Band of Angles

Band of Angels is a unique, dramatic, and romantic story of Amantha Starr and Hamish Bond. What makes this movie so unique is that Amantha Starr finds out her mother is black after living her entire life believing she is completely white. This causes Amantha Starr to be forced into slavery and bought by her slave owner Hamish Bond. While there are many interesting points in this movie, I would like to focus on colorism along with white-passing.

At the beginning of the movie, we see Amantha becoming a slave after finding out that her mother was a black woman. Amantha is sold into slavery because of the one-drop rule, this rule states that if a person has even a single drop of black blood, they are black. This means that Amantha would be treated as any other black person during the time, which is why she was able to be sold into slavery despite looking nothing like a black person. However, Amantha still maintained some privileges due to colorism. Colorism is discrimination based on skin color which means in terms of this movie the more you looked white the higher privilege you had compared to other black people. Since Amantha looked nothing like a black woman she was sold for a higher price and immediately made Hamish’s mistress. Not only do we see colorism with Amantha, but we also see it with other characters such as Dollie and Michele who are lighter-skinned and are seen as house slaves. Neither of them has the same privileges as Amantha however in the movie we see that Michele can talk to Hamish about slave matters something that we never see any of the other slaves do.

Toward the second half of the movie, we explore the topic of white passing after Amantha leaves Hamish. After leaving Hamish Amantha can start a new life in a new area where no one knows that her mother is black, however, we see her struggle to keep this secret. This is because Amantha is passing as white which is when very light-skinned African Americans would pretend to be white to escape from the hardships of being black in America and gaining the same privileges as white people. We see Amantha become a teacher, she is protected under the law, and she has hopes of getting married to a white man because she is believed to be a white woman. However, she still must live in fear of being found out as being black and never being truly accepted in her community. I found this interesting because this point was very similar to the book and movie “Passing” about a black woman living a double-sided life from passing as white and wanting to be a part of the black community. 

 

Additional Links 

https://history.stanford.edu/publications/chosen-exile-history-racial-passing-american-life

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1053572583/passing-netflix-film-review-tessa-thompson-ruth-negga

EOTO Reconstruction

 

During the EOTO portion of the class, I found that many of the presentations had a lot of information about the reconstruction era that I had researched for my presentation or information that was mentioned in the video “Reconstruction: America after the Civil War”. While I thought all the presentations given were good, I found myself interested in topics such as the civil rights act, the enforcement act, and forty acres and a mule.

 

I found the civil rights act interesting to learn more about because this topic has been brought up consistently as we learned more about the reconstruction era. The civil rights act was created to guarantee the rights of African Americans after they were freed from slavery. Both of these acts were necessary after the 13th amendment because while slaves were free they had no rights or citizenship and without rights, slaves did not have any true freedom.

However, during the presentation, I learned the difference between the 1866 civil rights act and the 1875 civil rights act. The 1866 civil rights act was created after the thirteenth amendment, but Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill because he believed it was overstepping states’ rights. This led to congress to surprisingly overturn the veto and the civil rights act of 1866 became the blueprint for the 14th amendment.

Similar to the 1866 civil rights bill the 1875 civil rights bill aimed to protect the rights of all citizens regardless of their race. Yet the key difference in this bill is it also aimed to protect all citizen's civil rights in public spaces and slowed all citizens to serve on the jury. This act was a major part of the Plessey vs Ferguson case because many places in the south had segregated areas where African American people were not allowed, in the Plessey case in a white-only train car. While according to this act Plessey should have the right to sit wherever he wanted as a citizen the court ruled against him, leading to the downfall of this act until 1964.

The second topic I found interesting was the forty acres and a mule. This is a term that I hear heavily referenced in my community. I’ve heard it reference in a lot of music, by family, coworkers, and friends. Often this term shows how much we cannot trust the government to give us anything despite the numerous years of trauma and slavery that they had caused. The phrase also is often time used to reference old money and property that many white people can have due to their great-grandparents while African Americans are not able to attain that kind of wealth because our grandparents were not given any land or wealth to pass down to future generations. 

