Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states...

In The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Louis Charles Hamilton II (Negro African American) Plaintiff And All other African (Negroes) Americans in and for The United States of America Plaintiff(s) Vs. United States of America, Defendant And Vs. President Andrew Johnson, President Rutherford B. Hayes Co-Defendant Complaint and Jury Demand 1. Comes now the Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II, appearing Pro Se The above name male, a descendant from a past legacy of forced “Slavery and Servitude” wrongfully committed against the Plaintiffs family descendants, 2. 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 And all other (Negroes) Black African Americans in and for the “Entire United States of America,” 3. 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; 4. 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. 5. 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, 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 “Plaintiffs major Losses” of “past family descendants due to “wrongful deaths” in a manner involving violence’s of murder, hanging(s), 6. 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”. 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, 7. 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. 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. 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”, 8. 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 9. 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. And for cause the Plaintiff will show the following: 10. Factual background The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Slavery in some form or another existed in America. 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). 11. 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. 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. 12. It also was apparent that with the growth of Mulattoes (bi-racial off spring) that the races mixed with no animosity. Indentured Servants were oftentimes recruited much the same way for both black and white through a series of kidnappings. 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. Blacks were kidnapped from their villages and sold at first as indentured servants in the English Colonies. 13. 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. 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.” 14. 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. 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. 15. 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”. Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully asserts that the Slave codes were put into force creating the brutal conditions of “Chattel Slavery”. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. Furthermore, Economics also played a role in the change of laws dealing with slavery between Northern Colonies and later the Northern States. 20. 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. 21. 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). 22. 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. 23. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution had problems with Slavery. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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”. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that the Fugitive Act of 1850 made slavery a nationally sanctioned institution; 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. 40. 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. 41. 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). 42. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Southern Slave Holders were more interested in preserving chattel slavery than the Union. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. 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. 48. 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. 49. 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. 50. 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. 51. 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) 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), 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. 52 The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert and aver that on or about April 14th, 1865 an insidious pernicious conspiracy came to fruition for. 53. 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, 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. President Abraham Lincoln, the son of abolitionists threatens the Defendant's (The United States of America) free labor industry NAMELY (Slavery), 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. (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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 54. 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. 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. 55. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that the Vice President had been shunned by the President (Lincoln) after appearing at the Inauguration inebriated. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. 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;
 59. 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. 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. 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. 65. 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. 66. 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. 67. 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. 68. 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!” 69. 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. 70. 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. 71. 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). 72. 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. 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. 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. 76. 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. 77. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) maintain that high Confederate officials namely Jefferson Davis had played a role in planning the assassination. 78. 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. 79. 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: The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court 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 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: 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. ARTICLE I. 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: EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868 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 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. Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON. Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War 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. ARTICLE II. 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;
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: EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868 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. Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas ,Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D.C. 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. ARTICLE III. 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: EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868 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. Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D.C. ARTICLE IV. 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. ARTICLE V. 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 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;
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. ARTICLE VI. 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;
passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high crime in office. ARTICLE VII. 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;
passed March 2, 1867, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit a high misdemeanor in office. ARTICLE VIII. 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;
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: EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D.C., February 21, 1868 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. Respectfully yours, ANDREW JOHNSON To Brevet Major-General Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General United States Army, Washington, D.C. Whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. ARTICLE IX 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;
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. ARTICLE X. 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: 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;
 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;
 * * * * * * * * * * * * 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;
 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * 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;
 * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. ARTICLE XI. 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;
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. 80. 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. 81. 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. 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. 82. 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). 83. 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, 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. 84. 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”. 85. 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. 86. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's will show the Honorable Court the actual; 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. 87. 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. 88. 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. 89. 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. 90. Plaintiff further assert respectfully that Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) was exposed to these racist attitudes at an early age, Further the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) was never able to shake them off. 91 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. 92. 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. 93. 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. “What in the opinion of Congress is necessary to make the constitution of a state ‘loyal and republican’?” The original act answers the question. It is universal Negro suffrage.” 94. 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. 95. 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. 96. 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. 97. 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. 98. 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. 99. 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. 100. The legislature also gave “masters” the right to whip “servants” under eighteen years of age. 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. (Negro) Blacks could not preach in one state without police permission. 102. 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. 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. 103. 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. 104. 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. 105. 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). 106. 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. 107. 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). 108. 