The plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, is filing a complaint on behalf of himself and other African Americans against the United States for harms stemming from slavery. The complaint provides historical context on the evolution of indentured servitude and racialized chattel slavery in the U.S. It asserts that political compromises to protect the institution of slavery violated the rights of African Americans and led to their mistreatment. The complaint seeks monetary compensation for harms including wrongful deaths, beatings, and the denial of freedom and dignity to the plaintiffs and their ancestors.
The document summarizes the key events and issues around the Compromise of 1850 that attempted to settle differences between the North and South over the issue of slavery. The Compromise included California entering the Union as a free state, organizing New Mexico and Utah Territories without defining their slave/free status, a stricter Fugitive Slave Law, and a ban on slave trading in Washington D.C. However, tensions remained as the North opposed the Fugitive Slave Law while the South was unhappy that California was admitted as a free state.
The document discusses several key events and issues that increased sectionalism between the North and South leading up to the Civil War. The North industrialized while the South relied on agriculture and slavery. Disputes over tariffs and the expansion of slavery into new territories exacerbated tensions. The Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Dred Scott decision failed to resolve the slavery issue. Abolitionist movements further alarmed the South. Lincoln's election prompted Southern states to secede.
The document analyzes several key events and issues related to the rise of sectionalism and the slavery debate in the United States between 1820-1858. This included the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, the Compromise of 1850 negotiated by Henry Clay, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott decision of 1857, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Each of these issues and events further inflamed regional tensions between the North and South over the issue of slavery and its expansion into the western territories.
This document provides a summary of American history and government that contradicts the standard narrative. It claims that America is not a free country but a privately owned French corporation controlled by European royal families and elites. It alleges two US presidents were not American citizens and that many politicians, judges, and lawyers are secretly working for foreign powers to undermine the country. It aims to expose hidden truths about events and reveal how average citizens have been deceived about the true nature of the US system of government.
This document provides an overview of key political, economic, and social developments in the early United States from 1800 to 1850. It discusses the rise of the first political parties, Hamilton's vision for an American economy centered around manufacturing and finance, the Whiskey Rebellion in response to Hamilton's taxes, and the election of 1800 which resulted in Thomas Jefferson becoming president and the Democratic-Republican party gaining power. The document also summarizes events like the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, settlement of new western lands, and the emergence of sectional differences between the North and South.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 attempted to balance the number of slave and free states admitted to the Union. It admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, and divided the Louisiana Territory along the 36°30' parallel between free and slave territory. However, the issue of slavery continued dividing the nation and fueled the formation of new political parties in the 1850s. Rising tensions led several southern states to secede from the Union after Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860, in an effort to form the Confederate States of America and protect the institution of slavery.
The document traces the history of slavery and laws regarding slavery in the United States from 1619 to 1865. It discusses how slavery began in Virginia in 1619 and was banned in the Northwest Territory in 1787. Several compromises and laws were passed throughout this period regarding the regulation and expansion of slavery, including the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and the Compromise of 1850. The document also mentions slave revolts led by Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner and important court cases like the Dred Scott decision. Finally, it summarizes the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, the end of the Civil War in 1865, and the ratification of the 13
The document summarizes the key events and issues around the Compromise of 1850 that attempted to settle differences between the North and South over the issue of slavery. The Compromise included California entering the Union as a free state, organizing New Mexico and Utah Territories without defining their slave/free status, a stricter Fugitive Slave Law, and a ban on slave trading in Washington D.C. However, tensions remained as the North opposed the Fugitive Slave Law while the South was unhappy that California was admitted as a free state.
The document discusses several key events and issues that increased sectionalism between the North and South leading up to the Civil War. The North industrialized while the South relied on agriculture and slavery. Disputes over tariffs and the expansion of slavery into new territories exacerbated tensions. The Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Dred Scott decision failed to resolve the slavery issue. Abolitionist movements further alarmed the South. Lincoln's election prompted Southern states to secede.
The document analyzes several key events and issues related to the rise of sectionalism and the slavery debate in the United States between 1820-1858. This included the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, the Compromise of 1850 negotiated by Henry Clay, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott decision of 1857, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Each of these issues and events further inflamed regional tensions between the North and South over the issue of slavery and its expansion into the western territories.
This document provides a summary of American history and government that contradicts the standard narrative. It claims that America is not a free country but a privately owned French corporation controlled by European royal families and elites. It alleges two US presidents were not American citizens and that many politicians, judges, and lawyers are secretly working for foreign powers to undermine the country. It aims to expose hidden truths about events and reveal how average citizens have been deceived about the true nature of the US system of government.
This document provides an overview of key political, economic, and social developments in the early United States from 1800 to 1850. It discusses the rise of the first political parties, Hamilton's vision for an American economy centered around manufacturing and finance, the Whiskey Rebellion in response to Hamilton's taxes, and the election of 1800 which resulted in Thomas Jefferson becoming president and the Democratic-Republican party gaining power. The document also summarizes events like the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, settlement of new western lands, and the emergence of sectional differences between the North and South.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 attempted to balance the number of slave and free states admitted to the Union. It admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, and divided the Louisiana Territory along the 36°30' parallel between free and slave territory. However, the issue of slavery continued dividing the nation and fueled the formation of new political parties in the 1850s. Rising tensions led several southern states to secede from the Union after Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860, in an effort to form the Confederate States of America and protect the institution of slavery.
The document traces the history of slavery and laws regarding slavery in the United States from 1619 to 1865. It discusses how slavery began in Virginia in 1619 and was banned in the Northwest Territory in 1787. Several compromises and laws were passed throughout this period regarding the regulation and expansion of slavery, including the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and the Compromise of 1850. The document also mentions slave revolts led by Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner and important court cases like the Dred Scott decision. Finally, it summarizes the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, the end of the Civil War in 1865, and the ratification of the 13
The document summarizes the increasing tensions between the North and South from 1848 to 1860 related to the issue of slavery. It discusses how the economy and views of slavery differed between the regions. It also outlines several key events that exacerbated the conflict, including the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealing the Missouri Compromise, and the rise of the Republican party opposing the expansion of slavery which led to Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860 as the last straw for the South.
1) The Declaration of Independence was written after escalating tensions between the British and American colonists over issues like taxation and control of colonial governments.
2) While the Declaration proclaimed that all men are created equal, it primarily united white male colonists and ignored the interests of other groups like Native Americans, black slaves, and women.
3) The language of the Declaration omitted these groups and even blamed Native American and slave rebellions on the British, showing that the ideals of the Declaration were limited in practice.
The document is a collection of 6 sources related to US imperialism in 1898. It includes an artwork depicting Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders in Cuba, a political cartoon questioning how Uncle Sam would look after the war, the platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League opposing expansion into the Philippines, and a petition against the annexation of Hawaii. The sources showcase the debate in the US over expansionism after the Spanish-American War and the occupation of the Philippines in particular. Critics argued it violated principles of self-governance and democracy, while supporters viewed it as asserting American interests abroad.
This document discusses various scenarios and indicates whether they would be considered constitutional or unconstitutional based on specific amendments to the US Constitution. It addresses issues like legalizing marijuana, indentured servitude, taxation, lynching, gun rights, women's suffrage, protests, senate appointments, traffic stops, and voting rights. The amendments referenced include the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 21st, and 24th.
The McCarthy Era saw fear of communism spreading within the United States. Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed communism was infiltrating the country. This led to laws like the Alien Registration Acts requiring registration of immigrants and the HUAC investigating possible communist activities. These committees and laws allowed the government to monitor influences from abroad and suppress internal communist groups, which many Americans supported as a means to prevent communism from taking hold within the country.
- The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 stated that Native Americans were to be treated with utmost good faith and their lands could not be taken without consent.
- Governor William Henry Harrison threatened, bribed, and intoxicated Indians in the 1810s, leading Tecumseh to start an Indian confederation. Harrison defeated Tecumseh at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811.
- The 1819 purchase of Florida meant Indians who had fled there now lost territory, and Andrew Jackson led a raid crushing the Seminoles, who were then moved to a reservation.
1) Tensions grew between the industrial North and agricultural South, with the North relying on industry and commerce while the South relied on slave labor for cotton plantations.
2) The Wilmot Proviso, which would have banned slavery in new territories, passed the House but not the Senate, leading to the formation of the Free Soil Party.
3) The Compromise of 1850 was proposed to address the imbalance of free and slave states, allowing California to join as a free state while strengthening fugitive slave laws. It provided a temporary solution but did not end the debate around slavery's expansion.
Us history group project (craig, nikki, and alyssa)Craig Maggio
The document summarizes the key events and components of the Compromise of 1850. The compromise had five parts that balanced slave and free states: 1) California entered as a free state, 2) Texas was compensated for land, 3) New Mexico was organized without prohibiting slavery, 4) the slave trade ended in DC but not slavery, and 5) a stronger Fugitive Slave Law required runaway slaves to be returned. The compromise temporarily resolved territorial and slavery disputes but increased tensions by strengthening the fugitive slave law and allowing slavery in New Mexico territory.
During John Adams's presidency, tensions rose with France due to ship harassment and attempts to influence the 1796 election. When nations met to negotiate, French agents demanded bribes, known as the XYZ Affair. While a peace treaty was eventually agreed to, it cost Adams support from his party. In response, the Federalist-controlled Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to suppress the Democratic-Republican Party by restricting immigration and criticism of the government. The acts were controversial and seen as violating civil liberties. Jefferson defeated Adams in the 1800 election, marking the transfer of power to the opposing party.
John Adams' presidency from 1797 to 1801 was unproductive and frustrating. The XYZ Affair strained relations with France and led to the Quasi-War, a naval conflict between the two countries. Additionally, the Federalist-controlled government passed the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts to restrict immigrants and opposition newspapers. This prompted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions arguing states could nullify federal laws, setting a precedent for states' rights. There were also slave and tax-based rebellions. The 1800 election between Jefferson and Adams ended with Jefferson winning after support from Hamilton. Adams also made last-minute judicial appointments before leaving office.
The document is a letter from Amnesty International USA thanking Victoria Sethunya for meeting with elected officials to advocate for human rights issues. It requests that officials support closing Guantanamo Bay and reforming the US immigration system. It also encourages advocating for ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The letter provides a DVD about immigration reform for Victoria to share with officials. It expresses appreciation for Victoria's advocacy and its impact on influencing government policy.
The document discusses several influences on early American government from British history and documents, including the Magna Carta which established rights and limits on royal power, the establishment of Parliament as the lawmaking body composed of the House of Commons and House of Lords, the English Bill of Rights which protected citizens from the monarch, and John Peter Zenger's trial which was an early step toward freedom of the press by establishing the right to criticize government officials.
The document discusses several key events and compromises related to the expansion of slavery in the United States between 1818-1857. It summarizes the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, dividing other lands between slave and free. It also discusses the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the controversial Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857, each of which further exacerbated tensions between slave and free states leading up to the Civil War.
The Election of 1800 marked a transfer of power between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties, who had vastly different visions for America's future. The Federalists supported a strong central government and close ties to Britain, while the Democratic-Republicans favored states' rights and protecting small farmers/laborers. Though the Federalists lost power, they peacefully handed over control, proving the young American system of government could change leadership without violence.
1) The Chief Justice discusses the importance of judicial independence by comparing the American and French experiences after adopting declarations of rights. While the language was similar, France lacked an independent judiciary and descended into the Reign of Terror without enforcing individual rights.
2) He outlines two significant early challenges to the independence of the US judiciary - the impeachment of Judge John Pickering for political reasons along party lines, and the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in an attempt to exert political control over the Supreme Court.
3) The impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 for his partisan actions from the bench became a major test of judicial independence, with his trial before the Senate gaining significant public interest.
The Great War For American Independence Part IItimothyjgraham
The document provides context around the American Revolutionary period, including key events and battles between 1775-1781. It discusses the Articles of Confederation, the first governing agreement between the 13 colonies. It also summarizes perspectives from historians like Howard Zinn who provide analysis on social hierarchies and power dynamics during the Revolutionary era, including the exclusion of women, slaves, and indigenous people from new political systems established after independence.
This document provides an overview and analysis of United States immigration policy regarding Haitian asylum seekers, comparing their treatment to that of Cuban asylum seekers. It discusses several key pieces of legislation that have impacted these groups differently, including the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997, the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998, and the proposed Haitian Immigrant Equitable Adjustment Act of 2002. It analyzes how these laws have provided different pathways to citizenship or imposed different restrictions based on nationality, despite both groups fleeing difficult political situations in their home countries.
