Good evening, I have this midterm essay I need help with. I have two options to do one essay for 100 or two essays 50 each. I have decide to do option two and I did one but still need to do the second
Winter 2022 Midterm Essay Exam instructions 100 points, 20% of course grade Due: Sunday Feb. 27 I hope this isn’t confusing, but I’m giving different options for the number of essays you can write for your midterm exam. Either you can choose to answer only #1 for 100 points; or you can choose to answer both #2 and #3 for 50 points each = 100 points. The essays should be typed and double spaced. Note: I will run essays through the plagiarism detection program Turnitin.com, which is integrated with Canvas. See my note about plagiarism at the end of this document. Late penalty: Late exams will receive a 10% reduction for each day they are late. I will not accept an essay more than 3 days late unless the student has a documented excuse and permission from me. Essays: 100 points. (If you select this essay, it is the only essay you have to write for your midterm.) The year is 1861, the battle of Fort Sumter has just occurred, and the Civil War has begun. In an essay of 6 to 8 pages1(not including Works Cited), address these four components: 1) Describe the causes of the Civil War from a Republican’s point of view in 1861. 2) Describe the causes of the Civil War from a southern Democrat’s point of view in 1861. [we’ll leave aside northern Democrats for this essay] 3) Were Republicans or southern Democrats more at fault for causing the war, or neither? 4) Do you think the Civil War was inevitable? Do not use a first-person voice like you did in Week 5’s discussion. Instead, write in a more scholarly detached tone like you did in Week 2’s discussion. Consider ideologies/attitudes of northerners and southerners, as well as particular events/flashpoints that caused antagonism. Pay attention to chronology. Draw on materials and ideas from the entire course so far, selecting evidence you find most pertinent. Incorporate at least four of the assigned primary sources as evidence, drawn from the first six weeks of the course. [review the definition of a primary source] A key to success in this “big” essay is organizing your ideas and evidence so that you can effectively convey a lot of information in a clear and concise manner. You can divide your essay into sections and use section sub-headings if you’d like. **At the end of this sheet see guidelines for structure and citations. OR write about both #2 and #3 (you can submit two separate files, or combined into one file) 50 points. (If you select this essay, you also have to answer essay #3.) In an essay of 3 to 4 pages2 (not including Works Cited list) address this prompt: In the antebellum era, contrast the perspectives of white southerners and anti-slavery northerners about the role of slavery in their society and the future of slavery in America. For this essay I want you to concentrate more on ideologies/attitudes (defenses, critiques) about slavery rather than on specific political events. (don’t replicate essay 3 here) You should demonstrate you understand the diversity in northerners’ stances on slavery. Incorporate at least two of the assigned primary sources as evidence, drawn from the first six weeks of the course. (review the definition of a primary source) AND 50 points. (If you select this essay, you also have to answer essay #2.) In an essay of 3 to 4 pages3 (not including Works Cited list), address this prompt: Looking at the years 1820 through 1859, identify and discuss at least four flashpoints that you think increased sectional tensions, and why. Do you think the Civil War was inevitable? For this essay I want you to concentrate more on specific events or developments rather than on ideologies/attitudes. (don’t replicate essay 2 here, although of course you can’t ignore the context of ideologies) Demonstrate you understand different political parties’ stances. Demonstrate you understand chronology (change over time). Incorporate at least two of the assigned primary sources as evidence, drawn from the first six weeks of the course. Guidelines applying to all essays: Each essay should begin with an introduction paragraph containing a thesis that addresses the entire essay prompt. (A thesis can be more than one sentence long.) The rest of the essay should consist of paragraphs that share evidence and reasons to support your thesis. The essay(s) should be well-written and clearly organized. The tone should be fairly formal and analytical. Do not use first-person voice. It is not a personal reaction nor a role-playing paper. You may use section headings. This is not meant to be a research paper. Draw on materials and ideas from the entire course so far, selecting evidence you find most pertinent. I want to see that you’ve digested course readings and lecture materials. You may also draw on the recommended materials I’ve posted each week. Like a traditional midterm exam, this essay(s) should demonstrate your mastery of material you have learned in the course. Thus, your essay should feature specific and accurate historical details gleaned from course materials, as well as a strong command of chronology, cause and effect, and historical context as you put the “facts” together in your analytical narrative. Include in-text source citations when appropriate. Obviously you must provide citations for direct quotes, and you should also provide citations for specific information even if you have not directly quoted it. You may use whichever citation style you are most comfortable with, such as MLA, APA, or Chicago Style footnotes. (I am not going to be fussy about formatting; I simply want to see you’ve made an effort to cite your sources.) Please include a Works Cited section at the end of each essay. If the source was assigned on Canvas, simply indicate its author, title, date – and then simply write (Canvas) in parentheses. Don’t worry about a more formal citation format. LINK HERE FOR EXTRA INFORMATION AND GUIDE FOR CITATIONS Grading Rubric for Essays Criteria Essay 1 Points Possible Essays 2 & 3 Points Possible Introduction/Thesis: The Introduction paragraph appropriately frames the topic of the paper. The thesis conveys a main idea or claim related to the theme. 10 Accuracy & Analysis: Makes compelling and defensible points about the topic. Shows a command of the facts. 40 20 Evidence & Sources: Draws from the required number of primary sources as well as the course text and lectures. Uses specific, accurate, and appropriate evidence to support the main points. 20 10 Organization: Ideas flow logically, with good transitions from point to point. Pays attention to chronology. Paragraphs are well-organized, with solid topic sentences. 10 Quotation and citation practice: Quotations are well-selected to further a main point. Quotations as well as specific information from sources are cited correctly in the text. Also includes a Works Cited page. 10 Writing mechanics and style: Prose is clearly organized. Style is appropriate for a formal upper-level history paper. Writing demonstrates correct word usage, punctuation, sentence structure, grammar, and spelling. 10 Total points 100 50 Note: if the essay plagiarizes from any sources by using a string of the author’s exact words without quotation marks and/or by omitting source citations for quotations or specific facts, you will receive a 0 for the essay, and depending on the severity of the plagiarism, a 0 for the entire course. 1 You may write up to 10 pages. 2 You may write up to 6 pages. 3 You may write up to 6 pages.
