Council Rock HS North Delegation
Senate Block Position Paper
1) At this point in time Alabama is part of the “cotton kingdom” in the South, where the economy is highly agriculturally based. This means that citizens of Alabama live on plantations and partake in large scale slave labor. Slaves are the basis of Alabama’s economy, and without them the economy would collapse. Therefore, Alabama’s political views will always side towards the continuation and promotion of slavery.
2) William R. King’s views on slavery and Alabama’s views on slavery vary to an extent. King was politically moderate and a unionist, and he often advocated compromise. He believed that slavery could not be prohibited in territories, something that Alabama also agreed with, however he did not believe that all territories should be forced to allow slavery if they did not already have it. Alabama, on the other hand, believed that slavery should be allowed in every territory, and they did not compromise as readily as King did. Also, Alabama was not for the preservation of the Union like King was. Instead they were for the preservation and spread of slavery to the extent that they would secede from the Union if necessary. The strong viewpoint of the state is because of their economic reliance on slave labor; slavery was an economic and not moral issue for the state. Alabama citizens were sometimes annoyed that King retained such moderate views; however, overall, this did not cause serious dissent or issues.
3) Being a moderate King did not strongly side for all slave or all free states. However, he wanted slavery preserved in already existing slave states. He was not for the spread of free states; however he was okay with abolishing slave trade in some territories. This could be an issue for King if the number of free states formed a majority. This is because they could choose to abolish slavery in all states and cause the southern economy to go into turmoil. The state of Alabama, however, had much stronger opinions on the issue than King. Alabama citizens were for slavery in all states, so if more states became free than slave, they would become very upset and fear that their views would no longer be represented in the Senate. They also strongly feared that if there were more free states than slave states; the free states would abolish slavery everywhere, taking away their lives and property. The Compromise of 1850 relates to this issue because it proposed a compromise in order to deal with it. Alabama citizens in general would dislike it because the compromise admitted California as a free state. However, Alabama citizens would be slightly appeased by the fact that the compromise passed the Fugitive Slave Act (forced runaway slaves to be returned to their owners). King does not agree with all the provisions of the compromise; however, he preferred it over more extreme views on the pro-slavery and anti-slavery sides.
4) Most southern states had the same views as Alabama because like Alabama, they all had slavery. Examples of this would be Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and Mississippi and the Senate members who represented these states. All these states relied on slave labor to power their economies. As far as King is concerned, the other slave states (already mentioned) would not agree with all his views, they would agree with any views of his that promoted slavery, and disagree with any that did not. They would disagree with King’s want to preserve the union at all costs, especially as Northern and Southern dissent grew. Northern states would agree with some of King’s views, mostly the preservation of the union; however, they would be anti-slavery, something which King was not. Northern States and Senate members who represented them such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire would disagree with Alabama’s and the other slave states’ views. They would disagree because they were free states and had industrial economies that did not rely on slavery, therefore, abolishing slavery would cause no problems for them. Also, slavery was a moral issue for free states, and they deemed it immoral.
5) King belonged to the Democratic Party, which included some southern and northern states. During the period from 1848-1860 the Whig party that many southern states previously belonged to disappeared, and many Southern states joined the Democratic party. Overall, the views of the party leaned towards pro-slavery because of the number of southerners it included; however, the party originally had more moderate views like those of King. Also, the party accepted of the fact that slavery was neither expanding nor being abolished, and often tried to avoid the slavery issue as much as possible. However, there was disagreement within the party because it included some northern states and senators. This would cause problems in the party, especially when Stephen Douglas revived the slavery issue while running for presidency. The state of Alabama belonged to the Democratic Party during this time period because it best represented their pro-slavery views (different reasons than King). Also, some Alabama citizens switched from the Whig Party to the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party would support the pro-slavery views of Alabama in general, but not as strongly as the Alabama citizens themselves. Also, when dissent in the party developed between its northern and southern members, the party split into Southern and Northern Democrats. The Southern Democrats represented the views of Alabama. Throughout the period from 1848-1860 Alabama’s views remained pro-slavery.
Citations
Mark O. Hatfield, with the Senate Historical Office. Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789-1993
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), pp. 181-187.
“William Rufus Devane King.” Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Socieites, 1928-1936. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008.
Goldman, Ralph. “Democratic Party.” Encyclopedia Americana. 2006. Grolier Online Database. 14 October 2008. < http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0123810-00>.
Please Note: My citations got messed up. Other citations are posted as a comment
18 comments:
Citations
http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/books/demhist.htm
Mark O. Hatfield, with the Senate Historical Office. Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789-1993
(Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), pp. 181-187. http://senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/william_king.pdf
http://ea.grolier.com/page?tn=/printemail/p_see_article.html&id=0123810-00&text=full
“William Rufus Devane King.” Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Socieites, 1928-1936. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC.
http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec09.html.
http://www.lib.auburn.edu/archive/aghy/saves.htm.
Goldman, Ralph. “Democratic Party.” Encyclopedia Americana. 2006. Grolier Online Database. 14 October 2008. http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0123810-00.
Mike Altonji
Immaculata HS Delegation
Senate Bloc Position Paper
1. In pre-Civil War Texas, the economy was agriculturally based. Texas made great sums of money by using cheap slave labor to pick cotton on their plantations. By 1861, Texas owned 182,000 slaves worth $107 million. As a result, Texas needed slaves to maintain a stable economy. Samuel Houston, a slave owner himself, had unique views on slavery. He voted against slavery in certain situations, like the 1820 Missouri Compromise, yet still owned some slaves.
2. Samuel Houston sought unification between the north and south. Although he was a slave owner, he voted for the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which called for a ban of slavery above the latitude 36°30'. Samuel Houston was not exactly for or against slavery. At times, he did vote against it, but at other times, Houston sought to bring runaway slaves back to whoever owned them. For Houston, his views were all about morals, whereas Texas’ views were related to its economy. Texas as a whole was completely for slavery, because their economy was dependant on cheap labor in order to gain the maximum profit. Houston’s stance on the Underground Railroad is a bit of a mystery, because when two of his slaves escaped, he did not intend to retrieve them because they showed intelligence. However, when the Compromise of 1850 was being debated, he brought the news that slaves had begun to escape to Mexico and it should be stopped.
3. The number of slave states versus the number of free states is important, because if there is an overwhelming number of free states, then chances are slavery will be abolished due to the majority being against it. In return, if there are a lot more slave states rather than free states, then slave states will have much more power in the fight to keep or maybe even spread slavery. Houston was not at all worried about the number of slave states as compared to free states, because they were nearly the same and he was not sure about how he felt about slavery anyway. The state of Texas after the Compromise of 1850 was not happy because the number of free states was higher than slave states for the first time, which meant slavery would be losing its grip on the country. This compromise was pleasing to Texas, however, because the Fugitive Slave Act, (stating that all runaway slaves must be returned to their master), was put in place. Texas had claimed all the land up to Santa Fe, but with the Compromise of 1850, they were told to let go of that land. However, they were given $10 million in order to pay their debts owed to Mexico. All of these factors show that the Compromise of 1850 created a great change in Texas. However, that did not mean it was neither a good change nor a bad change. Some aspects of the compromise inhibited Texas from geographical power, yet other aspects made slave owners all over the state happy.
4. Most of the south, (such as Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina), agreed with Texas’ ideas on slavery. They are all proslavery, because the south’s agricultural economy was reliant on slaves. If slaves were taken out, then the entire economy of the south would dissipate. The people that agree with Texas’ views would probably be most southern senators, because most senators in the south agree with slavery for economical reasons. However, Houston only agrees with slavery to a certain extent, so he would come in conflict with many senators from the south, and he would agree with the north on the moral issues. Houston came into agreement with William King and John Breckinridge in the sense that they both felt a need to preserve the union at all costs. John Breckinridge (Kentucky), William King (Alabama), and Samuel Houston (Texas), all represented states that were southern, proslavery, and eager to leave the union. These three people agreed with northern states such as New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire even though their states were absolutely against their views of maintaining the union. The north agreed with the ideals of Houston, because Houston was a man of moral value. The north believed in unification, because that is how it had always been, and they were not willing to lose that because the south wanted slavery. The north did not believe in slavery for two reasons. One was because the north had a very industrial economy, which did not at all rely on slaves to work for them. The other reason was because it wasn’t morally correct, which is something the north and Houston could both come into agreement with.
5. Samuel Houston was a part of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was influenced immensely by the south. This is because the delegates of this party were mostly southerners as opposed to northerners. For the reason that of this, the views of Democrats were highly similar to those of the common southern statesman. Such views that Democrats held included being for slavery, which ended up being a big commotion in the party. Because the party did have some northerners, people of the Democratic Party tried to avoid such talks about slavery, because it let to controversy within its own party. As stated earlier, even though it was disputed and largely not spoken of, most Democrats were in fact pro-slavery. As a slave state, Texas was very supportive of Democrats. Sam Houston belongs to this party for most of the same reasons why all the other southerners do. They do it, because it benefits their state and their own beliefs. The Democratic Party seems to resemble Sam Houston in a lot of ways as well. For example, the party itself has mixed views on slavery, and so does Sam Houston. Because the party tries to avoid talking about slavery as an issue, Houston was able to blend in very well, because his mixed views on slavery would not be tampered with. For example, if the whole party was completely against slavery, he would be forced as the minority to begin to change certain views. But because it was hardly spoken of, Houston was able to slide by without being in trouble for his uncertainty. In later years, Houston’s uncertainty did raise some concern in the state of Texas. In 1861, Houston refused to join the Confederacy and was soon removed from power as Senator. Once Sam Houston was out of the picture, Texas was quick to join in with the other southern states to form the Confederacy.
