EOTO 1: The Fugitive Slave Act

 On September 18th, 1850, Congress passed The Fugitive Slave Law Act which was enacted as a supplement of The Missouri Compromise. The act enforced that all slaves must be returned to their owners, regardless if they were in a free state or not. This made is so that both the government and the public were responsible for finding and returning escaped slaves. It is important to note that fugitive slaves were denied their rights to a jury trial. 

The Missouri Compromise, which split the states into free and slave states, was the reason for The Fugitive Slave Act. The Missouri Compromise was "fair" to both the pro and anti-slavery sides, but it had faults that angered the people of the slave states. At this time, slavery was seen as a key factor in the inclining economy. Without the slaves, the farming industries and plantations would fail, causing an economic recession. 

Before The Fugitive Slave Law Act of 1850, any slaves that were able to escape their owners would flee to free states and live in freedom. The Missouri Compromise allowed this which is why after a couple of decades, The Fugitive Slave Law was enacted. This made it much harder for slaves in the slave states to achieve freedom. Once the law was passed, most slaves that escaped their custody and made it to the free states were returned back to their owners and punished. "Slave catching" and kidnapping became encouraged and bounties were placed on runaway slaves to get public assistance in the process of returning fugitive slaves. It almost became a sport to hunt down fugitive slaves, which stripped them even more of their humanity. The federal government also induced policies that would make being a fugitive slave or being a fugitive slave helper extremely regrettable. A penalty of $1,000 was given to those who did not report and turn in said slaves in addition to six months of jail time. This is equivalent to $35,180 as of the year of 2022. The fugitive slaves would also have to face the consequences of their actions by their owners. However, the slave owners were much more physical with their punishments. The punishment took many forms: whippings, torture, mutilation, and being sold to other owners. 

Although The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 hindered the abolition movement, there were some people that tried to combat the law. One example of this, is The Boston Anti-Man-Hunting League, which worked diligently to capture the slaveholders. The most prominent activists of this group were: Austin Bearse, Samuel Gridley Howe, Lewis Hayden, and Joshua B. Smith. The idea of this group was to abduct the slave owners before their slaves could be returned back to them. One of the founders, Henry Bowditch, wrote detailed letters of the organization and it's methods to countering the Fugitive Slave Act. The league would use coded letters to warn each other of the tactics and numbers of the slave catchers. These messages were indecipherable by anyone that was not initiated into the league. Members of the league would also arm themselves in order to practice self-defense and preserve the strength of their force. 

Town Hall Reaction

 The Town Hall meeting today was met with the opposing sides of slavery. Both of the pro and anti-slavery arguments were presented by prominent figures and speakers which made this a truly captivating argument. 

The slave owners that were in favor of slavery mainly argued their point of views from an economic standpoint. The primary point being the fact that without slaves, the economy would collapse. Slavery was the only reason why the farming industry and plantations were so successful. In addition, it was said that slavery almost acted as a shield to those who were slaves. The slaves were given a stable life with a purpose, a place to sleep, and meals to eat. Slavery was argued as a necessity that benefits the slaves, the owners, the economy, and everyone else that is involved. Members of the meeting including Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun spoke to the constitutional side of slavery. Webster argued that although the Missouri Compromise was in place, which split the states into "free states" and "slave states," that there could be no loopholes for the slaves in the slave states to escape. This was backed by the Fugitive Slave Law Act which made it a requirement to return runaway slaves back to their proper owners in their home states. Bounties and "slave catchers" were also put into play to incentivize the cooperation of the public with the federal law. 

On the other hand, the anti-slavery side argued that slavery was not a political or economical argument, but rather an issue of morality. Slaves were treated as possessions and property and were stripped away of their humanity and basic rights as living beings. They were also unrightfully violated and punished by their owners. It was argued that slavery was evil and that if all men were created equal, as it says in The Bible, then all men should be treated with such equality...

Plessy Vs. Ferguson: Religious Perspective

 Today I will be speaking on behalf of Homer Plessy, a seven-eighths white man who was arrested after seating himself in a whites-only car. As a man who was not entirely white it was said that he was in violation of the 1890 Louisiana Separate Car Law. This supported Jim Crow ideals with a "separate but equal" seating arrangement in which whites and blacks would be placed in separate cars of a train. Although these laws were in place, it can be argued that Louisiana's segregation law violated both the 13th Amendment's banning of slavery as well as the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 

In addition to this, I believe that this was a violation of Homer Plessy's religious rights. The Bible teaches that humanity is that of both diversity and equality. According to (Genesis 1:26-28), we are all made equally in God's image. "The rich and the poor have this in common: The Lord made them both (Proverbs 22:2). "All are born under sin, have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Jesus spoke to the differences of good and evil, women and men, and different ethnicities. Although people may be, look, and act differently, it does not change that they are still human. Nor should it change how said individuals are treated. "All people are morally equal before the throne of God facing the law and His mercy. We all have equal responsibility to use what we have to the glory of God. Every human being is the object of the love of God (John 3:16). We were not created to judge each other; our final judgment will be determined by our creator. 