Good evening, I have this midterm essay I need help with. I have two options to do one essay for 100 or two essays 50 each. I have decide to do option two and I did one but still need to do the second
The American Civil War was undoubtedly the most significant conflict in the country’s history. Although the War of Independence enabled America to become its own country, the Civil War brought about something much more significant: the abolition of slavery in the southern states. Slavery was at the root of all of the concerns that led to the Civil War, such as states’ rights, which concerned how enslavement would be treated in each state, and preserving the Union after the south seceded from the north owing to their desire for slavery. The success of the North in the fight preserved the United States together and ended slavery, which had split the country from its inception. These victories, however, meant a loss of 625,000 lives, about equal to the total number of American soldiers killed in all previous conflicts combined. Between the end of the Civil War in 1815 and the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the American Civil War was the longest and most destructive conflict in Western history. The regional struggle that contributed to the American Civil War may and should be viewed as a clash of political philosophies of both a Northern, pro-manufacturing, free-labor party – the Republicans – and Southern slaveholders, represented by the Democratic Party’s Southern branch. The Republican perspective of the 1850s was so diametrically opposed to the aspirations of the Southern planter, the so-called Slave Power, that it is no wonder that the “Irrepressible Conflict,” as William Seward dubbed it, erupted when it did. Though officially contrasted to the development of slavery into western new, the Republican Party advocated the ultimate abolition of slavery, whilst Southern slave owners intended to retain and extend the system. The principle of free labor was fundamental to the Republican Party’s worldview. Free labor constituted an ideal community, one which was preferable to all others, and one that reflected, at least in Republicans’ minds, the future course of the United States. In comparison to the South, the North’s free labor, capitalist culture was a dynamic civilization that gave compensation for one’s effort; yet, the working class (slaves) did not benefit from their labor and had no possibility of rising up the social pyramid. According to Republican ideology, this was an insult to the integrity of work and an impediment to economic growth. A system like this did not promote industry, invention, or innovation. This Republican vision of labor, however, predates the party’s founding in 1854. It had been brewing for a while.  Not only was slave-based civilization in the South viewed backward in comparison to that evolving in the North, but it was also considered detrimental to the South and the nation’s economic progress as a whole. As bad as slavery was in the South, Republicans worried that its extension westward into the colonies would be much worse. Slavery’s spread to the territories, already a scourge in its current position, would be destructive to the country and herald the demise of the free labor philosophy.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 aroused anti-slavery movements, uniting them into a single formidable group capable of challenging the planter-dominated Democrats. Till then, anti-slavery activists were dispersed among numerous political parties. A few Northern Democrats were likewise opposed to the institution’s expansion. The party lines were not formed until the founding of the Republican Party, and they were mostly cross-sectional: the Republicans in the North and the split Democratic Party headed by the Southern ruling classes.  Since the second decade of the nineteenth century, pro and anti-slavery factions had reached an agreement on the topic of slavery. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 permitted Slave state and Maine as a free state to join the Union. This settlement held the question of slavery at bay until the 1840s, when the United States and Mexico went to war. Of course, the United States claimed victory, and triumph brought new regions and fresh fights over slavery. Southern Democrats compelled Douglas to renounce the Missouri Compromise in favor of popular sovereignty. The overturning of the Missouri Compromise infuriated anti-slavery activists. They were persuaded that the Slave Power, which had long been a major factor in American government, had once again used its influence inside the Democratic Party to ensure the survival of the unusual institution. Slavery appeared to them to be on the rise, rather than on the fall. In this environment, the Republican Party was founded in 1854. The issues that had developed on a regular basis since the Missouri Compromise ultimately came to a climax in 1860 with Abraham Lincoln’s campaign, and then election. The Democratic Party had been divided by the civil war over slavery, and none of the Democratic candidates obtained as many votes, either ordinary or parliamentary, as the Republican nominee. The South’s radicals, who had earlier favored secession, finally had their way. In December 1861, South Carolina becomes first territory in the Deep South to secede. When one considers the motives why the South finally chose secession over reconciliation or negotiation, it is not surprising that they chose to separate from the United States at this key juncture. Simply put, the aims of the Southern planter class were completely contradictory to the Republican Party’s worldview. Whereas advocates of slavery extolled the virtues of slavery, Republicans extolled the virtues of free labor. Each side cast the blame at the other’s systemic flaws. Republicans would argue that slave work slowed economic progress, while planters would argue that wage slavery was no different from “wage slavery.” The Republican Party maintained that Congress had a legislative authority to prohibit slavery from being practiced in the areas. The Republicans were in favor of a homestead legislation, but the planters were against it. Both parties recognized that in the territories, free labor and enslavement could not coexist. On the surface, it appeared to be an ideological war, but it was actually a clash of societies, or, in today’s terminology, a battle of civilizations. For the past four decades, Americans have prioritized the interests of the public over the interests of the party or sector, and they have found methods to compromise. However, by the 1850s, agreement was becoming less common. Republicans would not make concessions to the “Slave Power,” and the “Slave Power” would not accept a Republican administration. Their opposing views on what American society should be like rendered agreement nearly impossible. That is why the Civil War broke out. Southern politicians throughout the Civil War blamed Lincoln directly for the commencement of conflict. They charged the President of behaving aggressively toward the South and intentionally igniting war in order to weaken the Confederacy For its part, the Confederacy desired a peaceful settlement to its legitimate claims to freedom, turning to consciousness only when confronted with Lincoln’s forceful approach. Thus, Alexander H. Stephens, the Confederate vice president, said that the war was “inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln.” The commencement of the war, according to Stephens, was Lincoln’s decision to dispatch a “hostile fleet, branded the ‘Relief Squadron,'” to fortify Fort Sumter. Jefferson Davis, who published his autobiography after the Civil War, adopted a similar stance to Stephens. After separation, Fort Sumter was undeniably South Carolina’s property, and the Confederate administration had shown incredible “forbearance” in seeking to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the government. The Lincoln administration, on the other hand, thwarted these efforts by mobilizing “a hostile fleet” to Sumter. “The attempt to portray us as aggressors,” Davis observed, “is as unjustified as the wolf’s complaint against the lamb in the well-known story.” He who initiates the assault is not always the one who delivers the very first hit or fires the opening shot.” This critique of Lincoln’s behavior received a significant audience in the twentieth century because to the works of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. The situation at Sumter, according to Ramsdell, presented Lincoln with a number of challenges. He would alienate the adjacent south as well as a large section of northern opinion if he took action to maintain the fort. He would be jeopardizing the Union by sustaining the Confederacy if he surrendered the fort. Lincoln also ran the danger of alienating a large segment of his own Republican Party by presenting himself as a poor and inadequate president. However, if Lincoln could persuade people in the south to attack Sumter, “to take the offensive and thereby position themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and the world,” he might be able to circumvent these obstacles. Lincoln forced the Confederates to choose between allowing the fort to be reinforced or attacking by deploying a relief operation, reportedly to deliver grain to a starving garrison. Lincoln used this “shrewd technique” to trick the South into launching the artillery. Whenever almost any conflict is discussed, one of the important questions is whether war was inevitable or could have been prevented. The