The growing tensions between the North and the South, especially with the South's insistence on being provided security for the institution and perpetuity of slavery, had created a situation in which compromise was becoming harder and harder to make. The 3/5ths compromise back in 1789 with the Constitution had led to the closing of the African Slave Trade by 1808 by giving the South the voting power to offset that of the North in the House of Representatives. The Missouri Compromise had maintained this balance of voting power by giving a large chunk of northern territory to the slavery interests with the understanding that there would be no more slavery north of the Missouri Compromise Line from that time forward. However, as it became clear that the newly acquired American Southwest was inhospitable to big plantations and therefore slavery, there was renewed efforts by those in the South to get ahold of more northern territory using the persistent threat of secession to force the North to agree since most in the North believed in the Union more than they believed in either States' Rights or the abolition of slavery. Thus, the Compromise of 1850 and then the Kansas-Nebraska Act in which the notion of "popular sovereignty" or "let the people choose" became the means by which Congress could avoid having to make the decision itself. Indeed, many had called into question whether or not Congress had the power at all to legislate on slavery (either for it or against it or anything inbetween)! Finally, in a speech given in Peoria, Illinois in 1854, Abraham Lincoln (who would eventually become President in 1860) made the following point in his debates with Stephen Douglas, the "cheerleader" as it were of "popular sovereignty":
The doctrine of self-government is right - absolute and eternally right - but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such application depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government - that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teachers me that "all men are created equal," and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another.
Evaluate Lincoln's argument here and contextualize it with regard to the history of compromises made for the benefit of the South at the expense of the Union and its founding ideas of "We the People" and "All Men Are Created Equal." Show the evolution of Lincoln's point that slavery actually promotes anti-self-government by showing how these several compromises over history up to 1854 lead to the crisis that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was intended to solve.
DUE DATE: Friday, November 30 by midnight.
Word Count: 500 words minimum
33 comments:
By the mid nineteenth century, the “peculiar institution” of slavery could no longer be swept to the side through the placating form of compromise. The abolitionist cause swept through the country, carried to the forefront of the American psyche by newspapers, essays, and passionate speeches delivered by some of the nation’s most gifted orators. In his debates with Stephen Douglas in Peoria, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln effectively demonstrates the self evident injustice and immorality of the slavery system, while at the same time exposing its infractions upon the supposed founding principles of the country.
While it could be argued that Douglas’ vision of popular sovereignty was a purer form of American government as it was directly influenced by the nation’s cornerstone ideal of “We the People”, when extended to the issue of slavery, its support vanishes altogether as seen in Lincoln’s argument. If every man is entitled to the right of self government, which Lincoln asserts is undeniably true, then by forbidding the black man from exercising this basic right transforms just self-government into despotism of a despicable nature. It is both hypocritical and illogical for slavery to exist and thrive in a country that claims that “All Men are Created Equal.”
Dating back to 1789, the divisive issue of slavery proved to be the root of all evil in the disputes that threatened to tear the country in two. Although those in the North were not accepting of the system of slavery, they were so invested in the preservation of the union that they were willing to resign themselves to the unrelenting demands of the southern plantation owners. Until 1854, the North was able to maintain the status quo through the time honored tradition of compromise, but with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, designed by Stephen Douglas, the South had taken one step too far, thus making it a necessity to reconcile the wolf that was being held by its ears. As it repealed the critical Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act shifted a majority of power to the South, as it allowed the citizens of the two new territories to decide on whether or not slavery was to be permitted through popular sovereignty. The anti-slavery uproar that emanated from the North foreshadowed the fervor that was to come. It became apparent that the rich plantation owners would stop at nothing to secure more land to feed the slave power, leaving next to nothing for the common man. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was clear evidence that popular sovereignty only served to open the door for the southern aristocracy to take control of the country.
Lincoln’s argument successfully imparts the core message of the anti-slavery movement; a country that espouses liberty cannot at the same time allow for such a glaring violation of human rights as enslavement of people based upon the color of their skin. Furthermore, though the concept of self-government is obviously fair, it cannot be implemented in the slave-holding south without morphing into despotism and, in some cases, the rule of the aristocracy. With his easily comprehended language and natural progression of indisputable truths, Lincoln’s assertion confirms that slavery could no longer be solved with a compromise.
Olivia Brophy
Per. 3 & 5
It seems that when Abraham Lincoln asserted in his debates with Stephen Douglass that popular sovereignty had it's place, but that it's place was not in the issue of slavery, that Lincoln was attempting to say that all the different ways that the United States had tried to use to mask the slavery issue , such as the 3/5th Compromise, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (popular sovereignty), were futile. By saying this, he is further implying that any future ways of skirting around the issue would be as ineffective.
Lincoln defends his argument by saying that the only instance in which the concept of popular sovereignty, as proposed in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, could apply and work would be if the “negro” was considered to be inhuman. However, Lincoln then throws into question how, if this was true, the phrase “All Men are Created Equal” would be applicable in the Declaration of Independence. Not mentioned by Lincoln, but still relevant to the topic, is that if slaves were not considered people, then the 3/5ths Compromise, enacted in 1789, should not be allowed to be in place, because it is illogical to claim that slaves are considered part-human under one piece of legislation but are not human at all in everyday conversation and action. The Missouri Compromise, put into place in 1820, upheld the promise given to the South in the 3/5th Compromise. Therefore, if the 3/5ths Compromise contradicts Thomas Jefferson's eternal phrase “All Men are Created Equal”, as stated in the Declaration, and the Missouri Compromise upholds the 3/5ths Compromise, then the Missouri Compromise also counteracts the phrase “All Men are Created Equal”, because it keeps slaves in their subordinate position to both white men and white women.
The second way in which Abraham Lincoln proves his point during the debates is that if slaves are in fact people, and popular sovereignty was enacted under the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, then the domination of white men, and, in societal standings as well as sometimes on plantations, women, over slaves would be contradictory to the very idea of self-government. This is because self government literally means government of a political unit by its own people. If slaves are people, yet are denied the right to vote for anything, including legislative pieces directly affecting them, then the idea of self government cannot stand, because it's very foundation is flawed. One man cannot essentially lord over another man, or woman, for that matter, and still claim to be a champion of self government and popular sovereignty.
Lincoln's argument that all previous forms of attempting to avoid an explosive confrontation over slavery were and always would be inadequate in promotion self-government is fully reasonable after further examination of all of the major devices – the 3/5th Compromise, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In a country and government where “All Men are Created Equal” and popular sovereignty had become our rallying cries, the time from our creation leading up to the Civil War was wrought with pieces of legislation that truly were contradictory to these ideals. The two most outstanding and important shortfalls of these legislative pieces are really quite simple. First, the 3/5th Compromise and the Missouri Compromise made slaves 3/5th of a person every two years, directly conflicting with “All Men are Created Equal”, and the Missouri Compromise reinforced this contradictory measure. Second, the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which support popular sovereignty, are based upon flawed principles without complete equality of the populace. Thus, Lincoln's assertion is absolutely valid that all the different ways that the United States had tried to smooth over the issue of slavery were futile, because they were all fundamentally flawed.
During the period predating the American Civil War, the structure of Southern society, specifically slavery, became the constant question as being the tipping point into dividing north and south after a series of compromises within the United States government. Constant debates and threats of secession from southerners plagued the country, as compromises tried to mend polemical issues. After many political arguments, one debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 voiced the evil of slavery when Lincoln questioned Douglas’s view of the idea “popular sovereignty”. Lincoln, among many great pro-abolishment orators and writers, revealed this idea did not truly give choice to the consent of all peoples in the U.S., African Americans had no choice, questioning many older political actions in history.
By examining the U.S. Constitution, the statement of the Preamble: “We the People” voices Lincoln’s response as the statement was ambiguous to the nation as whether it was intended for all or a select few, as the founding fathers hoped to ignore the issue of slavery. The actual words “slavery” was never stated in the Constitution, and the other vague statement “All Men Are Created Equal”, the first of many indirect compromises to keep slavery out of discussion. The very document that banded the states together was insufficient to prevent its inevitable division.
