The heat in the night

 Reflection on the Heat in the night movie.

The heat of the night is a crime drama set in 1967 in a small town called Sparta Mississippi. This movie is
meant to tell the story about a murder in Sparta and how Bill Gillespie, a police chief, was quick to arrest the first person he sees that could be the perpetrator, Virgil Tibbs. Tibbs was actually visiting his mother in Sparta and is actually a homicide detective and was wrongfully arrested. People soon found out that he was a detective and wanted to add him to the case to help figure out who the perpetrator was. However, since Tibbs was African American, Bill Gillespie wasn't too happy to be working alongside him on the case 

I really liked how this film showed a point in history that not many people talk about as much as slavery. This movie focuses on the time after slavery and shows how white individuals  aren't directly discriminating against African Americans but they still aren't accepted and trusted within their lives. This point in time wasn't forgotten but sometimes gets pushed to the side when being talked about 

This film may show how Tibbs the African American in the film but also celebrities how african america got more freedoms and were even allowed to work alongside a white man. This was big back then because not too long before the movie was made African Americans were not allowed to sit in the same vicinity as white people so have an African American play a major role in a movie alongside white people is a big deal.

One part of this movie that took me back was the infamous slap. Not only was i shocked but i did some research after about and so was everyone else in history. After Tibbs was slapped by wealthy plantation owner  Eric Endicott, he wasn't pleased about working alongside an African American. The part that really made everyone gasp was when Tibbs returned the slap right back to Eric. This part was very shocking back then because this was one of the first times especially in a movie that an African American fought back. African Americans technically had freedom but still were not treated equally as white people. This also shocked people when it first came out because yes african america were present in movies but mainly played maids servants and very low and small roles, so Tibbs being a main character really stood out.

They quoted the slap as “the slap heard around the world”, because it had such a big movement. 

This movie also shows the progress of the equality of african americans, because it starts off as an african american being wrongfully accused of a murder for simply just bein their, to ending it with him being respected and trusted more then the white detectives because he didn't jump to conclusion. Another reason I liked this movie was because it talked about the message more of history itself. It resembles how slaves had to slowly earn their freedom over time, Tis had to earn his respect in a town and work with people that didn't want to work alongside him.  

Plessy V Furguson

Plessy V Ferguson 

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May it please the Court. Homer Plessy boarded the East Louisiana Railway on June 7th, 1892, holding a valid first-class ticket, and was ordered into a separate car for one reason only: the color of his skin. We are here to argue that Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890 violates two amendments this nation ratified specifically to end that kind of state-sanctioned racial rank — the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Amendments. **First, the Thirteenth Amendment.** This amendment did not simply abolish the buying and selling of human beings. It abolished the incidents of slavery — every remnant of the system that marked one class of citizens as inferior to another under law. A statute that orders citizens into separate railcars, enforced by criminal penalty, based purely on ancestry, revives exactly that kind of badge. It tells the traveling public, by force of law, that colored citizens are unfit to sit beside white ones. That is not a neutral regulation. That is a caste marker, and the Thirteenth Amendment was written to forbid it. **Second, the Fourteenth Amendment.** Section One guarantees every citizen the equal protection of the laws and forbids any state from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizenship. Mr. Plessy is a citizen of Louisiana and of the United States. The right to travel on a public conveyance, on equal terms with every other paying passenger, is one of the most basic privileges of that citizenship. Louisiana cannot use the railroads — corporations chartered under state law and holding themselves out as common carriers to the entire public — as instruments of racial separation. This Court does not have to take our word for how seriously it should treat racial classifications by the state. It has already ruled on this question. In **Strauder v. West Virginia** (1880), this Court struck down a law barring Black citizens from jury service, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees freedom from "discrimination which implies legal inferiority in civil society" — a brand, in the Court's own words, that is "practically a badge" of inferiority stamped on a class of citizens by the law itself. That is precisely what the Separate Car Act does to Mr. Plessy. It does not merely separate; it *ranks*. It tells every passenger, and every conductor, which race the law considers worthy of the better car. We would also direct the Court's attention to the deprivation of property without due process. Being classified and treated as white carries real, tangible value in daily and civil life — the "master-key," as counsel has put it, that opens doors of opportunity. Louisiana's statute lets a train conductor make that determination on sight, with no hearing, no standard, and no appeal, and then criminally punishes the passenger for disagreeing. That is a taking of a valuable civil status without due process of law, guaranteed against by the Fourteenth Amendment's own text. Finally, we would remind the Court that the Fourteenth Amendment was written in the plain language of universal citizenship. It draws no line between races. A law that does draw such a line — that assigns rights and burdens by ancestry alone — cannot be squared with an Amendment whose entire purpose was to strike race from the law of the land. For these reasons, we ask this Court to hold the Separate Car Act unconstitutional, and to affirm that the Constitution protects one class of citizens, not two. Thank you.

