Rosa Miller Avery

Rosa Miller Avery never had to read about slavery in books to understand its evils. Born on May 21, 1830, in Madison, Ohio, she grew up in a home that served as a station on the Underground Railroad, where she witnessed firsthand the human cost of bondage. Her father, Nahum Miller, was a pioneer anti-slavery agitator whose humanitarian convictions shaped the entire household.

Rosa Miller Avery

But it was her mother, Esther, who planted the seed that would guide Avery's lifelong activism. Esther observed that "the laws pertaining to property and the holding of children were as oppressive for women as for negroes." This insight connected two struggles in Avery's mind—the fight against slavery and the fight for women's rights were part of the same battle for human dignity.

Avery's activism began early and met fierce resistance. While attending Madison Seminary, she wrote passionate anti-slavery essays that were greeted with derision and abuse. Yet her words had power—two fellow students later told her that her arguments convinced them to abandon careers in ministry to study law and politics instead.

After marrying Cyrus Avery in 1853, she moved to Ashtabula, Ohio, where she organized the first anti-slavery society in that community. The opposition was stunning. Not a single clergyman in town would announce the society's meetings, and this was just two years before the Civil War, in the home county of prominent abolitionists Joshua Reed Giddings and Benjamin Wade. The churches' refusal so outraged local leaders that they withdrew and built their own church with a decidedly anti-slavery stance.

During the Civil War years, Avery's pen became her weapon. She wrote constantly for various journals on union and emancipation, but faced a humiliating obstacle—her words needed credibility that her female name apparently couldn't provide. So she adopted male pseudonyms to ensure her articles would be taken seriously.

The strategy worked. Her writings caught the attention of Governor Richard Yates of Illinois, future President James A. Garfield, abolitionist James Redpath, and renowned anti-slavery writer Lydia Maria Child. They all sent her appreciative letters, recognizing the moral force of her arguments. Yet the bitter irony remained—she could only command that respect while hiding behind a man's name.

For Avery, this indignity reinforced her core belief. The fight against slavery and the struggle for women's equality were inseparable. Both systems denied human beings their fundamental right to self-determination. Both reduced people to property or subordination based on arbitrary characteristics.

Avery's opposition to slavery was never merely political or intellectual. It was deeply moral, rooted in her childhood experiences helping fugitive slaves and in her mother's wisdom about the interconnected nature of all human oppression. She understood that America could never truly claim to stand for liberty while chains—whether literal or legal—bound any of its people.

Rosa Miller Avery continued her activism in Chicago after 1877, focusing on social reform and women's suffrage until her death in 1894. But her anti-slavery work, conducted with courage despite gender-based obstacles, remains a testament to the power of moral conviction and the written word.

Video Reaction Post

 John C. Calhoun emerged as a pivotal figure in American politics whose pro-slavery arguments left an enduring and troubling legacy in the nation's civil rights history. 

John C. Calhoun

His political involvement helped solidify institutional defenses of slavery that would persist for generations. The daily reality for enslaved people was one of unrelenting hardship, beginning each day before sunrise with little concern shown for their basic wellbeing. After exhausting labor, they found minimal rest in overcrowded, cramped shacks that offered little comfort or privacy. Their clothing was scarce and inadequate—lacking jackets during cold weather and provided only thin blankets for warmth during harsh winters. 

Slave Market

Central to this system of oppression were the slave markets, essential institutions where human beings were bought and sold like property, creating harsh realities that fundamentally shaped the developing nation's character and economy. Despite these brutal conditions, many enslaved people courageously chose to pursue freedom by escaping, moving silently through the darkness while navigating by the stars. 

These dangerous journeys were fraught with peril, as bounty hunters lurked in shadows, ready to capture and return runaways for profit. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Britain began leading the charge toward abolition under William Wilberforce's determined leadership, culminating in 1807 when the British officially withdrew from the slave trade. This international shift toward recognizing slavery's moral bankruptcy would eventually influence American attitudes, though the United States would struggle with this institution for decades longer, leaving deep scars on the nation's social and political fabric.

Ai discloser: I used claud Ai. I then edited the text and added photos and subheadings.