American Civil War was no exception. Ideological disputes had a significant role in making the civil war necessary. The bloody struggle, on the other hand, was not the consequence of a philosophical disagreement about whether slavery was good or immoral. The vast majority of Northerners were moderate republicans indifferent with the morality of slavery. In reality, the North’s attitude toward white supremacy differed little from the South’s. The fundamental difference between the North and the South was differences in economic ideology, which forced each side to resort to physical fighting. Northern abolitionists pushed the South into a defensive stance on slavery. As a result, slavery was redefined in Southern thought. Slavery began as a “necessary evil” but gradually evolved into a “ultimate good.” The ‘magnolia myth’ arose as a result of this transition. The two factions created unique ideas that were diametrically opposed to one another. By the 18th century, the industrialized North had economic dominance; the South was facing rising questions about the feasibility of cotton cultivation. Slave imports had decreased, and the southern economy had suffered a severe collapse. Slave work would have died out on its own if the economy had continued to deteriorate; there was no need for slave labor. With the introduction of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin in 1793, all of that changed. Slavery was reestablished when cotton farming became profitable again. The South would protect it militarily if necessary since it is so lucrative. Historian James M. McPherson described the South’s decision to secede from the union as a “counterrevolution” carried out to protect their economic system from a “revolution” signified by Lincoln’s election, which they thought would be destroyed. Southern secession, in my opinion, was an unavoidable reaction to what the South perceived as the final danger to their way of life. However, the North’s underlying assumption that national survival and majority desire trumped the South’s right to free democracy and pride necessitated the very upheaval that the South desired to avoid. Senator Stephen Douglas’ economic plan for a transcontinental railroad in 1854 set the ground for a confrontation that marked the end of negotiated settlement. The Kansas-Nebraska law, which was a direct outcome of the economic strife, invalidated the Missouri accord. The economic basis of the North and South were fundamentally different, making conflict inevitable. The South was adamantly anti-tariff, making it inconsistent with the North, which need tariffs to preserve its fledgling industries. The failure to negotiate a tariff agreement in 1828, as well as the problem of imperialism, were important elements in the growth of sectionalism, which necessitated war. Because of a lack of political compromise, the fundamental problems between the North and the South were finally exposed. Key events from 1846 to 1861, such as Senator Douglas’ Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857, highlighted America’s inability to lead. The conflict may have been cancelled, but not entirely avoided, if compromise had been used more regularly. Since the formation of the bicameral legislature, the North and South have enjoyed an uncomfortable balance of power in the House of Representatives. Tensions have increased since then, up to the commencement of the conflict, about whether the new lands would be slave or free. Nevertheless, as scholars Charles and Marry Beard noted out, the system included intrinsic antagonisms, and so one side would unavoidably have to proclaim its side triumphant in some fashion — conflict was unavoidable. References American Civil War | Causes & Effects | Britannica. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/summary/Causes-and-Effects-of-the-American-Civil-War Halleck, H. W., & Davis, J. (n.d.). Civil War – Causes, Dates & Battles – HISTORY. History.com. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history Kubic, M. (n.d.). Causes of the American Civil War by Mike Kubic. CommonLit. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://www.commonlit.org/texts/causes-of-the-american-civil-war Suson, E. E. (n.d.). Was The Civil War Inevitable? Hankering for History. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from https://hankeringforhistory.com/was-the-civil-war-inevitable/
Good evening, I have this midterm essay I need help with. I have two options to do one essay for 100 or two essays 50 each. I have decide to do option two and I did one but still need to do the second
Frederick Douglass speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” 1852 Background: At the invitation of the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society, Frederick Douglass delivered this speech on July 5, 1852, at Corinthian Hall in Rochester, New York. It was reported and reprinted in Northern newspapers and was published and sold as a forty-page pamphlet within weeks of its delivery. The 500 to 600 people, almost all whites, who heard Douglass speak were generally sympathetic to his remarks. A newspaper noted that when he sat down, “there was a universal burst of applause.” Nonetheless, many who read his speech would not have been so enthusiastic. Even Northerners who were anti-slavery were not necessarily pro-abolition. Many were content to let Southerners continue to hold slaves, a right they believed was upheld by the Constitution. They simply did not want slavery to spread to areas where it did not exist. In this Independence Day oration, Douglass sought to persuade those people to embrace what was then considered the extreme position of abolition. He also sought to change minds about the abilities and intelligence of African Americans. In 1852 many, if not most, white Americans believed that African Americans were inferior, indeed, less than fully human. Douglass tries to dispel these notions through an impressive display of liberal learning. Excerpts from the speech: The purpose of this celebration is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom…The simple story of it is that, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects… Your fathers went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; but there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men’s souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers. . . . Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men, too — great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory…. They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny.. . . Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?. . .Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful.. . .But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. . . .I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July!… Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery – the great sin and shame of America! …. For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and cyphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men! Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him. What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength than such arguments would imply. At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced. What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival. [The Slave Trade] Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated…. It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable. Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and American religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swinedrover [herder]? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate [walk about] the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers [flesh-sellers], armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove [herd] moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow the drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms [bodies] of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States. [Fugitive Slave Act] But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason & Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States…. The right of the hunter to his prey stands superior to the right of marriage, and to all rights in this republic, the rights of God included! For black men there are neither law, justice, humanity, not religion. The Fugitive Slave Law makes MERCY TO THEM, A CRIME; and bribes the judge who tries them. An American JUDGE GETS TEN DOLLARS FOR EVERY VICTIM HE CONSIGNS to slavery, and five, when he fails to do so. The oath of any two villains is sufficient, under this hell-black enactment, to send the most pious and exemplary black man into the remorseless jaws of slavery! His own testimony is nothing. He can bring no witnesses for himself. The minister of American justice is bound by the law to hear but one side; and that side, is the side of the oppressor. Let this damning fact be perpetually told. Let it be thundered around the world, that, in tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian America, the seats of justice are filled with judges, who hold their offices under an open and palpable bribe, and are bound, in deciding in the case of a man’s liberty, hear only his accusers! In glaring violation of justice, in shameless disregard of the forms of administering law, in cunning arrangement to entrap the defenseless, and in diabolical intent, this Fugitive Slave Law stands alone in the annals of tyrannical legislation…. Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference…No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light.