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI DISCLOSER; for this AI assisted assignment I used valued aid to do history research on my topic. After prompting the tool to do research based only on academic and other high-quality sources, I asked Claude to shape the material in the form of a script for an oral presentation of four minutes. I then asked Claude to shape the material in the form of a blog post of between 500 and 600 words. I edited the AI output for reliability. I also policed the linked sources for quality control. To the log post, I added visual elements and links to sources. I also made sure the paragraphs were short and in a personal style.

—-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Reconstruction: The Story I Never Actually Learned

Growing up, my understanding of this era started and ended with one sentence: Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.That was it. Happy ending.

But watching this documentary for class, I realized how wrong that framing really is. Emancipation wasn't the end of a story. It was the beginning of one of the most complicated chapters in American history.

It technically started on April 9, 1865, when Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House. Just five days later, on Good Friday, Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, cutting short whatever vision he had for what came next.

What struck me first was how quickly hope turned into resistance. Formerly enslaved people spent the early days of freedom searching for family members who had been sold away, placing newspaper ads and walking long distances just to find a mother, a child, a spouse. That alone was heartbreaking to learn.

Even something as basic as the legal status of slavery was unresolved. The 13th Amendment had passed Congress in January 1865, but it still needed to be ratified by individual states before it actually meant anything.

Then came Reconstruction itself, and honestly, this is where I was most shocked.

I had no idea that Black Codes and vagrancy laws basically recreated slavery under a different name. If a Black person didn't sign a year-long labor contract, they could be arrested, fined, and auctioned off to work off that fine for whoever paid it. Even children weren't safe. Families could be broken apart through so-called "apprenticeships," with white employers taking custody of Black children and no say given to the parents.

I also didn't realize how much power Andrew Johnson had in shaping this outcome. He publicly blamed the planter class for the war, yet by the summer of 1865 he was personally pardoning wealthy Southerners who came asking for forgiveness. The Freedmen's Bureau, meanwhile, was trying to provide education and support using funds partly drawn from seized Confederate property, but it couldn't undo Johnson's policies on its own.

Groups like the Ku Klux Klan specifically targeted Black families who had managed to acquire land or build some kind of success, which explains a pattern of racial violence, like the Charleston massacre, that stretches far beyond this one era.

At the same time, the documentary showed something genuinely inspiring: the sheer commitment formerly enslaved people had to democracy itself. In the 1868 election, Grant ran against what the documentary called one of the most racist campaigns in U.S. history, complete with violence meant to stop Black men from voting in places like New Orleans, Georgia, and Louisiana. Despite that, every Southern state except Georgia and Louisiana voted for him. Within a decade of slavery's end, dozens of Black men were being elected to office themselves. That kind of rapid political transformation is almost unheard of in world history.

It's strange to think that some of the same tensions from this period, around race, rights, and who truly counts as an equal citizen, are still being worked out today.

Learning this made me realize Reconstruction isn't really history in the past-tense sense.