We need to stop challenging the idea of equality and instead embrace it. After all, that's what God intended for when he created us. It is important to recognize the differences in every person, but we need to be more careful about which differences we allow ourself to make an impression on. Inequality will always exist in our society and that is something that we have to accept. There are both controlled and uncontrolled differences that we allow to influence our actions and thoughts. Traits that we are born with, such as skin color, should not be used as a justified excuse to treat people differently. Would it be reasonable for us to judge people and treat them differently based off of eye color? No. This is exactly why the basis of judging someone by the color of their skin is completely ludicrous. 

Achieving total equality as a society is unrealistic. As humans, the only things that we can rely on being equal is the fact that we all live and we all die. Every other aspect of our lives is not going to be equal to one another. The Lord created everyone differently and chose the ones to be poor, rich, black, white, male female, etc. What's important is that we recognize the differences between inequality and diversity and use that to come to a more appropriate solution regarding the issues of segregation.

Town Hall Meeting: Daniel Webster

 My name is Daniel Webster, I am a lawyer, a statesman, and a Former United States Secretary of State. I was born in New Hampshire in 1782 and after moving to Boston, Massachusetts, in 1823, I became a U.S. Representative. I served as a U.S. representative for four years and then became a U.S. senator in 1827. After my fourteen years as a senator, I served as both the 14th and 19th U.S. secretary of state under Presidents John Tyler, William Henry Harrison, and Millard Fillmore. My persuasive arguments helped shape a large number of important decisions regarding federal power.  I was known to be the greatest public speaker of my time and was a founder of the Whig Party. However, before I was involved in politics, I was a salesman. After learning more about the economics of our country and seeing the different walks of life, I was convinced by my wealthy clients to get involved with the law. So after joining the Massachusetts bar practicing the law for several years in my home state of New Hampshire, I finally won political office in 1813.

 In one of the most famous cases that I was present in, McCulloch vs. Maryland (1824), John Marshall accepted my view that under the Constitution, Congress had the jurisdiction to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper," including the chartering of the United States Bank, and that states such as Maryland could not tax any branches of that bank or any other institution under the federal government. Marshall even used one of my quotes to help support the defense of the bank. This quote being, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Hence suggesting that if we allow the states to have taxing power over any part of the federal government, we would inevitably be giving them the power to destroy it.

Slavery is a matter of historical reality not a moral principle. The issue of slavery's existence was settled long ago when Congress prohibited slavery in the territories in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and when the regions were divided into free states and slave states in 1820 through the Missouri Compromise. Although I agree that the free states should remain free, I believe that the slave states should be allowed to maintain the continuation of slavery. I also agree with the enforcement of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. In order to uphold the legitimacy of the Missouri Compromise, those who are in the free states should be expected to return any fugitive slaves back to the slave states. If both the free states and the slave states cannot work together to support both sides of the compromise, then is it really even worth having? If we cannot count on the states to do their parts then the only solution is to allow the federal government to have control over all of them and ensure national unity. "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable."

Bible Team Challenge

Throughout history, Christians have not found it difficult to keep both slaves and their faith at the same time. In the book of Genesis, the "father of faith" (Abraham), and the other patriarchs held slaves without God's disapproval (Gen. 21:9-10). 

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust" (1 Peter 2:18). Although this is acknowledging the reality of slavery and the submission of slaves, it is not endorsing slavery as an institution. 

In Colossians 4:1, "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." This is portraying that even the masters of the slaves have their own master in Heaven, referring to God. 

As time passed, the Christian views of slavery underwent some major changes. In the late1800's, the Quakers played a vital role in the Underground Railroad, helping thousands of slaves escape their lives of captivity. Christianity as a whole now views slavery as unjust and immoral, despite the religion justifying in the past. 

Although religions including Christianity have condoned slavery in the past, there has been some major turnarounds. It is very easy to condone and condemn certain things based off of perception and religious views are based on such a thing. So it makes sense that over time, as people's perceptions of certain things change, their views might follow suit. 

Supreme Court Videos

 After watching the videos on the Supreme Court, I learned a lot more about the role that the Supreme Court plays in our government. The Supreme Court is the most powerful segment of the judicial governing body. So how exactly does it work? Well, for starters, the Supreme Court is composed of nine justices that each serve a sixteen year term. These justices get involved with hundreds of cases each week that have requested their help via written petitions. In order to determine the outcome of the cases, the Supreme Court delegates and comes to a decision in private. 

All of the Supreme Court's power is held within both the history of the Constitution and the faith of the public. Before the Marbury V. Madison case in 1803, the court had only a fraction of the power that it holds today. Through a concept known as judicial review, coined by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court has grown into a major position of strength. Through a vertical check and balances system and judicial review, the Supreme Court has the power to review and monitor the actions of the other governing branches. 

What some people don't realize is that in a way, the Supreme Court is holding "the land of the free" (America) together. If the Supreme Court ever stopped enforcing the constitutional law and or the people stopped following it, then our country would be in shambles. 

I found the importance and role of the Supreme Court really interesting. I appreciate the idea of having the judicial branch checking on the other governing branches so that nobody has too much power. Something that surprised me was the sixteen year terms each justice carries out. I feel like it is such an odd number to be in that position for as it is the same time spent in power as it would be for four presidential terms.