How To Abide By Slave Codes

In addition to these rules, the codes also gave the slave owners the right to torture, whip, brand, and maim their slaves. However, they were not allowed to kill their slaves. Only a few men did, but were never prosecuted.

As stated in our text, “The British Bill of Rights did not protect slaves because they were not viewed as persons with legal rights.” (78) It

Former slaves were not allowed any weapons or access to the town, among other things. The codes stretched the law enough so that African-Americans were even forced to be “in the service of some white person or former owner”, and could not do many things without their express permission. (Document B) These laws were put into place by white men, dependent on the African-American’s continued labor for their farms and plantations to thrive. As the slave trade had greatly enhanced the economy of the South, white landowners were not eager to give up the majority of their workforce. Although legally, former slaves were considered free, the black codes forced them to stay in place and obey unfair laws. Without the word slavery ever mentioned, the black codes represented much of the South’s attitude towards African-Americans, destroying their personal rights as

it was declared in Virginia that it would not be a crime to kill a disobedient slave while punishing him/her. Moreover in 1669, slave masters were banned from emancipating slaves. Slaves that were given their freedom could not stay in the colony. Furthermore, Virginia voted to banish Europeans who marry a black, mulatto, or Indian person. It can be concluded that these laws fashioned the chattel slavery in the United States

Prosecuting them was hard to do, due to the fact that laws were enacted to prevent slaves from testifying against their master. This treatment continued into the 1900s with the lynching and tree hangings of many blacks. However, masters who treated their slaves cruelly were legally punished In Latin America; slaves were able to testify against their owners. In contrast, a slave having a Sunday of was considered as an incentive from the owner, to encourage efficiency under the U.S. English Common Law, and those laws treated slaves drastically different. They viewed slavery as a business only. They did not care about their livelihood, nor did they consider slaves as people. They based the price of each slave on gender and age; considered them as property, and sold them like real estate. The states enacted laws for contracts, which protected both the buyers and owners in the initial purchase.

Slaves did not have rights to anything, not even their bodies. Everything that slaves did was controlled by someone else, and each task they performed was to benefit someone else. They were unable to make contracts or own land, and because they belonged to enslavers, they had to abide by all their rules no matter how severe. This included who they could marry, where they worked, slept, what they ate and what they wore daily. Slaves however still resisted those who owned them, and those who did own slaves made rules to diminish the slave

rights as white men. Blacks did enjoy more freedom, leaving the Southern plantations in hopes

Furthermore, activists argue that the slaves never agreed to become slaves, therefore they should not be slaves as that is not permitted through the guaranteed

Slaves in the antebellum period were treated with the utmost brutality as they were beaten, killed, raped, and starved as well as denied basic education and could not obtain freedom without the owner giving them their freedom however even as free blacks they still had limited rights.

Slaves had some rights but not many. If a slave did any serious crime, death was the normal and expected punishment. Sometimes the slave would be reassigned to another master.

In Edgar Allan Poe’s short story Cask of the Amontillado, the main character Fortunato undergoes being buried alive, essentially, in the wine cellar in his own estate. The person responsible for this death is a man named Montresor. The theme in this tale is that of revenge. Montresor, the main antagonist and murderer, claims his vengeance is justified and that while he is committing a crime he is doing so justifiably. Raymond Struckhart of Berlin University, in Germany also concurs my position; by also claiming Montresor is to blame. The argument in this paper is that Montresor is not only delusional to his claims of justification, but also that his crime of killing Fortunato is not justified; and that in fact it is out right murder. Therefore to reiterate the thesis of this paper is, the killing of Fortunato by the hands of Montresor, despite his claims of justification, is just an excuse for murder and not justified by any means. The paper examines the work of Raymond Stuckhart, Elizabeth Dowager, and Barbara Cane as proof to my claims. The paper begins by identifying what “injury” Fortunato enacted upon Montresor and its justifiability. Next the paper examines the correlation between pure revenge and Montresor 's warped sense of morality and justice. With this in mind, one can deduce the guilty nature of Montresor and lack of justification.

Throughout history, African Americans both free and enslaved were not treated equally nor permitted with the same rights as white men. African Americans were enslaved and not allowed to vote or hold public office. Since the 15th century, African Americans have been treated less than human, some even experienced brutal punished for justifiable mistakes. The use of African American slave labor was an enormous contribution to agriculture and labor. It became a part of southern state’s economy within America. Additionally, African Americans were forced or born into slavery where they endured harsh working conditions with zero pay and often times were punished by their masters. Even slaves that became emancipated or paid for their freedom were also treated differently than whites. Notably, blacks did not have the same privileges as whites and were forced to carry a “freedom card” wherever they went. Failing to do so would lead to severe consequences, such as being forced back into slavery. Once African Americans were considered free, they faced additional discriminations such as not being able to vote or serve as a figure in public office. Due to this and additional factors, African Americans were almost entirely incapable of defending themselves against whites. Since the start of the 17th century, African Americans, free and enslaved were punished for their skin color and were considered the lowest scale by not being allowed to the same opportunities and rights and white men.

Despite the black codes had provided rights such as the marriage legalization and the ownership of property, they violated the free labor principle and denied the African-Americans the right to vote, and sue any white man. Foner (2014) found “In response to planter’s demands that freed people be required to work on the plantations, the Black Codes declared that those who failed to sign yearly labor contracts could be arrested and hired out to white landowners” (p. 570) . In fact, it was a totally failure of what freedom was supposed to be.

Revenge can bring out many people’s inner evil. In Edgar Allan Poe’s “Cask of Amontillado”, the main character, Montresor carefully plans revenge against Fortunato. Montresor is a man who vows vengeance against a professional wine taster named Fortunato. The wine taster insults Montresor, and he had enough of it. The insult sets him off and he plans a deadly and successful revenge. Throughout the story, Montresor attentively plans his revenge against Fortunato just like an expert.

As an idea social pedagogy first started being used around the middle of the nineteenth century in Germany as a way of describing alternatives to the dominant models of schooling. However, by the second half of the twentieth century social pedagogy became increasingly associated with social work and notions of social education in a number of European countries.