AI DISCLOSER; for this AI assisted assignment I used valued aid to do history research on my topic. After prompting the tool to do research based only on academic and other high-quality sources, I asked Claude to shape the material in the form of a script for an oral presentation of four minutes. I then asked Claude to shape the material in the form of a blog post of between 500 and 600 words. I edited the AI output for reliability. I also policed the linked sources for quality control. To the log post, I added visual elements and links to sources. I also made sure the paragraphs were short and in a personal style.

State v Man

 Sate v Man 1829 (in NC)

Case description:

State v. Mann (1829) is a North Carolina Supreme Court case involving a slave named Lydia, owned by
Elizabeth Jones but hired out for one year to a man named John Mann. During that year, Mann punished Lydia for some offense; when she tried to escape the punishment, he shot and wounded her. Mann was indicted and convicted at trial. On appeal, Judge Thomas Ruffin wrote the court's opinion, which became one of the most infamous rulings in American legal history for its stark declaration that a master's authority over a slave must be treated as absolute and beyond the reach of courts.

The Defense's Argument (Manns argument)

The jury instruction was legal error because it invented a "special property interest" that appears nowhere in statute or case law. The legislature had repeatedly shown it was willing to regulate the master-slave relationship — through travel passes, firearms restrictions, and runaway-capture rules — yet the only limit it ever placed on a master's or hirer's authority was the prohibition on killing. If lawmakers wanted to criminalize lesser harm, they could have written that law; they didn't. Since no such rule existed, the court had no authority to invent one through jury instructions — that's the legislature's job, not the court's. Mann, who held the same authority over Lydia for the year as an owner would, had no way of knowing a new standard would be applied to him after the fact. The whole system, this side argues, depends on absolute, unquestioned authority — any crack in that threatens to unravel it entirely.

My take: I find this side more persuasive. It's a straightforward separation-of-powers argument — courts shouldn't be inventing new rules mid-trial that didn't exist when the defendant acted. If the legislature wanted a different line, it had every chance to draw one.

Side Two: The Counterargument (Prosecution/State's Argument)

Lydia wasn't Mann's property — she was Elizabeth Jones's, and Mann held only a one-year lease. That distinction matters economically: a short-term lessee has every incentive to work an asset harder and preserve it less, since he has no long-term stake in her value or wellbeing. This isn't speculation — it's basic depreciation logic. 

The trial judge was economically correct to instruct the jury this way, because punishment is supposed to
be calibrated to the offense, not left totally unchecked. Jones, as true owner, has a right to sue over damage to her property — meaning the ruling isn't just about one injury, but about protecting the whole rental market for hired labor. And precedent already existed: State v. Hall recognized that while masters have power over slaves, that power has limits. Mann's treatment of Lydia went beyond ordinary punishment — he didn't just discipline her, he shot her.

The sixth value of the eight vaules of freedom.

The sixth value of the eight vaules of freedom.

The sixth value of free expression is called “Promote Tolerance” Here is a definition from The eight valus of free expression It has been argued that freedom of speech, especially through our  practice of extending protection to speech that we find hateful or personally upsetting, teaches us to become more tolerant in other aspects of life — and that a more tolerant society is a better society.

Somewhat counter-intuitive, the First Amendment protects hate speech because society learns valuable lessons from, including why it is hateful and worthy of condemnation. It’s how we spread norms about acceptable behavior.” To explain it more this value is all about that you still have your right of freedom of speech but adds that if it turns into hateful speech we can hear you out so us as a community can see other perspectives.  All of the eight value are verry valuble and help but i like this one because it help me people grow and not be stuck in their box of yes is yes and no is no but you try and go and push beyond that no point and get someone you didn't know was possible.

Out of the eight values this one stands out to me the most because I am a big believer in change and evolution and change is very beneficial not only to you as an individual but as a whole community. This value helps people grow and not only think one way is the right way, and to evolve and to branch out and to see the different way of life of different beliefs and other opinions. An example in current time would be Kanye who is a singer song writer and has become very famous over the years. 

