In the wild, violent decade of the 1870s, the James-Younger Gang stood out amongst Wild West outlaws. These hardened men differed from the rest with their Confederate bushwhacker experience from the American Civil War. Postwar, they settled in war-torn Missouri. But they returned to the outlaw life, committing a series of bank robberies between 1867 and the mid 1870s across several states. The two sets of brothers expanded their range (Iowa), robbing trains or stagecoaches.

Before the Fateful Raid

As ex-guerrillas, Frank and Jesse James, along with the Younger brothers (Cole, Jim, Bob), relied on discipline, wartime experience, and mobility. Their robberies reflected their skillset: fast, coordinated, and violent. Their numerous escapes made the gang look uncatchable. 

The gang made headlines in the 1873 high-profile Rock Island train robbery in Iowa. The members left a press release during the 1874 Gads Hill train robbery. By 1876, whether good or bad, the gang’s reputation was established.

A Disaster Unfolds

For the Northfield Bank Raid, the James-Younger Gang used proven tactics. Five men remained mounted in the street controlling the approaches, watching for lawmen, and providing coverage. These were Jesse James, Jim and Cole Younger, Clell Miller, and Bill Chadwell. Frank James, Bob Younger, and Charlie Pitts entered the First National Bank. But here their signature methods failed with fatal results.

From the get-go, things went awry. Outside, a suspicious J.S. Allen approached, but Clell Miller grabbed him. Breaking free, Allen shouted the famous “Get your guns, boys! They’re robbing the bank!” warning residents of the raid. The outlaws opened fire seconds later, galloping around to discourage bystanders. 

Inside the bank, Joseph Lee Heywood stalled, stating that the vault was time-locked. The outlaws believed Heyward, just as residents reacted. They grabbed their guns and ran to the scene; storekeepers handed out weapons to arm others. All found spots to fire at the bandits.

A Ferocious Defense, Deadly Decimation

At Northfield, the gang members encountered something new: unintimidated, aggressive residents running towards gunfire. Within moments of the alarm, the townspeople reacted. From Bill Heywood’s bluff to the townspeople’s shooting, events spiraled out of the James-Younger Gang’s control. From rooftops, store fronts, and alleys, Northfield residents fired at the exposed robbers. Several townspeople, such as Henry Wheeler and Anselm Manning, were Civil War veterans unfazed by gunfire. A gun battle like this had never occurred in Minnesota frontier history.

The crisscrossing slugfest claimed victims rapidly. In only minutes, Clell Miller and Bill Chadwell died, shot by Wheeler and Manning, respectively. A shocked Cole called out to his comrades inside, urging them to hurry. Frank repeated his order again. Heywood still refused. Frustrated, the bandits fled with little money. As they left, Frank James spun, fired, and killed Heywood with a headshot. The gang next fled Northfield under fire. 

Manhunt

Shattered, the outlaws fled Northfield but not easily. All three Younger brothers had suffered multiple gunshot wounds, which slowed their flight. Aware they’d be hunted men soon, the James brothers established a fast pace, which the injured Youngers and Charlie Pitts tried to match. They waited until the others caught up and rode together. Soon, the James brothers knew staying with their injured comrades meant capture. Within a day, they split, with the James brothers heading southwest into the deep forest. The others kept moving west, albeit painfully, marking the outlaw gang’s downfall. 

Behind them, like angry hornets, the Minnesota manhunt gathered steam. Within minutes, riders galloped, and telegraph lines buzzed across the state. Before nightfall, armed posses flooded the countryside. For two weeks, they scoured the state, knowing they pursued injured bandits.

In the end, the James brothers escaped, utilizing their bushwhacking skills. The cornered Younger brothers surrendered to a posse, which fatally shot Charlie Pitts. 

The Raid’s Legacy and Changed Perceptions

In American history, the Northfield raid stood out. This crushing of the James-Younger Gang created several lasting effects. First, this fed into a general decline in large, multistate gangs. Law enforcement communicated better, possessed better firearms, and reduced the frontier. Tackling towns became too risky. Gangs took to operating in smaller, more elusive groups. Robbing banks became difficult. In response, gangs attacked trains in isolated areas.

For the James-Younger Gang, defeat came at Northfield. Despite the gang’s experience and tactics, the residents didn’t flinch. The Bank held their livelihoods, which they refused to part with.

Fannie Lou Hamer was one of the Civil Rights Movement’s most influential figures. Born in rural Mississippi, she faced severe poverty and discrimination. Hamer was determined to secure voting rights for Black Americans, co-founding the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. She risked her life organizing voter registration drives and speaking out against oppression. Although she passed away in 1977, her tireless efforts in the fight for equality continue to inspire generations.

1. She Was the Youngest of 20 Children

Fannie Lou Hamer was born on October 16, 1917, in Montgomery County, Mississippi. Hamer was the last of 20 children born to James and Lou Ella Townsend. From a very early age, Hamer worked with her family on W.D. Marlow’s plantation in Rueville, Mississippi, in a process known as sharecropping. This system kept Hamer and her family in poverty as her father “rented” a portion of Marlow’s plantation to farm. Plantation owners provided everything needed for the sharecropper in return for a portion of their crop. Unfortunately, the interest was high enough that sharecroppers often found themselves in debt year after year, as was the case with Hamer’s family.

Hamer was a strong student and was said to have a strong grasp of reading and writing. However, after the third grade, Hamer needed to spend more time at home planting and picking the cotton crop. This meant that she no longer could attend school. Hamer continued to educate herself outside of the classroom. During the day, Hamer picked roughly 200 pounds of cotton despite suffering from polio, and at night, she read the bible and other books to continue her education.

2. She Survived a Forced Sterilization

As the years progressed, Hamer remained on the Marlow plantation as a sharecropper. In 1944, Marlow discovered Hamer had a basic grasp of reading and writing. Following this discovery, Hamer was removed from picking cotton in the field and made the records keeper for the entire plantation. The next year, she met and later married Perry “Pap” Hamer, who also worked on the Marlow plantation as a tractor driver. The two married and would continue to live on the Marlow plantation for the next 18 years.

Like many other couples, the Hamers wanted to start a family. Unfortunately, in 1961, Hamer had her reproductive organs removed against her will. Hamer had gone to the doctor to have a tumor removed in her uterus. Like many others before and after, Hamer fell victim to forced sterilization, a common practice by white doctors in Mississippi at the time to prevent African Americans from reproducing.

Despite this, the Hamers would go on to adopt four children. One of those children, Dorothy Jean Hamer, died at the age of 22 from internal bleeding. Dorothy Jean was taken to the hospital but was refused to be seen due to the work her mother was doing for Civil Rights.

3. She Faced Violence for Simply Trying to Vote

By 1962, Fannie Lou Hamer felt that registering to vote was the next step in her journey for equality. Determined to see it through, she boarded a bus alongside other Black Mississippians headed to the county courthouse. When they arrived, Hamer and a few others were able to pass all the barriers government officials had put in place to prevent African Americans from registering to vote. As they began the journey back home, local police stopped the bus as an intimidation tactic for what those on board had done.

When Hamer returned home, news had already reached Marlow that Hamer had attempted to register. Marlow immediately fired Hamer and evicted her from the only home she had ever known.

The worst violence she would face came a year later. On another trip promoting voter registration, Hamer was arrested in Winona, Mississippi. In jail, she faced a brutal beating at the hands of the officers, leaving her with permanent injuries.

For the remainder of her life, Hamer was partially blind in one eye and had damage to a lung and a kidney. As Hamer sat in the jail cell that evening, suffering from her injuries, the jailer’s wife stepped in, offering her a cup of water and saying she couldn’t stand to see another human treated so cruelly. Even after her immense suffering at the hands of the woman’s husband, Hamer showed compassion to her.

4. She Co-Founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party

By 1964, Hamer had made a significant name for herself in the Civil Rights Movement. Alongside others, Hamer co-founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP). Hamer and other Civil Rights workers felt the Democratic Party did not have their best interests in mind when it came to local and national elections. Together, they organized grassroots campaigns, held their own conventions, and collected testimonies from Black citizens who had been shut out of the voting process.

The MFDP’s efforts climaxed at the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City. Here, Hamer delivered a powerful televised testimony detailing the cruelty she faced in Mississippi over the course of her life from forced sterilization to being beaten for nothing more than attempting to register to vote.

“Is this America” is Hamer’s most famous speech and includes the phrase “I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.” This quote sums up the African American experience in the South during this era.