In reality, forty acres and a mule were a promise made by General Sherman formally known as order 15. The order was meant to confiscate land in south Charleston and give it to feed slaves. This land would be 40 acres with only 800 feet of shoreline along with one mule. This was to give freed slaves something to start with since have been freed that had no property or stable income.

Additional Links 

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/civil-rights-act-of-1866-april-9-1866-an-act-to-protect-all-persons-in-the-united-states-in-their-civil-rights-and-furnish-the-means-of-their-vindication

https://www.kqed.org/news/11910733/i-aint-leaving-without-my-40-acres-how-musicians-have-called-for-reparations

Plessey v Ferguson in the perspective of social norms

 Plessey vs Ferguson was a trial in 1892 about Homer Plessey’s decision to ride in a white-only train car in Louisiana despite being 1/8 of a black man. Plessey’s actual lawyer argued under the civil rights act and the 14^th amendment that Plessey had a right to sit in the train car however, they still lost the case. This decision would greatly affect later generations and would make way for Jim Crow laws. Below I have a speech of what I would have said as Plessy’s lawyer arguing from the perspective of social norms and traditions.

During the time many would argue what Homer Plessy did was not traditional and will never be considered normal within society. A black man riding alongside a white man is considered untraditional and nowhere within the social norms of today’s country. While I do recognize at the time traditionally and socially this type of integration had not been seen. However today I would like to question you on why it does not make sense for a white man and a black man to not be able to ride in the same train car.

First, I would like to point out a social norm of African Americans’ role in the household of many white families. During slavery, it was normal to have slaves working in the house as cooks and chiefs, but most importantly nannies. A nanny is a job for African American women since slavery times and has continued to be a tradition during this time period. Most nannies are given the extremely important task of playing a part in raising our future generation of politicians, doctors, and businessmen. In our society, it is even normal for a nanny to breastfeed a white child as if they are it's own. A nanny has become so ingrained in our society that the state of Louisiana made the only exception to their separate car act where nannies travel with childing of the opposite race. I brought up this point to ask you how it can be normal for us to trust an African American person to not only cook and clean in our household but to raise our children, but it cannot be normal for them to simply ride in the same train car.

Second, I want to bring up the traditional idea that African American people are inferior and not intellectual people. This traditional way of thinking has been disproven by African Americans time and time again. African American people have proven to be educated through their speech, writing, and overall intelligence they have even gone as far as opening their universities. Previously we even had African Americans as a part of our congress, working in our justice system and fighting alongside us in times of war. Over and over African Americans have disproven the traditional idea of them being inferior in intelligence and professionalism. Yet we choose the insanity of being proven wrong repeatedly rather than getting rid of this repetitive tradition.

Finally, under the 14th amendment, Homer Plessy was a citizen and had the same rights as any other person within the train car that he occupied. Therefore, any privileges that we believe to be granted to any citizen also apply to Homer Plessy. Meaning since it is normal for citizens to sit wherever they please on whichever train car, Plessy was acting within the norms of any other citizens. Making this trial untraditional, any other citizen within this room would not be in court for sitting where they please. Instead to any other citizen, this trial would seem outrageous because it does not fit into the norms of a citizen in this nation.

Additional Links 

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5484/

http://ethanlewis.org/history/downloads/plessy.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2714687#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/woodruff/press-releases/framing-shadows-exhibition-examines-lives-of-african-american-nannies

 https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/the-pursuit-of-justice/pursuit-justice-chapter-6-separate-not-equal/

 

 

The Reconstruction era

 

The Reconstruction era was a time of immense hope for many African American people. After being slaves since stepping on American soil it was unbelievable that black people were able to gain the right to even identify as African American. If they could overcome long-lasting slavery, there should be nothing holding them back with their newfound citizenship. While during this time African American people made huge leaps and jumps, there were still many influences of racism, violence, and terrorism that attempted to hold them back and return to the old south.

First and foremost, with the right to vote more and more African American men were seen in congress. Shockingly the first black congressman was in Mississippi by the name of Hiram Revels and South Carolina even held a majority black house, despite both of them being deeply southern states. Now with African Americans being represented in congress, it seemed like an extra layer of protection that African Americans’ voices would be heard and their right protected by their people.

