Missouri Compromise 1860 Analysis

Lincoln’s and Douglass’s views differed from Davis’s because they did not consider the slaves as a chattel. Lincoln declared slavery illegal in the Confederate States in the famous Emancipation Proclamation. There is a famous quote form Douglass: where justice is denied and where any one class is made to feel that society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe. Also, their views differed from Lydia Maria Child’s. Lincoln and Douglass believed the Constitution should be a protection against, rather than a sanction for slavery.

The Confederate states also issued their own Constitution, which was basically based on the United States Constitution, except the Southern Constitution defended slavery. The election separated the nation in half and also urged 7 states including South Carolina seceded from United States. From then on, the pro-slavery and anti-slavery were officially against each other, which soon gave rise to the Civil War. In conclusion, the issue of slavery precipitated the Civil War. Uncle Tom’s Cabin gave a strong social effect on opposing slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the prelude of the Civil War, and the Election of 1860 splitted the nation into two sides, which directly led to the War.

The significance of the Compromise of 1850 lies on the continuation of peace accomplished by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, in spite of sectional contrasts. Opinions from the north and south were opposite, but the Compromise of 1850 made them achieve an interim political harmony. It fulfilled what it planned to accomplish at the time, to revive the Union and peace. Most politicians realized that the compromise was an interwoven and that it was an interim arrangement, best case scenario to delay the unavoidable Civil War. In a session of give and take, the north and south were not so satisfied by what they got.

Allen Guelzo and Vincent Harding approached Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the eventual abolition of slavery from two very different viewpoints. The major disagreement between them is whether the slaves freed themselves, or Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation freed them. Harding argued the former view, Guelzo took the later. When these essays are compared side by side Guelzo’s is stronger because, unlike Harding, he was able to keep his own views of American race relations out of the essay and presented an argument that was based on more than emotion. Allen Guelzo’s Thesis was centered around the idea that Lincoln viewed emancipation as “a goal to be achieved through prudential means, so that worthwhile consequences might result.” He argued that every gradual step Lincoln took towards the abolition of slavery was done to “balance the integrity of ends with the integrity of means,” to accomplish this while still placing the constitution above all of his personal opinions.

During his presidential reign, Abraham Lincoln experienced many difficulties along the way. While he was working to abolish slavery, the southern states, known as the Confederates, were rebelling and trying to secede from our nation. Impressively, Lincoln argued, "no state upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union" (Paulsen 4). This quote from Lincoln 's inaugural address shows that he remained calm and handled their attempts in a professional manner. However, when I came to the lawfulness of the act of slavery, the Constitution had no rule against it.

An event such as the 1820 Missouri Compromise was a temporary fix for the issue. Other attempts at resolving the issue, such as the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Bill and Dred Scott decision, became a catalyst for violence and corruption. Many historians point to the Kansas-Nebraska act as a pivotal point in the events leading to the Civil War (Gienapp, 1985). This was because the act proposed repealing the sectional lines from the Missouri Compromise. It would also leave the issue of slavery up to popular sovereignty, causing the Bleeding Kansas disaster.

During the late 1800s, because the South had been decimated by the end of the Civil War, .the Reconstruction Period was initiated to aid the South’s recovery. Although the Civil War did abolish slavery and unify the North and the South, the war not resolve racial prejudice, the South’s damage, and the African Americans’ economic instability. The Reconstruction Period was initiated in order to prevent economic instability and the structural ruin, because since slavery was abolished, and the South was completely dependent on slaves, therefore slaves could not work for the South to maintain the economy, and slaves also could not fix up the damages done to the structures done to the South during the war. By starting the Freedmen’s Bureau and passing

Banneker use of logos and pathos together allowed him to strengthening his argument that the Declaration of Independence did not apply to all people. By connecting these two he is able to manipulate the readers to see his point of view. The idea of slavery in America was hypocritical due to the fact that they fought against that type of power. Although

However, not everyone was as successful as they hoped to be. When the reconstruction period began after the Civil War the Republican set into motion their own plans, restoring rebellious states into the Union and finding a place in society for free slaves. However, there were two major problems standing in their way, the ex-Confederates and President Andrew Johnson. The ex-Confederates were causing trouble by starting riots and trying take political action against freed African Americans, such as during the Memphis Riot in 1866. Johnson, being a Democrat, allied himself with the ex-Confederates because he shared the same beliefs as them regarding freed slaves.

Uproar and protest bubbled over in the states after Scott’s failure to obtain his freedom. His case also fueled the North in their battle with the South, since the big topic of the century was “slavery”. They wanted justice for Dred Scott, to rightfully place his ownership in his own hands, to grant him the freedom to live however he pleased and to not have to walk in shackles. Any human should have that basic right, as it says in the constitution. This landmark of a case stood as a breaking point for social reform; motivation to stop the discrimination that ran throughout the country.