The document provides important dates in American history from 1607 to the 1860s, including the first English settlement at Jamestown in 1607, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the writing of the Constitution in 1787, and the Civil War from 1861-1865. It also lists key figures from the American Revolution like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. The document further discusses principles of the US Constitution such as separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism.
The document summarizes the increasing tensions between the North and South from 1848 to 1860 related to the issue of slavery. It discusses how the economy and views of slavery differed between the regions. It also outlines several key events that exacerbated the conflict, including the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealing the Missouri Compromise, and the rise of the Republican party opposing the expansion of slavery which led to Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860 as the last straw for the South.
1) The Declaration of Independence was written after escalating tensions between the British and American colonists over issues like taxation and control of colonial governments.
2) While the Declaration proclaimed that all men are created equal, it primarily united white male colonists and ignored the interests of other groups like Native Americans, black slaves, and women.
3) The language of the Declaration omitted these groups and even blamed Native American and slave rebellions on the British, showing that the ideals of the Declaration were limited in practice.
The document is a collection of 6 sources related to US imperialism in 1898. It includes an artwork depicting Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders in Cuba, a political cartoon questioning how Uncle Sam would look after the war, the platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League opposing expansion into the Philippines, and a petition against the annexation of Hawaii. The sources showcase the debate in the US over expansionism after the Spanish-American War and the occupation of the Philippines in particular. Critics argued it violated principles of self-governance and democracy, while supporters viewed it as asserting American interests abroad.
This document discusses various scenarios and indicates whether they would be considered constitutional or unconstitutional based on specific amendments to the US Constitution. It addresses issues like legalizing marijuana, indentured servitude, taxation, lynching, gun rights, women's suffrage, protests, senate appointments, traffic stops, and voting rights. The amendments referenced include the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 21st, and 24th.
The McCarthy Era saw fear of communism spreading within the United States. Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed communism was infiltrating the country. This led to laws like the Alien Registration Acts requiring registration of immigrants and the HUAC investigating possible communist activities. These committees and laws allowed the government to monitor influences from abroad and suppress internal communist groups, which many Americans supported as a means to prevent communism from taking hold within the country.
- The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 stated that Native Americans were to be treated with utmost good faith and their lands could not be taken without consent.
- Governor William Henry Harrison threatened, bribed, and intoxicated Indians in the 1810s, leading Tecumseh to start an Indian confederation. Harrison defeated Tecumseh at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811.
- The 1819 purchase of Florida meant Indians who had fled there now lost territory, and Andrew Jackson led a raid crushing the Seminoles, who were then moved to a reservation.
1) Tensions grew between the industrial North and agricultural South, with the North relying on industry and commerce while the South relied on slave labor for cotton plantations.
2) The Wilmot Proviso, which would have banned slavery in new territories, passed the House but not the Senate, leading to the formation of the Free Soil Party.
3) The Compromise of 1850 was proposed to address the imbalance of free and slave states, allowing California to join as a free state while strengthening fugitive slave laws. It provided a temporary solution but did not end the debate around slavery's expansion.
Us history group project (craig, nikki, and alyssa)Craig Maggio
The document summarizes the key events and components of the Compromise of 1850. The compromise had five parts that balanced slave and free states: 1) California entered as a free state, 2) Texas was compensated for land, 3) New Mexico was organized without prohibiting slavery, 4) the slave trade ended in DC but not slavery, and 5) a stronger Fugitive Slave Law required runaway slaves to be returned. The compromise temporarily resolved territorial and slavery disputes but increased tensions by strengthening the fugitive slave law and allowing slavery in New Mexico territory.
During John Adams's presidency, tensions rose with France due to ship harassment and attempts to influence the 1796 election. When nations met to negotiate, French agents demanded bribes, known as the XYZ Affair. While a peace treaty was eventually agreed to, it cost Adams support from his party. In response, the Federalist-controlled Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to suppress the Democratic-Republican Party by restricting immigration and criticism of the government. The acts were controversial and seen as violating civil liberties. Jefferson defeated Adams in the 1800 election, marking the transfer of power to the opposing party.
John Adams' presidency from 1797 to 1801 was unproductive and frustrating. The XYZ Affair strained relations with France and led to the Quasi-War, a naval conflict between the two countries. Additionally, the Federalist-controlled government passed the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts to restrict immigrants and opposition newspapers. This prompted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions arguing states could nullify federal laws, setting a precedent for states' rights. There were also slave and tax-based rebellions. The 1800 election between Jefferson and Adams ended with Jefferson winning after support from Hamilton. Adams also made last-minute judicial appointments before leaving office.
The document is a letter from Amnesty International USA thanking Victoria Sethunya for meeting with elected officials to advocate for human rights issues. It requests that officials support closing Guantanamo Bay and reforming the US immigration system. It also encourages advocating for ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The letter provides a DVD about immigration reform for Victoria to share with officials. It expresses appreciation for Victoria's advocacy and its impact on influencing government policy.
The document discusses several influences on early American government from British history and documents, including the Magna Carta which established rights and limits on royal power, the establishment of Parliament as the lawmaking body composed of the House of Commons and House of Lords, the English Bill of Rights which protected citizens from the monarch, and John Peter Zenger's trial which was an early step toward freedom of the press by establishing the right to criticize government officials.
The document discusses several key events and compromises related to the expansion of slavery in the United States between 1818-1857. It summarizes the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, dividing other lands between slave and free. It also discusses the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the controversial Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857, each of which further exacerbated tensions between slave and free states leading up to the Civil War.
The Election of 1800 marked a transfer of power between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties, who had vastly different visions for America's future. The Federalists supported a strong central government and close ties to Britain, while the Democratic-Republicans favored states' rights and protecting small farmers/laborers. Though the Federalists lost power, they peacefully handed over control, proving the young American system of government could change leadership without violence.
1) The Chief Justice discusses the importance of judicial independence by comparing the American and French experiences after adopting declarations of rights. While the language was similar, France lacked an independent judiciary and descended into the Reign of Terror without enforcing individual rights.
2) He outlines two significant early challenges to the independence of the US judiciary - the impeachment of Judge John Pickering for political reasons along party lines, and the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in an attempt to exert political control over the Supreme Court.
3) The impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 for his partisan actions from the bench became a major test of judicial independence, with his trial before the Senate gaining significant public interest.
The Great War For American Independence Part IItimothyjgraham
The document provides context around the American Revolutionary period, including key events and battles between 1775-1781. It discusses the Articles of Confederation, the first governing agreement between the 13 colonies. It also summarizes perspectives from historians like Howard Zinn who provide analysis on social hierarchies and power dynamics during the Revolutionary era, including the exclusion of women, slaves, and indigenous people from new political systems established after independence.
This document provides an overview and analysis of United States immigration policy regarding Haitian asylum seekers, comparing their treatment to that of Cuban asylum seekers. It discusses several key pieces of legislation that have impacted these groups differently, including the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997, the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998, and the proposed Haitian Immigrant Equitable Adjustment Act of 2002. It analyzes how these laws have provided different pathways to citizenship or imposed different restrictions based on nationality, despite both groups fleeing difficult political situations in their home countries.
The document provides important dates in American history from 1607 to the 1860s, including the first English settlement at Jamestown in 1607, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the writing of the Constitution in 1787, and the Civil War from 1861-1865. It also lists key figures from the American Revolution like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. The document further discusses principles of the US Constitution such as separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism.
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......Louis Charles Hamilton II
This document is a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by Louis Charles Hamilton II against the United States of America, the State of Texas, and Harris County Texas alleging discrimination and civil rights violations. Hamilton, an African American veteran, claims the defendants have denied him equal protection under the law and caused emotional distress and financial damages dating back to slavery. He is seeking monetary damages totaling over $80 million.
The document proposes establishing a new "Freeman Bureau" to provide reconstruction assistance for African Americans and other disadvantaged groups in the United States, following the model of the Freedmen's Bureau established after the Civil War. It argues that the current financial crisis was caused by oppression of African Americans and greed of the white ruling class. A "Thaddeus Stevens' hidden reconstruction plan" from 1867 would be reprinted to benefit over 150 million modern Americans facing economic hardship. All Americans, regardless of race, would participate in rebuilding infrastructure through the new Freeman Bureau.
This document is a rambling letter from an individual named Louis Charles Hamilton II to Macy's regarding a dispute over money and merchandise. The letter threatens legal action against Macy's and demands $10,000 to settle the matter. It references past complaints and legal cases filed by Hamilton and warns that Macy's should take the demands seriously or face a federal lawsuit and damage to their reputation. The writing style is aggressive and uses profanity and racial slurs throughout.
The document discusses workers compensation consulting services, including explaining what an experience modification is and how it can impact insurance premiums. It also outlines several solutions that Business Insurers of the Carolinas provides to help organizations properly manage their workers compensation programs, such as helping with HR documentation, safety inspections, claims management, and experience modification reviews. The company claims it can help clients identify if they have overpaid on insurance premiums and maximize discounts.
This document discusses 1920s photography by Ansel Adams and Paul Strand. It provides titles, locations, and dates for 14 photographs by Adams from Yosemite National Park, Yellowstone National Park, the Sierra Nevada mountains, and Mono Lake in California, as well as 5 photographs by Strand from New York City, Italy, and an untitled 1916 work. The photographs document American landscapes, architecture, and industrial subjects from this era.
The document discusses a legal case involving Louis Charles Hamilton and various defendants including Harry C. Arthur, an attorney. Hamilton accuses Arthur of hiding millions of dollars in assets while claiming to be broke. Hamilton believes Arthur is also involved in schemes to steal from a church. Hamilton threatens further legal action and demands a deposition from Arthur regarding his hidden assets.
Cmdr. Bluefin discusses various political and economic topics in a colorful and unconventional way. He predicts that Obama and Boehner would make a surprising presidential ticket in 2012 due to their ability to work together despite fighting. He also recommends investing in "Mongolian beef stew" due to the uncertain economic outlook. Throughout, his language and references are profane and bizarre.
Pro Se “Louis Charles Hamilton II” REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, Cause No. 1:14-CV-...Louis Charles Hamilton II
To Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law), Pro Se Plaintiff “Louis Charles Hamilton II” herein propounding party
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE
To: Antoine L. Freeman J. D. Attorney at Law AND HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, it is hereby requested and demanded of Defendant
Antoine L. Freeman J. D. (hereinafter “YOU” or “YOUR”),
that YOU make admissions of the following statements of fact which are materially pertinent to Plaintiff claims hereto in accordance with Rule 36,
Under which rule of procedure this request for admissions is made, thereby answering the following facts in the above-entitled and number cause,
and that such answers be sworn to and filed promptly in the office of the District Clerk
Where this cause is pending and a copy delivered to the writer within thirty (30) days from the serving of this request upon you.
Otherwise, each of the matter of which an admission is requested
and demanded shall be deemed admitted by you in accordance with Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Request for Admission
Truth of Facts
Louis Charles Hamilton II (USN) 2015 “We Thee Abused (American) “Negro Race”…...Louis Charles Hamilton II
Pursuant forever to “Dred Scott” Vs. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
In all 51 “States” of The Union of America Negro Race never a free slave until all 52 “States” free all their abducted “Nigger slaves” which was acquired on “Mississippi” finally freed the “Abused Slaves” on February 7th 2013 as was a disguised, sham, bogus false, fraudulent, sham, deceptive; patter and practices to shore up “Chief Defendant(s) namely
“Negro Slave Trade Corporations et al”, Prosperity to be a hidden gain in continual “Unjust Enrichment” of The “PLANTIFFS SLAVES” herein in an Economy and finance
Fraudulent conversion action of taking “PLANTIFFS SLAVES” herein “Monetary Taxes” into possession and converting or using them fraudulently for one's own use
This document discusses 1920s photography by Ansel Adams and Paul Strand. It provides titles, locations, and dates for 14 photographs by Adams from Yosemite National Park, Yellowstone National Park, the Sierra Nevada mountains, and Mono Lake in California, as well as 5 photographs by Strand from New York City, Italy, and an untitled 1916 work. The photographs document American landscapes, architecture, and industrial subjects from the early 20th century.
Amend Complaint Docket No. 1:2011-CV-00240 Louis Charles Hamilton II vs. United States Attorney Office et al, CVS/Caremark and (UPS) United Parcel Services.
