Robert Toombs Speech

James Oakes’ The Radical and the Republican is a thorough and captivating account of two of America’s most distinguished figures, Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas. In his intriguing and polished work, Oakes examines the issues of slavery, race, politics, and war in America during the mid-1800’s. Though both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas engendered immense social and political change throughout the Civil War era, the relationship between the two men is often neglected. Oakes argues that as America went to war with itself, Lincoln’s antislavery politics and Douglas’s abolitionism gradually converged. James Oakes vivid political analysis chronicles the transformation of two of America’s greatest leaders as Lincoln embraces the role of the “radical” and Douglas embraces the role of the “republican” (104).

Apostles of Disunion, written by Charles B. Dew, is a book that focuses on the topics of Slavery, States’ rights, and Secession.

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.

The nineteenth century was one the most remarkable period in American history. For it was the century of the Market Revolution as well as the Civil War. The war took millions of lives of innocent people, who either tried to eliminate or defend slavery. The Civil War seemed to be revolved around slavery. However, slavery was not the only causation. The Northerners, for instance, fought to defend state sovereignty (lecture December 8). Therefore, the causes of the Civil War remain a debate. Although one hundred and fifty-one years have passed, many historians still debate whether the cause of the war was slavery or not.

James Oakes’ political analysis of the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass is an intricate one. He pursues the duos; a frontier lawyer and a former slave, the president and the most sought after black, the shrewd politician and an agile reformer who are carefully engaged in the context of political succession, emancipation and civil war in the 19th century. Being a prime time when slavery is a fiercely contested issue, the two closely associate in the bold spectrum, differing and agreeing, disregarding and approving each other in different instances, with Oakes ultimately drawing their paths through the epic transformation. This paper seeks out Douglass’ and Lincoln’s approaches that shift some positions in slavery abolition in 19th century America.

In the 1856 election, the Democrat Party, the Republican Party and the American Party were competing against each other. The Republican and American parties are anti-democratic parties. Republican leaders chose John Fremont as their presidential candidate, James Buchanan was chosen to represent the Democrats whilst the American Party chose ex-President Fillmore as their candidate. The election was significant as it reflected that Northerners perceived the Slave Power to be a greater threat than the Catholic Church, it played an important role in the growth of the Republican party and in portraying the downfall of the Know Nothings (American Party). This essay will analyse these factors and

President Abraham Lincoln, in his inaugural address, addresses the topic of the civil war and its effects on the nation and argues that America could be unified once more. He supports his claim by using massive amounts of parallel structure and strong word choice. Lincoln ‘s purpose is to contemplate the effects of the civil war in order to unite the broken America once again. He adopts a very hopeful tone for his audience, the readers of the inaugural address and others interested in the topic of American history and the civil war.

Abolition of slavery was a big controversy in the United State of America in the nineteenth century due to the different stances between northern and southern states which led to the American Civil war. At the present time, Abraham Lincoln was the president of the United States who supported the north (Union) thought that free the slave could help him united all the states. As the result, he passed out the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, which give freedom to slaves in the states that the Union did not control. After the war, he issued the Thirteenth Amendment on December 6, 1865, to free all slaves. Although Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery, he did not deserve to be call “ The Great Emancipator” because he freed the slaves for war purpose, only part of the slaves were freed at first, and he did not know what to do to abolish slavery.

Freedom is the primary ideal upon which America was founded. It is the tenet most cherished by the original colonists; it is a pillar upon which they built the new government. However, freedom was denied to a large part of America's citizens for a long time. Frederick Douglas was one of the greatest activists for African-American freedom of the 19th century; he used literary works and speeches, instead of violence, to achieve his goals. In his piece "What, to the Slave, is the Fourth of July?" he uses bold words and biting criticism to call attention to the gross injustices and hypocrisy of slavery in the United States.

In An Imperfect God, Henry Wiencek presents George Washington as a specific case through which to study what he calls the great “paradox” of American history: how a nation founded on the philosophies of liberty and equality also kept human beings in chains. Washington was a slave-owner his entire life and he took the role of managing the slaves who lived and worked at Mount Vernon including their purchase and sale. Prior to the Revolution, Washington “was just another striving young planter, blithely ordering breeding wenches for his slave trade, blithely exiling a man to a likely death at hard labor” (Wiencek 133) The fortune produced by Washington’s slaves kept him in the ranks of Virginia’s planter elite, securing the social and political prestige that helped lead the Second Continental Congress to appoint him commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in 1775. Washington was joined by slaves while leading the Continental Army in the field of battle, as well as during his time as president. Yet Wiencek also argues that the Revolution and the establishment of the new democracy changed Washington’s beliefs on slavery. By the end of his life, Washington had changed completely and “sickened by slavery, willing to sacrifice his own substance to end it.” (Wiencek 274) Many of the founding fathers recognized the problems created by slavery. Unlike his contemporaries, Washington did not leave an extensive written record detailing his public positions and reserved judgments on

In this chapter of the Founding Brothers, Ellis centers the idea of Slavery. He employs the idea of both hindsight and foresight to explore the collapse of the Congress. He displays the Congress to not stand up to its expectations at both private and public means.

Lincoln’s political religion grounds itself in the American principle of equality. His political religion was necessary to bind the nation together in a time of dire need. The nation stood divided. One side believed it was their natural right to reap the fruits of another man’s labor, which denied his natural rights as well as his humanity, while the other side disagreed, affirming the humanity of the slaves and remained free. Lincoln pushed to change public sentiment in regard to slavery. In his 1858 speech “A House Divided”, he wrote,

On September 2nd, 1862, Abraham Lincoln famously signed the Emancipation Proclamation. After that, there’s been much debate on whether Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation truly played a role in freeing the slaves with many arguments opposing or favoring this issue. In Vincent Harding’s essay, The Blood-red Ironies of God, Harding argues in his thesis that Lincoln did not help to emancipate the slaves but that rather the slaves “self-emancipated” themselves through the war. On the opposition, Allen C Guelzo’s essay, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, argues in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation and Guelzo acknowledges Lincoln for the abolishment of slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation.

However, these differences show that the North and South were actually two distinct countries held together by one constitution. The North felt that decisions regarding slavery and its legality were entrenched in the central government while the South felt that such decision belonged to the individual states. In the times preceding the war, both sides could not reach a compromise. Bonner mentions, “Because secession and war were permitted to come, warned Russel, "We are not entitled to lay the flattering unction to our souls that the Civil War was an inevitable conflict (Bonner, 195).” Hence, these differences could only be addressed through war. President Lincoln made it clear in the Emancipation Proclamation that any state found holding slaves would be in contravention of the Constitution of the United Sates and thus would be considered to be in “rebellion against the United States” (Lincoln,

On March 4, 1858, Senator James Henry Hammond from South Carolina, delivered a compelling speech. He encompassed a variety of thoughts into his speech to reflect how slavery existed in the South which benefitted countries in Europe. As a matter of fact, he wanted to present the speech to the Senate to show how much work the slaves did to provide the world’s top leading crop, cotton. Senator Hammond explains how the land to grow cotton is enough and no one ought to raise a war about it. The rhetorical strategies he uses within his speech are personification, syntax, and diction to make his statement equitable.