Citations
http://www.lsjunction.com/people/houston.htm
http://www2.austin.cc.tx.us/lpatrick/his1693/civil.html
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/ama1.html
http://hti.math.uh.edu/curriculum/units/2003/01/03.01.10.php
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/john-c-breckinridge
http://www.usflag.org/confederate.stars.and.bars.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h721.html
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utcah/00005/cah-00005.html
Samantha Waldman
Senator David Levy Yulee
Westfield High School Delegation
US Senate BLOC
Position Paper
1. Florida’s economy was mainly agricultural and it relied greatly on Plantation settlements. Aside from its large farms it was a rather rural area. Florida’s economy was agriculturally based throughout all of the 1800’s. Without slave-labor the running of the large plantations across the state would have been impossible. When the legality of slavery in Florida was questioned in the Union it became one of the first states to secede.
2. David Levy Yulee agreed with Florida that the owning of slaves is necessary and without their labor the economy would fail. This is due to the fact that he himself owned an orange and sugar plantation that relied on the use of slave-labor. The actual citizens also felt the same way seeing as the number of slaves owned made up almost half of Florida’s population. Florida’s economy thrived on its ability to own men who work without pay. The plantations there were too large to hire men to work in the fields. Doing this would cause many plantations to close and the economy would be unsuccessful. The owning of slaves was an economic issue for it would be impossible for the running of plantations to continue without them. The morality of slavery was not a matter of concern for Florida. Florida was obviously not a supporter of the activities Underground Railroad participated in. This behavior was stealing slaves who did not earn or buy their freedom. Slave-labor was a necessity to the economy in Florida and the liberation of slaves would hurt the success of the plantations in the state.
3. David Levy Yulee’s ideas of the clave states versus free states fell along the lines with that of Florida’s. Florida was not comfortable with the idea of there being more free states than slave states. Since almost half of their population was slaves they relied on them to work on the farms there. They also may have harbored the same fear as citizens from South Carolina that since there were so many blacks that they would try to Africanize Florida. They believed that if the number of Free states greatly overcame that of the slave states then there was a possibility slavery being abolished all throughout the country.. The compromise of 1850’s goal was to make the amount of slave states equal to be amount of free states, but many southerners feared that the free states would outnumber the slave states. Because of this some found the Compromise of 1850 slightly unsettling. Large states such as California were becoming free states and Florida did not want the slave states to be surpassed. They also believed that the election of the republican Abraham Lincoln would tip the balance in the North’s favor and that the free states would have more power than that of the slave states.
4. One southern state that agreed with Florida was that of Texas. Both states believed that slave-labor was a necessity to the success of the economy. However Florida did not justify the owning of slaves as white supremacy as did Texas. Florida’s owning of slaves was not a moral issue and was merely economic. Yulee did not agree with Texas Senator Samuel Houston who was one of two southern senators to vote against the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Louisiana’s beliefs also fell along the lines with that of Florida’s. Like Florida, nearly half of Louisiana’s population was comprised of slaves and ardently supported slavery in the United States. Although Louisiana did support slavery there was a significant amount of people who supported state rights over slavery, which Florida did not. However, Florida did not agree with the border state Maryland. Despite the fact that Maryland did side with the South, they did show large amounts of sympathy towards the owning of slaves. They pushed greatly for state rights over slavery and the state possessed a large amount of free slaves. One state that particularly disagreed with the beliefs of Florida and most of the Confederate states was New York. Since it was a more industrial based economy it did not rely on the use of slaves and therefore pushed for the abolishment of slavery. Its favored harsh treatment of those in the Confederacy and supported a large amount of media coverage during the civil war.
5. David Levy Yulee was part of the Whig-Democratic party. The Democratic Party then was supporting to continue to keep slavery legal. This can be seen through their support of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which was a pro-slavery act. Many southerners were part of The Democratic Party since many citizens of the Northern states had joined the newly formed Republican Party. It was greatly against the abolishment of slavery because it would make the upkeep of large plantations and farms impossible. The state of Florida, being an agricultural state did advocate the ideas and beliefs of the Democratic Party. It was for the continuation of slavery and for the succession of Florida into the Confederate States.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html
http://www.flheritage.com/facts/reports/civilwar/01.cfm
http://www.nycivilwar.us/
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=Y000061
http://fcit.usf.edu/Florida/lessons/cvl_war/cvl_war1.htm
http://www.floridamemory.com/Collections/civilwarguide/history.cfm
Kyle Schwartz
Council Rock HS North Delegation
Senate Block Position Paper
1) The state of Maine had entered its economic Golden Age in the 1820’s-1850’s. Maine had many different goods that depended mostly on factories to make them. However, Maine’s main export was its fish and nautical supplies. In 1860, 20% of all nautical property was owned in Maine. Since all the work was done by employed citizens and not slaves, there was no need for slavery; making the state of Maine against slavery.
2) James W. Bradbury is strongly against the issue of slavery. This corresponds with his state’s industrialized economy and lack of need for slaves. Sen. Bradbury believes that slavery is morally wrong and that a person has the right to his or her own life. Sen. Bradbury was supportive of the Underground Railroad but did not actually help the slaves escape or harbor any freed slaves.
3) Bradbury, having the economic freedom to believe as he saw fit, strongly disagreed with slavery. The state he represents, Maine, also has a strong view against slavery. However, many other senators in the North were against slavery because it had little effect on the Northern economy. Consequently, views of many northern senators were for having the ratio of free to slave states greater. When Henry Clay put forth the Compromise of 1850, many of the liberal northern senators were extremely against the Compromise of 1850, but many conservatives from the republicans and democrats voted to pass the bill, if doing so would mean the preservation of the Union.
4) Many people from the northern states such as Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware shared Bradbury’s same views. He especially shares his viewpoints with Senator Daniel Webster from Massachusetts. They are both willing to compromise and give up some of what the north stands for to preserve what America stands for. Senator William H. Seward of New York would have highly opposed Bradbury’s beliefs, saying that he was acting un-patriotic. Seward was strongly opposed to slavery and was willing to take the Southerners out on their bluff of secession. Many southerners also were against slavery but dealt with it as a side effect of a booming economy. Many southerners were also for the Compromise of 1850 because it allowed the southern economy to continue growth and expand.
5) Senator Bradbury was a member of the Democratic Party. At the time, the Democratic Party had been split because of the Compromise of 1850. Many Democrats ideals in the north were even conflicting between the liberal and conservative sides. The more liberal Democrats were not in favor of the Compromise of 1850 while the more conservatives were for the best interest of the country. In light of the dissolution of the Whig party, more southern states had joined the Democratic Party. The southerners supported slavery and need the Compromise of 1850 to continue with their economy. As a whole, they recognized that slavery was neither expanding nor being abolished, and usually refrained from the issue. The party eventually split into The Northern Democrats and The Southern Democrats; the Northern Party opposing the issue of slavery and representing the views of the northern states, the Southern Party opposing abolition and representing the view of the southern states such as Alabama and Georgia. Bradbury’s state of Maine advocates the more conservative side of the political spectrum because of its lack of demand for slaves, but high interest in keeping the south from seceding from the Union.
Works Cited
Biographical Directory Of The United States Congress. "Bradbury, James Ware." Dictionary Of American Biography. Biographical Directory Of The United States Congress. 5 Dec. 2008 http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b000734.
Chase, Henry. "Bio of James W. Bradbury." Online Biographies. The Lakeside Press. 15 Dec. 2008 http://www.onlinebiographies.info/me/rmm/bradbury-jw.htm.
Maine Historical Society. Collections of the Maine Historical Society. Portland, ME: The Society, 1904. 158-61.
Rose, Galen. "A Brief History of the Maine Economy." Maine State Planning Office. 15 Dec. 2008 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2202903/a-brief-history-of-the-maine-economy.
My urls had to be taken out of the <> so my assignment would post
Steve Keil
Thomas Hart Benton
Council Rock HS North
Senate Bloc Position Paper
1) Missouri’s economy was truly a mix of agriculture and industry during the time leading up to the Civil War. Many slave holders had settled in Missouri with its greatest aspect being the Missouri River which gave Missouri the connection with the South. However, an increase of German Abolitionists and the importance of trade with the North, who depended on their coal, limestone and other minerals for industry, led to stronger connections with them. Missouri’s economic connection with both epitomizes their division in the idea of slavery. To solve this, Missouri simply stayed neutral and did not succeed, although it was clear that Missouri could sway either way.
