple right? 

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. The rights of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Now, does this mean everyone can carry a gun on them? 

No.

 

In order to have a gun, you need to buy a gun. With money. Not everyone has money, so therefore not everyone can buy a gun. Is this violating someone’s constitutional right? 

No. 

What about this. Can convicted felons purchase and carry a gun on them? 

No. 

The reason for this is that the government has a right to protect its citizens and giving a gun to a convicted felon is like leaving candy Infront of a 5-year-old and telling them not to eat it. Anyway, back to the felon. Is this a violation of his/her 2nd amendment right, or in other words their constitutional right?

No.

You see just because someone is segregated doesn’t mean it’s a violation of their constitutional right. There are many examples other than segregated schools that, in your words, would violate the laws. 

Segregation is a necessary part of student education and the protection of white students and black students. 

Given the facts presented in both my argument and the opposing argument, there is not evidence to conclude that segregation of schools would be a violation of black student rights.

Reconstruction: America After the Civil War Reaction

After watching the video "Reconstruction: America After the Civil War" I became more aware of the injustice African Americans faced after the Civil War era. 

The video began by telling a story of a case from 2015. A 21 year old white man went to a bible study session at a local church in South Carolina. This man, identified as Dylann Roof, participated in the bible study for about an hour before opening fire and taking the lives of 9 Black people. 

The video went on to say how the emancipation proclamation changed the outcome of the Civil War as former slaves joined the union army and helped defeat the confederate soldiers. this act lead to African Americans being allowed to vote along with many other rights that they did not have before. 

Andrew Johnson

one of the more notable parts of the video was when they were talking about Andrew Johnson. During
Andrew Johnsons inauguration, he was greeted by Frederick Douglas. Johnson had an offensive tone towards Douglas  and showed some very racist and unpleasant behavior. Johnson also went as far as to say that he was unwilling to shake his hand. 

Another part of the video that I thought was interesting was the mention of the Freedman Bureau. the Freedman Bureau was mentioned both in class and in the video and was brought up during the EOTO presentation. It was also brought up in one of my previous posts about the KKK. 

The Freedman Bureau was a group, mainly comprising of African Americans, who helped other Africans Americans with education, healthcare, food, and clothing to those who have just been freed in the south. although consisting of majority African

Frederick Douglas

Americans, they did have some white supporters who helped transport goods to the southern states. 

Overall the video taught me a lot about the reconstruction period after the Civil War and its nice to see some of the topics mentioned int he video in class discussion.

Plessy v Ferguson Reaction

Plessy v Ferguson is a case where a man named Homer Plessy bought a train ticket and boarded a white only train car. When Plessy was caught he was arrested for violating state law. 

Image Source

The pro Plessy side made arguments pertaining to the economic factors, current factors and how white supremacy ties into all of it. They argued that this case gives white supremacists legal coverage. they also stated that Americans have a hard time already have a hard time promoting community and equality, this case harms these efforts as it subjects people to racism. 

One of the economic factors for the Pro Plessy side was the fact that the train companies had to have two different train cars costed more. Personally this statement didn't make sense to me. If it costed more to make an extra train car then they just simply wouldn't do it. Instead, they would simply prioritize who they sold a train ticket to. Also, because the train company did make another train car for African Americans then they wouldn't use the same materials to build the train car, they would use cheaper materials to lower costs. 

Image Source

Moving over to the Anti-Plessy side of the argument, the group discussed how the 14th amendment tied into everything. One of the speakers stated that the 14th amendment would only apply to someones political right but not their social right. another speaker stated that the federal government should not get in the way of state laws. they proceded to say that the state should have the right to make their own rules and regulations. 

This, in my opinion, is a very good argument for the Anti-Plessy side. Lets look at it another way. The 2nd Amendment says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" 

Basically the 2nd Amendment says that the American people have the right to own a firearm. Now, most states have basic rules and regulations pertaining to firearm safety and carrying. some states require you to make a permit to carry a firearm. North Carolina, as of recently, doesn't require you to have a purchase permit to buy a handgun. States have a right to regulate laws as they see fit. 

One of the more notable arguments that both sides had was their law argument, which I took a particular interest in. starting with the pro Plessy side the two statement that I heard was, one, people have equal protection under the law, and two, if the court rules not in favor of Plessy then it would harm the 14th amendment and its practice. As for the anti-Plessy argument they stated that Plessy knowlingly violated the law. 

Image Source

This is another point where the Anti-Plessy side had an advantage over the Pro-Plessy side. if we are inly taking a look at the law the it is clear that Plessy is in the wrong. Homer Plessy knowingly bought a white only train ticket and boarded a white only train car. He knowingly violated the law and chances are this isnt the first time he has done something like this. regardless of what the law says everyone must respect it. now everyone has the right to protest the law as long as their not breaking the law in the process. This was not an act of protest but an act social disobedience. 

The argument for the Pro-Plessy side of the law had me question a few things that still put the Anti-Plessy side at an advantage. referring to the two statements from their case above, these point also have some holes. the first point was that people had equal protection under the laws, but when you think about it, what does that really mean? 

