Reaction post

 Reaction Post 

I learned several important facts from Francesca's case study on State v. Mann that I had never heard of. She began by asking that the Court use the economic logic that one Justice used rather than making a moral choice in this case. That caught my interest because this case is based on someone else's moral opinion. 

Her first argument analyzed a really smart part of the case that, before she raised it, I hadn't ever thought about.  According to her, a slave is owned by someone and can be used anyway that person wishes.  Since the slave was an investment, they would simply be responsible for carrying the loss if they killed the slave. However, as Mr. Mann did not own the slave he hurt, it was not his property, and he refused to accept the loss. Instead, Elizabeth Jones, the owner, did.

In her next argument, she points out that slave owners who gave away their slaves to those who were in need used to think about this. This suggests that a safeguard for such a risk was already in place by the market. Furthermore, she told the Court that in the event that the contract failed, it should not eliminate this protection. 

Her fifth point, in my view, was something to take into account.  This specific instance would serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future. 

This means that every subsequent case will follow the same conclusion if the Court decides to drop the claim that a hirer murdered a slave. This is ridiculous because it gives the hirer the same level of immunity as the slave's real owner. 

In closing, Francesca stated that clear differentiation between the hirer's and the owner's capabilities would result from an appropriate use of economic thinking.

EOTO Reaction

 EOTO Reaction 

I was especially interested in this week's EOTOs because they all featured stories that I had actually never heard of before. Francesca began by giving a talk about a post-slavery relief project called "Forty Acres and a Mule." In order to decide what to do with almost 400,000 acres of Confederate coastal land, General William Tecumseh Sherman met with twenty Black clergymen in Georgia in 1865. This was the beginning of the effort.

It didn't last, of course. By late 1865, Andrew Johnson had nearly immediately reversed the order after Lincoln was slain and he became the president. Tens of thousands of African Americans were compelled to return to their former enslavers' plantations as sharecroppers so as to pay off debts they never should have owed in the first place after that one decision stripped them of the land they had just settled on.

I learned about the first African American senator, Hiram Rhodes Revels, and representative, Joseph Hayne Rainey, from Preston's talk. One thing that most shocked me was that both of them eventually left those historic roles to return to regular jobs: Rainey came back to banking, while Revels went back to teaching.

, which was founded in 1865, was the topic of Rilo's talk. It supplied food, education, and other basics to roughly four million former slaves. Unfortunately, it was never sufficiently backed and finally closed, just like a lot of other things from this era.

Heat of the night

 Heat Of The Night 

I expected In the Heat of the Night to be a simple crime story, but instead of focusing on the murder mystery itself, I ended up thinking more about racism, pride, and power. The story stays with me because, in my opinion, the plot is really a platform for a much deeper conversation.

Without a doubt, the character that most connected with me was Virgil Tibbs. He is smart, composed, and totally unable to change who he is in order to please those around him. I was impressed by the fact that he never raises his voice to make a point. The hatred aimed against him seems unbelievable because of his expertise, which speaks for itself. I discovered that I was rooting for him because of his brilliance and self-control, not because the script needed it.

Reactions to Gillespie are more complex.  To be honest, I didn't like him at first. He is defensive, quick to pass judgment, and plainly uneasy about the possibility that a Black detective is more informed than he is. However, I liked that the story does not readily free him. By the end, I like how the story used him to show that change is possible, even if it's slow and reluctant. His growth felt earned rather than rushed.

To be honest, the setting practically has a character of its own. I was actually uncomfortable watching because of the mood created by the heat, tension, and lack of trust in every conversation. I believe the discomfort was intentional, and it had what I wanted on me.

The story's refusal to provide simple solutions is what I valued most. It would have been easy to make Gillespie a complete villain or a fully forgiven ally, but I thought it was more honest for him to stay in the middle. The fact that Tibbs is never reduced to a symbol also spoke to me. Despite prejudice in his surroundings, he has a unique sense of self, weaknesses, and frustrations.

If I had one critique, it would be that, in comparison to Tibbs and Gillespie, a few of the secondary characters seemed a bit weak.  Beyond how the locals respond to Tibbs' presence, I was interested in finding out more about them. However, I don't believe that takes away from the main plot.

