Just a quick note with a few points:
1. Reminder, everyone needs to post. To post, click at the top "sign-in" and create an account. You can then comment on any of the papers or other discussion points so far. You could also create your own top level discussion thread.
2. I have a senator from VA still available that I realized I forgot to assign. The first person who e-mails me with an interest in changing their Senator position to this important role gets it. jlr@hangley.com (This is also a test to see if anyone is reading.)
JLR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Some good websites:
http://vlib.iue.it/history/index.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.html
http://www.freehistory.org/
I'll post more later.
Sidharth Sahni
John C. Fremont
Senate Block Position Paper
Washington Township, NJ
1)
California was a very diverse state at that time period. The population of California worked in very miscellaneous jobs. Such as Farmers, miners, and businessmen. However, that state seemed to be run by powerful businessmen that controlled majority of the states economic income. California had a lot of southerners that favored the Confederacy, however, the majority of people were against of slaver thus keeping California a free state
2)
John C. Fremont’s view on slavery and California’s view on slavery were similar to a certain extent. As I have mentioned before California was a very diverse state. It was inhabited by southern that felt that slavery should be permitted. However, the majority of the population, including Fremont himself, supported the union by sending gold to the east, recruiting and funding a limited number of combat units, maintaining numerous fortifications, and sending troops east. So I can say slavery was more of a moral issue in this state. As for the Underground Railroad and its activities, I can say Fremont, and most of California supported it. I can say this because Fremont had a strong stand on free soil in Kansas and he was against enforcement of the Fugitive slave law.
3)
Fremont was a very anti slavery man. And California for a most part was anti slavery state too. Freemont was a very radical anti slavery senator. He felt that slavery should be stopped from spreading, and that it should also be completely eliminated in pre existing slave states. Also the addition of California to the union started created havoc for the south because the felt that the north was starting to gain more power and the feared this would cause major problems for them in the future.
Series of measures passed by the U.S. Congress to settle slavery issues and avert secession. The crisis arose in late 1849 when the territory of California asked to be admitted to the Union with a constitution prohibiting slavery. The problem was complicated by the unresolved question of slavery's extension into other areas ceded by Mexico in 1848. In an attempt to satisfy pro- and antislavery forces, Sen. Henry Clay offered a series of measures that admitted California as a free state, left the question of slavery in the new territories to be settled by the local residents, and provided for the enforced return of runaway slaves and the prohibition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. So Fremont feel happy about entering the union, but upset about fugitive slave law. So upset, that he completely ignored the fugitive slave law, and actually encouraged others to break the law too.
4)
There are many people and states that have same view as me, John Fremont. The people that seem to agree with me are the abolitionist. They too feel the slavery is a moral issue, and that slavery should not be permitted from spreading. In addition to that they feel that slavery should also be abolished from the current states. The states that seem to must agree with this idea are the northern states. They feel that slavery should be abolished also.
States that generally agree with me Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. As most of these states are in the north and they too take a strong stand against slavery. There really aren’t any northern states that disagree with me, because as a new states most of the other northern states feel complied to keep California happy and in the union. And they too agree with the California’s idea of anti slavery.
5)
John C. Fremont, belonged to the Republican party and his views were very much intact with the Republican views at that time. In fact the he became the first presidential candidate of the newly formed Republican party but lost the election to James Buchanan. Fremont was strongly opposed slavery, and he believed in abolishing slavery in all of the U.S. states. The Republican party did a great job in promoting his views. They too were a strong abolitionist party, and they too felt that slavery not only had to be stopped from spreading but completely abolished in the South. California was a strong promoter of this idea and stayed on with the union all through out the civil war. However, there were some southerners that felt that slavery should be allowed in California, but due to a minor number they had no power. There was a little bit tension due to this minor number of southerners. However, there was nothing upscale and Fremont did a great job in controlling any problems
Citations
http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/61april/civilwar.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/john-c-fremont
http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist5/civwar.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilwar3.htm
Ryan Wetmore
James Guthrie
James Guthrie’s roll within the White House bloc is the Senator from Kentucky. The job of the senator is to propose new laws and vote on proposed laws by other senators. He would also vote on confirming federal justices and Supreme Court Justices. Guthrie’s family was already into politics which only helped him to get involved in politics. His father served in the General Assembly of Kentucky from 1800-1805 and then again in 1808. His father also served in the military so Guthrie graduated from McAllister’s Military School in Bardstown Kentucky. At first Guthrie worked on a flatboat transporting goods up and down rivers. However he found this work unfulfilling and he studied law under Judge John Rowan and was a lawyer before entering politics. He served in the Kentucky General Assembly from 1827 to 1840. In 1849 we became president of the Kentucky Constitutional Convention. He also served as president of Louisville and Nashville Railroad and the Louisville and Portland Canal Company. He also helped find the University of Louisville and became its second president.
