Half Slave And Half Free By Bruce Levine

In William Barney’s article, “The Quest for Room,” he analyzes the differing opinions between the North and South regarding the expansion of slavery into the newly acquired Western territories. The author argues that the West would have been important to slaveholders as a place to expand slavery if the territories had not been free-soil. The reason for this article was to show us how prominent the sectional differences were in the nineteenth century because of the argument over slavery. This, in turn, led to the secession of the Southern states from the Union as they formed the Confederacy; this dug the nation into a deep-pitted civil war.

What does reaction to John Brown’s raid in the North suggest about the depth of antislavery sentiment outside the slaveholding states?

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.

Yankee invaders between 1877-1850 subjugated the Southern way of life. The degeneration of liberty begun with the North’s ideology of abolishment of slavery, the election of Abraham Lincoln, the disapproval of sovereign succession, the invasion of the Confederate States of America, and the torment of military districts. Laws unjustly created to suppress the white Southerners. These condemnations lasted for over twenty years. This essay will highlight all of these atrocities, and finally will demonstrate that through all this pain and suffering Southern patriotic dignity remained intact.

The question of slavery, the labor system implemented mainly in the South, in the territories was debated between politicians in the North and South. Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia, in a speech in Boston in 1856, insisted that it is Congress’s responsibility to protect slavery in the territories. He said, “expansion is as necessary to the increased comforts of the slaves as the prosperity of the master.”2 Advocating for the expansion of slavery, Toombs believes that the two races should not be equal, rather, expanding the inequality to the new territories would maintain the superiority of the white race. While Toombs expresses his discontent with making new territories less equal to already established states by not giving them the right to decide whether they want to be a slave or free state, historian William Gienapp, in his essay “The Republican party and the Slave Power,” argues that Southern politicians wanted slavery in the new territories to maintain their “Slave Power.” Gienapp wrote, “the major impetus behind the party free soil program was that by stopping the advance of slavery and refusing to admit any new slave states, the growth the of the Slave Power would be halted, thereby enabling the North to take control of the federal government.”3 The north resented the political power of the slaveholders of the South, and believed that the South had long dominated the national government and

territory could prohibit slavery despite the recent ruling of U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott Case. After spawning great debate from the ruling, the Illinois Senate race between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas sought to divide political sides on the question of decision’s guarantying that slave owners could take slaves into a territory without losing their slaves (Levin, 2010). Through the Freeport Doctrine we saw the Lincoln-Douglass Debates explore the stance from the Democratic Douglas who insisted that slavery expansion was a local issue and should be decided by indigenous populations (Levin, 2010). Abraham Lincoln then alienated Southern Democrats, through the debates, who were pushing for a territorial slave code and annoyed Northern Democrats who were opposed to slavery on moral grounds (Levin, 2010). The debates set up his stage for Senate nomination and eventual presidential run. The Scott Case, Freeport Doctrine and Lincoln-Douglass debates separated the parties in Congress and fueled the underlining tension of North and South stances for the upcoming Civil

Thomas Jefferson is undoubtedly one of our nation’s most historical political figures. His many honors include primary author of the Declaration of Independence, war-time governor for the state of Virginia during the American Revolution, Vice-President under John Adams, and the third President of our almighty United States of America. Thomas Jefferson made an enormous impact on the foundation of the United States, but his views and opinions on the institution of slavery are highly criticized and ultimately at odds with the Republican ideals set forth after the American Revolution. In his book, Notes one the State of Virginia, Jefferson expresses the ill-effect and moral degradation the institution has on those enslaved, yet in the same breath,

During the 1800s, the United States experienced vast physical, political, and social growth. From the Louisiana Purchase to the Gilded Age and everything in between, these years effectively set the national stage for the coming century which would face its own immense challenges. Opposition to this 19th century growth was widespread and is often discussed as it pertains to slavery, specifically its legality. This question became increasingly consequential as new territories sought admittance into the Union. Some wanted the nation to admit the states as free states while others wanted the new states to be slave states. As the significance of this conversation grew, it became a deciding factor for many elections, both local and national. Two

