EOTO and Mock Trial Reflection

During these presentations through the Plessy v. Ferguson Mock Trial and the EOTO, I learned quite a bit about different topics from the Reconstruction Era. The Reconstruction Era is categorized as the period that took place right after the Civil War. A variety of legislation was in the process of being put into place, including the abolishment of slavery, so this was a very monumental period in time.

A topic that stood out to me specifically was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This was the first federal law defining citizenship and affirming all citizens they are equally protected. At the time, the focus was primarily on African Americans who were coming free from enslavement to be entitled to citizenship thereafter. It helped further guarantee economic rights to all citizens, saying they could sue, inherit, purchase, sell, or own property. Further, the Civil Rights Case of 1875 helped to seal that by protecting all citizens and their legal rights, regardless of race. It also led to equal accommodations and equal access to public places, something that had been fought for for quite some time.

Much clarity and insight was provided about some legislation being put into place at the time. This included, but was not limited to, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. In 1895, the 13th amendment was ratified and enacted the abolishment of slavery. It was the first true amendment passed within the Reconstruction Era. The 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all United States citizens, including African Americans which was paramount for this time. Shortly after, in 1870, the 15th amendment was ratified, granting voting rights to African American men.

All of the presentations proved to be very informative, but these were just some of the major takeaways I had. The Reconstruction Era, post Civil War, was extremely important in our nation's history. It is evident that it created a channel for many of the nation’s people and promoted equality. Though there was still some work to do, this period was a strong catalyst towards a united nation.

Band of Angels Reflection

After every movie we have watched in class, I have gone back home and rewatched the film on my own time. This holds true for our latest watch, Band of Angels. In 1957, a film titled Band of Angels starring Clark Gable and Yvonne DeCarlo was released. This film is set in the South highlighting the period both before and during the American Civil War, which took place between 1861 and 1865. Within this movie, we meet Amantha Starr, a well-off daughter to a cotton plantation owner with a father who was unusually kind to his slaves. After the death of her father, she learns her mother was a slave, therefore considering her half-negro.

From there, she was captured by slave traders and sent away. It was here a wealthy man by the name of Hamish Bond purchases her at an auction. When she arrives there, she found that like her father, Hamish treats his slaves kindly and respectfully. After having gone her whole life living lavishly and comfortably with her family, this is a rude awakening for her and she is greatly unsure as to what it is their intentions with her are. Eventually, the two fall in love causing him to offer Amantha her freedom, but she declines and instead chooses to stay with him. Over some time, we end up at the beginning of the American Civil War and we see just how much the South is affected by one of this nation's great wars.

The goal of the film, seemingly, was to be a comparative view on the war and its effects on the North versus the South, similar to that of Gone With the Wind. Both movies prove to have both very similar and different views on the idea of slavery as well as the views on the war at the time. We see in Gone With the Wind that slaves seem to enjoy their time working as slaves and enjoy the relationships they have with their owners. We do know that they also made sure to portray slaves as incapable, even stupid. Band of Angels takes on a bit of a different approach throughout its film.

It is clear that slaves are seen with a lot more respect and regard as a whole throughout this movie. They are not generally portrayed as uneducated, worthless or brainless. Rather here, it was quite the opposite. Slaves were most commonly portrayed as intelligent and worthy of praise and respect from their white counterparts. This was more than just the overall feel of the movie and it really became evident through the development of characters through the plot.

We see throughout this movie that not all slaves enjoyed their time in enslavement, a view we are much more used to. For example, we have previously discussed that Hamish Bond treats his slaves with kindness and respect, including one he has raised since a young age, Rau-Ru. He, for one, does not appreciate nor enjoy the kindness portrayed by Mr. Bond and actually finds it to be worse than if he were to beat him like most other slave owners.

The two films have differing views on the war and its effects on the North and South. Gone With the Wind tries to play up the idea that the South was a wonderful place full of life and prosperity prior to the war. In showing the mass destruction of the South, it portrays what seems to be nation unity, rallying together as the South to rebuild, while portraying solace and compassion for those who live there. It is shown that the North and South have a fierce opposition for each other and show no mercy or sympathy for one another. These are views not all shown through Band of Angels, or not to the same extent, at least. Overall, this second film takes a more sympathetic approach towards the North than did Gone With the Wind. I think it gives a more accurate representation of what life was like at the time and has a much better feel to it all. The film is generally progressive as it takes on the role of making a predominantly white, wealthy female and turning her into the main character of the film all through her enslavement. Band of Angels favors African Americans and the North and gives us a much more clear picture on the morals and opinions surrounding the time.

