Gone With the Wind Reacion

Gone With the Wind is a critically acclaimed film that has transcended time, giving a cultural significance for decades after the Civil War. As the film starts, viewers are transported into the opulent world of the pre-Civil War South. The stunning sets and costumes, rich in frills and extravagant details, not only reflect the wealth of characters like Scarlett O'Hara but also highlight their disconnection from the harsh realities faced by slaves and working-class whites.

This excess contrasts sharply with Scarlett's appearance at the end of Act 1 when she is worn down by hardship. Her plain clothes and simple fabrics mirror her personal growth and the changing world around her. Although she begins the film as a spoiled, entitled brat, Scarlett develops a gritty determination to survive, driven by her desire never again to experience the desperation she feels at that point. Her icon
ic soliloquy at Tara, where she vows never to go hungry again, is one of the film's most powerful scenes.

While the entire film is a masterpiece, it is Rhett Butler, played by Clark Gable, who truly captivated my interest. Early on, during a lavish party at Ashley Wilkes' home, Rhett stands out for his defiance of the Southern gentry’s confidence in a swift Confederate victory. Unlike the other men, Rhett argues that the South’s lack of industry and naval power meant it had no chance against the Union. His realistic perspective is mocked, but he simply leaves them to their misguided beliefs.

As the war progresses, Rhett amasses great wealth through blockade-running, food speculation, and gambling, making him an outcast among the Southern elite. They view his profiteering as morally unacceptable, even though many throughout history—like Andrew Carnegie during the Civil War or modern politicians during conflicts like the war in Afghanistan—have similarly enriched themselves through war. Although such actions are widespread, they remain morally wrong, as profiting from the suffering of others is indefensible.

What sets Rhett apart is his ultimate redemption. Despite his earlier detachment from the conflict, he eventually joins the Confederate Army in the final months of the war, driven by a desire to preserve the South he grew up in, even as it collapses. This decision, juxtaposed with his initial cynicism and pragmatic outlook, reveals the complexity of his character. His internal conflict between self-interest and loyalty makes Rhett one of the most intriguing figures in the film.

The film’s depiction of race remains controversial. Hattie McDaniel’s portrayal of Mammy earned her an Academy Award, yet the character of Prissy has drawn criticism for perpetuating offensive stereotypes. Scenes like Scarlett slapping Prissy during Melanie’s labor are uncomfortable, but they reflect the brutal reality of the time. While these depictions are troubling, erasing or sanitizing them risks ignoring the painful history they represent. Confronting these issues, rather than avoiding them, is essential to understanding the darker chapters of America's past.

In the end, Gone With the Wind is a complex, multifaceted film, with characters like Scarlett and Rhett embodying the moral and social struggles of the time. Its enduring legacy lies in its ability to provoke reflection on history, identity, and the choices we make.

Mock Trail: State v. Mann Reaction

Today the talk of the courtroom we listened in to the arguments for and against John Mann.  John Mann, a white man, is being accused of the assault and attempted murder of a slave named Lydia.  The slave in question was loaned to Mr. Mann by Ms. Elisabeth Jones, received a harsh beating, and then tried to flee the abuse.  It was during her attempted run from the beating, that Mr. Mann drawled his weapon and shot Lydia in her back. 

During their first trial, the state had brought the previously stated charge against Mr. Mann, who received a fine of 10 dollars for his crime.  This brings us to the courtroom today, as Mr. Mann has decided to appeal his fine. 

Arguments favoring enslaved Lydia followed a more humane trend. They spoke on how human life is a life, and how statutes under the law should apply to all people living within the state lines, regardless of skin tone.  The state gave many arguments based on ethical and moral dilemmas with Mr. Manns actions, however, these have yet to have an impact on the law.  Their main argument, which had legal backing, was that Mr. Mann was not the enslaver of Lydia.  This brought up how, with no real rights over the punishment of the slave, Mr. Mann should not have raised his hand against Lydia without the explicit consent of Ms. Jones.  This however being the strongest argument the State made within the case did not hold up against Mr. Manns defense.  