This document contains a series of rants directed at various political figures. It uses profanity and racially charged insults. It accuses Governor Rick Perry of corruption and covering up environmental disasters. It criticizes Speaker of the House John Boehner for suing President Obama and claims the US legal system has been corrupted by white people since the establishment of slavery. It praises President Obama but urges him to send the Navy to attack militants in Syria. The writing style is disjointed and incoherent.
Chief Defendant Antoine L. Freeman J. D. "Attorney at Law" Considered Pro Se ...Louis Charles Hamilton II
(1) The plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, files a pro se civil suit and offers a settlement to the defendant, Antoine L. Freeman.
(2) The settlement offer includes the return of lost wages and stolen tools by March 30th, 2015 or the plaintiff will seek damages of 2/3 the actual losses at a hearing on that date.
(3) If discovery requests are not answered within 90 days, the plaintiff will seek full treble damages under RICO and intend to depose the defendant.
Este documento resume las principales fases del Modelo Unificado de Proceso (RUP). Describe las fases de Inicio, Elaboración, Construcción y Transmisión, indicando los objetivos generales de cada una. También explica que el RUP integra perspectivas dinámicas y estáticas para representar las fases del proceso de desarrollo de software de una manera flexible.
This document discusses 1920s photography by Ansel Adams and Paul Strand. It provides titles, locations, and dates for 14 photographs by Adams from Yosemite National Park, Yellowstone National Park, the Sierra Nevada mountains, and Mono Lake in California, as well as 5 photographs by Strand from New York City, Italy, and an untitled 1916 work. The photographs document American landscapes, architecture, and industrial subjects from the early 20th century.
THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA (Update)ICJ-ICC
This document discusses the history of global trusts and how they relate to jurisdictions over land, sea, and air. It describes how the global estate trust was established in 1302 and has operated since, providing various services. The trust is overseen from four headquarters: the Vatican, Westminster, Washington D.C., and the United Nations. It suggests we have all been part of this global trust system for the past 700 years, whether we realize it or not.
The plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, is filing a motion for a temporary restraining order and asset freeze of $6 trillion against the defendants, the United States of America, President Andrew Johnson, and President Rutherford B. Hayes. The plaintiff alleges numerous crimes were committed against himself and other black African Americans, including murder, intimidation, fraud, and civil rights violations. The plaintiff is requesting the court order the defendants to preserve all documents and records related to the case, provide a funeral for the plaintiff's deceased family members, and not destroy any assets. The plaintiff is seeking to preliminarily enjoin the defendants from further alleged criminal acts and violations of federal law.
Throughout the centuries, conquest, war, and unspeakable acts of racist violence and colonial dispossession have all been justified by citing Western civilization's fundamental opposition to the irreconcilable differences represented by the "savagery" of indigenous tribal peoples.This Colloquium presentation is based on Professor Williams' 2012 book, "Savage Anxieties: The Invention of Western Civilization." In the lecture, he explores the history and consequences of the denial of indigenous peoples' human rights to lands and resources in the West from the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans up through Canada's 21st century treaty negotiations with First Nations in Britsh Columbia and its 2007 vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Robert A. Williams, Jr., E. Thomas Sullivan Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Chair of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program at The University of Arizona College of Law, was invited to speak as part of Simon Fraser University's President's Dream Colloquium on Justice Beyond National Boundaries on Thursday, March 21, 2014, 3:30 pm
This powerpoint presentation can all be found videotaped at: https://vimeo.com/62880140
9
The American Civil War
HIS 212: Introduction to History
Professor Lawrence Schneider
December 09, 2016
In the spring of 1861, many years of stewing pressures between the northern and southern United States over issues including states' rights versus government power, westbound extension and servitude detonated into the American Civil War (1861-65). The decision of the abolitionist bondage Republican Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860 brought on seven southern states to withdraw from the Union to frame the Confederate States of America; four more went along with them after the primary shots of the Civil War were discharged. The inquisitive thing is that in spite of the fact that bondage was the ethical issue of the nineteenth century that separated the political pioneers of the area, the normal American had next to no enthusiasm for slaves or servitude. Most Southerners were little agriculturists that couldn't bear the cost of slaves. Most Northerners were little agriculturists or tradesmen that had never at any point seen a slave.[footnoteRef:1] Slave’s policies in Mississippi ended in 1863 unlike in Virginia State where slavery ended in 1705. However, each state had strict policies regarding the guiding of the slaves in each state. In Mississippi, the following rules were used to govern the slaves. In 1787, there was introduction of taxes and membership of the House of Representatives in line with the population. However, a slave was counted as three-fifths of a person instead of a single person. In both Mississippi and Virginia slavery violated and diminished human rights.[footnoteRef:2] [1: Cooper William J.and John McCardell, In the Cause of Liberty: How the Civil War Redefined American Ideals, (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2009) 210-220.] [2: James Oakes, 2013. Freedom National (New York: W.W. Norton & Co).80-90.
]
Today we perceive subjugation as an ethical issue. Be that as it may, in the mid nineteenth century, it was seen as a financial issue to begin with, good issue second. A progression of authoritative activities, most quite the Missouri Compromise of 1820, had been instituted by Congress as far as possible on the proliferation of subjection, yet trade off with northern and southern interests was constantly remembered. The South had a financial enthusiasm for the spread of subjugation to the new domains so that new slave states could be made and the South's political impact would stay solid. The North had an enthusiasm for constraining the spread of subjugation into the new regions for both motivations behind controlling Southern political power and backing of the ethical issue.[footnoteRef:3] [3: Ibid.]
The drafted constitution also supported that, those slaves who escaped to be returned to their masters. In February 1793, there was enactment of Fugitive Slave Law Act that stated that any individual who was found harboring or hiding a fugitive was to pay a fee of $500 which was t.
The document summarizes several key cases and laws related to race and gender issues in U.S. history:
- It discusses how American Indian civil rights issues unfolded differently than other minorities, with Indians starting with sovereignty and losing rights over time.
- It also outlines laws that targeted African Americans, including the Three-Fifths Compromise, laws prohibiting education of slaves, and Black Codes passed after the Civil War.
- Major court cases that shaped racial policies are summarized, such as Plessy v. Ferguson which upheld "separate but equal," and Brown v. Board of Education which overturned it and banned racial segregation in public schools.
This document provides a summary of American Indian and African American colonization policies from 1800-1890. It discusses how Indian removal policies in the early 19th century sought to relocate tribes to reservations west of the Mississippi to open land for white settlement. Similarly, some proposed "colonizing" freed African Americans by sending them to places like Liberia. However, the Civil War disrupted these plans and prompted a shift towards recognizing black citizenship instead of removal. As the war progressed and blacks served as soldiers, it helped lead to the Emancipation Proclamation granting them freedom and raised questions about their rights in America.
The document provides a timeline and summaries of several key events leading up to the American Civil War around the issue of slavery:
1) It outlines several compromises in the early 19th century that attempted to balance the interests of slave and free states, including the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and Compromise of 1850.
2) Major events that increased sectional tensions included the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857 declaring blacks couldn't be citizens, and John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859.
3) These events failed to resolve the growing disagreements around the issues of slavery in the territories and states' rights, moving the nation closer
This lecture is devoted to the Jim Crow Era. It relates the different civil rights cases that marked the beginnings of the era, and sheds light on black disenfranchisement in the Southern states as well as segration in both public and private spheres
The memorandum discusses how the American legal and political systems have negatively impacted the Latino community throughout history. It provides examples such as Hernandez v. Texas, which established that Mexican Americans are a distinct class protected by the 14th Amendment after having historically been excluded from juries. Additionally, Mendez v. Westminster challenged segregated schools, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo denied Mexicans living in conquered territories equal property rights and citizenship. While obstacles were presented, cases like People v. de la Guerra showed the determination of the Latino community to effect change through the legal system and secure their rights under the law.
Similar to Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states... (12)
Slave Negro Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II (USN) Vs. United Sta...Louis Charles Hamilton II
Pro Se Slave Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II (USN), herein reincorporates and State fully all of the above set forth herein paragraph (s) and Identified each for said “Individually and Collectively causes of
Actions against the , peace, civil rights, dignity, human life, and mental health as described herein said complaint all facts and actions described
Pro Se Slave Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II (USN), herein seeks actual, accumulative, compensatory, consequential, continuing, expectation damages, foreseeable,
Future, incidentals, indeterminate, reparable, lawful, proximate, prospective, special, speculative, substantial, exemplary/punitive, and permanent damages in excess of
(150) Million U.S. Dollars from
“Chief Defendant” United States of America et al with
6% interest incurred since date of “Actual Injury",
Namely “Bogus” Arrest of cutting up an unknown “white boy” with “razor knife”, which never even occurred as wrongfully claim on or about October 1st
Pro Se Slave Negro Louis Charles Hamilton II (USN), herein before Filed on October 4th, 2011 U.S. Docket 1:2011-CV-00510 from the Harris County Texas Jail
“three shipping Industries”, home based in “India” (Yep) that’s correct “Mr. President” and “Commander in Chief” (Obama), “The United States of America”, Her “Royal Majesty” The “Queen of England”, and “The British Royal Navy”.
Doctor Dinesh Chandra Khare, “Crooked Mean Little Old Thailand Pirate,” control not (2) “global pirate shipping company(s)”
there is in fact a “third” (secret) global shipping pirate company based also in “India”, and each day there flipping massive billions.
Cmdr. bluefin (usn) 2015 “great pirate race”… “pirate curse” of the egyptian ...Louis Charles Hamilton II
“Port of Alexandria”, Egypt hub of the “smuggling” Networks on Egyptian coast.
I welcome you all to Cmdr. Bluefin (USN) 2015 “Great Pirate Race”, Special “Egyptian” Pirate Curse of the “Mummy Tomb” (Report).
Pro se plaintiff, “louis charles hamilton ii”, co plaintiff(s) “united states...Louis Charles Hamilton II
U.S. Docket No. 15-MC-2283 Pro Se Plaintiff, “Louis Charles Hamilton II”, Co-Plaintiff(s) United States of America” et al, and Co-Plaintiff “State of Texas” et al, vs. Chief Defendant “Doctor Dinesh Chandra Khare”, Co-Defendant(s) “Geeta International” et al, Co-Defendant(s) “Geeta International Legal Division” et al, “Geeta International Co. Ltd.”, Co-Defendant(s) GEETA Group LLC et al, Co-Defendant Vipul Khare, Co-Defendant(s) “Rishu Khare” Plk LLC, And Co-Defendant(s) “Vijay Khare” Co-Defendant(s) “Greg Miller” of “Trillionaire Realty”, and “Trillionaire Assets”
This document is a certified letter notifying multiple parties of an unpaid balance owed to Louis Charles Hamilton II and DeChavez Construction Co. for concrete labor provided for the BlueJack National Golf Club construction project. It states that the balance is past due and notes causes of action for breach of contract, theft of services, and misrepresentation. The letter serves as a pre-lien notice as required by law and a demand for payment, giving the notified parties 10 days to respond before a mechanic's lien will be filed and a lawsuit initiated to foreclose on the lien. It provides contact information and documentation of the work via photos posted online.
Amend U.S. Civil Complaint Louis Charles Hamilton II vs. Chief Defendant Anto...Louis Charles Hamilton II
Wherefore Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II Respectfully Moves and Request the “Honorable Court Justice” for any further, Just, proper, Damages, Orders, and Awards
The “Honorable Court Justice” Deems favorable for the behalf of Pro Se Plaintiff “Louis Charles Hamilton II” herein in "Law and equity".
This document is a "Notice of Motion for Contempt of Court" filed by plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II against defendants Joyce Guy and Edward McCray in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. The plaintiff motions the court to hold the defendants in contempt for failing to comply with a May 10, 2010 court order requiring them to produce documents related to property ownership and construction estimates. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants have refused to produce these documents as ordered. The plaintiff requests that the defendants be held in contempt of court and sanctioned for their noncompliance with the May 2010 court order.
Louis Charles Hamilton II PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT No. A-180805 Louis Charles Hamilton II
1. Defendant(s) “Joyce Guy and Edward McCray” having “Actual Damages” being owed to the Plaintiff in the Amount of $11,024.00 with full 6% interest rate incurred since date of injury November 16th 2007 To include but not limited to the “Actual Theft” of the Plaintiff entire Construction Company set of tools in excess of $3093.00 Dollars
2. Defendant(s) “Joyce Guy and Edward McCray” having “Actual Damages” being owed to the Plaintiff in the Amount of $336,000.00 minimal lost wages and lost earning capacity” per year with full 6% interest rate incurred since date of injury November 17th 2007
3. This do not include, or exempt any exemplary, intentional infliction, mental anguish, physical assault & battery upon the Plaintiff person, just awards and damages the Pro Se Plaintiff may be entitled in addition to Actual damages as described in Paragraph (1) and (2) above.