Mock Trial: Plessy v. Ferguson

In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed some legislation, specifically the Separate Car Act. This called for equal yet separate accommodations for the white and colored races, saying companies had to either provide separate cars for white and colored passengers or to divide the car into multiple sections. Homer A. Plessy was a colored man who bought and purchased a train ticket only to seat himself in the first-class car instead of the colored car. He was arrested and tried for this, arguing it was unconstitutional to have separate rail cars. To follow is the religious argument made in support for segregation in State v. Plessy (most commonly known as Plessy v. Ferguson).

"From a religious perspective, it is clear that in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, there is no unconstitutionality in the idea of segregation. In 1890, the state of Louisiana made the decision to enact legislation that allows for equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races. In our U.S. Constitution the 13th amendment would abolish slavery throughout the nation and the 14th amendment granted citizenship and liberties to those freed from slavery. As brought up by my fellow judges, what is not stated in this legislation is the idea that we will have a social reconstruction as a result of these acts being set in place. So the idea that segregation is protected or would be entirely done away with would be outlandish. It is enacted that all parties be treated equally and nobody would deny that fact, but again, it does not make claims against the separation of citizens in the process. If facilities for all parties are equal, there are no violations to be had surrounding any pieces of legislation. Looking at religion only further supports this and it becomes clear the moralities surrounding this claim. 

Mr. Homer Plessy cannot be found innocent of his crimes and further cannot argue that his judgment nor the idea of “separate but equal” are unconstitutional, unfair or unjust. We can look at the Bible to make this abundantly clear. Within the Bible, it is up to interpretation as to whether or not Christianity was for or against segregation. More prominent arguments and justification prevail in terms of support of both slavery and segregation. Evidence shows that we can originate the beginning of these ideals all the way back to what is known as The First Separation. We learn about the birth of “The Sons of God” to Adam and Eve, these sons being known as Cain and Seth in Genesis 4:11-26. The two were born and separated from family, both having followers, some calling upon the Lord and others becoming men “of great vigor and inventive genius”. Though this instance may seem insignificant, it proves to be the beginning of the idea of separation, that people can be equals yet belong to different parties. This was seen as normal, even beneficial to society at this point, making it difficult to argue that something beginning so early in time would be unconstitutional, especially by God.

"Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you."

- Deuteronomy 7:3

Further evidence from Leviticus 19:19 established the Prohibition of the Mingling of Diverse Things. By Moses, this began as the idea that cross breeding animals, planting mixed seeds and mixing wool and linen in a garment was strictly forbidden. What is clear here is the origin of this idea through more irrelevant things in society. This only supports the idea that if it can exist for things like animals and plants, it is only sensible to think that the same idea would prevail through a more Divine purpose and creation, mankind. In fact, it eventually did. Additional evidence resides in Deuteronomy 7:3, the origination of Moses’ Warnings Against Intermarriage with Other Peoples. The idea of separation and segregation was prevalent in more than just our nation and Christianity. Moses convinced his followers, the Israelites, that allowing their family to intermarry with the pagans would result in experiencing the wrath and judgement of their Divine creator. This also was true through Ezra in Chapters 9 and 10, his Condemnation of Mixed Marriages. When the Jews returned from Babylonish captivity, it was found that many were getting married to those who took over the land in their absence. It is said that, “The drastic steps which were taken to purge out this evil practice emphasized a new vital importance which was attached to the preservation of the purity and integrity of the racial stock by the leaders of the nation and by their Divine ruler”. 

It is no secret that all throughout religion and their individual scriptures there remains a significant amount of evidence, even more so than I have brought to your attention today, that supports the idea of separation and segregation, more specifically separate but equal for our purposes in reviewing the case of Mr. Plessy. Segregation has been practiced seemingly forever, primarily starting with the Hebrews, and those who chose to ignore and infarct upon this were severely charged or penalized. Since this is the case, how could we make the claim that racial segregation is displeasing to God and on a broader note, displeasing to society? Both Christ and the Apostles all throughout the nation's history have taught the love of God for all mankind. In this, they showed that the principles of their religions made for equality in life, but did not demand for changes in social order. This would show that there has never been an issue with segregation through Faith, spirit and biblical teachings. There is no ground to stand on that can show us these ideas haven’t always been throughout history. The proof that it has always been gives us all we need to know, if the Lord in any religious sanction was against the ideas and teachings of segregation and separation, it would have been something taken care of long ago." 

Sources:

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_plessy.html

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

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27556402#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=citizens_pamph