EOTO Reaction Post

The Fall and Rise of Free Speech in the 19th Century.

Throughout the nineteenth century, Americans were forced to confront a difficult question: who truly had the right to freedom? From abolitionist movements to women’s rights and eventually the Civil War, individuals and organizations challenged the country to live up to its promises of liberty and equality.

Amistad Slave Revolt lead by Joseph Cinqué

The Amistad Uprising of 1839 demonstrated that freedom was more than an abstract idea. Africans who had been kidnapped and transported across the Atlantic resisted their captivity under the leadership of Joseph Cinqué, and their case eventually reached the Supreme Court. The legal battle forced Americans to confront slavery and question who was entitled to freedom.

That same challenge was central to the American Anti-Slavery Society, founded in 1833. The organization demanded an immediate end to slavery, while influential speakers such as Frederick Douglass helped make abolition a major public issue. Abolitionists challenged Americans to act rather than simply accept slavery as part of the nation.

Women's Suffrage Movement Seneca Falls, NY

The fight for equality also expanded beyond abolition. At the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, approximately 300 people gathered to discuss injustices facing women. Among the convention’s resolutions, the demand for women’s voting rights was particularly controversial, showing how radical political equality still seemed to many Americans.

Literature became another powerful method of challenging slavery. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin partly in response to the Fugitive Slave Act, and the novel brought the cruelty of slavery before a massive audience. According to the New-York Historical Society, its popularity helped spread the abolitionist message more widely.

Meanwhile, conflict over slavery became increasingly violent. Bleeding Kansas showed the failures of compromise, while John Brown’s 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry pushed the country to confront slavery even more directly. By 1860, Abraham Lincoln’s election intensified Southern fears about slavery’s future, contributing to secession and the eventual attack on Fort Sumter.

Even after slavery, the push for opportunity continued. Booker T. Washington and his students helped build what became Tuskegee University with very few initial resources, demonstrating the importance of education and self-determination.

Together, these events reveal a recurring theme in American history: freedom does not expand automatically. People have repeatedly had to demand it, defend it, and push the country to live up to its own ideals.

AI Disclosure: AI was used throughout this blogpost for formatting. I took ample notes while watching my peers presentations. I then used Copilot to help me clean up the text for grammar, spelling and punctuation. I asked the tool to help me shape it into the form of a blog post. I then edited the text, added links, and added images and captions. 

The Grimke Sisters

         Angelina Emily Grimké                    Sarah Moore Grimké

Speaking Out Against Injustice

Good evening, friends and fellow citizens.

The Grimké Family Home

We are Sarah and Angelina Grimké of South Carolina. We were born into a wealthy slaveholding family, and because of that, we witnessed slavery firsthand. We did not learn about its cruelty through stories or rumors. We saw it with our own eyes as it affected the lives of enslaved men, women, and children every day.

Growing up in the South, we were taught that slavery was a normal and necessary part of society. Many people accepted it without question.

Yet as we became older, our consciences would not allow us to ignore what we saw. We were troubled by the suffering around us and began asking questions that others seemed unwilling to ask.

How can one human being claim ownership of another? How can a nation built upon the principles of liberty and equality justify such injustice? These questions remained  with us and ultimately led us to speak out against slavery.

The Moral Case Against Slavery

As Christians, we believe that all people are created by God and possess equal worth in His sight. No law created by man can change that fundamental truth. Every human being deserves dignity, respect, and freedom.

Slavery denies those basic rights. It separates families and destroys relationships. It prevents individuals from receiving an education and controlling their own futures. It relies upon fear, coercion, and violence to maintain power. Most importantly, it treats human beings as property rather than as people created with inherent value and purpose.

We believe that slavery harms not only those who are enslaved but also the society that permits such injustice to continue. A nation cannot truly claim to cherish freedom while denying it to millions of people.

Why We Chose to Speak

Many people have questioned why women should take part in public discussions about slavery. Some believe that women should remain silent on political and moral issues. We strongly disagree.

When a great moral wrong exists, silence becomes a form of cooperation. If we know that something is wrong and refuse to speak, we help allow that wrong to continue. We cannot remain silent while millions suffer under a system that denies them their most basic rights.

