Semester II Blog

Over the past few weeks I’ve discussed the concept of gerrymandering and the numerous issues of it. For this week, however, I’d like to analyze the methods through which gerrymandering can be identified and dealt with.

Before we begin I’d just like to remind everyone that there are countless reasons behind [and methods of] gerrymandering. To rectify this issue we must first identify instances of it and agree on proper rules and regulations to it in order to balance out the adverse effects that it can have on voter representation [amongst other things].

The most general way to go about identifying gerrymandering is to examine the shapes of districts, as those effected by gerrymandering tend to be distorted or weirdly shaped. For example…

Pennsylvania’s 12th District:

Texas’s 2nd District:

Illinois’ 4th District:

Evidently all three of these districts [amongst others across the nation] have rather odd shapes. From this observation comes a natural inclination to refer to these districts as gerrymandered–but in a court of law something can’t be deemed “wrong” simply because it looks like it is. It’s not a strong enough case. Subsequently political scientists have developed two [more definitive] ways to “measure” gerrymandering.

The first of those methods refers to something known as compactness.

Compactness attempts to quantify the degree to which districts are distorted [by gerrymandering]. It involves a mathematical calculation of a district’s area in relation to its perimeter. This calculation provides an estimate of how effectively the district contains its area. The system utilizes an index [of measures] that is developed by analyzing the area to perimeter ratio of a district in comparison to that of a circle. An index of 1 defines the district as a perfect circle, the most compact shape. When a district has an index lower than 1 it is less compact and thus more likely to be distorted [or gerrymandered].

Many state constitutions forbid the needless [and excessive] division of geo-political boundaries. Subsequently the compactness index allows for individuals to present clear evidence of said division, without relying on baseless claims regarding the “unusual” shape of a district.

The main issue with this method tends to be that it fails to take into account the fact that not every “unusually” shaped district is gerrymandered, and not every gerrymandered district is going to appear distorted. Moreover, this discrepancy is the main reason why this method is flawed, and as a result is rarely used in any real court cases.

Another method used to measure gerrymandering refers to examining something known as the efficiency gap.

This method focuses on comparing the voting power of each political party in a particular state. The efficiency gap calculates the amount of “wasted votes” from each party. It then compares said numbers to determine whether or not either party had some sort of advantage in regards to the number of votes that they received and the number of seats that they won.

The first step in determining the gap involves finding wasted votes. In this sense “wasted votes” refer to every vote cast for the losing party and any votes cast for the winning party that exceed a simple majority. After the total number of wasted votes [within each party] is calculated for a certain state, the net difference is calculated between the Democrats and Republicans.

For example, Policy Map provides a detailed example of the efficiency gap calculation. They explain that if Republicans waste 75 votes while Democrats waste 100 votes, the Democrats will have a net wasted value of 25.

The final calculation identifies whether or not one party won a larger number of seats in comparison to a neutral district plan. For example, a 40% efficiency gap for one party would mean that that party received 40% more of the seats than it deserved [based on the neutral district plan/proportionally fair share of its supporters].

The efficiency gap method is able to highlight cracking and packing gerrymandering methods through its focus on wasted votes–something both gerrymandering methods attempt to increase the number of. [They want to increase the number of wasted votes that their opposition has, while decreasing the amount that their candidate has]. Moreover, by centering around each political party’s respective voting power this method showcases and highlights the number of voters unable to contribute to the election based on a variety of reasons pertaining to their district.

Regardless of the effectivity of these methods, they both raise a clear point–that gerrymandering needs to be identified and dealt with. There are many ways that we, as a society, could go about eradicating the presence of unfair and distorted districts.

One way being to take cases of gerrymandering to court. In the previous parts I’ve mentioned a bit about court rulings in regards to gerrymandering, and some of theme have proven to be quite successful. For instance, as a result of the court process racial gerrymandering has been completely banned [and it is now illegal]. Partisan gerrymandering, however, is still very much present and technically legalized.

Another way to deal with the issue is to create IRCs (Independent Redistricting Commissions) dedicated to drawing fair maps. To put it simply if we can limit the power that self-serving politicians have in the district drawing process than we may be able to combat gerrymandering. Moreover, if IRCs allow voters to have more of a say in how district maps are drawn it is more likely that the interests of the people will be taken care of. IRCs will also be obligated to draw maps that meet certain requirements in compilation with the Voting Rights Act that is meant to ensure citizens equitable representation in the government.

Finally, similar to the first option, another solution is to lobby for the federal government to ban all gerrymandering. If gerrymandering become illegal on a federal level it will force state governments to crack down on the issue. Overall a federal ban would be the most effective way to ensure accurate voter representation and equity nationwide.

Furthermore, the issue of gerrymandering is undeniably a complicated one, but it is also a vital one. Gerrymandering, in any sense, deprives people of their right [as an American] to have equal representation in the government. There are many methods that could be utilized to combat the issue. No method is perfect, but all of them prove that something must be done to reduce the adverse effects that gerrymandering has on voter representation within the US.

 

SOURCES:

Court Cases and Gerrymandering – Vox

Gerrymandering Districts – Fulcrum

Is Gerrymandering Good Now? – Rothman 

District Images – Fulcrom/Meyers

Gerrymandering Solutions – Azavea

Compactness – Harvard University

Last week I focused heavily on partisan gerrymandering and the adverse impacts that it has on society and representation. This week, however, I’d like to focus on the concept of racial gerrymandering, and raise the question as to whether or not, in modern America, we need to be worried about the damage that racial gerrymandering can have in regards to representation.

I’d like to just begin by explaining the concept of racial gerrymandering very briefly. Racial gerrymandering refers to the political practice of diluting the voting power of racial minorities as a method of suppressing voters. Moreover, it is exactly like partisan gerrymandering, but rather than try to suppress political parties, this form tries to suppress certain races.

