The Slave Community Write Up

I did a Write Up on The Slave Community by John W. Blassingame For my U.S. History Course through BYU Independent study. Here it is:

Slavery was a harsh and morally wrong system, with white masters denying slaves very basic human rights and exploiting their labor with the bare minimum requirements for survival in most instances.

A field hand's life consisted of waking up before dawn, preparing a meal, eating, feeding livestock and then getting out to the fields a bit before dawn. They were whipped if they were late. Then they worked until dusk in a variety of labors, depending on the season and the type of crop.

For instance they could be planting the crops, preparing the fields, clearing the land, getting rid of pests, or harvesting the crop.

Then after sunset they put away livestock, and made their meal before going to bed, but sometimes they worked till nine or later if they were ginning cotton or boiling sugar.

The domestic slave ate better food and wore better clothes than the field hands, but they still had negatives like being under the constant watch of the whites, absorbing white anger in the form of punching or whipping, and being at their beck and call day and night.

According to Nathaniel Ware, a slave could be sustained by $20 (in 1844, around $645 today) a year, while a free laborer needed $100 (~3,225 today) for food and clothing alone for him and his family.

This meant that slaves sometimes did not have enough food, and when this happened they stole food. They also had wretched, crude, one room, and often crowed cabins with holes and hard dirt floors. Basically the bare minimum.

Many masters attempted to assure their authority over their slaves and that of all whites’ superiority over all blacks (very much against natural law). Most planters also worked to make "their" slaves submissive and non-rebellious.

Planters forced slaves to act happy about slavery and their exhausting labors, while truly and inside they did barely felt any joy about these things.

Black overseers had really strenuous lives because they were caught in the middle between the slaves and the master. When they worked the slaves too hard, the master was happy with them, while the slaves were not. On the other hand when they let the slaves slack off and not really work that much, the master got mad and usually whipped the overseer.

Domestic servants acted as the secret police of the planter, they spied on the other slaves and reported back to him. Masters were sometime very cruel to the slaves in punishment, with extensive flogging and iron shackles to the slaves’ limbs.

Planters also physically abused and even mutilated their slaves. Masters sometimes killed slaves under punishment, whether accidentally or intentionally. But while it was illegal for masters to kill their slaves, they were not usually held accountable for any crimes by the white government if one died under punishment.

There were also some masters who were generally kind like Dr. Carson. Some of the things kind masters did was that they abstained from flogging, giving enough food and shelter, and leaving slave families together.

Some kind masters became cruel when they were angry, but overall most of masters were neither kind nor exceptionally cruel with the treatment of slaves.

While planters extracted all the labor from their slaves that they could, they also tried to act humanely and were forced to recognize the humanity of their slaves.

Planters were kinder to their slaves sometimes because they were worried about public opinion and/or they tried to apply Christian principles in their relations with slaves.

Many slaves limited their work so to try to speed up the work planters gave prize’s to the best cotton pickers.

Slaves coped with this oppressive system in different ways. One of the biggest ways slaves coped with it was through their culture which came largely the oral traditions from West Africa.

Regional Storytelling in West Africa included acting, and singing that was a favorite evening entertainment. West African Folk tale culture was largely transplanted to the South and the slaves’ culture. Patterns and symbols/symbolism of the folktales can tell us a lot about the slaves’ thoughts and views.

These attempted to explain natural phenomena and had heroes and morals. Often the audience responded to questions and the tales were accompanied by drums.

West African tales show us that they valued Families and knowledge. There were a lot of Animal storied and Trickster figures- like the Nigerian Tortoise and the Ghanaian spider and rabbit-are all over them. They are weaker than the other animals but through cunning they outwit them and triumph over evil.

Folk tales were not only an entertainment they were also a concentration of folk wisdom, a manifestation of a slave’s dreams, hopes and personal experiences. They were also used as instructional devices to teach young slaves how to live.

Folk Tales were an area which was out of the whites’ control, and they allowed the slave to convey hostility at his master and explain the plantation system.

In animal tales the slaves identified themselves with the weaker animals, and were fascinated with weakness overcoming strength. This could be a symbol of the weak unarmed slaves overcoming the whites including their masters.

Sometimes there were not just symbols of masters, overseers and slaves but direct references, like with the John series. This series is a very accurate and specific depiction of slavery in the folk tales, where John longs for freedom, runs away, gets beaten, desires revenge for his suffering and often defies his master.  

John symbolized the discontent of slaves, the many options for the slaves, a set of survival techniques, and was a means of increasing self-worth.

Folk tales prove that the hardships and cruelties of slavery were not enough to demolish the creativity of the slaves and folk tales allowed the slave to view himself symbolically and to find patience and hope when he talked about his fortune. 

Folk tales helped the slave cope with the hardships of slavery because they were mental tools that helped channel emotions allowing them to talk about their resentment of their masters and white people in ways that had little or no physical threat and provided leisure, fun and creativity.