By the end, I was interested more in how Tibbs and Gillespie traveled through the same town than in who had done the crime. I recommend it to anyone who is prepared to sit with some discomfort while reading because that contrast is truly the core of the story.

Final

 Summer advantage 

I wasn't sure what to expect when I was going to be at High point university for four weeks in the summer before I actually started my freshman year in the fall. At the end of this it taught me what most incoming freshman don't know. Before all the stress of multiple class and more work, this taught me how to manage my time, being away from home, and know my way around campus. By the time I am officially here I will already know how to do all of that. 

DIS1000 which brought our class together because we were all together everyday five days a week. We quickly went from strangers to friends when we were all able to see each other around campus and be with each other everyday. As the weeks passed, people were more comfortable speaking up and debating with one another which led to better conversations. 

I found the topic of freedom and law to be the most difficult in this class. Instead of simply talking about the 14th amendment in general, we worked through multiple trials to apply the ideas of equal protection and due process to an actual cases. I found out how much thought goes into every court decision by creating arguments, and looking into the evidence. 

We also watched gone with the wind and Heat of the night to bring these ideas into our imagination. Comparing two films made it clear to me how much the country has changed and how much more it needs to still needs to change. 

Academic achievement was important, but so was personal development. This was the first major period of time I had lived alone, and it made me take responsibilites that I had never dealt with previously, like scheduling my own time or just getting to class, At first, it appeared weird, but by the end it felt normal, and I left much more independent than when I first arrived. 

Living here for the past four weeks has made me develop as a person. I was able to get out of my own bubble and get out my comfort zone and meet others. Being on my own pushed me to make friends more quickly than I ever would have. I made so many friends within these past four weeks thanks to summer advantage. Being here they encourage you to talk to everyone and get to know campus. I now have people that I can trust and already have a head start before everyone arrives. I am truly so great for summer advantage for all the experiences that it gave me. 

March on Washington in jobs of freedom

The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom: A Turning Point in American History

On August 28, 1963, more than 200,000 people gathered on the National Mall for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, one of the largest political demonstrations in United States history. Organized by a coalition of civil rights, labor, and religious groups, the march called on Congress to address racial discrimination and economic inequality facing Black Americans.

The event's roots stretch back to 1941, when labor leader A. Philip Randolph first proposed a march to protest the exclusion of Black workers from defense industry jobs. According to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, the idea resurfaced in 1963 as high unemployment, low wages, and persistent segregation pushed civil rights leaders toward a coordinated national demonstration. By that year, the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation, many of the goals from earlier protests, including the 1957 Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom, still had not been realized.

Randolph, along with Bayard Rustin, who managed the event's logistics, brought together major organizations including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Congress of Racial Equality, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Their demands, outlined in the official program held by the National Archives, included fair employment practices, an increased minimum wage, and passage of meaningful civil rights legislation. Demonstrators also called for an end to discrimination in housing, education, and public accommodations.

The march is best remembered for Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Yet the day also featured performances by Mahalia Jackson, Joan Baez, and the folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary, along with remarks from labor and religious leaders representing a broad cross-section of American society. Actress and activist Ruby Dee, together with her husband Ossie Davis, emceed the program.

Estimates of attendance vary slightly across sources, but the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department reported that by 3 p.m., roughly 210,000 people had gathered at the rally, a figure detailed in a Congressional Research Service fact sheet published through the Library of Congress. National and international press outlets covered the event extensively, bringing global attention to the American civil rights struggle.

While the march did not immediately produce new legislation, it is widely credited with reshaping public opinion and building momentum toward the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. More than sixty years later, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom remains a defining symbol of nonviolent protest and democratic participation in America, continuing to inform discussions of racial and economic justice today.

Ai disclosure: For this blog post I used Claude AI. I used it to do historical research on the Washington March, After promoting the tool to do research based only on academic and other high quality sources, I asked Claude to make it 300 to 400 words. I shaped the Ai for making it readable, I also added reliable links and made the paragraphs for but professional 

Gone with the wind

 Gone with the wind 

This past week I sat down with my class and watched with gone with the wind, and finally understood why it is such a popular movie. I thought it would be an old fashion, slow type of movie, but it was much more than I expected. 