James Guthrie was Democratic. The Democrats mostly consisted of farmers city laborers and Irish-Catholics. They opposed elites and aristocrats and opposed modernizing industry if it resulted in higher taxes. Their main domestic issues were banking and tariffs. They favored expansion westward so they could acquire more farmlands and were in support of the war against Mexico. They supported free trade. However, the party was split on the issue of slavery. All these political ideas could be referred to as the Jeffersonian Democracy.
If I could create my own political party in the 1800’s it’s ideals would be to first have freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to worship any religion or none if you so choose. I would support free trade with other countries not only to be a foundation for a strong economy but to also strengthen friendships with other countries. I would support Westward Expansion as I believe the bigger the United States is the better. It would provide more land to cultivate and add to America’s population and probably boosting the economy in the process by not only receiving more land but also creating more jobs for more people. I would also support expansion into Texas even if it was against the will of Santa Anna of Mexico. Texas is a valuable state and the Texans want to join America. If it came to war with Mexico I would be confident in my military’s ability to win. Also we would not lose that big of a trade partner if relations with Mexico soured. I would try to abolish slavery as it is ethically wrong. I would force all landowners who used slaves to give them some sort of compensation because if they just released the slaves they would have no where to go, no job, and no shelter and their only choice would be to go back to their original slave owners if they wanted to survive.
The three major issues my character is facing is whether or not America should abolish slavery, if America should expand westward and also into Texas, and if the South should secede if the North did not change its position on slavery and if it should be abolished or not. Guthrie was a slave owner and a states right activist and was in favor of slavery. He was not strongly in favor of it though. He said if a law was passed abolishing slavery he would not fight it but believed it was important to America’s success. Guthrie was in strong favor of westward expansion as he was the Secretary of the Treasury and the gold found in California and had large budget surpluses. He shrank the national debt by thirty-eight million dollars from 1853 to 1857. He didn’t have a strong position on if America should expand into Texas though. Guthrie believed that the Southern states should not secede under any circumstances. He believed this because the southerners controlled the majority of the House and Congress and believed any Anti-Slavery bills passed by the new President Abraham Lincoln, who was in favor of abolishing slavery, would be vetoed before they could be passed as laws.
The California Gold Rush in 1848 would effect the government in a big way. As the population in California increased the government built railroads, farms, stores, and various businesses on the way to California and in California. This helped not only the Californian economy but the American economy also as mentioned above. It created more jobs and spread the population out more and also gave America one more international trade item.
After the victory of the Mexican-American War a great surge of patriotism spread through America. Relations between Mexico and America were bitter as Mexico gave up a huge amount of land for about half the money America offered for the land before the war. Mexico began colonizing its northernmost colonies to make sure America didn’t try to conquer them as well. Americans now truly believed in Manifest Destiny, which was the belief that Americans would conquer the entire North American continent. This belief was only further reinforced as America had also just recently gained parts of Oregon as well.
To prevent another situation like Bleeding Kansas Guthrie would not leave it up to the states to decide if they wanted to be a slave state or a free state. Doing this basically allowed two sides to fight to see if Kansas and Missouri would be slave states or free states. So the first thing Guthrie would do would be to urge the President not to sign the Kansas-Missouri Act. It should have been a Federal Decision or at least a state decision. The citizens should not have been allowed to decide either way if the states should be slave states or free states.
I think the building or railroads would affect the government. They would have to pay for the railroads to be built obviously but theses railroads would make it much easier to cash in on the gold rush in California or any other economical endeavor in the west. Not only could they transport people to work at new jobs in new industries but they could simply be used for trading goods across the country from coast to coast. This way would be much faster than any other way to do trans-continental trade.