Slaves also coped with their hardships through religion where he found hope of escape of the brutalities of slavery.

Protestant missionaries had taught thousands of slaves Christian doctrines, and slaves believed God promoted freedom interpreting the freedom from bondage of Israel to mean that they had a hope for freedom too.

The Religious faith of the slave often conquered the slave’s fear of their master. When slaves were whipped for going to church they continued because they determined that their master could only harm their physical body and not their soul.

Religious services and activities also provided the slave with welcome rest from constant, hard labor and gave him joy and companionship.  By engaging in these activities the slave could take his mind of his/or her hopeless condition and focus on the happy future that awaited him.

The Slave’s life was hard, and would have been practically unbearable had there not been a black plantation culture separate from and out of the control of the white people.

It also helped the slaves form an appreciation for group protection and unity. Finally the slave’s culture boosted his self-worth and joys, helping him have enthusiasm in what was otherwise a very difficult and unpleasant life.  

Constitution Write-up and Common Sense discussion response

I did a Constitution write-up for my Course HIST-220 American History to 1877, about a modern - day issue and how the Constitution addresses or doesn't address it. Here it is:

One challenge currently facing American society today is the expansion of Federal and Presidential power. It is an issue because it threatens individual liberty and rights, which are protected when the Federal government has less power and has to “compete “with state Governments. Another Reason that it is an Issue is that when the Federal Government expands so much that it  goes against Natural  Law  (Law that is higher than manmade law, including God’s Law and Scientific/Mathematical Laws) it brings decline to the Nation.

According to Fredric Bastiat’s famous essay The Law, this overreach brings about the following consequences: People won’t truly respect the Law because it privileges the federal or central government above the rights of the individual. This leads to less respect for the Government and more lawbreaking. Which in turn leads people to have less respect for each other and to believe that everyone is dishonest and that they in turn should act dishonestly. Ultimately this leads to widespread distrust and a decrease of freedom, equality and opportunity.                                                                                                                   

The United States Constitution seeks to address this issue by limiting the power of the Federal Government and the President.  It limits the power of the Federal Government in multiple ways. One of the biggest is the 10^th amendment, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This means that the Federal government only has the powers delegated to it in the constitution and all other powers (as long as they aren’t prohibited to the states, like ex post facto laws or bills of attainder) go to the states.

Some examples are education, setting up schools and determining if abortion and LBGT marriage is allowed or prohibited.  The U.S. Constitution also limits the Federal government by dividing the powers of government among the 3 Branches of the Federal Government:

·         The Legislative Branch which is further divided into the Senate and the House of Representatives, who each have unique powers like the origination of all revenue bills in the House and the sole power to judge impeachment cases for the Senate. But overall the Congress deals with the lawmaking of the country.

·         The Executive Branch:  the President and The VP which are elected by another body, the Electoral College which in turn was instituted to protect the office of the president from the majority “mob” rule of the people. The Executive branch deals with enforcing the Law and it has a huge Federal Bureaucracy to help do this.

·         The Judicial Branch which has the power of interpreting  the law of the Land, and deciding disputes.

The three branches have checks and balances procedures and powers that enable each branch to limit the power of the other branches and force a compromise between all three. This prevents any one branch from getting too much power, and prevents tyranny. 

Congress, for example, is given the power to impeach and convict Federal officials including Judges, SCOTUS Justices and the President and VP. The President has the power to veto a law passed by Congress. Congress on the other hand can override a presidential veto with a 2/3 vote. Congress has the power to declare war, but the President has the power to command the Military. The President nominates Supreme Court Justices and Congress holds the power to confirm or reject them.  

Presently however, the Federal Government has overstepped these limits in multiple instances and thus it has gone against the Law of the Land, and Natural Law.  Some of the instances include the Roe v. Wade and Oberfell v. Hodge SCOTUS Cases where the SCOTUS went against the the 10th amendment of Constitution and Natural Law or the idea that “all powers delegated to the government must be entrusted to the lowest level of government that can effectively accomplish the desired goal*” and the commandments of God in the Family a Proclamation to the World.

The Federal Government has also expanded its power by creating laws to “legally plundering” its people with the redistribution of wealth. This also goes against Natural Law

The Powers of the POTUS and the oval office are also expanding more than the Constitution gave it power to do as well. The Constitution essentially gave the President 12 powers in Article II-2 & 3: **

1.       He is the commander in chief of the military.

2.       He may require written opinions from anyone serving as head of a department in the executive branch.

3.       He can grant reprieves and pardons.

4.       He can make treaties, as long as two-thirds of the Senate agrees.

5.       He can appoint ambassadors, justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal officials, as long as two-thirds of the Senate agrees.