There is a lot about Scarlett O'Hare , she is spoiled, but mart. She is used to getting what she wants. At first I thought she was very annoying.  The more I watched, the more I liked her determination. She doesn't care what people think about her, which is surprising for a woman in that era. At the end of it I did come to like her and who she was as a person. 

Next is Ashley Wilkes, to me he was kinda just there, boring. He didn't seem like a person with much personality to him but more like a gentleman. I do get Scarletts obsession with him in the beginning of the movie. I could tell though her feeling for him wasn't because of his true character but because she likes the idea of him. 

Rhett Butler was definitely my favorite .  I personally think that every time he came onto the screen the movie would get better. My favorite part of him was his humor, he was always sarcastic which I relate to. He never cares about the rules of the South. Rhett was the type of person to do what he wants and say what everyone else was thinking. 

I did really like Melanie. She is much stronger than everyone thinks she is. She's a nice person but not stupid. I feel as the story goes she will be more important to the story. 

I do have very mixed feeling about the movie. For the time is was being filmed it was really good, my favorite part was when Atlanta was on fire. But in some parts of the movie it was slow and a little boring, I found it difficult to see how the film skips over slavery and sorta romanticized life on a plantation. 

The first half attention was on how each character's reaction of their world falling apart instead of the Civil war itself, that really stood out to me. Scarlett won't admit that anything is changing. Ashley is upset about everything. Rhett already knows what is going to happen. Melanie just takes it in with being quiet. 

By the end of the movie I was more interested in the characters than the actual war itself. I'm interested to see if Scarlett ever grows up or just becomes more stubborn. Rhett is the one one being honest with everyone and I hope to see him get some credit for thinking in the reality and not the expectation. 

8 values

Market place of ideas 

What does it mean?

The idea of the market place of idea says what is the best way to find the truth and its not through control or authority saying what is right, but by a debate between different point if views.  This all began with philosopher John Stuart Mill and was made popular in American law, which believed  the best way of the trust is to stand up to criticism and still be accepted in the free market. 

Actually, this means letting both good and bad opinions be talked about in public. Based on the theory the best ideas will naturally come out when people speak freely. 

what does this mean to me?

When I think about the market place of ideas I don't think of a court room or anything with the law, because sometimes in those setting you can't truly debate how you feel and what your truth is. When I think off the market place of ideas I think of something such as walking around town with some friends because no one is telling them what is right and what's wrong of what their discussion is. 

To me this value is more about protecting the process itself than protecting ideas that I agree with. If I hear and argument with opinions I don't agree with, or that is offensive to someone and they were hurt by the comment. I have to realize I can't stay silent but try and see why those people feel that way, and try to reason with them. 

My opinion

I personally think the Market Place of Ideas is one of the most important values.Yes the idea of letting the best idea win, but in reality not everyone has the same resources or platform when they enter the market. A correction that means no harm won't spread as quickly as a lie.

Still, I don't believe giving up on an idea is the answer. In my opinion you should take the debate seriously enough to participate in it, This includes confirming information before telling anyone, listing to the other point of view and having an open mind. 

Why does it matter?

This value matters to me because it acts as a reminder that the right to freedom of speech is not only expression. It is the ability to pay attention and participate. The marketplace only works if its members are willing to challenges and listen to others point of view rather then just yell at each other. 

I believe That protecting this is still important because in this society that we live in there is more false information then there has ever been.  The chaos of debate seem to be more risky than another option, which is to allow some to have their own ideas, because in society everyone thinks they have to have the same opinion. 

Is the Bible for or against slavery

 the Bible 

Done by Bianca Caruso 

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. 

                

https://www.str.org/w/is-the-bible-pro-slavery

Done by Giuliana Antoaccio 

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

Plessy V Ferguson Mock Trial

Plessy v Ferguson 

In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Louisiana's Separate Car Act in Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregated train cars did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as the accommodations were "equal." Homer Plessy's attorney, Albion Tourgée, built his case on constitutional grounds — arguing that segregation branded Black citizens with a badge of inferiority under the law. It was a strong argument. But it was not the only one available in 1896.

A second argument existed, one rooted not in the Fourteenth Amendment but in scripture — and it deserved a hearing.