We believe that having a voice brings with it a responsibility to use that voice in the service of justice. For that reason, we have chosen to speak publicly and encourage others to examine the realities of slavery.

A Challenge to Our Fellow Citizens

We ask our fellow Americans to think not about what is profitable or convenient, but about what is right.

Imagine your own family being bought and sold. Imagine being separated from your parents, spouse, or children. Imagine being forbidden to learn to read or being denied any control over your future. Would you call that freedom? Would you accept such treatment for yourself or your loved ones?

If the answer is no, then we must recognize that slavery is fundamentally unjust.

The Declaration of Independence states that all people are created equal and are entitled to certain unalienable rights. If we truly believe those words, then those rights must belong to every person, regardless of race.

A Call to Action

Quote from Angelina Grimké

We ask you to join the cause of abolition. Speak against slavery in your churches, your homes, and your communities. Refuse to accept injustice simply because it has existed for generations.

History will judge the choices made in our time. Future generations will ask whether we defended liberty or remained silent when justice demanded action. Let us choose courage over complacency and justice over convenience.

Together, let us work toward the day when slavery is abolished, when every person is free, and when our nation finally lives up to its highest ideals.

AI Disclosure: AI was used to find this information and to form it into this blog post. I then read through it, editing it along the way. I also found images and websites myself and embedded them into this post.

State v. Mann

In 1829, a North Carolina court faced a simple question with an unbearable answer: how far could a man go in punishing a human being he did not even own?

The case was  State v. Mann. The answer it produced still haunts American legal history.

About The Case: 

The facts were brutal and plain

Chowan County Courthouse

John Mann had hired an enslaved woman named Lydia from her owner for a year. Lydia committed some minor offense. Mann began to whip her.

She ran. He shot her.

A Chowan County grand jury indicted Mann for assault and battery. The trial judge instructed the jury plainly: if the punishment was cruel, unwarranted, and disproportionate, Mann was guilty. The jury convicted him.

Then the case went up on appeal

Mann appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, arguing that a slave was property — and that violence against property could not be indictable as a crime.

Judge Thomas Ruffin

Justice Thomas Ruffin agreed with him, and reversed Mann's conviction.

Ruffin didn't pretend the case sat easy with him. He described a real struggle in his own conscience. But he sided with the law as he read it anyway, declaring that "the power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect."

That's the argument I'm up against

In our class's role-play, I'm representing the State — the side that won at trial, asking the appellate court to uphold Mann's conviction.

My argument isn't just legal. It's moral, and it's religious.

The case for the State rests on a simple idea: property law never fully erased the line between discipline and destruction. No statute in North Carolina authorized a hirer to maim or kill an enslaved person for the "crime" of running from a beating.

The Holy Bible and Cross of Jesus

Beneath the property law sits something older. Nineteenth-century Christian abolitionist arguments leaned heavily on scripture — that every person is made in the image of God, and that the Golden Rule carries no exception clause for the enslaved. Quaker and evangelical voices had been making that case for decades before 1829.

Why the case still matters

Ruffin's decision didn't stay buried in North Carolina. Abolitionists reprinted excerpts of it across the North in the years that followed, using his own chillingly honest language as proof of what slavery actually required to function: not paternal kindness, but absolute, unaccountable power.

Preparing this role-play forced me to sit with something uncomfortable. The moral arguments available in 1829 were real. Quakers, evangelicals, and free Black writers were already making them, out loud, in print.

The court simply chose not to listen.

That distinction matters. It's tempting to excuse historical injustice by saying people "didn't know better" in their time. State v. Mann proves otherwise — Ruffin knew, said so on the record, and ruled against his own stated conscience anyway.

The reckoning came late

For more than a century, a massive portrait of Ruffin dominated the North Carolina Supreme Court's own courtroom. Every lawyer arguing before the state's highest court did so beneath his gaze.

That changed in December 2020, when Chief Justice Cheri Beasley announced the Court would remove the portrait and replace it with the Supreme Court seal. A statue of Ruffin had already come down from the Court of Appeals building months earlier.

Nearly 200 years after Lydia was shot in the back, the institution that protected her attacker finally took his picture off the wall.