(Hiram Revels)

However, what I found to be the most interesting was the stature, elegance, and excellence that these men fought to represent. This image is something that still is within African American culture many African Americans will dress a certain way and carry themselves in a certain way outside of their household to be perceived the same way that these men wanted. The rise of this image was to counter many of the stereotypes and images against African American people. The way a person carries themself will always speak before their actual words.

Next, was the rise of many different African American businesses such as churches, colleges, and farms. During this time there was a rise in the black church which became the center of African American culture and collaboration. Along with the church came colleges taught by black people for black people because many African Americans didn’t want white teachers to treat students unfairly. Finally, African Americans had the opportunity to own their land to create farms along with the experience and knowledge to upkeep that land.  

(Fisk University)

 I feel with the rise of these black businesses there was also a rise in more black culture that we still see very prevalent today. The black church is still the center of a lot of African American culture, for example, things like gospel music which has an impact on much of the music we see today, or the symbol of community and unity within the church as a place of refuge. Many colleges that were created for African Americans back then are celebrated as HBCUs today and are known to teach many of the principles of pride, perseverance, and hope that were created during the reconstruction era.

(Fisk University current students)

However, with the success of many African Americans, there was also a rise in white jealousy. The ideology that blacks were inferior and incompetent was being disproven right before their own eyes. This led to the rise of the KKK and terrorism against African Americans, white southerners did everything in their power to end reconstruction. Remarkably under Ulysses S Grant, the federal government made an effort to protect African Americans from this extreme violence with the enforcement acts. The federal government took the time to listen to KKK cases and would send in federal troops to protect African Americans.

Sadly, the federal government slowly began to lose interest in reconstruction with the corruption within congress along with the following economic panic of 1873. The north grew tired of supporting African Americans in reconstruction along with the constant pushback of the white southerners. Yet even with the turn away from reconstruction, African Americans could still get the civil rights bill passed. However, reconstruction ended with the presidential election and the promise to end reconstruction.

Additional links 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NNYPWhRhks

The fugitive slave act of 1850

 

The fugitive slave act was passed on September 18, 1850, the act required all runaway slaves to be returned to their owners whether they were freed before the act or not. The act was one of 5 acts passed on September 18, 1850, in the compromise of 1850, which was written to balance the scales between the north and south after California requested to join the union.

This act was originally passed in 1793, yet it was up to the local government to capture and return slaves. Therefore, the north was able to deny this law since there was no real enforcement of the law, and instead, it was up to the slave owner to find a means to get their runaway slaves back. The original act of 1793 also allowed for the underground railroad to flourish since the North had no real pressure under the law to return runaway slaves.

However, in the new act of 1850, the responsibility of capturing runaway slaves was now in the hands of the federal government. This allowed for warrants to be issued to slave owners or marshals to arrest anyone they suspected to be a fugitive slave. The law also stated that anyone that chooses to aid a runaway slave or get in the way of an arrest would be charged $1,000 and thrown in jail. Initially, most of the North was in a huge uproar on this law, through this law the North would have to actively participate in the South’s slavery institution. But many Northerners felt that this act was a necessary evil to keep the union together since the act was a part of the compromise of 1850.

Due to the federal government allowing slave warrants and demanding the help of all good citizens to obey this law a rise in bounty hunters came in the 1850s. Many slave owners would hire a “bounty hunter” to capture their slaves paying them a certain amount once the slave was in custody. While the rise of slave hunters was very popular during this time there was a new market also opening, capturing a freed slave or black person. Since the Atlantic slave trade had ended there were not many ways to obtain a new slave to add to a person’s plantation. Instead, the capture of freed slaves made it possible to add a new slave to a plantation rather than just capture a slave that already belong to a plantation. To do this slave catchers or bounty hunters would whip or brand free slaves to look like they had escaped recently.