The Liberator

                                                              The Liberator Newspaper

 In 1831, a young printer named William Lloyd Garrison published what would become one of America’s most influential newspapers from a small office in Boston. The Liberator, though modest in circulation with only 3,000 subscribers, would thunder across the nation for 35 years and help the movement that ultimately ended slavery in America. 

The Liberator demanded immediate emancipation, unlike other antislavery publications of the time. Garrison had rejected the popular notion of gradual abolition, writing in his famous opening editorial: “I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice… I am in earnest- I will not equivocate- I will not excuse I will not retreat a single inch-AND I WILL BE HEARD.”

This wasn’t political rhetoric- it was moral crusading. Garrison viewed slavery as a fundamental sin that required immediate correction, not gradual reform. His approach was revolutionary: rather than working through political channels, he used moral persuasion to appeal directly to an American's conscience. 

Three-quarters of its subscribers were African Americans, and its readership included virtually every major abolitionist leader of the era. Frederick Douglass credited the newspaper with inspiring his own activism, though he later broke with Garrison over strategy differences. The paper published groundbreaking works by pioneering women like Maria W. Stewart, one of the first American women to lecture to mixed-race and mixed-gender audiences, and Sarah Grimke’s influential “Letters on the Province of Women.”

The Liberator’s uncompromising message made it a target. Southern states treated it as a dangerous weapon- North Carolina indicated Garrison for felonious acts, while Columbia, South Carolina offered a $1,500 reward (equivalent to 447,245 today) for information about the paper’s distributions. 

Garrison himself faced violent opposition. In 1835, a Boston mob seeking to attach those visiting abolitionist George Thompson instead turned on Garrison, putting a noose around his neck and threatening to lynch him. Only intervention by the mayor, who jailed Garrison for his own protection, saved his life.

On December 29, 1865, Garrison published The Liberator’s final issue. The Thirteenth Amendment had abolished Slavery throughout the United States- his life’s work was complete. In his valedictory column, he could finally say that the moral crusade he had begun 35 years earlier had succeeded. 

The Liberator proved that a single voice, armed with moral conviction and unwavering determination, could help transform a nation. Its legacy reminded us that sometimes the most powerful weapon against injustice is simply refusing to be silenced.

AI disclosure: After doing my research, I used Microsoft Copilot to smooth the text and format it in a readable way. I then edited the AI generated text. I added photos to the text. I expanded on the AI-generated text by adding some of my personal thoughts and opinions. 

Promoting Tolerance

 During recent events, Charlie Kirk, an American conservative political activist was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University due to his political views. The shooting happened during one of his campus events. After his killing, there was a wide spread of reactions through out social media. Many people were upset, while others were mocking it or making comments praising the act. He was the founder of Turning Point USA , which is a political organization that promotes right-wing values among students. He is also the host of the Charlie Kirk Show and is well known on social media due to his bold and controversial views. 

He would go to college campuses and speak in front of a crowd about politics that are happening in the world. His main thing would be where he had an open microphone where anyone could step up and debate the things happening in the world. He had very strong political views and he would allow students the opportunity to debate and try to change his mind on his views. His whole goal was to make people think hard and most of the time he would make people question their views and rethink things. Most of the students that would speak to him had good points but would crack under pressure when Charlie would ask a simple question. I think this was one of the things that society did not like. 

The tolerance theory says that we don’t need to ban certain laws because society has already figured out a way to handle certain things. In this case, many people have many different opinions. Charlie Kirk was very controversial and many people didn’t agree with the things that he believes in. Charlie did something that not many can do, which is to stand up and talk about his political beliefs to a public audience. He had used his freedom of speech right, and regardless of whether people agree dead with his, he has every right to express his views. Society didn’t like that so therefore he was shot and killed. I think that some of society didn’t like or agree with a lot of the things that he stood for and believed in, so they decided to take matters into their own hands. It is scary to think that one person chose to silence him through violence because they did not have the same political views is tragic and deeply alarming.

I personally do not agree with a lot of Kirk’s views, however, I believe that we have these amendments to protect people. We have the freedom of speech solely for the purpose of speaking and saying what we want, but some people don’t like it when people don’t agree or have differed beliefs. I think that this case is the perfect example of promoting violence.

In conclusion, the death of Charlie Kirk is a hard moment for our country. It forces us to think about the importance of protecting the freedom of speech. Whether our political views match someone else’s or not, every person has the right to speak and should never be silenced by society. 