In The United States District Court Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attor...Louis Charles Hamilton II
To: Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)” and His Counsel of Record filed herein,
Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II Propounded “First Set” of Interrogatories.
Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, it is hereby requested and demanded of Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman J.D. (Attorney at Law)”
responds to this “First Set of Interrogatories” within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
Answers and Objections.
(1) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to,
in which event the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable.
(2) The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them.
(3) The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories.
A shorter or longer time may be directed by the court or, in the absence of such an order, agreed to in writing by the parties subject to Rule 29.
(4) All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity.
Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.
Explain in full expert Attorney at Law details, and Supply in full details also any and all legal court documents, letters, faxes, text, memos, emails, in support from the date of December 18th 2007 throughout the dates of October 14th 2009 you
Defendant “Antoine L. Freeman, J.D. Texas Bar No. 24058299 herein was (Only) acting in the “legal capacitates” as a Attorney at Law to file a General Denial (Only)
to reply in the Complaint made against Co-Defendant(s) Joyce M. Guy and Edward McCray( herein )
In a civil suit in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County Texas filed in Cause No. A-180805 that you were retain to for such services from said time frame of December 18th 2007
and still remaining (Acting) Attorney of record throughout the dates of October 14th 2009, up till the dates November 13th 2009 10:22 AM when you file a “Motion for Withdrawal” in cause No. A-180805
MOTION TO FREEZE DOCUMENTS, ASSETS, OF DEFENDANT ANTOINE L. FREEMAN J.D., "At...Louis Charles Hamilton II
This document is a motion filed by Louis Charles Hamilton II (the plaintiff) requesting a temporary restraining order and order to freeze the documents, records, and assets of defendant Antoine L. Freeman (an attorney) and co-defendants Joyce Guy and Edward McCray. The motion alleges that the defendants committed fraud, obstruction of justice, and violated RICO statutes in relation to civil suit number A-180805. It requests that the court issue orders prohibiting the destruction of records and freezing the defendants' assets until the case is resolved.
(RICO) Federal complaint Defendant(s) Antoine L. Freeman J. D. (Attorney at L...Louis Charles Hamilton II
This document is a civil complaint filed by Louis Charles Hamilton II against Antoine L. Freeman (an attorney), Joyce M. Guy, and Edward McCray alleging violations of federal racketeering and fraud statutes. Hamilton claims the defendants conspired to commit fraud and obstruct justice in a separate civil suit in Jefferson County involving insurance fraud related to hurricane damage. Hamilton alleges the attorney defendant committed fraud in court filings and documents to aid the co-defendants' scheme, which also involved defrauding the Texas Department of Housing and a federal grant of $76,000. Jurisdiction is claimed in federal court due to violations of federal racketeering and fraud laws.
The plaintiff is requesting a Writ of Execution to seize and sell property located at 448 DeQueen Blvd in Port Arthur, Texas to satisfy a judgment against the defendants. The defendants failed to provide documentation showing ownership of the property as ordered by the court. The plaintiff was awarded $16,576.61 in damages plus 6% interest annually for claims against the defendants dating back to 2007. The plaintiff is asking the court to enforce the Writ of Execution by having the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office seize the property, evict any occupants, sell the property in a court-ordered sale, and apply the proceeds to satisfy the judgment plus all accrued interest and court costs.
This document is a motion for writ of garnishment filed by plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II against defendants Joyce Guy and Edward McCray. It summarizes ongoing civil disputes over damages owed and properties located at 448 DeQueen Blvd in Port Arthur, Texas. The plaintiff alleges the defendants have refused court orders to provide discovery documents related to construction liens, property transfers, and grants involving the property in question. The plaintiff seeks to garnish businesses located at the property address that are allegedly owned by the defendants.
This motion for final summary judgment alleges that the defendants entered into a $10,850 contract with the plaintiff to repair hurricane damage to their home but then breached the contract. It claims the defendants received insurance money for repairs but spent it elsewhere and confiscated the plaintiff's tools. The plaintiff argues there are no genuine issues of material fact and he is entitled to damages, lost profits, and return of his tools as a matter of law.
1. The plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the defendants for failing to comply with a court order to produce documents related to property ownership and hurricane damage estimates.
2. The court had previously ordered the defendants to produce deeds, property records, and construction estimates for hurricane damage to a property by May 2010, but the defendants did not comply.
3. The plaintiff is requesting sanctions in the amount of $4,500 against the defendants for disregarding the court order from May 2010 through December 2014.
1. The plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, is motioning the court to place a property lien on a property located at 448 DeQueen Blvd. in Port Arthur, Texas.
2. The defendants, Joyce Guy and Edward McCray, were previously ordered by the court to provide documents showing ownership of the property but failed to do so.
3. The plaintiff is requesting the lien and enforcement by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office to secure any judgment in this ongoing civil lawsuit over the disputed property.
Real fact as They "Officially" Stand in 2014 For (Negro) Race and The "Unholy...Louis Charles Hamilton II
The document summarizes the history of racism within the Mormon church. It describes how the Mormon church had extreme racist doctrines for over 130 years, such as barring black people from the priesthood and temples. In 1978, church leaders claimed God had a revelation to change this policy, but the document argues this was actually done to avoid losing tax-exempt status due to racial discrimination. It provides numerous direct quotes from early Mormon leaders promoting racist views, such as that black people bore the "Mark of Cain" and were servants to white people. The document criticizes how the Mormon church changed its doctrines in response to laws rather than biblical truth.
This document discusses the author's grievances against various individuals and institutions. It alleges that the US Attorney's office, under Eric Holder, aided Mormons in Salt Lake City in stealing a home video that showed the author's missing daughters. It accuses Holder and judges of racism and failing to protect the author's rights. It expresses anger at Holder for statements made regarding the New Black Panthers case. The author believes powerful orders were given to destroy evidence that could have reunited him with his daughters.
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docxadhitya5119
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
Walmart Business+ and Spark Good for Nonprofits.pdfTechSoup
"Learn about all the ways Walmart supports nonprofit organizations.
You will hear from Liz Willett, the Head of Nonprofits, and hear about what Walmart is doing to help nonprofits, including Walmart Business and Spark Good. Walmart Business+ is a new offer for nonprofits that offers discounts and also streamlines nonprofits order and expense tracking, saving time and money.
The webinar may also give some examples on how nonprofits can best leverage Walmart Business+.
The event will cover the following::
Walmart Business + (https://business.walmart.com/plus) is a new shopping experience for nonprofits, schools, and local business customers that connects an exclusive online shopping experience to stores. Benefits include free delivery and shipping, a 'Spend Analytics” feature, special discounts, deals and tax-exempt shopping.
Special TechSoup offer for a free 180 days membership, and up to $150 in discounts on eligible orders.
Spark Good (walmart.com/sparkgood) is a charitable platform that enables nonprofits to receive donations directly from customers and associates.
Answers about how you can do more with Walmart!"
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodCeline George
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
A review of the growth of the Israel Genealogy Research Association Database Collection for the last 12 months. Our collection is now passed the 3 million mark and still growing. See which archives have contributed the most. See the different types of records we have, and which years have had records added. You can also see what we have for the future.
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
This slide is special for master students (MIBS & MIFB) in UUM. Also useful for readers who are interested in the topic of contemporary Islamic banking.
Pengantar Penggunaan Flutter - Dart programming language1.pptx
Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states...
1. In The United States District Court<br />For the Eastern District of Texas<br />Beaumont Division<br />Louis Charles Hamilton II<br />(Negro African American)<br />Plaintiff<br />And All other African (Negroes)<br />Americans in and for<br />The United States of America<br />Plaintiff(s)<br />Vs. <br />United States of America,<br />Defendant<br />And<br />Vs.<br />President Andrew Johnson,<br />President Rutherford B. Hayes<br />Co-Defendant<br />Complaint and Jury Demand<br />1.<br />Comes now the Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II, appearing Pro Se<br />The above name male, a descendant from a past legacy of forced “Slavery and Servitude” wrongfully committed against the Plaintiffs family descendants,<br />2.<br /> Primarily because of being a member of a race that being of (Negro) origin, (now considered politically correct within this time frame) a “Black African American male” within the United States of America<br />And all other (Negroes) Black African Americans in and for the “Entire United States of America,”<br />3.<br /> To include but not limited to “all other fleeing” (Negroes) Black African Americans Plaintiff(s) to other countries abroad, namely “Canada” whom also may be entitled to the same cause(s) now being filed and complained of before the above entitled Honorable Court;<br />4.<br /> With other said (Negroes) Blacks African Americans Plaintiff(s) having “legal proof” in providing for said compensatory support made in all provisions claims made herein for a “suffered Heritage being that of “Negroes African American” fleeing from the “United States of America” whom also may being justly entitled to the provisions respectfully sought herein.<br />5.<br />For each described said Plaintiff(s) “rightful full relief” for all of the ungodly, wrongful, extreme and outrageous, conducts committed by all described Defendants collectively herein,<br /> Being both the “direct and indirect” causes for all of the described above-mention Plaintiff(s) causes for having to wrongfully suffered, endured in the casualty of<br />“Plaintiffs major Losses” of “past family descendants due to “wrongful deaths” in a manner involving violence’s of murder, hanging(s),<br />6.<br />With further cruel actions involving hostile intimidations, threats, beatings & whippings, and other forms of direct and indirect cause of wrongful force at the hands of the said Defendant(s) described herein to force Plaintiffs family descendants into the wrongful usage for monetary gain through “slavery and servitude”.<br />To include but not limited to other causes of direct wrongful “physical and mental” factors from enslavements, being that primarily Plaintiffs was a slave with a result in losses in a normal life,<br />7.<br />Losses in peaceful freedom in everyday choice, losses in dignity in the pursuit of equal liberty as a Negro American within the United States of America.<br />All of which said peaceful rights in choice, peace, and freedom having already been established for all other first class citizens within the United States of America under the Constitution instituted for all first class citizens.<br />Denied living with dignity, respect, and freedom as other national origins of classes enjoyed and continue to enjoy within the United States of America as present”,<br /> 8.<br />With Defendant(s) The United States of America “systematic” continual as of this undersign date exercise continual wrongful conduct of “pattern(s) and practices” in the rightful returning of the Plaintiff peaceful “Heritage that of (Negroes) to a rightful official standing place as that of a first class citizens within the United States of America<br />9.<br />And all of the Plaintiff's entire Family descendants both past and present with all other Negroes similarly the same promptly obtain just monetary compensation being finally, fully and completely render to all of the Plaintiff(s) for all of the causes thereof both past and present.<br />And for cause the Plaintiff will show the following:<br />10.<br />Factual background<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Slavery in some form or another existed in America. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain and will show the Honorable Court that the English Colonies did establish two forms of slavery that were legal: Indentured Servitude (where an individual was put in bondage to pay a debt such as the cost of transport to the new world and at the end of the agreed term the individual was freed from bondage). <br />11.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Indentured Servants were treated as badly as chattel slaves while in the period of bondage per their contract.<br />Indentured Servants system of bondage was not based on race and it appears originally among the lower classes that Indentured Servants belonged to all racial groups were represented and shared in common bondage together.<br />12.<br />It also was apparent that with the growth of Mulattoes (bi-racial off spring) that the races mixed with no animosity. <br />Indentured Servants were oftentimes recruited much the same way for both black and white through a series of kidnappings. <br />White Indentured Servants were often kidnapped off the streets of London by Sea Captains who took them to the colonies where they were sold for indentured services.<br /> Blacks were kidnapped from their villages and sold at first as indentured servants in the English Colonies.<br /> 13.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert to the Honorable Court that during the early 1700's due to economic considerations a transition concerning Indentured and Chattel Slavery took place. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that with the growth of Plantations, a form of commercial farming that required labor intensive work, the plantation owners required cheap labor and through political pressure defined and established “Chattel Slavery.”<br />14.<br />Furthermore the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that some of the laws were enacted were due to slave rebellions (with both black and white indentured servants participating) which caused the colonies to write a more definitive series of law defining slavery and removing of rights previously held.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that laws were enacted that made interracial marriage illegal for the dubious purpose of driving a wedge between the races who previously worked together in harmony and to establish a racial bias setting among poor whites.<br />15.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the laws established that “Negroes” a/k/a Black African Americans were fully identified as slaves and property herein referred to as “Chattel”.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully asserts that the Slave codes were put into force creating the brutal conditions of “Chattel Slavery”.<br />With the growth of “Chattel Slavery” came the introduction of “race based slavery” and the development a racist caste system which were promoted primarily by the aristocratic elements of society.<br />16.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that for the Aristocrat (White) class the introduction of a racial components to the slavery provided the advantage that (Negroes) A/K/A Black Africans could be readily identified and could not escape and blend into the surrounding populations as easily as white who could escape and blend into white communities and Indian indentured servants who could escape and blend into tribes nearby.<br />17.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that (Negroes) Blacks had nowhere to escape, no authority to appeal to (especially after the laws were changed), and what little rights they had eroded.<br />18.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that with the evolution of “Chattel Slavery” (Negroes) Black Africans went from a system that had some rights and legal recourse to a system that virtually stripped them of all rights.<br />19.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and will show the Honorable Court that Economics was the driving force for the change from Indentured Servants to Chattel Slavery. <br />Furthermore, Economics also played a role in the change of laws dealing with slavery between Northern Colonies and later the Northern States.<br />20.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the crops grown in the North and industrialization did not require large labor gangs that the plantations required in the South.<br />21. <br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that slavery was abolished in the Northern Colonies/States between the years of 1774 through 1804(Vermont 1777, Pennsylvania 1780, Massachusetts 1780, New Hampshire 1783, Connecticut 1784, Rhodes Island 1784, New York 1799 and New Jersey 1804).<br />22.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the development of differing forms of economies between the north and the south was to set the stage for interregional strife even from the very birth of the nation.<br /> 23.<br />The Declaration of Independence and Constitution had problems with Slavery.<br />24.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Assert and will show the Honorable Court that the Declaration of Independence as written by Thomas Jefferson was changed by the Continental Congress removing the last grievance which condemned the King for allowing slavery and Slave trade to continue and offering freedom for slaves who would fight for the crown.<br />25.