The process of the fugitive slave law was daunting and unjust. First black people lived in fear, whether they were freed or escaped because if caught by a bounty hunter they would immediately be forced back into slavery. Then if caught by a bounty hunter they were at the mercy of what the bounty hunter might do to them which could include branding, whipping, or beating. After being caught by a bounty hunter they would then be taken in as federal custody and taken to a commissioner for a hearing to determine if they were free or not. However, during this hearing, black people did not have a chance to plead their case in front of a jury, and commissioners were paid $10 for returning them to slavery and $5 to free the slave. Then finally most black people would be returned to slavery regardless of whether they were freed or not.  

 Below I’ve included a clip from the movie 12 years a slave that gives a visual overview of what it was like for a black person to be captured by a bounty hunter. The movie 12 years a slave depicts what it was like for a black person to live through the fugitive slave act and it’s written from Solomon Northup’s perspective. Solomon Northup was a free man living upstate New York, but he is captured by a bounty hunter and sold back into slavery.  The movie is an intense, powerful, and emotional depiction of events that occurred during the fugitive slave law of 1850. 

Additional Links:

Fugitive Slave Law of 1850

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=489

1850 was the Fugitive Slave Law

Introduction - Compromise of 1850: Primary Documents in American History - Research Guides at Library of Congress
  

State V Mann Review

 

(Thomas Ruffin wrote the opinion of North Carolina)

State v Man was an 1829 case between the state of North Carolina and Jhon Mann. John Mann had shot Lidia a slave after she attempted to run away. However, Lidia was not Jhon Mann’s Slave he was rented to him by Elizabeth Jones and Lidia did not die in the shooting but was instead injured. Originally the court ruled against Mann but after being taken to the supreme court the state later ruled in favor of Mann and stated that slaves had no rights from their masters and did not have protection under the law.

During the mock trial, both sides made drastically different opinions but argued from the same angles. For this post, I would like to review arguments made on legal terms and arguments made on moral and religious terms.

 

(North Carolina Supreme Court)

Legal arguments

 North Carolina

Legally North Carolina used the property law to argue that since Lidia was not Mann’s property but rented to him, he had no right to punish her. Just like if someone were to rent a house, they are to return the house to the owner the same way that it was given to him. Therefore, Jhon Mann had broken his promise because he could not return Lidia the way he rented her since he shot her. Finally, despite the status of Lidia being a slave and Mann being a slave owner the law still applies the same under no matter their status.

John Mann

Legally Jhon Mann’s side used the black codes to argue that Mann was within his right to shoot Lidia. Since Lidia was Jhon Mann’s property he was her master for that time, and it is his right as a master to punish Lidia as he sees fit. According to the black codes slaves were on the same level as cattle and if your cattle were running away, you would be with every right to shoot the cattle if it meant stopping them from running away. Mann was acting as Lidia’s owner for the time he rented her so he should be able to punish her as he sees fit.

 

Moral and Religious arguments

 North Carolina

Morally North Carolina argued religiously that the bible does not support slavery because it states “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:37–39). Another point that North Carolina made was that if God gave you the land you should work it, God did not give the land to have someone else work it through bodily harm. Finally, North Carolina states that slavery is the devil's work and it’s a barbaric practice that we should move away from.

 

John Mann

I feel that in terms of John Mann there were more moral arguments to gain sympathy for Mann’s finical situation. Jhon Mann argued that since Jhon Mann rented Lidia he does not have the finically means to pay for Lidia if she had escaped nor does he have the means to pay for the court fine. Second, he showed mercy and restraint to Lidia by not killing her in the shooting but instead just injuring her. Finally, Lidia proved she was untrustworthy and had to be taught a lesson to not run again meaning that John Mann had taught Lidia a lesson thus returning Lidia in better conditions than given him.

 

In conclusion, I found that both sides had done a great job arguing from the same angles but different perspectives. However, I would have liked to see North Carolina represent Lidia as an actual human, meaning any human would have that same reaction to run away from a brutal beating. I also feel that Mann’s side played more on the personal level on how this affects man and the norms of his time to push their case while North Carolina argued more on how this looks on the overall state of North Carolina.

 

Additional Links

https://www.ncpedia.org/state-v-john-mann

https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/state-v-mann/