As Hamer spoke, President Lyndon B. Johnson quickly called a press conference during her speech in an attempt to limit the number of news stations that televised her speech. While this worked at the moment, news outlets broadcasted Hamer’s speech later in the evening and in the coming days. The work of the MFDP during its short existence paved the way for the monumental Civil Rights legislation of the coming years.

5. She Ran For Congress

Having co-created the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, Hamer decided to run for Congress. Campaigning in Mississippi during that era was not easy, for a Black woman. It took a woman like Hamer with a fierce determination to do the unthinkable.

Despite only having a third-grade education, Hamer’s efforts energized her neighbors and showed them that political power could be accessible to everyone. Though she didn’t win, her run for office sent a clear message that women, especially Black women, belonged in political office.

Even in defeat, Hamer’s bold step reshaped the conversation on political representation, paving the way for future women to do the unthinkable in the political arena, such as Shirley Chisolm who became the first Black woman elected to Congress in 1968.

6. She Used Music to Inspire Action

Music has been a foundational part of the African American experience. Slaves often sang in the fields to pass the time and used the words as code to pass along information to those who planned on escaping. The African American church is built upon gospel songs, and blues music was created by African Americans to deal with the harsh conditions of the Jim Crow Era.

Hamer was known to have a loud and boisterous singing voice and she realized that music could be used to inspire action. No matter the location, before the speakers began, Hamer would strike up a familiar freedom song. Before long, the room would fill with voices echoing her call for justice. This collective energy built a sense of unity that went far beyond the music. Hamer’s songs turned everyday gatherings into powerful statements, reminding everyone that courage and hope could outlast the oppression they faced in their daily lives.

7. She Continues to Inspire Others

Fannie Lou Hamer passed away in 1977, from a combination of breast cancer and the lingering effects of the jailhouse attack she received from police officers in 1963. Her impact remains a guiding force for those committed to civil rights and social justice. Over the years, she’s been honored numerous times for her groundbreaking activism. In 1993, she was posthumously inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame, acknowledging the massive contribution she made to American democracy.

In the waning days of his presidency, Joe Biden awarded Fannie Lou Hamer the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her efforts during the Civil Rights Era. Hamer became the 11th Mississippian to receive the highest award a civilian can receive.

America was founded on the premise of freedom and human rights for all. In the face of a constitution that promised equality, many in America have continually fought to exercise these rights. Numerous marginalized groups have fought for their civil rights in America over the centuries, especially after the conclusion of the Civil War.

In addition to African Americans, women and those of varying races, religions, and preferences have been forced to seek legal help to defend their rights. Congressional legislation has made slow but evident progress in protecting American equality, most notably during the “Civil Rights Era” of the 1960s, and continues to have a lasting impact on modern lives.

Early Civil Rights Actions

The tenets of the United States promise its citizens rights to political, social, and other freedoms, along with the right to be treated equally. These ideas can be summarized under the term “civil rights.” While civil rights apply to all citizens, certain groups have had to fight to receive and exercise these rights.

Perhaps most notably, African American citizens fought for these freedoms, especially after the conclusion of the Civil War and the banning of slavery in the United States. Congress first took action in this area in 1866, when the first “Civil Rights Act” was passed. “An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights and furnish the Means of their Vindication” was introduced by Illinois senator Lyman Trumbull. The purpose of this act was to strengthen the application of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed slavery.

The 1866 act declared all persons in the US to be citizens, regardless of race or color, and guaranteed the rights to make contracts, sue in a court of law, serve as a witness in court, and own property. The bill was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, but Congress overrode his veto, and the language became law.

An 1871 act strengthened the 1866 act, allowing for action in federal court for the interference with an individual’s civil rights. Further expansion in 1875, sponsored by Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, guaranteed all citizens access to accommodations, theaters, schools, churches, and cemeteries regardless of race or color. The bill also refers to the free ability to serve on a jury regardless of race.

Moving Backward

Unfortunately, the progress in the civil rights arena made by Congress during the Reconstruction Era was quashed in 1883, when the 1875 Act was overturned. The reversal by the US Supreme Court cited that the lawmaking was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s authority. Despite ongoing efforts to further Reconstruction and promote equality throughout the country, little progress was made in the way of Civil Rights legislation after the repeal of the 1875 law.

As the United States confronted fascism in the Second World War, the American people were also forced to consider equality and democracy in their own country. Jim Crow laws were still in place in many locations throughout the country, yet more than a million African Americans served with distinction in World War II, willing to lay down their life for a country that saw them as less than their compatriots of other ethnicities.

Women were also starting to demand more equality in society, launching the start of the feminist movement in the late 40s. In 1945, the US Congress considered a civil rights bill for the first time in 70 years. This legislation was unable to advance, but the movement was not extinguished. A civil rights bill was introduced every year for the next 12 years before legislation moved forward.

The Eisenhower Justice Department Steps In

In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Department of Justice submitted a proposal for civil rights legislation and forwarded it to Congress. This bill was approved, resulting in the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This act established a Civil Rights Section within the Department of Justice. It largely focused on voting rights, allowing federal prosecutors to intervene with court injunctions to protect against interference with voting. In addition, a Civil Rights Commission was established, which had the authority to investigate discriminatory practices. While the final bill was weakened due to a lack of support among Congress’s Southern Democrats, it was forward action, the first legislation of its kind since Reconstruction.

Landmark Legislation: The 1960s

America was on a trajectory to continue the progress made by Eisenhower’s bill. In 1960, an act was passed that expanded the 1957 bill, requiring election officials to make voter registration records available to the Department of Justice. The longest filibuster in Senate history, lasting over 43 hours, impeded the movement of the bill, but in the end, it passed with some edits.

Civil rights became a primary focus of the country as the 1960s progressed. America saw what is now referred to as the “Civil Rights Era.” Figures like Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and Thurgood Marshall made their mark on America, forcing the conversation America had long tried to suppress into the spotlight. Events such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the March on Washington promoted discourse and action. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act was passed, a civil rights measure that helped protect the rights of women in the workplace.

However, the major boon for civil rights legislation took place in 1964 with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, now considered a landmark piece of law. This bill banned discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin within the United States in relation to employment, public accommodations, and receiving federal funding. The act, introduced by John F. Kennedy before his assassination and signed into law by his successor, Lyndon Johnson, created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the new law.

In 1965, the act was followed up with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One noticeable flaw of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was that it failed to address voting rights. Even after the Eisenhower administration’s work in 1957, there were several legal and illegal measures being used throughout the country to prevent Black citizens from voting.

Rounding out the essential civil rights legislation of the 1960s was the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which addressed fair housing practices. It outlawed discrimination in relation to housing and was paired with the Architectural Barriers Act, also in 1968, to further improve housing accessibility to another frequently underrepresented group: people with disabilities.

Continuing the Fight

Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, several laws related to civil rights advanced, including the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1975), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967, amended in 1975), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). In 1991, another Civil Rights Act was passed. This act amended the 1964 act, strengthening the original law and how it is applied in the workplace. It clarifies the definition of discrimination in the workplace and suggests appropriate remedies for such situations.

Furthering Future Rights?

Though tremendous progress has been made since the humble beginnings of civil rights legislation, concerns still exist. The country is still struggling to fulfill promises of equality for all, and new challenges have arisen. In some situations, it appears that the country has eroded its protections, with divisive rhetoric largely contributing to this trend. In recent years and moving into 2025, migrants, refugees, and LGBTQI+ communities were targets of disproportionate discrimination, and people of color continue to remain marginalized on the federal legal level. Reproductive rights were restricted in 2022, with the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion bans in several states.

Despite the frustrations that these political and legal actions have presented, numerous groups and organizations remain committed to advancing civil rights legislation. There are efforts underway to expand the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include and protect more classes of citizens. The true application of equality and civil rights for all American citizens does not seem to be a reality anytime soon, but a hope for the future.

Manila was considered one of the most cosmopolitan cities in Asia before the Second World War. In 1945, after several years of Japanese occupation, Manila suffered a terrible fate when it was faced with a combination of Japanese cruelty and American firepower. By the time the Americans and their Filipino allies gained control of the city, it was completely devastated and would take years to rebuild. The battle was one of the most devastating instances of urban warfare during WWII.

Manila Under Japanese Occupation

One day after Japanese aircraft bombed Pearl Harbor, the Japanese began launching air raids over major sites throughout the Philippines. Tokyo aimed to conquer the Philippines, set up a puppet regime, and seize control of natural resources throughout the islands. This was part of Japan’s plan to create the so-called “Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere,” a euphemism for its Asian empire. After landing tens of thousands of men across the archipelago, Japanese forces seized Manila on January 2, 1942. They subsequently defeated the rest of the Allied garrisons on the islands within a couple of months.