One example of racial gerrymandering [in the history of the US] can be seen through Alabama’s capital [and the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th districts].

The 7th district is heavily democratic. The problem with this district is that it has many narrow strips [as visible above] that encompass cities and towns with black majority populations–including the city of Birmingham, which is incredibly far away when compared to other areas within the district. From an image alone it might be hard to understand the severity of racial gerrymandering in this instance, so let’s look at an example. In 2017, Democrat Doug Jones was running for Senate. He managed to win the statewide popular vote by 1.5 percentage points. However, he did not end up winning, because the only district he carried was the 7th [a district that is 63% African American]. From the discrepancy between popular and electoral vote, it can be deduced that without these “contortions” of district lines, Jones would’ve won. Had he won he would have been the second democratic [and African American] member of Alabama’s House delegation [which is made up of 7 members. Given the fact that Alabama has a 25% African American population and a 34% Democratic vote [as of 2016] this level of representation wouldn’t have been anything crazy–but due to racial [and partisan] gerrymandering this outcome could not come to fruition.

Another example of racial gerrymandering is apparent through Baton Rouge and the districts of Louisiana.

In this scenario both District 2 and District 6 have fairly odd shapes. In fact it looks like the 2nd has been inserted into 6th. Notably the 2nd District was drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act. District 6 has an African American [voting age] population of 21.5%. This percentage is so low because, in 2011, Republicans redrew district lines to move a massive amount of African Americans, living on the north side of Baton Rouge, into the highly Democratic 2nd district. As a result, the 2nd district became an extremely packed district that reaches all the way from Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Subsequently the district takes a very weird shape and packs minorities into one district, limiting voter representation.

As terrible as this all is, it’s important to note that in the past few years gerrymandering cases have moved to the forefront, as a number of social justice organizations have taken on state cases of racial [and partisan] gerrymandering.

One of these cases is Abbott v. Perez [Texas]. This case states that in 2011, the Republican State Legislature of Texas ‘redrew’ the voting districts. While redrawing them they affected the size and shape of a lot of the districts–particularly District 27 and District 35. Democrats claimed that these districts were redrawn specifically to “pack in” Latinx voters, subsequently diluting their electoral power within Texas. 6 years later in March of 2017, federal judges ruled that Republican legislators did in fact engage in racial gerrymandering when creating these districts. This ruling was later validated in August of the same year, as judges claimed that District 27’s boundaries “intentionally deprived [Latino voters] of their opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.” They also found District 35 to be an “impermissible [case of] racial gerrymandering.” They also urged Texas to redraw the districts in time for the 2018 election season. However, they later evoked this urging, ruling 5-4 that Texas did not have to change their congressional maps in time for the 2018 elections, despite being guilty of racial gerrymandering. As a result of this decision the GOP was ensured a majority in Texas, while subsequently reducing the political representation of the Latinx community. Moreover, while these cases have made it to the Supreme Court they do not always end up placating the problems that ensue as a result for racial gerrymandering.

Another notable Supreme Court case related to racial gerrymandering is Shaw v. Reno. Shaw v. Reno was a court case brought about in 1993 that raised the question: did the North Carolina residents who claimed that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional concern under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? In this case the North Carolina state legislator had originally created only one black majority district. When their plan was rejected, they created a second one–this time with two districts [one of which was incredibly small]. The case ended with a final vote of 5-4 in favor of Shawn. It ruled that classifying citizens on the basis of race was in direct conflict with the American political value of equality. Moreover, Shaw v. Reno was a landmark case for the issue of racial gerrymandering, as it set a precedent in regards to the 14th amendment hat would be used throughout the decades following the ruling.

Furthermore, this blog post only highlights some of the many ways through which that racial gerrymandering robs minorities of their voter representation. Luckily there have been quite a few landmark Supreme Court cases that have challenged the constitutionality of this form of gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has managed to help placate racial gerrymandering on numerous occasions, but that doesn’t mean that the problem is entirely resolved–in fact there is a great deal of racial gerrymandering that still needs to be challenged. Moreover, it is important that the Supreme Court be utilized in cases of racial gerrymandering, as it is very much unconstitutional as well as damaging to the political representation of the American people.

 

SOURCES:

Court Cases and Gerrymandering — Vox

Gerrymandering Districts — Fulcrum

Is Gerrymandering Good Now? — Rothman 

District Images –Fulcrom/Meyers

In my past few blog posts I’ve discussed quite a few women who have been overlooked throughout US history; and I am going to continue that trend this week by focusing on Sybil Ludington.

Ludington was born in New York in 1761. She was the eldest of twelve children. Her father, Henry Ludington, worked as a farmer and a gristmill owner. He also served in the military for roughly sixty years, fighting in conflicts like the French and Indian War. He was a staunch loyalist [to the British throne] until around 1773, when he joined the Patriots in the fight for independence / the American Revolution. Eventually he was promoted to Colonel of a local regiment, which was based between Connecticut and the coast of Long Island Sound–meaning that his regiment was incredibly vulnerable to British attack.

On the 26th of April of 1777, Colonel Ludington learned [from a rider from a nearby town known as Danbury] that they were under attack from British troops. Ludington’s regiment was meant to go help defend the town of Danbury from British attack; however, at the time of attack they were disbanded for planting season, meaning that all of Ludington’s men were at their respective farms–miles apart and miles away from Danbury.

The rider was too exhausted to travel any farther, so Ludington simply decided that he must focus on preparing for a battle. As he prepared for the inevitable, Sybil Ludington decided to rise to the cause. The circumstances of her decision, however, are unknown, as some believe that she choose / volunteered to fight, while others believe that her father asked her to help. Regardless, she rode [on horseback] throughout that night to alert her father’s men of the danger, encouraging them to come back from their break and fight. It is estimated that she covered anywhere between 20 to 40 miles of terrain that night, priding though dark woods and rainy weather. By the time her ride concluded she had managed to get hundreds of soldiers to return to the fight. Unfortunately, the soldiers didn’t arrive soon enough to defeat the British, but they did manage to put up a fight with the British soldiers as they departed.