That's what makes this case worth performing, arguing, and sitting with today. It shows a legal system openly admitting its own cruelty — and choosing to protect it anyway.

AI Disclosure: AI was used through out the process of this blog post. I explained what the assignment was, and my specific part in the project. I then used Claude AI to help me form the information into a blog post. I then edited the text, added links, and added images and captions. 

Eight Values of Free Expression: Protecting Dissent

Climate Rights International; Lukas Schulz

Peaceful protest in the United Kingdom

Why Freedom of Speech is so Important

As I read through the Eight Values of Free Expression, the value of protecting dissent stood out to me the most. This takes the main idea of free speech, and focuses on what I think is the most important aspect, protection of everyone's viewpoint. It is the idea that individuals have the right to their own opinions despite being the minority. It allows everyone to have their own beliefs even when they differ from the majority, criticize the government, and even question authority without fear of punishment from the government. 

This value reminds us that we have to fight back for what we believe in. We can't just go with the majority opinion. The only way to see the change we want is by voicing what we believe, and fighting for it. 

Many of the most significant changes in American history started with a brave individual who spoke up for what they believed in despite standing on the opposite side of the majority. 

These people that used their freedom of speech, and specifically protecting dissent, are now seen as brave leaders and even heroes. 

Free Speech Throughout History

Martin Luther King Jr. "I Have a Dream" Speech

The Civil Rights Movement is a great example of Protect Dissent, and the freedom of speech being used. During the Civil Rights Movement, many people utilized their freedom and spoke out for what they believed. 

Specifically, Martin Luther King Jr. used his right to dissent by speaking out and expressing how he felt about segregation. 

Despite most Americans disagreeing with him at first, over time, his minority opinion spread, and he changed everything. His ideas were no longer the minority. His use of his freedom allowed for him to spread his ideas and beliefs so wide, he changed millions of people's minds. 

Although it is hard to stand up for what you believe in when others don't agree with you, speaking up is the only way that you can make a difference. 

Protecting dissent is so important because the government isn't always correct, and as citizens it is our duty to call out those mistakes. We need to criticize things that we know are not right so we can see real changes in our society. 

Free Speech In Present Day

Fortunately for us, in this era, it is much easier to take advantage of this freedom due to social media. 

Social media can be a very controversial topic when discussing if it is positive or negative. Although, when it comes to freedom of speech, and protecting dissent, social media makes it much more accessible for everyone to share their own opinions and ideas with the world. People can share what they believe with the click of a button, and it allows you to reach a larger audience which you may never have been able to reach without social media. 

Although it is a good space to share your personal opinion, everyone can express how they feel, including if they disagree with you. This means it is possible to receive backlash from others. This can be discouraging to those expressing their opinions, and even scare some people into not expressing how they feel. 

This new fear that comes along with social media just means that we have to keep encouraging others to take advantage of their freedom. We have to help others understand that not everyone will agree with you, but you still have to share your opinion in order to see change. 

Why I Felt Connected With Protect Dissent

I feel so strongly about using this freedom to our full advantage because I grew up learning to stand up for what I believe is right. I have never been scared to express myself when I believe something isn't fair or just. 

I have also always been taught to always listen to others opinions. Even if I don't agree with them, I have learned to be respectful of what others believe, and try to see where they are coming from. 

Both of these life lessons have stuck with me and helped shape who I am today. I can not imagine living in a society where people are forced to support something they don't fully believe in, which is why I feel so connected to freedom of speech and to protecting dissent. Without the power to challenge the government, and other opinions, we would never see significant changes. 

Bible Team Challenge

Throughout history, slavery has been a major debate. Although it is mostly seen as a political and economic argument, religion and Christian beliefs actually had a large role in the dispute, providing evidence for both the pro and anti slavery dispute. 

Anti Slavery Argument:

Christian Abolitionist Movement 

Religion and Christian beliefs had a large role in the pushing back against slavery. Christianity and the Bible were often used as resources to back the claim that slavery is unfair and unjust. In fact, Christian abolitionists originally started the abolitionist movement against slavery. 

Some ideas were simple and obvious, while other arguments required deeper research and understanding. 

