A Breakdown of Lincolns House Divided Speech

The six events that are talked about in this book are the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, a dinner held for Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison; Benjamin Franklin and his attempt to end slavery being thwarted by James Madison, George Washington’s Farewell Address, John Adams succeeding Washington, and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson’s correspondences to each other. Each chapter argues that America has been going through a cycle of attempting to handle the same issues since the beginning of its time. However, many of them never got solutions, only temporary problem-solvers. The topic of slavery was ignored altogether for fear that its abolishment would break apart the Union. The duel between Hamilton and Burr was especially important because it was the

The constitution details, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state…and each senator shall have one vote.” This equal representation along with careful maintenance of regional balance in the Senate allowed for Southern states to retain their national veto over slavery. Lastly, the constitution’s allowance for the establishment of the Supreme Court that could, with a single decision, overturn years worth of legislation provided a monumental setback. In the court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that the federal government did not retain the power to prevent slavery in the territories. Although slavery was eventually abolished by the fourteenth amendment, the long struggle and numerous constitutional roadblocks demonstrate how a number of provisions within the constitution hindered the ability of the national government to efficiently overcome a national concern.

This book tells the story of the Philadelphia convention, in the summer of 1787. Throughout, Stewart uses descriptive language to portray the delegates, both remembered —such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton— and forgotten —such as James Wilson and George Mason— in the turmoil of creating the United States constitution. It illustrates both the great conflicts and high-stake compromises that those delegates faced, all ultimately dominated by one inelegantly polarizing issue: slavery. With calculated endorsement by influential delegates such as Franklin and Washington, who

‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

Potter argues there are four basic position held by politicians of free and slave states in their views on solving the territorial issue. The first was David Wilmot’s, “that Congress possessed power to regulate slavery in the territories and should use it for the total exclusion of the institution.” The second proposal was to extend the 36 degree Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, allowing slavery south of this line. The Third, known as the popular sovereignty proposal, is where the territorial government, not Congress, possesses the control over the decisions on slavery in the territory. The fourth, contends “that

Just as Northerners saw flaws in the Constitution, Southerners viewed it not to be perfect as well. President James Buchanan, a northern man with southern sympathies clarified, “As sovereign states, they and they alone, are responsible before God and the world for the slavery existing among them” (Document G). However, In Doc B, an anonymous writer defends the state’s rights that the constitution should protect slavery where it exists. The union will fall apart unless these rights are protected.

As a result of the Compromise of 1850, California was admitted as a free state, the territory disputed between Texas and New Mexico was surrendered to New Mexico, the slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia, the Mexican Cession was open to popular sovereignty, and a stronger Fugitive Slave Law was enacted. In a speech to the Senate on March 7, 1850, Senator Daniel Webster stated his opinion that the North is wrong for not obeying the Fugitive Slave Law and that succession is amiss [Document D].The tone of Webster’s speech is objective as he attempts to see both sides- the North and the South. Webster is unbiased because as a Northern man, he agrees with the South. The peace was only temporary. The Fugitive Slave Law upset Northerners and the Underground Railroad became more active, peaking between 1850 and 1860. Massachusetts went so far as to making it a penal offense for a state official to enforce the act. The act also brought the issue of slavery into the limelight before the entire nation. In fact, by 1858, there was no avoiding the subject of slavery. During the Lincoln-Douglass Debates in a speech at Alton, Illinois on October 15, 1858, Abraham Lincoln stated that slavery was no longer just a political issue [Document G]. Slavery was splitting the nation and during the Second Great Awakening, even churches split over the issue. Lincoln’s speech is

By the early 1830s, those who wished to see slavery abolished in the United States were becoming more vocal and influential. They claimed obedience to higher law over obedience to the Constitution’s guarantee that an outlaw from one state would be

The prospect of slavery’s extension into the American West most certainly shaped sectional politics by inflaming grievances and tensions, and sparking heated and occasionally violent protests, yet compromise sometimes was reached – occasionally among strange political bedfellows – in the interest of holding off the specter of civil war. This paper will focus on the issues surrounding the possible extension of slavery into the following areas: the Missouri Territory and the Louisiana Purchase in general, Texas (annexation), the Oregon Territory, California (annexation), Nebraska (unorganized), and the Kansas Territory.

Throughout the history of mankind, slavery has existed in one form or another. Since the times of ancient civilizations to modern era subjugations, there have forces who feel strongly of its necessity and purpose, while others have devoted themselves to seeing the ideas and acts of slavery abolished. America is not an exception to the concept of slavery and during the nation’s early history, parties from both sides have been made famous for their beliefs in the continuation or the denouncement of slavery in the United States. To understand the contrasting views of pro-slavery advocates versus abolitionists in antebellum America, a comparison of the individual positions must be made to further understand the goals of each party.

One of the most, if not the most, controversial and heated debates following the United States independence was regarding the institution of slavery. In the introduction to his book Half Slave and Half Free, Bruce Levine quotes Carl Schurzs’ observation as the “slave question not being a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country divided by a geographic line, but a great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization (p.15)”. The Nouthern states that allowed slavery benefited from the agricultural labor that those slaves provided. The Northern states that prohibited slavery did so for moral and pragmatic reasons; they felt it was morally wrong to deny another human any form of rights, and did not like the economic advantage it gave to the Southern states. With the use of slavery largely concentrated in the South, the movement against it came from the North and was led by abolitionists; those who were committed to bringing an end to the practice. In this course we have defined “Practice” as the conduct of policy, such as opinion, election, parties and law-making (Lecture). We define Policy as the goals of politics, those being sovereignty, defense, and a collective well-being (Lecture). The following analytical essay will examine antislavery sentiment and practices in the Northern states and the reaction of Southern states. Additionally how the pressures from both sides influenced the Policy of the United States following independence then

‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

“I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.” (Lincoln, “House Divided Speech”) Shortly after Lincoln spoke these words in 1858, the Confederate states officially seceded in 1860. This divided the nation in two and began a civil war that would last until May of 1865. Although the cause of the war was later twisted into looking like states’ rights, the actual cause of the Civil War was slavery.

The House Divided Speech was addressed by Abraham Lincoln on June 1958. He delivered the speech upon his acceptance of Illinois Republican Party’s nomination as the senator of the state. Thus the speech became a very important launching campaign for his success in politics thus giving him a national limelight that saw him in the elections to the presidency in 1860.The speech primarily addressed on the issue of slavery in America. Abraham Lincoln delivered his speech aimed at establishing his strong beliefs towards the acts of slavery. The speech was also meant to point out a differentiating factor of beliefs from Stephen Douglas and the rest of the top governmental

In an effort to keep slavery alive with the Atlantic slave trade, the south threatened disunion immediately should the slave trade in the Atlantic be banned. The reason that the Atlantic slave trade would have been banished was the high amount of native-born slaves in New England and Virginia were demanding it so. The threats of disunion swayed many of the delegates’ minds, one in particular, Foner notes, is Governor Morris, one of Pennsylvania’s delegates. Morris said he was being forced to decide between offending the southern states and doing injustice to “human nature.” For the sake of unity amongst the nation, he chose the latter. The two laws demonstrated here shows that while as a nation we were expanding and making as accessible a nation as humanly possible, the slaves were still held back into slavery, yet making up for part of the population with the three fifths clause and having a more official return to their owners