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintains and will show the Honorable Court that the above mentioned grievance was removed to avoid a lengthy debate on slavery and to assure that the Defendants (The United States of America) Southern Colonies/States join in the War for Independence efforts.<br />26.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the compromises with Southern Colonies and later Defendants (States) that permitted slavery to continue did perpetuate and allowed the Killing, abuse, beatings, and rape of the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs (Negroes) Black African Americans past descendants by Rich White Southern Plantation owners.<br />27.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain the that the language of the Declaration of Independence “that all men were created equal” meant just that and was perverted by White Southern Politicians with the removal of the last grievance.<br />28.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that when the Articles of Confederation were deemed ineffective and a new Constitution was considered that the Southern Politicians did everything in their power to maintain their vile and “Peculiar System”.<br />29.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Founding Fathers in 1789 again compromised with the Southern White Plantation Owners by adding the 3/5 Section that deals with the counting of slaves as 3/5 of a person for tax and Representative allocations to the House of Representatives.<br />30.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Founding Fathers did not use the term slave when writing the Constitution and did consider the (Negroes) Black African-Americans to be persons and not property.<br />31.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert that the founding fathers (specifically the delegates to the Constitutional Convention also known as the Framers of the Constitution) purposely did not use the term slave in the clause dealing with Fugitive Slaves but again referring to slaves as Persons.<br />32.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the compromises made with the Rich White Southern Plantation Owners granted Southern Defendants more political power to maintain and perpetuate the chattel slave system along with the murder, beatings, rapes, and non consensual medical experimentations.<br />33.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) avers that the Defendants (the United States of America) did from its very conception conspire to enslave a whole race namely the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs (Negroes) Black African-Americans by making compromises with the Rich Southern White Plantation owner.<br />34.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendant (The United States of America) by passing the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 which provided for a method of returning escaped slaves and even more vehemently in the Fugitive Law of 1850 which made “good citizens” a/k/a Defendants herein criminals when assisting “escaped slaves” thus supporting the vile institution of chattel slavery and it's abuses.<br />35.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the 1850 Fugitive Law made it possible for Freemen (Negroes) Black African-Americans to be kidnapped and taken to the South to be sold into slavery.<br />36.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 even encouraged the kidnapping of Free (Negroes)Black African-Americans by Paying Commissioners Judges more for the return of escaped slaves than the releasing them, and it made it illegal for Northern States to use a jury to determine the status of the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs (Negro) Black African-American.<br />37.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that in response to the reign of terror in the North by Federal Marshals seeking to enforce the dubious law it is estimated that Between 100,000 and 200,000 (Negro) Black African-Americans fled the United States of America to Canada for freedom that the “Land of the Free” would not afford them.<br />38.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Southern politician were more concerned about maintaining slavery that they were willing to use the Federal Government against other states to protect the Chattel Slavery even at the expense of “States Rights.<br />39.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that the Fugitive Act of 1850 made slavery a nationally sanctioned institution;<br /> Forcing many law abiding (Defendants) to resist the Fugitive Save Law of 1850 making many Northerners willing to participate in the Underground Railroad assisting (Negro) Black African-American to escape to Canada and Mexico with the majority going to Canada.<br />40.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Underground Railroad was a justifiable response against the compromises made to appease the South.<br />41.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furthermore assert and will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States of America) did endorse, promote, and participate in preserving “Chattel Slavery” by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and by using tax payer monies to pay Commissioners and Marshals to return to the South runaway slaves (some who were never slaves).<br />42.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Southern Slave Holders were more interested in preserving chattel slavery than the Union.<br />43.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) avow that the Election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 threatened the “Slaveocracy” or the political power and control exerted on the Defendant (The United States of America) by the Southern White Slave Owners.<br />44.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the political compromises made for the benefit of the Southern White Slave Holder to maintain the Defendant (The United States of America) together resulted in a costly war and loss of life.<br />45.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and will show the Honorable Court that while the excessive greed and demand for cheap labor (Chattel Slavery) in the South benefited the Defendant (The United States of America) by production of raw materials for export and domestic use the Northern States where manufacturing existed profited from the production of cheaper raw materials from the South because of Chattel Slavery.<br />46.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Defendants (The United States of America) specifically the North began to abolish slavery when the Lucrative Slave Trade and Triangle was made illegal by the Constitution of the United States of America and the act of Congress ending the slave trade as specified by the time limit set by the Constitution of the United States for slave trade. <br />47.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the election of 1860 with the political division of the Defendants (the United States of America) the electorate elected Abraham Lincoln President not by popular vote but by the Electoral College.<br />48.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the electorate was split on what to do with “Chattel Slavery” with successes in populous anti-slavery North Eastern states whom had more electoral votes assured that Abraham Lincoln won.<br />49.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Rich White Pro Slave politicians took advantage the heated political environment of the 1860 election and inflamed their Southern constituencies to break up the Union which resulted in a bloody war.<br />50.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that one of the solutions for ending “Chattel Slavery” was to reimburse the Slave Holders to free their slaves which was absurd paying the perpetrators of slavery instead of the victims of a hideous, repulsive, and horrific abuse of human beings namely Plaintiff and Plaintiff descendants (Negro) African-Americans.<br />51.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that at no time throughout and after the travail of “Chattel Slavery” with its abuses of “basic human rights” and its inhumane inflicted upon the slaves --- (Plaintiff and Plaintiff's)<br />Including but not limited to murder, rapes, and beatings to force the slave Plaintiff and Plaintiff's (Negro) Black African Americans to work harder and increase production for the rich white Slave Holder Defendants and all those who benefited from their labors namely Defendants (The United States of America), <br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff's assert before the Honorable Court there never, never ever was even a neither meaningful public apology nor monetary compensation made to the slaves (Plaintiff and Plaintiff's) herein.<br />52<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and aver that on or about April 14th, 1865 an insidious pernicious conspiracy came to fruition for.<br />53.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that on or about April 14th, 1865 the date of the Assassination of President Abraham Lincoln,<br />The Co-Defendant (Vice President Andrew Johnson) conspires for personal gain joined in a conspiracy to Assassinate and murder the President of the United States.<br />President Abraham Lincoln, the son of abolitionists threatens the Defendant's (The United States of America) free labor industry NAMELY (Slavery),<br />This prompted many Defendants (The United States of America) “Southern States” to secede, or leave the union, launching the “Civil War” in an effort to keep the all of the Defendants (The United States of America) States together.<br />(President Abe Lincoln) threaten to free the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans from those Defendant (The United States of America) “ States” who had seceded if they did not return to the Defendants (The United States of America) Union, when had they refused, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.<br />Those states not covered by the proclamation included Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware and Tennessee. New Orleans and 13 Parishes in Louisiana were also exempt. These states had either, never declared secession, were in the process of return to the Union or were already under federal control.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Slavery of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) was never really about racism it was about revenue. Furthermore racism was the vehicle that allowed it to exist and Jim Crow, the unjust legal system that protected the oppression that followed of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) serving to keep the Defendant (The United States of America) to keep labor costs low under this culture of Jim Crow Law.<br />Moreover, the end of slavery threatened to cripple the South, prompting them to seek other means of replacing the free labor offered by slaves. Prisons became the answer. When the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans were accused by Whites of any crime, they were often sent to labor farms or prisons for long periods, where they would pick cotton, work in mines or help build railroads. Prisoners had little or no rights and treatment was as cruel as slavery.<br /> This caused the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans to fear any interaction that would bring them in contact with the legal system, making them more compliant to the White man's rule. However, the interference of federal authorities made it harder for the Defendant's (The United States of America) White Southerners to regain control of Blacks and they lobbied to have federal control removed from the South.<br />54.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that The Co-Defendant (Vice President Andrew Johnson) did have more than a passing acquaintance with co-conspirators who killed President Abraham Lincoln.<br />And The Co-Defendant (Vice President Andrew Johnson) having had numerous encounters when he was the Military Governor, when John Wilkes Booth and Co-Defendant (Vice President Andrew Johnson) kept sisters as mistresses. <br />55.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Vice President had been shunned by the President (Lincoln) after appearing at the Inauguration inebriated.<br />56.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will aver that while Andrew Johnson was Military Governor did meet John Wilkes Booth at the Opening of the Wood's Theater on about February 1864.<br />57.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that “John Wilkes Booth” approximately seven hours before shooting the president, Booth dropped by the Washington hotel which was Co-Defendant (Vice-President Andrew Johnson's) residence.<br />58.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furthermore assert that upon learning from the desk clerk that neither Andrew Johnson nor his private secretary, William A. Browning, was in the hotel, Booth wrote the following note: quot;
Don't wish to disturb you Are you at home? J. Wilkes Booth.quot;
<br />59.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that William A. Browning Co-Defendant (Vice President's Andrew Johnson) Private Secretary testified before the military court that he found the note in his mailing box later that afternoon.<br />60.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the note left by John Wilkes Booth was common knowledge and that the assassinated President's wife wrote about it to her friend.<br />61.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain and will show the Honorable Court that Mary Todd Lincoln felt Co-Defendant Andrew Johnson was involved. On March 15, 1866 she wrote to her friend, Sally Oren: …. that, that miserable inebriate, (Johnson), had cognizance of my husband' death--- why was that card Booth's, found in his box.<br />62.<br />Mary Todd Lincoln was not the only contemporary who questioned whether Johnson had a role in the Lincoln assassination several Congress Members questioned Vice President Johnson's role.<br />63.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiffs assert that John Wilkes Booth was a noted actor, Confederate sympathizer and avowed White Supremacist Racist who had planned initially to kidnap President Lincoln, hoping to exchange him for Confederate prisoners.<br />64.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Plans were made to kidnap President Lincoln in March 1865 when Lincoln was scheduled to attend a function at a Washington Hospital and when that did not happen Booth's plan had to be placed on hold.<br />65.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that on or about April 11, 1865 upon hearing that Lincoln mentioned that some Plaintiff and Plaintiff descendants (Negroes) Black African-Americans should be allowed to vote John Wilkes Booth changed his kidnapping plan to one of assassination.<br />66.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that President and Mrs. Lincoln attended a performance at Ford’s Theater in Washington on or about April 14th and approximately at 10:00 PM Booth entered the unguarded presidential box, as the guard left his post for a drink at a nearby bar; and shot Lincoln in the back of his head.<br />67.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert that after firing the shot Booth while attempting to escape the scene, did get caught on some bunting with draped the Presidential Box and broke his leg.<br />68.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that some of patrons reported hearing (Booth) shouts as he escape the Virginia motto, “Sic simper tyrannies” (thus always to tyrants); others thought they heard, “The South shall live!”<br />69.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that President Lincoln lingered throughout the night and died early the next morning without regaining consciousness.<br />70.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the assassination of (Lincoln) was part of a larger plot, including the killing of Secretary of State William H. Seward, and General Ulysses S. Grant.<br />71.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Secretary of State (Seward) was attacked at his home and received serious knife wounds, but recovered and continued in office under Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson).<br />72.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Ulysses Grant and his wife were scheduled to attend the performance with the Lincolns, but had a last-minute change of plans.<br />73.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that while Vice-President was on list of targets on that fateful day no attempt was made on Andrew Johnson's life.<br />74.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further maintain that John Wilkes Booth had hoped that the removal of the leading head figures in the United States government would spark a revival of the Confederacy which was on its last legs.<br />75.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that (Booth) escaped and was caught several weeks later hiding in a barn near Port Royal, Virginia and was shot by one of the armed officials while he was fleeing the burning barn, several hours later (Booth) died from his wounds.<br />76.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show that eight persons were arrested as conspirators. All were tried and convicted by a military tribunal. Four were hanged. One died in jail. Three received presidential pardons in 1869.<br />77.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that high Confederate officials namely Jefferson Davis had played a role in planning the assassination.<br />78.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that while President Abraham Lincoln was not always a popular President when alive, even in the North; he did become a martyr and a hero.<br />79.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that many members of Congress also questioned many of the actions of President Johnson suspecting that his actions might have been suspect. While their investigations did not lead to legal action as far as the assassination it did lead to a stormy relationship with the Co Defendant (President Andrew Johnson). So much so that eventually he was impeached under 11 Articles of Impeachment which follow:<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court<br />PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES On Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives<br /> On Monday, February the 24th, 1868, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States resolved to impeach Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which the Senate was apprised and arrangements were made for the trial. On Monday the 2d of March, articles of impeachment were agreed upon by the House of Representatives, and on the 4th they were presented to the Senate by the managers on the part of the House, who were accompanied by the House, the grand inquest of the nation, as a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. BINGHAM, chairman of the managers, read the articles as follows:<br /> Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States, in the name of themselves and all the people of the United States, against Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, in maintenance and support of their impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.<br />ARTICLE I.<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States issue and order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been theretofore duly appointed and commissioned, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, as such Secretary, and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 12th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1867, and during the recess of said Senate, having been suspended by his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of said Senate, that is to say, on the 12th day of December, in the year last aforesaid, having reported to said Senate such suspension, with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case and the name of the person designated to perform the duties of such office temporarily until the next meeting of the Senate, and said Senate there afterward, on the 13th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1868, having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, and having been refused to concur in said suspension, whereby and by force of the provisions of an act entitled quot;