Once Mr. Manns lawyers took the floor, we heard the over-arching legal nature of his defense.  Mr. Mann had acted within the law of property ownership, seeing as enslaved people like Lydia were seen as property within the state.  This gave Mr. Mann a leg up within the courts as it was an actual legal argument.  This combined with the arguments of how the culture was brought the case to a close.

The presiding Judge Thomas Ruffin issued the new verdict that the defendant, Mr. John Mann, is not to pay the 10-dollar fine.  This case reminds us of how the Southern states see an enslaved individual as a piece of property, and the stark difference of both law and morals coming together.  

EOTO: The Secession of South Carolina

The secession of South Carolina from the United States on December 20, 1860, marked a critical turning point in American history, setting the stage for the Civil War. This event was not only the first formal act of secession by a Southern state but also a catalyst for the broader secessionist movement that swept across the South in the months following. South Carolina's secession is significant for various reasons, including its deep roots in political, social, and economic conflicts that had been simmering for decades between the North and South, most notably over the issues of slavery, states' rights, and sectional power.

By the mid-19th century, the United States was becoming increasingly polarized. The North, with its growing industrial economy, was diverging sharply from the South, which remained predominantly agrarian and dependent on slavery. The abolitionist movement gained momentum in the North, advocating for the end of slavery, while the South saw slavery as essential to its economy and way of life.  The state’s economy having been heavily reliant on enslaved labor, particularly within the cotton industry, saw any threat to the institution of slavery as a threat to their economic survival and social structure. This fear was exacerbated by the election of 

Abraham Lincoln as President in November 1860. Lincoln was a Republican, and although he had not campaigned on a platform of immediate abolition, the South feared that his administration would eventually move to restrict and ultimately abolish slavery. For many in South Carolina, Lincoln's election was the final straw.
Following Lincoln’s election, South Carolina wasted little time moving toward secession.

On December 20, 1860, a special convention was held in Charleston where delegates voted unanimously in favor of secession. The convention drafted the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," which laid out the state’s reasons for seceding. The document explicitly linked South Carolina’s decision to the issue of slavery, arguing that the non-slaveholding states had "denounced as sinful the institution of slavery" and had refused to uphold the Constitution by allowing the return of fugitive slaves, as required by the Fugitive Slave Act. The declaration framed secession as a necessary defense of both states' rights and the institution of slavery.

South Carolina’s secession was more than just a reaction to Lincoln’s election; it was a response to long-standing grievances. The state had a long history of advocating for states’ rights and nullification, having previously threatened to secede during the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 when President Andrew Jackson sought to enforce federal tariff laws that South Carolina opposed. 

The secession was significant as it triggered a wave of secession by other Southern states, leading to the formation of the Confederate States of America in early 1861. Over the next few months, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all followed South Carolina’s lead, seceding from the Union. The secessionists argued that the Union was a voluntary compact among sovereign states and that they had the right to withdraw from it if the federal government violated their rights. The federal government, along with the backing of the Northern States, viewed these acts as unconstitutional. This fundamental disagreement over the nature of the Union was an underlying cause that would only be resolved after the Civil War.

No matter how the secession of South Carolina is examined, it was a pivotal event that led directly to the Civil War. It reflected deep-seated divisions within the United States over slavery, states' rights, and the nature of the Union. As the first state to secede, South Carolina set the stage for a broader Southern rebellion and ultimately the most destructive conflict in American history.

Town Hall Reaction

Never before have I had the opportunity to listen to many outstanding personalities discussing anti-slavery and abolitionist ideals in one place.  The town hall allowed me to learn from founders such as Richard Allen and William Lloyd Garrison.  Amongst them are the incredible figures with Fredrick Douglas, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Tubman gracing us with their experiences.  Their ideals and messages spoke to the strongest emotions of the crowd as the Women's Suffrage movement members within Susan B. Anthony and Abigail Adams brought forth their ideals for where our country will hopefully move towards as we move away from these dark times.  

A party I was very intrigued to learn more about came from the infamous Nat Turner and John Brown.  They used their ideas of freedom as a violent abolition of slavery. 