Japan’s military administration of the Philippines was headquartered in Manila, making it the center of power for Japan in the Philippines. For the rest of the war, Japan garrisoned Manila with a mixture of army and navy units to keep order. Members of the Kempetai, Japan’s secret police, worked with local collaborators to hunt down anyone deemed a threat to the Japanese. Citizens of Allied countries were locked up in prisons or internment camps like Santo Tomas, along with American POWs captured during the initial seizure of the islands. Even though Japan granted the Philippines “independence,” it maintained control and employed vicious methods of repression.

Filipinos were used to fighting outside occupiers; they had spent years fighting against Spanish and American imperialism. Now, they sought to work with Americans who escaped the fall of Bataan to fight Japan from the shadows. In addition to spy rings in the city, a group of guerrilla fighters called Hunters ROTC operated near the city and attacked Japanese targets. They waited patiently for the US military to return.

American Landing on Luzon and Advance to Manila

When General Douglas MacArthur arrived in Australia in 1942 after fleeing the Philippines, he vowed that he would return at the head of an army to liberate the islands. In 1944, he landed on Leyte with the US Sixth Army. Once Japan was defeated there and on Mindoro island, MacArthur’s command, called Southwest Pacific Area Command (SWPA), prepared for the invasion of Luzon. General Walter Krueger’s Sixth Army, initially consisting of the I Corps (6th and 43rd Infantry Divisions) and the XIV Corps (37th and 40th Infantry Divisions), was assigned to land on a stretch of beaches on the Lingayen Gulf in northern Luzon. Afterwards, they would strike south and east to defeat Japanese forces. One of the priority objectives for the Sixth Army was retaking Manila.

On January 9, 1945, the Sixth Army landed at the Lingayen Gulf and proceeded to move inland. Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita, commander of the 14th Area Army, had three groups of troops defending the whole island: the Shobu, Shimbu, and Kembo groups. He sought to concentrate his forces in the north of the island and ordered his men to fight a delaying action. Under pressure from American forces and Filipino guerillas, Japanese infantry and armored units withdrew to the center of the island.

General Oscar Griswold’s XIV Corps pushed south from the beaches towards Clark Field, the largest airfield in the Philippines. By the end of the month, they seized it from the Kembo group and advanced to the northern outskirts of the city to link up with American forces that had landed south of Manila.

Japanese Defenses and the Start of the Battle

General Yamashita became concerned that Japanese forces in the Manila area would be cut off by the American advance. When paratroopers of the 11th Airborne Division landed south of Manila, Yamashita ordered the Shimbu Group commander, General Shizuo Yokoyama, to destroy infrastructure and weapons dumps in the city and retreat east. Yokoyama complied, but Rear Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi announced he would remain in the city with over 16,000 sailors and marines to defend the city. Three army engineer battalions remained in the city and joined preparations to defend it.

Admiral Iwabuchi’s Manila Naval Defense Force had eight army and navy battalions in the city and its outskirts. Much of the garrison consisted of crews of sunken ships and did not have training for an urban battle. They did have large stockpiles of weapons and engineering equipment. Multiple lines of defense were dug north and south of the city and buildings were turned into fortresses. Iwabuchi hoped to make the battle as costly as possible for the Americans.

From the north, the 37th Infantry and newly arrived 1st Cavalry Division pushed south on MacArthur’s personal orders. General Joseph Swing’s 11th Airborne Division transferred from the Eighth Army and joined the Sixth Army’s advance. They began to break through the southern Japanese defenses. Griswold’s forces pushed south and liberated the Bilibid and Santo Tomas prison camps by early February. They were joined by Filipino guerilla units including Hunter’s ROTC. By this point, three American divisions with nearly 40,000 men surrounded the city. Iwabuchi’s garrison was cut off.

Crossing the Pasig River and Capturing Nichols Field

General Griswold’s GIs found themselves facing tougher resistance as they continued deeper into the city. Despite having successfully liberated two prison camps, the Americans still had a long way to go. Japanese defenses north of the Pasig River were meant to be a trip wire but were formidable nonetheless. When American forces secured the north bank by February 6, MacArthur declared total victory prematurely. The 37th Infantry and 1st Cavalry Divisions still had to enter the main areas of the city.

When troops of the 148th and 129th Infantry Regiments attempted to cross the Pasig in small boats, they found themselves under heavy fire from Japanese sailors on Provisor Island. Within a couple of days, they managed to seize the island and create a foothold on the south bank, but resistance was fierce. Admiral Iwabuchi had concentrated elements of five battalions south of the river and Japanese fortifications were strong. The 37th Division pushed slowly southward while the 1st Cavalry Division carried out an envelopment maneuver around the city to meet the paratroopers from the south.

The 11th Airborne Division was not tasked with entering Manila proper. Instead, it was ordered to drive the garrison out of Nichols Field. The 187th and 188th Glider Infantry Regiments advanced along the runways and overran the dug-in defenders. The Japanese had so many naval guns at the airfield that one company commander radioed to his superiors “Tell Halsey to stop looking for the Jap Fleet. It’s dug in on Nichols Field.” By February 12, the Airborne had secured the airfield.

Street Fighting and Clearing Intramuros

The area south of the river witnessed brutal house-to-house fighting. Japanese forces, surrounded without hope of relief, were determined to fight to the death. They set ambushes for advancing American troops and forced the Americans to turn to heavy firepower. MacArthur restricted the use of air power but consented to artillery and mortars being used in areas with a heavy Japanese presence. American forces destroyed every Japanese position they could with tanks, artillery, mortars, and flamethrowers. The fighting resembled battles in Europe such as Aachen and Berlin.

By February 17 and 18, General Griswold’s forces secured the Rizal Baseball Stadium and the Philippine General Hospital, both of which were major Japanese strongpoints. Reinforced by 1st Cavalry Division troopers, the 37th Infantry Division managed to keep the Japanese pinned in Manila’s old Walled City, known as the Intramuros district. Admiral Iwabuchi unsuccessfully attempted to break out of his encirclement on February 18, leaving 6,000 men trapped in the pocket.

On February 23, American artillery pounded Japanese positions in Intramuros. For the next three days, American troops moved into the district, battling Japanese on every corner. When it became clear that the Japanese were defeated, Admiral Iwabuchi and his subordinates committed suicide. American forces secured major government buildings, including MacArthur’s headquarters from before the war, and ended the battle on March 3 by capturing the rest of the district. For the rest of March, American troops and Filipino guerrillas patrolled the rubble for Japanese stragglers before turning north and east to finish off the rest of Yamashita’s forces.

The Manila Massacre

Amidst the heavy fighting between American/Filipino and Japanese forces, the civilian population of Manila paid a horrible price during the destruction of their city. Of all the Allied cities fought over in WWII, Manila was one of the most heavily damaged, on par with Warsaw. It is estimated that over 100,000 Manileros died during the battle, mostly due to Japanese actions but also due to American firepower. The scale of Japan’s atrocities in the city ranks among the worst war crimes committed by any party during WWII.

Japanese forces had long believed that Filipinos were overwhelmingly hostile to their presence and that they passed information to the Americans. This environment of distrust was compounded by Japanese racism towards non-Japanese. Throughout the battle, Japanese forces gangraped and murdered Filipino civilians in the areas they controlled. In Fort Santiago, Manila Cathedral, and other prominent locations in the city, civilians were gunned down, bayoneted, or beheaded by the Japanese. There is evidence that Japanese officers commanded their men to commit atrocities by claiming every Filipino in the battle zone was a guerilla. For these atrocities, General Yamashita was sentenced to execution by hanging by an American military court after the war.

While American forces did not commit atrocities like these, their firepower devastated entire neighborhoods and killed thousands of civilians in the process. Despite efforts by MacArthur to restrict American firepower, the formidable Japanese defenses meant that the use of heavy weapons was inevitable. As a result, Manila was one of the most destroyed cities on Earth and a textbook case of urbicide. The reconstruction of the city took several years, and while Manila is now a thriving and dynamic city, the legacy of its destruction remains apparent.

Brown v. Board of Education, decided in 1954, stands as a crucial moment in American legal history. The Supreme Court ruled that segregated public schools are inherently unequal. This legal decision exposed the effects of segregation on African American children. Its ripple effects ignited the Civil Rights Movement and reshaped the nation’s commitment to equality. Today, Brown remains a potent reminder that dismantling institutional discrimination requires bold legal action and the courage to challenge deeply entrenched societal norms.