2) Thomas Benton and Missouri wanted very much to preserve the balance of power between Pro- and anti-slavery. Benton proposed to use the 102nd meridian and the North and West territories of Texas to claim borders. Keeping the balance of power, Missouri was noted as a “Slave State” although being the most northern of the group. This neutrality and compromise is a common theme in Missouri as they were a border state when sides for the war became formal and Benton strongly favored compromise but not Clay’s detailed plan in 1850.
3) Other border states had similar views as Missouri as they never fully supported the North or the South due to neither having the major dependence, but still a use as well, for slavery. Missouri and Benton were mainly concerned with Compromise and not upsetting the delicate balance of power through slavery. Benton opposed the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska act for he was so adamant on not dividing the nation he was able to oppose abolition and the extension of slavery.
4) Thomas Hart Benton was a Democratic and specifically a Jacksonian Democrat when Andrew Jackson became president. Benton was extremely concerned with expanding the nation westward (while dividing them equally between slave and free) with distributing government lands to the people in order to make the nation more prosperous. He wanted to hold onto the Gold Standard onto currency or “hard currency” so that those with privileges could not take advantage of other Americans. Benton strongly supported the annexation of Pacific Northwest lands and promoted the protection of traders and settlers. However he disliked the annexation of Texas due to the dispute that would ensue with Mexico, upsetting the status quo and the balance of power. His stance on the Pacific and Texas lost him support from Missouri and he barely won reelection in the senate. What makes Benton unique the most was his position to oppose Abolitionists, the spread of slavery and Sucessionists. He did not want to lose slavery, nor encourage it. Holding the Union was his greatest concern regarding slavery.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5aGyVFn3VnMC&pg=PA474&lpg=PA474&dq=102nd+meridian+west+thomas+benton&source=web&ots=vP5URV_dLD&sig=jRlHcRAxWK03U1IcyLNcIaRtWk0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Millard_Fillmore.htm
http://members.lycos.co.uk/lazyjacks/mohist1.htm
Earle, Jonathan. "Benton, Thomas Hart (1782-1858)." American Eras. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli and Richard Layman. Detroit: Gale Research, 1997. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Council Rock High School North. 15 Dec. 2008 http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=SRC-1&docId=EJ2301100343&source=gale&srcprod=SRCG&userGroupName=crnorth&version=1.0
Nickell, Frank. "Benton, Thomas Hart (1782-1858)." DISCovering U.S. History. Online ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Council Rock High School North. 15 Dec. 2008 http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=SRC-1&docId=EJ2104100894&source=gale&srcprod=SRCG&userGroupName=crnorth&version=1.0
Emily Schnell
Senator James Whitcomb
Dulaney High School Delegation
Senate Bloc Position Paper
1)Indiana’s economy was almost entirely agriculturally based, and was very valuable to the Union during the war for its agricultural yield, especially after the loss of the south’s rich farmland. However although the market of Indiana was focused around farming Indiana was a free state.
2)Due to the placement of Indiana as a border state between the north and the south, Indiana’s view on slavery was very mixed. Although slavery became illegal in 1816, up until 1840 slaves were still owned in Indiana. The southern parts of Indiana were sympathetic to the South and their right to own slaves, displayed by the help Indiana gave to seeking fugitive slaves. Even with the presence of pro-secessionists, many citizens in Indiana were active in the Underground Railroad. Escaping slaves who entered Indiana would be ferried from safe house to safe house northward, into Michigan then Ontario. Democrat James Whitcomb also held the views of free-soilers, in which he was opposed to slavery and believed in the idea of free labor.
3)Although a free state Indiana was the most pro-slavery of all the Northern states, due in part to the southern area of the state’s close ties with the south. The state itself was split on the idea of whether there should be more free or slave states. Whitcomb however supported a greater number of free states over states containing slavery. Indiana’s biggest concern was over the possibility that the south might secede from the union. After the Compromise of 1850 was implemented, the Governor of Indiana, Joseph A. Wright, urged the citizens of Indiana to help preserve the union. with a state settled by people from both regions of America, Indiana heeded Wright’s advice. Many Indiana residents viewed the Compromise, especially the Fugitive Slave Act as a way to preserve the union, and for the time being keep the South from seceding. Thus explaining why many Indianans, excluding Whitcomb, enforced the Fugitive Slave Act. Whitcomb himself, although he did believe in doing what was in the best interest of the country was not supportive of the Fugitive Slave Act.
4)Many people from other Midwest states such as Michigan, Illinois (Indiana and Illinois both lay claim as a hometown of Abraham Lincoln), Ohio, and Northern Iowa held views that were similar to those of Whitcomb. Border states, especially Delaware and Missouri were similar to Indiana in that although they stayed with the Union, there were still many people within the state who would have seceded. Kentucky was one of Indiana’s closest allies during the war, with many Kentucky citizens going to Indiana to fight in their Union militia. However
5)James Whitcomb was a staunch Democrat for his entire political career. An active mason, Whitcomb was an opponent of tariffs and internal improvements. During Whitcomb’s time the Democrat party was just beginning to split into two, due to the Compromise of 1850. In the northern Midwest there was a split between the Democrats: those who opposed the compromise and those who believed in the best interest of the country. The party eventually split into North and South Democrats, each representing their region’s views on slavery. Although the split of the parties due to slavery was after Whitcomb’s time, Indiana itself was a Democratic state split by opposition to slavery. All of Indiana could agree though, that it was best for the Union to stay united, with only a select few southern Indiana citizens in favor of secession.
Citations
http://www.in.gov/history/4516.htm
http://famousamericans.net/jameswhitcomb/
https://www.indianahistory.org/library/manuscripts/collection_guides/m0670.html#U
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/
http://civilwarindiana.com/role.html
http://www.archive.org/stream/partypoliticsini00woodrich/partypoliticsini00woodrich_djvu.txt
http://www.statemaster.com/state/IN-indiana
http://www.city-data.com/states/Indiana-Economy.html
http://www.civilwarhome.com/
http://www.connerprairie.org/HistoryOnline/indag.html
Marcel Paolo
1. Connecticut represents the northern portion of the U.S. who found no justification in the slavery of any culture residing to the human race. With an industrially based economy trade and manufacturing are the center point of the economy and without their strong presence would crumble. This also means that the public was generally living in urban environments were slave labor was scarcely found. The political views of Connecticut during the 1800’s sided against the support and prolongation of slavery.
2. On the issue of slavery Roger S. Baldwin is to a great extent what some considered as a well-known abolitionist. Since the beginning of his career Baldwin was defending the rights of slaves and became a passionate antagonist of slavery. With the number of slaves rapidly decreasing since the late 1700’s from thousands to a few hundred, Connecticut, along with Roger S. Baldwin played somewhat critical parts in the abolishing of slavery in all territories with their beliefs. A well-built standpoint of the state and Baldwin is that with an industrially based economy the growing need for cheap and ill earned slave labor isn’t needed. Having no attachment or economic bondage to slavery Connecticut maintains a moral issue for the state.
3. As an abolitionist Baldwin disagreed with the slave states stubbornness in maintaining slavery without consideration of the damage to our country. He was for the dispersion of free states, but had to also face the realization that slavery could spread throughout the nation if pressed enough. If the number of slave states were to outnumber the number of free states the northern economy would be diverted and an issue. After almost a hundred years of fighting and distress to clear out slave labor in Connecticut could it crack the defenses once again? The citizens of Connecticut were able to maintain stabilized and agreeable decisions on slavery because if disrupted it wouldn’t cause their economy to fall. With the southern states however if slavery were to become abolished all their land, their homes would cease to exist as well, so they held much more distress than the north. The Compromise of 1850 deals with this issue because it put an extra pawn on the playing powers of both the North and South.
4. Connecticut views were also shared by many of the northern states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. All these states were against slavery creating something so commonly sought that it contributed to an overall compromise among territories. Both Roger S. Baldwin and his father, Simeon, were well pronounced lawyers and political party members during their life era so respect was imminently given by supporting states. Their will, along with that of Connecticut, to maintain the composure of the country by abolishing slavery is one that had very little opposition. Southern states would disagree with a large proportion of Baldwin’s ideas involving slavery, being pro slavery, and Baldwin being anti-slavery. The Southern States, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Tennessee, would oppose Connecticut’s views as well as other free states. Plain and simply because the slave states were agriculturally economic their way of living and homes depended on slavery.
5. Roger Sherman Baldwin belonged to the Republican Party and was positioned in it as a Whig. The Republican Party composed of many northern states that were strong abolitionists or had already begun the dismantling of slavery in their territories. Whigs such as Roger supported the superiority of Congress rather than those of the Executive Branch (As the Democratic Party had) and developed a strong support in the solitude of the economy. The American System was setup by Henry Clay as the building block for internal improvements of the nation with the risk of high tariffs.
Senate: Conflicts of Expansion, Slavery, and Numbers among
Territories
Conflicts among the North and South quickly escalated because of the crisis and shape of our nation during the middle 1800’s. The state of mind that both sides were experiencing varied so much that the outbreak of a civil war over abolishment of slavery and the Whig Party was in my opinion very possible. The basic views of slavery in the North were shaped because of its economy. States in the North had both an industrial based economy and very little agriculture. Due to the agricultural nature of the North the need for slaves was one of little value. Since there was almost no need for slavery it could be viewed from a more morally correct perspective. In this moral standoff the North found slavery to be inhumane and a representation of the growing greed in our country. To enslave a human to cheap unendurable labor at that time was viewed extremely too lightly and has disheartened many of our day and age.