Good evening, I have this midterm essay I need help with. I have two options to do one essay for 100 or two essays 50 each. I have decide to do option two and I did one but still need to do the second
Hinton Helper Demands Abolition for the Good of White Southerners Excerpt From his book The Impending Crisis of the South, 1857 Hinton Rowan Helper was a white man, native of North Carolina, who published the book The Impending Crisis of the South in 1857 when he was 28 years old. A vehement attack on slavery and slaveholders, his book called for the immediate abolition of slavery for the good of white nonslaveholders, who made up the great majoirty of the population. His book circulated widely and created a nationwide uproar, although the slave states tried unsuccessfully to suppress it. [A]s a true hearted southerner, whose ancestors have resided in North Carolina between one and two hundred years, …, we feel constrained to confess that … [t]he incontrovertible facts are… that there is something wrong, socially, politically and morally wrong, in the policy under which the South has so long loitered and languished. Else, how is it that the North, under the operations of a policy directly the opposite of ours, has surpassed us in almost everything great and good, and left us standing before the world, an object of merited reprehension and derision? It is a fact well known to every intelligent Southerner that we are compelled to go to the North for almost every article of utility and adornment, from matches, shoepegs and paintings up to cotton-mills, steamships and statuary; that we have no foreign trade, no princely merchants, nor respectable artists; that, in comparison with the free states, we contribute nothing to the literature, polite arts and inventions of the age; that, for want of profitable employment at home, large numbers of our native population find themselves necessitated to emigrate to the West, whilst the free states retain not only the larger proportion of those born within their own limits, but induce, annually, hundreds of thousands of foreigners to settle and remain amongst them; that almost everything produced at the North meets with ready sale, while, at the same time, there is no demand, even among our own citizens, for the productions of Southern industry . . . and that nearly all the profits arising from the exchange of commodities, from insurance and shipping offices, and from the thousand and one industrial pursuits of the country, accrue to the North, and are there invested in the erection of those magnificent cities and stupendous works of art which dazzle the eyes of the South, and attest the superiority of free institutions! The North is the Mecca of our merchants . . . We want Bibles, brooms, buckets and books, and we go to the North; we want pens, ink, paper, wafers and envelopes, and we go to the North; we want shoes, hats, handkerchiefs, umbrellas and pocket knives, and we go to the North; we want furniture, crockery, glassware and pianos, and we go to the North; we want toys, primers, school books, fashionable apparel, machinery, medicines, tombstones, and a thousand other things, and we go to the North for them all. Instead of keeping our money in circulation at home, by patronizing our own mechanics, manufacturers, and laborers, we send it all away to the North, and there it remains; it never falls into our hands again. The next duty that devolves upon us is to trace out the causes which have conspired to bring about this important change . . . the causes which have impeded the progress and prosperity of the South, which have dwindled our commerce, and other similar pursuits, into the most contemptible insignificance; sunk a large majority of our people in galling poverty and ignorance, rendered a small minority conceited and tyrannical, and driven the rest away from their homes; entailed upon us a humiliating dependence on the Free States; disgraced us in the recesses of our own souls, and brought us under reproach in the eyes of all civilized and enlightened nations–may all be traced to one common source, and there find solution in the most hateful and horrible word, that was ever incorporated into the vocabulary of human economy–Slavery! Reared amidst the institution of slavery, believing it to be wrong both in principle and in practice, and having seen and felt its evil influences upon individuals, communities and states, we deem it a duty, no less than a privilege, to enter our protest against it, and to use our most strenuous efforts to overturn and abolish it! Then are we an abolitionist? Yes! not merely a freesoiler, but an abolitionist, in the fullest sense of the term. We are not only in favor of keeping slavery out of the territories, but, carrying our opposition to the institution a step further, we here declare ourself in favor of its immediate and unconditional abolition, in every state …. Nothing short of the complete abolition of slavery can save the South from falling into the vortex of utter ruin. Too long have we yielded a submissive obedience to the tyrannical domination of an inflated oligarchy; too long have we tolerated their arrogance and self-conceit; too long have we submitted to their unjust and savage exactions. Let us now wrest from them the sceptre of power, establish liberty and equal rights throughout the land, and henceforth and forever guard our legislative halls from the pollutions and usurpations of proslavery demagogues…. It is not so much in its moral and religious aspects that we propose to discuss the question of slavery, as in its social and political character and influences. To say nothing of the sin and the shame of slavery, we believe it is a most expensive and unprofitable institution… The liberation of five millions of “poor white trash” from the second degree of slavery, and of three millions of miserable kidnapped negroes from the first degree, cannot be accomplished too soon. That it was not accomplished many years ago is our misfortune. It now behooves us to take a bold and determined stand in defence of the inalienable rights of ourselves and of our fellow men, and to avenge the multiplicity of wrongs, social and political, which we have suffered at the hands of a villainous oligarchy. It is madness to delay. [F]ree labor is far more respectable, profitable, and productive, than slave labor. In the South, unfortunately, no kind of labor is either free or respectable. Every white man who is under the necessity of earning his bread, by the sweat of his brow, or