Nat Turner started his very own slave revolt in Virginia, and all because he saw an eclipse within the sun.  He banded together his family who were enslaved with him and woke at 2 AM and killed those who owned him.  During his two-day-long revolt, Nat enlisted the help of 75 other slaves, killing almost 60 people.  However, when his revolt caught the attention of local militias and white mobs would have ended up killing about 160 slaves.  

Nat was violent on his own but, his revolt was small compared to the violence brought about by John Brown.  During the 1850s, John Brown led his anti-slavery movement as he walked into pro-slavery communities and acted as an angel of death.  This time was known as "Bleeding Kansas" and resulted in an estimated 55 people left dead.  In the wake of the aftermath was a new state drenched in the blood of both pro-slave and abolitionist families, burnt-out buildings, and warning of what was to come. 

Both of these events were just the start of what we knew to be coming.  A nation on the doorstep of a Civil War, where people would rather talk with the barrels of their guns.  The town hall only proved how there are great people on the move, wanting to help grow our nation into the beautiful place our founding fathers hoped to create.  This country is in desperate need of a change, and it will happen within this generation of minds. 

Town Hall: Meet Elizabeth Buffum Chace

Hello all, my name is Elizabeth Buffum Chace. While I may not be within the pages of your textbooks, my contributions to our nations growth is no small feat. I was born to a quaker family on December 9th, 1806 in Smithfield, Rhode Island. Many of my abolitionist beliefs come from the first president of the New England Anti-Slavery Society, or as I knew him as my father, Arnold Buffum. From being a pillar to organizations such as the Fall River Female Anti-Slavery Society and the Rhode Island Women's Suffrage Association, to writing my book, AntiSlavery Reminiscences.

My whole life has been built with the ideals of anti-slavery. However it was not till my wedding to my dear Samuel Chace, was this structure radicalized my life. Making the switch from being an anti-slavery to a devoted abolitionist was swift and strong. Much like slave women, I have lost five of my ten children, not even the oldest of the five had met their older siblings. These losses gave my heart and mind the sympathy for these mothers in shackles, for we had all lost children, only they were not given time to grieve. While my personal connection to these women was fully backed by my husband, the people of Rhode Island had other ideals. 

For the community in which I was raised shunned my husband and I for our shared views on slavery as a whole. While many would have agreed that slavery is not just or moral, our differences lived within what to do after slavery was made unconstitutional. Majority of the Quaker community believed enslaved people should be sent to African colonies, whereas my personal beliefs fought these ideals. Although most of the opposition I faced came from outside sources, my own brother in-law once looked at me and said "I shouldn't want to see a black man sitting on the sofa beside my daughter". I all but toppled out of my chair at his unhinged comment.

My fight was not just against slavery, but against the racism that spread throughout this nation. Which is why with the help of my sisters, we founded the Fall River Female Anti-Slavery Society in 1835.  This could be seen as my first steps within my start of abolition, however that respect is dedicated to one of my esteemed colleague within this fight, William Lloyd Garrison.  Within the next four years, my family moved to the Blackstone River Valley, and took over the Valley Falls Mill.  Where I would start my acts as a conductor of the Underground Railroad.  My mission was to make my home a safe place in which every human being who walked through my door felt welcomed.  Notable members I have had the honor of meeting include Sojourner Truth, Lucy Stone, Abbey Kelley, Wendell Phillips, and Fredrick Douglas.  

After the Civil War, I joined the Rhode Island Women's Suffrage Association in 1868. During my time as president within the association, I made it so our African American counterparts were able to join and work along side us.  Our nation had strong years where my new friends were allowed to live in symbiosis, the Jim Crow Laws destroyed this.  All this meant was the fight was not over just yet.  If my friends could not sit with me, I will go sit with them.  Regardless if it meant breaking social cues, I would go join my friends at their rail cars, restaurants,  and any other place in which they were treated differently.  Once slavery was abolished, I turned my focus to the fight my focus to the fight against racial discrimination in schools, women's rights, prison reform, and the overall education for the minorities that live within our boarders. 

After my death, the Elizabeth Buffum Chace House was opened within Warwick, Rhode Island.  This house was created to shelter and aid the victims of domestic violence.  This includes helping to mask the identity of the women and children who are hiding from their domestic partners.  