The Southern territories were robustly an agriculturally supported state. Large farms and cultivated areas majorly populated the South along with its income and the platform of its economy. Slaves were being paid nothing to work the fields of these agricultural estates allowing the Southern owners to live large and sumptuously. Without the profitable work of these farm slaves the South’s economy would surely fall. So when the North busted in with things such as abolishment, and high tariffs it sent the South into an uproar. To look at slavery from a moral standpoint and one of profit are two very different aspects of a growing issue. Moral issues of slavery were completely shadowed by how well the economy performed under the circumstances of it.
With the growing wishes of abolishment, high tariff acts, and the opinion of the territories people also came the expansion of the U.S. The United States was quickly expanding and adding new states into our Union. Yet as soon as these states came as did the same issues that were arising in the North and South were they to be free or slave states? Northern and Southern states attained very different opinions on this obviously as they did for their own states. Amid the North they wanted the complete abolishment of slavery throughout, and that the new states are admitted freely. The Southern states on the other hand wanted slavery to be allowed throughout, and that the new states be admitted as slave states. As the two sides and opinion of both sides collided no progress was made for the overall vote was equal in ratio. This simply meant a crisis for the Senate, because if the states were to be added to either side the result would be unequal. Now the North and South had another opportunity to stack as many states with the views they held to win the ongoing Slavery v. Free states debate. Some action had to take place and did in the Conciliation of 1850 which declared California a free state and also gave the other states the right to decide themselves on the slavery allowance or restriction. The overall lean of these now undecided states was that of Northern views. Allowing the North a deep breath of relief and more outbreak of frustration in the South who were about to lose those lavished lives of theirs. The South feared so greatly that they would be overpowered in their rights as slave states so much that their eventual release from the Union’s powerful grip was imminent.
The North now with the majority of votes in the state involving the abolishment of slavery swung to their side. From the South’s perspective it appeared that the North was trying to accomplish in the destruction of its economy with that of slavery’s end. However the North was truly wishing to do by gaining the overall power in the territories is the interpretation of receiving to new states. Yet here is where the big dilemma of the overall crises in the Senate because the South relied on slavery so overwhelmingly that they couldn’t risk anything. Therein the South gave everything they had to preserve the restrictions of human rights of a certain heritage. This event progressed so far to the edge that they shared opinions which brought about the idea of placing the rights of slave owners in the constitution. Slaves didn’t deserve the rights as the human race had invented because of their lower class in the South’s eyes. The strong opinions and frustrations of both sides are eventually was controlled every crisis occurring from 1840- 1860.
SOURCES: http://www.cslib.org/gov/baldwinrs.htm
http://penelope.uchicago.edu
http://www.nationmaster.com/Whig-party
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html
Dhara Amin
Western YMCA
Senate Bloc Position Paper
During this time-period, the first state, Delaware has an extremely diverse economy. As one of the Border States, Delaware’s economy was agriculturally based in the southern counties. In that area, many of the plantation owners had slaves and relied on slave labor. But the northern county, New Castle County was industrially based which had the Du Pont Company and other industries like textile and shipbuilding. Thus, the southern part of the state supported the South in their political views while the north part of the state supported the North in their political views. Delaware was split internally as well as dealing with the split of the country.
As the senator of Delaware, Presley Spruance shared views with the majority of the people in the state. Delaware, though divided, wanted to avoid war at all costs and preferred a compromise instead. They would rather have the south secede than engage in war to preserve the Union, if a compromise was not established. Presley Spruance, a Whig, agreed with Delaware in finding a compromise rather than having war. He was a strong Whig delegate as well as a merchant who was interested in business greatly. Spruance’s decisions followed those of his fellow Whigs. He supported the Compromise of 1850 in his years as a senator because it was an agreement that settled the issue for the time being and Delaware would want. As divided the state was, Delaware still decided to stay in the Union but it was declared a slave state. Slavery was more of an economic issue rather than a moral issue for Spruance as well as Delaware. As a merchant, Spruance did not want war, which could mess with business and many of the Delawareans felt the same way. Only the strong opinionated abolitionists in the North thought slavery as a moral issue. Delaware did not want its economy to crash because of a war on slavery. Spruance’s views on the Underground Railroad are not clear, but Delaware did support the railroad and a plethora of people helped thousands of slaves escape to freedom.
Spruance did not prefer a certain number of free states and slaves states in the Union. He believed, as did Delaware in that the existing slave states shall be able to keep slaves and the free states shall be able to have no slavery. Spruance did not want war, so he hoped to keep the Union as it is and believed that slavery would die out on its own. Delaware too thought that eventually slavery would be gone if it was left alone. This could be a problem for Spruance as well as Delaware if the issue was never solved. The bickering and hatred could become stronger and have a far worse result and then there already was. Delaware did not fear the loss of slave labor because it was in transition to an industrially based economy. Thus, if the free states did win over then Delaware would not have a dilemma. Even if the slave states gained a majority, Delaware would still not have a problem. When the Compromise of 1850 came into question, Spruance supported it because it was an agreement that held off the issue of war. Delaware and Spruance did not mind that California came in as a free state because it was offset by the strict Fugitive Slave Law. The Compromise addressed both sides, which Delaware desired and thought benefited the Union. Presley Spruance had faith in the compromise and thought it could resolve the issue of slavery for the time being.
As a Border State, Delaware shares views with the other Border States, Maryland, Kentucky, and their Senate representatives. All these states were slave states, which remained in the Union and had supporters of slavery and supporters of no slavery. Kentucky was extremely important during the civil war and if Kentucky seceded, Maryland and Delaware would as well. Kentucky believed staying in the Union under the Constitution. But Kentucky did have a government, which was a recognized member of the Confederate States of America. Delaware and Maryland did not have such a government within their state. The three states believed in reserving slavery where it already exists rather than making it a huge issue. Unlike Delaware though, Kentucky and Missouri followed the Southern states more and believed in slavery a little more. Delaware and Maryland, though tended to side with the northern states as the time period progressed. As for all the other states, the North would agree with coming up with a compromise that would solve the issue and preserving the Union. The southern states would agree with Delaware’s want for a compromise but would disagree with preserving the Union. The South had stronger views on slavery than Delaware as a whole does. Those who support slave labor and rely on it in Delaware would have views close to those of the southern states. The northern states also had strong views about abolishing slavery and again Delaware stood in the middle. Delaware’s mild views on the issue of slavery put them in the middle of the controversy. The northern states agreed partially with Delaware as well as the southern states. The other states in the middle are the one’s who strongly shared views with Delaware and that was Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.
Presley Spruance is a part of the Whig party who has delegates from the south as well as the north. The Whig party was a strong established party until the issue of slavery, which separated the party. The “conscience Whigs” of the North believed that slavery should be abolished and the “cotton Whigs” of the South believed in slavery. Spruance again was in the middle of the split and sided with both parts at different times. As the Whigs died out, the Democrats came in and Delaware soon joined that party. The Democrats believed strongly in states ’ rights, and Delaware supported states’ rights greatly during that time period. The Democrat Party though was also split between the issue of slavery and the Compromise of 1850. Most of the supporters wanted slavery but there were northerners who opposed slavery. The Northern Democrats did not support the Fugitive Slave Act, which the Southern Democrats supported and needed. Delaware agrees with the Democrats because they have moderate views concerning slavery, which Delaware also has. Finally, there is no recent change of view of Delaware but Delaware has mixed views on slavery because of the number of slaves in Delaware at the time as well as the number of free African Americans at the same time.
Sources:
The American Pageant by David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, Thomas A. Bailey
Don’t Know Much About History by Kenneth C. Davis
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h279.html The Whig Party
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000760
http://www.hsd.org/civilwar.htm Delaware History Museum
http://www.e-referencedesk.com/resources/state-history/delaware.html
Kyle Menz
Senator John P. Hale
U.S. Senate
Western YMCA
1. As was the case with many Northern States, New Hampshire was largely dependent on industrial manufacturing for income. The mountainous terrain and infertile soil are not conducive to an agriculture based economy. Those who wished to support themselves by way of farming raised animals, produced dairy products, and grew certain fruits. Others worked in textile mills or factories found along the state’s rivers. This drastically affected views on slavery. To put it simply, this state had no need for it. New Hampshire had no massive cotton fields or other agricultural endeavors which would require slave labor. Factories were filled with Caucasians who worked blue-collar jobs to support their families. As there was no major economic requirement for slavery in New Hampshire, the state was free to be morally opposed to it as an institution, and to condemn the practices of Southern plantation owners who purchased slaves.
