In 1913, Sarah Rector, an 11-year-old African American girl from Oklahoma, became the accidental owner of land that would soon be worth millions. The land was granted to her as part of a government treaty, but at the time, it was considered barren and nearly useless.
When oil was discovered beneath her parcel, Sarah’s life changed forever. The oil strike made her one of the wealthiest children in the United States and turned her into a national sensation.
Newspapers called her “the richest colored girl in America ” and “oil girl Sarah Rector,” making her story a symbol of both opportunity and injustice.
The oil strike was not just a stroke of luck; it was a life-altering event that brought both opportunity and danger. As oil companies rushed to profit from her land, so did opportunists, lawyers, and even state officials eager to control her fortune.
The Rector family, once struggling to pay property taxes, now found themselves at the centre of a legal and social storm. Sarah’s wealth was seen as a threat by some, and her family faced constant pressure from those who wanted to take advantage of her situation.
Guardians, Greed, and the Legal Fight
Oklahoma law at the time required that children and adults with significant property, especially those from marginalised communities, be assigned “well-respected” white guardians. For Sarah, this meant that her parents lost legal authority over her wealth, and a local white man, T.J. Porter, was appointed as her guardian.
The appointment was made at the request of her father, who hoped Porter could protect the family’s interests.
However, the guardianship system quickly revealed its flaws. Sarah’s money was managed by Porter, who received fees and commissions, while Sarah herself had limited access to her own funds. The NAACP and other advocates became involved, concerned that Sarah’s wealth was being exploited and mismanaged.
Investigations revealed that the guardians were skimming off Sarah’s fortune, directing her money into risky investments, and even presenting inflated expenses to the courts.
Sarah and her family fought back, petitioning the courts to allow her father to share guardianship or to regain control of her estate. But the legal system was stacked against them. Sarah’s petition was delayed, and she was pressured to retract it, ultimately remaining under the control of white guardians.
The situation highlighted the deep-seated racial inequalities of the era, where Black families with wealth were systematically disempowered by the courts and bureaucracy.
The legal battle over Sarah’s oil claim became a national story, with newspapers and civil rights organisations calling attention to the injustices faced by her family. The NAACP’s involvement helped bring more scrutiny to the guardianship system, but change came slowly.
Sarah’s Oil (Credit: IMDb)
Sarah’s story exposed the vulnerabilities of marginalised communities, showing how even wealth could not protect them from exploitation and discrimination.
The Resolution and Legacy
The legal battle over Sarah Rector’s oil claim lasted for years, with her family fighting to protect her legacy from exploitation and mismanagement. By 1922, when Sarah reached the age of 20, she was finally able to make her own decisions about her money.
This marked a turning point, as Sarah took control of her own fortune and began building her life free from the constraints of court-appointed guardians.
Sarah’s story did not end with the legal resolution. She went on to marry, raise a family, and use her wealth to support her community. Her experience became a symbol of resilience and a powerful reminder of the injustices faced by Black families during a time of rapid change in America.
Today, her legacy is celebrated in film, literature, and historical accounts, inspiring new generations to stand up for their rights and fight for justice.
Sarah Rector’s oil claim and the legal fight that followed remain a landmark moment in American history. It exposed the vulnerabilities of marginalised communities, challenged the guardianship system, and ultimately led to greater awareness of the need for legal protections for children and families with wealth.
The story of Sarah’s Oil is not just about oil, but about the enduring fight for fairness, dignity, and control over one’s own destiny. Sarah’s legacy continues to inspire conversations about race, wealth, and justice, reminding us that even in the face of overwhelming odds, change is possible.
Victor Frankenstein’s obsession with transcending the limits of science set the stage for a chain of events that would unravel his life and the lives of those he loved.
Driven by a desire to conquer death and create life, Victor succeeded in bringing his creature to life, but his refusal to accept the responsibilities that came with his creation doomed them both. The creature, abandoned and left to navigate the world alone , quickly learned the pain of rejection and isolation.
Victor’s plan to create a new species was not only reckless but also morally bankrupt, as he failed to consider the emotional and social needs of his creation. Instead of guiding or nurturing the creature, Victor fled, setting in motion a series of tragedies that would haunt him to his final breath.
The monster’s early attempts to seek companionship and understanding were met with violence and fear. After being rejected by society, the creature turned to Victor, demanding a companion to end his loneliness.
Victor initially agreed, but in a moment of doubt and disgust, he destroyed the female creature before she could be brought to life. This act of betrayal pushed the monster over the edge, leading him to seek revenge by murdering Victor’s loved ones, including his younger brother William and his fiancée Elizabeth.
Victor’s plan to control and destroy his creation ultimately failed; his obsession with vengeance consumed him, but he never succeeded in ending the monster’s life.
The Moral Argument: Creator Versus Creation
The true heart of Frankenstein lies not in the horror of the creature’s appearance, but in the moral questions it raises about responsibility, empathy, and justice.
Victor’s actions, his abandonment, his refusal to acknowledge his creation’s suffering, and his inability to take responsibility for the consequences of his ambition paint him as the true villain of the story.
The monster, though capable of violence, was shaped by the cruelty and rejection he faced. His initial innocence and desire for connection give way to bitterness and rage only after he is denied any chance at happiness or belonging.
Mary Shelley’s novel challenges readers to consider who is truly monstrous. Victor’s scientific pursuit was fueled by ego and a desire for glory, while the creature’s actions, though horrific, were responses to a world that refused to accept him.
The monster’s final words to Robert Walton reveal a deep sense of sorrow and regret, suggesting that his desire for revenge was born not from inherent evil, but from a desperate need to be seen and understood.
Frankenstein (Credit: Netflix)
Walton, who hears the creature’s story, is left with a sense of pity for both Victor and his creation, highlighting the tragedy of their mutual destruction.
The moral argument is not simply about good versus evil, but about the consequences of neglecting moral obligations. Victor’s failure to recognise his duties as a creator to care for, protect, and guide his creation led to suffering for both himself and the creature.
The novel suggests that the real monster is not the one with stitches and scars, but the one who refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
The Legacy of Frankenstein’s Tragedy
Frankenstein’s legacy endures not only as a classic of Gothic literature but as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked ambition and the moral weight of creation.
The story forces readers to confront uncomfortable questions: What responsibilities do we have toward the things we create?
Can empathy and understanding prevent tragedy, or are some wounds too deep to heal? Shelley’s novel remains relevant today, as advances in science and technology continue to raise similar ethical dilemmas.
The outcome of the antagonist’s plan, Victor’s desire to destroy his creation, was a failure. The monster outlived Victor and, in the end, was left to face the consequences of his own actions.
Yet, the true victory in the moral argument belongs not to either character, but to the reader, who is left to grapple with the novel’s complex themes. Frankenstein reminds us that the real monsters are often not those who are different, but those who refuse to see the humanity in others.
Frankenstein’s tale is a powerful exploration of ambition, responsibility, and the consequences of neglect. The antagonist’s plan collapses under the weight of his own arrogance, and the moral argument reveals that true monstrosity lies in the absence of empathy and accountability.
Shelley’s novel continues to challenge readers to look beyond appearances and consider the deeper ethical questions that shape our world.