A part of the 14th amendment states the following: 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction their of, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

This sentence says that all people are citizens of the state they live in. This means that as a citizen of their state must follow and obey the laws of their state. 

Another part of the 14th amendment says:

"No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."

If we look at this case in relation to this part of the 14th amendment there are are a few questions I have. 

1. Is the state law enforcing laws that go against what the 14th amendment says?

2. If so how?

The simple answer is no. Homer Plessy has all the same privileges and immunities as a white man would. Plessy is allowed to ride the train, same as a white man. Plessy is allowed to purchase a ticket and in turn allowed to handle U.S. currency, same as a white man. Because Plessy has money it can be implied that he has a job, same as a white man. 

This only shows how Plessy was arrested not because of racial intent but because he was violating the laws of the state and the laws of the train system. 

Overall each side had great arguments relating to the case and I look forward to the next trial. 

Reconstruction Era - EOTO - Ku Klux Klan

In 1866 a group of Confederate veterans located in Tennessee banded together with a common goal of restoring white supremacy in the United States. Together they formed the Ku Klux Klan, KKK for short. This isn’t to be confused with the Knights of the White Camelia, which was founded around the same time in Louisiana. The Klan named themselves after the Greek word Kyklos, which means Circle.

Image Source

In order to restore white supremacy, the Klan resorted to violence and intimidation tactics. This was also the reason why they wore White robes, it was to evoke fear and intimidate African Americans. One of their main targets at the time was a group called the Freedman Bureau. 

To give a little history of the Freedman Bureau, they were a group of African Americans who helped provide necessities such as food, clothing’s, healthcare, and education to Africans Americans in the south. This group didn’t only consist of African Americans but also had white supporters.

This group of people was the Klan’s main target and the Klan whipped and killed many of the Freedman supporters during nighttime raids.

The Klan quickly grew because of their presence at a convention on Nashville Tennessee. This conference was attended by a lot of representatives from other confederate states. The Klan also elected a Grand

Image Source

Wizard, a confederate general named Nathan Bedford Forrest. General Forrest was not one of the founders of the Klan, but it is believed that he was one of the first Grand Wizards of the Klan. 

The Klan reached its peak between 1868 and 1870. At this time, they successfully restored white rule in southern states such as Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina. This led to congress passing the Force act of 1870 and eventually the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. 

State v Mann Case Reaction

During the Mock Trial of the case of State v Mann I heard from the voices of members who believed that Mann should not receive a fine for his damages to the slave Lydia Some of the more notable arguments that I heard was from a slave point of view and the biblical side of this case. 

John Mann

One of the arguments was about how slavery was good for the African population. The speaker believed that Africans could not survive on this land on their own without help. They said that slave owners provided food, shelter, and warm clothes for them. The simple exchange for these goods is the slaves doing work for their masters. It was a unique take on a pro slavery argument however I believe that it doesn’t hold any place. This is because the case is about why Mann shouldn’t receive a fine. This argument more focuses on the reason why slavery should continue in the U.S. rather than the trial itself. 

The second argument, and the stronger argument in my opinion, was about the bible and how it condoned slavery. During his argument the speaker looked at specific verses in the bible that said slavery is not only ok, but mistreating slaves is also ok. He specifically states Exodus 21:20-21. Which

Bible

says that any form of punishment for a slave is ok if they don’t die. It was a very interesting take and the argument itself has a much better chance of holding in this case as it doesn’t take personal feelings into account and how it specifically mentions the treatment of slaves rather than the wellbeing of them. 

Overall, there were some great arguments on both sides during the trial. Personally, if I were the Judge I would rule in favor of Mann due to the superior arguments and facts of that side.

EOTO Reaction

During the EOTO Presentations I learned a lot about events that Advanced Slavery and the Founding Era. 

The speakers for the events that advanced slavery had some interesting information to share. Some of the things they talked about was the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, Dredd Scott v Stanford Case, and the Election of 1860. However, the two others that stuck out to me was the Fugitive slave act of 1850. 

I knew a little bit about the Fugitive slave act of 1850, but I never got a full clarified history of it. 

Image Source

The Fugitive Slave act of 1850 made it so that the government was responsible for the capture and returning of fugitive slaves, even when they are in a free state. This was surprising to me as I thought that it was the duty of the people to capture escaped slaves. I was also surprised to learn that people who captured the escaped slaves received a reward. 

The speakers for the Founding Era had stories and information to share on events that supported the abolishment of slavery. Some of the things they talked about was, the underground railroad, the abolition movement, the fugitive slave act, and the election of 1860. The most surprising presentation I learned was the American Anti-Slavery Society. 

The American Anti-Slavery Society were a group of people who were abolitionists who wanted slaves to be free. The group lasted from 1833 until 1870. The group believed that Slavery was a sin and they had agents all around the country spreading their beliefs which were very effective. This is one of the stories that I haven’t heard before and I found it very interesting how there was a group like this on this scale.