With the expansion of its, vast territories were opened for new states to be admitted into the U.S. With new territories, came more disputes in southern expansion, until compromises like the Missouri Compromise in 1820, giving the South one state in the north while creating Maine as another north state to maintain the balance. The slavery issue, however, would not go away. Another compromise occurred decades later known as the Kansas Nebraska Act, in which avoided another violent argument between states as happened when southern senator Preston Brooks “caned” northern senator Charles Sumner during in the Senate. Specifically the future of Kansas and Nebraska were determined by
“Popular sovereignty”, but when put into effect, Kansas became the brutal battleground between abolitionist and proslavery supporters as armed anti-slavery men came into the territory to make it free. “Bleeding” Kansas released an avalanche of anger because this strategy to let the people decide was hopeless without even all the people themselves being to vote.
Whether debate or compromise, slavery could not mix with popular sovereignty since the idea, along with most actions in American politics at the time, were vague enough to not say “for every white male citizen”, until it had to be removed as the idea and replaced with “all males” this difference was an important detail as Lincoln made full use of it in his presidency years after his debate.
Brynn Villa
Period 1&4
In America, during the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, the government was dealing with some conflicting issues about slavery. Slavery was very popular in many people’s life, but for the few that didn’t do slavery, it was quite a conflicting situation considering self-government and the sayings “all men are created equal” and “We the People”. The slavery situation never seemed to get fixed for a while because people were afraid of what would happen socially; politically; and economically. Many people took a stand against slavery, but during this time period one man is remembered the most and his name is Abraham Lincoln.
Many white people saw the black people as wolves being held by their ears and that if they were to let them go then they would attack. The government was concerned about this politically and economically. The government was concerned that if they were to let the slaves go, they would take control and all hell would break loose. They also knew that it may be more money to be spent on each person and it would cost them more. They also didn’t want to let them go because of social reasons as well. Because of the different mindsets between the slave owners and the non-slave owners, different laws and regulations were passed. Some stayed but most left. For example, to bring some fairness to the slaves, or more money to the government, they counted three out of every five slaves were counted in the country’s population. Then came the Missouri Compromise prohibiting all slavery. However, many Americans were not okay with this idea so the South started to threaten leaving the Union. That is when the Compromise of 1850 came into play. It divided the North and the South to have their own laws about slavery. Then came the Kansas-Nebraska Act that divided the territory west of Missouri and Iowa. The whites had many reasons to keep the blacks as slaves but none of them made any sense. For example, they did not see the blacks as “the people” but more just as “people”. They weren’t of any importance in fact they could’ve even been called things. How did it come to this? Because people are stupid. Luckily Lincoln realized this stupidity and gave a speech about it in 1854 labeling some very important points. The people at this time were very concerned about self-government. So Abe made the point that if a man is governing himself and another man, it is no longer called self-government but despotism. This started to awaken people because the main thing that they were trying to achieve was self-government. He kept asking what a black person would be if they are not people. This caught people’s attention and caused them to think twice about this. He also mentioned of how his past teachers had taught him how “all men were created equal” and that it is not right for a man to make another man his slave. Abe wasn’t the only person to be taught this concept. Self-government never said that blacks were not people, the whites just somehow assumed that’s what it meant. Many people helped to make Abe’s statement along the way, such as Sojourner Truth and Abigail Grimke. These people helped to LEAD people to anti-slavery, which it did.
The founding of America came with the words, all men are created equal, an assumption that was so thoroughly dashed through the hundreds of years of despotism in the weak and voiceless. By the nineteenth century the act of reliance, had stripped away the very core of what held together the bonds of the nation. With every compromise the north lost some of its power, and its grasp on the union. The act of slavery was tore away the sovereignty of the individual, those who had to comply to others, those who were forced under others, and the hand that bent them to their own will.
Abraham Lincoln in his debates with Stephen Douglas claims the nation exists out of the will of the governed, popular sovereignty. The very government that relies on the actions of its people could not at the same time suppress their will. However the United States government existed on a fallacy, the very building block of equality, “all men are created equal” in the declaration of independence, is quite contradicted by its creators. The 3/5ths compromise only allows black men the right of a fraction of a person, unwavering proof that the existence of this compromise is the directly imposing the very creation of the nation. As with any law or bill continuing this injustice no man will be equal when they are unbalanced, because if black men are 3/5ths a person, and all men are equal, then no man is free from slavery.
Lincoln continues his debate by bringing into question the compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska act and its introduction of the concept of popular sovereignty. The idea that men control not only their own selves, but have a bigger voice in determining the future, the people of a nation that claims to be a “light on a hill” and represent freedom. There would be no room for such an opinion and then turn around and claim superiority over other men.
The act of continuing to add to the growing list of compromises can do nothing to repair the actions of south. As the nation could not continue to exist under the flawed principles of slavery, as the directly oppose the very existence of the nation. As well as the hypocrisy of south would only continue to carry along the will of the south above the general prosperity of the nation. By manipulating the slaves the hypocritical slave owners possessed they could not only call their slaves animals, as to justify their controlling of the men, but then they turn around and call their property partial men to continue in the endless search for increasing power, at the sacrifice of the general prosperity of the Unites States. The north continued to give and give to the south weakening the nation to threadbare strands of unity through their endless desperation to increase their landholdings and political power. The nation could not continue when such a corrupt bastardization of the constitution weakened the very supports beneath them.
From the Birth of our Union up to the beginnings of the Civil War, slavery had always been an issue. Thomas Jefferson wrote the famous words, “all men are created equal” and we founded our nation on them despite the fact that the author himself seemingly did not believe them. Slavery from that moment forward will divide the union before it was even formed. There were three main reasons, among a thousand lesser reasons, why slavery had to be put down. First, slavery was unconstitutional, according to the ideals of the constitution and the founding fathers, self-government was a basic human right, one that the US granted to the native Americans and one that in order for the US to uphold the constitution would need to be extended to African American Slaves; Second, slavery is morally wrong, because of the desensitizing nature of slavery those who were around it 24/7 did not realize it upfront but probably at one time or another confronted with themselves the absolute wickedness that slavery is; and third, the Union had already tried “band-aide solutions” to repair the rift between the people of the North and the South, all of these were failing and the Union needed to deal with the issue directly. Thus, for Social, Moral and Constitutional reasons slavery was an unhealthy branch that needed to be cut from the American tree before it killed the whole thing and the Civil War was the shears.
The “unconstitutionalness” and the “moralness” of slavery walk hand in hand and the best argument that can be made against slavery utilizes both of these. Before he was our 16th President Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in a debate against Stephen Douglas in 1854. In this debate he laid out an argument against slavery that is so hard to beat that even the most skilled Mr. Douglas cannot parry. The argument goes as follows. First, Lincoln reassured everyone in his belief that self-government, a government of the people, by the people, for the people, is right and should be maintained regardless of the circumstances. But, he says, one cannot use the right to self-govern in the defense of slavery. Or in actuality this argument, this defense of slavery, hinges on whether or not a Negro is a man. Now Lincoln appeals to the audience’s sense of morality and says, “there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another.” Therefore, because the very basis of our country, the constitution, very clearly states that we must protect self-government with our lives and because morally everyone knows that Blacks are men, under the constitution we must protect the rights of MEN. This means that the institution of Slavery by hindering the rights of MEN to self-govern is unconstitutional.
Socially the North and the South had been drifting apart slowly, despite the fact that economically they were inseparable. Congress had established a couple of “band-aide solutions” that were intended to keep the country from bleeding but were ultimately only temporary solutions to a persistent issue. These solutions, the 3/5ths compromise, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and then the Kansas-Nebraska Act, did little more than protect the Union as long as possible from Civil War. Abraham Lincoln saw how these solutions were failing and recognized that as president it was his duty to repair the Nation even if it meant bloodshed. Therefore, because slavery was unconstitutional and morally wrong and temporary solutions were not working, the Civil War was “necessary and proper.”
