Abigail Adams' View on Slavery

Abigail Adams was the second First Lady of the United States.

While the Founding Fathers debated the principles of liberty and equality, one woman dared to point out the glaring contradiction at the heart of the American experiment. Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams and a prolific letter writer, was among the earliest voices to challenge slavery as fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of the Revolution.

In her famous March 31, 1776 letter to her husband, Abigail wrote not only the now-famous "Remember the Ladies" passage but also a searing critique of slavery. She questioned whether the passion for liberty could be equally strong "in the Breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow Creatures of theirs." Her words challenged the Virginian slaveholders who spoke eloquently of freedom while denying it to others.

Abigail's opposition to slavery was rooted in her deep Christian faith and moral convictions. In an October 1775 letter, she bluntly declared that "the Sin of Slavery as well as many others is not washed away." This wasn't political rhetoric—it was a spiritual diagnosis of a nation's moral failing.

She saw slavery as more than just unjust policy. It was a stain on the American soul that would invite divine judgment. When military setbacks occurred during the Revolution, Abigail suggested that the nation's embrace of slavery might be the reason for its troubles.

What made Abigail's position particularly bold was her willingness to connect slavery to the founding principles themselves. She argued that true liberty could not be founded on the Christian principle of "doing to others as we would that others should do unto us" if Americans continued to hold others in bondage. The hypocrisy was too obvious to ignore.

Visual of Three Fifths Compromise.

When the Constitution was drafted, Abigail watched with concern as the Founders compromised with slavery for the sake of national unity. The Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted enslaved people as partial persons for representation purposes while denying them any rights, embodied everything she found morally bankrupt about the institution. It was pragmatism at the expense of principle.

Unlike many of her contemporaries, Abigail didn't see slavery as a "necessary evil" or a problem to be solved gradually. She understood it as fundamentally incompatible with a nation claiming to be founded on equality and natural rights. Her letters reveal a woman wrestling with how America could proclaim liberty to the world while maintaining such obvious tyranny at home.

Abigail Adams never held political office or addressed Congress. She couldn't vote or participate in the formal structures of government. Yet through her extensive correspondence—over 2,000 letters that survive today—she influenced the political discourse of her time and left a powerful legacy of moral clarity.

Abigail Adams' 'Dear Adorable' Letter

Her voice reminds us that opposition to slavery existed from the very beginning of the American republic. The abolition movement didn't emerge from nowhere decades later. Women like Abigail Adams planted the seeds by refusing to let the contradiction between American ideals and American practice go unchallenged. They insisted that if "all men are created equal" truly meant anything, it had to mean everyone.

AI Disclosure: After gathering information about Abigail Adams, and her view on slavery, I used Claude Ai to generate the notes into a smooth, readable text. I then edited the generated-AI text. I added photos and captions. I expanded on the generated-AI with adding some of my personal thoughts. 

Video Reaction Post

 

Calhoun, a historical political figure

John C. Calhoun, a prominent American political figure, once argued that slavery was a "positive good" that provided social and economic stability. He believed states should have the power to make their own laws, including the right to maintain the institution of slavery.

His legacy is complex. While he defended a system that denied basic human rights, his influence still lingers in conversations about justice and equality today.

Daily life for enslaved people was filled with hardship. Their days began before sunrise, with little rest in between. They slept in overcrowded, muddy shacks with weak, damp walls.

Clothing was minimal. Many had no jackets or shoes. While some enslaved people with children were seen as more "valuable," very few had even slightly improved conditions.

Slave markets were essential to the economy of the Antebellum South. Public squares became stages for auctions where humans were bought and sold. Auctioneers displayed men, women, and children while buyers inspected them for age, strength, and price.

Slave market at Charlene 

Families were torn apart. Autonomy was denied. Trauma ran deep.

Still, many made the difficult decision to escape. Runaways moved in silence, knowing even the smallest sound could mean capture. Bounty hunters waited in the shadows.

Some fled alone. Others found allies or safe passage across rivers. Each step was a quiet act of hope.