Kanye is a great example of this value because he isn't like other celebrities who shy away from sharing their opinions about sensitive topics. Kanye has very controversial opinions and topics that he liked to share one of them being he stated "I see good things about Hitler." This statement being very controversial instead of getting punished by the government although the popularity definitely went down and he lost followers he still goes to state his opinion.This statement stated back in 2022 and is still a popular name and since then he has still had multiple different contorversal opinions that he has shared.  Kanye voiceing his opion.

The Amistad Rebellion of 1839

 The Amistad Rebellion of 1839

The Amistad case tells the story of a group of people who rose up, fought for their freedom, and ultimately
won it.

In 1839, a group of Africans were kidnapped from their homes in West Africa, in a place called Sierra Leone. They were captured by slave traders and taken across the ocean to Cuba. This was illegal, because Spain had already banned bringing new enslaved people over from Africa. But slave traders broke the law anyway.

In Cuba, two Spanish men named Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montes bought 53 of these Africans. They put them on a ship called La Amistad, which means "friendship" in Spanish. Kind of ironic, right? The plan was to take them to another part of Cuba to be sold again.

But the Africans weren't going to just accept this. One man, named Sengbe Pieh most people called him Cinque — found a way to break free from his chains. He helped free the others, and together they took over the ship. They fought back against the crew and took control.

Cinque told the two Spanish men to sail the ship back home to Africa. During the day, the Spanish men pretended to follow directions. But at night, they secretly steered the ship north instead, hoping someone

would rescue them. This went on for weeks. Finally, the ship ended up near Long Island, New York, way off course. A U.S. Navy ship found them and took everyone into custody.

Now here's where it turns into a huge court case. The Spanish government wanted the Africans sent back to Cuba as "property," to be punished or sold. But abolitionists — people who were against slavery — heard about the case and decided to help. They believed the Africans should be free, since they were kidnapped illegally in the first place.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1841. And here's a cool fact — a former President of the United States, John Quincy Adams, agreed to argue on behalf of the Africans. He was already retired from the presidency but still very involved in politics. He gave a long, passionate speech to the Supreme Court about why these people deserved to be free.

The Supreme Court agreed. They ruled that since the Africans had been kidnapped and enslaved illegally, they were not property — they were free people who had every right to defend themselves.

In 1841, the surviving Africans — about 35 of them — were finally able to sail back home to Sierra Leone.

The Amistad case is important because it showed that enslaved people could fight for their freedom and actually win in court. It also showed how divided the country already was over slavery, years before the Civil War. It's a powerful story about courage, justice, and standing up for what's right.

How the Bible supported Slavery and why.

How the Bible supported slavery.

In scripture (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2)

mentioned about slavery viewed in a positive way, and that owning a slave was seen as a normality. Abraham and Shara were going to Egypt because there was a famine when they arrived. The Egyptians praised shara for her looks and gifted with many wealthy possessions, one of them included enslaved men and women. Although this passage does not clearly state that the bible was all for slavery it still mentions slavery in a positive way saying it is a normality and a very valuable possession.

For a more direct part in the bible that refers to slavery being supported would be in (Exod 21:21). This part explains how if a slave owner abuses and hits a metal rod against their slave and their slave passes away it is the slave owner who gets punished. However if the slave owner strikes their slave and their slaves live two more days before dying then the slave owner doesn't get punished. This showed people in the late 18th and 19th century more in detail that it is ok to support slavery and that the bible supports you if you have a slave. The Bible told the people not only it is ok to have a slave but to abuse your slave until near death.

Bible Gateway

The bile is clear : God endores slavery

Courter Argument (done my Bianca Cruso)

The Bible has taught us that every human has the same equal values. What this means no one is better then anyone not matter their race, their gender, what religion they believe in, or where they have came from. the Bible teaches us one valuable lesson, we are all created in God's image. In Genesis 1:27 is says " God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him male and female He created them". 
Since everyone is created in God's image to him you skin race or religion, doesn't make you have any less value to Him.  The way slavery goes with this is idea is because it makes it seem like someone of color is any less. Slavery takes away all freedom and dignity.  In Gods every no one is better then anyone and we all deserve the same respect and freedom. In conclusion God wants everyone to be equal since he made us in his image.