Beckett Lee
Periods 3 and 4
In antebellum America, one of the greatest issues facing the nation was that of slavery. While the South claimed that slavery was guaranteed constitutionally by the right to property and wished to expand it to promote their ways of life, abolitionists in the North, one of whom was Abraham Lincoln, believed that slavery was a bane to society and that it should be eliminated. The compromises made to satisfy both sides of the debate would actually become a detriment the American union and would promote sectionalism in many ways. First, the Three-Fifths Compromise allowed the South to acquire balanced representation in Congress while not allowing slaves to be counted as citizens would perturb Northerners who could no longer have a consistent majority in the Federal Government; second, the Missouri Compromise limited the spread of slavery to the North but allowed it to expand to the West; third, the Compromise of 1850, provoked outrage amongst Northern abolitionists over the Fugitive Slave Laws. The American antebellum period was filled with anti-self-government compromises over the issue of slavery, by none other than the North.
The Three-Fifths Compromise of 1789 was an attempt by the South to obtain equal representation with the North. The South has traditionally been less populated than the North because of the climate and the hard living there. Yet the Southern States are frequently larger than the Northern states. To ensure that the people of the South could not be dominated by the Northerners, Congress enacted the Three-Fifths Compromise to count slaves as three-fifths of a person. Since the slaves were the legal property of their Southern masters and because Northerners wanted to keep the South from dominating them, their representation could not be 100%. The Three-Fifths Compromise was a balance between the two that allowed the new country to move forward in the process of expanding. The Three-Fifths Compromise balanced the country, but Northern jealousy caused an increase in sectionalism.
The Missouri Compromise which created a border over which slavery could not cross was an absolute offense to popular sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that all powers not granted to the Federal Government would be reserved by the states and the people respectively. The Constitution made no mention of slavery until after the Civil War. Because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the Missouri Compromise, which promoted the dominance of the Federal Government over the states, was unconstitutional and a Northern-sponsored infringement on the rights of the Southern States and the People. While the Constitution made no mention of slavery at this point, it did protect property and contracts, both of which applied to slavery.
The Compromise of 1850 destroyed the final hope for legal equality between the North and the South. The Compromise of 1850 clearly favored the North and cemented the scales in favor of the North. The North got California as a free state, the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and the grant of disputed territory with Texas, a slave state, to New Mexico. The South got some monetary compensation, the chance to allow the new states who were below the Missouri Compromise line to vote if they wanted slavery and a potent fugitive slave law so that they could retrieve what was, at the time, their property. Even with all of the concessions to the North, the South continued to soldier on, despite their loss of Senatorial balance and territory. It was Northern abolitionists who could not accept the one major concession given to the South, the Fugitive Slave Law. This Northern hatred of Southern rights was the true cause of the boiling sectionalism that led to the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Civil War. (Continued)
(Continued) With all respect to Mr. Lincoln and his ideals, his use of the Federal Government to unilaterally and unconstitutionally decide for the states on an issue which was theirs alone to decide seems to not only demonstrate that Southern indignation was justified, but that their secession was justified as well. The Declaration of Independence, the grounds on which American Independence and liberty is based, states, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” (Parentheses and Italics added.) It was on these grounds that the Confederate States of America declared their independence from what they considered to be tyrants, just as the colonists did.
A Personal Note: By no means do I condone slavery or any such institution. I personally believe that slavery would have died of attrition without the Southern retribution caused by the Civil War that lasted until the Civil Rights movement. I believe that Abraham Lincoln and the Northerners were justified in opposing slavery and trying to preserve the Union. I only play “Southern advocate” because of family ties and because I believe in states’ rights and the power of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as the documents in which our core values and principles are kept. The Declaration of Independence applied to the C.S.A. as equally as it applied to the United States of America. The Constitution’s Tenth Amendment clearly granted the power to decide on the issue of slavery to the States and to the people by the means of popular sovereignty. The Southerners were not antagonists that needed to be whipped into shape by a civil war. Both the Northerners and the Southerners were just caught up in an early form of a cold war that ended with the completely avoidable tragedy known as the Civil War or War Between the States. I believe that if the decision had been left to the states, slavery would have died out in America around the same time because of mechanization just as it died in Europe and other places. Regrettably, it seems that American blood must be shed at times to settle issues that mere reflection on our core values could have solved without it. Only time will tell how many more times America must relearn its history.
Come the mid-1800s, the long disputed issue over slavery in America would erupt in a civil war that would largely pit antislavery against proslavery. Preceding the Civil War, however, as the concept of popular sovereignty grew increasingly appealing as the answer for the fates of newly admitted states, Abraham Lincoln will challenge the whole idea of “self-government” in 1854 by questioning the logic and morality of the institution of slavery compared to the popular concept of self-government. First, the Southern states’ paranoia over the safety of their “peculiar institution” and the lengths they would go to secure it proved their unwillingness to loosen their hold on their slaves; second, the South’s desire to expand slavery’s influence revealed their stubborn desperation to keep slavery alive; third, both the North and South’s stubborn persistence in their causes led to breaking point when both sides refused to back down. Therefore, for social, political, and ethical reasons, Lincoln’s argument about self-government not being able to harmoniously coexist with slavery is justified because as the antislavery and proslavery sides of the American crisis gradually refused to give way, anti-self-government was promoted by the Southerners not wanting to let go of the power they had over more than just their personal selves.
For years on end, slavery has been the one thing that the South believed should not be tampered with. Especially when the northern states developed more antislavery sentiments after publications of widespread abolitionist works, the southern states began to get more nervous about the fate of their slavery institution. With the threat of the destruction of their crucial labor system, time and time again the South has labored to maintain equilibrium of influence with the North in order to stand a better chance at manipulating the fate of both slavery and antislavery movements. This can be seen through the Three-fifths Compromise in 1789 (which gave the South more congressional voting power in exchange for the ending of the slave trade in 1808) and also through the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (in which the equilibrium of slave and free states in the country was upheld by the admission of Missouri as slave and Maine as free). The South simply doesn’t want to give up their rule over other people, and through bargains and threatening opposition, for a long time they largely get what they want. In Lincoln’s argument, he addresses how most slave owners view their slaves, not as people but as property only to be counted as people when it suits them, as in the Three-fifths Compromise, and Lincoln uses that point to question the South’s version of "self-government.”
In 1850 came another compromise, one that admitted California into the Union as a free state along with the two additional territories of Utah and New Mexico, which would be left to popular sovereignty. With the equal number of slave and free states thrown off, the South now had no more room to expand slavery, since all future states above the southern boundary of Missouri was declared off-limits to slavery by the Missouri Compromise and the newly acquired southwest territory turned out to be unfit for plantations. Being outnumbered by free-soil states seriously threatened failure for their peculiar institution, but instead of relenting, the southern states continued to fight for the right to own slaves by attempting to acquire more land in the Caribbean areas to be opened for slavery. They wanted a hold somewhere that would give them back the proslavery influence they lost with the admission of California. Again, slavery ended up promoting anti-self-government by the South trying to extend control over other areas so that their black slaves could continue to be subject under them and work to make them profit.
The ethical side to this is can be exemplified by the “bleeding Kansas” crisis that happened as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that split the Nebraska Territory into two: Kansas and Nebraska. Both were based on popular sovereignty, and on that note, hordes of proslavery and antislavery people came rushing into Kansas to try to make it become the type of state that they personally thought would be best. Slavery supporters really wanted equilibrium back for the survival of their economic “necessity,” and opponents of slavery thought it better for the country to halt slavery expansion. This outbreak of violence was the high point, as more people agreed with Lincoln that there is no moral justification for slavery because if we are all “We the People,” then imposing rule on others does not equal self-government.