A Segregated South

Before Brown v. Board of Education reached the Supreme Court, segregated schools were commonplace in the United States, especially in the South, under the flawed “separate but equal” doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.

In print, segregation was legal as long as the facilities were of equal standard. In practice, however, Black children were forced to learn in overcrowded, underfunded, and dilapidated facilities, with outdated textbooks and fewer resources than white institutions. Parents, teachers, and community members witnessed firsthand how these inequities sabotaged children’s confidence and future prospects.

A lack of a strong foundational secondary education limited the possibilities of African Americans to better their situation. While these students could attend segregated universities, they often lacked the knowledge and skill set required to be successful in post-secondary education. Brown v. Board of Education made plain these deep-seated differences for African American students, arguing that segregation could never be equal.

By challenging the legal justification for segregated education, the case set in motion a journey for African Americans and other minorities toward equality, proving that when institutions fail to provide fair resources for all, they ultimately hurt their community by failing to properly prepare the next generation of white collar workers in all racial categories.

Courage in the Face of Adversity

The origins of Brown v. Board of Education are rooted in the tireless efforts of brave families and sound legal strategists who refused to accept education that was not equal, no matter the race of the student.

In Topeka, Kansas, African American parents, outraged by the abhorrent conditions in their segregated schools, joined forces with the NAACP to challenge the status quo. Founded in 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), sought to fight for racial equality via the judicial system of the United States. While other organizations of the time believed in a more radical approach to justice, the NAACP sought to use the established systems against themselves.

Spearheaded by a determined legal team that included a young Thurgood Marshall, future Supreme Court Justice of the United States, the case was built on the idea that segregated schooling instilled a sense of inferiority in Black children.

Detailed evidence, from major differences in the facilities between white and Black schools, to expert testimonies on the psychological damage caused by segregation, was gathered. Marshall argued with this evidence that school segregation went against the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. Known popularly as the “separate but equal” case, Plessy v. Ferguson had legalized segregation as long as facilities designated to each race were equal to one another. This grassroots campaign transformed local frustration into a sound legal challenge that resonated across the nation. It demonstrated that change is possible when communities unite and use the law as a tool to demand their rights. The courage of those early pioneers lit the spark for Brown v. Board of Education and set the stage for broader civil rights victories.

A Challenge to “Separate but Equal”

Brown v. Board of Education turned the legal status quo on its head by directly challenging the “separate but equal” doctrine that had long justified racial segregation. Lawyers for the NAACP argued that segregation in public schools was inherently unequal because it created a stigma of inferiority that affected Black children’s self-worth and academic performance. Drawing on scientific research and personal testimonies, they demonstrated that even if facilities, such as water fountains and restrooms,  could be made equal, the separation itself was damaging to a child’s development.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in 1954 rejected the idea that segregated schools could offer equal opportunities. This ruling sent a message to the entire country that the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection applied to every citizen, regardless of race. It paved the way for subsequent civil rights reforms by establishing that segregation was not just an unfortunate reality but a violation of fundamental rights. The fight to enforce the court’s decision would prove to be a struggle synonymous with the gravity of the ruling itself.

The Spark That Lit the Fire of a Movement

The impact of Brown v. Board of Education extended far beyond the courtroom, it ignited a powerful nationwide movement for civil rights. When the Supreme Court declared segregated schools unconstitutional, it empowered African American communities and progressive allies across the country. This decision provided a legal backing for challenging inequality in all facets of society. Activists and ordinary citizens alike took to the streets, organized boycotts, and pushed for further legislative reforms.

The ruling energized movements that eventually led to landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In classrooms, living rooms, and on streets, Brown became a rallying cry for those determined to dismantle racial injustice.

Resistance to Change

Despite its groundbreaking promise, Brown v. Board of Education was met with fierce resistance, particularly in the Deep South. Many local and state officials saw the ruling as a direct attack on their way of life and responded with various tactics to delay or undermine desegregation. Some states closed public schools altogether, while others set up alternative systems, such as tuition-based private schools,  that maintained racial divisions. White supremacist groups, such as the KKK, organized protests and intimidation campaigns, making the path to integration difficult and, at times, violent.

This backlash revealed the entrenched nature of segregation and the deep divisions that still existed in American society. The struggle to implement the decision was marked by rocky legal battles and acts of civil disobedience. Nonetheless, the determination of civil rights activists, along with federal intervention in some cases, slowly chipped away at the barriers, proving that even the most stubborn systems of oppression could be overthrown.

A Continued Fight for Equality

Brown v. Board of Education changed schools and arguably reshaped the entire legal framework of the United States. By overturning the “separate but equal” clause, the decision set a powerful precedent for the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Courts began to scrutinize practices that, while seemingly neutral, resulted in unequal outcomes for minority communities. This case provided a legal foundation for numerous subsequent rulings against racial discrimination in housing, employment, and public services. Its ripple effects were felt far beyond education, as the decision empowered civil rights activists to use the courts as a means to challenge segregation in all forms.

In effect, Brown became a cornerstone of modern civil rights law, reinforcing the idea that true equality under the law requires an overhaul of policies dealing with discriminatory practices.

The Legacy of Brown v. Board

More than six decades later, the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education continues to shape American society and inspire new generations of activists. The ruling remains a powerful symbol of the potential for legal action to drive social change. Today, educators, policymakers, and civil rights advocates draw on Brown’s principles to address ongoing issues of inequality in schools and other public institutions. The decision is frequently cited in debates over educational funding, affirmative action, and racial disparities in academia.

Brown v. Board of Education serves as a reminder that the fight for equality is an ongoing process, one that requires a commitment to justice. Its impact underscores the belief that every generation must continue to challenge injustice, ensuring that the promise of equal opportunity is fully realized for all.

During the Cold War, the CIA made serious efforts to hunt down prominent individuals deemed hostile to American interests. Men like Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba were targeted repeatedly by CIA assassination plots. This practice increased during the War on Terror, in which the CIA pursued a policy of systematically targeting and killing suspected terrorists around the world. This approach cast a long shadow over the CIA, although it has not conducted as many targeted killings as it once did.

The CIA and Fidel Castro

In 1959, the Cuban Revolution succeeded in toppling longtime dictator Fulgencio Batista and succeeded in replacing him with Fidel Castro. Initially, Castro sought to maintain amicable ties with the United States, but when that failed, he turned towards Communism. This turned him into one of America’s most persistent foes in the 20th century. It also meant that the Central Intelligence Agency intended to overthrow him and, if necessary, kill him.

The CIA’s leaders and rank-and-file had witnessed the effectiveness of targeted killings by the Allies in WWII. They also knew that the Soviets had conducted assassinations against its enemies. When the Agency began plotting to kill Castro, they came up with a multitude of ways to target him. In 1960, they got a lawyer based in Las Vegas named Robert Maheu to convince Italian Mafiosi in the US to try and kill him. During the Bay of Pigs invasion, CIA director Allen Dulles authorized Operation 40, which involved Cuban exiles killing Castro during the invasion.

For the rest of the Cold War, the CIA made many attempts to kill Cuba’s caudillo. Some of these plots were absurd in their execution: at one point the CIA tried to send a poisoned wetsuit to Castro. Other plots included an infamous exploding cigar. However, Cuba’s Intelligence Directorate foiled every one of the CIA’s attempts. The exact number of plots is not known but it possibly numbered in the dozens. The CIA abandoned their efforts to kill him in 1976 after President Gerald Ford signed an executive order to stop this practice.

Patrice Lumumba and Rafael Trujillo

The CIA may have struggled to kill Castro, but they had less difficulty dispatching other leaders. In 1961, the Agency successfully assassinated two prominent leaders in the so-called ‘Third World’: Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. While CIA personnel did not directly pull the trigger, they did assist in the plotting and logistics of the plans to kill both leaders.

Patrice Lumumba was the first Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He was a prominent Pan-Africanist and opponent of colonialism. Because of his willingness to work with the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, he attracted the hostility of the Americans and Belgians, even though he was not himself a communist. The Eisenhower administration authorized the CIA to kill Lumumba as part of an effort to control the DRC’s politics. When separatists kidnapped and executed him in 1961, they were supported by CIA station chief John Stockwell.

Later that year, Dominican caudillo Rafael Trujillo was assassinated by a cabal of army officers who were hostile to his rule. Despite his initial friendly relations with America, the White House supported his removal due to his reputation for cruelty and his policy of assassinating his political opponents across the continent. The CIA became involved in the plotting of his killing and provided weapons and money to the rebels. In May 1961, his motorcade was shot up and he was killed, leading to a period of unrest in the country. The CIA succeeded in the DRC and Dominican Republic where it failed in Cuba.

