State V. Mann

To throw back to an era that was what some people call one hell of a time in American history, mainly due to the separation that was taking place between white and black people. Granted whites were genuinely horrid back then especially thinking and defending the enslavement of black Americans, however when African Americans were recognized as ⅗’s a person the first amendment applied to all.

In North Carolina in 1829 the US Supreme court was tested by its true and ethical meanings for being an establishment. In the case of The State of North Carolina Vs John Mann the NC supreme court put John Mann on trial for the execution of a slave he was lent by a nearby friend.

Back in the 1820’s truly I dont think that many people thought much of buying slaves or at least not in the south and that still to this day blows my mind; however, John did not purchase the slave Lydia from Elizabeth Jones. He had hired Lydia to work on his farm, it was almost an indentured servant kind of situation not quite “slavery” in a sense. One day when Lydia was on the farm she was beaten by John Mann and after she tried to run… she was shot on the spot by Mann and yet he still had not been relapsed by execution charges. John Mann was truly the definition of what was wrong with the country. He was willing to kill someone just for the color of their skin, we all know he wouldn't have done that if she were a white girl because he would've gotten in trouble, he didn't think he would over a colored person. No it's not a fact but in reality I don't think many people can argue against that fact.

In the final verdict Mann actually won; he was protected under the right that Lydia was his property at the time and not a free person. The Supreme court used judicial restraint and honestly didn't do anything about the case they lost to John Mann who executed someone for trying to find something better, a new life.

EOTO #4

In the case Regents of the University of California vs Bakke, he was suing based on racial descrimination for being white claiming that there was a disadvantage being white applying to the medical school. Yes it is indeed true that the University of California has used racial quotas in certain circumstances but in the case of Allan Bakke it is more complex than a racial quota or even the use of affirmative action. When I say this I am not meaning to be rude but maybe the case was more simple than this, maybe he just didn't have the chops for medical school or he was scored lower in his interview compared to other applicants.

The University of California has a very intense procedure when it comes to new enrollments in the program. The application board at the school consists of 6 members that review all applications and attend interviews. The board scores students based on what is known as a “benchmark score” ; it's a combined total of all different aspects of an applicant. In 1974 there was an entering freshman class of 100 students, all went through the exact same selection process. First GPA scoring, students whose GPA fell under or sometimes even with a 2.5 on a 4.0 scale, were most of the time rejected on the spot. Next were interviews, one of every six applicants was given an in person interview. Allan Bakke was given multiple interviews actually, he first met with a student interviewer then with the board. Following the interviewing process students were evaluated by each board member on a scale of 1 to 100. Each were judged by total Grade Point Average then by total science Grade Point Average, extra curriculars, recommendation letters, and testing scores. Out of the application class Allan Bakke applied for 56 students accepted were African American students and 44 were white students. At the time this could be seen as Affirmative Action but even yet, 44 students accepted were white students. Maybe it just came down to the fact that Mr. Bakke just wasn't apt enough for our program.

On the other hand, Bakke claimed that he was suffering from “reverse discrimination” because of the color of his skin. The University uses what is known as Affirmative Action, we are trying to increase and help students who are coming from low income communities that show major potential in the classroom. No I'm not saying that we are making the process easier for these students, we judge students all the same… There is no question about that, however we help those who might not have even thought to apply because they wouldn't be able to afford it.

The university gives equal opportunities to all students and this included Allan Bakke. Sometimes the student is good enough and has the grades but other students do too, and it just wasn't meant to be. To clarify one more time, 44 students accepted were white, it's not like we pushed Allan aside, we gave him equal and fair evaluations.

Final

After almost a whole four months of having to keep up a blog and make different writings almost every other week, I’d say that it helped me take appreciation for who and what being a journalist is. A modern day journalist will take however long to write up a story and then present it to the world, I guess I never thought about how much responsibility is put on the job.

I’m truly not sure when Dr. Smith asked the class this question but I’m pretty sure it was within the first couple days of school. It was something along the lines of “where do y’all get your news from?” Now this was right after the bombings in Kabul and almost none of the class had heard of the major disaster that Professor Smith was talking about. Now that really got me thinking and I wondered what was or when was there a change in how real journalism changed.