As tensions rose between the North and the South, a decision had yet to be reached shortly before the year 1854 over whether or not the economic benefits of slavery outweighed the moral issues. President Lincoln's viewpoint on the subject significantly changed over time into the belief that slavery truly promoted anti-self-government, and many of the compromises made prior to 1854 were a part of what allowed the South to benefit over the Union and lead to the Kansas-Nebraska Act crisis. First, the Missouri Compromise led to Congress declaring that nothing in the constitution specifically denied the right to abridge the rights of citizens and was granted admission to the Union; second, the 3/5ths compromise resulted in the termination of African Slave trade and allowed for Southern voting power; and third, the Compromise of 1850 became the means by which Congress could avoid taking legislative action on slavery directly. Thus, these primarily intellectual, social, and political compromises leading up to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, exemplifies the change in Lincoln’s argument over a period of time. First, the Missouri Compromise was based on the congressional claim that there was nothing precisely drafted in the Constitution making it clear that citizens’ rights could be curtailed. Due to this faith a multitude of doctrines were created predicated upon this new interpretation, including this one. Passed in 1820, it created a line separating the Northern and Southern territories into anti-slavery and pro-slavery respectively. Lincoln mentioned in his 1854 speech that the idea of “popular sovereignty” was what permitted the phrases “We the People” and “All Men Are Created Equal” to be twisted into something that had the potential to imply, if not encourage, a bias that through “the people” certain men could be more equal than others. Lincoln laid the foundation for the Constitution to no longer be taken simply at face value. Second, the 3/5ths compromise of 1789 caused the end of African Slave trade and also decided to let the South vote in hopes of offsetting the vote of the North. Soon enough it was taking a major toll on pre-Civil War political affairs. For instance, slaves might have held up to thirty-three seats in the House of Representatives if the seats had been based on the unrestricted population. Lincoln states in his speech that governing oneself is one thing, but governing another man is transforming it into despotism. As Lincoln’s argument goes on he begins endorsing that whether or not a Negro is to be considered a man, he has no right to be commanded by another man; there is too much emphasis on governing, not self. And third, the connection to the Compromise of 1850 developed the means by which Congress was able to dodge claims that no part of the end result of the equality between African-Americans and whites was of their doing (based on popular sovereignty). This was a total of five bills that defused a majority of the confrontation between free states of the North and slave states of the South. In direct correspondence Lincoln articulates and concludes his speech proclaiming how no moral right can have a link to forcing slavery on someone else. At the beginning of the speech, he began with the notion only that self-government is a right and should be treated as such, but as it progressed he brings up the evidence of self-destruction through despotism, ending with Constitutional evidence as well. Through the intellectual, social and political compromises, the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise and displayed a spur of the moment decision that it would be left up to voters to discern between pro and anti-slavery, resulting in a civil war in that area; and as Lincoln’s viewpoint began changing throughout his speech, so too did the viewpoint of the nation as a whole.
Around the mid nineteenth century, slavery was the hot topic. Dominating the newspapers, politics and even peoples very thoughts and beliefs. Compromise would no longer solve the problem, those who opposed slavery and those who desired to keep it were destined to slaughter each other... and to the winner go the spoils. The Kansas-Nebraska act was supposed to solve this problem of slavery but it was only a prelude to what was to come. One of America’s greatest and most beloved presidents, Abraham Lincoln, gave a speech of how slavery contradicted the Declaration of Independence and the preamble of the Constitution as well as self-government. However, all the results of the war would still not make America a completely equal society.
As the fight for the spreading of slavery escalated, congress simply gave up trying to mandate the spread of slavery through many compromises. There were too many fights throughout the public and in the two congress houses as well. The Kansas-Nebraska act was supposed to show that congress did not need to intervene, and that the people could take care of themselves. A system was proposed, called “Popular Sovereignty” that allowed the people to decide whether or not their territory or new state would have slavery. In Kansas, something happened, those who supported slavery and those who were against it flooded into the territory, both wanting another state for their “team.” After that, both “teams” started to try and drive the opposing force out so they could win the vote. This became known as “Bleeding Kansas” an unofficial war that lasted from 1854 to 1861. An ominous beginning to America’s bloodiest war.
President Lincoln gave a speech that stated how the very existence of slavery in America contradicted everyone’s favorite two sayings, “All men are created equal” and “We the people.” Lincoln argued that if one man had control of another than the whole concept of self-government was a lie. If a negro could not govern himself that was called despotism, or a tyranny. Henceforth if self-government was to be taken seriously, every person was to be responsible for themselves, not one man responsible for another man. Everyone was equal according to Lincoln’s “ancient faith” and the constitution. However, not all shared the same view as the president. The constitution also said that people had the right to protect their property, and this was the rally call the South believed in. This was the reason the North had to compromise so profusely with the South over slavery. Both believed they had the constitution on their side, but the North had a weakness, it would not allow secession, even it had to allow slavery in new North territories, as was the case with the 60-40 compromise.
Stubborn and determined, the South seceded, one state after the other. America entered into its darkest hours yet. 750,000 men died in that literal hell of min-e-balls and cannon blasts. Eventually though the North won and abolished slavery through 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. However it would not bring America to a fully equal nation. Women, who were a huge driving force in the anti-slavery movement, still were not allowed to vote. While they were technically were able to as the 14th and 15th amendment made anyone born in the U.S. a citizen, and any citizen could vote. the men would need to be told directly that their wives could vote. Kinda silly.
In the late 18th century through to the early 19th century, slavery had become a big issue throughout the United States of America, conflicting with the founding words that all men are created equal. The slavery situation never seemed to get set because people were troubled of what would happen socially; politically; and economically. Many people in the North took a stand against slavery, but nearly everyone remembers Abraham Lincoln, the man who in essence started it all. The act of slavery tore away the independence of a being, made them into a thing instead of being human. Many white people saw the black people as wolves being held by their ears, as Thomas Jefferson had said, and that if they were to let them go then they would attack. After many political arguments, one dispute between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 expressed the malevolence of slavery when Lincoln questioned Douglas’s view of the proposal “popular sovereignty”. Lincoln revealed this idea did not really give choice to the approval of all peoples in the U.S. African Americans had no choice, inquiring many older political measures in history. Lincoln defends his case by saying that the only instance in which the notion of popular sovereignty could apply and work would be if the Black Man was considered to be inhuman. However, Lincoln then throws into inquiry how the phrase “All Men are Created Equal” would be appropriate in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln continues his debate by bringing into question the compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska act and its overture of the concept of popular sovereignty. The idea that men can be in charge of not only their own selves, but have a bigger influence in shaping, not only their own, but everyone’s future. Lincoln made a point that if a man is governing not only himself but another man as well, it is no longer called self-government but called despotism. This started to awaken people to the problem, because the main thing that they were trying to achieve throughout this mess was self-government. Abraham Lincoln kept asking what a black person would be if they are not people. This caught people’s attention, caused them to think twice about this, and made them realize that there is indeed a problem with what they are doing to the slaves. Self-government never said that blacks were not people; the whites just somehow assumed that’s what it meant along with any other document or book that gave any idea to higher and lower “class”. Many people helped to make Lincoln’s statement along the way, such as Sojourner Truth and Abigail Grimke. Two women who had a strong impact on how people thought society should be and how it will be. The irony that the women were the ones to get past this problem is obvious; women are, in some sense, on the same level as slaves. Seeing the women lead through this is quite ironic. These people helped to show the way to anti-slavery to others, which it successfully did.
During the mid-1800’s a major controversy was the institution of slavery and its expansion to the point where it could no longer compromised. Abraham Lincoln argued slavery conflicted with the Founding ideas of “We the People” and “All Men are Created Equal” and therefore promoted anti-self-government. As abolitionism spread to the American Frontier by means of social media, people became more aware of the possible social, economic, and political affect that the spread of slavery could have on both the North and South.
In the mid-19th century a war was brewing in the south. Abraham Lincoln the upcoming president made an important argument he proposed that slavery promoted anti self-government. First off what about the founding words of the constitution; what about all men are created equal; and finally what about all of the compromises.
Our country was founded by the words “we the people” but if it really was all of the people where is the black man, woman, immigrants, or white non land owning man. None of the afore mentioned people are included in the constitution back then it should have read, “We the rich land owning white men”, that would have eliminated all cries of what about us from the afore mentioned people but no it read we the people. Over the years woman fought for their rights while also helping others like the African American slave or freed black get their rights. But immigrants got it a bit harder when john Adams passed the alien and sedition acts. Black men got the right vote on February 3, 1870 with the ratification of the fifteenth amendment. This act was later attempted to be made null with the Jim Crow laws. Woman got the right to vote on August 18, 1920.