by manual labor, in any capacity, no matter how unassuming in deportment, or exemplary in morals, is treated as if he was a loathsome beast, and shunned with the utmost disdain. His soul may be the very seat of honor and integrity, yet without slaves–himself a slave–he is accounted as nobody, Notwithstanding the fact that the white non-slaveholders of the South are in the majority . . . [t]here is no legislation except for the benefit of slavery, and slaveholders. As a general rule, poor white persons are regarded with less esteem and attention than negroes, and though the condition of the latter is wretched beyond description, vast numbers of the former are infinitely worse off. A cunningly devised mockery of freedom is guarantied to them, and that is all. To all intents and purposes they are disfranchised, and outlawed, and the only privilege extended to them, is a shallow and circumscribed participation in the political movements that usher slaveholders into office…. It is amusing to ignorance, amazing to credulity, and insulting to intelligence, to hear them in their blattering efforts to mystify and pervert the sacred principles of liberty, and turn the curse of slavery into a blessing. To the illiterate poor whites–made poor and ignorant by the system of slavery–they hold out the idea that slavery is the very bulwark of our liberties, and the foundation of American independence! For hours at a time, day after day, will they expatiate upon the inexpressible beauties and excellencies of this great, free and independent nation; and finally, with the most extravagant gesticulations and rhetorical flourishes, conclude their nonsensical ravings by attributing all the glory and prosperity of the country, from Maine to Texas, and from Georgia to California, to the “invaluable institutions of the South!” With what patience we could command, we have frequently listened to the incoherent and truth-murdering declamations of these champions of slavery,… The lords of the lash are not only absolute masters of the blacks, who are bought and sold, and driven about like so many cattle, but they are also the oracles and arbiters of all non-slaveholding whites, whose freedom is merely nominal, and whose unparalleled illiteracy and degradation is purposely and fiendishly perpetuated. How little the “poor white trash,” the great majority of the Southern people, know of the real condition of the country is, indeed, sadly astonishing. Non-slaveholders of the South! Farmers, mechanics and workingmen, we take this occasion to assure you that the slaveholders, the arrogant demagogues whom you have elected to offices of honor and profit, have hoodwinked you, trifled with you, and used you as mere tools for the consummation of their wicked designs. They have purposely kept you in ignorance, and have, by moulding your passions and prejudices to suit themselves, induced you to act in direct opposition to your dearest rights and interests. By a system of the grossest subterfuge and misrepresentation, and in order to avert, for a season, the vengeance that will most assuredly overtake them ere long, they have taught you to hate the abolitionists, who are your best and only true friends. Now, as one of your own number, we appeal to you to join us in our patriotic endeavors to rescue the generous soil of the South from the usurped and desolating control of these political vampires. Once and forever, at least so far as this country is concerned, the infernal question of slavery must be disposed of; a speedy and perfect abolishment of the whole institution is the true policy of the South–and this is the policy which we propose to pursue. Will you aid us, will you assist us, will you be freemen, or will you be slaves?
Good evening, I have this midterm essay I need help with. I have two options to do one essay for 100 or two essays 50 each. I have decide to do option two and I did one but still need to do the second
James Henry Hammond, Letter to An English Abolitionist, 1845 Hammond was a prominent South Carolina planter and politician. Hammond had served a term in Congress and was governor of his state when he wrote this letter, which was addressed as a rebuttal to an abolitionist in England and was also published in a South Carolina newspaper in 1845. You will say that man cannot hold property in man. The answer is, that he can and actually does hold property in his fellow all the world over, in a variety of forms, and has always done so. … Let us open these Holy Scriptures. … You cannot deny that God especially authorized his chosen people to purchase “bondmen forever” from the heathen, as recorded in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus, and that they are there designated by the very Hebrew word used in the tenth commandment. Nor can you deny that a “BONDMAN FOREVER” is a “SLAVE”; yet you endeavor to hang an argument of immortal consequence upon the wretched subterfuge, that the precise word “slave” is not to be found in the translation of the Bible. As if the translators were canonical expounders of the Holy Scriptures, and their words, not God’s meaning, must be regarded as his revelation. … It is impossible, therefore, to suppose that Slavery is contrary to the will of God. It is equally absurd to say that American Slavery differs in form or principle from that of the chosen people. We accept the Bible terms as the definition of our Slavery, and its precepts as the guide of our conduct. … I think, then, I may safely conclude, and I firmly believe, that American Slavery is not only not a sin, but especially commanded by God through Moses, and approved by Christ through his apostles. And here I might close its defence; for what God ordains, and Christ sanctifies, should surely command the respect and toleration of man. … I endorse without reserve the much abused sentiment . . . that “Slavery is the corner-stone of our republican edifice”; while I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that “all men are born equal.” No society has ever yet existed . . . without a natural variety of classes. The most marked of these must, in a country like ours, be the rich and the poor, the educated and the ignorant. It will scarcely be disputed that the very poor have less leisure to prepare themselves for the proper discharge of public duties than the rich; and that the ignorant are wholly unfit for them at all. In all countries save ours, these two classes, or the poor rather, who are presumed to be necessarily ignorant, are by law expressly excluded from