Regardless of the success of the battle, Ludington’s efforts should not be overlooked. As a woman of the 18th century she did not have to partake in the revolution–in fact some may have argued that it wasn’t her place–but she did anyway. Her action and her courage is impressive and commendable. Her efforts can also be associated with other women who partook in similar events, but failed to get recognition. Moreover, it is important that we understand and know of impactful figures like Sybil Ludington, who contributed, in spite of challenges, to the greater good.

Following the war, she got married at the age of 23 in 1784 to Edward Ogden. They had one son named Henry and lived together in Catskill, New York. Just 15 years into their marriage, her husband died of yellow fever in 1799. Then in 1803, she purchased a tavern to help earn money to help her son become a lawyer. She ended up selling the tavern for a profit of three times what she paid for it. With her profit she purchased a home for her, her son, and his family. Eventually, however, her son died in 1838. After his death she decided to apply for a Revolutionary War pension, since her husband had served in the military. Her request was denied, as it was claimed that she lacked proof of marriage. So, unfortunately, Ludington died at the age of 77 in poverty.

 

Following her death, however, she ended up being honored far more for her accomplishments. For example, she received a stamp by the Postal Service in 1975. She also has a statue by Lake Gleneida in Carmel, New York. There are also historical markers that trace along the route of her ride in Putnam County.

 

Source

Image

Image

Image

For my civic issues blog, I’ve decided to focus on the history of gerrymandering and the severe ramifications that it has had on political representation and law/policy in the US.

Since this is my first post, I’d like to begin by providing a brief overview of gerrymandering. About once every decade, each state will redraw its electoral districts. These are the districts that determine which people will be represented by which politician. In certain states, independent commission handle the drawing of district lines; but most states lack these safeguards, which results in politicians gathering around computer screens, attempting to figure out how to manipulate district lines to maximize the power of their political party and minimize the power of their opponents. Moreover, to put it simply, gerrymandering is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries.

This blog post is going to focus on the negative effects that gerrymandering has on political representation. To do that we are going to analyze examples of gerrymandered districts. The first being, Ohio’s 9th Congressional District:

It’s safe to say that this district has a rather odd shape. It’s long and skinny and stretches all the way from Toledo to Cleveland. In fact Ohioans often refer to it as “The Snake by the Lake” due to its shape and geographic location. The 9th district was formed following the 2010 census, and was designed by the [then] Republican-controlled state legislature. The redesigned 9th district attempted to pack as many Democratic voters as possible in to a single district. It also ended up getting rid of a Democratic House member, as the new 9th district absorbed a portion of the 10th district in which a Democratic House member lived. This action resulted in two incumbents living over 100 miles apart competing for one seat in the House. There’s also an incredibly amount of socio-economic differences across the district. For example, Cleveland is known for its [scientific] industry, whereas Toledo is far more rural and dependent on agriculture. While major cities were being packed together in the 9th district, smaller more rural communities in Ohio [like Florence who only had 2,400 residents and 2 representatives] were being given far more representation. Moreover, packing large cities together while spreading small communities out, only creates a disproportionate inequitable form of representation that completely alters the political representation of the state as a whole.

The next district that I want to analyze is Maryland’s 3rd district:

Sources like the Washington Post, amongst others, refer to Maryland’s 3rd district as the most gerrymandered district in the nation. It’s been described as “a blood splatter, a Rorschach test, [and] a praying mantis.” Living up to its name, the districts boundaries are quite tumulus, as it encompasses parts of Baltimore, Howard, Anne Arundel, and Montgomery counties and Baltimore city. In fact one sliver [of the district] in northeast Baltimore is no wider than two city blocks.

The district was fairly compact–until 2011. In 2011, Maryland had not only a Democratic governor, but a democratic state legislature as well. Congressmen, like John Sarbanes, saw the redistricting as an opportunity to move more wealthy Democratic voters into the 3rd district–“potential donors for [his] future Senate campaign,” the New Republic suggested in 2012. The idea that any given representative could simply alter democratic representation for personal gain proves how truly dangerous gerrymandering is. Democracy is meant to allow people to vote for who represents them, but it seems like gerrymandering is allowing representatives to choose who they represent instead. Moreover, Maryland’s 3rd district is further indicative of the adverse complications that come with partisan gerrymandering.

The final district that I’d like to analyze, as part of a discussion on partisan gerrymandering, is yet another district in Maryland. Maryland’s 6th district:

Maryland’s 6th district was yet another district gerrymandered during the 2010 redistricting cycle. This district in particular was created under the influence of a Democratic legislature. To create this district the legislature moved a total of 353,088 people into the district and 358,074 people out of it. That’s a great deal of movement. Eventually in  federal court, Democrats were forced to admit that their goal was to move enough voters around to dilute GOP voting power and deter Republican candidates from winning legislative positions. By admitting to this, Democrats from Maryland’s 6th district, blatantly admitted to gerrymandering the district. Moreover, it is evident that this gerrymandering was done to make the state more vote in favor of Democrats more–regardless of the opinions of its people.

Furthermore, partisan gerrymandering subverts the views of the American people in favor of a political party. From these three districts alone it is clear that Republicans and Democrats alike will draw absurd district lines in order to give themselves power or in order to keep themselves there. Redistricting, however, comes at the expense of the American people. In the case of Ohio, major cities with societal and economic differences were confined to one district, in order to subvert the Democratic vote. Meanwhile in Maryland, the legislature created distracts with the goal of diluting the GOP vote.