The declaration of independence declared “all men are created equal” but if this was true then slavery would never be able to exist because if one white man is equal to one black man what stops the black man from revolting against the white man. Also Lincoln said in his argument that “why then my ancient faith teachers me that "all men are created equal," and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another.” This is basically saying that it is constitutionally wrong to have any man become a slave of any one. This belief back in the mid nineteenth century would almost have granted to have made him many enemies and probably would have made him lose his campaign. But somehow he gets elected in 1861. Many southerners were furious and this was the last straw for the south many of the southern states seceded from the union and created the confederate states of America.
The south wined that they were being attacked by the anti-slavery north but in reality they benefited from many compromises that the union made. One was the 3/5ths compromises which made slaves worth 3/5ths of a man. This benefited the south much more than the north because the south had many more slaves than the free north which meant that the south would get more representative votes. The north on the other hand had almost no slaves so they would never benefit from this compromise. Another compromise was the Missouri compromise which slavery couldn’t be past the 36 50 parallel which gave the south half of the country including the largest state in the Americas Texas but also it gave them more land to use to grow cotton but much of the territory was inhospitable to cotton and other crops so this could be taken multiple ways it could be good for the north and bad for the south but it did give them a lot of land. In the end war couldn’t be avoided but one of the main reasons that they seceded was bogus.
President Lincoln starts his argument with identifying self-government as being "absolute and eternally right" and then goes on to say that what is stated in the Declaration of Independence stating that “All men are created equal” and that it is mis-issued and mis-applied, meaning that the statement does not in fact apply to “All men” since the negroes were considered livestock rather than people, this leads to Lincoln’s other prospect with slaves being people, however withheld from education and literacy, though they still thought, spoke, and loved. This is when he says that if a man is withheld his natural and lawful rights as the negroes had been, then it would implicate self-destruction of government in the United States and not only morally disturbing, but legitimately as well. Lincoln moves right along in explaining that if a white man governs himself ( emphasizing his color, thus his status), then is is an example of self-government, however when a white man governs himself and another, than it is a deep and cruel form of slavery and such (despotism). To say this would upset the flow of thought sloshing around inside the heads of Southern Slave owners or Southern sympathizers, generating hatred and anger towards his commentary to a treacherous degree. To go beyond mere speculation, Lincoln refers to Christianity and saying that by slavery being morally wrong since it restrained self-government, it was indeed owning another man and keeping him against HIS own will as a person, this was also a moral issue going against what God said in his Word, therefore piercing the standpoint of most slave-owning Southerners that it was God’s will and promise to them.
Another aspect and use of slavery in the South can be seen in how the South manipulated the North into giving them the Kansas-Nebraska Act which would give the Southerners a significant advantage over the North in representation with the increased “population” that three slaves represented one person, yet no rights were granted to them along with this. Having been granted this, the South continued blackmailing the Union with threats to secede which eventually lead to the Union giving up Missouri as the “border state”, By the time that the North fully realized that all options to resolve the matter had been exhausted without giving potential for the South to destroy them, they refused any further reprise. The South became infuriated that they had been denied, this is what lead to the beginning of the Civil War, the North no longer cared to oblige and the South wasn’t willing to sit and let their fortunes wane with the land they yielded cotton from.
So long as what was deemed morally and legally illegitimate, slavery could not exist in the Union any longer, nor should it have. However, since the South fully relied on their abominable trade to support their pompous and luxurious lifestyle it was asserted that peace could not be achieved through compromise without force and backbone to support abolishing slavery and bringing the South out of the agricultural age and into the modern, industrial age the Union thrived in.
On October 16, 1854, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech (which would give him a huge reputation in American politics) that expressed his arguments against slavery. The South and the North had been in disagreement about slavery since 1789 and they had attempted to resolve their conflicts with many compromises over the years. First, the Three-Fifths Compromise of 1789 benefitted the South by giving them an adequate amount of Representatives in the house by counting each slave as three fifths of a man, hence the name Three-Fifths Compromise; second, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 allowed slaves to move west but didn’t allow for slavery in the Northern territories, which was prohibited by the House of Representatives before the Compromise; third, the Compromise of 1850 brought discouragement of the North because it regarded slavery in the land acquired during the Mexican-American war. During Lincoln’s speech in Peoria, he emphasizes by referencing these three former agreements, the Three-Fifths Compromise, the Missouri Compromise, and the Compromise of 1850.
In 1789, the Southern States were in need of equal representation of their fellow Northern States. So James Wilson and Roger Sherman put together the Three-Fifths Compromise, which gave the Southern States more Representatives in the House. Abraham Lincoln’s speech references this by noting how Negros are not considered men. Lincoln states that Self Government is right, but it has no just application. Then he assumes that this application depends on whether a Negro is or isn’t a man. Lincoln also said that if Negro’s were men, this would create the destruction of Self-Government. Lincoln was debating against the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 because it contradicted the former Missouri Compromise, which didn’t allow slavery North of the 36’30’.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery was allowed to be expanded west but was not allowed to be moved North. The Tenth Amendment states that Federal Government does not have complete control of the States, and that states con enforce their own laws. Lincoln’s speech refers to Popular Sovereignty. At the very beginning it states that self-government is right, absolutely and eternally right. The Missouri Compromise prohibits slavery North of 36’30’, therefore, prohibiting those states’ rights to popular sovereignty. The Missouri compromise of 1820, directly contradicts the tenth amendment by stating that slavery is not allowed in Northern states. He also states that if a man is governing another man, which is in this case slavery, it is completely against the idea of popular sovereignty.
The Compromise of 1850, almost was the spark that started the Civil War, it demolished any hope of equality between the North and the South.
Annika Newman
Periods 1 & 4
From the birth of the nation to the antebellum period, the Federal Government of the United States had the difficult task of defining the statement "All Men Are Created Equal," as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. In 1854, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech to the people of Illinois asserting that the idea of popular sovereignty, as promoted by Stephen Douglas, was altogether detrimental to the nation and the people themselves. In the mid-nineteenth century, it became evident that compromises, given to please both sides, were a drawback to society as a whole. Therefore, as Lincoln argued in his speech, the idea of self-government should be altogether terminated from government. First, the Three-Fifths Compromise redefined a slave as "three-fifths of a person," intended to give the whites in the South more power, contradicting the idea that all men govern themselves under popular sovereignty; second, the Missouri Compromise admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, and prohibited slavery north of the line 36, 30', forcing southerners to move westward; third, the Compromise of 1850 allowed for a Fugitive Slave Law to be passed, allowing Southerners to recapture runaway slaves in the North, causing indignation amongst Northern abolitionists. Thus, the period before the Civil War was filled with tension resulting from the numerous compromises made to appease the South and supporters of popular sovereignty.
The Three-Fifths Compromise, passed at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, challenged the idea of popular sovereignty, in which a state's legitimacy is obtained and maintained by the consent of the people. Abraham Lincoln asserted in his speech that self-government, in regard to slavery, infringes upon the rights of slaves, if they are to be considered men, by prohibiting them from governing themselves. Under this compromise, a slave was considered “three-fifths” of a white person, benefitting white southerners when election season came. Although the South had excessively less whites than the North, they had nearly the same amount of electoral votes. Thus, a white southerner had as much say in political affairs as two northerners. Ultimately, this compromise contradicted the statement “All Men Are Created Equal” by proving that, in fact, a white southerner was superior to white northerners in political affairs.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery north of the line 36, 30' and the state of Maine, but admitted Missouri as a slave state. Due to the extreme limitations of expanding slave territory in the North, slaveholders migrated westward in order to extend land for slaveholding plantations. This compromise counteracts the phrase “We the People of the United States” stated in the U.S. Constitution by creating sectionalism, and dividing “the People” into pro-slavery southerners and anti-slavery northerners. The states were no longer “united” as stated in the Constitution in result of the tensions and regulations of slavery.