all participation in the management of public affairs. In a republican government this cannot be done. Universal suffrage, though not essential in theory, seems to be in fact a necessary appendage to a republican system. Where universal suffrage obtains, it is obvious that the government is in the hands of a numerical majority; and it is hardly necessary to say that in every part of the world more than half the people are ignorant and poor. Though no one can look upon poverty as a crime, and we do not here generally regard it as any objection to a man in his individual capacity, still it must be admitted that it is a wretched and insecure government which is administered by its most ignorant citizens, and those who have the least at stake under it. Though intelligence and wealth have great influence here, as everywhere, in keeping in check reckless and unenlightened numbers, yet it is evident to close observers, if not to all, that these are rapidly usurping all power in the non-slaveholding States, and threaten a fearful crisis in republican institutions there at no remote period. In the slaveholding States, however, nearly one-half of the whole population, and those the poorest and most ignorant, have no political influence whatever, because they are slaves. Of the other half, a large proportion are both educated and independent in their circumstances, while those who unfortunately are not so, being still elevated far above the mass, are higher toned and more deeply interested in preserving a stable and well ordered government, than the same class in any other country. Hence, Slavery is truly the “corner-stone” and foundation of every well designed and durable “republican edifice.” . . . But the question is, whether free or slave labor is cheapest to us in this country, at this time, situated as we are. And it is decided at once by the fact that we cannot avail ourselves of any other than slave labor. We neither have, nor can we procure, other labor to any extent, or on anything like the terms mentioned. We must, therefore, content ourselves with our dear labor, under the consoling reflection that what is lost to us, is gained to humanity; and that, inasmuch as our slave costs us more than your free man costs you, by so much is he better off. … Slavery is rapidly filling up our country with a hardy and healthy race, peculiarly adapted to our climate and productions, and conferring signal political and social advantages on us as a people. … Failing in all your attempts to prove that [slavery] is sinful in its nature, immoral in its effects, a political evil, and profitless to those who maintain it, you appeal to the sympathies of mankind, and attempt to arouse the world against us by the most shocking charges of tyranny and cruelty. You begin by a vehement denunciation of “the irresponsible power of one man over his fellow men.” . . . I deny that the power of the slaveholder in America is “irresponsible.” He is responsible to God. He is responsible to the world. … He is responsible to the community in which he lives, and to the laws under which he enjoys his civil rights. Those laws do not permit him to kill, to maim, or to punish beyond certain limits, or to overtask, or to refuse to feed and clothe his slave. In short, they forbid him to be tyrannical or cruel. … Still, though a slaveholder, I freely acknowledge my obligations as a man; and that I am bound to treat humanely the fellow-creatures whom God has entrusted to my charge. I feel, therefore, somewhat sensitive under the accusation of cruelty, and disposed to defend myself and fellow-slaveholders against it. It is certainly the interest of all, and I am convinced that it is also the desire of every one of us, to treat our slaves with proper kindness. It is necessary to our deriving the greatest amount of profit from them. Of this we are all satisfied. … Slaveholders are no more perfect than other men. They have passions. Some of them, as you may suppose, do not at all times restrain them. Neither do husbands, parents and friends. And in each of these relations, as serious suffering as frequently arises from uncontrolled passions, as ever does in that of master and slave. … I have no hesitation in saying that our slaveholders are kind masters, as men usually are kind husbands, parents and friends — as a general rule, kinder. A bad master — he who overworks his slaves, provides ill for them, or treats them with undue severity — loses the esteem and respect of his fellow-citizens to as great an extent as he would for the violation of any of his social and most of his moral obligations. … Of late years we have been not only annoyed, but greatly embarrassed in this matter, by the abolitionists. We have been compelled to curtail some privileges; we have been debarred from granting new ones. In the face of discussions which aim at loosening all ties between master and slave, we have in some measure to abandon our efforts to attach them to us, and control them through their affections and pride. We have to rely more and more on the power of fear. We must, in all our intercourse with them, assert and maintain strict mastery, and impress it on them that they are slaves. This is painful to us, and certainly no present advantage to them. But it is the direct consequence of the abolition agitation. We are determined to continue masters, and to do so we have to draw the rein tighter and tighter day by day to be assured that we hold them in complete check. How far this process will go on, depends wholly and solely on the abolitionists. When they desist, we can relax…. Now I affirm, that in Great Britain the poor and laboring classes of your own race and color, not only your fellow-beings, but your fellow-citizens, are more miserable and degraded, morally and physically, than our slaves; to be elevated to the actual condition of whom, would be to these, your fellow-citizens, a most glorious act of emancipation. And I also affirm, that the poor and laboring classes of our older free States would not be in a much more enviable condition, but for our Slavery…. The American slaveholders, collectively or individually, ask no favors of any man or race who tread the earth. In none of the attributes of men, mental or physical, do they acknowledge or fear superiority elsewhere. They stand in the broadest light of the knowledge, civilization and improvement of the age, as much favored of heaven as any of the sons of Adam. … They cannot be flattered, duped, nor bullied out of their rights or their propriety.