Executive Order 11905

In 1975, the US Senate established the Church and Pike Committees to investigate abuses committed by the US intelligence community. Both committees uncovered serious breaches of conduct by US intelligence agencies that shocked the public. One of them was the Agency’s involvement in targeted killings of leaders deemed unfavorable to American interests. The CIA tried to keep the public from knowing the full extent of its covert operations but Congress publicized enough information to convince the public that the CIA needed to be reigned in. Declassified documents also revealed how much the White House knew about the CIA’s activities.

President Ford feared that an intelligence agency acting rogue could cause a crisis of governance in the United States. He was also appalled that the Agency had targeted foreign leaders. As a result, he signed Executive Order 11905 on February 18th, 1976. The order explicitly prohibited American government officials from being involved in assassinations. It was designed to prohibit the CIA from carrying out targeted killings even if ordered to. While covert action was still legal and practiced, the Agency came under much more scrutiny for its conduct.

For the rest of the Cold War, the CIA refrained from targeted killings even though it still conducted covert ops like Operation Cyclone. Two more executive orders reinforced EO 11905 during the Carter and Reagan administrations. The Agency focused mainly on intelligence gathering at the end of the Cold War and the 1990s. Only after September 11th, 2001, did the CIA return to its practices of targeted killings.

The CIA and the War on Terror

The failure of the CIA to stop the plotters of the 9/11 attacks struck a nerve within the Agency’s rank-and-file. Members of Alec Station, the unit responsible for tracking al-Qaeda, had planned to go after Osama bin Laden repeatedly but failed to stop him or his subordinates from carrying out their attacks. Members of the intelligence community were blamed for not taking Islamist terrorism seriously enough and not being willing to directly target the leadership of these organizations.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Agency put itself on a war footing and vowed never to be surprised again. The Counterterrorism Center, formed in 1986, gained additional support and Cofer Black, its director, received permission to target the leadership of al-Qaeda and any groups affiliated with it. CIA director George Tenet sent teams on the ground in Afghanistan in advance of the American military deployment. These teams liaised with Afghan rebels fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Additionally, Predator UAVs started to be used over al-Qaeda encampments. A special operations team was added to CTC to increase its lethality in operations.

To address the issue of intelligence sharing in counterterrorism, President George W. Bush authorized the creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. TTIC was subsequently folded into the National Counterterrorism Center in 2004. This allowed agencies to share information on potential targets, enabling either the CIA or Department of Defense to target them. For the rest of the War on Terror, the CIA vowed to eliminate anyone perceived to be a threat to the United States in a manner that exceeded anything done during the Cold War.

CIA Assassinations in Afghanistan and Pakistan

While the CIA targeted jihadists around the world, it mainly employed its resources in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. This area was a loosely governed region where elements of the Taliban who had fled over the border after 2001 intermingled with other jihadist networks like al-Qaeda and the Haqqani Network. Because of the heavy presence of jihadists, the CIA decided to carry out a long-term assassination program in the region using Predator UAVs. The CIA’s Special Activities Division spearheaded this program in coordination with the DoD and other intelligence agencies.

The CIA believed that a program of targeted killing would successfully degrade and defeat terror networks like al-Qaeda. This was modeled after Israel’s practice of targeted killings. From 2004 to 2018, the CIA launched hundreds of drone strikes on targets in western Pakistan. Even when the Pakistani government complained about America’s campaign, the strikes continued. President Barack Obama ramped up the program, believing it was better than placing American personnel at risk. The most significant strike in Pakistan was on the leader of the Afghan Taliban, Akhtar Mansour. The campaign ended under pressure from rights groups and the Pakistani government.

In Afghanistan, the drone campaign took place alongside the ground campaign. Taliban leaders were hunted by UAV strikes in the Pashtun heartlands of eastern Afghanistan. This practice started during the Trump administration, which was hoping to ramp up the pressure against the Taliban. During the Biden Administration, the CIA carried out one of its most successful strikes when it killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in 2022.

CIA Targeting al-Qaeda and ISIS Leaders Elsewhere

The CIA also undertook an extensive campaign of killing terror suspects elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa. In Yemen, the government faced a brutal campaign of terrorism from two groups, the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. The CIA worked with the Department of Defense to target jihadist cells in Yemen. While the DoD took the lead on targeted killings through the drone program outside of Pakistan, the CIA still engaged in targeted killings if they could properly identify a target.

The CIA’s rate of strikes decreased after 2016 as to the Obama administration’s concerns about civilian casualties. However, they continued to launch strikes against targets deemed a threat as long as their intelligence was reliable. In Somalia, the CIA assisted the US military in targeting leaders of al-Shabaab, a Jihadi organization aiming to create an Islamic caliphate in Somalia. CIA staff based in Djibouti vectored strikes onto al-Shabaab targets to keep the militants away from critical government targets.

The CIA’s program of targeted killings in the War on Terror did not target heads of state as it did in the Cold War. Rather, it targeted senior and mid-level members of violent extremist organizations. It played a major role in the hunting down of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011. Although these attacks were supposed to be precision strikes aimed at eliminating individuals, the program led to hundreds of civilian deaths. In Pakistan, CIA drone strikes led to major protests from the public. While the Agency has scaled back on its program of targeted killings, it has not gone away completely and could be intensified in the future.

Medgar Evers was one of the most important figures in the Civil Rights Era. After returning home from WWII, he was upset to find that despite the fact that he had fought for his country, he was still considered a second-class citizen. This led him to fight for equality during the Civil Rights Movement. Despite being assassinated in 1963 by a member of the KKK, his efforts in the fight for equality live on.

1. He Was an Army Veteran and Fought in WWII

Medgar Evers was born the third of four children to James and Jessie Evers in Decatur, Mississippi, on July 2, 1925. Evers grew up in a time and place where African Americans were viewed as second-class citizens. The Mississippi of Evers’s time separated Black and white citizens in all public places. There were white and Black bathrooms, water fountains, grocery stores, and even movie theaters. While these separate conditions were supposed to be equal to one another, that was never the case.

Despite not being able to enjoy the same level of life as white Mississippians, Evers enlisted in the United States Army at the age of 17 in 1943 during WWII. He served in the 657th Port Company, a segregated unit, and was involved in several important battles, including the D-Day landings on Normandy Beach. Evers was discharged in 1946, having earned three medals for his service.

While in the service, Evers grew discouraged by the fact that he was fighting for a people’s freedom half a world away from his own while those closest to him were treated so poorly.

2. He Was Rejected From Law School Based on His Race

Evers returned home from the war energized to begin the fight for racial equality. In Evers’s view, the best way to accomplish that task was to gain a formal education. Using the GI Bill, Evers attended the all Black Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical school, graduating in 1954 with a bachelor’s degree.   After the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling in 1954, which mandated that segregation in public schools was illegal, Evers decided to attend law school.

A resident of Mississippi, Evers applied to the University of Mississippi School of Law in 1955. At the time, there were no law schools in Mississippi for African Americans that Evers could attend. His application was a test case for the NAACP. The organization fought for Civil Rights by using the Federal Judicial system.

Evers’s application became a test case for the NAACP to see if the historically segregated university would obey the ruling by the Supreme Court. Shortly after his application was submitted, Evers was rejected solely based on having identified as Black on the university’s official documents. Several years later, Evers would play a key role in the integration of the same university by James Meredith.

3. He Was the First Field Secretary for the NAACP in Mississippi

Despite never earning his law degree, on November 24, 1954, Medgar Evers was elected the first field secretary of the NAACP in Mississippi and served in that capacity until his assassination in 1963. While the NAACP primarily advocated for Civil Rights via lawsuits, Evers could not defend clients in a court of law. His role meant he was the head of the organization in that state.

As Field Secretary, Evers spent his days traveling around the state organizing peaceful protests, economic and political boycotts, sit-ins, and voter registration drives. These efforts, along with James Meredith’s integration of the University of Mississippi, were a crucial step in the NAACP’s mission of bringing attention to the struggles of African Americans in the state. Evers worked tirelessly for racial equality during his time as field secretary, earning the nickname “the Man in Mississippi” from other Civil Rights organizers.

4. He Investigated the Murder of Emmett Till

In 1955, Emmett Till, a 14-year-old boy from Chicago, was found in the Tallahatchie River. Whether or not Till was a victim of a crime or just a tragic accident was not in question, given the state in which Till was discovered.