My character is for slavery as he believes it is somewhat essential to the economy as he does not believe there would be enough people to work in the south without slaves. My personal opinion is that slavery should be abolished completely so if I could change the Missouri Compromise I would abolish it completely as opposed to just in a certain geographic location. My character is opposed to the Underground Railroad because it is transporting slaves away from their jobs into the free north and is hurting the Southern economy. My character believes this kind of railroad is bad as opposed to regular railroads which help commerce.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Senator+James+Guthrie&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS
http://www.answers.com/James%20Guthrie
http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Background/BackgroundElection.html
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B03E1D8153EEE34BC4E51DFB766838E679FDE
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/history/secretaries/jguthrie.shtml
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000534
http://kentucky.gov/Pages/home.aspx
Rachel Rickles
Westfield High School / Westfield YMCA
Stephen Douglas – Illinois (D)
1) The state of Illinois had an agriculturally-based economy prior to and during 1860. However, by 1850 Chicago had a population of almost 30,000, which was the same year that a railroad line reached the city. All of these are signs of Illinois moving towards an industrial-based economy. However, during our time period, with the exception of growing Chicago, Illinois had an agriculturally-based economy. Across the North in general, wage earners began to make up an increasingly large part of the population. This is evident because as time progressed, and Illinois became more industrialized, more and more individuals became anti-slavery and expressed their desires for abolition. Yet at the beginning of the time period, especially in the agriculturally based areas, many were for against immigration and were pro-sovereignty.
2) Illinois was admitted to the U.S. as a free state in 1818, and its constitution abolished slavery. The Illinois Constitution of 1848 prohibited the immigration of free Negroes. As their senator, I, Stephen Douglas, am an ardent supporter of expansion and the Mexican War. I chaired the influential Committee on Territories, which guided lands to statehood. I belonged to the Democratic Party; overall, the Democratic Party was pro-slavery, but had some amount of anti-slavery participants from the north.
Within Illinois, there was a mixed view regarding slavery; it was a free state, so technically we were anti-slavery, and did indeed have many abolitionists. However, I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1843 and the Senate in 1847 through the 1858 term, and was not anti-slavery, rather an advocate for popular sovereignty in new states and keeping each state as it is. All of the legislation that I worked to pass was intended to keep peace within the Union and prevent violence between the two sides. I favored popular sovereignty with the intention that the issue of slavery would no longer be a major political debate, rather one to be decided at the state level.
I did not speak publicly for or against slavery. (Privately, I regarded slavery as “a curse beyond computation to both white and black.” However, publicly I never admitted this and told McConnel that I was not willing to violate the Constitution to put an end to slavery, but I knew that sooner or later slavery would be destroyed. All of the bills I supported – Compromise of 1850, Bleeding Kansas, Lecompton Act – were all my attempts to hold the union together for as long as possible.
I was a huge proponent of “nonintervention,” which would be used as a method of removing the question of slavery in the territories from federal debates. Every single bill and opinion I promoted (most notably the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Lecompton Constitution refusal) was based on this practice which would allow states to decide if they wanted to be free, rather than the government. This practice, also known as popular sovereignty, would prevent secession from one side because both the North and the South would be permitted to keep their current practices. I was a Unionist, and one of the major forces behind the concept and execution of popular sovereignty.
In the north, the majority of the public admitted the constitutional obligation which made slaves southern property, but many northern sates passed liberty laws that stopped the return of fugitive slaves; they regarded the institution as inhumane and favored its exclusion from the territories. However, across the Northwest (including Illinois) and among many northern laborers, there was a strong anti-Negro attitude of which people who wished to expand westward did not want the slave laborers, or the aristocrats to follow them. (They simply were anti-Negro for economic reasons – it was not a moral issue.)
Although Illinois had heavy anti-immigration laws, as time passed, more and more abolitionists began to speak out against slavery and especially after the Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850 many Chicagoans began to take active steps towards getting laws passed to allow escaped slaves to enter Illinois. (That being said, many rural Illinois citizens were anti-Negro as mentioned above.) Therefore, it was very difficult for slaves on the Underground Railroad to be free in Illinois. However, some Chicago supporters safely protected fugitive slaves.