Good evening, I have this midterm essay I need help with. I have two options to do one essay for 100 or two essays 50 each. I have decide to do option two and I did one but still need to do the second
Abraham Lincoln, Speech Opposing the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise October 16, 1854 Excerpted from full version of the speech. Lincoln’s address at Peoria, Illinois on the subject of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise represents his return to politics after a short-lived retirement. Following his single two-year term in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1847–1849, Lincoln returned to his law practice and settled down, leaving public service behind. But the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, which allowed the people of the territories to decide for themselves whether they wanted slavery or not, roused Lincoln like nothing had before. The author of the law, Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, insisted on the principle of popular sovereignty which held that the (white) people of the territory had a right to choose slavery or freedom by the vote, with or without the permission of Congress. This meant the end for the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had affirmed Congress’s right to prohibit the extension of slavery into the territories. It also meant, according to Lincoln, the end of the moral question surrounding slavery, since claims of right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust, were now to be left to simple majority rule and settled by the advantage of the stronger. Lincoln’s speech brought together with vigor and clarity the historical, political, and practical arguments against the expansion of slavery into the territories made since the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In responding to Douglas’s argument about popular sovereignty, however, Lincoln went beyond historical and constitutional issues to examine the fundamental issue of American democracy. The American people are the sovereign, the ruling element, but are the people all-powerful? Lincoln argued that there is only one thing more powerful than the people, only one thing to which they must bow, the principle of eternal right. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the propriety of its restoration, constitute the subject of what I am about to say. . . .I think, and shall try to show, that [the repeal] is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska—and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world, where men can be found inclined to take it. This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest. Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some Northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave masters…. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia [in Africa],—to their own native land. But … If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? … Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; … We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South. When they [southerners] remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully, and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law…. Equal justice to the South, it is said, requires us to consent to the extending of slavery to new countries. That is to say, inasmuch as you do not object to my taking my hog to Nebraska, therefore I must not object to you taking your slave. Now, I admit this is perfectly logical, if there is no difference between hogs and Negroes. But while you thus require me to deny the humanity of the Negro, I wish to ask whether you of the South yourselves, have ever been willing to do as much? It is kindly provided that of all those who come into the world, only a small percentage are natural tyrants. That percentage is no larger in the slave states than in the free. The great majority, South as well as North, have human sympathies, of which they can no more divest themselves than they can of their sensibility to physical pain. These sympathies in the bosoms of the Southern people, manifest in many ways, their sense of the wrong of slavery, and their consciousness that, after all, there is humanity in the Negro. If they deny this, let me address them a few plain questions. In 1820 you joined the North, almost unanimously, in declaring the African slave trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment of death. Why did you do this? If you did not feel that it was wrong, why did you join in providing that men should be hung for it? The practice was no more than bringing wild Negroes from Africa, to sell to such as would buy them. But you never thought of hanging men for catching and selling wild horses, wild buffaloes or wild bears. Again, you have amongst you, a sneaking individual, of the class of native tyrants, known as the “slave dealer.” He watches your necessities, and crawls up to buy your slave, at a speculating price. If you cannot help it, you sell to him; but if you can help it, you drive him from your door. You despise him utterly. You do not recognize him as a friend, or even as an honest man. …Now why is this? You do not so treat the man who deals in corn, cattle or tobacco. And yet again; there are in the United States and territories, including the District of Columbia, 433,643 free blacks. At $500 per head they are worth over two hundred millions of dollars. How comes this vast amount of property to be running about without owners? We do not see free horses or free cattle running at large. How is this? All these free blacks are the descendants of slaves, or have been slaves themselves, and they would be slaves now, but for something which has operated on their white owners, inducing them, at vast pecuniary sacrifices, to liberate them. What is that something? Is there any mistaking it? In all these cases it is your sense of justice, and human sympathy, continually telling you, that the poor Negro has some natural right to himself—that those who deny it, and make mere merchandise of him, deserve kickings, contempt and death. And now, why will you ask us to deny the humanity of the slave and estimate him only as the equal of the hog? But one great argument [put forward by my opponent Stephen Douglas] in the support of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, is still to come. That argument is “the sacred right of self-government.” …The doctrine of self-government is right—absolutely and eternally right—but it has no just application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just 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 teaches 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. Well I doubt not that the people of Nebraska are, and will continue to be as good as the average of people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other’s consent. I say this is the leading principle—the sheet anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that according to our ancient faith, the just powers of governments are derived from the consent of the governed. Now the relation of masters and slaves is… a total violation of this principle.… Allow ALL the governed an equal voice in the government, and that, and that only, is self-government. Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary. I am not now combating the argument of necessity, arising from the fact that the blacks are already amongst us; but I am combating what is set up as moral argument for allowing them to be taken where they have never yet been—arguing against the extension of a bad thing, which where it already exists we must of necessity, manage as we best can…. Another important objection to this application of the right of self-government, is that it enables the first few, to deprive the succeeding many, of a free exercise of the right of self-government. The first few may get slavery in, and the subsequent many cannot easily get it out. How common is the remark now in the slave states—“If we were only clear of our slaves, how much better it would be for us.” They are actually deprived of the privilege of governing themselves as they would, by the action of a very few, in the beginning….. Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave states are places for poor white people to remove from; not to remove to. New free states are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories. Still further; there are constitutional relations between the slave and free states, which are degrading to the latter. We are under legal obligations to catch and return their runaway slaves to them—a sort of dirty, disagreeable job, which I believe, as a general rule the slaveholders will not perform for one another. Then again, in the control of the government—the management of the partnership affairs—they have greatly the advantage of us. By the Constitution, each state has two senators—each has a number of representatives, in proportion to the number of its people—and each has a number of presidential electors, equal to the whole number of its senators and representatives together. But in ascertaining the number of the people, for this purpose, five slaves are counted as being equal to three whites. The slaves do not vote; they are only counted and so used, as to swell the influence of the white people’s votes. The practical effect of this is more aptly shown by a comparison of the states of South Carolina and Maine. South Carolina has six representatives, and so has Maine; South Carolina has eight presidential electors, and so has Maine. This is precise equality so far; and, of course they are equal in senators, each having two. Thus in the control of the government, the two states are equals precisely. But how are they in the number of their white people? Maine has 581,813—while South Carolina has 274,567. Maine has twice as many as South Carolina, and 32,679 over. Thus each white man in South Carolina is more than the double of any man in Maine. This is all because South Carolina, besides her free people, has 384,984 slaves. The South Carolinian has precisely the same advantage over the white man in every other free state, as well as in Maine. He is more than the double of any one of us in this crowd. The same advantage, but not to the same extent, is held by all the citizens of the slave states, over those of the free; and it is an absolute truth, without an exception, that there is no voter in any slave state, but who has more legal power in the government, than any voter in any free state. There is no instance of exact equality; and the disadvantage is against us the whole chapter through. This principle, in the aggregate, gives the slave states, in the present Congress, twenty additional representatives—being seven more than the whole majority by which they passed the Nebraska bill…. But Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving measure. Well I too, go for saving the Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil, to avoid a greater one. But when I go to Union saving, I must believe, at least, that the means I employ has some adaptation to the end. To my mind, Nebraska has no such adaptation. It is an aggravation, rather, of the only one thing which ever endangers the Union. When it came upon us, all was peace and quiet. Every inch of territory we owned, already had a definite settlement of the slavery question, and by which, all parties were pledged to abide. [But] the Missouri compromise was repealed; and here we are, in the midst of a new slavery agitation, such, I think, as we have never seen before…. The Missouri Compromise ought to be restored. For the sake of the Union, it ought to be restored. We ought to elect a House of Representatives which will vote its restoration. If by any means, we omit to do this, what follows! Slavery may or may not be established in Nebraska. But whether it be or not, we shall have repudiated—discarded from the councils of the Nation —the spirit of compromise; for who after this will ever trust in a national compromise? And what shall we have in lieu of it? The South flushed with triumph and tempted to excesses; the North, betrayed, as they believe, brooding on wrong and burning for revenge. Already a few in the North, defy all constitutional restraints, resist the execution of the fugitive slave law, and even menace the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. Already a few in the South, claim the constitutional right to take to and hold slaves in the free states—demand the revival of the slave trade; and demand a treaty with Great Britain by which fugitive slaves may be reclaimed from Canada. As yet they are but few on either side. It is a grave question for the lovers of the Union, whether the final destruction of the Missouri Compromise, and with it the spirit of all compromise will or will not embolden and embitter each of these, and fatally increase the numbers of both.
