What is wrong and what is right? How should the issue of slavery be solved? Slavery is the economic system of using humans as property. Slavery first starting taking place on farms around 1813. Slaves could be bought or sold, and the slave could never leave its owner. Slavery took place for agricultural purposes in the 1800’s, not racial purposes. Slavery was very prominent until it became an issue that divided the nation. Stephan A. Douglas was a known political fighter for the issue of slavery (Dudley 154). Douglas was a U.S. senator from Illinois and later ran against Abraham Lincoln for president (Dudley 154). The Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 were two of many attempts to solve the issue of slavery (Dudley 154). Stephan A. Douglas took part in both of the previously mentioned efforts. Douglas firmly believed that the question of slavery should be settled with popular sovereignty, and I agree. Popular sovereignty is the availability territories would endure to decide whether or not they wanted to be a free or slave state. After many issues occurred, the Republican party was formed to stop slavery everywhere (Dudley 154). Abraham Lincoln, an obscure lawyer, was now in the running for the seat on the Senate that Douglas was currently holding (Dudley 154). This is when the fight finally got serious to both of them but especially Douglas. Douglas says, “This Union was established on the right of each state to do as it pleased on the …show more content…
Popular sovereignty was the best solution in Douglas’ eyes. He shaped a great case for this slavery issue, and believed this was the only other option before civil war (Dudley 154). Not every country is the same, and not ever state is the same; why should the federal government force everyone to be the same? I agree that the only way to settle the issue of slavery is allowing the states to decide like Douglas
He was a strong believer in popular sovereignity. Since he felt so strongly about it, he agreed that popular sovereignity would decide whether or not Kansas and Nebraska would be free states or slave states. This decision caused a huge disagreement between the North and South because this would allow slavery north of the Mason-Dixon dividing line created in the Missouri Compromise. The president at the time, Franklin Pierce, supported Douglas’ bill and passed it on May 30th, 1854.
Debates over which powers were rightly the states and rightly the federal governments were already tense and the question of whether slavery should or shouldn’t exist in the new territories of America, added on to the already strained relationship between the two sides. Document A describes this situation as a cup on the edge of the shelf, certain things almost pushing it over the edge such as the addition of new states being free or under a slavery economy. Many compromises were formed to try and keep states’ rights as well as keep power for the government. The south wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal rights they didn’t support, this was
In conclusion the question “why...can we not withdraw this vexed question [of slavery in the US] from politics”posed by Stephen Douglas can be answered in this way. The reason why the US could not just forget about the slavery issue and let people decide for themselves if they wanted slaves
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
Slave as defined by the dictionary means that a slave is a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. So why is it that every time you go and visit a historical place like the Hampton-Preston mansion in Columbia South Carolina, the Lowell Factory where the mill girls work in Massachusetts or the Old town of Williamsburg Virginia they only talk about the good things that happened at these place, like such things as who owned them, who worked them, how they were financed and what life was like for the owners. They never talk about the background information of the lower level people like the slaves or servants who helped take care and run these places behind the scenes.
At the end of the Mexican War, lands were ceded to the Union in the West. People from the North and the South were debating over whether or not these lands should have slavery. The solution was pushed by Clay, Webster, and Douglas from the North that would give the new lands the choice to be slave or free depending on a vote. During the mid-1800's, the North was industrializing and populating at a much higher rate than the South which was becoming dependent on the cotton industry. The Compromise of 1850 created more problems than it solved in regards to the enforcement of slave laws, lands in the West, and popular sovereignty.
At this time it seemed that the issue of slavery was the only problem in the United States, almost as if a slave was being forced down the throats of the freesoilers (Document F). Stephen Douglas drafted the Kansas-Nebraska Acts in hopes of adding two new states: Kansas and Nebraska. Although it seemed that one would be a slave state, and the other a free state, the slavery issue would be decided by popular sovereignty. Many opposed this decision but did not know how to deal with it. The reason they did not know was because the Constitution did not mention it. William Lloyd Garrison said “the Constitution which subjects them to hopeless bondage is one that we cannot swear to support” (Document E). He was trying to say that the constitution can’t answer the question of slavery because the words “slave” and “slavery” are not in the constitution.
