This terrible experience that Mrs. Hamer went through is even more magnified by the fact that two black prisoners were ordered to dole out the beating. I am 100% positive that these two male black prisoners did not want to do this to Mrs. Hamer, however the fear of the consequences that would be inflicted on them more than likely led to their decision to obey the officers orders.

This is an example of how Jim Crow was still alive and active in the South almost a century after the 15th amendment and over four decades after the 19th amendment. Another example of Jim Crow during this time is in the linked biography that stated that Mrs. Hamer was barred from the ballot when attempting to run for the Mississippi House of Representatives.

What stands out most to me in Fannie Mae Hamer’s testimony at the 1964 DNC is that her testimony was a firsthand, detailed account of the struggles and inequality that she faced all while simply trying to register to vote. Ms. Hamer could have used board examples of these racial injustices or secondhand accounts, but I believe this powerful testimony was given so the audience could put a face to this racial discrimination in hopes of making a more powerful argument.

Where would we be in America today if Long had won the Presidency and enacted these principles? Much like we learned about in the beginning of Unit 2 about America claiming territories and building an empire, many Americans have built empires as well. What if fortunes were limited? Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg to name a few. Would these people, who have built empires in their respective fields, continue to push harder for advancement and newer technology when they had already reached their salary limit? I feel we would not be as advanced as we are today.

I find this statement to be very powerful and it may have been accepted during this time in our history. This speech was in the middle of the Great Depression so I feel many Americans connected with this statement regarding a "miserable system of wreckage." But I feel this was a very opportunistic time for a politician with his eye on the Presidency. Had this statement been made at any other time before the Great Depression or shortly after, I think many Americans would have been turned off by it.

After reading the “Every Man a King” and “Share our Wealth” speeches by Huey P. Long, three things immediately came to mind. An opportunist, a career politician and Bernie Sanders. These speeches were made right in the middle of the Great Depression and at a time when Long was attempting to bolster himself as a Presidential candidate. With the majority of Americans suffering the repercussions of the Great Depression, messages like “Share our Wealth” are the messages that Americans wanted to hear. It is interesting to wonder what type of impact Long would have had on the Presidential elections and wonder if he might have been successful and win the office had he not been assassinated prior to them. I am sure you all know what I am talking about when I say career politician. We have many of them in office today. To me, a career politician will say and doing anything to win an election or re-election which is a direct correlation to an opportunist. “Every Man a King” is filled with rhetorical questions through the first half of the speech. I am quite sure that this speech did make an impact on struggling Americans who were looking for change. Long’s beliefs and plans at this stage in American history is exactly what Americans wanted to hear and wanted to see come to fruition. The “Share our Wealth” speech outlines his plan in detail, but I see Long’s “Every Man a King” speech as more of a political motivating speech than an informative one. I could not help but think of Bernie Sanders’ policies when reading Long’s “Share our Wealth” speech. Although not exactly the same as Sanders’ current policies, the end goal, in my opinion, look to be the same. Creating an equal economic society by raising the less fortunate up by way of holding the more fortunate back.

President Theodore Roosevelt did sign the Social Security Act into law one year after this speech, however the age was 65.

Taking into consideration that these figures would be higher today due our present day economy, imagine if Long's vision was proposed today. What kind of outcry would we hear from the professional athletes, Hollywood actors/actresses, and musicians, singers and songwriters.

While this may sound like the perfect utopia, this is not the foundation on which America was built. America was built on the concept of working hard to provide a better life for yourself and your family.

I am curious to know what our founding fathers would have thought about this statement.

I can honestly say that this discussion assignment is one of the most thought-provoking discussions that I have ever been assigned. Two men, two different thought processes and personalities trying to navigate themselves and their race through uncharted water to ultimately reach the same goal of racial equality. One man, Booker T. Washington, in my opinion by this excerpt from his Atlantic Compromise speech, was an optimist. Washington seemed very optimistic that blacks and whites could come together during this time. He felt blacks would slowly be afforded the opportunities rightly deserved by showing compassion. His idea was for everyone, blacks and whites, to “cast down their buckets” in hopes that the opposite race would fill those buckets and ultimately reach a land of equality through love and compassion. The second man, W.E.B. DuBois, took a different point of view in contrast of those of Booker T. Washington. Dubois felt that Washington’s comments and viewpoints were a signal of submission to the white race. He felt Washington’s path would set the black race back by not insisting on civil rights and true equality. DuBois felt that this way of thinking would lead the black race into accepting the thought that they were inferior to the white race. The opposing viewpoints of these two men on the way to reach racial equality truly intrigues me. Dubois seeming more of a Type A personality and Washington more of a Type B personality. This assignment causes me to wonder what a one-on-one conversation on this would have been like between Washington and DuBois. We have what DuBois’s thoughts were about Washington’s ideas, and it poses the question of what Washington’s thoughts on Dubois’s path forward were as well as what his thoughts were of the criticism DuBois had for his way attaining the same goal.

I agree with DuBois on this point and agree that the answer to this is no. However, I question if Washington's "propaganda” aided any type of lack of progress in these areas. One must understand that in this era, this new free world that America was adjusting to, opinions, ideals and emotions concerning this were changing daily. The country as everyone knew it had changed. Perhaps when Washington made his Atlantic Compromise speech, his rational may have been the most obvious and clear path forward.

In this statement by Washington, he seems to be attempting to reassure whites that both races would be able to live together harmoniously. At the time of the speech, this was probably a very powerful statement resounding with both races. However, eight short years later, DuBois probably saw this as a very cowardly move on Washington's part. Looking at this from a different mindset, one would think that Washington was bowing down to whites and relinquishing their new status in America. With this statement, I feel Washington was trying to be a peacekeeper and not incite any unnecessary ill-feelings. He understood the potential racism and hatred that would be cast upon the blacks and he was looking for a way to bring both sides together.

I feel this statement in Washington's speech more than likely had a very profound impact on those hearing it, both negative and positive. This same concept was instilled in me growing up. I can see how DuBois would look at this statement as negative due to the fact that it sounds like Washington is saying that to gain equality, blacks have no other choice but to start at the bottom and cannot challenge whites for a better way to make a living. However, I do not really believe that was the rational behind this statement. I feel Washington was merely making the point that no matter what blacks have to do to live harmoniously in this new era, they should always hold their head high and never lose their dignity.