# data[].attributes.body
https://mises.org/library/brutality-slavery

Physical punishment was a way for slave-masters to assert their dominance over their slaves. This kept the hierarchy created by white masters in check, so that slaves wouldn’t attempt to overthrow their masters, who were higher up in class. Slaves were punished for anything they were accused of to keep them in line. The punishments given to slaves were very severe. This photo shows the horror in the enslaved man's eyes as his master kicks him. These slave masters did not care about how brutal they were to their slaves because they saw their slaves as being expendable. The idea that other human beings can be thought of as expendable is frightening. If they thought that about African American people then, who's to say that those terrible thoughts and motives can't have a resurgence? History has a tendency to repeat itself, but I suppose education and remembrance can help prevent such ignorance. The hierarchy created then has since been partially dismantled, unfortunately leaving some to still see certain humans as lower than others.
Since Tuck was disrespected and burned for a crime he did not commit, we can look back and only just imagine all of the horrible things that happened to those African Americans that were wrongfully convicted and did not have newspaper articles written about them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jim Crow and the 1890's-Referencing Part III: Lynching 

# data[].attributes.subject
Jim Crow and the 1890's-Referencing Part III: Lynching 

# data[].attributes.body
Brutality toward the enslaved in the late 1800's was not uncommon, averaging around 187 lynching's every year. During the time it was not uncommon for there to be complete festival like gatherings to take place. Citizens would brutally rip the individual apart, even carrying pieces away with them as mementos. They may use a multitude of tactics to torture the individual while crowds of thousands would observe. These lynchings were not what people in modern time would imagine them to be.

A black Mississippian recalled, " it was 'Kill a mule, buy another. Kill a nigger, hire another. They had to have a license to kill anything but a nigger. We was always in season." These practices were reminding society as a whole that blacks were expendable and inhumane beings. They were not given basic human rights, lynched for, as Ida B. Wells describes: "insubordination; talking disrespectfully; striking a white man, slapping a white boy, writing an insulting letter, a personal debt of fifty cents, a funeral bill of ten dollars, organizing sharecroppers, being too prosperous". Black individuals were reprimanded for anything breaking even the most minuscule social conduct. The mutilation of African Americans in this period further promoted a hierarchy in which blacks were still looked at as inanimate property.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "A Slave Branded on the Cheek", Edmund Butler was a slave who was known as "Tuck Lovell". Tuck was owned by Mr. Lovell, who was a butcher. Mr. Lovell employed Tuck in his business. During the War, Tuck was put on trial and charged for attempting a heinous crime. After being accused for the heinous crime, Tuck was branded on the cheek. Tuck said he did not attempt the crime that he was charged for. This article shows how slaves were given very serious and brutal punishments for acts they were accused of committing. Slaves were treated in very inhumane ways. Branding was just one of many punishments that slaves received. Slaves were also whipped, hung, or beaten. Even if they were not charged for a crime, slaves were still punished. Slave masters would usually brutally whip or beat their slaves just to show power and dominance.
The hierarchy that had begun with the beginnings of slavery were still at large during this period. If an enslaved individual were to do even the simplest activities such as be “too well liked” they could be subject to brutalities. It was as if it was a way to consistently suppress black individuals by evoking constant fear. In this case Tuck’s prominent scaring acted as a sort of “warning sign” that may have scared others. Tuck was deliberately branded on the cheek to shame and take away from his humanity. His crime was unknown to the reader posing question, was he an innocent man? In a time in which black individuals were targeted and attacked in a game like fashion it is important to note that there is a possibility of this. It was a game to society, to gather and observe these mutilations therefore it would not be unrealistic to question if the crime was equal to the punishment.
These game-like beatings bestowed upon the slaves left lasting mental scars as well as the physical ones. Not only did the African American men and women who were beaten during this time experience physical pain, but they also experienced emotional distress. Being forced to work, seeing family members getting punished by being beaten, and other extreme emotional distresses can cause permanent damage on a person’s well-being. Bringing back the question "was he (Tuck) an innocent man?", it didn't matter much to the white slave-owners if a slave was innocent or guilty. Also notice how the article is worded "He claims that he was innocent of the crime.". Just the thought of a one committing an act against them caused slave-masters to lash out at their enslaved, even if the enslaved individual claimed to be innocent. Tuck was targeted and branded on his cheek, causing physical pain, possibly for an act he didn't even commit, but we can imagine the abuse happened more than just that one instance. Verbal berating wasn't uncommon so Tuck is sure to have been through much more than just the cheek-burn he received.