There were other factors and incentives that drove the anti-slavery supporters. Larry Gara describes this phenomenon: “While some abolitionists were indignant at the slave system and what it did to black men, many more northerners became anti-southern and antislavery because of what the slave system did or threatened to do to them. A failure to recognize this can easily lead us into a blind alley of oversimplification, and to view the events of a hundred years ago as a morality play with heroes and villains rather than a plausible presentation of a human dilemma.” Gara brings up a good point here. It is important that we don’t view segregation with twentieth century goggles. Racism was with no doubt present on both sides, but neither side would have gone to the extremes that they did over a dispute of how ‘human’ slaves were.
This captive narrative takes place during the King Philips war, and depicts how the native Americans treated their prisoners of war. Although from different eras, both Douglass and Rowlandson use similar techniques such as religion, repetition, and sentimentalism to show that being held captive and slavery is wrong. America was founded on Christian beliefs, so Douglass attacked that. He states, “If the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it” (Douglass 1037) Douglass is making a bold move that will spark controversy. He uses statements like this to keep the audience’s attention.
When most people hear the words “Fourth of July” they think about fireworks, cookouts, and sparklers. During the 1850’s, the Fourth of July served as a reminder of the many horrors and injustices in the world. On July 4, 1852, Frederick Douglass-- a former American slave, abolitionist leader and adroit speaker-- spoke in Rochester, New York about the affectation of celebrating independence. In his speech, “The Hypocrisy of American Slavery”, he claims celebrating independence is unethical when slavery is widespread. To convince the reader of his claim, he uses rhetorical questions, emotional appeal, and antithesis in hopes of shedding light and sparking action on the wrongful situation.
The way to handle the situations was from one extreme to another. Anti-Slavery was one of the major views in the North on slavery. These people believed that the institution of slavery was wrong and to get rid of it, popular sovereignty was the answer. Popular sovereignty was the idea that the future state government should decide if they are for or against slavery. The antislavery activists also thought that slavery could be contained, and eventually the act would die out.
From the time of the American Revolution in 1776, to the year 1852, there has been many causes to the opposition to slavery. Some have shown the support for increased opposition while others have shown to not support this opposition. This has caused many disputes about who is in the right. There is plenty of evidence between the two groups which were either supporting the opposition to slavery or they were not supporting the opposition. Three causes exist in support of and against this opposition: Social Darwinism, increased tolerance, and the need to unite the nation.
During these heated times the Americas were split and the Northern and Southern hemispheres were stereotyped as Abolitionists in the north and Southerners in the south. These audacious people, the abolitionists, were greatly outnumbered in their passion for all men to live with freedom. Due to the mistreatment of slaves in the Americas, which included branding, physical and sexual abuse, then led abolitionists to bring speak vehemently with compelling arguments which never the less landed upon deaf ears. These abolitionists would write to congress pleading for the abolition of slavery, because they thought it immoral for one man to own another man. In doing this congress would simply turn their heads and wave the petitions aside.
During the early nineteenth century, religion, moral differences and confusion divided communities and institutions. Abolitionism became an influential movement, many white reformers and free blacks were active in ending slavery. This challenged southern society, caused political unrest and led to the civil war. Protestants used revivals to grow their following especially because the amount of Catholics and Mormons grew. Though southern churches didn’t really participate in social reform, the Second Great Awakening gave people structure in the communities.
Frederick Douglass’s speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July”, discusses the irony of celebrating the freedom that slaves cannot enjoy. He delivered the speech in 1853, about a decade before the Emancipation Proclamation, to an anti-slavery society. He criticizes America and its privileged citizens for its selective freedom, where only a few people inherit the riches of the past, and how American slaves are not granted the same independence as their white counterparts. Celebration of this day, to Douglass, is “America [being] false to the past, false to the present, and… false to the future” (74). Seeing how people are content with the achievements of the past and allowing them to define the future while ignoring the injustice of his time, Douglass felt the need to cast off this attitude and express exactly how he views slavery.
Many things led to the Civil War. Around the mid 1800s there was a conflict between proslavery and antislavery. Southern and Nothern both had their own view on slavery, and their separate views caused contentions between the two. (Thesis) The most significant cause of the Civil War was slavery because Northern states were against slavery and Southern states needed the slaves to do the labor and preserve their way of life. The reason why the Civil War started was because there was a lot of contention between the states expansion of properties.
The definition of sectionalism is being loyal to one’s own region or area of the nation rather than the nation as a whole. Regional differences that went on for years were a big cause of the civil war in the United States, sectionalism being a big one. There was a division because of certain political, economic and social issues, all of those things were what contributed to the growth of sectionalism from 1800-1861, when the civil war started. The North and the South had completely different views especially when it came to the topic of slavery. The economies were running different and the laws were placed using their different views.
Slavery ended in the late 1800s and it was a major controversy to the Northern States. The Northern states were anti-slavery while the Southern states were pro-slavery. Since they were two different opinions because the northern states did not accept or want slavery to keep happening it ended All this slavery controversy and war could have been avoided by simply making slavery legal in all states, replacing the president, and machines being created faster than they were. Also, there were ways they could settle these opinions, and one way is they could have made slavery legal which all the people would have come together and unite as one. As one they would have fought all together a different way to end this, instead of just those who were
These others would be the slaves. This will eventually create controversy between people who believed in slavery or not. At this time, there were still slaves under unfair conditions of their owners and owners of slaves who are fighting to get away from unfair conditions of their own. This means many of the Patriots did not uphold their democratic ideas. This arguments is made in an excerpt from the Connecticut Slaves Petition for Freedom that is dated May 11, 1779.
Between 1800 and 1850, western expansion played a major role in the sectional tensions between the North and South in America. Most of this would stem from whether or not new territory would be free or slave states. Later on, there would be compromises in place to alleviate the tension but disunity between the North and South was very prevalent. In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase from the French got a rise out of the New England Federalist party. They were against western expansion because they believed it would reduce power and the influence of the party and the northeastern states.