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
BFirst the Southern Democrats thought that slavery should be allowed in the new lands and states while the North thought that if slavery was allowed in the new states and territories that the wealthy plantation owners would buy all the land. Other issues included fear of the small farmers not being able to purchase land in the land new states and not wanting to live with the African American population. First, the Wilmot Proviso was an agreement to keep slavery out of the new territories so white poor farmers could acquire and farm land; although it passed the house, the Senate would not pass the Wilmot Proviso. Next, during the presidential election of 1848, popular sovereignty was suggested by Lewis Cass. Popular sovereignty was to allow the settlers to decide whether they wanted slavery or not.
"Douglas basically explained in the Freeport Doctrine his belief that the people in a new territory be able to decide whether or not they would allow slavery."(What Were the Results of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates?) The Freeport Doctrine was the subject Douglas spoke about. It made people uneasy."Lincoln argued that while he wanted to end the extension of slavery into US territories"(What Were the Results of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates?) It was important, and a historical debate time. As Lincoln spoke his famous quotes a nation cannot stand as a divided nation, and everyone had rights through the Declaration Of Independence.The problem also was extension to the different territories for slavery. The Debates were not to fix slavery, but to talk about what would make it better. What laws could change it, or stopping slavery from happening in many other
Lincoln suggests that the institution of slavery be contained by preventing the spread of it to the new territories and Free states, although he had no interest in interfering with the already entitled slave states. He agrees that it was the right of the state to make its own decisions, not the federal government. Although Lincoln did not favor getting involved with abolishing slavery in the already declared slave states, he did favor total abolition in the distant future. He was first worried about stopping the expansion of slavery and then the next step to be taken would have been the "ultimate extinction" of it throughout the states. Lincoln did believe that every white man had no more equality than another. For this is one of the main reasons why at this time a resolution needed to be found in order to keep this equality in the new territories. Lincoln made a valid point in his speech that if slave holders were to settle in a new territory along with people opposed to slavery, which party has the right to decide what type of territory and future state it will be declared as? As for the rights of slaves, Lincoln agreed with Douglas that slaves did not have the same individual rights as everyone else, but he did believe that the liberties given under the Declaration of Independence involved such slaves. It is obvious that the Republicans of this time find slavery as being a "moral, social, and political wrong",
Slavery, especially in America, has been an age old topic of riveting discussions. Specialist and other researchers have been digging around for countless years looking for answers to the many questions that such an activity provided. They have looked into the economics of slavery, slave demography, slave culture, slave treatment, and slave-owner ideology (p. ix). Despite slavery being a global issue, the main focus is always on American slavery. Peter Kolchin effectively illustrates in his book, American Slavery how slavery evolved alongside of historical controversy, the slave-owner relationship, how slavery changed over time, and how America compared to other slave nations around the world.
For President Lincoln, he sought to preserve and protect the union. He felt that a divided America would fall and fail if they weren’t united ,“my opinion is that no state can, in any way lawfully, get out of the Union, without the consent of the others; and that it is the duty of the President, and other government functionaries to run the machine as it is.” (Lincoln) The states had made numerous attempts to resolve one of the major issues that were threatening the union and that issue was Slavery. It was becoming hard to resolve arising issues having separate laws for states only lead to further division. Abraham Lincoln stated, “We are in civil war. In such cases there always is a main question; but in this case that question is a perplexing compound -- Union and Slavery. It thus becomes a question not of two sides merely, but of at least four sides, even among those who are for the Union, saying nothing of those who are against it.” (Lincoln) As a
Standing in the murmuring crowd, a person listens to Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln debate over the nation wide issue, slavery. Stephen Douglas, Illinois’ senator, had a tenacious belief in popular sovereignty (Dudley 154). Popular Sovereignty is the right given to the settlers to make the decision of legalizing slavery in their state or territory (Dudley 154). Abraham Lincoln, an unknown lawyer, rebuked the idea of popular sovereignty (Dudley 154). “A house divided against itself cannot stand… It will become all one thing, or all the other.” (Dudley 156). These spoken words of Mr. Lincoln manifested his belief towards federal rights (Dudley 156). Federal rights are the political powers given to the federal government (Dudley 156). When
In 1858, Douglas as well as James Buchanan endorsed the decision made. In it there were three specific topics in which slavery was looked as. The first was that no slave or