One blood, one origin

The most quoted verse among 19th-century reformers was Acts 17:26: "God hath made of one blood all nations of men." Not two bloods. Not a hierarchy of bloods. One. If the Almighty created a single lineage for every nation, then a state legislature drawing a line between train cars was not simply regulating commerce — it was overruling an order scripture already considered settled.

This was not a fringe reading. Abolitionist ministers had leaned on it for decades, and by the 1890s it remained a familiar refrain in Black churches and reform pamphlets responding to Jim Crow.

Made in the same image

Genesis 1:27 held that man was made in the image of God — without qualification by race. A partition wall between train cars did more than inconvenience a traveler. It implied that one image of the Creator was too impure to sit beside another. That reframes segregation as more than a civil injury. It becomes a theological one, aimed at the Creator as much as at the passenger.

The Golden Rule as a legal test

The Golden Rule — do unto others as you would have them do unto you — was treated in 19th-century religious rhetoric as more than private virtue. It functioned as a test for whether a law was truly just: would its authors accept it if the races were reversed? A law that fails that test is not principle. It is convenience wearing the language of order.

The state's argument, turned against itself

Louisiana defended the Act as protection for public morals. But segregationist logic collapsed under its own contradictions. Black domestic workers nursed white children, cooked in white kitchens, and were trusted with the most intimate cares of white households daily — the very "danger" the law claimed to guard against was already living inside it. What the law protected was not virtue. It was pride, and pride was no Christian virtue at all.

Why this argument matters

Figures like Frederick Douglass and Senator Charles Sumner routinely fused scripture with civil rights argument, treating caste as a sin against divine equality rather than merely a legal wrong. That tradition offers something the constitutional argument alone could not: a claim that segregation offended not just the law of the land, but the order of creation itself.

The Supreme Court in 1896 was never asked to weigh that argument. It is worth imagining what might have happened if it had been.

AI disclosure: For this ai assisted assignment, I used Claude AI to do a Historical research on my topic. After shaping 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 blog post between 500 and 600 words. I edited the AI output for readability. To the blog post, I added link to sources I also made sure the paragraphs were short and in a professional style. 

EOTO trial

 

EOTO Slavery mock trial 

John Mann was a slave owner and Lidia was a slave. She became aggressive one day she was angry and upset one day and try to run away and John Mann  shot her in the back and she was only wounded. He was tried on a murder trial and only was fined 10 dollars he appealed and lost and now appealed to this court of north Carolina the appeal was that the 10 dollar fine was injustice. 

The state of North Carolina argues that even though he didn't kill her he physically hurt her and that was enough. Say that the way he handled her behavior was enough to fine him. We cannot have a system where there are no rules. 

Mann was not the slave owner but just a renter and does not have that power over Lidia, Ms. Jones was the owner and had all the power. With that he destroyed her property also. 

The defendants argue for John Mann. Under a binding contract he rented out the slave for a year, and because of that contract he does have that ownership.

If North Carolina had a book of law where they would write this law where it would say “ you can’t harm a slave” but in the end it only says you can’t kill a slave. There is no exception to this law and only asking to give a reasonable punishment.

 What I found interesting about this case is that the only Law was you can't kill a slave, when I thought it was illegal to any harm since you pay for them. I also found interesting is that you can rent and have a contract between a slave, 

Town hall mock trial

 

Elizabeth Cady Staton 

Friends and neighbors — I thank you for the chance to speak plainly tonight on the great question before this nation.

I have spent the better part of twenty years in the company of abolitionists. My own husband, Henry Stanton, gave his youth to this cause. On our wedding journey to England in 1840, we sat among the delegates of the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London — and there I watched the men of that convention vote to silence the women in attendance, myself and my dear friend Lucretia Mott among them, forcing us behind a curtain as though our sex made our convictions less real. 

That day taught me something I have never forgotten: that the chains binding the slave and the chains binding the woman are forged of the same metal — the belief that some human beings may rightly govern others without their consent.

Do not mistake me. I do not say the slave's condition and the condition of a free white woman are identical — they are not. The slave's suffering is a deeper wound, sanctioned by whip and by auction block, by the tearing of mother from child.