2. Throughout Senator John Hale’s career in the Senate, he was always one to side with a minority. Similarly, he was also known for his regular disagreements with the party in power. He spent years of his career fighting against corruption in the U.S. Navy department, and he did so with vigor. Never one to keep his opinions to himself, Hale was known for his fiery assaults on those with whom he disagreed. This passionate and argumentative spirit earned him his share of vendettas. It is not surprising therefore, to know that Hale staunchly opposed slavery and made no secret of it. He is known as the first Senator Abolitionist. Consequently, he made numerous enemies of southern politicians. Slavery was a moral issue for Hale and he became an inspiration to the Abolitionist movement and was even included in poetry on the subject. He was one of the few who voted against the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Senator Hale was not the only outspoken Abolitionist in New Hampshire at the time. “The Morning Star” was a religious newspaper that strongly supported the Abolitionist movement and under editor William Burr, opposed slavery unwaveringly. While Senator Hale and many others were morally opposed to it, there were those who had an economic stake in slavery. Northerners often purchased slave-picked cotton from the south for the textile industry. Dover, New Hampshire was no exception. It is mildly ironic that while Hale was the first Senator Abolitionist, his state had a stake in slavery. Of course, with an issue as complicated as slavery, one must expect there to be exceptions to every rule. New Hampshire being a northern state and therefore opposed to slavery, of course, had its exceptions. There is no record of Senator Hale supporting or participating in the Underground Railroad. However, with the most basic knowledge of Hale’s personality and beliefs, one could safely assume that he was in favor of it.
3. At this time, Senator Hale belonged to the Free Soil Party. He unsuccessfully ran for president in 1852 on the Free Soil ticket. The Free Soil Party believed that slavery should not exist in the new western territories, but it did not push for abolition in eastern states that already practiced slavery. While he supported the ideals of his party, Hale believed that there should be as many free states as possible and as few slave states as possible. As New Hampshire was most decidedly within the Union, and never wavered from this, it had a personal stake in the amount of slave states versus free states. If the slave states became too many, the North would have faced a serious threat. Just as the North eventually overpowered the South resulting in the eventual disappearance of slavery in the country, the South would have similarly imposed its will on the Northern States had it become a majority. It was in New Hampshire’s interest to have as many free states in the country as possible. The Compromise of 1850 was intended to level the playing field between free and slave states. Because of this basic intention, the Free Soil Party stood in opposition. The admittance of California to the Union as a free state pleased Hale as did the decision of whether or not to become free or slave states being left up to popular sovereignty. However the Fugitive Slave Law was a source of outrage to Hale, New Hampshire, and the Northern States in general. These people were furious that they were being lawfully forced to support slavery and assist the slave owners in retrieving runaways, most of whom had escaped to freedom with the help of Northerners. Though in reality, most Northerners simply refused to abide by the Fugitive Slave Law anyway.
4. Union States that shared New Hampshire’s views on slavery included Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, and Maine. These were all states that did not depend on slavery for economic stability. They all shared the belief that slavery as an institution was morally wrong. There were states within the Union however that did not necessarily agree with these views. Delaware and Maryland for example were referred to as “border states.” Geographically, they lie directly between the Union and the Confederacy. While they never seceded from the Union, they were fairly unconcerned with the Union’s ideals, and were more worried about what was in their own best interest. Of course, southern states such as The Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana strongly opposed the views of States such as New Hampshire, as by this point that which would benefit a Northern State would be directly disadvantageous to a Southern State.
5. At this time, John Hale was a member of the Free Soil Party. The Free Soil Party was composed mostly of former Whigs who opposed slavery and former Democrats. This party existed very briefly and when it ended, most of its members joined the northern Republicans. It was the belief of the Free Soilers that slavery should not expand into western territories. The party did not however call for the unconditionally abolition of slavery in areas where it already was practiced. The State of New Hampshire never had any notable disagreements with the Free Soil party, nor did the party ever become as influential as it would have hoped. When Senator Hale of New Hampshire ran for president as a Free Soiler in 1852, he received roughly 5% of the popular vote.
Citations
http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=697&subjectID=2
http://www.seacoastnh.com/woodman/hale/index.html
http://www.bartleby.com/268/9/4.html
Kennedy, David, Lizabeth Cohen, and Thomas Bailey. American Pageant. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.
Greta Skudra
Missouri Senator Atchison
Council Rock HS North
1. Missouri’s economy mixed industrially and agriculturally. Slave holders chose Missouri because of the Mississippi River, giving it a connection to the South. However, the increasing dependence on the North for the trade of coal, limestone, and other minerals brought about a need for the North’s support. Missouri was divided as to whether be pro-slavery or anti-slavery due to the connections to both the North and South. It stayed neutral to avoid major complications (or so that’s what was decided), but could be swayed either way. I believe that Missouri needs to secede to stay heavily involved in the South. Slavery needs to stay because that’s how our economy thrives. Secession of the Southern states will stop the North from being able to control our way of livelihood.
2. Missouri was deemed a Slave State during the Missouri Compromise. However, it is greatly split in its views on slavery. I am completely for slavery and for the secession of Missouri. I am against the Underground Railroad because I believe slaves are the property of their masters. Slavery is both an economic and moral issue for Missouri. However, I only agree with the economic sense. I advocated the building of railroads through Missouri to quicken trade and communication with the South, especially Texas. I wanted extended claims of Oregon territory.
3. Obviously, Missouri was the one most affected by the Compromise of 1850 for it divided Missouri into pro-slavery and anti-slavery. I was very much against the implement of anti-slavery territories. I wanted each division of Missouri (that was anti-slavery) to decide its status by popular sovereignty. I was a very big proponent for Popular Sovereignty because I knew I could lead fellows, the Border Ruffians, to invade Kansas to mar the polls to get Kansas to be a slave state. I feel the Compromise of 1850 is wrong – Missouri should be annexed. I want there to be more slave states so that we can win and become a separate country. We are too diverse in our culture and views to be a unified country.
4. I am a firm supporter of Andrew Jackson. I am a supporter of secession. Benton is my biggest opponent because he wants to make Missouri a part of the Union. Our first main dispute was whether Texas should be annexed (I believed it should). I was also an active supporter of John C. Calhoun. I had Steven Douglas introduce the Kansas-Nebraska Act, so we were on the same page. All the Border States have similar views to my state because we cannot or will not decide which side to pick. I agree with the Southern States, however, because slavery needs to stay – it is our way of life. We can still have commerce with the North, especially if we’re separate countries who do not meddle in each other’s laws and way of life. I agreed with the views of the Southern States and the Senators that represented them because I did not care for a unified country. These states would be Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Slave labor is at the heart of our economy and culture, we need it to be successful. We do not have the industry of the North. The Northern States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire would be very much against my views because they would want another Free State on their side, and Missouri could be easily swayed (though I will not allow this, of course).
5/6. My state is neither North nor South because it is a border state. It cannot agree on what it wants. However, I want to secede. I agree very much with Steven Douglas, which is especially seen because I had him pass the Kansas-Nebraska Act. All the Southern States would obviously agree with me because they’d want another Confederate state to tip the scales in their favor. Benton disagrees with me because he wants to keep Missouri neutral – he’s in favor of splitting Missouri.
7. I am part of the Democratic Party. I allied with the Whigs against Benton with a pro-slavery stance. I belong to this party because I am against the Bank of the United States and have a strong pro-slavery view. My state is mixed in its view of slavery. There is much tension in my state, with an example of the arguing between my opponent, Benton, and me.
"David Rice Atchison."Dictionary of American Biography
Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936.
Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale,
2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC.
"David Rice Atchison." Encyclopedia of World Biography,
2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.
Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale,
2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC.
“Part One - The Gathering Storm.” http://members.lycos.co.uk/lazyjacks/mohist1.htm. The Civil War in Missouri. Accessed on December 14, 2008.
“President for a Day” http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/President_For_A_Day.htm. United States Senate. Accessed on December 14, 2008.
1) New Jersey abandoned their agricultural ways towards the time of the industrial revolution. Many farmers had difficulty trying to grow crops due to poor soil, thus creating an industrial state. New Jersey began to make textiles, coal and iron ore. After the state became an industrial state slavery was unnecessary. The factories and mines needed strong people. By having common men work on the mines and in the factories more people were employed, and slaves were freed. Because New Jersey was primarily agricultural before the industrial revolution, it was the last state to abolish slavery in the North. New Jersey was hesitant to abolish it. Eventually by 1846, slavery was abolished in New Jersey, around the time of the industrial revolution.
2) New Jersey is AGAINST slavery. When the states primary economic source changed, so did its views on slavery. If New Jersey had any luck with crops and such, and did not turn to textiles and coal during the industrial revolution, it may have stayed a slave state. But, Senator Jacob W. Miller did not believe in slavery. He felt that it was morally wrong, and that it was not right to force a man to work without pay and be treated so horribly. New Jersey was a supporter of the Underground Railroad. There were three primary routes of the Underground Railroad in New Jersey. Jersey City was the last "station" on the Underground Railroad route through New Jersey. Thousands of slaves passed through the state. This caused the number of slaves living in New Jersey to increase. New Jersey was where most slaves tried to escape to.
3) Jacob Miller and New Jersey believe that there should be more free states. There are not enough, and states such as California should be free. This is an issue because larger states with more power in congress, such as Virginia can alter the vote. So, if most of congress votes for an anti-slavery law, Virginia can change the outcome by voting against the law. Texas also played a larger role in this situation. Jacob Miller is against the Compromise of 1850, like most Northern Whigs. Although the compromise did make California a free state, but even so, the compromise would not have applied the Wilmot Proviso to the western territories and because of the Democratic fugitive slave law. The fugitive slave law said that you had to turn in all runaway slaves. This was the worst part of the compromise because New Jersey was is well known for aiding runaway slaves. The underground railroad was HUGE. So by prosecuting those who aid slaves, you also anger the northern states.