Even in suffering, humanity endured.

The anti-slavery movement brought courage and action. The Somerset case in Britain ruled that slavery had no legal basis under English law, setting a major precedent.

Though the British slave trade continued for a time, reformers like William Wilberforce led tireless campaigns for change. In 1807, Britain officially ended its role in the transatlantic slave trade.

William Wilberforce was
a powerful campaigner

The fight for freedom and dignity has always demanded resilience.

AI Disclosure: After gathering information about the videos we watched in class and taking notes on the topic, I used Chat GPT and  Microsoft CoPilot to generate the notes into a smooth, readable text. I then edited the generated-AI text. I added photos and captions. I expanded on the generated-AI with adding some of my personal thoughts. 

The Political Power Behind State v. Mann: Defending Slaveowner Authority in Antebellum America

   

The outcome of State v. Mann

 In 1829, the North Carolina Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in State v. Mann that underscored the harsh realities of slavery and the political ideology supporting it. This case, involving John Mann’s shooting of an enslaved woman under his control, reflected much more than a single legal dispute, it revealed the political and social structures that protected and legitimized slaveholder authority in the antebellum South.

At the center of this decision was Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin, a prominent figure in North Carolina’s legal system. Ruffin’s ruling was unequivocal: “The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect.” This statement did more than resolve one case; it articulated a broader legal and political philosophy that slaveowners must wield near-absolute control over enslaved individuals to maintain order. Ruffin’s opinion was widely shared among Southern jurists and politicians, who saw such authority as essential to preserving the social and economic order of their society.

Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin

Beyond the courtroom, the political landscape of the South was dominated by lawmakers who sought to protect the institution of slavery at all costs. Southern state legislatures, including those in North Carolina, consistently enacted laws that reinforced slaveowner rights and control. 

These legislators, often wealthy planters or their political representatives, viewed slavery as indispensable to their economic prosperity and social hierarchy. They believed that allowing criminal charges against slaveowners for acts of violence, such as Mann’s shooting, would threaten the social stability upon which the region’s economy depended.

This political stance was closely intertwined with the ideology of states’ rights, which was central to Southern political thought in the early 19th century. Advocates argued that individual states had the sovereign authority to regulate their own affairs, particularly slavery, without interference from the federal government. 

This philosophy empowered local courts and legislatures to uphold laws that privileged slaveowners, even when such laws sanctioned brutal treatment of enslaved people.  State v. Mann thus became a clear example of states’ rights in action, as North Carolina’s highest court affirmed the primacy of master’s control, even at the cost of enslaved individuals’ safety.

Several prominent political figures of the era would have stood firmly behind the principles embodied in this case. Chief Justice Ruffin himself was a leading voice for the absolute authority of slaveowners. Similarly, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina—a former U.S. Vice President and senator—was a powerful advocate for slavery as a “positive good” and a staunch defender of states’ rights. North Carolina’s Nathaniel Macon, a respected senator and slaveowner, would have also supported the ruling, reflecting his commitment to maintaining slaveholder authority.

Other influential voices included William L. Yancey, an Alabama politician known for his fiery pro-slavery rhetoric, and Alexander H. Stephens, future Vice President of the Confederacy, who famously declared slavery to be the “cornerstone” of Southern society. Alongside these leaders, many Southern legislators enacted laws to protect slaveowners’ rights to discipline and control enslaved people without fear of legal repercussions.

William L. Yancey

The rationale behind their support was grounded in several key beliefs: first, that enslaved people were legally considered property, and protecting owners’ rights to control that property was paramount. Second, that states had the right to govern slavery without federal interference. 

Third, that absolute authority over enslaved people was necessary to maintain social order and prevent rebellion. Lastly, many of these politicians had deep economic and political interests tied to slavery, as they were slaveowners themselves or represented constituencies that depended on the institution.

State v. Mann thus stands as a stark example of how law and politics worked together to uphold a system that placed property rights and racial hierarchy above human dignity and rights. Understanding the political forces behind this case is crucial to recognizing the broader context in which slavery was legally defended and perpetuated in the antebellum South. 

