Causes of the Civil War

In the early eighteen hundreds the united states was clearly divided into two sections. There were northern states that were considered the free states, and the southern states which were considered the slave states. In the north there were no slave owners but that does not mean they are all against slavery. The smaller companies in the north were benefiting from slavery because, they were receiving their crops thats could not be grown in the north. Cotton was a huge crop that directly profited northern companies. Some of the northerners did not want to abolish slavery because they could see the economical benefits from it. The majority of northerners hated it and talked and wrote about the inhuman side of it and how it must be put to an end. They talked about how bad it makes our country look and how brutal it is to treat these people like this.

In the south life was very different, most of the money was generated from agriculture. Most of the southerners were farmers and slave owners. The south needed a lot of land to make the cotton. Since cotton production was so big the south needed the slaves to keep up with the supply and demand.  

Southern slavery was brutal and deadly. It was not uncommon for slaves to work from dawn to dusk, and then do their cleaning and cooking on there own. Frederick Douglass once said, “To be accused was to be convicted and to be convicted was to be punished”. The vast majority of African Americans lived and died as slaves. The slaves resisted slavery in many ways, they would break tools, burn down houses or try and even kill their owners. Since the slaves started to revolt and fight back, other slaves started to catch on and also would revolt. The white southerners started to become scared of their slaves, they were nervous that the slaves could fight back at any time.

The abolitionist movement quickly progressed in the north. They started constructing the underground railroad which was designed for slaves to escape from the south to the north.

In the eyes of the southerners, the abolitionists had the wrong idea about them. Southerners defended slavery because they were so heavily invested in it, and the vast majority of their income was directly generated from slaves. They not only said that it made their economy better but they were also saying that slaves made the overall country better. The south felt that they were doing a good thing because they were building the country up for the better. They even thought that they were helping the African Americans.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUAD3LucjvCF89Ku5PiGYJrHaUCxz6udX2ksmePEQTRAuY3tueifcNikddRgEbqD6s49isme8NvV36xEJ3Mo_mynTLeMUSp14-6btP8Lp6YB-hdPHt9eWAe0kglN99aCZCAmZ-sf6bJ8E/s400/confederate+american_to_rebel_flag__71969.1339393323.1280.1280+kootation+com.jpg

With the country growing rapidly and new states being added very often, the balance of slave and free states was threatened to be corrupted. In the Kansas Nebraska act of 1854 congress let the people decide whether they would be a slave or a free state. This was not a smart idea because all the people had different views on slavery, which caused a lot of fighting and killing.

When Dred Scott lost the case the Supreme Court decided that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, the reason its not constitutional is because it does not allow people to decide whether they want slavery or not. This caused all the laws and rights that held the country so close together to go right out the window. Since this meant the people could choose it just began to cause madness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blNSI2taJr0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OICSXYMB7M

Judge Rejects New York's Stop-and-Frisk Policy

A federal judge that recently discovered that the New York Police Department has been violating citizens constitutional rights. The Officers have a Policy called the Stop-and-Frisk which allows them to search citizens because of suspicious activity. The Police say that "this practice has saved many lives of young black and hispanic men by removing thousands of guns from the streets. The only problem was that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the police resorted to a "policy of indirect racial profiling". The judge believed that the officers were only routinely stopping blacks and hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHstKi0nCJTEA5w_PcFi0oL36vSN-FGdemXcZ8dl5JdztwWeI4A_IXKruqKVcWohYyh7ox1T4ztyJmvi61av7isVqGBxoOqpy0aa_6a-OO8IL9wvYHCXXCOID9ofehuR0t4oA6evTbifI/s640/vehicle-search1-resized-600.jpg

Judge Scheindlin eventually decided that the stops that were being conducted by the police department, had complete disregard for the citizens fourth amendment rights. This amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The searches were also technically in violation of their fourteenth amendment rights to which is, equal protection clause. Since the police department violated constitutional law the Stop-and-Frisk Policy was rejected.

The New York Police Department was not off the hook yet. Judge Scheindlin was not convinced just yet so she ordered a number of remedies. She ordered that there would be a new pilot program launching. This pilot will consist of officers in at least five precincts who will wear cameras on their bodies to record street encounters. She also ordered a "joint remedial process", which means a "series of community meetings to solicit public comments on how to reform the department's tactics". I believe this to be a good policy because it gives people a real look into how the police do their job. It offers a checks and balances approach to making sure people's rights are no longer violated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?pagewanted=all

Mock Trial State V Mann

In 1829 there was a case that concerned a slave and a slave owner named Mr. John Mann ended up shooting the slave because she tried to run away. He did not kill the slave but, he only rented the slave from Elizabeth Jones, who owns the rights of the slave, he was fined 10$ because he was not the direct owner. Mann decides that he wants to fight the ten dollar fine, because he thinks that if he was renting the slave then he is the owner at that time. If he is correct then he would have the rights to shoot her.