 I have written of the trembling girl sold on a New Orleans block, of masters who violate the plainest laws of God while calling themselves Christian men. There is no crime in the whole of history more brazen than this — the selling of human souls for gain, upheld by the very Constitution that calls itself a charter of liberty.

I say to this meeting what I have said before the Judiciary Committee of our own state legislature: there are rights that belong to a person simply because they are a person — not because government grants them. No law, however old, however wrapped in the language of property, can make right what nature declares wrong. If the law says a man may own his brother, then the law itself stands guilty before a higher bench than ours.

Some of you will say: this is not women's business; leave the slave question to the men. I answer: I have signed my name to petitions, gathered by the tens of thousands through our Women's Loyal National League, asking Congress for a constitutional amendment to strike slavery from this land entirely. Women without the vote have still found a voice — through the petition, through the pen, through the pulpit and the platform. We will not be silent while human beings are bought and sold a few hundred miles from where we sit comfortably tonight.

And to those who invoke Scripture in slavery's defense, I say: go back to Sinai. "Thou shalt not steal" was not written with an exception for a man's labor or a woman's body. "Thou shalt not covet" did not carve out human beings as property. If we mean to call ourselves a Christian nation, let us apply the Commandments in their fullest, highest sense — to every soul, not merely to those of one color or one sex.

I do not ask this meeting for charity toward the slave. I ask for justice — the plain, unadorned justice that any of us would demand were the chains upon our own wrists. History will not judge kindly those who, having the power to speak, chose silence instead.

I thank you for your attention, and I ask you to carry this question home with you tonight: what will you do, while it is still in your power to do something?

1. "A Slave's Appeal" (1860), address to the NY Judiciary Committee — BlackPast.org transcription: https://blackpast.org/african-american-history/1860-elizabeth-cady-stanton-slaves-appeal/

2. Wycliffe College blog on Stanton's 1860 "The Slave's Appeal" pamphlet and her use of the Ten Commandments (includes her Sinai/biblical rhetoric): https://www.wycliffecollege.ca/blog/elizabeth-cady-stanton-taking-stand-against-slavery-and-against-racial-equality

3. Wikipedia biography (World Anti-Slavery Convention 1840, "A Slave's Appeal" pamphlet, Women's Loyal National League petition drive of ~400,000 signatures): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cady_Stanton

4. Library of Congress — Elizabeth Cady Stanton Papers, collection overview: https://www.loc.gov/collections/elizabeth-cady-stanton-papers/about-this-collection/

5. National Women's History Museum biography: https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/elizabeth-cady-stanton

6. American Battlefield Trust biography (Women's Loyal National League, 1861 abolitionist lecture tour): https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/elizabeth-cady-stanton

7. Schlager Group summary of her May 1860 "Speech for the Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society": https://library.schlagergroup.com/chapter/9781961844087-book-part-079

8. Alan Singer teaching document packet with primary-source excerpts (1860–1865): https://alansinger.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/a33.-elizabet.-cady-stanton.pdf

Ai Disclosure: For this assignment I used Claude ai to generate me a script of Elizabeth Cody Staton. I asked Claude to give me factual and academic information, and things she has said I asked Claude to give short but professional paragraphs. To the blog post I added link sources. 

Anti slavery society

                                                Anti slavery society 

The Anti-Slavery Society: Origins, Evolution, and Legacy

Introduction

The term "Anti-Slavery Society" refers not to one static organization but to a lineage of British abolitionist bodies spanning more than two centuries. Examining this lineage clarifies how the antislavery movement shifted from a narrow campaign against the transatlantic slave trade into a permanent international human rights institution, now operating as Anti-Slavery International.

Origins in the Slave Trade Debate

The earliest predecessor was the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, founded in 1787 by twelve men, nine of whom were Quakers, including the prominent campaigner Thomas Clarkson. Its singular objective was ending Britain's participation in the transatlantic slave trade rather than abolishing slavery itself. This effort culminated in the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which outlawed the trade across the British Empire but left the legal status of already-enslaved people unchanged, as documented in accounts of abolitionism in the United Kingdom.