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,quot;
passed March 2, 1867, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there due notice, and said Edwin Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said 21st day of February, being lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary for the Department of War, which said order for the removal of said Edwin M. Stanton is, in substance, as follows, that is to say:<br /> EXECUTIVE MANSION,<br />WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868<br /> SIR: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me, as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will start PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES On Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives<br /> On Monday, February minute upon receipt of their communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major-General L. Thomas, Adjutant-General of the Army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all books, paper and other public property now in your custody and charge.<br />Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON.<br />Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War<br /> Which order was unlawfully issued, and with intent then are there to violate the act entitled quot;
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,quot;
passed March 2, 1867; and, with the further intent contrary to the provisions of said act, and in violation thereof, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there being in session, to remove said Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, the said Edwin M. Stanton being then and there Secretary of War, and being then and there in the due and lawful execution of the duties of said office, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE II.<br /> That on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled quot;
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,quot;
passed March 2, 1867, without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, said Senate then and there being in session, and without authority of law, did, with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States and the act aforesaid, issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority, in substance as follows, that is to say:<br /> EXECUTIVE MANSION,<br />WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868<br /> SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge.<br />Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON<br />To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas ,Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D.C.<br /> Then and there being no vacancy in said office of Secretary for the Department of War: whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE III.<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington in the District of Columbia, did commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office, in this, that, without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War, ad interim, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States, no vacancy having happened in said office of Secretary for the Department of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in said office at the time, and which said appointment so made by Andrew Johnson, of said Lorenzo Thomas is in substance as follows, that is to say:<br /> EXECUTIVE MANSION,<br />WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868<br /> SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge.<br />Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON<br />To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D.C. <br />ARTICLE IV.<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons to the House of Representatives unknown, with intent by intimidation and threats unlawfully to hinder and prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there, the Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed under the laws of the United States, from holding said office of Secretary for the Department of War, contrary to and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the provisions of an act entitled quot;
An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,quot;
approved July 31, 1861, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of high crime in office.<br />ARTICLE V.<br /> prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secret prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby the secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under th prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby these laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby the s<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the 21st of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, and on divers others days and time in said year before the 2d day of March, A.D. 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, and with other persons in the House of Representatives unknown, to prevent and hinder the execution of an act entitled quot;
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,quot;
passed March 2, 1867, and in pursuance of said conspiracy, did attempt to prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then and there being Secretary for the Department of War, duly appointed and commissioned under the laws of the United States, from holding said office, whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of high misdemeanor in office. <br />ARTICLE VI.<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas, by force to seize, take, and possess the property of the United Sates in the Department of War, and then and there in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary for said Department, contrary to the provisions of an act entitled quot;
An act to define and punish certain conspiracies,quot;
approved July 31, 1861, and with intent to violate and disregard an act entitled quot;
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,quot;
passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office.<br />ARTICLE VII.<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, and of his oath of office, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully conspire with one Lorenzo Thomas with intent unlawfully to seize, take, and possess the property of the United States in the Department of War, in the custody and charge of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of said Department, with intent to violate and disregard the act entitled quot;
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,quot;
passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE VIII.<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, with intent unlawfully to control the disbursements of the moneys appropriated for the military service and for the Department of War, on the 21st day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did unlawfully and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled quot;
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,quot;
passed March 2, 1867, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, and while the Senate was then and there in session, there being no vacancy in the office of Secretary for the Department of War, with intent to violate and disregard the act aforesaid, then and there issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority in writing, in substance as follows, that is to say:<br /> EXECUTIVE MANSION,<br />WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868<br /> SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers and other public property now in his custody and charge.<br />Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON<br />To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D.C.<br /> Whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE IX<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the 22nd day of February, in the year of our Lord 1868, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in disregard of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, duly enacted, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States, did bring before himself, then and there William H. Emory, a Major-General by brevet in the Army of the United States, actually in command of the department of Washington, and the military forces thereof, and did and there, as such Commander-in-Chief, declare to, and instruct said Emory, that part of a law of the United States, passed March 2, 1867, entitled quot;
An act for making appropriations for the support of the army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes,quot;
especially the second section thereof, which provides, among other things, that quot;
all orders and instructions relating to military operations issued by the President or Secretary of War, shall be issued through the General of the Army, and, in case of his inability, through the next in rank,quot;
was unconstitutional, and in contravention of the commission of said Emory, and which said provision of law had been theretofore duly and legally promulgated by general order for the government and direction of the Army of the United States, as the said Andrew Johnson then and there well knew, with intent thereby to induce said Emory, in his official capacity as Commander of the department of Washington, to violate the provisions of said act, and to take and receive, act upon and obey such orders as he, the said Andrew Johnson, might make and give, and which should not be issued through the General of the Army of the United States, according to the provisions of said act, and with the further intent thereby to enable him, the said Andrew Johnson, to prevent the execution of an act entitled quot;
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,quot;
passed March 2, 1867, and to unlawfully prevent Edwin M. Stanton, then being Secretary for the Department of War, from holding said office and discharging the duties thereof, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE X.<br /> That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say:<br /> Specification First. In this, that at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in the Executive Mansion, to a committee of citizens who called upon the President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, heretofore, to wit: On the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1866, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say: quot;
So far as the Executive Department of the government is concerned, the effort has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to pour oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and, to speak in a common phrase, to prepare, as the learned and wise physician would, a plaster healing in character and co-extensive with the wound. We thought and we think that we had partially succeeded, but as the work progresses, as reconstruction seemed to be taking place, and the country was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and moving element opposing it. In alluding to that element it shall go no further than your Convention, and the distinguished gentleman who has delivered the report of the proceedings, I shall make no reference that I do not believe, and the time and the occasion justify. quot;
We have witnessed in one department of the government every endeavor to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony and union. We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body called or which assumes to be the Congress of the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only part of the States. We have seen this Congress pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion and make a disruption of States inevitable. quot;
We have seen Congress gradually encroach, step by step, upon constitutional rights, and violate day after day, and month after month, fundamental principles of the government. We have seen a Congress that seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation. We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise power which, if allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or monarchy itself.quot;
<br /> Specification Second. In this, that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, heretofore to wit: On the third day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say: “I will tell you what I did do? I called upon your Congress that is trying to break up the Government.quot;
<br />* * * * * * * * * * * *<br /> quot;
In conclusion, beside that Congress had taken much pains to poison the constituents against him, what has Congress done? Have they done anything to restore the union of the States? No: On the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it: and because he stood now where he did when the rebellion commenced, he had been denounced as a traitor. Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But Congress, factions and domineering, had undertaken to poison the minds of the American people.quot;
<br /> Specification Third. In this case, that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, heretofore to wit: On the 8th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of acts concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say: quot;
Go on, perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans you might understand more about it than you do, and if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New Orleans, perhaps you will not be so prompt in calling out quot;
New Orleans.quot;
If you will take up the riot of New Orleans and trace it back to its source and its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to the Radical Congress, you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses you will understand that they knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its powers having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the population, called the colored population, and who had been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men. When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you will find that speeches were made incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population? the black population? to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the organized authorities in the State of Louisiana, which had been organized by the government of the United States, and every man engaged in that rebellion, in the convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the Government of the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, and hence you find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the Radical Congress.<br />* * * * * * * * * * * *<br /> quot;
So much for the New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed, and every drop of blood that was shed is upon their skirts and they are responsible. I could test this thing a little closer, but will not do it here to-night. But when you talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings of that kind, perhaps, as I have been introduced here and you have provoked questions of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical Congress in connection with New Orleans and the extension of the elective franchise. quot;
I know that I have been traduced and abused. I know it has come in advance of me here, as elsewhere, that I have attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon the government; that I had exercised that power; that I had abandoned the party that elected me, and that I was a traitor, because I exercised the veto power in attempting, and did arrest for a time, that which was called a quot;
Freedmen’s Bureauquot;
bill. Yes, that I was a traitor. And I have been traduced; I have been slandered; I have been maligned; I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my countrymen, here to-night, it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas, and cry out traitor, but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot? Judas! There was a Judas, and he was one of the twelve Apostles. O, yes, the twelve Apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had twelve Apostles. If I have played the Judas who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? They are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Savior, and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and tries to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy is to be denounced as a Judas.quot;
<br />* * * * * * * * * * * *<br /> quot;
Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action, if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance? soldiers and citizens? to participate in these office, God be willing, I will kick them out. I will kick them out just as fast as I can. quot;
Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said is what I intended to say; I was not provoked into this, and care not for their menaces, the taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to be bullied by enemies, nor erased by my friends. But, God willing, with your help, I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me.quot;
Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />ARTICLE XI.<br /> That the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office, and in disregard of the Constitution and laws of the United States, did, heretofore, to wit: On the 18th day of August, 1866, at the city of Washington, and in the District of Columbia, by public speech, declare and affirm in substance, that the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States was not a Congress of the United States authorized by the Constitution to exercise legislative power under the same; but, on the contrary, was a Congress of only part of the States, thereby denying and intending to deny, that the legislation of said Congress was valid or obligatory upon him, the said Andrew Johnson, except in so far as he saw fit to approve the same, and also thereby denying the power of the said Thirty-Ninth Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. And in pursuance of said declaration, the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, afterwards, to wit: On the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, D.C., did, unlawfully and in disregard of the requirements of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, attempt to prevent the execution of an act entitled quot;