For generations, slavery had been one of the most controversial issues in the history of the U.S. When the country was defined by Northern and Southern states, the battle for free or slave states exceeded with every addition. There were many compromises over the years, one replaced by another. But it was nearly impossible to keep both the North and the South satisfied. Northern states were convinced that the government was in the hands of a “slave power,” which is a theory about a secret clique of pro-slavery congressman, and the Southern states were convinced the North was trying to sabotage their way of life, in terms of relying on slave labor. The South finally reached it’s boiling point when Abraham Lincoln was elected

The context of this book is well-organized in completing it goals, first chapter called, “Pandora’s Box” written by the author, gives disputes over slavery in the late 1810’s and fights over the admission of Missouri as a slave state. Leading to three other chapters titled, “The Wilmot Proviso,” “The Compromise of 1850,” and “The Kansas-Nebraska Act.” Holt provides a strong historical narrative linking all its chapters together and presenting several contrasting arguments making his theories available to a larger audience. One being, The Wilmot Proviso of 1846 (Holt, p. 19), which made the pro slavery (no free soil), originated with Northern Democrats. Embarrassing James Polk (President) after he broke his promise to annex all the Oregon

The course began in the year 1789, a significant year of transition for the United States. A decade or so prior, the United States was embroiled in a conflict over the inability of a foreign power to govern an overseas territories without proper representation in the foreign power’s government. This conflict, The American Revolution, may be the first significant radical movement in the history of the United States. However, the American Revolution led to unprecedented reforms in North American society. The Civil War, another significant example of a radical movement in the United States, began as a conflict over the issue of states rights. However, it quickly escalated into an issue of the legality and morality of slavery and

Slavery caused immense hostility in the political arena, and at a time when house majority and party domination captivated the nation, it is no wonder slavery caused such a rift in America. Shortly after slavery assumed its place as the supreme topic in American politics, radicals from both sides surfaced, bringing with them fiery speeches and displays of ferocious emotions and fierce demonstrations that hinted at the more violent actions to come. Abolitionists, like William Lloyd Garrison even went as far as to burn the Constitution because it condoned slavery, and southern Democrats pleaded for what they believed was a God-given right to slavery. Even if the average American was not as vehement in their beliefs, there was a definite sense of rivalry and opposition between all Republicans and Democrats over a state’s right to choose its laws and regulations, or the idea that basic morals supersede that right. With ethics and rights appearing in arguments, the issue only escaladed and led the country to a point where compromise was no longer a possibility. One of the final ruptures in a peaceful political field was the aftermath of John Brown’s

During the 1800s The United States of America faced a great divide, with slave states concentrated in the South and free states occupying the North, both sides differed greatly. While the foundation of the South was built and relied on the principles of slavery, the North was vastly different in that the region was built upon a system of industry and manufacturing, where all workers were employed and gainfully compensated. Although these two regions of the country were supposed to stand united, this very apparent social and economic difference between the two regions prompted a silent and tense divide. This strong and polarizing divide prompted abolitionists of the North and slave owners of the South to project their views on subject of

In Donald Robinson’s, Slavery in the Structure of the American Revolution, he eloquently articulates the original purpose of separation of power in the United States of America: to protect private interests and freedom. Considering that separation of power is viewed as a means to prevent a unitary and centralized government, the issue of slavery influenced the adoption of separation of power. While equality is a quintessential reflection of America, the power of states’ rights prevents states from being consistent with American values. In this paper, I will examine the principle concept of separation of power in the context of ensuring private interests, in particular, the institution of slavery and segregation. I will argue how

American Slavery, American Freedom written by Edmund S. Morgan captures the history of Virginia while keeping focusing on the social and political elements that uplifted the way of slavery. With the focus on Virginia, the book also probes the central paradox of American history: "how a people could have developed the dedication to human liberty and dignity exhibited by the leaders of the American Revolution and at the same time have developed and maintained a system of labor that denied human liberty and dignity every hour of the day (pg.4-5)". The key to the paradox is presented in Virginia, the nation's largest slave state and primary source of the ideology and leadership. Also the source of conditions which made slavery