The 1823 Society and Emancipation

Recognizing that banning the trade had not freed anyone, reformers convened in London in January 1823 to form the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of Slavery Throughout the British Dominions, commonly known as the Anti-Slavery Society. According to its historical record, many founders had prior antislavery involvement and were motivated by an evangelical Christian revival then influencing both Anglican and dissenting communities. The society's advocacy contributed to the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which ended slavery across most of the empire by 1838, with Trinidad completing emancipation first. Parliament compensated slave owners with roughly £20 million but offered no equivalent compensation to the formerly enslaved. Having achieved its founding purpose, the society dissolved in 1838.

Toward a Global Mission

British abolitionists soon concluded that domestic emancipation left a larger problem unresolved: slavery persisted worldwide. Under Quaker activist Joseph Sturge, the Agency Committee founded the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society on April 17, 1839, with an explicit mandate to pursue the "universal extinction of slavery and the slave trade," per the Wikipedia history of the organization. One of its first major initiatives was the World Anti-Slavery Convention, held in London in June 1840. As detailed in accounts of the convention, organizers excluded women delegates from full participation, a decision that pushed attendees Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton toward organizing the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention, linking antislavery activism directly to the origins of the American women's suffrage movement.

Twentieth-Century Continuity

The society's international focus persisted well beyond the Victorian era. It merged with the Aborigines' Protection Society in 1909 and, after World War II, campaigned against continued slavery in the Arabian Peninsula, publicizing Saudi Arabia's role in ongoing chattel slavery at the United Nations, despite resistance from British and American officials wary of straining alliances, as noted in the organization's own historical account. Through subsequent renamings, the organization became Anti-Slavery International in the 1990s, describing itself as the world's oldest international human rights organization and estimating that approximately 40 million people remain in modern slavery today, according to its official website.

Conclusion

The recurring reorganization of antislavery societies reflects a broader pattern in reform movements: each legal victory revealed a narrower, still-urgent problem rather than a completed mission. From ending the slave trade, to abolishing slavery within the British Empire, to pursuing global abolition, this lineage demonstrates that institutional persistence—not a single triumphant moment—has defined the antislavery movement's lasting impact.

Works Cited

• "Anti-Slavery Society (1823–1838)." Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavery_Society_(1823–1838)
• "Anti-Slavery International." Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavery_International
• "World Anti-Slavery Convention." Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Anti-Slavery_Convention
• "Abolitionism in the United Kingdom." Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_Kingdom
• Anti-Slavery International. "Help Us Finish What We Started." antislavery.org/180-2/

AI disclosure: for this ai assisted assignment, I used claude ai to do historical 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 blog post between 500 and 600 words. I edited the Ai output for readability, I also picked the limited sources  for quality. To the blog post, I added links to sources I also made sure the paragraphs were short and in a professional style.

Supreme Court Reflection

            

                                  What is the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court is the highest court in our country, which means they have the final say on any of the proposed laws, and are the last people you can go to in the court system trying to get justice. Their Job is to make sure the laws align with the United States constitution. 

 The Supreme Court has 9 justices, there is the one chef justice which is Clarance Thomas, the you have 8 associate justices. These judges serve for life or till they resign. there have only been 100 members for the past 16 years . when one dies or resins it is the presidents Job to appoint them as a member.

  One of their jobs is to see if the Law is constitutional.  Most of the time the cases are resolved before it does reach the Supreme Court. every year over 7,000 people try to have the Supreme Court hear their cases, but only 100 actually get heard. If they think the case does not fit the constitution  the can not be enforced. 

Why does it matter 

  Since the Supreme Court s the high-test jurisdiction in the United States, I think its very important to us because even though we never go to the Supreme Court directly, their decisions can effect our day to say lives.  I feel like the Supreme Court is important because they help protect the peoples rights and keeps the other branches from being too powerful. 

Why is it controversial?

The Supreme Court could be controversial because not everyone one will agree with the Laws they put in order, the laws they do put in order affects us tremendously such as making a major decision such as abortion, gun rights , and so much more rights that we have. Another controversial thing is the president choosing one of the justices. When the president chooses he's goin g to chose someone from his party which half of the people will be upset with because most don't agree with the President. 

In conclusion even though the Supreme Court could be controversial I still think they are very important because they help us keep our rights and give us laws that are beneficial to us.