16-2: This document was penned by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi. The intended audience of this document was the citizens of the state of Mississippi in 1865, specifically the former slaves. This document was crafted in order to continue enslaving black citizens, while disguising it in legalities. Negroes were given certain rights that weren’t afforded to them as slaves, such as marriages being legally recognized if pre-existing. Other examples include: Negroes were considered competent witnesses, they were able to learn a trade, and were able to own land. However, there were restrictions to these newfound rights: Interracial marriage was illegal; masters were allowed to use corporal punishment as they saw fit, and could seek out …show more content…
and bring back any apprentice who left without permission; and land owned by Negroes had to be within incorporated towns or cities. Restrictions were also made so that Negroes had a curfew, any Negroes who seemed to be homeless, or were not being cared for, were to be reassigned to “some competent and suitable person”, and any employment longer than a month had to be recorded in contract, which could not be nullified before expiration. This legislation came from a place of need for control. Southern states were forced to make slavery illegal, and so they created this legislation to reinstate slavery, without labelling it as such. For states like Mississippi, these kind of laws were their way of fighting reconstruction and maintaining their culture. Congress allowed the legislation to stand because they were focused on reconstruction and reincorporating the southern states, and shaping them to look more like the northern states. Also, because of the way the 14th Amendment was written, the federal government could only protect people from acts of the state. Thus, Negroes and their sympathizers faced terrorism for their views and culture, and these laws went unopposed. 17-5: Richard Pratt is the author of this article.
Pratt was a leader of a reform school for Indians in the late 1880’s, which were implemented to help “citizenize” young Indians. Pratt’s audience was the people throughout the south, and he spoke because he needed to persuade the people that it was better to bring young Indians to these schools and help integrate them into mainstream American society. Pratt made an effort to make it sound like they had previously been savages towards the Indians as they moved them onto reservations, and that these schools, and allowing their integration into society, would make up for those actions. In reality, it was a continuation of their savage actions, most easily seen when Pratt said, “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.” Essentially, Pratt wanted to kill a culture that is key to the history of the US. Pratt uses the history of the black population to back up his argument, construing it in such a way that it seems as if Americans rescued the black man from Africa and the poverty and savagery they faced there. Pratt then goes on to say that these schools would be a similar form of rescue for the Indian population. Pratt said that Indians are born equal to everyone else, and that by educating them, they will adjust their behavior accordingly and solve the problem without much effort. Pratt very effectively constructed his argument to put Americans into a positive light as the liberator. This was important to the effectiveness of
his speech, because he knew that not everyone agreed with him and that some could see why destroying this culture would be devastating. The difference between this experience and what happened with African Americans is that citizens saw Indians as more of an equal, and so people were more willing to allow them into society. Even today, there is less racism towards Indians than African Americans. However, they very nearly eliminated the Indian culture, and Indians today still hold lots of resentment about the actions of this country towards them in the past.
... and Social Care." Chap. III, In Slavery in Mississippi. 2nd ed., 45. Gloucester, Massachusetts: University of Mississippi.
The Mississippi Black Codes document of 1865 was presented to us by Walter L. Fleming, who was a historian who dealt with the south and more specifically the reconstruction era. He was targeting future historians who were studying this era. He nearly states the pros and cons of what the Mississippi Black Codes asked of their citizens. There were several things in the document that interested me in what history was at this time period. On the other hand, there were parts of the amendments to the government which I found very unethical with my present-day mindset. I realize such times were different, but it still made me sick to my stomach that “Freedmen, Free Negroes, and Mulattoes” were treated very differently than the ways such as whites were treated. The author breaks down the documents into different sections of the reconstruction plan. At first, he starts out talking about vagrant laws, which stated that the newly emancipated citizens had special laws that pertained to them. They were treated like animals that were forced to work if they did not have ownership of property. If they couldn’t hold down a job, on the second
Talking Back to Civilization: Indian Voices from the Progressive Era edited by Frederick E. Hoxie is a book which begins with an introduction into the life of Charles Eastman and a brief overview of the history of Native Americans and their fight for justice and equal rights, it then continues by describing the different ways and avenues of speaking for Indian rights and what the activists did. This leads logically into the primary sources which “talk back” to the society which had overrun their own. The primary sources immerse the reader into another way of thinking and cause them to realize what our societal growth and even foundation has caused to those who were the true natives. The primary sources also expand on the main themes of the book which are outlines in the introduction. They are first and most importantly talking back to the “pale faces”, Indian education, religion, American Indian policy, the image of the Indians presented in America. The other chapters in the book further expanded on these ideas. These themes will be further discussed in the following chapters along with a review of this
The Dawes Allotment Act of 1887 brought about the policy of Cultural Assimilation for the Native American peoples. Headed by Richard Henry Pratt, it founded several Residential Schools for the re-education and civilization of Native Americans. Children from various tribes and several reservations were removed from their families with the goal of being taught how to be c...
In A Narrative of a Post-Civil War Visit to Gowrie and East Hermitage Plantations, Louis Manigault shows a totally different point of view from the other documents. In which, he presents that apparently he had a peaceful relationship with his slaves. “They all seemed pleased to see me, calling me "Maussa" the Men still showing respect by taking off their caps” (Manigault). He shows some changes that in his belief the blacks were in a better situation before than after Civil War. “I am of opinion that very many Negroes are most unhappy in their changed condition, but this however they do not care to admit” (Manigault). But in reality, either way there were being abused, or through slavery or through “contracts”.