4) New Jersey being a northern state, primarily agreed with states such as New York, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. These states are also primarily industrial at this point in time. They too are against slavery and the compromise of 1850. They also wanted a strong central government. All other northern states that had no slavery also agreed with New Jersey. The northern Whigs generally had the same beliefs. New Jersey is also against pretty much all southern states. The southern states are pro-slavery, while the northern states are not. They also would rather have the federal government be almost powerless, and that the states have most of the power. The Northern states disagree with that.
5) Jacob Miller is a strong member of the conscience Whig party. He is anti-slavery and wants a strong central government, and that the people and government should follow the constitution closely. The Whigs believed that the government is limited by the powers granted by the constitution, the people vote for who makes up the government, that the people should not be taxed directly; they should be taxed on imported duties. New Jersey agrees with the views of their senator, Jacob Miller. New Jersey has good representation in the senate, he does what is best for the state, country, and people. The Whig party is a mix of both northern and southern states, so the conscience Whigs disagreed the cotton Whigs a lot. That is what tore the party apart. The democrats, however, are the opposite of the Whig party. They want slavery and a strong state government. There are no recent changes within the views of the state. The state all unites and agrees with their hardy senator.
citations:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=W1852
http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/teachers/politics-lesson1.html
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000731
http://www.njcu.edu/programs/jchistory/Pages/U_Pages/Underground_Railroad.htm
http://www.phillyburbs.com/undergroundrailroad/NJroutes.shtml
Sandy Ghosalkar
Mongtomery High School Delegation
Senator George Badger of North Carolina
North Carolina, during this period, had a mainly agricultural economy. By 1860 the state had 75,203 farms. In 1810, North Carolina was an early industrial leader but by 1830 had slipped from that position of leadership because of reliance on agriculture, the closing of British ports, and a sense of economic malaise. As a result North Carolina continued its trend towards becoming a predominantly agricultural state. The resulting lack of opportunity can be seen in the state’s population data. In 1790, North Carolina ranked third in terms of population in the United States but had slipped to fifth by 1810 and stagnated there until 1840. North Carolina, by 1850, had only ninety one slave owners who owned a hundred or more slaves. Fifty three percent of slaveowners in North Carolina owned five or fewer slaves. Nor did North Carolina have the large and expansive plantation system of the Lower South colonies such as South Carolina. North Carolina agriculture consisted mainly of yeoman farmers. Even though most North Carolinians would have supported the continuation of slavery, most would have been reluctant to go to war to preserve the “peculiar institution”.
For the state of North Carolina, slavery is both a moral and economic issue. While the overwhelming majority of farmers in North Carolina own few or no slaves, the small fraction who own more than one hundred are disproportionately represented in a political sense. They were the wealthiest men in the state at the time and would have exercised a large amount of political power. They would have been extremely reluctant to give up their slaves. If they did so, they would have to invent an entirely new economic system for growing cotton and rice. Furthermore, the farmers who owned only a few slaves would also have been angered at the prospect of losing what they considered essential farm help. Slavery is also a moral issue because it represents a unique aspect of the South that the North is trying to take away. If the rhetoric were to become heated enough, many North Carolinians would have sided with the secessionists because they would have felt that their entire way of life was under attack. North Carolina’s and Senator George Badger’s position on the Underground Railroad is evident in the Senator’s support for the Fugitive Slave Law. Senator Badger supported the Fugitive Slave Bill. In a speech on March 18, 1850 he claimed that the Constitution guaranteed Southern states the right to demand return of fugitives, including runaway slaves, who were fugitives under state law. Badger, as a Southerner, was opposed to the Underground Railroad and felt that its activities were extremist and divisive. However, he did not think that the members of the Underground Railroad represented the majority of Northerners. He said, “I have not the smallest idea in the world that the Senator from New York [William Seward] speaks the opinion of the Northern people generally, or the people of any one State in the Union”
The Compromise of 1850 was created to settle the disputes that were created by the new lands acquired during the Mexican American War (1846 to 1848). Up to this point, the number of free and slave states had been nearly equal in number. If a large number of states entered as free or slave states, this balance would have been disrupted. As a result, the South, which felt increasingly threatened by the North’s growing industrial progress and population, would be outnumbered by free-state Senators in the US Senate. The Compromise of 1850 contained five major provisions. Texas would relinquish its claims to lands that stretched all the way to Santa Fe. New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without any mention of slavery but would make the decision later, when applying for statehood. The slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia (which at the time contained the nation’s largest slave market). California would be admitted as a free state. Finally, in order to please slave state senators who would have been angered by the addition of a free state, the Fugitive Slave Bill was also included in the compromise. As a Southern Whig I would have supported the Compromise of 1850 along with Northern Democrats. As a Whig, one of my greatest influences is Henry Clay. Clay, the founder of the American Whigs, had always supported the idea of a single American nation and had actually initiated the Compromise of 1850. Furthermore, I would have supported the measure because I am pro-business and would have realized that North Carolina had the most to gain as a player in a large economy rather than an economy in which it was a farm state like all the other Southern states. Most Northern Whigs and Northern Democrats opposed the Compromise. The break-up of Congress upon sectional rather than party lines would show that politicians were willing to defy their political leaders and represent their regions.
This time period is interesting because the differences between political parties is muddled while most differences arise due to one’s home state. As a Southerner, George Badger would have naturally looked to other Southern senators for support. He was a supporter of the Compromise of 1850 and of the Fugitive Slave Bill. However, this support for largely Southern causes must also be viewed within a larger context. He was a Whig, a party which still believed that the Union could succeed. It was built upon the idea that the destiny of the United States was to become a commercial power. As a result, Badger was a Southerner but also a Unionist. North Carolina was also one of the last states to secede. As an Upper South state, North Carolina was strongly influenced by Virginia and during the Civil War, North Carolina seceded only after Virginia had also done so. Virginia’s Senators will be regarded as leaders. The Lower South Senators, who have a much more vested interested in seeing slavery survive, may exert pressure upon me so that I may join the Lower South if it decides to secede. Furthermore, Daniel Webster, the Whig from Massachusetts, may also pressure me to stay loyal to the Union in the late 1850s as tensions are rapidly rising. As a Southern Whig, I may be caught between my loyalty to my region and my loyalty to the ideas espoused by the Whig Party. My friends will be Southern Whigs, many of whom supported the Constitutional Union Party in the election of 1860. I will be opposed by the nascent Republicans and the Southern Democrats, both of which contain some radical members, like William Seward of New York. Both of these factions have become sectionalized and do not seek compromise. I may find potential a potential ally in John Bell of Tennessee. He would later go on to be a founder of the Constitutional Union Party. Although he supported the Confederacy after the Civil War began, he was a unionist.
As already stated, I belong to the Whig Party. The Whigs were founded upon opposition to the policies of Andrew Jackson. Unlike Jackson, who favored the abolishment of the Bank of the United States and did not support much federal involvement in commercial activity, the Whigs believed that America must develop a strong commercial economy. The Whigs also considered themselves the opponents of Jacksonian democracy. They consisted more of the upper class and were hostile to the notion that every (white) man deserved a vote (a principle of Jacksonian democracy). During the 1850s, the Whigs would devolve into the “Conscience Whigs” who were Northern Whigs opposed to slavery and “Cotton Whigs” who were Southern Whigs in support of what they considered a vital economic institution (slavery). Southern Whigs consisted mainly of commercially minded lawyers and entreprenuers. George Badger, a lawyer, fits into this profile. There was not much tension in North Carolina regarding secession. Although the state had supported pro-slavery candidates in the past, few residents actually owned a sizable number of slaves and felt that secession was unjustified when they had little to gain. Unlike the Deep South states, which moved towards secession as soon as Lincoln was elected (in 1860), North Carolina and the rest of the Upper South would not secede until the Fort Sumter crisis in April of 1861.
Allard, Phil. "Kansas-Nebraska Act." Philwrites.com. 11 Apr 2006. PhilWrites. 16 Dec 2008 http://www.philwrites.com/H_Kansas_N.htm.
Badger, George. "Full Text of "Speech of Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, on the slavery question. In Senate, March 18 and 19, 1850"." Archive.org. Internet Archive. 16 Dec 2008 http://www.archive.org/stream/speechofmrbadger00badg/speechofmrbadger00badg_djvu.txt>.
CommunicationsSolutions/ISI, "History of Business in North Carolina-Overview." North Carolina Business History. 2007. CommunicationsSolutions/ISI. 16 Dec 2008
"Constitutional Union Party." History.com. 2008. History Channel. 16 Dec 2008 http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=206381.
PBS, "Compromise of 1850." PBS.org. 1998. PBS. 16 Dec 2008 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html.
"The Whig Party." USHistory.com. US History.com. 16 Dec 2008 http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h279.html.