Back in the day, Mr. Smith has told us many times he was a journalist back in the day, but not just that it was also the job; people who held the title would actually go and attend certain events like natural disasters, political events, or international affairs. In essence Professor Smith made me realize quite a lot about the position. Not just the fact that there has been a major difference in the entirety of the job itself but also that the persuasion and “reality” of the stories being put out nowadays is honestly just plain sad. In the famous words of Bill Maher he called the internet now a “bitch session” of people just going back and forth again and again about in reality different things that are all relevant somehow.

Throughout the semester I think that having a blog and keeping up with classes, I've learned quite a bit. Mainly I want to say that I learned there is no reason for people to trust their information sources unless they can claim it is absolutely true and there is no falseness around the topic. Dr. Smith also posed the question that possibly the news “Gen-Z” our generation looks at is rather less decisive or falsified. Honestly it's probably true, and it's been proven to be true. People don't check their sources and that when false information starts to get spread amongst the youth.

Lastly I just want to add, I truthfully cannot say that there were many other classes i've ever taken that have shown me what T.A.F has taught me and that you Mr. Smith has taught me. I truly never looked at the first amendment the way your class showed me to look at it, people are given rights and are free. We honestly just forget that sometimes with how tight the world has been the last few years, but forever it's always changing.

Reconstruction Era

I've heard this conversion in many different situations, mainly it takes place at the dinner table when the whole family is present. What was the biggest recession or catastrophe to happen to the United States? Most of the time the first response nowadays is “911” or “Pearl Harbor '' not saying these weren’t catastrophic but really? For the Americans these were not the worst. The Civil War was fought on US soil with American soldiers. That was the worst thing we have seen here on American soil; 750,000 soldiers perished, if the war were fought today with the population we have now. The civil war would have been seven million dead americans at least.

Thinking about what it would've been like after the war ended, how in the world were we planning on making it back to a prosperous country? This is what is known as the “Reconstruction” period. The government was quickly working on a bill to ban slavery, give African Americans civil rights, and bring the 11 southern states back into the union that suceeded. America was in a very fragile state after the Civil war and it was chaotic trying to bring the country back. The main problem following these events was to find the social status of slaves after they were free, this brought much confusion and anger in some areas.

After the Black Codes were established in the south then the former slaves were having trouble in the job department, people had very limited job sources. So most of the freedmen would go back to farming and living how they used to, just under somewhat different circumstances. The southerners were not so easy to just give up land and work that used to be “theirs”; they thought they were getting the short end of the stick and a fight arose. The next 12 years were a fight to maintain a social order that the white southerners believed they “deserved” due to the prior situation. It was a longer thought than expected and people were and probably are still not happy to this day but what would we be if slavery was still accepted in America? Surely not the “greatest country in the world” if that's what y’all were thinking. Our reconstruction period was not a great time in this country and brought out the worst in Americans. However we did choose the justified choice and we acted as swiftly as possible. It was a terrible time in our history but it was a time that shaped who is known as The United States of America.

Secession Blog

Starting in the late 1850’s and 60’s the new world was being fueled by a hatred fire burning at the coals that were the nation. This fire and this fight was called liberty. Slaves were tired of how they were looked down upon and treated as property, the northern states took note and raised a voice. This was a troubled time and people were not in agreement about what should be done and who should be considered “right.” In the early 60’s the southern states started getting mad over what was happening, Late Senator Jefferson Davis was one of the main influencers on the start of secession in the south.

Reflecting on what happened following the events of the Boston Tea Party and how the new settlers created the Declaration of Independence, they saw clarity in how to evade the north's powerful hand. The southern states were planning to drop out of the pact they agreed to be a part of. They were going to leave the union(“states”) they only agreed to be a part of. There was justification in their actions, nothing in written law at the time blocked the states from trying to form their own “nation’ in the south.

In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was the republican candidate running for President of the United States or what they thought was the US. As a candidate he was running on a platform that was suitable for both sides of the spectrum, he was claiming to not be opposed to slavery but also not be in favor of it. Abraham said that he was not going to stop slavery but only not let it expand into the western regions; looking to contain the south and the expansion. Later he went on and abolished slavery, he did do the right thing but it caused some “revolution.” This was one of the main triggers for the southern states to start to pull apart from the union they first joined.