As the head of the NAACP in the state where Till was found, Medgar Evers began investigating the murder. His discoveries led to two men, JW Milam and Roy Bryant, being charged with Till’s murder. Their motive was that Till had “whistled” at the wife of Roy Bryant, Caroline.

Bryant and Milam were found not guilty by an all-white jury in 1955. A year later, Milam and Bryant confessed in an interview that they had done what they were charged with doing. In the final years of her life, Caroline Bryant confessed that Till had never made any advances towards her and the claim was all a fabrication. This investigation, orchestrated by Evers along with his other work during the Civil Rights Movement, made him a target of the White Citizens Council in Mississippi. He was constantly under threat of violence. Just before his murder, members of the KKK threw a Molotov cocktail through the front window of his home.

5. He Was Assassinated in His Driveway

In the early morning hours of June 12, 1963, Medgar Evers was returning home from an NAACP meeting. As he emerged from his car, a shot rang out from across the street of the Evers home. Evers was found by his wife, Myrlie, shortly after and was rushed to the local hospital in Jackson, Mississippi. He was initially denied attention at the hospital as it did not allow Black people to seek treatment. After explaining who the man was, hospital staff agreed to treat Medgar, but it was too late. Evers died less than an hour later. He was only 37 years old.

Evers’s funeral was held on June 18, 1963. His service was attended by hundreds and covered by many national news media outlets. Among those in attendance were other influential figures of the Civil Rights Era, such as Ralph Abernathy and Martin Luther King.

Just seventeen days after her husband was assassinated, Myrlie Evers wrote a piece for Life magazine detailing that tragic day and celebrating her husband’s life. In the article, one can read about the increasing hostility toward Evers in the weeks leading up to his murder and the fear Myrlie felt every time her husband left the safety of their home.

Myrlie, now 91 years old, remarried in 1976. Despite her young age at the time of her first partner’s death and her subsequent new marriage, she fought for over three decades to bring Medgar’s killer to justice.

6. His Murderer Was Not Convicted Until 1994

On June 21, 1963, a member of the White Citizens Council, Byron De La Beckwith, was arrested for the murder of Medgar Evers. Created in 1954 in response to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling and headed by a white Judge from Mississippi, the White Citizens Council investigated prominent Civil Rights organizers such as Evers. The Council grew in size over the next few years, becoming more violent. As organizers made headway towards Civil Rights, the Council began increasing their attacks on Black businesses, homes, and places of worship. The tension came to a boiling point in 1963 when Evers was killed in front of his home.

All white juries in February and April of 1964 did not convict De La Beckwith of murder. In 1994, new evidence emerged from Jerry Mitchell, an investigative journalist with the Jackson, Mississippi-based newspaper The Clarion Ledger. While the physical evidence was essentially the same as at the original trials, the new evidence consisted of several eyewitness testimonies from citizens who either overheard or were told directly by De La Beckwith that he murdered Medgar Evers. One of these occurrences was at a KKK rally.  

This evidence allowed the state to put De La Beckwith back on trial. On February 5, 1994, De La Beckwith was found guilty of murdering Medgar Evers by a jury consisting of eight African Americans and four white citizens of Mississippi. De La Beckwith was sentenced to life in prison over 30 years after taking the life of the Civil Rights leader.

7. His Home is Now a Part of the National Park Service

After her husband’s death, Myrlie Evers moved to California. Myrlie continued the work of her late husband, dedicating her life to Civil Rights. In the years since, she has authored several books and served as chairwoman of the NAACP from 1995-1998. She continued to own the home in Mississippi until 1993, when she donated it to Tougaloo College, a local HBCU. In 2020, it was purchased from Tougaloo by the National Park Service and designated as a National Monument on December 12, 2020. It opened up for tours shortly after.

James Meredith played a crucial role in the Civil Rights Movement. An Air Force veteran, Meredith was determined after the war to challenge segregation in the American South. Under protection from the United States Marshal service, and by order of President John F. Kennedy, Meredith became the first African American to attend a white University in the South when he integrated into the University of Mississippi in 1962.

1. James Meredith Grew Up On a Farm

James Meredith was born in Kosciusko, Mississippi, on June 25, 1933, as the ninth of 13 children to Moses and Roxie Meredith. While many African Americans in Mississippi were unable to own property during the era prior to the Civil Rights Movement, Meredith was lucky enough to be raised on his family’s 84-acre farm.

Moses Meredith was financially able to own property and even be registered to vote. Because of this, Meredith was sheltered from many of the difficulties of being African American in the South during the era of segregation.

2. He First Experienced Racism at 15

While his home life was calm, compared to other African Americans in Mississippi, James Meredith first experienced racism at the age of 15. Meredith had traveled north to visit family in Detroit. During his return, once the train entered Memphis, Meredith and his brother were forced to move to the back of the bus.

Meredith said in 1962, “The train wasn’t segregated when we left Detroit, but when we got to Memphis the conductor told my brother and me we had to go to another car. I cried all the way home from Memphis, and in a way I haven’t cried ever since.” This experience stirred something in Meredith that led him to challenge the de facto segregation laws in the American South later in life.

3. He is an Air Force Veteran

After graduating from high school, James Meredith enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1951 and reenlisted in 1954, remaining until 1960. Meredith served as a typist and was stationed overseas in Japan for three years of his nine-year term. While in the Air Force, he experienced discrimination and racism.

The armed forces were no longer segregated; however, white airmen often moved out of the dorms where Meredith was living because he was Black. While he experienced racism while in the military, Meredith did not understand why, if the military could be integrated, society needed to remain segregated and how he had more freedom as a member of the Air Force than he did as a citizen in his hometown.

4. He Was Rejected Twice by the University of Mississippi

After retiring from the Air Force, James Meredith attended the all Black Jackson State College in Mississippi from 1960-1961. Meredith always wanted to attend the University of Mississippi, the state’s flagship public institution of higher education. In 1961, Meredith attempted to challenge the segregation of the University of Mississippi by applying for admission. He used the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education from 1954 as his justification for admission.

Brown v. Board of Education set the precedent that public schools in the United States could not be segregated based on race. While this was meant to apply to elementary and secondary public education, Meredith felt he could use the case to challenge the University to state plainly that they were denying him admission solely based on his race.

In February of 1962, Meredith was sent a telegram denying his admission because he identified on his application form that he was Black. Steadfast, Meredith applied again, leaving the race identification section blank. For a second time, Meredith was denied admission to the university; however, this time, there was no justification from the admissions office as to why he was denied.

5. His Integration Led to Violence

After his admission rejections, James Meredith sought out legal counsel from the NAACP. Created to fight Civil Rights violations through the United States Judicial system, the NAACP and their field secretary in Mississippi, Medgar Evers, took on his case. Making its way through the system, Meredith’s case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the Governor of Mississippi, Ross Barnett, refused to let Meredith attend the University. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy did not allow Barnett to disobey a federal order. Kennedy ordered United States Marshals to escort Meredith onto campus on September 30, 1962. The day was strategically selected. The University of Mississippi’s football team had a game scheduled the previous day. Most of the student body would be a few hours away at Mississippi Veterans Memorial Stadium in Jackson, Mississippi, having cheered on their team against the Kentucky Wildcats the day previous.

That day, as students began slowly returning to campus, word got out that Federal Marshals were attempting to integrate the university. After a few hours, an angry mob began to form outside Meredith’s dormitory. From September 30th to October 2nd, Federal Marshals, National Guardsman, and US Army soldiers fought off the violent mob in what became known as “The Battle of Ole Miss,” Ole Miss being the nickname for the school.

All kinds of weapons were used by the rioters, including homemade explosive devices and Molotov Cocktails. President John F. Kennedy addressed the nation on the night of September 30, urging Mississippians and all Americans to support Meredith’s right to an education. Behind closed doors, negotiations occurred over the next several days between Ross Barnett and Robert F. Kennedy, urging the governor to speak out against the rioters.

When the “Battle of Ole Miss” ended, over 120 people were injured, and two civilians were killed. This violence and the tension that came from it led to the military occupying the city for ten months after the conflict. Today, bullet holes remain above the doorframe of the “Lyceum,” the oldest building on the campus, a reminder to all who visit about the battle for equality and the physical repercussions.

6. He Did Not Stop Advocating for Civil Rights After College

James Meredith did not stop advocating for Civil Rights after he gained admission to the University of Mississippi. Prior to his admission, he participated in “sit-ins” at various lunch counters in the Jackson, Mississippi area with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Sit-ins were meant to challenge segregation in a non-violent way.