In 2019, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 [in the case of Rucho v. Common Cause] that “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.” This ruling means that federal courts cannot get strike down district maps simply because they are designed to help/hurt a particular political party. This ruling raises the question, how do we combat gerrymandering then? That question becomes more and more relevant as election years approach. One solution would be to force individual states to take action–as state constitutions are permitted to have policies regarding gerrymandering. Regardless, it is incredibly important that we, as a nation, find a way to combat gerrymandering, as the system takes away political representation and in a way poses a limitation to democracy.

Sources:

Court Cases and Gerrymandering — Vox

Gerrymandering Districts — Fulcrum

Is Gerrymandering Good Now? — Rothman 

District Images –Fulcrom/Meyers

 

 

 

 

 

 

For this week’s blog post I’m going to discuss the triumphant and impactful life of Shirley Chisholm.

Chisholm was born on November 30, 1924 in Brooklyn, New York. She was the eldest daughter [of four] to immigrant parents. Her father was Charles St. Hill, a factory worker from Barbados, and her mother was Ruby Seale St. Hill, a seamstress from Barbados.

While living in New York her father took on two jobs, working in a burlap bag factor and as a baker’s helper. Her mother continued to worker as a seamstress, dabbling in other types of domestic work as well. However, being so incredibly hardworking made raising four children quite difficult. So [when she was around 5] her parents made the decision to send Chisholm and her sisters to Barbados to live with their grandmother, Emaline Seale. Chisholm spent quite a bit of her childhood in Barbados, returning in 1934. Life in Barbados had quite an impact on her and she has stated numerous time that she would always consider herself a Barbadian American.

In 1939, she started attending the Girls’ High School in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn. The school had a great reputation and was also integrated. Chisholm perfumed quite well academically. In fact, she was offered scholarships to several highly selective colleges, including Vassar College and Oberlin College. Unfortunately, however, her family could not afford either school–even with the help of scholarships.

Subsequently she ended up attending Brooklyn College in 1942, where she would end up graduating cum laude [with a degree in sociology and Spanish] in 1946. She also managed to win a multitude of prizes on the college’s debate team. Her talent for debate and discourse was so noticeable that several professors advised her to pursue a career in politics. Despite their advice, she believed that a career in politics would be impossible, as she “faced a ‘double handicap,'” being both African American and a woman.

So, instead, she took a job as a nursery school teacher, following graduation. In terms of her personal life, she got married to Conrad Q. Chisholm, a private investigator, in 1949 at the age of 25. [The couple would later divorce in 1977]. Eventually, she also went back to school to earn her master’s degree. She graduated from Columbia University with a master’s in early childhood education in 1951. She continued to work in this field, and by 1960 she had earned a position as a consultant to the NYC Division of Day Care. Simultaneously she was engaging in a number of social causes–specifically this in relation to racial and gender inequality. She was a member of local chapters of the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, the Urban League, and the Democratic Party.

As a member of the Unity Democratic Club (UDC), she campaigned for Thomas R. Jones, who was running for an assembly seat in 1960. Jones lost in 1960, but ended up running again and winning two years later [making him Brooklyn’s second black assemblyman]. When his term was up, Jones chose to accept a judicial appointment rather than run for reelection. After much consideration, Chisholm decided to run for his seat in the New York State assembly in 1964. Throughout her campaign she faced a great deal of backlash for both her gender and her race–even the UDC was hesitant to support a female candidate. Eventually she decided that she would have to appeal directly to female voters, using her role as the president of the Brooklyn brand of Key Women of America to garner support from other women voters. After a great deal of work she managed to win the Democratic primary in June of 1964, and eventually she won the seat by a great margin.

She served as a member of the New York State Assembly for 3 years [1965 to 1968]. However, in 1968, court-ordered redistricting ended up creating a new highly Democratic district in her neighborhood. This restricting enabled her to run for, and win, a seat in Congress in 1968. While working in Congress she earned the nickname “Fighting Shirley” because she introduced and advocated for over 50 pieces of legislation. She was also championed a number of important causes, including racial and gender equality, the plight of the poor, and ending the war in Vietnam. Similarly, she co-founded the National Women’s Political Caucus in 1971. 6 years later, in 1977, she would also become the second woman and first Black woman to serve on the House Rules Committee. That same year she also got divorced and remarried to Arthur Hardwick Jr., who was a New York State legislator.

In 1972, she formally announced her candidacy for President of the United States. While campaigning to be the Democratic Party’s nominee, she faced a massive amount of discrimination. She wasn’t allowed to participate in televised primary debates. She attempted to counter this ban by taking legal action, but in the end she was only given the opportunity to make a single speech. Regardless of the discrimination she faced, students, women, and countless minority groups supported her. Over the course of the 12 primaries that she entered, she received 152 of the delegates’ votes [10% of the total]. In the end, she lost but it was still a tremendous feat for her to do as well as she did [or to even simply enter the race] given the discrimination that faced her.

After her loss, she continued to serve in Congress. She only just retired in 1983. Following retirement, she went on to teach at Mount Holyoke College. She also co-founded the National Political Congress of Black Women. In 1991, she moved to Florida, declining a nomination to be the US Ambassador to Jamaica on account of health reasons. Unfortunately she passed away in 2005–her legacy, however, lives on. She was a trailblazer for racial equality and women’s rights. Her dedication and hard work is beyond admirable. I firmly believe that she is someone who has a tremendous impact on our society, and she deserves to be recognized for that.

 

Image

Source

Image

Image

Image

Image

For this weeks blog post I want to highlight the momentous life of Robert Smalls.

Smalls was born in 1839. His mother, Lydia Polite, was a slave. He spent is childhood in the city, where his mother lived as a servant to Henry McKee and the McKee family. Despite working as a servant during his childhood, his mother grew up working the fields–he didn’t. He was a favorite of the McKee family, which made his mother fearful that he might grow up not understanding the struggles of enslaved field workers. To rectify this issue, she asked for him to be put into work in the fields and she would force him to watch whippings.

