Rhetorical Analysis

Following in the tradition of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, President Abraham Lincoln established himself as a stout pragmatic unionist during his tenure in office, that is, he was an ardent supporter of the union of the states, and this primary desire trumped and dictated each of Lincoln’s other, secondary, policies during the Civil War. Consequently, the relationship between Lincoln’s desire to free the slaves and his desire to win back the union of the states through war becomes tenuous and deceptive, as Lincoln never desired solely the abolition of slavery. Instead, Lincoln, ideologically opposed to slavery yet never inclined to act upon this inclination before 1862 as the preservation of the union was more important, favored using the slavery issue as a weapon to weaken the Confederacy and to strengthen the Union; it was his proverbial axe with which he planned to end the rebellion.

One of the causes of the Civil War on the American Society is the Missouri compromise. According to Henry Clay’s deal thought, it says that if the southern states agreed that Maine as a free

In this speech, his last address to the Senate, Calhoun decries the Missouri Compromise and warns of a disruption in the Union if the Southern states were not given full and permanent protection to continue their institutions – namely slavery. He understood with precise clarity that if anti-slavery thought spread throughout the North, then it would only be a matter of time before Civil War erupted between the North and South. A lot of his speech focuses on the incompatibility of the Northern and Southern views on slavery, and suggests that if the South cannot gain equal protection for their slavery system, then the Union should separate into two nations. Clearly stating that " abolition and the Union cannot

Each state retained the right to prevent the enforcement within its borders and John C Calhoun

Although, it is noted that Jefferson had a personal distaste for slavery, that did not stop him from owning slaves, hundreds of slaves until the day he died. Jefferson even slipped a portion his views into the Declaration of Independence. It is a very common cliché phrase that is known by many, in which he lists property, in a list of “unalienable” rights. “That among these are Life, Liberty, and property” However, Congress didn’t approve, and instead, they chose, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Slaves were often referred to as property at that time, not human beings, but property, as if they were a possession. So, who really was Jefferson, was he a noble president, who still today remains a prominent figure in the history of the United States? Or was he just like everyone else, a slave owner, and didn’t truly believe that “All men are created equal”? Personally, I believe that Jefferson was a product of the time period. Being a slave owner was common; he was in line with what wealthy plantation owners. He may have believed that slavery was not a moral institution, but that doesn’t require him to being an abolitionist. According to Zinn, Jefferson’s paragraph was removed because, “slaveholders themselves with the desirability of ending the slave trade.”(Zinn 77) Thomas Jefferson was an extremely intelligent man, and I believe he wrote that, with the foresight of the country in mind. He

In the year 1776, the principal values of the United States of America were stated in the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson declaring, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal….” However, these words coming from Jefferson become hypocritical due to one reason: Jefferson was a slaveholder. The question surrounding the Founding Fathers is was it possible for them to end slavery; the answer to the long pondered question is very simple, no. Examining the views and actions of Jefferson, prove that he never wanted to end the instruction of slavery. He never made a decisive plan to end slavery, and held slaves for the remainder of his life.

During the time when the country was still under captivity, Thomas Jefferson clearly saw the “injustice of a state of slavery” and the “horrors of its condition” by also being oppressed by the British. Thomas Jefferson, a framer of the Dec. of Independence, had written that “all men are created equal” and have “certain unalienable rights” which are “endowed by their creator” including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Although Banneker never states it explicitly, by suggesting that Thomas Jefferson believed that “all men are created equal” he suggests that equality should also be given to the slaves since they are also a part of being “all men”. Banneker continues to stroke Jefferson’s ego through praise, and here he acclaims Jefferson for including equality in the Declaration of

The historical significance behind Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech” and Nast’s “The President’s Inaugural” shows the different opinions of slavery in the North and South and peoples’ views on slavery. It is in our destiny and hands to change the slave laws, to make things equal. Alexander believes if blacks showed truth, integrity, honor and dishonor, according to their actions, they can make a name of themselves, possibly become a free slave and become a successful human being. Nast’s carving shows the difference in the love/hate relationship for Lincoln’s opinion on slaves. Lincoln once told Stephens on the day before Christmas that his view on slavery would not change based on Stephens’ opinion. Although, Alexander states in his speech that slave soil does not or should not grow. The compact between states should come up with civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreements on both parties. With the concurrence of the President, giving consent of separation of land and recognition of our independence, the North gets peace.

Referring to slaves as these people, reveals Jefferson to be someone who only believed that the declaration of independence was reserved for whites and not people of color. Jefferson refers to blacks as inferior to whites, but blacks took care of them when they were sick and followed the Dr’s order and made their own remedies. Blacks cooked their meals, raised white children and black children together, and tend to their animals, while whites only sat around collected the money and used their power to degrade almost an entire race of

This doctrine of dual sovereignty indicates the evolving nature of the concept of sharing powers between the state and federal governments. However, this evolution of perspective in reconciling the allocation of power between the state and federal government was impeded with the American Civil War. The Civil War, a domestic war fought in order to determine the existence of the United States of America, saw a result in which the Union was victorious, thus determining the theory that—contrary to the perspective adopted by Jefferson through his Kentucky Resolutions—the federal government was not a loose compact of sovereign states and it had equal powers with state powers. However, this victory did not settle the conflict regarding the rights and powers of the federal and state governments. While this conflict remained in American society, it was not until more recent political administrations that the issue arose again to the forefront of American

Thomas Jefferson is arguably one of the most well-known founding fathers of America. With Thomas Jefferson as its primary author, the Declaration of Independence contains the famous words, “all men are created equal”. While this phrase has become iconic in the representation of America, it has also drawn a focus to Jefferson’s troubling ideas on equality. These ideas are most avidly presented in his Notes on the State of Virginia. David Walker, an avid abolitionist, takes it upon himself to address these ideas in his Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World. By effectively rebutting the arguments of race superiority and slavery, presented in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, combined with Jefferson’s reputation as a highly

Lincoln ponders the question of what to do when compromise is no longer an option. He states, “‘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“ (732). The United States had come to a point where the minority is not willing to submit to the majority rules. They will continue to fight. The people have tried settling slavery among the states through democracy, in which, all involved must accept the decision as final. What was happening was the voter was casting his vote for his own cause and was unwilling to accept any outcome that was against his cause, even

Jefferson is going against his own words in the Declaration of Independence stating that “all men are created equal.” When the Declaration was being written, Jefferson

Henry Clay was an exemplary model of heroic compromise. As the article “Why is ‘Compromise’ Now a Dirty Word,” recounts, “on three occasions,” (146) he found the median ground of agreement among differences and “averted civil war for at least a decade,” (146). His respect for the relinquishments made for mutual negotiation had many refer to him as “the great compromiser,” (146). However, Clay’s powerful sentiments of compromise have been diminished by the recent notion of the very tools, concessions, politeness and courtesy, his skillful duties promised to

Jefferson says that slavery is a threat to the political liberties of the nation because slavery is unjust. It undermines the notion that liberties are the gift of God. He worries that God’s justice may one day lead to a revolution in the wheel of fortune. “The commerce between slave and master is an exercise of the worst passions” (Jefferson,