Orchestrators would walk into an all-white diner and take their seat at the counter. Employees would order them to move as they were not allowed in that location. Members of the SNCC would not respond, often keeping a neutral look on their faces. As these sit-ins progressed, white citizens would often make their way in from the streets and would yell and scream at the organizers. Often, white citizens would pour condiments over their heads and into their eyes in an attempt to provoke violence or convince them to give up. These sit-ins were covered by various news sources and brought to attention the mistreatment of African Americans in the South.

In 1966, three years after graduating, Meredith began his “March Against Fear” campaign. He planned to walk over 200 miles from Memphis, Tennessee, to Jackson, Mississippi, to protest violence and a lack of voting rights for African Americans in the South. On June 6, 1966, just two days into his trek a mere 20 miles from his starting point, Meredith was shot on Highway 51 just south of Hernando, Mississippi by Aubrey James Norvell.

Meredith was praised by non-violent activists, such as Martin Luther King Jr., for not carrying a weapon on his march. Meredith, however, viewed the decision to not carry a gun as foolhardy and admitted that if he could do it differently, he would have some form of protection.

Initially, Meredith did not gain much attention for his planned march. After the attempted assassination, Meredith’s March Against Fear garnered support from various people, including influential Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr.

On June 22, 1966, members of Meredith’s march crossed the end point in Jackson, Mississippi. The march Meredith had begun earlier that month ended with nearly 15,000 people marching the 200-mile-long journey.

7. His Granddaughter Graduated From the Same University

Today, James Meredith can often be found attending sporting events at the University of Mississippi. His name is mentioned in every university classroom, and statues of his likeness can be found in various locations.

While he was once met with violence and intimidation, he is now greeted as the university’s best alumni. The Merediths have become a legacy at the University. James Meredith’s granddaughter, Jasmine, graduated from the University of Mississippi with a master’s degree in 2022, 60 years after her grandfather integrated the University.

In a case of historical irony, around 1519, Spanish conquistadores helped reintroduce horses to the American continent. Cortés, the commander, brought sixteen; these early sires contributed to future herds. The transported Spanish breeds were all muscular, compact, and agile types. Central to Spanish military doctrine, equines signaled status, enhanced mobility for exploration, and warfare. 

With this landing, Cortés brought a reproducing population. Like in Europe, horses became vital to colonial administration. This unfamiliar environment killed many, but enough survived. Of these, more imports and reproductions of horses went where the Spanish settled.

Rapid Adoption and Adaptation

The horses’ impact was immediate, evident in cultural, economic, and military uses. Initially shocked by the Spanish cavalry, Native tribes quickly grasped the horse’s significance. 

And they adopted horses fast. By the late 1500s, Native tribes began building their own stock. Some traded with the Pueblo people, with their Spanish contacts. Other tribes, such as the Apaches and Utes, raided Spanish settlements in New Mexico. Feral herds provided another source, which Native people tamed. In addition to acquiring stock, tribes bred it to meet their unique needs.

The horse enabled Native cultures to evolve from a pedestrian culture. Besides hauling, horses also changed trade, enabling exchanges with distant tribes. Hunting strategies changed, too, from a slow, foot-based process to a swift, mobile chase. Using bows adapted for horseback, hunters could flank, pursue, or surround herds, becoming more efficient overall. 

Historically, the “horse frontier” moved more quickly than previously thought. Different evidence, genetic and archeological, showed that Plains and other Native tribes raised horses decades before European written history shows. Besides physical evidence, Lakota and Comanche oral traditions revealed that horses were already familiar and culturally embedded.

The Trade Network Link

In another change, historians now know the Spanish introduced horses. However, Native trading networks primarily distributed horses. Scholars incorrectly emphasized the 1680 Pueblo Revolt as the major release point for horses. Now, though, genetic and historical records show equestrian cultures existed in the Great Plains and Rockies by the 1600s. 

Examples of direct horse culture include the Shoshone and the Comanche. Shoshone acquired a reputation as horse breeders and traders. The eventual Comanche powerhouse rose to prominence by using horses. 

An Equine Revolution

Horses changed Native life at a blistering speed. Tribes became horse cultures within a generation or two. Besides cultural and economic benefits, the horse also introduced political instability. 

One cultural improvement involving horses led to an overall population increase. The Plains tribes benefited the most. Mounted buffalo hunting meant greater yields. With this new mobility, tribes shifted, following herds to entirely new hunting grounds. The result: food security became more stable.

The horse remapped Native tribe trading networks. Trading with other tribes or Europeans increased as distances decreased. The Kiowa (a Southern Plains tribe) occasionally traveled east, trading with eastern tribes such as the Wichita. Exchanged goods included horses for agriculture. The Shoshone traded their famous horses far north with the Nez Perce or Blackfeet tribes.

Over time, distinct Native breeds emerged, adding to this revolution. Tribes bred horses suiting their needs. Bloodlines were maintained, often selecting for endurance, temperament, or gait. Famous breeds like the Spanish Mustang and the Appaloosa trace their heritage to Spanish breeds. The term mustang comes from the Spanish word mesteno, meaning “wild” or “stray.” 

A New Kind of Warfare

The Native American tribes recognized the horse’s military potential. Being quick to learn, many Native tribes displayed some of history’s finest horsemanship. A new style of warfare emerged, changing the political or tribal landscape. Power could change rapidly, depending on which tribe had better resources or better equstrian skills. These new horse cultures pushed into new regions, breaking down barriers. For example, the Lakota Sioux grew rapidly, enabling them to push back their foes, the Pawnee, from parts of the Great Plains.

Three tribes adapted better than most, introducing true mobility, completely dominating their neighbors. The most undisputed were the Comanche. Their feared light cavalry fought the Spanish, Mexicans, or Americans equally. They controlled a region called Comancheria, which only declined in the late 19th century. Next came the Shoshone, the forebears of the Comanche.

The Eastern Shoshone, after the Ute tribe, mastered horses early. They became proficient riders and horse breeders. The third tribe, the Lakota, spread west onto the Plains. Like the Comanche, they stayed a dominant power for decades. Without a doubt, the horse reshaped Native American life. This process only took several generations as tribes adapted, changing power, culture, and economic life.

1968 was one of the most sociopolitically tumultuous years in American history, featuring aggressive movements against racism, the Vietnam War, and sexism. A large counterculture movement, whose adherents were often known as “the Hippies,” criticized the government and traditional social norms. Moderates were caught in the middle, often dissatisfied with the bloody Vietnam War, lingering racism, and institutionalized sexism but wary and exhausted of loud protests. After the riots at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago in August 1968, the government put eight (later reduced to seven) anti-war protest leaders on trial. What would the Trial of the Chicago Seven reveal about America?

Setting the Stage: The Anti-War Movement

The Vietnam War became increasingly controversial in the United States as it escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in the autumn of 1964. Despite more and more US ground forces committed, the communist forces of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and Viet Cong (VC) guerrillas remained unbeaten. Between 1965 and 1967, the administration of US President Lyndon Johnson frequently asserted that victory was close at hand. However, in January 1968, the Tet Offensive by NVA and VC forces across South Vietnam revealed that the enemy was still strong. This dramatically increased support for the anti-war movement, which had been growing over the past few years.

Unlike previous foreign wars, the Vietnam War was viewed with skepticism by many young Americans. Unlike World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, there was no definitive act of aggression against the US or its ally, South Vietnam. The Vietnam War, in fact, was allegedly provoked by the US and South Vietnam suspending elections that were to be held in 1956. Additionally, it was harder for many Americans to see the Vietnam War as crucial to US security, especially since it escalated over time instead of erupting with a large-scale invasion. Finally, the controversial nature of the draft (conscription) led many young Americans to see the government as willing to sacrifice innocent citizens in the name of halting the spread of communism.

August 1968: The DNC Riots

The year 1968 was one of the most tumultuous years in US history. After the surprising Tet Offensive, the US suffered through two tragic assassinations: Civil Rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed in April, and US Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-MA) was killed in June while running for president. US President Lyndon B. Johnson, a fellow Democrat, had announced in March that he would not run for re-election, sowing political turmoil. Unrest in America was high, particularly in urban areas—summers since 1965 had featured riots in major cities as minority communities reacted angrily to perceived racism and brutality in law enforcement.