Once he turned 12, he was sent to Charleston to work as a laborer for one dollar a week–the rest of the wage went to his master. He took on a number of jobs in Charleston, working in a hotel and eventually a lamplighter. However, he preferred working on the docks and wharves due to his love for the sea. He worked as a longshoreman, a sail maker, and eventually he worked his way up to become a wheelman [better known as a helmsman, but slaves weren’t allowed to hold that title].

On December 24, 1856, at age 17, Smalls married Hannah Jones, an enslaved hotel maid. She was 22 years old and already had two daughters. Together Smalls and Jones had two children of their own: Elizabeth Lydia Smalls [born 1858] and Robert Jr. [born 1861]. Robert Jr, however, ended up dying at age 2. Robert attempted to purchase freedom for his family–but the price was far too high for him to afford [$800].

In April 1861, the [American] Civil War began with the Battle of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Months later, in the fall of 1861, Smalls was assigned to the CSS Planter, a Confederate military transport. The Planter was expected to deliver dispatches, troops, and supplies and was under the command of Charleston’s District Commander Brigadier General Roswell S. Ripley. Smalls drove the Planter through the Charleston harbor and other areas along the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

In 1862, Smalls began to plan an attempt to escape. He would discuss the idea with other enslaved people on the crew except one that he didn’t trust. He also would reveal his plans to members of his family on one of their permitted visits.

His plan was put into action around May 13 of 1862. Around 3 am on the 13th Smalls and 7/8 of his fellow enslaved crewmen attempted their plan to escape. The first stage in their plan required Smalls to disguise himself in a captain’s uniform. He sailed the ship past the Southern Wharf and stopped along the way to pick up his family and the families of the other crew members. He managed to steer the ship past five Confederate harbor forts without being caught or even suspected of any wrongdoing–and at around 4:30 am the Planter had sailed past Fort Sumter.

Eventually an alarm was sounded, but only after the ship had gotten out of gun range. Rather than attempt to go any further east, Smalls steered the ship straight towards the Union Navy fleet. At the same time the crew replaced the ship’s Confederate flags with a white bed sheet that his wife has brought aboard. The USS Onward eventually caught sight of The Planter and was preparing to fire until a crewman saw the white flag.

John Frederick Nickels, captain of The Onward then boarded The Planter. Small’s instantly surrounded the Planter and its cargo. He then asked for a US flag to simply. His escape plan was a success. He had also managed to pass a Confederate signal book along with a bunch of ammunition. Most valuable, however, was Smalls himself. He had a ton of intelligence and information that was incredibly helpful for the Union. In fact some of the intelligence he provided would allow Union forces to capture Coles Island with ease on May 20–just a week after his escape.

Smalls went on to contribute greatly to the success of the Union throughout the Civil War. At just 23 he had proved himself to be a valuable asset. The US Congress even passed a bill awarding Smalls and his crewmen prize money for the planter. Smalls, himself, received $1,500 [the equivalent of $38,885 today]. He continued to help serve the Union Navy with tremendous success. In fact, he was even made pilot of the ironclad USS Kekouk in 1863 and took part in the attack on Fort Sumter on April 7th of the same year. Later, in May of 1864, his contributions to the Union allowed for him to be named an unofficial delegate to the Republican National Convention. Finally, in December of 1864, he piloted the Planter in Savannah, Georgia where he aided William T. Sherman’s army. He then took part in the ceremonial resining of the US flag at Fort Sumter in June of 1865.

Following the Civil War he partook in a number of civil rights campaigns and business ventures. His wartime fame and incredible dialect allowed for him to have great success. One of his most impressive ventures was building a school for African-American children, after teaching himself to read and write over the course of nine months. He also founded a black-owned newspaper known as the Beaufort Southern Standard in 1872.

Politically, Smalls was a staunch Republican. He partook in a number of state ventures and was eventually elected to the US House of Representatives in 1874, serving two terms between 1875 and 1879.

Eventually Smalls passed away on February 23, 1915 at the age of 75. His death was caused by malaria and diabetes. There’s a monument near his burial that is inscribed with one of his most famous quotes: “My race needs no special defense, for the past history of them in this country proves them to be the equal of any people anywhere. All they need is an equal chance in the battle of life. [1895]”

Furthermore it is evident that Smalls contributed greatly to the success of the Union during the Civil War. His bravery and intelligence most be commended along with his dedication to equality and humility. He is not someone who is brought up nearly enough when we discuss the Civil War, so I truly hope that this blog shed some light on such a tremendous legacy.

Source

Image

Image

Image

For today’s blog post I’m going to be spotlighting Bessie Coleman, a figure both monumental in the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Rights Movement.

Bessie was born on January 26 of 1892 in Atlanta, Texas. She had was one of thirteen children born to Susan Coleman, an African American maid, and George Coleman, a sharecropper of mixed Native American [Cherokee] and African American descent. Unfortunately despite it being relatively surprising for the time, Coleman started attending school in Waxahachie, Texas at the age of six. Due to the segregation, sexism, and racism of the time Coleman had to walk 4 miles ever single day to attend her segregated, single-room school. Despite all the challenges she faced, Coleman absolutely loved school, and she quickly became highly regarded as an outstanding math student.

In 1901, her father George left his family. He then proceeded to move to Oklahoma [then referred to as Indian Territory] in attempts to escape discrimination–his wife and 9 surviving children, however, did not follow. Instead they opted to stay in Texas, where Bessie would pick cotton and wash laundry to earn extra money. She was determined to succeed in life and by the age of 18, she had saved up enough money to attend what is now Langston University in Langston, Oklahoma–unfortunately, she ended up being forced to drop out after one semester due to her inability to afford full tuition

At the age of 23, she moved in with a few of her brothers who were living in Chicago. In Chicago she attended the Burnham School of Beauty Culture in 1915. Upon her graduation from that school she took up work as a manicurist at a local barbershop. All the while her brothers were serving overseas fighting in World War I. They came back telling stories of their time in France. One brother would tease her because in France women were allowed to fly airplanes but American women were not. His teasing motivated her desire to become a pilot. She ended up applying to flight schools all over the USA but was rejected from every last one because she was both African American and a woman. Eventually, a famous African American newspaper published–Robert Abbott–advised her to move to France where she could learn to fly–and so she did. However, in order to apply she had to spend her nights taking French classes, as the applications needed to be written in French.