Good evening, I have this midterm essay I need help with. I have two options to do one essay for 100 or two essays 50 each. I have decide to do option two and I did one but still need to do the second
William Seward, “Irrepressible Conflict” speech, 1858 — EXCERPTS Background information: Before becoming Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, and one of his most trusted advisors, William Henry Seward (1801–1872) served as governor of New York, U.S. senator, and was the favorite to win the Republican nomination for president in 1860. During the 1858 midterm elections, Seward spoke to a crowd in Rochester, New York, delivering what was arguably the most impressive, yet politically disastrous, speech of his career. Seward claimed that an “irrepressible conflict” was brewing over slavery and that the United States, as a result, must sooner or later become all slave or all free. The Democratic Party was the party of the slave power, Seward argued, its survival dependent on the support of the slave interest. The Republican Party had to replace it. But Seward’s fiery rhetoric and uncompromising attitude earned him the reputation throughout the South, and even in parts of the North, as a war-monger. The speech weakened his appeal among Republicans and severely damaged his chances of securing the 1860 nomination. …The Democratic party, or, to speak more accurately, the party which wears that attractive name-is in possession of the federal government. The Republicans propose to dislodge that party, and dismiss it from its high trust. The main subject, then, is whether the Democratic party deserves to retain the confidence of the American people. In attempting to prove it unworthy, I think that I am not actuated by prejudices against that party, or by prepossessions in favor of its adversary; for I have learned, by some experience, that virtue and patriotism, vice and selfishness, are found in all parties, and that they differ less in their motives than in the policies they pursue. Our country is a theatre, which exhibits, in full operation, two radically different political systems; the one resting on the basis of servile or slave labor, the other on voluntary labor of freemen. The laborers who are enslaved are all negroes, or persons more or less purely of African derivation. But this is only accidental. The principle of the system is, that labor in every society, by whomsoever performed, is necessarily unintellectual, grovelling [sic] and base; and that the laborer, equally for his own good and for the welfare of the State, ought to be enslaved. The white laboring man, whether native or foreigner, is not enslaved, only because he cannot, as yet, be reduced to bondage. The slave system is one of constant danger, distrust, suspicion, and watchfulness. It debases those whose toil alone can produce wealth and resources for defence [sic], to the lowest degree of which human nature is capable, to guard against mutiny and insurrection, and thus wastes energies which otherwise might be employed in national development and aggrandizement. The free-labor system educates all alike, and by opening all the fields of industrial employment and all the departments of authority, to the unchecked and equal rivalry of all classes of men, at once secures universal contentment, and brings into the highest possible activity all the physical, moral, and social energies of the whole state. In states where the slave system prevails, the masters, directly or indirectly, secure all political power, and constitute a ruling aristocracy. In states where the free-labor system prevails, universal suffrage necessarily obtains, and the state inevitably becomes, sooner or later, a republic or democracy. Hitherto, the two systems have existed in different States, but side by side within the American Union. This has happened because the Union is a confederation of States. But in another aspect the United States constitute only one nation. Increase of population, which is filling the States out to their very borders, together with a new and extended network of railroads and other avenues, and an internal commerce which daily becomes more intimate, is rapidly bringing the States into a higher and more perfect social unity or consolidation. Thus, these antagonistic systems are continually coming into closer contact, and collision results. Shall I tell you what this collision means? They who think that it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators, and therefor [sic] ephemeral, mistake the case altogether. It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina and the sugar plantations of Louisiana will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts of legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye-fields and wheat-fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and New York becomes once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men. It is the failure to apprehend this great truth that induces so many unsuccessful attempts at final compromises between the slave and free States, and it is the existence of this great fact that renders all such pretended compromises, when made, vain and ephemeral. Startling as this saying may appear to you, fellow-citizens, it is by no means an original or even a modern one. Our forefathers knew it to be true, and unanimously acted upon it when they framed the constitution of the United States. They regarded the existence of the servile system in so many of the States with sorrow and shame, which they openly confessed, and they looked upon the collision between them, which was then just revealing itself, and which we are now accustomed to deplore, with favor and hope. They knew that one or the other system must exclusively prevail….
Good evening, I have this midterm essay I need help with. I have two options to do one essay for 100 or two essays 50 each. I have decide to do option two and I did one but still need to do the second
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/on-the-constitution-and-the-union/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/sociology-for-the-south-or-the-failure-of-free-society-2/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/speech-to-congress/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/speech-on-the-oregon-bill/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/nebraska-territory/ https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/dred-scott-v-sandford-2/ https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress/ http://www.civilwarcauses.org/davis.htm