An act regulating the tenure of certain civil office,quot;
passed March 2, 1867, by unlawfully devising and contriving and attempting to devise and contrive means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War, notwithstanding the refusal of the Senate to concur in the suspension therefore made by the said Andrew Johnson of said Edwin M. Stanton from said office of Secretary for the Department of War; and also by further unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive, means then and there to prevent the execution of an act entitled quot;
An act making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30,1868, and for other purposes,quot;
approved March 2, 1867. And also to prevent the execution of an act entitled quot;
An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States,quot;
passed March 2, 1867. Whereby the said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then, to wit: on the 21st day of February, 1868, at the city of Washington, commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.<br />80.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court that Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson), a former slave owner, while accepting the emancipation of the slaves did not accept the idea that the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs a/k/a (Negroes) Black African-Americans should not have equal rights as white people.<br />81.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did conspire with the Southern White Property Owners (Defendants) to maintain a cheap labor force with limited rights in opposition to the plan for reconstruction being pushed by Congress.<br />To include but not limited to the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs will show the Honorable Court factual evidence Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did in fact having (5) personal slaves.<br />82.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) was determined to keep Plaintiff and Plaintiffs a/k/a (Negroes) Black African-Americans in an impoverished state and under the control of all the white landowners (Defendants).<br />83.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did use his office in a official capacity to deny against the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs a/k/a (Negroes) Black African-Americans land,<br /> By vetoing legislation that was sent to his desk that granted ex-slaves land and by hindering the Freedmen's Bureau which he tempted to veto but was over ridden by Congress.<br />84.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson in his efforts to deny land to the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs a/k/a Negroes (Black African-Americans) (Johnson) rescinded Special Field Orders, No 15 also known as “40 acres and A Mule”.<br />85.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that 40,000 freedmen (Negro) Black African-Americans were settled in homes with the promise of government protection and the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) by rescinding the Special Order No. 15 violated a promise and contractual agreement contained in the order.<br />86.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court the actual;<br />Forty Acres and a MuleIn the Field, Savannah, Georgia, January 16th, 1865.Special Field Orders, No. 15.The islands from Charleston, south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the St. Johns river, Florida, are reserved and set apart for the settlement of the Negroes now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States. At Beaufort, Hilton Head, Savannah, Fernandina, St. Augustine and Jacksonville, the blacks may remain in their chosen or accustomed vocations -- but on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves, subject only to the United States military authority and the acts of Congress. By the laws of war, and orders of the President of the United States, the Negro is free and must be dealt with as such. He cannot be subjected to conscription or forced military service, save by the written orders of the highest military authority of the Department, under such regulations as the President or Congress may prescribe.Domestic servants, blacksmiths, carpenters and other mechanics, will be free to select their own work and residence, but the young and able-bodied Negroes must be encouraged to enlist as soldiers in the service of the United States, to contribute their share towards maintaining their own freedom, and securing their rights as citizens of the United States.Negroes so enlisted will be organized into companies, battalions and regiments, under the orders of the United States military authorities, and will be paid, fed and clothed according to law. The bounties paid on enlistment may, with the consent of the recruit, go to assist his family and settlement in procuring agricultural implements, seed, tools, boots, clothing, and other articles necessary for their livelihood.Whenever three respectable Negroes, heads of families, shall desire to settle on land, and shall have selected for that purpose an island or a locality clearly defined, within the limits above designated, the Inspector of Settlements and Plantations will himself, or by such subordinate officer as he may appoint, give them a license to settle such island or district, and afford them such assistance as he can to enable them to establish a peaceable agricultural settlement. The three parties named will subdivide the land, under the supervision of the Inspector, among themselves and such others as may choose to settle near them, so that each family shall have a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground, and when it borders on some water channel, with not more than 800 feet water front, in the possession of which land the military authorities will afford them protection, until such time as they can protect themselves, or until Congress shall regulate their title. The Quartermaster may, on the requisition of the Inspector of Settlements and Plantations, place at the disposal of the Inspector, one or more of the captured steamers, to ply between the settlements and one or more of the commercial points heretofore named in orders, to afford the settlers the opportunity to supply their necessary wants, and to sell the products of their land and labor.Whenever a Negro has enlisted in the military service of the United States, he may locate his family in any one of the settlements at pleasure, and acquire a homestead, and all other rights and privileges of a settler, as though present in person. In like manner, Negroes may settle their families and engage on board the gunboats, or in fishing, or in the navigation of the inland waters, without losing any claim to land or other advantages derived from this system. But no one, unless an actual settler as above defined, or unless absent on Government service, will be entitled to claim any right to land or property in any settlement by virtue of these orders.In order to carry out this system of settlement, a general officer will be detailed as Inspector of Settlements and Plantations, whose duty it shall be to visit the settlements, to regulate their police and general management, and who will furnish personally to each head of a family, subject to the approval of the President of the United States, a possessory title in writing, giving as near as possible the description of boundaries; and who shall adjust all claims or conflicts that may arise under the same, subject to the like approval, treating such titles altogether as possessory. The same general officer will also be charged with the enlistment and organization of the Negro recruits, and protecting their interests while absent from their settlements; and will be governed by the rules and regulations prescribed by the War Department for such purposes.Brigadier General R. Saxton is hereby appointed Inspector of Settlements and Plantations, and will at once enter on the performance of his duties. No change is intended or desired in the settlement now on Beaufort [Port Royal] Island, nor will any rights to property heretofore acquired be affected thereby.By Order of Major General W. T. ShermanSpecial Field Orders, No. 15, Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi, 16 Jan. 1865. Orders & Circulars, ser. 44, Adjutant General's Office, Record Group 94, National Archives. <br />87.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) by granting general Pardon to Ex-Confederates and Presidential Pardon for those who had over restoration of their properties did undermine programs designed to help establish (Negro) Black African-Americans yeoman farmers who would be self-sufficient and supporting by removing the availability of land in the South.<br />88.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that much of the land available for Homesteads after the return of properties to Ex-Confederates was of poor quality or required money to develop which the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) did not have.<br />89.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Southern Homestead Acts due to gross mismanagement and local corruption by the Defendants (The United States of America) failed to achieve it's purpose of settling displaced loyal whites to the Union during the war and freed slaves lands.<br />90.<br />Plaintiff further assert respectfully that Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) was exposed to these racist attitudes at an early age,<br />Further the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) was never able to shake them off.<br />91<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) demonstrated a Pro-Slavery and a White Supremacist pattern throughout his political career when he supported as a mayor a new state constitution which had anti-Negro (Black African-American) provisions.<br />92.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) while President consistently used White Supremacist Language while vetoing bills especially when referring to his adversaries in Congress.<br /> 93.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the following quote is an example of Andrew Johnson using race when vetoing a bill.<br /> “What in the opinion of Congress is necessary to make the constitution of a state ‘loyal and republican’?”<br /> The original act answers the question. It is universal Negro suffrage.”<br />94.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the court that the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War was a failure and much of the blame for the failure was the struggle between the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) and the (Defendant) Republican controlled Congress.<br />95.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that much of the conflict between the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) and Congress centered around the President's Plan of Reconstruction which had no provisions for protecting or helping (Negroes) Black African-Americans to integrate into society as free men.<br />96.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) while Congress was in recess appointed Pro-slavery Provisional Governors who organized “Lily White” governments.<br />97.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that these provisional state governments (Defendants) immediately set about writing racist segregationist laws known as Black Codes between the years of 1865 and 1866.<br />98.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert that in 1865 and 1866 these governments enacted the Black Codes which indicated that the South intended to reestablish slavery under a different name.<br />99.<br /> The codes restricted the rights of freedmen under vagrancy and apprenticeship laws. South Caroline forbade freedmen to follow any occupation except farming and menial service and required a special license to do other work.<br />100.<br /> The legislature also gave “masters” the right to whip “servants” under eighteen years of age. <br />In other (Defendants) states Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Blacks could be punished for “insulting gestures,” “seditious speeches” and the “crime of walking off a job. <br />(Negro) Blacks could not preach in one state without police permission.<br />102.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that throughout the South laws like Mississippi Law enacted late in November 1865 required (Negroes) Blacks African-Americans to have jobs before the second Monday in January.<br />Furthermore, those who were declared to be unemployed were declared vagrant and penalized by being put in labor camps or assigned to work for their former Plantation Owners.<br />103.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and maintain that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) by establishing the above mentioned Provisional State Governments as described in paragraph (96) above Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did work in collusion with said Provisional State Governments (Defendants) to assure cheap labor for the rebuilding of the damaged plantations and infrastructure.<br />104.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) did willfully through his version of Reconstruction did plan to establish second class citizenship for the (Negro) Black African-American.<br />105.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show that Congress (Defendant) did attempt to remedy the abuses inflicted upon (Negro) Black African-Americans by not seating Senators or Representatives elected by those governments (Defendants).<br />106.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) aver that Congress established their own reconstruction plans which included the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments which included the vote.<br />107.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that military provisional districts were created to protect (Negroes) Black African-Americans from extremist white supremacists and local white officials of the Defendants (The United States of America).<br />108.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that occupational forces were necessary to maintain peace in the volatile south as race riots did occur in places like New Orleans. <br />109.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that many Southern (whites) fearing that their political and social dominance was threatened,<br />So the (Whites) turned to numerous illegal direct means to prevent blacks from gaining equality.<br />110.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Violence against (Negroes) blacks became more and more frequent.<br /> In 1870 increasing disorder led to the passage of an Enforcement Act severely punishing those who attempted to deprive the black freedmen of their civil rights.<br />111.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert Black Codes were laws passed by Southern state legislatures immediately after the Civil War that defined and regulated the legal status of the emancipated slaves.<br /> The laws were so discriminatory and restrictive that they convinced many Northerners that the federal government needed to take an active role in establishing and protecting black civil rights.<br />112.<br />The Black Code did recognize certain minimal rights of the freed population, mainly the right to acquire and hold and property, enter into legal marriages, make contracts, and sue and be sued. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that at the same time, however, the codes relegated blacks to a separate and inferior legal status. <br />113.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negroes) Blacks could not vote, hold public office, serve on juries, own firearms, enlist in the military, or testify in court cases involving whites. <br />Many of the codes also placed restrictions on the right of blacks to assemble in public meetings and move about freely.<br />114.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that what particularly aroused Northern (Defendants) anger were sweeping labor provisions that seemed nothing less than a disguised form of slavery. <br />Vagrancy was defined in such a way as to require all blacks to give proof of gainful employment, usually in the form of an annual labor contract on a neighboring plantation.<br />To include but not limited to Local judges (all of whom were white) had the power to fine and arrest blacks without such a contract and hire them out to local planters if they could not pay the fine.<br />115.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further respectfully assert Apprenticeship laws gave local white courts complete authority to determine whether black parents were providing adequate support for their children. <br />The courts bound over black children as apprentices, regardless of the parents' wishes, to local planters who were to serves as their guardians. This practice was especially widespread in the Upper South, where in come counties, as many as one-quarter of black children were bound over to their parents' former owners as cheap laborers.<br />116.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Southern whites accepted the legal end of slavery, but most of them regarded the very idea of civil equality between the races as absurd and dangerous.<br /> They also had little faith in their ability or willingness of the freed Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) blacks African-Americans to work without coercive legal controls forcing them to do so.<br /> By giving legal expression to these attitudes, the Black Codes confirmed the worst of Northern fears regarding the refusal of the Post-war South to take any meaningful step toward racial justice.<br />117.<br />The Freedman's Bureau and the Army suspended enforcement of the most blatantly discriminatory features of the Black Codes. Meanwhile, the Republican majority in Congress had every reason to conclude that the federal government had to take additional steps to protect the legal rights of freed slaves.<br />118.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court, Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s.<br />119.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-Black laws.<br />It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were relegated to the status of second class citizens.<br />120.<br />Jim Crow represented the legitimization of anti-Black racism. Many Christian ministers and theologians taught that Whites were the Chosen people, Blacks were cursed to be servants, and God supported racial segregation.<br />121.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Craniologists, eugenicists, phrenologists, and Social Darwinists, at every educational level,<br /> Entertainment in the belief that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were innately intellectually and culturally inferior to Whites.<br />122.<br />Pro-segregation politicians gave eloquent speeches on the great danger of integration: the mongrelization of the White race. Newspaper and magazine writers routinely referred to Blacks as niggers, coons, and darkies; and worse, their articles reinforced anti-Black stereotypes.<br />123.<br />“Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert with strong condemnation that Even children's games” portrayed Blacks as inferior beings major societal institutions reflected and supported the oppression of Blacks.<br />124.<br />“Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert with further strong condemnation that The Jim Crow system was undergirded by the following beliefs or rationalizations:<br />Whites were superior to Blacks in all important ways, including but not limited to intelligence, morality, and civilized behavior;<br />Sexual relations between Blacks and Whites would produce a mongrel race which would destroy America;<br /> Treating Blacks as equals would encourage interracial sexual unions;<br /> Any activity which suggested social equality encouraged interracial sexual relations; if necessary, violence must be used to keep Blacks at the bottom of the racial hierarchy.<br />125.<br />The “Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court the following Jim Crow laws and etiquette norms show how inclusive and pervasive these norms were:<br />A Black male could not offer his hand (to shake hands) with a White male because it implied being socially equal. Obviously, a Black male could not offer his hand or any other part of his body to a White woman, because he risked being accused of rape.<br />Blacks and Whites were not supposed to eat together. If they did eat together, Whites were to be served first, and some sort of partition was to be placed between them.<br />Under no circumstance was a Black male to offer to light the cigarette of a White female -- that gesture implied intimacy.<br />Blacks were not allowed to show public affection toward one another in public, especially kissing, because it offended Whites.<br />Jim Crow etiquette prescribed that Blacks were introduced to Whites, never Whites to Blacks. For example: quot;