6.       He can fill vacancies in federal offices during recesses of the Senate.

7.       He shall from time to time give a report and recommendations to the Congress.

8.       He may, in a time of extraordinary circumstances, convene Congress and/or adjourn it (this was defined by the framers mainly as a time when a declaration of war was needed).

9.       He can meet with foreign diplomats.

10.   He shall take care that all the laws are faithfully executed.

11.   He shall commission all the officers of the United States.

12.   He can veto Laws passed by Congress (Article I-7)

Anything more than this goes against the Constitution and takes away the freedom of people.

Examples include the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare which force people to get insurance or pay a fee. The refusal of giving a treaty by the President to the Senate to be Ratified also goes against the Constitution (Article II Section II: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur“). This has happened the Framework Convention on Climate Change Agreement***. Also an Executive order that forces a state to stop transporting Illegal Immigrants out of the Country is unconstitutional because the President can’t make laws, he can only enforce them.

Another Example of the President going against the constitution is the Executive Order issued by Franklin Delano Roosevelt that transported Japanese-Americans to Internment Camps. This affected tens of thousands completely innocent people and had nothing to do with the Japanese Fascists attacks on the U.S.A.

One final example of bending the constitution is the use of Executive Agreements between the POTUS and a head of a foreign country. Unlike treaties these are not sent to the Senate for ratification, these are not binding to future Presidents and Presidents tend to use them a lot to bypass Congress.  They are Unconstitutional however and are another example of Presidential expansion of power from that which is in the Constitution. 

As explained in this quote by Dallin H. Oaks  “For checks and balances to work properly, and for the fundamental principle of separation of powers to be honored and perform its proper function, each branch of government must fulfill its duties fully, and each must refrain from attempting to exercise the functions of the others” the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch should not make Laws just as the Legislative Branch should not enforce the Law they made. 

It may seem that the Federal Government is still expanding notwithstanding the Constitution’s limits made to prevent tyranny, but the Framers instituted a deciding check on Federal power. This limit is the power of the people to elect their representatives, which forces the Federal Government to follow public opinion closely enough to stay in office.

So to fix these problems that lead to Decline we need to educate the People that we need to follow our constitution and Natural law and so they can apply the necessary public pressure to the Government to follow these things.  

*We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident  Oliver DeMille

**http://oliverdemille.com/2016/02/parties-cant-cooperate/

*** http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/22/obamas-violating-the-constitution-by-not-submitting-climate-treaty-to-senate/

I also did a Common-Sense discussion board Response here it is:

Common Sense is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in the 1776 to argue the case for independence from Britain to the American People. It appealed to the common people and not just the elites because

Paine argues that the King of England and Parliament had used their power oppressively against the people of America and that they have the right to discard them: In the Introduction on page 1: “a long and violent abuse of power…the King of England… Parliament…as the good people of this country [America] are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either”. This appealed to the common people and not just the elites because they, the common people, had been oppressed by the abuse of the King’s and Parliament’s power, and they liked the idea that they had the right to reject them, because that would ease their suffering.

The common people didn’t want another mortal person to be placed above them with power to control and oppress them without their consent, it being against their unalienable right to liberty. That is what a monarch is and there are multiple instances in Common Sensewhere Paine writes against monarchy and the king such as:

"the king…he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty”.

and

 “ the crown…hath…eaten out the virtue of the house of commons…it is the Republican and not the Monarchical part of the Constitution of England which Englishmen glory in…choosing a House of Commons …when Republican virtues fail, slavery ensues...the Crown hath engrossed the Commons.”

Since the common people like choosing a House of Commons and the House of Commons itself, and the king had corrupted the House of Commons this frustrated the common people.

Paine argues the case for actual, equal and large representation: “the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors , the necessity of a large and equal representation ”.

The common people preferred actual representation (representatives serving the interest of the specific people who elected them, and not necessarily the common good of the whole nation), because it was what most colonists believed in.

Common people in the border country/frontier especially liked equal representation, where each district/area gets the same number of electors compared to the population of the area (like if the ratio was 1 representative to 2,000 people, then that ratio is equal for all districts), because they had a larger population than many eastern places in the colony but got a lower number of representatives in the colony legislature.

Common Sense also goes against hereditary succession which the common people didn’t like because, among other reasons, it gave them less opportunity than “high-born” people and maintained a caste system with less economic, social and political mobility.

The common people of the colonies wanted to prosper in commerce and economy, and Paine makes the case that if they stayed part of the British Empire, then they would prosper less in economy and commerce than they could have if they had become an independent separate people. Independence would allow them to conduct commerce with other nations besides the British Empire and they would not be limited in their economy by a king who wanted them to prosper less.

Common Sense appealed to the common people of the colonies through many means and it convinced countless colonists that separation of the colonies from Britain into a separate and independent Nation was necessary and expedient for them arguing that cause of America is the cause of all mankind.