After much hardworking, Coleman was accepted into the Caudron Brother’s School of Aviation in Le Crotoy, France; and on June 15 of 1921 she received her international pilot’s license. Following graduation, her dream was to own a plane and open her own flight school. She would give speeches and show films of her air tricks to earn the money. She spoke at churches, theaters, and schools–but refused to speak anywhere that discriminated against or segregated African Americans. In 1922, she would perform the first public flight by an African American woman. She became famous for doing “loop-the-loops” and “figure 8s” in the air. People found her performances fascinating and she became an international sensation, traveling the country giving lessons, performing, and encouraging others to follow her lead.

In February of 1923, Coleman suffered her first major airplane accident. Her engine stopped working and she crashed. She was terribly injured, suffering a broken leg, cracked ribs, and cuts across her face, but luckily she was able to fully heal from said injuries. Her accident didn’t stop her from quickly returning back to flying though. Her hard work and dedication allowed her to save up enough money to purchase her own plane, a Jenny–KN-4 with an OX-5 engine–around 1925. Eventually she made plans to return to perform in her home state of Texas; however Texas was still very segregated, so the managers of the stadium planned to use two separate entrances for whites and African Americans. Coleman refused to come back unless everyone used the same gate, and after many meetings they agreed [even though people were still forced to sit in segregated sections within the stadium, her advocation is monumental].

Unfortunately Coleman’s story came to a tragic end on April 30 0f 1926. She was taking a test flight with a mechanic known as William Wills. Wills was flying and Coleman was in the passenger seat. At around 3000 feet in the air a loose wrench got stuck in the engine of the plane, causing Wills to lose control of the steering wheel–resulting in the plane flipping over. Coleman was devastatingly not wearing a seatbelt, as airplanes of that time did not have a roof for protection. She immediately fell out of the plane and died. Wills crashed shortly after and died as well. Her death was heartbreaking for many and famous activists like Ida B. Wells even attended the ceremony to honor Coleman in Chicago. In 1931, the Challenger Pilot’s Association of Chicago started a tradition of flying over her grave every year, and in 1977 African American women pilots formed the Bessie Coleman aviators club, and by 1995, the “Bessie Coleman Stamp” was made in remembrance of all of her accomplishments.

Moreover, Bessie Coleman was an activist that contributed greatly towards both the feminist movement and the Civil Rights movement. Apart from simply being a skilled aviator her dedication to justice and passion for equality is beyond admirable. She is not nearly talked about enough so it’s incredibly important to understand and appreciate her many accomplishments.

Source

Image

Image

Image

So far in this blog I’ve talked about two influential women, both of whom have contributed greatly to the development/advancement of the USA. This week I am going to continue that trend by discussing one of the earliest female politicians in the US–Victoria Woodhull.

Victoria Woodhull [born Victoria California Claflin] was born on September 23 of 1838. She was the 7th out of 10 children born to Reuben Buckman Claflin and his wife. Reuben came from a very poor Scottish-American family from an impecunious area in Massachusetts.

When she was a child, Woodhull’s father claimed that she has a “spiritual; clairvoyance” and “fortune-telling abilities.” Abilities that he would attempt to use to garner money for the family by creating a traveling medicine show, during which Woodhull would tell fortunes and sell medicine to patients. Claiming that his daughter had extraordinary powers was only one of her father’s many efforts to get rich quick. In fact on one occasion he burnt down his family’s own gristmill in an attempt to collect its insurance policy. Unfortunately for Woodhull, her father’s arson and fraud were quickly discovered and she was forced to drop out of school and move to the Ohio.

The fact that Woodhull had a “gift” wasn’t entirely a lie though. Since childhood, she claimed to be guided and protected by spirits, who would sometimes allow her to visit a utopian world in heaven. A world incredibly different from the cruel, mundane one in which she lived. Apart from her father’s schemes it would later be claimed by historians and biographers that Woodhull and her siblings were beaten, starved, and sexually abused by their father–but the validity of that claim is unknown.

By the time she turned 15 [in 1853], she was desperate to escape her father’s cruelty. So she decided to elope with 28-year-old Canning Woodhull, a patent medicine salesman, who claimed to be a doctor–at the time the state of Ohio did not require doctors to have formal medical education or licensing. The pair married on November 20th, 1853–two months past her 15th birthday. Some accounts claim that Woodhull abducted Victoria and coerced her into marrying him [the validity of this claim also is unknown]. Soon after they were officially married, Victoria would learn that her husband was an alcoholic and a womanizer. His shortcomings would force her to work outside of her home to support her family. The pair had two children: Byron [who was disabled] and Zulu/Zula Maude, whose delivery was so poorly done by her father that she almost bled to death.

In 1860, the Woodhulls  moved to New York City, where members of Victoria’s paternal family currently lived. Upon arrival, her sister Tennessee (Tennie) and her took up work as mediums. The stayed in NYC for about 4 years, until the sisters moved their families to Cincinnati, and later Chicago, to find more clients and dodge complaints and potential legal trouble. However, despite their best efforts, Tennessee was imprisoned for manslaughter after one of her “treatments” failed to cure a woman suffering from breast cancer.

Shortly after her sister’s imprisonment, Canning left Victoria and their children–only occasionally returning for money. Tired of his antics, she divorced him in 1864, after 11 years of marriage.