Religious Arguments Against Slavery 

One religious argument often used by Christian abolitionists was clearly stated in the bible. Exodus 21:16 states, “Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave, is to be put to death.” This statement is undeniably a claim against slavery and provides  a very straightforward argument. 

Other major Christian beliefs backed up the anti-slavery argument even if they weren't as direct. One major Christian belief is that we all have one master, no one is the master of another on earth because we all look up to the same master in heaven.

Colossians 4:1 states, “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.” This also aligns with the commandment that we can not have any other idols or Gods before him. 

Another main idea is that we are all brothers. God is our father, and we are all made from his image equally.

This has always been a major part of Christianity, and is clearly proven here in Galatians 3:28, “So there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free people, between men and women; you are all one in union with Christ Jesus.” All of these ideas, beliefs, and quotes provided the Christian abolitionists with a strong argument against slavery 

Pro Slavery: 

Historically, slavery in ancient Israel was a way to survive economically where there were set laws to protect these slaves, and ensure they were being treated fairly opposed to the violent version we know of today.  Biblical Chronology

Exodus 21:2-3 explains that  “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.” This provides the information that if someone were to buy another human who is willingly selling themselves, they must keep them as servants for 6 years, and let them regain freedom on the 7th.

Leviticus 25:39-43 “If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you.” further informs you of the boundaries that were set when it came to how these servants should be treated.

Deuteronomy 15:12-15 “And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress.” This verse is the most impacting to the readers. This passage explains that the slave owners are to gift their slaves when they are let free as a token of gratitude for their service.

In conclusion, Christianity was used to support both sides of the slavery debate. Abolitionists pointed to biblical teachings about equality and justice, while on the other hand, passages that regulated servitude in ancient Israel were used. These different interpretations show how religion influenced opinions on slavery throughout history.

Credits:

Caroline: Introduction, Anti Slavery Argument

Payton: Conclusion, Pro-Slavery Argument

AI Disclosure:

On this assignment I wrote everything authentically and only used AI to check grammar, and help organize my writing.

Supreme Court Video Reflection

 

Just over 100 people have ever served as Supreme Court justices. That's it. On average, they serve 16 years — often outlasting the president who appointed them.

I was surprised to learn how much of the Court's power was built early on. Under Chief Justice John Marshall, the case Marbury v. Madison established the Court's ability to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional.

But the Court hasn't always gotten it right.

Take the Dred Scott decision. It revealed that Congress didn't actually have the power to ban slavery — exposing the limits of the government's own authority, and showing the Court's power wasn't as absolute as people assumed.

Later, the 14th Amendment stepped in, guaranteeing that no one could be denied equal protection or due process under the law.

The key takeaway here was that the Supreme Court doesn't go looking for problems. Justices sit back and wait for petitions from people who believe their trial was handled unfairly, and only then can they act.

That's part of why the building looks the way it does — intentionally grand, meant to project power and, honestly, intimidate.

But here's the thing: the Court doesn't have its own police force. We don't have to accept its rulings forever, either. Through amendments, we have the power to overrule the Supreme Court.

This video changed how I see the Supreme Court. I always assumed its word was final. It isn't.

A few distinctions stuck with me. Civil cases are disputes between individuals — suing a person or company. Criminal cases involve the state. And every case climbs from district court to appellate court before it ever reaches the top.

And getting there is rare. The Court receives around 7,000 petitions a year through a process called "certiorari" — but only takes on around 100. That scarcity is exactly what makes the Court so powerful.

Even a denial carries weight, though not the kind people assume. Turning down a case isn't the Court "ruling" or "upholding" anything, despite how it's often reported.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it best: "We are quiet, but it is the quiet of a storm center." Now I understand why.

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWRoXYRsaeo&feature=youtu.be 

AI DISCLOUSURE: AI was used in a limited way in this assignment. I took ample notes while watching a 20-minute video about the U.S. Supreme Court. I then personalized these notes by adding my point of view, for example, things I found surprising or interesting about what I learned. I then used Claude AI to help me clean up the text for grammar, spelling and punctuation. I also Asked the tool to help me shape it into the form of a blog post. I then edited the text, added links, and added images and captions.