Under the Compromise of 1850, the South was given money as well as the ratification of the Fugitive Slave Law, and California was admitted as an undivided free state. The Fugitive Slave Law allowed slaveholders to recapture runaway slaves in the North, an act that outraged northern abolitionists who argued that it should not be legal to capture slaves from the North since slavery is prohibited in the northern free states. Thus, the idea of self-government only created more controversy because it is not logical to allow for such radical sectionalism throughout the nation and expect both sides to keep their opinions inside their own borders.
Amanda Jerd
Periods 3 and 6
In 1854 in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated the issue of slavery to allow the public to make an informed decision about who they wanted as their president. Lincoln asserted that slavery was the root of all evil for the Union and for three main reasons, America must release the wolf being held by its' ears. First, slavery is morally wrong; second, it goes against the document the nation was founded upon and the people who created it; third and finally, the allowance of the "peculiar institution" would be the divisive death of the infant UNITED States of America. Therefore, for moral, Constitutional, and Unional reasons, Lincoln argues it is necessary to end the complacent compromises and finish slavery once and for all before the wolf decides to bite.
The Second Great Awakening of the 1800's brought back a religious and moral fervor. The new converts or those who recommitted to their faith were encouraged to read their Bibles. Slave owners justified their livelihood by saying the Bible was for it, but according to Angelina Grimke, the Bible is most definitely against slavery and there is evidence not only in the book but also in history - pro-slavery men agreeing that the Bible is abolitionist literature. The Constitution of the United States of America specifically says that "All Men are Created Equal." Lincoln argues that subjecting another man does not display equality. In the Gettysburg Address, he further proves this by pointing out that the Founding Fathers put an end to the Atlantic slave trade - thus they did not approve. Finally, Lincoln's policies reflect that he recognized that if slavery was not fully addressed soon, the union would never be a nation, or a group of unified people with generally the same values. Compromises were helpful in creating the Union but continually pushing the problem of the peculiar institution under a rug with compromises would solve nothing. The first "compromise" between the North and South over slavery was in Section 9 of the Constitution which banned the Atlantic Slave Trade starting in 1808. This really was not a compromise on the South's part though, as they could just "breed" their own. It angered Northerners who realized they had been tricked. Other compromises continued to try to patch up the issue such as the Missouri Compromise, ending slavery once and for all (or so they thought) in the North. But with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which supported Douglas' view of popular sovereignty, slavery would be decided in new territories by the people. A surge of humanity from the North and South tried to be the majority so as to get their respective wishes when time to vote came. This wasn't enough though, bloodshed was the only "answer" to reduce the population of the "enemy" so as to win majority. Lincoln argued against popular sovereignty in the Gettysburg Address as well, explaining that for people to decided the slavery issue, they must also open up the globally illegal Atlantic Slave Trade so no person was deprived of their individual right to buy their goods as cheap as they could find them. As Lincoln predicted, if something wasn't done about slavery in a timely manner, more blood would be spilled. The North continually compromised with the south at the North's expense for the "good" of the Union. However, not only did slavery start killing the unity of the states, economically it was depleting the South of good land and resources. In conclusion, the compromises did nothing but infect open wounds on the slaves' backs and amplify the problem to a full blown Civil War.
By the mid-1800s, the debate over slavery had exasperated the North due to the constant stream of complaints from the South. In his debates with Stephen Douglas, future president Abraham Lincoln argued that slavery is founded upon the oppression and violation of natural rights, and that there could be no self-government with slavery in existence. First, slavery opposes the principles the Union was founded on; second, the 3/5 Compromise reduced slaves to not even a person; and third, the Compromise of 1850 furthered the insults by developing the concept of "popular sovereignty." Therefore, Lincoln's argument was justified through the many injustices that the South had committed against man in their fight to uphold slavery.
Phrases such as "all men are created equal" and "we the people" have different incantations in the modern society than they did at the time they were written. Nowadays, the phrases literally mean all people, without specific people groups such as blacks or women being separated out. However, at the time during which the Constitution was written leading up to the Civil War and even afterwards, "we the people" included only white males. As Lincoln asserts, a nation that believes in equality for all can not endorse slavery without being completely hypocritical since slavery allows one man to own another. The only way this would be remotely acceptable would be if a slave was not a man. Under the 3/5 Compromise, blacks were degraded to 3/5ths of a person, thereby stripping them of any rights they might possess. This Compromise would be perfectly fine if a black man is not a person. However, because he is a person, the whole concept of self-government is destroyed since the black man is governed by someone other than himself. Also, the Compromise counted slaves as partial people for the primary purpose of swelling the South's numbers in Congress. If black slaves are counted for representation in the government, shouldn't they be allowed the vote as well? Lincoln's basic argument seeks to expose all the flaws in a system that allows for slavery while at the same time proclaiming individual liberty. The Compromise of 1850 was a further insult to self-government by introducing the concept of popular sovereignty into the new territories and installing the inexorable Fugitive Slave Law. The North, already frustrated with the South, became even more outraged. Popular sovereignty, although sounding good on paper, was only a way to take some pressure off of an exhausted Congress. This form of self-government could never exist with slavery around. Lincoln's argument scorns the self-government present at this time by asserting that if justly used, every man should govern himself. Slavery was therefore a violation of this concept.
In his argument, Lincoln reveals the injustices of an individual rights loving nation that at the same time sanctions slavery based on one's skin color. This hypocritical ownership of another person cannot be justified. Lincoln draws upon the several compromises, acts, and laws made during the course of the nation to explain how slavery has corrupted the core of the American belief and how its very existence cannot and should not be tolerated in the Union.
Anthony Luna
Period 3 and 4
Tensions between the North and the South had been occurring in America much before the 1800's. There were many compromises between the North and the South that prolonged the Civil War. These compromises were just the South's struggle for power in order to keep slavery. The founding fathers based the constitution on the phrase "all men are created equal", yet the south continued to believe that this basic and fundamental principle does not apply to slavery. Therefore Douglas claim that popular sovereignty applies to slavery and the states in the South because every man is entitled to the right of self- government. This popular sovereignty means that people have the power for self government. Lincoln argues that self government goes against slavery, because he like, many believe that blacks are also human. For self government means that each individual person has their own power to make choices, but not for other individuals. Lincoln asserts that self government is dependent on "...whether a negro is not or is a man". If the case is that he is not a man then the South should continue with their policy, but because he is a man the idea of self government in the South is wrong. As a result of the anti- self government practices in the south, compromises where born. 5 black men were equal to 3 white men after the 3/5ths compromise was established. This allowed for the South to have more power in the House of Representatives. However it also shut down the Atlantic slave trade, but by this time the South would have all the slaves it could ever need. This compromise is an admission that blacks are men, in fact that 5 black men are equal to 3 white men. This reveals the false hood of the new claim of the right of self government. The South already admitted that blacks are people and proves the claims of Lincoln that black men should govern themselves too, if the South is still relying on the idea of popular sovereignty. The Kansas - Nebraska act caused many issues because the states would be either slave or non slave states by popular sovereignty. This caused blood shed because of the rush of slave and non slavery settlers who came into the area started fighting each other. All of these compromises were for benefit of the South and they would continue to get these compromises because they threatened to leave the Union. They would later leave this Union anyway because of Abraham Lincoln. The Civil War would start but the outcome would not be in favor for the South. To, conclude Lincoln was correct about slavery being anti- self government, because black people are people, so they have a right to govern themselves and make their own choices. A country cannot state that all men are equal but at the same time go against the very thing that that country is based on. Slavery is morally wrong and it's solution would be one of the bloodiest battles in American history.
In the mid nineteenth century, slavery was becoming uglier as it grew older and bigger in the South of the USA. The "peculiar institution" was rapidly being rejected as the abolitionist cause spread throughout the newspapers, speeches, and normal person to person talk in the north. Abraham Lincoln made it clear that self-government was not only flawed, but it would destroy this country. It turns into a system of hypocrites which almost mocks the constitution. Popular sovereignty and the resulting Kansas-Nebraska Act cannot exist in a country based on the Declaration of Independence which was written by the founding fathers without destroying itself and what it truly was meant to be.