AI Disclosure: After gathering information about the State v Mann case and taking notes on the topic, I used Chat GPT and  Microsoft CoPilot and Claude Ai to generate the notes into a smooth, readable text. I then edited the generated-AI text. I added photos and captions. I expanded on the generated-AI with adding some of my personal thoughts. 

Free Expression Values

  

The First Amendment speaking about freedom of speech.

 When first researching about the marketplace of ideas, I found that it was first introduced by John Milton in his 'Areopagitica.' To me, the marketplace of ideas is that due to the freedom of expression and speech all the ideas are out in the world. As citizens, we want every single idea out there, even if they are bad. The worst thing that could possibly happen is if the government selected which ideas could be put out, and which ideas could be hidden. This way we have a better chance of the truth arising. 

 An example of this, is that the European Union is currently trying to pass the law of 'chat control.' Denmark introduced this law, and it basically is where the regulators can screen your messages before they are sent and encrypted. To us, this would be such a bad thing because we wouldn't be able to see any of their ideas, meaning that the government would be trying to hide something. However, the European Union do not have the same constitution as us so the rules would be different. More examples would be using the ability to speak out during public debates, as well as using social media to speak out on certain things that you want to speak out on. 

 I believe that everyone has the right to freedom of speech. With this, the marketplace of ideas come into play. We all want all the truth to come to the surface, and when ideas are told, this has a better chance of doing so. When someone that I know states something that I necessary don't agree with, it makes my brain correspond and think harder about what I do believe in and I can argue in a respectful way. One thing that is turning in the United States is that people do not know how to respectfully argue with the opposing side. 

Marketplace of Ideas is really
important in today's time. 

Recently, as you may know the political assassination of Charlie Kirk happened on September 10, 2025 at Utah Valley University. Charlie was a huge advocate for first amendment, freedom of speech. He was the founder of Turning Point USA. Turning Point USA is an organization that travels to different colleges and university's all over the world. Charlie was speaking at Utah Valley when this sudden, tragic event happened. Charlie is known for speaking out about his opinion, however he does it in a respectful way. In my opinion he lets other people speak out about their opinions and concerns. Which in Charlie's eyes this is a huge thing. He advocates for the first amendment, so therefore he has his own right to the amendment. He was brutally killed for speaking his mind, and expressing his opinion. 

Charlie Kirk speaking during the
 Turning Point Action conference. 

In conclusion, I feel like the most important values of free expression is the 'marketplace of ideas' as well as participation of self government which falls under the first amendment. We have so many people who advocate for that. I feel like in the government in today's time that we can't speak our opinion and our mind, that brutal consequences come with it. This should not be something that we have to contemplate everyday. It honestly is sad that we have to worry about what we speak out about. Which could be why, referring back to the 'Marketplace of ideas,' why some people do not put their ideas out in the public. 

    

What does the Bible say about Slavery?

Exodus highlights how the slaves could be held to pay off debts. 

When I first began exploring the Bible more deeply, I was struck by how often it’s described as a book of love, justice, and liberation. But then I encountered something that made me pause: slavery. Not just stories about it, but actual laws and instructions that seem to permit or even endorse it. That discovery was jarring—and it forced me to ask some hard questions. 

Let’s be honest: the Bible contains passages that depict God permitting slavery. In the Old Testament, the Law of Moses includes regulations for how Israelites could own slaves. Exodus 21:2–11 outlines how Hebrew slaves could be held temporarily to pay off debts, with release in the seventh year. Leviticus 25:44–46 goes further, allowing Israelites to permanently enslave people from surrounding nations. These aren’t vague references—they’re detailed laws. 

Slavery in the Bible.

Then there’s the New Testament. While it doesn’t create new laws about slavery, it reflects the social norms of the Roman Empire, where slavery was deeply entrenched. In Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22- 4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1–2, Titus 2:9–10, and 1 Peter 2:18–20, slaves are told to obey their masters. There’s no

call for abolition—just instructions for how to live faithfully within the system. 