Many protesters against the Vietnam War, the draft, racism, and the Johnson administration planned to protest at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), which would be held in Chicago at the end of August. Aware of the plans to protest, the Chicago police and Illinois National Guard were mobilized in force and told to deal aggressively with protesters. The DNC Riots erupted, though many onlookers blamed overly aggressive law enforcement for the violence. Famously, the violence was broadcast on television, coining the phrase “the whole world is watching!” on August 28, 1968. Ultimately, the DNC was relatively unaffected and chose Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who had not run in the primaries, as the party’s presidential nominee.

Autumn 1968: “Law and Order” Carries the Election

The DNC Riots did not have the intended effect on the public. Instead of sympathizing with the protesters, many middle-class Americans were tired of the past four years of urban unrest and demanded “law and order.” This was to the great advantage of Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon, former vice president under Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was running on such a platform. Nixon claimed to represent the “silent majority” of Americans who were not loudly protesting and wanted to return to normalcy. Although Nixon’s surge of support after the DNC Riots eroded during the autumn, he kept enough to win the 1968 presidential election in November.

In the aftermath of the DNC Riots, the government investigated those allegedly responsible for the protests-turned-riots. Investigators focused on the Yippies (Youth International Party members), who had applied for public march permits in Chicago ahead of the DNC. In Congress, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) investigated the riots, and two eventual members of the Chicago 7, Abbot “Abbie” Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, interrupted their proceedings with mockery. The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence later issued the Walker Report, named after leader Daniel Walker, which blamed the police for escalating the violence.

Anti-Riot Provision of Civil Rights Act of 1968

The government had a new tool to prosecute the alleged instigators of the DNC Riots: the Federal Anti-Riot Act, or Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Those who engaged in interstate travel to incite, encourage, or participate in a riot could be charged under this Anti-Riot Act. The Act was inspired by the race riots of 1965-67, with critics arguing that the law was more of a tool for repressing African American protesters than preventing violence. Since many protesters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention had arrived from out of state, prosecutors could argue violation of this new law in federal court.

Historically, tension has always existed between the right to protest and the government’s mandate to maintain law and order. At what point does peaceable assembly, protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, become not peaceful? And what constitutes the definition of ambiguous terms like “incite” and “encourage”? 

Laws prohibiting “incitement of violence” became more common in the United States circa 1902, following the assassination of US President William McKinley. The Smith Act of 1940 was a federal law prohibiting any attempt to “advocate,” “abet,” or “teach” the violent overthrow of the US government, with the US Supreme Court narrowing its acceptable use in the late 1950s.

September 1969: Indictments of the Chicago 8

Using the Anti-Riot Act of 1968, a federal grand jury handed down indictments in March 1969 for eight protest leaders involved in the DNC Riots. The jury also indicted eight police officers. This would be the first prosecution under the Anti-Riot Act, providing a “law and order” test for the new Nixon administration. Six of the protest leaders indicted were widely known leftist advocates, while the remaining two had smaller profiles. As the outgoing Johnson administration had not pursued prosecutions, some thought the Nixon administration’s pursuit of trials was politically motivated.

Those indicted argued that they had only planned for peaceful assemblies, with Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis having written in May 1968 that violence would turn off potential supporters. Dave Dellinger, an avowed pacifist, had even accepted prison time during World War II rather than being drafted into the conflict. Thus, some viewers saw the prosecutions as political rather than legal, with the Nixon administration charging peaceful “hippies” with violence when the defendants had actually advocated anti-violence. The other five defendants, however, had no such anti-violence publications or speeches to provide a pre-made defense.

The (Mis)Trial of Bobby Seale

Controversially, one of the eight men charged by prosecutors was Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panther Party. Seale had not planned any of the DNC protests and had only provided a single short speech to protesters in Chicago. Unfortunately for Seale, his inflammatory language in the speech was considered by some to advocate violence against police officers (though he only referenced using force after the officers struck first with “a billy club”). Linking Seale, a co-founder of the Black Panthers, to the anti-war protests could be seen as the Nixon administration pushing back against Civil Rights protests as well. 

Controversially, Seale was bound and gagged during trial after regularly rising to his feet to protest decisions made by federal district court judge Julius Hoffman, especially refusing to grant Seale a continuance or the right of self-representation when his desired lawyer was unavailable due to medical circumstances. Hoffman argued that binding and gagging Seale was necessary to maintain the trial, while critics argued that it was excessive and brutal. On November 3, 1969, after letting Seale return to the trial without restraints or the gag, Hoffman declared a mistrial on the conspiracy to incite a riot charge and sentenced the defendant to four years in prison for contempt of court after the defendant made another outburst.

The Chicago Seven on Trial

With Seale gone, the Chicago Eight became the Chicago Seven. Although not as disruptive as Bobby Seale, the remaining defendants were outspoken and irreverent in their dress and mannerisms, giving the media plenty of interesting coverage. Many newspaper readers (as cameras were not allowed in the courtroom) eagerly followed the trial, which was seen as putting the entire hippie, counterculture, and anti-war movements on trial. The crowded defense table, usually littered with debris from snacks, contrasted sharply with the orderly and suit-wearing prosecution table.

The prosecution witnesses included three law enforcement officers who had gone undercover as members of the leftist protest movements. Many observers felt that Judge Hoffman was heavily biased in favor of the prosecution and allowed inflammatory but irrelevant evidence, such as aggressive speeches made by defendants long before the DNC Riots. Simultaneously, Hoffman denied defendants the right to introduce pre-DNC writings calling for peaceful protest only. For three months, the courtroom was a relative circus as the seven defendants frequently refused to stand for the judge, used colorful language, and put their feet on the defense table.

Contempt Convictions of the Chicago Eight

Beginning with Bobby Seale, the eight defendants and two defense attorneys, William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass, were held in contempt of court by Judge Hoffman. These convictions, made only by the judge instead of by the jury, were handed down shortly after the jury began deliberating on the charges of inciting a riot and conspiracy. Hoffman had even been hostile toward the defense’s pretrial lawyers, holding them in contempt and attempting to jail them, but was reversed by another federal court for failing to cite an offense.

Throughout the trial, the judge and the defense table verbally sparred with each other. Hoffman was openly antagonistic to the defense and portrayed them as outsiders before the Illinois jury, while defense attorneys Kunstler and Weinglass questioned Hoffman’s integrity. This sparring led to 159 convictions of contempt of court. Kunstler received a four-year total sentence for his counts of contempt of court, while Weinglass received a year and eight months. Of the Chicago Seven, Dave Dellinger received the most punishment—over 29 months—and John Froines and Lee Weiner received the least punishment at only five months.

February 1970: Verdicts Announced

With contempt of court sentences already handed down by Judge Hoffman, everyone awaited the jury’s verdict on the criminal charges. The jury struggled to find consensus during deliberation, but Hoffman ordered them to continue deliberating rather than declare a mistrial. Eventually, a compromise was reached, with the jury acquitting all defendants on the charge of conspiracy, finding that the Chicago Seven did not plan with each other. However, on February 18, 1970, the jury convicted five of the seven defendants on the charge of inciting a riot under the 1968 Anti-Riot Act. John Froines and Lee Weiner, the least known of the seven, were acquitted.

The five guilty men—Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Dave Dellinger—were all sentenced to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine each by Judge Hoffman on February 20. Each man was allowed to make a statement before sentencing, and they were collectively defiant. Most opined that the prosecution had made them far more powerful, as the public now knew their work. One commended Hoffman on becoming the country’s “top Yippie” by proving the Yippies’ points about criticizing mainstream conservatism. Another suggested the judge try LSD. 

November 1972: Appeals Court Reverses Convictions

The Chicago Seven and their two attorneys were released from jail on February 28, 1970 and promptly appealed their convictions. In May 1972, some contempt convictions were dismissed by the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that Judge Hoffman had been too aggressive in citing the defense attorneys. A new district court judge upheld some of the contempt convictions but did not sentence the defendants to new punishments. The circuit court clarified that judges could not punish defense attorneys for “reasonable persistence” in defending their clients or for the misbehavior of clients when such behavior was not encouraged by the attorney.

On November 21, 1972, the Seventh Circuit overturned all criminal convictions of the Chicago 7. Although the court upheld the constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act of 1968, it found that Judge Hoffman had been unfairly biased against the defendants. Hoffman’s behavior had been so egregious that it denied the defendants’ constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. Specifically, the appellate court criticized Hoffman’s demeanor toward the defense, as well as his allowing prosecutors to use inflammatory language when describing the defendants. In January 1973, the US Department of Justice announced that it would not re-try the defendants, allowing them to remain free. That same month, the United States agreed to end all combat operations in the Vietnam War as part of the Paris Peace Accords.