Douglas argued that popular sovereignty was a purer form of the American government, and that the founding fathers would support such action. However, Lincoln's argument completely tears apart the notion. Self Government is good; however when it is not extended to enslaved black men and women, slave owners can use their own right to take away another's rights, which completely go against "We the People". It instead turns into despotism and a system of hypocrites who only care for their own rights at the cost of others. Lincoln's onslaught in this argument against Douglas has already invalidated popular sovereignty.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act relied entirely on popular sovereignty, and it is an example of the corruption that comes with it. It legally repeals the Missouri Compromise, and allows states to choose whether the said territory becoming a state would be a free state or a slave state. This, however, leads to a problem. According to the Declaration of Independence, “All Men Are Created Equal”. Without even looking at slaves as people for a moment, slavery in general with its related “property” doesn’t make the playing field even for all men to be “equal”. A man can buy some black “creatures” and their value in the representative count for each state in congress goes up more than another man. According to the constitution, 5 slaves’ equal 3 men in the census and these slaves cannot vote. So, whoever owns even just 2 slaves, he is already worth double of a man that doesn’t own slaves. Even though that the majority of the people in the south couldn’t afford slaves, the people who did were “worth more” than anyone else in the country on an individual scale since the slave owners could vote, while slaves could not vote to change their unfortunate situation. A slave owner who owned 200 slaves would be worth 121 people on the census.
Popular sovereignty seems at first to be a purer form of the American system, according to Douglas. But when it is put under examination of what it would really do to the country, logic shows it would turn the country into a mess. The Kansas-Nebraska Act caused Bleeding Kansas, a “mini” civil war to determine whether the state would become a slave or a free state. Popular Sovereignty would have led the country into despotism and back into an unstable state when it was first created under the Articles of Confederation. Northern action in the Civil War to prevent the south from succeeding was a bloody but painfully necessary war to keep the country from fading out of existence. A land that may have been taken over, and may have became the Elusive Canada that America had always wanted to “liberate” from Britain.
As the mid-19th century came around, it saw America as deeply sectionalized and thriving only on its last drops of unity. A significant part of this was that fact of southern states not-so-subtly using the threat of secession as a way of getting what they wanted – when it came to slavery – over the more northern region of the country. Within the famous debates held between Stephen Douglas and future president Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln argued that the very concept of slavery was a contradiction to the very beliefs America was founded on, as well as to the notion of self-government. And such examples that justify his argument would be first, slavery opposes those same founding beliefs that were previously mentioned; second, the 3/5 Compromise diminished the value of slaves far below that of an average person; and third, the Compromise of 1850 only made the insulting wounds even deeper with its development of the “popular sovereignty” concept. As a result, his argument was justified through the southern acts against humanity that were not so privileged, to say the least.
It goes without saying that today’s modern society is vastly more evolved and just simply different from the society that first established this country. So, it should not be too hard to believe that the phrases “We the People” and “All Men Are Created Equal” hold just as different meaning and significance between the two eras as the societies do. In present day, the phrases are interpreted with strict literacy and without question. Should a person attempt to exclude any particular racial, ethnic, social, or gender group, they can easily expect regret to come as quickly as their demeaning statement. However, throughout the era between the first draft of the Constitution and even during the aftermath of the Civil War, this was not the case. “We the People” meant white males and white males only. In his argument, Lincoln himself points a finger at the Constitution and accuses it of complete and utter hypocrisy. A nation cannot preach the concept of equality for all when it allows the abomination of slavery to run rampant amongst its lands. To make such an act even remotely tolerable would be is a slave was not a man.
It was under the 3/5ths Compromise that the black race faced even further degrading policies to the point where they only counted as 3/5ths of a whole person, thereby abolishing any rights that a “full person” may possess. Again, had the black man not been a person then this compromise would not be considered so revolting nowadays. But the black man is – as the tittle states – a man and therefore a person. This simple fact destroys the concept of self-government, for if the black man is forcibly governed by another man, then he is not self-governed. However, another questioned is raised at the fact that the slaves were only counted as partial people in order for the South to obtain more and more members in Congress. If slaves are to be represented in government, why should they not be granted the right to vote for the very same government, just as the white man does?
To add insult to the already seething injury of self-government, the Compromise of 1850 came about with its introduction of the popular sovereignty concept to the unsuspecting new territories as well as establishing the pernicious Fugitive Slave Law. This move only enraged the North, who was initially holding the South amongst its list of aggravations, beforehand. Popular sovereignty was only an attempt to relieve some of the mounting pressure against Congress. This form of self-government was impossible with slavery still in existence. In Lincoln’s argument, he highlights the ridiculousness of this notion by thoroughly explaining that if properly used, every single individual was to govern himself. Slavery was therefore yet another contradiction amongst the flawed and inhumane arguments of South.
Edith Chavez
Periods 1&6
In the United States during the mid-1800s, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas would debate on the issue of “popular sovereignty.” Douglas argued that of was part of self-government and it wasn’t that Lincoln disagreed- he did agree- but he disagreed on that popular sovereignty could exist at the same time as slavery. Slavery goes against the core of the beliefs the Founding Fathers established the country on; it caused the 3/5ths Compromise which reduced the blacks to be worth less than a human; and even whites were not equal to each other because of slavery. Lincoln was correct in his logic as shown evident by the previous history of the United States.
When the United States first became an independent country, it put in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” This phrase says nothing about the color of the man just that he was created equal to all others. The problem with this then is that black males are men but were reduced to being the slaves of others making slavery not unconstitutional but worse, against the main point of the country for which the Revolutionary War was fought. Lincoln brings up at the beginning of his speech in 1854 that the question falls to whether or not a black male counts as a man. The racism of that day would probably have decided that a black male does not, in fact, count as a man, in which case he can be a slave and slavery does not go against anything. The 3/5ths Compromise is evidence of this. When getting representation in the House of Representatives, slaves don’t count as one person in the census but only as 3/5ths of a person, completely insulting blacks. This way the southern states could have more power because they had less whites the northern states and in their minds, this compromise made the House of Representatives fair for the whole country. Not all blacks were slaves however, a some were free and a few were even slave owners themselves making it seem like blacks males were indeed men. But there is another problem because of the 3/5ths which the southern states pushed for at the beginning of the United States. The Compromise makes it so that the southern states- that have fewer voting citizens than the North- get more representatives because of the slave population. This now goes against any notion of self-government because of the greater power a vote from the south has over a vote from anywhere else in the country. Even total racists had to agree that slavery made it that not all white men were equal or even born equal because there were only a few families in the south who owned slaves and had power, the rest barely had any land or say in government. This all proves that Lincoln was right when saying that “The doctrine of self-government is right - absolute and eternally right”- but it doesn’t work out the way Stephen Douglas wanted it to.
Krizelle DeGuzman
Period 1 and 4
By the mid-nineteenth century the uncomfortable topic of slavery had to be dealt with. Everyone still had different opinions on who was truly included in the phrases, “We the People” and “All Men are Created Equal”. In 1854 the future president, Abraham Lincoln, gave a speech expressing his correct opinion on why slavery and popular sovereignty were sources of evil in the world and that popular sovereignty cannot exist with slavery still going on in America. First, the 3/5’s Compromise reduced slaves so that they weren’t even a full person; Second, slavery itself goes against the foundation of the nation; Third the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were all pointless. Therefore Lincoln’s arguments are valid through the South’s attempts to keep slavery.
When the 3/5ths Compromise was passed slaves were stripped of any possible rights they might have already had in their possession because now they weren’t even considered to be full humans, just 3/5ths of one. In the South this was a bit of a radical idea, but a black man is still a human man despite the color of his skin. Because a black man is also a full human (just like anyone else) the popular sovereignty idea is crossed out from the picture because a black man is governed by someone else when slavery is still to proceed in America. In addition, the 3/5ths Compromise still made blacks part human, which even sounds messed up, and that would mean that they should also have the option of self-government. The only reason the South passed the 3/5ths Compromise in the first place was to increase their population numbers. They could have at least made them a full person since their numbers would swell up even more or at least give them the right to vote since, even though left as just 3/5ths of a person, are still represented in the government. When the Constitution was first written, the creators of the historical document meant for the phrase “We the People” to actually mean “We the White Males Only”. For some time now the phrase really does not include distinctions between any race and gender but not before. As Lincoln stated, a nation that supposedly believes in equality for everyone cannot have slavery within that nation; it completely contradicts everything they supposedly believe in. The North was already irritable towards the South but when the Compromise of 1850 was passed in the hopes of relieving some of the tension between the North and South, the North was infuriated. The Compromise of 1850 introduced the concept of popular sovereignty as well as the horrifying Fugitive Slave Laws. This was a blow to the foundation of our nation where we all are supposedly supporters of equality that could not be ignored.