Supreme Court Blog

The American Supreme Court was made to protect the citizens who live under the constitution, but how well can they protect us?  The historical cases this high court has seen over the years brings some of Americas biggest controversies into law.   Their interpretations of the constitution dictate our ways of life, and sets federal principles that alter the ways of our nation.  So what happens when their lawful decisions are in direct contrast of their constituents ideals?

Over the past 211 years, the court has seen 112 justices and 17 chief justices due to their lifetime appointments.  These justices hold the power to protect our constitution and to oversee that our governing bodies are staying within their bounds.  However this was not always true, the case of Marbury v. Maddison (1803) set precedent for the Court to strike down, or reverse any actions of lower courts deemed to violate our rights. 

 This major shift within how the Court operated was due to Chief Justice John Marshall. Without his guidance, the Supreme Court would not have the power and notoriety that it has today.  Famously after the unanimous vote, Marshall was quoted how "it is empathetically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."  

Prior to this case, and the many that followed, the Courts power w
as unknown and uncared for.  Although this case gave the Courts a new sense of power, the unease America was facing caused the faith and respect the American people had within the Court into question.  While America was on the doorstep of the Civil Rights era, one case would light a fire.  Dred Scott v. Sandford(1857) which indirectly told American citizens the Court could not and would not recognize the enslaved people as citizens.  This meant that even within the 'free territories' of our nation, slaves could and would not be protected under the Constitution.  

Historically, every major divide within our nations political ideals can be traced back to Supreme Court cases, including U.S. v. Nixon (1974), Bethel School District v. Fraser (1987), Roe v. Wade (1973).  Whether or not we as a nation pay close attention to the Courts on a daily basis, their decisions change the way we as a people live.  

The video did not change my views on the Courts importance, nor negate the respect I have for the justices whose votes can change the trajectory of America.  That in its self is an important viewpoint which should be taken up more by fellow citizens, while we may not see our justices make public appearances, they are still people.  Not only are they people, but they are also trying to decipher our nations most important piece of literature and the meaning our founding fathers were trying to convey.  While the turnover of their cases, it is understandable due to the severity in which these cases have on peoples lives.  

The Discussion of Slavery

  The Argument against Slavery

  While many enslaved individuals turned to religion for solace, Christian scripture has been used both to justify and condemn slavery. In the 18th and 19th centuries, proponents of slavery often cited Biblical passages, such as those referring to servants or slaves in the Old and New Testaments, to argue that slavery was divinely sanctioned.      

Kevin Giles assertion points to a nuanced truth: the Bible does not unambiguously endorse slavery as it was practiced in America or other modern contexts. Biblical references to slavery often pertain to systems vastly different from the chattel slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as indentured servitude or prisoners of war. The Exodus narrative portrays God as a liberator, not an enslaver.  Christianity became a source of hope and strength for many enslaved Africans in America. They identified with the Israelites, freed from slavery in Egypt, and saw themselves as part of a divine story of liberation. Spirituals, prayers, and Biblical references gave them the emotional and psychological endurance to survive in oppressive conditions. Some of the enslaved recognized the contradictions between the Christian gospel of love, equality, and freedom, and the brutal system of slavery. They used these contradictions to undermine the legitimacy of their bondage.

    In the New Testament, they focused on verses such as Galatians 3:28 or Exodus 20:2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.", emphasizing the importance of being free in a place of slavery. While Christianity was used to pacify slaves, with some slave owners teaching their slaves a warped version of the gospel that focused on obedience and submission, many slaves subverted these teachings. They embraced the more liberating aspects of the Bible, seeing their eventual freedom as a divine promise. In this sense, religion was both a tool of control by the oppressors and a source of revolutionary inspiration for the oppressed.  The long-standing argument over whether slavery was justified by religion continues to shape discussions today. While some historical figures twisted Biblical scripture to support the institution of slavery, the deeper message of the Bible, especially through the Exodus story and the teachings of Jesus, leans towards liberation and equality. This tension is a critical part of understanding the complex role religion has played in both justifying and resisting slavery.