The Problem with the court is that they are not allowed to interfere with the slave owners conduct. It states that the slave owner has absolute power over the slave. The court didn't see that the contract transfers ownership over to the leaser who is this case is John Mann. Therefor in the slave conduct laws the owner in this case would be John Mann which gives him full rights to do whatever he wants to the property. North Carolina revised code states that if a slave runs away and is caught, it is lawful for that slave to be killed or destroyed. This means that according to the fugitive slave act John Mann was completely in his rights of shooting her, and he should not have been fined. 

The defense tried to argue against the institution of slavery which in the end hurt their chances of winning the case. They tried to argue the moral reasons on why slavery is bad, and they tried to make arguments about how John Mann was morally wrong. This hurt their chances of winning because this was not a case about slavery and it moral issues, it was a case about slave owner rights and laws. They should have talked more about how John Mann was not the direct owner, and that may have helped their chances of winning the case. 

Freedom to Speak

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnN-gA7-Uozwj5T3ybXBF_hAWlp59fgB8R2Vspxto-otMCGc-2LOpcqB4jtdZcDCRR01uacdA3WvPCxnp8J5EB9KsQUsudEw96E1Fa0deoeqVvTi-5kDvR_RDBehSIEGgzNg_DH3jZ79Y/s1600/smiley-zipping-mouth.png

At a high school in Jeffersonville Indiana the student's first amendment rights were violated. The Journalism teacher of the school, Kelly Short, was suspended by the school for not censoring her students writing in the school newspaper. She told her attorney, "I'm not going to enforce an unconstitutional policy in my classroom". She was suspended with pay by the school because of this belief.

One of the students published an article in the newspaper criticizing the schools administration regarding the cost and placement of the security cameras. In my opinion, Short became the scape goat for what I believe to be the school's embarrassment. Kelly Short is actually correct because, the school is a public institution which means they receive money from the government which bars them from creating a speech code. The supreme court stated that they cannot place any prior restrictions on speech like that. The school cannot comment on the pending lawsuit, but I know if I was in the school administration I would be a little concerned.

The school should not be restricting the students rights to speak their opinions. The school should have a teacher that reads over the articles for grammatical and structural errors, but they shouldn't be allowed to edit or veto the students content. The reason the school shouldn't be allowed to censor or alter what the students write or say is because that is a direct violation of their freedom of speech.
http://www.wlky.com/Teacher-Students-1st-Amendment-Rights-Being-Violated/9785338

Our Privacy is Protected

Most people think that cops have all the power in the world. Some people even tremble in fear when talking to cops. What most people don't know is that the cops operate strictly on the state laws, sometimes they don't take into account the federal laws that protect us and our constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy rights and entitles, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". This means that the police can not search anything that we own, unless the cops have probable cause or a direct warrant to search the area. Probable cause can be something like seeing illegal activity or illegal items. A warrant from the court looks like this.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/711560/pages/bolour-search-warrant-p1-normal.gif

 If handed a document like that then the police have a direct order to search whatever and whenever they want. There was a family from Los Angeles California that recently sued two detectives for violating their fourth amendment rights. The family's house was searched unlawfully by the two cops because of suspicion of narcotics in the house. The two cops barged in, put the Thomas brothers and the son Eric Brown in handcuffs. They then ripped apart the entire room, throwing their personal belongings all over the place and breaking some of their possessions. The three boys were taken into the station after the detectives found nothing in the house. The Thomas brothers were let go, but Eric Brown was arrested under suspicion of possession of narcotics.

The family immediately hired an attorney, and the attorney told them that the cops violated their civil rights. The cops had no probable cause to search the house and they also had no search warrant. Suspicion of something is not probable cause. They searched the entire house all on the suspicion of possession of narcotics which is not legal. The family went to court against the two detectives and ended up winning because the court found that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Eric Brown was released, and the family was granted $15,000 for the damages and for their rights that were violated. 

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-30/local/me-202_1_civil-rights

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

Biker Gangs or Biker Groups?

Las Vegas Nevada is notorious for crime, drugs, and criminal activity. This keeps the law enforcement agencies on high alert 24/7. There were several biker organizations that recently sued the Las Vegas Police Department for violating there civil rights. The lawsuit was filed one day after members of the Mongols motorcycle group wrapped up a three day national meeting in Boulder city, this meeting caused the police to come out in force and try and keep the peace. The Biker groups attorney stated that the police were trying to get bars and hotels to cancel the outing so that the bikers couldn't have there meeting. This is a direct violation of their rights. They have the right to peacefully assemble, which is one of the six very important clauses we Americans have as rights. The Police argued that this particular biker group has a long history of violence, but that does not mean that the members of the group do not have rights. Whether they be a "Biker Group" or a "Biker Gang" they still have their rights.

This is a perfect example for why people need to understand and remember their rights. If we know what the federal or state government can and cannot do, then we stand a better chance of winning in court. Although the biker group may have a long history of violence that does not mean that their rights do not apply, they still do. The bikers ended up winning the case because the police department was in direct violation of their first amendment rights.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/4999580/data/mongols-data.jpg
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/26/nation/la-na-nn-bikers-sue-las-vegas-police-20120626