However, Thoreau was protesting the nature of government. He saw no difference between the state, the local and the federal government. Rosenwald points out that, while the state of Massachusetts was against slavery, their law enforcement and court system enforced the Fugitive Slaw law by not preventing the return of slaves to the southern states. This was the type of thinking that ultimately leads Northerners to the action that a Civil War was necessary to resolve the slavery issue. Thoreau’s basis for civil disobedience is not to separate oneself from the government but to influence the government to serve the better interests of society.
With the passage of a harsher fugitive slave law as a part of the Compromise of 1850, the abolitionist movement became even more fervent in its efforts to halt slavery as abolitionists assisted runaways, abused slave catchers, and outright did not follow the federal law, even in the face of federal marshalls. As a result of this outright defiance of federal law, southerners’ connotations of the abolitionist movement being associated with the entire northern population were further solidified. In conjunction with the lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave law, southerners increasingly viewed the violent confrontations in Kansas as an outright effort to uproot slavery and its expansion. In an act of defiance against Stephen Douglas’s popular sovereignty established in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, abolitionists flooded into Kansas and Nebraska in an effort to incorporate both states as free states and directly halt the expansion of slavery into the territories. Violence and bloodshed broke out as pseudo-militia groups attacked one another in a low scale civil war.
What was the Compromise of 1850? Since "The Missouri Compromise of 1820" the northern states abolished slavery, however in the southern territories it was still legal. The southern and northern states were constantly arguing because of this topic, that 's why " The Compromise of 1850" was created. The Compromise of 1850 consisted of a series of bills that aimed to deal with slavery in the Confederacy. The Compromise made slavery illegal in California and in the District of Columbia, while in New Mexico and Utah the local ruler would have made the big decision.
I disagree that the Constitution is an “agreement with Hell,” because although there may be some sections that aren't ideal, the American Constitution is remarkable because it has the ability to change and adapt to the times. William Lloyd Garrison, a famous abolitionist, proposed that all states that don't keep slaves should secede from the Union because he felt that the Constitution heavily supported slavery. His argument is now not valid because the Constitution has been amended, and now slavery is illegal. No one today could claim that the United States as a nation supports slavery. William Wells Brown, a former slave, also advocated for the nullification of the Constitution.
The divided opinion amongst the Justices illustrated the divided nation (Scott v. Sandford 1875). When the Dred Scott case came to the Supreme Court, the nation was in a time of great divide, with pro and antislavery groups arguing about whether new states should enter the nation as "slave" states, where slavery was legal, or "free" states, where slavery was illegal. The nation was on the verge of violent conflict over the issue and Congress was too divided to do anything (Pearson Education Inc. 2005). This argument was heightened by the establishment of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had some territories enter the nation as slave states and others as free states (Independence Hall Association 2013). The Supreme Court did something out of character.
Lerone Bennett Jr. argues that Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator. He claims that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation with misgivings and reservations. Lincoln shared racial prejudices with the majority of his fellow white Americans and never pretended to be a racial liberal or social innovator. A firm believer of white supremacy, Lincoln believed that whites and blacks would be better off separated. His character, eloquence, assassination, and the psychological needs of a racist society has obscured the reality of Lincoln’s motives and emotions towards abolition in Americans’ eyes.
Although Mrs. Auld had great intentions to help Frederick but her husband on the other hand was against his education. Mr. Auld believed that literacy is an enemy to slaves and will ruin their lives. Fredrick as well mentions in his narration that “education and slavery were incompatible with each other” (Douglass). From this quote he mentions exactly what Mr. Auld referred to which made him question how important literacy really is. Douglass saw that Mr. Auld wanted to prevent black slaves to not become literate so slavery can still be alive.
- Lincoln’s primary purpose was to preserve the Union and despite his utter hatred for slavery, Lincoln had no intention of uprooting this institution from the South, only to restore national authority in Dixie. Lincoln feared that abolishing slavery altogether would create a colossal rift between the other four slave states that remained within the Union: Missouri, Delaware, Kentucky, and Maryland. Lincoln’s advisors Charles Sumner, Benjamin Wade and Zachariah Chandler, all who which despised slavery, pleaded with Lincoln to alter his policy on slavery and reminded him that slavery was the reason the southern states seceded and has become the cornerstone of the Confederacy. Abolitionists would begin to petition Lincoln as well, one being Frederick Douglas, the most eminent Negro of his generation.
Abe, or Abraham as he liked to be called, has said a few questionable things. For example, in a debate, he revealed that he believed blacks and whites should not have the same rights. He did believe slavery was morally wrong, but he did say, " "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." (qtd. "Abraham Lincoln").
The repetitive use of pronouns and satire are utilized in order to question the credibility and motives behind Jefferson’s actions, thus creating a demanding tone. In order to appeal to Jefferson’s emotions, personification and allusions are utilized to establish guilt for not adhering to his statements. Through Banneker’s letter, not only was his efforts successful in attracting attention to slavery, but it urged other advocates to fight for equality as