University of North Carolina, "Slavery in North Carolina." Slavery in North Carolina. University of North Carolina. 15 Dec 2008 http://www.lib.unc.edu/stories/slavery/index.html.
Erika Schultes
Senator Samuel S. Phelps
Florence HS Delegation
Senate Bloc Position Paper
Vermont tended to concentrate on agriculture as it’s economic foundation, and as of 1850 only two percent of its population was classified as urban. However, fertile land was scarce and many residents left in search of better soil in New York. Due to its relatively small population, Vermont didn’t rely on slavery to advance its economy.
Samuel Phelps was morally opposed to slavery, as was Vermont, whose constitution prohibited adult slavery. As far back as 1817, when the Vermont branch of the American Colonization Society was founded, the people promoted gradual emancipation of slaves, while others supported immediate liberation. Phelps viewed slavery as an oppressive institution and an offense against humanity. Vermont also provided numerous safe stops for runaway slaves along the Underground Railroad. Cellars and tunnel entrances in the homes of prominent families all aided slaves on their road to freedom as they passed from household to household.
Senator Phelps believed that new states, such as California, should be free states. It would have been ideal for the free state representatives to outnumber the slave states in the senate, to take another step closer to abolition or at least to ensure more equal decisions among the states. The Compromise of 1850 didn’t accomplish much in the favor of Vermont’s views. The stricter Fugitive Slave Law angered many people, especially those involved in aiding escaping slaves in the Underground Railroad.
Northern representatives and states generally agreed with the views of Senator Phelps and the state of Vermont. Vermont shared the views of the New England states, such as Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island. They all opposed slavery, mainly because it wasn’t essential to their economic well-being. Vermont opposed southern states and the views of the border states, such as Maryland, West Virginia, and Delaware. These states defended slavery and fought to keep it a legal part of the nation. Vermont shared the belief of Senator Phelps and the Northern that slavery was morally wrong.
Samuel Phelps was a member of the Whig Party. Whigs believed that the United States government should govern only with the powers granted to it by the Constitution. They supported the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law on that basis that they were keeping their peace and maintaining the system in order to preserve the Union. The mixed views of Vermont conflicted with these beliefs of the Whig Party. As a principal proponent of the underground railroad, the state’s citizens resented the Fugitive Slave Law and disagreed with its grounds. This created tension between the people who wanted to follow the rules in order to save the nation, and the people who did what they could to save their fellow human beings.
Works Cited
http://www.history.com/states.do?action=detail&state=VT&contentType=State_Generic&contentId=54157
http://www.archive.org/stream/speechofmrphelps00phel/speechofmrphelps00phel_djvu.txt
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=P000299
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=W1852
http://books.google.com/books?id=uTBCXqOou0YC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=slave+percentage+vermont&source=bl&ots=AJPP6mkAY_&sig=CZ1R23KqwbebynBoBqQr3afUJ84#PPA32,M1
http://vermonthistory.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=88
Danielle Sumner
Daniel Sturgeon
Senate Block Position Paper
North Hunterdon
1. What type of economy does the state you represent have? It is more agriculturally or industrially based? How will this influence your views on slavery?
The early 19th century for Pennsylania was a huge period of industrialization, mostly in new agricultural equipment for farming. During the turn of the century, Pennsylvania was the biggest food-producing state and maintained that title up until the 1840’s. Among the crops they grew were wheat, corn, and livestock. Once the 1840’s hit, traditional Pennsylvania farms were introduced to new farming machinery like harvesters and binders. Although Pennsylvania was predominantly an agricultural state, industrialization was beginning to show by the ‘40’s. Coal mining, textile-making, leathermaking, shipbuilding, and lumbering were prosperous professions. On top of that the Southern states were definitely overtaking Pennsylvania in terms of food production. Despite Pennsylvania’s agricultural economy, it sided against slavery. The state was founded by Quakers, an incredibly open-minded group of people who believed fiercely in abolitionism and womens’ suffrage. I concurr with my state’s opinion.
2.What is your and your state’s view on the issue of slavery? Is it an economic or moral issue for you and the state you represent? What is your stance on the Underground Railroad and its activities?
Pennsylvania was an open-minded state that supported abolitionism. Its history had been surprisingly free of a slave-based economy. Even at the peak of slavery, it simply didn’t catch on in PA. A law for gradual emancipation had been passed in 1780, deeming that registered slaves must be set free when they were 28 or older. A census taken in 1840 says there were only 64 slaves left in the state. Because of its position on the Mason-Dixon line, PA was a large supporter of the Underground Railroad. Many main routes led into it and there were plenty of villages for free slaves scattered across the state. I, having lived in this state for most of my life, agree with the beliefs of the majority of my state, although I was not actually around for most of the controversies since my term as Senator ended in 1851.
3. How do you and the state you represent feel about the number of slave states versus free states? Why is this an ssue? How does the Compromise of 1850 deal with this issue and how do you feel about the compromise?
Because of PA’s geographical position, right on the border of the Mason-Dixon line, it didn’t want any kind of dispute with the South outside of Congress and the Senate. Thus, I was one of the Senators to help pass this document. Although everybody knew it was temporary, it kept the inevitable controversy back a little longer. During this time period, California was clamoring to be given full status as a state. The South demanded that it be a slave-state, while the North wanted it to be an abolitionist state. The Compromise of 1850 said that California be made into a free state and that the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona be formed as free territories. Later, when they became official states, they could vote on whether or not they wanted to have a free state. However, the Fugitive Slave Act would be passed in return. This decreed that any runaway slaves be returned to their owners, no matter their location. Naturally, my state and I weren’t too satisfied with this, but the South would have accepted nothing less.
4. Which people and states have the same views as you? Which do not? If you are from the North, which Northern representatives and states generally agree with you? Are there any Northerners who disagree? Any Southerners? Who are they and why do they disagree with your views?
Since Pennsylvania believed that slavery is morally wrong, it sided with states that held similar beliefs. Namely, those siding with the North, such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, etc. Since I helped pass the Compromise of 1850, I agrede to a degree with those states that also ratified the Compromise. I did not like the idea of the Fugitive Slave Act and disagreed with those Southern states that supported it, although I could not voice this opinion because of Pennsylvania’s iffy geographical situation, it’s Southern border lining with Virginia’s, which was a Southern state. The Southern states disagree with PA’s views on moral anti-slavery because their economy depends hugely on their slave plantations and the products that their slaves produce. Without their slaves, their economy and lifestyles would crumble. Although Pennsylvania depended largely on agriculture besides industrial businesses, it didn’t depend on slaves. Thus, slavery was not an issue of economical interests for us as it was for the South, but rather an issue of morality.
5. Which political party do you belong to and what are the views and beliefs of that party? What are they promoting? What are they against? Why do you belong to that particular part? Does your state avdvocate the views of your party? Why or why not? Is there a recent change of views within your state, or a mixed view? If so, how does this create tension within your state?
I, Daniel Sturgeon, am a Democratic senator for the state of Pennsylvania. During the time I was Senator (1840-1851) the Democratic party was mostly dominated by the South. Because the Democratic party was typically associated with the South and Pennsylvania was an abolitionist state, by the early 1850’s a reform led by PA ended up turning the state, formerly a Democratic state, Republican. I was one of the Democrats exchanged from the Senate for a Republican and I was not a candidate for re-election. Because there were both Southern and Northern states in the Democratic party, the opinion on slavery was at a deadlock. Most of the time, the topic was ignored. On other topics, such as power distribution in the government, the Dems believed that states should maintain as much power as possible and that the Federal government keep to itself. The part was in favor of Westward expansion and it emphasized the rights of the individual person, which appealed to small-business owners, factory workers, farmers, and slaveowners.
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=5001046
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/precivilwar/context.html
http://www.legisstate.pa.us/WV01/VC/visitor_info/pa_history/whole_pa_history.htm
http://www.phmc.sta†e.pa.us/ppet/civilwar/page2.asp?secid=31
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=880
[HSC Position Paper
Senate Block
Scotch Plains-Fanwood High School Delegation
Emily Becker
Representing Senator Charles Sumner
1) While Massachusetts is not completely industrially based, most of its economy is centered around manufacturing. It has a particularly strong textile industry, and currently supplies the nation with a majority of its woven goods and shoes. This allows Massachusetts to take a step back and view slavery on a moral level. However, this is not always the case. Mill tycoons in particular are dependent on receiving cheap cotton from the South, a business transaction made possibly by the economical benefits of slavery.
2) Massachusetts was largely a center for social reform and abolitionist ideas. It viewed slavery morally, and deemed it highly unethical. Senator Charles Sumner also viewed slavery from a moral standpoint, and found it atrocious. In his eyes, slavery was highly unconstitutional; but more then that, it was wrong and highly immoral. Rather, he supported universal suffrage and integration, actively pursuing free education and homestead for African Americans. Sumner hoped to bring forth a social reform. Higher on his list of priorities, however, was to stop one of the worst crimes being committed by the United States government—the expansion of slavery.
