Kondrack

  The Story of the Union's First Black Regiment After starting this film, I was first met with a small biography meant to give the viewer an idea of the main character's situation. This main character is a man named Robert Gould Shaw, who's backstory leading up to his being named colonel and the main events of the film is displayed. This single character perspective does not, however, interfere with the value behind the film, and the focus on the colonel is mildly depleted later on to keep the message in a significant stance. The film is most directly making a point of sharing the story of the first colored men to ever fight for the union, as they were prohibited for decades prior. The team of African American troops takes on challenges with courage and prove themselves to be a worthy regiment among an entirely white union army. This leads up to them leading the charge on Fort Wagner, a Confederate establishment. The black regiment, alon...

  Bakke v. Regents of the University of California Mock Trial: Anti-Affirmative Action (Bakke's Argument) Bakke v. Regents of the University of California was a Supreme Court case which took place in 1978 regarding the topic of affirmative action and other measures of integration's constitutionality. Allan P. Bakke was denied from the University of California, leading him to initiate this case to go against affirmative action. The California State courts originally decided in 1977 that the affirmative action program was not acceptable, striking it down and admitting Bakke into the university, but things changed within the next year as the United States Supreme Court accepted the case after an overwhelming amount of public attention and protest. For my mock trial position arguing in favor of Bakke, I take the stance of claiming that the affirmative action program was racist or a form of reverse-discrimination: "People of the court, I am here today ...

 Supreme Court Paving the Way A large factor in the Brown v. Board of Education court decision was the path paved by three prior major court rulings. The first being Mendez v. Westminster. This case in particular was not a ruling by the Supreme Court as it was kept within the California federal courts by the school board officials. However, this 1947 court case (just under 8 years prior to Brown v. Board) decided that forcing students with Mexican ancestry into separate remedial schools was unconstitutional, mainly based upon the limitations from not being able to learn English while surrounded by it. Three years later, two anti-segregation Supreme Court cases were both successful on the same day. Sweatt v. Painter of 1950 was one of these two cases in which it was decided that a black man named Herman Sweatt had the right to attend the University of Texas Law School, as opposed to their law school created "equally" for people of color. The s...

 Plessy v. Ferguson Pro-Segregation Argument The case of Plessy v. Ferguson happened in 1896, about four years after the incident occurred in which a man (Plessy) with one eighth African American blood boarded a train car assigned to whites only. This was two years after the Separate Car Act of 1890 in the state of Louisiana, making this an offense punishable by law. Plessy was arrested and hit with a fine of twenty five dollars, a charge which he challenged in the Supreme Court. Though the law was not on his side, he argued that his constitutional rights as a citizen had been violated. The following paragraphs in quotations display my script for a counter argument to Plessy in court: - "As it has been made clear by my fellow participants, the defendant was in direct violation of the law regarding the separation between colored and white people. The black codes or Jim crow laws have been rooted within our country for over three decades since the abolition of slavery was fresh. To ...

Also referred to as the Border War, Bleeding Kansas was a network of civil conflict and violence over the matter of slavery being legal in the Kansas territory, which was proposed as an additional state. One side of the conflict was pro-slavery, arguing that those who move to the new state should have the right to bring their property (including slaves). Despite the neighboring state of Missouri allowing slavery, the anti-slavery citizens stood strong on their morals and refused the idea. The overall disagreement lead to significant political battles as well as full-on guerilla warfare between immigrants to the territory with opposite ideologies stemming from their home state. One of the direct foundations of the major conflict was the production of a constitution for the Kansas territory, which would of course include the matter of slavery within the state. Intense violence and conflict continued through extensive development with laws for the new state, only to be put to an end in 18...

John Mann was fined 10 dollars for shooting a female slave that he had under contract in the back, he finds this unjust and unfair, getting slammed by the following arguments. Slavery accounts for significant part of population. The prosecuting side (state of North Carolina) Claims that State v Hail set principle for this case in the fact that brutal harm upon slaves is not protected by law. Battery against a slave is a prosecutable offense, though in this scenario it is the owner in question rather than an offender who is not the owner of the slave. These prosecutors wish for the court to side with this precedent regardless of ownership status. Qualk walker case, court sided with slave as a person. Ethics lead those to believe that slaves, though property, are still people and it is wrong to commit battery or murder upon them. Prosecuting side wishes to bring the slave up to the same level of worth as the owner. This could stem into a network of cases regarding abuse and conflict betw...