As a result from her tumultuous marriage, she became an outspoken supporter of free love: the idea that a person has the right to stay with a person only so long as they choose, and that they can commit to another (monogamous) relationship when they decide to move on. Her devotion to the cause was important because 19th century women had few options when it came to marriage. After all, divorce was still very much taboo, and women who did get divorced often became societal pariahs.

It is rumored that Woodhull later remarried. This time wedding Colonel James Harvey Blood, a Union officer who served in the Civil War. Whether of not they legally got married, the pair moved back o NYC to reunite with members of Woodhull’s family. It was there that Woodhull began to engage in political discourse. She opened a salon where radicals would come to intellectually spar. It was this salon that earned her fame as a gifted conversationalist. In addition to the success of her salon, she would use her new found platform to advocate for women’s rights.

After her sisters release from prison, the two would become spiritual advisers to Cornelius Vanderbilt, famed shipping and railroad tycoon [and a self-made multi-millionaire]. Vanderbilt’s wife had recently died and the sisters helped him to “contact” her spirit. He would also listen to their financial insight, bankrolling their financial ventures on Wall Street, where they would actively partake in the stock market.

In 1870, they opened a brokerage house–Woodhull, Claflin & Company–where they would go on to make a small fortune from the New York Stock Exchange. They were the first women to own a brokerage firm. Many men would attempt to sexualize or berate the pair, but Victoria would reply, saying “a woman’s ability to earn money is better protection against the tyranny and brutality of men than her ability to vote.

The sister’s would later use the money that their brokerage house had earned to start a newspaper known as Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly. The paper ran from about 1870 until 1876, making them the first women to start a weekly newspaper–in which they would address issues that concerned women’s rights and labor reform. It also was notorious for advocating for sex education, free love, spiritualism, and licensed prostitution.

Admits running her paper, she became an outspoken advocate for Women’s Rights. On one occasion she even spoke to the House Judiciary Committee in favor of women’s suffrage. She argued that women already had the right to vote–they simply needed to exercise it–since the 14th and 15th Amendments granted suffrage to all citizens [since neither amendment had bothered to specify gender].

In 1871, Victoria Woodhull announced her candidacy for President of the United States–50 years before women would even legally be allowed to vote. However, contrary to popular belief, there was no law preventing a woman from running for office. She was backed by the newly founded Equal Rights Party in 1872, and her nomination was ratified at their convention in 1872. The party would also nominate Frederick Douglas, a former slave and abolitionist leader, for Vice President.

She was the first women to run for President in the United States; however, some constituents denied the validity of her nomination, claiming that as a woman she was not a full citizen. These claims wouldn’t matter though because Woodhull, her husband James Blood, and her sister Tennessee Claflin were arrested for publishing an “obscene” article exposing an adulterous affair between Reverend Henry Ward Beecher [a minister who spoke out against free love–something Woodhull was an advocate of] and a parishioner. They were held in the Ludlow Street jail for months before eventually being cleared of the charges–ironically enough, the first female presidential candidate spent Election Day in jail.

By 1877, she had lost her newspaper and was left bankrupt. She divorced her husband and moved to England with her sister Tennessee, where she would remarry [John Biddulph Martin] and continue to advocate for women’s rights up until her death in 1937 [at age 88].

In the end, Woodhull lost the election, but that does not diminish the impact that she had on politics and the fight for women’s rights. To even attempt to run for office in the 19th century, as a woman, was somewhat of a death wish but she did it anyway. Her devotion to the fight for equality is not one that can be overlooked. Not only did she fight for suffrage but she also fought for a woman’s right to dress the way she wanted to, to get a divorce, and to exist outside of the home. Moreover, it is incredibly important that we remember Victoria Woodhull and her efforts, in spite of her tumultuous upbringing, to help fight for equality.

 

Sources

Image

Image

Image

Image

For this weeks blog post, I’m going to spotlight one of the most defining investigative reporters of the 19th century: Nellie Bly.

 

Nellie Bly [born Elizabeth Cochrane/Cochran] was born on May 5, 1864 in Cochran’s Mills, Pennsylvania. One of fifteen children, her father was a merchant, postmaster, and associate justice at Cochran’s Mills (which was named after him). Unfortunately her father passed away in 1871, when Bly was only 6 years old. Growing up she had a fairly normal life, moving between cities. Later, in 1879, she enrolled at Indiana Normal School [now Indiana University of Pennsylvania], but was forced to drop out after one term due to lack of funds.

Despite, her lack of formal education, Bly had an appreciation for sophistication and literature. Thus, in 1880, when her family moved to what was then known as Allegheny City [later part of Pittsburgh], she found herself incredibly intrigued by a local newspaper column called “What Girls Are Good For.” The column was printed in the Pittsburgh Dispatch, and argued that girls existed primarily to birth children and keep house. The article enraged her and she responded to it, under the pseudonym “Lonely Orphan Girl.” Her response was so well written and passionate that the editor of the Pittsburgh Dispatch, George Madden, published an advertisement in which he asked the author to identify his or herself. Eventually, Bly took responsibility for the article and introduced herself to the editor, who offered her the opportunity to write another pieced under the same pseudonym. In this article, titled “The Girl Puzzle,” Bly talked about divorce and the adverse effects that it had on women. Her work was so impressive that Madden decided to other her a full-time job. At that time women who wrote for newspapers were expected to use pen names. She chose the name “Nellie Bly,” as tribute to the African-American title character in Stephen Foster’s popular song “Nelly Bly.”

 

As her career began, she wrote numerous articles on slum life, a major characteristic of the 19th century, and the conditions amongst working girls in the city of Pittsburgh. Her articles were groundbreaking not only because of the material she covered, but because at that time women’s writings were often kept in a specific section of the newspaper, often referred to as the “women’s pages.” Bly broke this stereotype. Her works would encompass all types of issues and be placed amongst those of men in the paper. In fact, in the years of 1886 and 1887 she spent several months in Mexico, during which she researched the corruption of officials and the conditions of the impoverished. Her articles, collectively referred to as Six Months in Mexico (1888), deeply criticized the Mexican government, and even resulted in her expulsion from the country.