How can a nation continue to have slavery while the people that make up this nation believe in equality for all and love their individual rights? How can they have popular sovereignty with slavery still being allowed? In Lincoln's argument, he reveals how it all just does not add up if popular sovereignty was used correctly.
The Second Great Awakening created an anti-slavery sentiment in America and by the 1850’s the people of North viewed slavery as virulent institution and unwilling to compromise further. Abraham Lincoln’s Peoria Speech is immensely powerful because it draws the line for the expansion of slavery and it destroys Douglas’s idea of popular sovereignty. Lincoln’s argument shows how popular sovereignty debases the values that America was founded on, he makes the point that popular sovereignty is an unjust application of self-government; and popular sovereignty is only created to pacify the South. After years of the North granting large concessions to the South Lincoln’s Peoria Speech takes a stand against popular sovereignty because it against the American ideals. Popular Sovereignty is the idea that slavery in territories should be decided by referendum. Many politicians championed this concept as the final solution to the slavery issue because it puts the fate of slavery in the people. The issue of slavery was an extremely divisive issue and after previous compromises failed politicians needed a way to satisfy southern interest and popular sovereignty was their last attempt. This idea was created with irreverence to idea of true self-government that the founding fathers believed in because it was created out of necessity to preserve the a unhealthy union and designed to satisfy the South’s racist views. Lincoln makes the point that if popular sovereignty is true self-government then why are Black people not allowed to decide for them if they want slavery. He further demolishes Douglas’s argument by pointing out that by having a white man deciding the fate of a black man is not self-government but cruel despotism. Lincoln’s argument protects the true and unsoiled view of self-government while the South supports oppression veiled in liberty but ultimately it is similar to the actions Great Britain took during the Revolutionary War.
Just as the British Empire oppressed the American people and forbade representation in Parliament, the U.S oppressed the Blacks in America and forbade them from deciding if their own freedom. After the Revolutionary War northern states, infected with the idea that all men were created equal, emancipated their slaves to show their devotion to ideals of the revolution, while the south was less moved by revolution and decided to keep to their old ways. The nation was divided over ideology the north was becoming more plutocratic while the south was static and resembled the feudalistic system in England. The anti-British passions freed the slaves in the north but the South kept their slaves and over the years as America expanded the North and South made several compromises to preserve the Union. The Missouri Compromise banned slavery above the 36 30 line except for the state of Missouri and when the Compromise of 1850 came along it tipped congressional balance to the North by allowing California into the Union as a free state. It also allowed the American southwest to have slavery be decided by popular sovereignty. The southwest inhospitable for cotton production and the south looked to break it previous agreements and try to move slavery north. After years the north pacifying the south, the southerners feel powerful enough that they can move slavery into the north and threaten secession if the north disagrees. Lincoln’s Peoria Speech is him taking a stand for the principles in America that been eroded by slavery and pacts made with the South. Lincoln, after years of watching the South erode the principles of the north though legislation, had enough of it and denied the south what it wanted. These compromises kept the Union bound but Lincoln saw that a union was worthless if the ideas that originally brought the Union together were eroded. The speech was the North’s first outburst of defiance after years of being submissive and slowly accepting the feudalistic way of the south but after this point on the differences in the North and South were irreconcilable. Lincoln’s Peoria Speech makes the point that the North will not erode its values to protect the southern interest.
Period 1&4
By the mid-nineteenth century, slavery became the constant question as being the tipping point into dividing north and south after a series of compromises within the United States government. The phrases said by the government, “We the People and “All Men are Created Equal” resulted in many opinions and questions. A future president yet to come in 1854, Abraham Lincoln (in his speech) expressed his opinions on why slavery and popular sovereignty are to be eliminated. Lincoln had questioned Stephen A. Douglas’s view on popular sovereignty and slavery in many political debates. First, the Three-Fifths Compromise reduced slaves so that they only counted for 3/5‘s of a person; second, the Missouri Compromise which allowed slaves to move west but didn’t allow for slavery in the Northern territories, which was prohibited by the House of Representatives before the Compromise; and third, the Compromise of 1850. Thus the period before the civil war was filled with tension due to slavery.
When the Three-Fifths Compromise was passed at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the idea of popular sovereignty was challenged. Under this compromise, a slave was considered “three-fifths” of a white person, which only benefited white southerners when election season came. Although the South had excessively less whites than the North, they had nearly the same amount of electoral votes. Thus, a white southerner had as much say in political affairs as two northerners. Ultimately, this compromise contradicted the statement “All Men Are Created Equal” by proving that, in fact, a white southerner was superior to white northerners in political affairs.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery North of 36‘30‘ therefore prohibiting those states rights to popular sovereignty and slavery was allowed to be expanded west but was not allowed to be moved North. At the very beginning it states that self-government is right, absolutely and eternally right. The Tenth Amendment states that Federal Government does not have complete control of the States, and that states con enforce their own laws and the Missouri compromise of 1820, directly contradicts the tenth amendment by stating that slavery is not allowed in Northern states.
The Compromise of 1850 was a further insult to self-government by introducing the concept of popular sovereignty into the new territories and installing the inexorable Fugitive Slave Law. The North, already frustrated with the South, became even more outraged. Popular sovereignty, although sounding good on paper, was only a way to take some pressure off of an exhausted Congress. This form of self-government could never exist with slavery around. Lincoln's argument scorns the self-government present at this time by asserting that if justly used, every man should govern himself. Slavery was therefore a violation of this concept.
Nick Palmares
Per. 4
slavery had become a big issue throughout the United States of America, conflicting with the founding words that all men are created equal. The slavery situation never seemed to get set because people were troubled of what would happen socially; politically; and economically. Many people in the North took a stand against slavery, but nearly everyone remembers Abraham Lincoln, the man who in essence started it all. The act of slavery tore away the independence of a being, made them into a thing instead of being human. Many white people saw the black people as wolves being held by their ears, as Thomas Jefferson had said, and that if they were to let them go then they would attack. After many political arguments, one dispute between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 expressed the malevolence of slavery when Lincoln questioned Douglas’s view of the proposal “popular sovereignty”. Lincoln revealed this idea did not really give choice to the approval of all peoples in the U.S. African Americans had no choice, inquiring many older political measures in history. Lincoln defends his case by saying that the only instance in which the notion of popular sovereignty could apply and work would be if the Black Man was considered to be inhuman. However, Lincoln then throws into inquiry how the phrase “All Men are Created Equal” would be appropriate in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln continues his debate by bringing into question the compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska act and its overture of the concept of popular sovereignty. The idea that men can be in charge of not only their own selves, but have a bigger influence in shaping, not only their own, but everyone’s future. Lincoln made a point that if a man is governing not only himself but another man as well, it is no longer called self-government but called despotism. This started to awaken people to the problem, because the main thing that they were trying to achieve throughout this mess was self-government. Abraham Lincoln kept asking what a black person would be if they are not people. This caught people’s attention, caused them to think twice about this, and made them realize that there is indeed a problem with what they are doing to the slaves. Self-government never said that blacks were not people; the whites just somehow assumed that’s what it meant along with any other document or book that gave any idea to higher and lower “class”. Many people helped to make Lincoln’s statement along the way, such as Sojourner Truth and Abigail Grimke. Two women who had a strong impact on how people thought society should be and how it will be. The irony that the women were the ones to get past this problem is obvious; women are, in some sense, on the same level as slaves. Seeing the women lead through this is quite ironic.
Post a Comment