The main reason we are called the “United States” is because all of the states signed and ratified in agreement to establish what is known as America. We are a bunch of city states that are all banded together due to trust and agreement. Just before the civil war the southern states thought that they were being let down or unfulfilled with the agreement they made to be a part of the union, so they decided to back out. 

After almost all of the southern states seceded from the “america” it was very soon followed with the Civil War. This was the most tragic war that has taken place on US soil, there were almost a million people dead and the devastation to the whole economy and country generally was just unimaginable. Slavery was the way of the south they were not willing to change so the North and Ullysses S Grant brought the fight to them. The North won the war and slavery was soon abolished for good, with the release of the 13th amendment granting all people freedom.

John Locke Pro Slavery Speech

To be rather blunt I have never condoned or even agreed to the fact that people enslaving others is morally correct. I am one to agree however that it would be gods doing to define people's enslavement by social class if it were ever in other words “ethical.” Being one of the great founding fathers of our inalienable rights, I still believe all are equal in a way that no one person would throw themselves into slavery under somebody else’s rule voluntarily. However, I believe there are few ways one can be enslaved.

Hi my name is John Locke I have been an influential philosopher especially on modern law, I was born august 29th in Wrington, United Kingdom. I have proved to be controversial on the topic but I am pro slavery. It was true, I participated in the slave trade but never did I myself own or have any form of slavery under my authority.

Capital punishment is what someone receives when they deserve the death penalty. “If I commit a crime worthy of death, that the individual or group I have harmed can choose to commute a sentence of death to a sentence of slavery.” I do believe that persons are equal and contain a right to choose, I also believe that if one does not have the right to take their own life, then nobody has the right to take his or her life, slavery is not death but punishment enough. Through trials and tribulations I can see one being turned into a slave because of their actions, but life to death is never approachable. People deserve to live in slavery to ensure proper punishment of a persons sin or true guilt.

When someone commits a crime that is deserving of a death sentence, these people are giving up their freedom. Once their freedom is given, consent is drawn to enslave this person, they lose the right to be free when the act of crime was committed.

If someone were to just be walking in the street and they get mugged or harassed by someone and this person in self defense were to kill the mugger, they also have taken his/her liberty. This man will not walk the street, eat food, or see his children again, his liberty was stripped when he was killed. One cannot take another's liberty because they themselves don't have the right to do so either. Slavery does not strip your freedom, one still lives to see another day but it takes away one liberty and freedom for a time being. The necessary thing; if you take someone's natural rights away, don't you deserve something taken from you as well.

After battles in war, people are captured. War captives if you will. These people also have rights and should not have their life, liberty taken from them but they were committing an act of wrong when they decided to fight against these enslavers. These people signed their liberty away with the army they approached. Still I do not condone slavery of others voluntarily or otherwise but for punishment that is deserving of death slavery is the only other option that will suffice. People don't deserve to die, they deserve life even if it be labor for work it is still security of life and freedom.

Speech Theories #8

When someone goes to read the constitution the first words they are going to read are… “We The People” shows that we are a country that is founded and given power from the people. I chose number 8 agreeing heavily with Mr. Steve Shiffrin in that the government deserves to be questioned by its people.

For instance if a government were to not interact with its people and was to only do things that the government feels is good… we wouldn't have our democracy it would be a modern day monarchy in the US. The United States is founded on the principle that the people would question and agree or disagree with the government, they are not supposed to be friends, they are supposed to give us the people the best chance at a thriving country. The people are to impose our ideals and make the government decide what is possible and reachable; we the people are the ones who create the law, establish who's in office, and create the foundation for a functioning government. The government does not function without the people.

For example, we have political parties. The democratic party and the republican party are both platforms of ideals, Ideals that are reflected by the people who we elect to take office because we believe they are going to do what “we” or “I” would do. The US government would not function if the people did not impose our ideals and voice on the government, we would be corrupt if we didn't.

There's no way that the government could make all the right choices, if they did then that would be a miracle. The citizens are what make the change, create laws, or start differences, not the one person who has done things only their way for the last 20 years. The people create the protest, the protest creates riot, and the riot creates the change. The people start the protest.