Mr. Peters (the White person), this is Charlie (the Black person), that I spoke to you about.quot;
<br />Whites did not use courtesy titles of respect when referring to Blacks, for example, Mr., Mrs., Miss., Sir, or Ma'am. Instead, Blacks were called by their first names. Blacks had to use courtesy titles when referring to Whites, and were not allowed to call them by their first names.<br />If a Black person rode in a car driven by a White person, the Black person sat in the back seat, or the back of a truck.<br />White motorists had the right-of-way at all intersections. Barbers. No colored barber shall serve as a barber (to) white girls or women (Georgia).<br />Blind Wards. The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race (Louisiana).<br />Burial. The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons (Georgia).<br />Buses. All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races (Alabama).<br />Child Custody. It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a Negroes (South Carolina).<br />Education. The schools for white children and the schools for Negroes children shall be conducted separately (Florida).<br />Libraries. The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals (North Carolina).<br />Mental Hospitals. The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together (Georgia).<br />Militia. The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available and where whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers (North Carolina).<br />Nurses. No person or corporation shall require any White female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which Negroes men are placed (Alabama).<br />Prisons. The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the Negroes convicts (Mississippi).<br />Reform Schools. The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other (Kentucky).<br />Teaching. Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined... (Oklahoma).<br />Wine and Beer. All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time<br />126.<br />To include but not limited to these simple rules that Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were supposed to observe in conversing with Whites:<br />Never assert or even intimate that a White person is lying.<br />Never impute dishonorable intentions to a White person.<br />Never suggest that a White person is from an inferior class.<br />Never lay claim to, or overly demonstrate, superior knowledge or intelligence.<br />Never curse a White person.<br />Never laugh derisively at a White person.<br />Never comment upon the appearance of a White female.<br />127.<br />“Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert Jim Crow etiquette operated in conjunction with Jim Crow laws (black codes). When most people think of Jim Crow they think of laws (not the Jim Crow etiquette) which excluded Blacks from public transport and facilities, juries, jobs, and neighborhoods.<br />128.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution had granted Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) the same legal protections as the Defendant (The United States of America) “Whites”.<br />In a compromise aimed at keeping Republicans in power, Rutherford B. Hayes was elected as the Defendant's (The United States of America) acting President. <br />During his campaign before office, he (Hayes) promised to end Reconstruction and did so in the compromise of 1877 which effectively meant the removal of occupational Federal Forces to protect the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s). <br />This ushered in the Jim Crow Years, which instituted separate but equal and other laws at keeping the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans in their place.<br />The result of returning the Defendants (The United States of America) Southern States to home rule was the abandoning of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans<br /> and Republicans into the hands of the “loving hands of the Ku Klux Klan already established by the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) herein. <br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Black African Americans were abandoned by the Defendants (The United States of America) Federal Government by wrongful actions and acts of Co-Defendant (President Hayes) orders for monetary greed of restoring “free labor” reasoning and this stated destitution of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) rights, will and dignity linger until 1957 when the next bill was written protecting the Civil Rights of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) some (70) years later.<br /> After 1877, and the election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, Southern and Border states Defendants (The United States of America) began restricting the liberties of Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) (Negro) Blacks.<br />And Unfortunately for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) the Supreme Court helped undermine the Constitutional protections of Blacks with the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case, which legitimized Jim Crow laws and the Jim Crow way of life.<br />129.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) In 1890, Louisiana passed the quot;
Separate Car Law,quot;
which purported to aid passenger comfort by creating quot;
equal but separatequot;
cars for Blacks and Whites. This was a ruse. No public accommodations, including railway travel, provided Blacks with equal facilities.<br />130.<br />The Louisiana law made it illegal for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) to sit in coach seats reserved for Whites, and Whites could not sit in seats reserved for Blacks.<br />In 1891, a group of Blacks decided to test the Jim Crow law. They had Homer A. Plessy, who was seven-eights White and one-eighth Black (therefore, Black), sit in the White-only railroad coach.<br />131.<br />He was arrested. Plessy's lawyer argued that Louisiana did not have the right to label one citizen as White and another Black for the purposes of restricting their rights and privileges.<br /> In Plessy, the Supreme Court stated that so long as state governments provided legal process and legal freedoms for Blacks, equal to those of Whites, they could maintain separate institutions to facilitate these rights.<br />The Court, by a 7-2 vote, upheld the Louisiana law, declaring that racial separation did not necessarily mean an abrogation of equality. In practice, Plessy represented the legitimization of two societies: one White, and advantaged; the other, Black, disadvantaged and despised.<br />132.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were denied the right to vote by grandfather clauses (laws that restricted the right to vote to people whose ancestors had voted before the Civil War), poll taxes (fees charged to poor Blacks), white primaries (only Democrats could vote, “only Whites” could be Democrats), and literacy tests (quot;
Name all the Vice Presidents and Supreme Court Justices throughout America's historyquot;
).<br /> Plessy sent this message to southern and border states (Defendants): Discrimination against Blacks is acceptable.<br />133.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully further assert before the Honorable Court that Jim Crow states(Defendants) passed statutes severely regulating social interactions between the races.<br /> Jim Crow signs were placed above water fountains, door entrances and exits, and in front of public facilities.<br />There were separate hospitals for Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) and Whites, separate prisons, separate public and private schools, separate churches, separate cemeteries, separate public restrooms, and separate public accommodations.<br />134.<br />In most instances, the The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) facilities were grossly inferior -- generally, older, less-well-kept. In other cases, there were no Black facilities -- no Colored public restroom, no public beach, no place to sit or eat.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully further assert before the Honorable Court that Plessy gave Jim Crow states (Defendants) a legal way to ignore their constitutional obligations to their Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) citizens.<br />135.<br />Jim Crow laws touched every aspect of everyday life. For example, in 1935, Oklahoma prohibited Blacks and Whites from boating together. Boating implied social equality.<br />136.<br /> In 1905, Georgia established separate parks for Blacks and Whites.<br />137.<br /> In 1930, Birmingham, Alabama, made it illegal for Blacks and Whites to play checkers or dominoes together.<br />138.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully further assert before the Honorable Court that here are some of the typical Jim Crow laws:<br />Barbers. No colored barber shall serve as a barber (to) white girls or women (Georgia).<br />Blind Wards. The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race (Louisiana).<br />Burial. The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons (Georgia).<br />Buses. All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races (Alabama).<br />Child Custody. It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a Negro (South Carolina).<br />Education. The schools for white children and the schools for Negro children shall be conducted separately (Florida).<br />Libraries. The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals (North Carolina).<br />Mental Hospitals. The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together (Georgia).<br />Militia. The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available and where whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers (North Carolina).<br />Nurses. No person or corporation shall require any White female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which Negro men are placed (Alabama).<br />Prisons. The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the Negro convicts (Mississippi).<br />Reform Schools. The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other (Kentucky).<br />Teaching. Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined... (Oklahoma).<br />Wine and Beer. All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time (Georgia).<br />139.The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the “Jim Crow laws” and system of etiquette were undergirded by violence, real and threatened.<br />Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) who violated Jim Crow norms, for example, drinking from the White water fountain or trying to vote, risked their homes, their jobs, even their lives.<br />140.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Whites could physically beat Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) with impunity.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) had little legal recourse against these assaults because the Jim Crow criminal justice system was all-White: police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and prison officials.<br />Violence was instrumental for Jim Crow. It was a method of social control. The most extreme forms of Jim Crow violence were lynchings.<br />141.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynchings were public, often sadistic, murders carried out by mobs.<br />Between 1882, when the first reliable data were collected, and 1968, when lynchings had become rare, there were 4,730 known lynchings, including 3,440 Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) men and women.<br />Most of the victims of Lynch-Law were hanged or shot, but some were burned at the stake, castrated, beaten with clubs, or dismembered.<br />142.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that In the mid-1800s, Whites constituted the majority of victims (and perpetrators); however, by the period of Radical Reconstruction, Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) became the most frequent lynching victims.<br />This is an early indication that lynching was used as an intimidation tool to keep Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s), in this case the newly-freedmen, quot;
in their places.quot;
<br />143.<br />The great majority of lynchings occurred in southern and border states of the (Defendants), where the resentment against Blacks ran deepest.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance in their respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that quot;
The southern states (Defendants) account for nine-tenths of the lynchings.<br />More than two thirds of the remaining one-tenth occurred in the six states which immediately border the South.quot;
<br />144.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Many Whites claimed that although lynchings were distasteful, the (White-only) felt this were necessary supplements to the criminal justice system because Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were prone to violent crimes, especially the rapes of White women.<br /> nearly a century of lynchings especially for accusation rapes of (White women) approximately one-third of all the dead Plaintiff(s) and Plaintiff(s) victims were falsely accused.<br />145.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) furtherance in their respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Under Jim Crow any and all sexual interactions between Black men and White women was illegal, illicit, socially repugnant, and within the Jim Crow definition of rape.<br />Although only 19.2 percent of the lynching victims between 1882 to 1951 were even accused of rape,<br />Lynch law was often supported on the popular belief that lynchings were necessary to protect White women from Black rapists.<br />146.<br /> by the broad Southern (Defendants) definition of rape to include all sexual relations between Negro men and white women; and by the psychopathic fears of white women in their contacts with Negro men.<br />147.<br />Most Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were lynched for demanding civil rights, violating Jim Crow etiquette or laws, or in the aftermath of race riots.<br />Lynchings were most common in small and middle-sized (Defendants) towns where Plaintiff(s) and Plaintiff(s) often were economic competitors to the local Whites.<br />148.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that (Whites) resented any economic and political gains made by The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />149.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynchers were seldom arrested, and if arrested, rarely convicted.<br />To include but not limited to facts quot;
at least one-half of the lynchings were carried out with police officers participating, and that in nine-tenths of the others the officers either condone or wink at the mob action.quot;
<br />150.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynching served many purposes: it was cheap entertainment;<br />It served as a rallying and uniting point for Whites;<br /> it functioned as an ego-massage for low-income, low-status Whites;<br />it was a method of defending White domination and helped stop or retard the fledgling social equality movement.<br />151.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynch mobs directed their hatred against one (sometimes several) Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) victims.<br />The victim was an example of what happened to a Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) man who tried to vote, or who looked at a White woman, or who tried to get a White man's job.<br />152.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that sometimes the mob was not satisfied to murder a single or several Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) victims.<br />Instead, in the spirit of pogroms, the (White) mobs went into Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) communities and destroyed additional lives and property.<br />Their immediate goal was to drive out -- through death or expulsion -- all Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s).<br />153.<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the larger goal was to maintain, at all costs, White supremacy.<br />These pogrom-like actions are often referred to as riots, terrorization, massacre...and “Mass lynching.quot;
<br /> The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert respectfully before the Honorable Court Interestingly, that these mass lynchings were primarily urban phenomena, whereas the lynching of single Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) victims was primarily a rural phenomena.<br />154.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that during the summer of 1919, there were race riots in Chicago, Illinois; Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee; Charleston, South Carolina; Omaha, Nebraska; and two dozen other (Defendants) cities.<br />155.<br />The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court During that year (1919) seventy-seven Negroes were lynched, of whom one was a woman and eleven were soldiers; of these,<br /> Fourteen were publicly burned, eleven of them being burned alive.<br />To include but not limited to facts that during that year (1919) there were race riots large and small in twenty-six American (Defendants) cities including thirty-eight killed in a Chicago riot of Augu