The Underground Railroad stopped at least seven different places in Massachusetts due to the state’s high population of abolitionists. As I was a frequent visitor to the Fayetteville’s Gage House, a stop on the Underground Railroad and a center for abolitionism, it can be assumed that I also supported the Underground Railroad itself. The fact that I sought to see the Fugitive Slave Act eliminated (claiming it not only violated the constitution but also moral conscience and divine law) gives further proof to my support of the Underground Railroad.
3) One of the largest conflicts in the Senate during the pre-civil war period was the struggle for power between the North and the South. Each “side” has fifteen states representing it and its beliefs. However, with a multitude of territories waiting to become annexed into the United States, the question arose of whether or not the future states would be free or slavery. No matter what the government decided, the addition of the new states would tilt the power in the Senate to one side or the other. Naturally, Massachusetts was concerned with the possibility that the South could take control and hoped that the new states would be annexed as free states. The Compromise of 1850 was a series of laws developed to solve this problem. While Massachusetts as a whole approved of the Compromise (after all, it was Daniel Webster, a Massachusetts Senator who proposed it) Sumner was avidly opposed. The compromise also amended the Fugitive Slave Act, and Sumner was not willing to compromise when it came to slavery. He insisted that the act was “evil” and had to be repelled—this was not the time to be political about it! Unfortunately, the Compromise of 1850 was widely accepted as not only an answer to the current plight of the Senate but as the answer to the slavery problem altogether. Sumner found this appalling--equal rights and universal suffrage was the only solution.
4. Generally speaking, most Northern states (New York, New Jersey, Main, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Hampshire, etc.) agreed with Sumner in his abolitionist endeavors. This remains mostly true when it comes to representatives from the North, although there were exceptions. Senators such as Daniel Webster and James W. Bradbury were willing to compromise in order to preserve unity, and they would not stand by Sumner and his firm no compromise attitude. Most Southern beliefs directly contrasted Sumner’s views, although some representatives in particular held beliefs that specifically offended Sumner. Senators Stephen A Douglas, Andrew Pickens Butler, and James Murray Mason held such views. Sumner often verbally abused the before mentioned Senators (and men like them) for their strong pro-slavery views. This verbal assault ultimately led to the creation of many enemies in high places, not to mention the brutal caning of Sumner shortly after a particularly offensive speech denouncing Butler.
5. Charles Sumner was originally a member of the Massachusetts Whig party. However, the party did not support his firm antislavery beliefs. Sumner quickly moved on to help form the Free Soil party, which held little power in Massachusetts until the 1851s. The Free Soil party was accused of having no true convictions at first, but it quickly attracted a slew of abolitionists. However, it didn’t take long for the small antislavery party to die out, and Sumner was forced again to switch to another party. This time he turned to the Republican party. The Republican party was formed after the despicable Kansas-Nebraska Act brought the question of slavery back into Senate. It didn’t take long for Sumner to become one of the spokesmen for the party, despite the fact that most of his ideas were far more radical than the average Republican.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0859530.html
http://www.matildajoslyngage.org/undergroundrailroad.htm
http://www.nndb.com/people/458/000050308/
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7012/Free-Soil-Party.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASsumner.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-sumner
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/usa/sumner.html
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=74&subjectID=4
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html
http://www.city-data.com/states/Massachusetts-Economy.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/us/A0859528.html
Dennis Elwell
Westfield High School
Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi
1. Mississippi is primarily an agricultural economy based on Cotton. Large plantations rely on slave labor in order to farm and produce Cotton at a cheap cost. Slavery then is an essential institution for Mississippi and will have to be preserved at all costs from Northern aggression.
2. Economically, slavery is a vital institution for the survival of the South. Moreover, it is a stabilizing force in Southern society, allowing for the white man and black man to be a part of a system that benefits them both. Without whites serving as their masters, biologically inferior blacks would be much worse off. Even the Bible decrees that Slavery is a righteous institution. Slavery then, is both an economic necessity as well as a moral ideal worth upholding.
However, this phenomenon of the Underground Railroad, an example of Northern aggression, undercuts the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, a central component of the Compromise of 1850. These activities demonstrate just how willing the North is to undermine democracy when it benefits the South in a case such as this.
3. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution uphold the rights of property owners to their property. However, many states have unconstitutionally barred slaveholders to their right to their property: their slaves. No law should prohibit slaveholders from their right to property, whether it be state or federal law. In terms of the expansion, no state or individual should have to be subject to unconstitutional laws which prohibit slavery, even if those laws are enacted under popular sovereignty. The Compromise of 1850 fails to protect individual and state rights by imposing a ban on slavery in California and the Western territories, as well as banning the slave trade in the District of Columbia.
4. Many southern representatives share Mississipi’s stance on a wide variety of issues. Pierre Soulé of Louisiana showed through the Ostend Manifesto how he supports territorial expansion with the purpose of preserving slavery. David Rice Atchison of Missouri, who supports expansion for slavery, has strongly fought against his home-state colleague, Thomas Hart Benton, who, although supports expansion, espouses a much more anti-slavery viewpoint. Another moderate Southerner, Senator William R. King from Alabama shares Mississippi’s stances on pro-slavery yet is more willing to work a deal with the North, as he showed in his support of the Compromise of 1850. However, Senators like Andrew Butler and Preston Brooks strongly share many of the same stances as Mississippi. Both men strongly oppose California’s admission as a non-slave state while passionately supporting the fugitive slave act.
Preston Brooks perhaps even represents the South on an even more symbolic level because of his honorable caning of the disgraceful and condescending Charles Sumner. This radical Northerner from Massachusetts vehemently opposes the rights of slaveholders to their property. He wants to repeal the fugitive slave act and even goes so far as to argue for the abolition of slavery. And he ignorantly and cowardly scapegoats southern slaveholders for the troubles of Kansas. Unfortunately, a very large number of Northerners share his views, though not necessarily to such a fanatical extent. William H. Seward of New York, however, is just as fanatical as Charles Sumner. Like his colleague, Seward is an abolitionist and he staunchly opposes expansion on the basis of slavery. He also strongly opposes the Kansas-Nebraska Act and denounces the impartial and correct decision in the Dred Scott Case. Although he opposes the Compromise of 1850, which I do also, he does so at the opposite and fanatical extreme of my view. John C. Frémont, the Senator from California, is a figure from the newly formed state who opposes slavery and even threatens to leave the Democratic party, which is mostly proslavery.
Some Northern Senators do deserve some credit for their efforts in trying to reconcile North and South without ignoring Southern views. Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, though a moderate on the issue of slavery, has found it wise to simply let the states decide if they want slavery to exist within their boundaries. He acknowledges the Northern concessions in many of the compromises, and in the end supports the deal made between regions. Lewis Cass is another proponent of Douglas’ idea of state popular sovereignty. Although I myself have reservations about popular sovereignty because I do not believe any law has the constitutional power to prohibit slavery, I realize that many states, under popular sovereignty, would choose to protect the rights of their slaveholders and make the right decision.
5. I belong to the Democratic party; however, in recent times the party has become factionalized over several key issues. The most divisive issue has been the support of slavery. Southern “hunker” democrats like myself are proslavery while Northern “barnburners”, many of whom become Free-Soilers, are antislavery. Although a certain number of other parties exist, such as the Free-Soilers, the Whigs, and the emerging Republicans, only the southern Democratic party has held true to the principle of rights to property and states’ rights. Because of this, I joined the Democratic party, though factionalized it may be.
Fortunately, the state of Mississippi very much supports the general views of the “hunker” democrats. Unlike a border state, such as Maryland or Virginia, Mississippi is more united behind the idea of preserving the institution of slavery and protecting the rights of slaveholders. This is because slavery is so prevalent throughout the state for the purposes of the Cotton Industry that whites have seen firsthand how vital slavery is to the economic success of their society. Also, many whites who do not own slaves recognize the importance of the institution as a stabilizing force in society. Without slavery, they know, both whites and blacks would be worse off. With Northerners becoming more aggressive against the South overtime, Mississippians have become even more patriotic and united behind the idea of preserving slavery.
"Andrew Butler." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com
"Charles Sumner." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
"Daniel Webster." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
"David Rice Atchison." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
"Democratic Party." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
“John C. Frémont." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
"Mississippi." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
"Preston Brooks." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
"Thomas Hart Benton." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
"William H. Seward." American History. 2008. ABC-CLIO. 8 Dec. 2008 http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act (Short Blog Post)
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was one of the leading causes of the Civil War. It challenged the prohibition of slavery above the 36’30 line (which was in place as a result of the Missouri Compromise). The Nebraska Territory was to be divided into Kansas and Nebraska. In both territories, the question of slavery was to be decided by popular sovereignty. The citizens of the territory would decide if slavery was legal. The bill enraged Northerners and others opposed to slavery. Southern leaders pressed for an amendment to the bill which would repeal the clause of the Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery. The passage of the Act led to a mini-Civil War in Kansas. Abolitionist and pro-slavery forces fought each other for control of the state. Democrats were reduced to a regional, Southern, pro-slavery party. Whigs, who had opposed the Act, became non-existent in the South and were greatly weakened in the North. The Act also led to the emergence of the Republican Party, whose initial support came from anti-Act Whigs and Democrats.
good websites for documents from the civil war:
http://blueandgraytrail.com/cwe/Documents
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/
Post a Comment