    Some argue that the Bible was simply reflecting the cultural norms of its time. And that’s partly true. Compared to other ancient societies, the Bible did call for more humane treatment of slaves. Hebrew slaves were to be freed after six years, and physical abuse was condemned. Exodus 21 even states that if a master injured a slave, the slave was to be set free. Leviticus 25:39–43 instructs masters not to rule harshly over fellow Israelites. In the New Testament, masters are told to treat their slaves with kindness and fairness. 

    But still—slavery was accepted. 

 And yet, there’s another thread running through Scripture. A deeper one. Galatians 3:28 declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” That verse doesn’t just sound nice—it’s revolutionary. It undercuts the very idea of permanent social hierarchies. It plants the seeds of equality that would later inspire abolitionists and civil rights leaders. 

Throughout history, these passages have been interpreted in vastly different ways. Slave owners in America cited biblical texts to justify slavery, while abolitionists leaned into themes of liberation, human dignity, and justice—especially the Exodus story, where God delivers the Israelites from bondage. The Bible became both a weapon of oppression and a source of hope. 

Today, most modern biblical scholars emphasize the importance of reading these texts in their ancient cultural context. Slavery in biblical times was not identical to the race-based chattel slavery of the modern era. It was often economic, temporary, and regulated. But even so, the Bible’s acceptance of slavery remains a troubling reality. 

So how do we reconcile this? 

I’ve come to see the Bible as a complex, layered text. It doesn’t always give us easy answers. Sometimes it reflects the brokenness of the world it was written in. But it also points us toward something better. Toward a kingdom where no one is owned, no one is oppressed, and everyone is seen as fully human. 

As a student of both faith and history, I believe we must be honest about what’s in the Bible—even the uncomfortable parts. But we also must read it with an eye toward its trajectory. The Bible may not have started with abolition, but I believe it ends with liberation. 

AI Disclosure: After researching biblical passages and historical accounts of slavery with my classmate Liz Bowhey, I utilized ChatGPT, Claude, and Microsoft CoPilot to refine the text and format it in a readable manner. I then edited the AI-generated text. I added photos and captions. I expanded on the AI-generated text by adding some of my personal thoughts and opinions.

Supreme Court Reflection

The Supreme Court of the United States is the most powerful court in the world. 

As I learned from this documentary about the Supreme Court, I first started discovering information about the Supreme Court. I didn’t realize just how powerful it really is. It’s not just a group of judges making decisions—it’s the most influential judicial body in the world. And what gives it that power isn’t just the Constitution—it’s the trust of the American people.

The Court’s main job is to interpret the U.S. Constitution, which is over 200 years old. That means they’re constantly applying old principles to new challenges. It’s a delicate balance, and it’s why being appointed to the Supreme Court is such a rare honor—almost like being struck by lightning.

Dred Scott, a Missouri Slave, claimed
His freedom under the Congress.

One case that really highlights the Court’s impact is Dred Scott v. Sandford. A Missouri slave claimed his freedom under congressional law, and the decision had lasting consequences. It helped lead to the 14th Amendment, often called the second Bill of Rights, which reshaped civil rights in America.

The Supreme Court is a coequal branch of government, standing alongside Congress and the President. Every year, it receives around 7,000 cases—but only accepts about 100. Still, every case gets the same level of attention, no matter who submits it. That kind of fairness is part of what makes the Court so respected.

New justices often take years to adjust to the Court’s environment. It’s intense, high-pressure, and deeply rooted in tradition. But through it all, the Court’s strength remains grounded in public faith.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s power isn’t just in its rulings—it’s in the trust we place in it to protect our rights and uphold justice. That trust is what keeps the system working. To me, this is what makes it so powerful, that it is the trust not the rulings. 

AI Disclosure: After taking notes while watching the Supreme Court video, I used Microsoft CoPilot to smooth the text and format it in a readable way. I then edited the AI-generated text. I added photos and captions. I also broke up the text with subheadings. I expanded on the AI-generated text by adding some of my personal thoughts and opinions