Slavery in the Bible

 

The bible addresses slavery in many ways. Slavery was a common and accepted part of life in the ancient society, including the cultures described in the Bible. The bible included many guidelines on how slaves could be treated showing fairness, compassion and dignity. The Bible doesn't condemn slavery outright but sets  rules  like requiring fair treatment, limiting terms for Hebrew slaves, and protecting slaves from severe abuse. Although the Bible permitted slavery, it regulated the practice in ways that, for its time, introduced moral responsibilities for masters and certain rights for slavery. 

Slaves in the Old Testament had rights including protection from abuse, ability to own their own possessions, opportunities for redemption and freedom; partly extending from God freeing his people from slavery in Egypt. There were 2 types of slavery. Hebrew  Hebrew slaves which were Israelites who could become slaves,usually because of debt. They were to be freed after six years. Then there were Foreign slaves which Non-Israelites that could be kept as slaves for life , but they were still expected to be treated fairly. An example of this was Exodus 21:20-21 - “When a man sticks his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.” This passage addresses punishment for masters who kill slaves. Overall the  Old Testament didn’t outlaw slavery, but it did set rules to make it more humane compared to other ancient cultures. 

Slavery during the new testament was a normal part of a Roman society. The New Testament doesn’t directly ban slavery, but it teaches how Christians should treat one another, including slaves and masters. Slaves were encouraged to obey their master respectfully. An example of this the five passages that contain the new testaments where “slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters ‘in everything’ (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; Pet 2:18-20). This was meant to help christians live peacefully in society. It didn't fight slavery directly but it taught love,fairness. Which later inspired many christians to work against slavery. 

The Bible’s relationship with slavery is complex, but Christian abolitionists developed several powerful arguments showing how biblical principals fundamentally opposed slavery. A few Bible quotes that show this are, Galatians 3:28- “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This was meant to speak on the spiritual equality regardless of social status. Another one is, 

Isaiah 61:1 - Speaking of God’s mission to “proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners”- a passage Jesus quoted about his own ministry.

Schirrmacher, Thomas (2018). The Humanisation of Slavery in the Old Testament. Wipf and Stock. p. 44-48,51

https://www.bibledingers.com/post/wvw-does-the-bible-support-slavery-leviticus-25-44-46 

https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/ 

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

AI disclosure: After taking noted while watching the Supreme Court video, I used Microsoft Copilot to smooth the text and format it in a readable way. I then edited the AI generated text. I added photos to the text. I expanded on the AI-generated text by adding some of my personal thoughts and opinions. 

Supreme Court Reflection

The Supreme Court of the United States is the most                      

Powerful Court in the world 

 

When watching the documentary, I learned that the Supreme Court of the United States stands as the most powerful judicial body in the country. With the authority to interpret the Constitution and shape national policy, its decisions ripple through every corner of American life. There have been over 100 individuals that served as justices since its founding, only nine sit on the bench at any given time—making appointment to the Court a rare and prestigious honor, often compared to being “struck by lightning.”

I learned that the Court was establishing in 1789, and moved to Washington, D.C. in 1801, where it has remained ever since. It receives over 7,000 petitions annually, though it hears only a small fraction—typically fewer than 100 cases. After oral arguments, the justices meet privately to vote. One justice is assigned to write the majority opinion, but others may write concurring or dissenting opinions, a process that often takes the most time in a case.

The documentary talked about the Court’s most significant powers, the judicial review, established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803). This allows the Court to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution, reinforcing its role as a guardian of constitutional rights.

The Court’s influence is not just legal—it’s symbolic. Its power rests heavily on the trust of the American people. When the public believes in the Court’s impartiality and integrity, its decisions carry greater weight.

Lastly, a pivotal moment in its history was the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) case, where an enslaved man claimed his freedom under an act of Congress. The Court’s ruling against Scott intensified national divisions and remains one of its most controversial decisions.

In essence, the Supreme Court is more than a legal institution—it’s a cornerstone of American democracy.

AI disclosure: After taking noted while watching the Supreme Court video, I used Microsoft Copilot to smooth the text and format it in a readable way. I then edited the AI generated text. I added photos to the text. I expanded on the AI-generated text by adding some of my personal thoughts and opinions.