Turner pointed out several key areas in his thesis that he indicated were absolutes do to the frontier. The first of these was “composite nationality” , which by definition according to Turner’s understanding was, “he (Turner) saw the Native American as a line of savagery…Assimilation could not, according to logic, cope with the presence of the Native American whose customs, were too alien, too different, to become merged into the American self. This implies that the Native American had no other choice than to give in to the demands of the American government or face the consequences if the failed to comply. Hine and Faragher show that the Native American Indian was forced from their homes more than once during the early part of the 19th century because of “manifest destiny”. Those in the United States government who enforced these rules demanded that the country be turned over to the Americans without question because of their supposed superiority over them. David Nichols points out in his article. Civilization Over Savage: Frederick Jackson Turner and The Indian, that Turner’s reference’s the Indians as “public domain” and the disposition of that them by the first frontier. The conclusions that the Native American Indians were nothing more than public domain that needed to be done away with makes me question his bias towards the American Indians as
In 1887 the federal government launched boarding schools designed to remove young Indians from their homes and families in reservations and Richard Pratt –the leader of Carlisle Indian School –declared, “citizenize” them. Richard Pratt’s “Kill the Indian… and save the man” was a speech to a group of reformers in 1892 describing the vices of reservations and the virtues of schooling that would bring young Native Americans into the mainstream of American society.
In a like manner, the spirit of slavery still existed in southern states. In Henry Adams’ statement to the Senate, concerning his first few days of freedom (Doc C), he emphasizes his slave-like treatment with a reference to his travels to Shreveport where he was beaten for saying that he belonged to no one. Likewise, Black Codes (Doc B) passed in Southern states restricted the actions of black Americans within a town or state. Although these would eventually be overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868 (Doc A), it further demonstrates the lack of freedom that free slaves had during Reconstruction. Conversely, black Americans were granted all the rights of a white citizen. The 14th and 15th amendment to the United States Constitution(Doc A) states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens of the United States… no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens...the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged…” This meant that black Americans now had freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, and freedom to
Unfortunately, this great relationship that was built between the natives and the colonists of mutual respect and gain was coming to a screeching halt. In the start of the 1830s, the United States government began to realize it’s newfound strength and stability. It was decided that the nation had new and growing needs and aspirations, one of these being the idea of “Manifest Destiny”. Its continuous growth in population began to require much more resources and ultimately, land. The government started off as simply bargaining and persuading the Indian tribes to push west from their homeland. The Indians began to disagree and peacefully object and fight back. The United States government then felt they had no other option but to use force. In Indian Removal Act was signed by Andrew Jackson on May 18, 1830. This ultimately resulted in the relocation of the Eastern tribes out west, even as far as to the edge of the Great Plains. A copy of this act is laid out for you in the book, Th...
It should be noted that the Declaration of Independence made it clear that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although this progressive view was shared by many of the members of the Constitutional Convention, it is clear that the original text of the American Constitution is rather pro-slavery and up to a certain point protects the slave-owners. It is of utmost importance to note that the words slavery/slave are not used in the text of the Constitution.
It was 1865, black men were tasting freedom, the confederation was defeated, the south was defeated but the unchained blacks had no real freedom. "A man maybe free and yet not independent," Mississippi planter Sammuel Agnew observed in his diary (Foner 481). This same year General Sherman issued the Special Field Order 15, in attempt to provide land for the ex-slaves. There was 40 acres of land and a mule waiting for the emancipated slaves, this gave hope for an economic development among blacks' communities. The Special Field Order 15 put all the land under federal control acquired by the government during the war to use for the homestead of the blacks. Even thought the offer of land some slave fled ...
By enforcing the Indian Removal Act, America was questioned as a democratic country. Was independence a top priority in America or was it for a select group? Americans thought of independence as for certain people and this included the white settlers. Not the Native Americans or the blacks. It also questions what America would pay for human expansion. The answer ended up being any cost except a cost that would have included the settlers. Native Americans, Blacks, and whoever else could pay the price for the expansion. Native Americans did by being forced from their lands. Blacks did by them being used for labor and put into slavery. The United States forced and tricked tribes to sell their lands and move west.
In order to understand the lack of morality on the part of the United States, the actions taken by the group in favor of removing the Indians and their opponents needs examining. The seeds of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 are rooted in colonial times and continued to grow during the early years of the American republic. To comprehend this momentous tragedy we must first examine the historical background of the Indian '"'problem'"' and seek rationale for the American government"'"s actions. This includes looking at the men who politically justified the expulsion of the Cherokee nation and those who argued against it.
“Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race.”
The four authors all took very different approaches in their study of American slavery and its development. As would be expected, each of them, being different people, had their own arguments and their own evidence to support said arguments which were largely slanted by the perspectives through which they chose to study the subject. But that is not uncommon in the study of history for each student of the subject brings along their own world views, ideas, and schemas meaning it is very unlikely for any two people to share the exact same view, as demonstrated by the varying ones of these authors .