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. 109. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that many Southern (whites) fearing that their political and social dominance was threatened, So the (Whites) turned to numerous illegal direct means to prevent blacks from gaining equality. 110. Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) assert that Violence against (Negroes) blacks became more and more frequent. 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. 111. 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. 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. 112. 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. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that at the same time, however, the codes relegated blacks to a separate and inferior legal status. 113. 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. Many of the codes also placed restrictions on the right of blacks to assemble in public meetings and move about freely. 114. 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. 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. 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. 115. 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. 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. 116. 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. 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. 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. 117. 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. 118. 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. 119. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully assert that Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-Black laws. It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were relegated to the status of second class citizens. 120. 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. 121. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further respectfully assert before the Honorable Court that Craniologists, eugenicists, phrenologists, and Social Darwinists, at every educational level, Entertainment in the belief that the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were innately intellectually and culturally inferior to Whites. 122. 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. 123. “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. 124. “Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) further assert with further strong condemnation that The Jim Crow system was undergirded by the following beliefs or rationalizations: Whites were superior to Blacks in all important ways, including but not limited to intelligence, morality, and civilized behavior; Sexual relations between Blacks and Whites would produce a mongrel race which would destroy America; Treating Blacks as equals would encourage interracial sexual unions; 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. 125. 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: 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. 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. Under no circumstance was a Black male to offer to light the cigarette of a White female -- that gesture implied intimacy. Blacks were not allowed to show public affection toward one another in public, especially kissing, because it offended Whites. 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;
 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. 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. 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). 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). 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). 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). 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). Education. The schools for white children and the schools for Negroes children shall be conducted separately (Florida). 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). 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). 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). 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). Prisons. The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the Negroes convicts (Mississippi). Reform Schools. The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other (Kentucky). 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). 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 126. To include but not limited to these simple rules that Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were supposed to observe in conversing with Whites: Never assert or even intimate that a White person is lying. Never impute dishonorable intentions to a White person. Never suggest that a White person is from an inferior class. Never lay claim to, or overly demonstrate, superior knowledge or intelligence. Never curse a White person. Never laugh derisively at a White person. Never comment upon the appearance of a White female. 127. “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. 128. 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”. 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. 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). 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. 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 and Republicans into the hands of the “loving hands of the Ku Klux Klan already established by the Co-Defendant (President Andrew Johnson) herein. 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. 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. 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. 129. 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. 130. 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. 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. 131. 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. 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. 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. 132. 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;
). Plessy sent this message to southern and border states (Defendants): Discrimination against Blacks is acceptable. 133. 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. Jim Crow signs were placed above water fountains, door entrances and exits, and in front of public facilities. 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. 134. 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. 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. 135. 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. 136. In 1905, Georgia established separate parks for Blacks and Whites. 137. In 1930, Birmingham, Alabama, made it illegal for Blacks and Whites to play checkers or dominoes together. 138. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) respectfully further assert before the Honorable Court that here are some of the typical Jim Crow laws: Barbers. No colored barber shall serve as a barber (to) white girls or women (Georgia). 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). 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). 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). 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). Education. The schools for white children and the schools for Negro children shall be conducted separately (Florida). 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). 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). 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). 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). Prisons. The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the Negro convicts (Mississippi). Reform Schools. The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other (Kentucky). 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). 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). 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. 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. 140. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Whites could physically beat Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) with impunity. 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. Violence was instrumental for Jim Crow. It was a method of social control. The most extreme forms of Jim Crow violence were lynchings. 141. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynchings were public, often sadistic, murders carried out by mobs. 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. Most of the victims of Lynch-Law were hanged or shot, but some were burned at the stake, castrated, beaten with clubs, or dismembered. 142. 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. 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;
 143. The great majority of lynchings occurred in southern and border states of the (Defendants), where the resentment against Blacks ran deepest. 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. More than two thirds of the remaining one-tenth occurred in the six states which immediately border the South.quot;
 144. 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. 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. 145. 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. Although only 19.2 percent of the lynching victims between 1882 to 1951 were even accused of rape, Lynch law was often supported on the popular belief that lynchings were necessary to protect White women from Black rapists. 146. 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. 147. Most Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) were lynched for demanding civil rights, violating Jim Crow etiquette or laws, or in the aftermath of race riots. 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. 148. 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). 149. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynchers were seldom arrested, and if arrested, rarely convicted. 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;
 150. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that Lynching served many purposes: it was cheap entertainment; It served as a rallying and uniting point for Whites; it functioned as an ego-massage for low-income, low-status Whites; it was a method of defending White domination and helped stop or retard the fledgling social equality movement. 151. 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. 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. 152. 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. Instead, in the spirit of pogroms, the (White) mobs went into Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) communities and destroyed additional lives and property. Their immediate goal was to drive out -- through death or expulsion -- all Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s). 153. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) will show the Honorable Court that the larger goal was to maintain, at all costs, White supremacy. These pogrom-like actions are often referred to as riots, terrorization, massacre...and “Mass lynching.quot;
 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. 154. 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. 155. 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, Fourteen were publicly burned, eleven of them being burned alive. 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

Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states...

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states...

Ähnlich wie Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states... (12)

Mehr von Louis Charles Hamilton II

Mehr von Louis Charles Hamilton II (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Louis charles hamilton ii. amend united states...