 

In late 1887, Bly moved to from Pittsburgh New York City, where she would work for Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World. One of the first things she did while working for this paper was to feign insanity in order to get committed to an insane asylum on Blackwell’s [Roosevelt] Island. While in the asylum she observed the conditions and upon release she would write arguably her most infamous exposé of all time: Ten Days in a Mad House (1887). In this exposé she was able to really exemplify how truly horrendous conditions were for patients in these asylums. In fact it was largely her work that led to a grand-jury investigation of the asylum that helped bring about much needed improvements–especially in regard to the treatment of patients. Over the course of her career she would continue to write similar exposés about the conditions in sweatshops, jails, and the lobbyist system (where she exposed bribery). Moreover, thanks to her exposés and dedication to the truth, she was the most famous and well-known female journalist of the 19th century.

Bly’s career, however, did not end there. In fact some would argue that the high point of her career began on November 14, 1889 when she embarked on a journey to beat the record of Phineas Fogg [the hero from Jules Verne’s novel Around the World in Eight Days]. The World ran daily articles about her journey and it was quite the topic of discussion. In the end it took her exactly 72 days 6 hours 11 minutes and 14 seconds to sail “around the world.” A book, Nellie Bly’s Book: Around the World in Seventy-two Days (1890), was later published in honor of the event.

Eventually, in 1895, she married [a millionaire] Robert Seaman. She was 31 and he was 73, and due to his health concerns she briefly left journalism to succeed him as head of the Iron Clad Manufacturing Company. Seaman died in 1904, and Bly continued to manage the company for a while. even earning a US Patent for a novel milk can that she created at one point. However, eventually, due to her negligence and embezzlement by a factor manager the company went bankrupt. As a result, she returned to her first love–reporting. She wrote a lot about World War 1, and ended up being the first women to visit the war zone between Serbia and Austria. She was even arrested, being mistaken for A British spy. She would also cover the Woman Suffrage Procession of 1913 for the New York Evening Journal. She wrote a number of articles about suffrage, one being titled “Suffragists Are Men’s Superiors.” Unfortunately she died of pneumonia in New York City at the age of 57. Following her death she would continue to be honored by journalists and people alike.

 

Overall, Nellie Bly paved a path for female journalist and it’s important to appreciate her accomplishments. Not only was she a staunch feminist and suffragist, but she also fought for the rights of so many marginalized groups. Her work is incredibly moving and powerful, which is why she is someone that we need to continue to remember.

Source

Image

Image

Image

Last semester I decided to use my passion blog to spotlight people who have made major differences in the development of our society. I specifically chose to discuss figures who are often overlooked or underappreciated. I really enjoyed this topic, and I feel as though there is so much more I can do with it, so I decided to continue with it this semester.

Without further ado, I’d like to start off this semester by discussing Henrietta Lacks. Lacks is someone that is rarely ever brought up when discussions of cellular research arise–but she played a very important role. Her story begins in 1951, when she, then a young mother of 5, visited the Johns Hopkins Hospital, which at the time was one of the few hospitals willing to treat African-American patients. Lacks complained of vaginal bleeding; and she was later examined by a gynecologist, named Dr. Howard Jones. While examining her, Jones discovered a large malignant [extremely virulent/infectious] tumor on her cervix

Almost immediately she began radium treatments with the hope of curing [or at least stopping the spread of] her cervical cancer. At the time radium treatments were the most effective type of treatment for this disease. In addition, she went through many other procedures–including a multitude of biopsies. On one occasion a sample of her cancer cells, taken during a biopsy, was sent to a nearby tissue lab managed by Dr. George Gey for examination. Gey was, at the time, a relatively well-known cell biologist, and he had been collecting cells from all of his patients dealing with cervical cancer, regardless of race, gender, or wealth, for years. Most of these cell samples would die quickly in his lab–however, Henrietta Lacks’ cells were unique. Not only did they not die, but they would double every day.

These cells would later be nicknamed “HeLa” cells, He being the first two letters of Henrietta and La being the first two letters of Lacks. Today these same cells are still being utilized to study the effects that toxins, drugs, hormones, and viruses have on the growth of cancer cells. These HeLa cells are specifically important because they allow for these studies to occur without experimenting on cancer patients.

Even to this day, HeLa cells play a big role in medical development. They have been used to study the effects that exposure to radiation and poison have on cells. More recently, however, they have also been used to study viruses, and even played an important role in the development of both the polio and COVID-19 vaccines.

Unfortunately Lacks passed away on October 4th of 1951, at the young age of 31. She would have no idea the impact that her cells would have on medical development [and cellular research]. In fact, it wasn’t even until around 20 years after her death that anyone, including her family, would learn that these cells belonged to her. Lacks was one of the many African-American people who unknowingly contributed to nonconsensual medical experiments at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and many other medical institutions during the 20th century.

In recent years Johns Hopkins has made more of an effort to remember and applaud the contributions that Henrietta Lacks and her “HeLa” cells made in the medical community. They also have acknowledged responsibility for failing to receive consent from Lacks to even begin these studies, claiming that the practice, though legal in the 1950s, shouldn’t have happened and wouldn’t happen today without consent from the patient.

Overall, Henrietta Lacks is a very important figure when it comes to cellular studies and medical development–despite not knowing it herself. She deserves recognition not only because her cells have helped medical development, but because these studies were done without her consent. It’s important to recognize that in the 20th century, and even still today, racism and consent remain relevant issues in the medical field. So while we can applaud the accomplishments of the “HeLa” cells we must remember the appalling and unjustifiable manner in which they were taken from her.

 

Sources

Images