3) I was active in creating the Compromise of 1850 and encouraged the use of “popular sovereignty,” which would allow for a new state to decide for itself if it wanted to be a free or slave state. Henry Clay (Kentucky), Daniel Webster (Massachusetts), John C. Calhoun (S.C.) and I passed the Compromise of 1850 (it was introduced in January of that year). Our main objective was to keep the Union together, which it temporarily did (for approximately ten years). I was needed to help create this bill because Senator Henry Clay was ailing, so I stepped in and decided to introduce the agreements of the bill individually, rather than as one big bill. I worked to create coalitions of Northerners and Southerners for each bill; I successfully encouraged Northern Democrats and Southern politicians to support a stronger fugitive slave law and popular sovereignty in the territories. I was a supporter of popular sovereignty and a unionist and that’s why I so vehemently supported and helped with the bill. The bill was exactly what our country needed at the time to help keep it together; several acts that lessened slavery in the South while making stronger immigration laws in the North.
In Illinois, the Fugitive Slave Act was not so popular. Since Chicago was a safe-haven for most runaway slaves due to the high number of abolitionists, the Chicago City Council condemned the Fugitive Slave Act. It is evident that I agree with the majority of all of the policies of the Compromise of 1850, including as the Fugitive Slave Act, as I helped to pass the legislation on them. I also supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Lecompton Constitution because they aimed to keep the union united.
4) I sponsored the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which was passed by Congress on May 30, 1854. I suggested that the territories of Kansas and Nebraska (where slavery had previously been prohibited under the Missouri Compromise of 1820) be allowed to exercise popular sovereignty (so it would no longer be a major political issue to decide). I also did this because I wanted the Nebraska Territory organized, so that a transcontinental railroad could be formed, which would benefit the Northern businessmen.
The bill that I passed unintentionally ignited the civil disorders that occurred in Kansas. In 1857, the Lecompton Constitution was drafted in Kansas by pro-slavery advocates with two options regarding slavery in the state. The people (mostly slavery supporters) were allowed to choose one of the two options, rather than reject both, as anti-slavery advocates would have done had they voted. The referendum passed, and it was brought before Congress, where I refused to accept the constitution because it was not a true representation of what the people of Kansas wanted. Some would say that this was part of the reason that I lost support in my Presidential bid in 1860.
It was confirmed that I was pro-popular sovereignty (and definitely not anti-slavery) during my seven debates against Lincoln (who was anti-slavery altogether) for the 1858 Senate seat. We had opposing viewpoints on slavery, and I argued at Quincy that “If each state will agree to mind its own business, this republic can exist forever divided into free and slave States." Lincoln believed that I was being foolish by implying that slavery would last forever. I beat Lincoln for the Illinois Senate seat in 1858.
In 1859 I was compelled to write a piece to clarify my view on popular sovereignty – it was titled “The Dividing Line between Federal and Local Authority: Popular Sovereignty in the Territories.” I wrote that I believed Congress could give power to local authorities that Congress could not authorize itself. These powers were related to “internal territorial policy and did not affect the general welfare of the nation.”
The article was praised throughout the North, yet the South was very displeased. In a debate against Lincoln in 1858 at Freeport, I declared that a state could legally exclude slavery, despite the Dred Scott decision (also known as nullification). “The Nashville Patriot” believed that the article was good for the South, since it claimed that Southerners could finally see the faults and problems with my reasoning. It also indicated that I was not supporting all of the views of the Democratic Party, and it publicized my inconsistencies concerning my territorial principals and the Dred Scott decision.
In 1860, I was nominated by Northern and Western Democrats as the Presidential candidate. However, the Southern wing of the Democratic Party split from us because I was no longer pro-slavery enough for them and so they nominated John Breckinridge (who later fought for the Confederate Army). (Many of them felt that I was too pro-popular sovereignty as opposed to the usual Democratic view of pro-slavery.) We were both against Republican Abraham Lincoln; combined, Breckinridge and I won more votes than Lincoln, but he won the presidency. After the election, in hopes of keeping the Union together, I endorsed Lincoln, and publicly declared my support of the Union when I toured the Midwest speaking on his behalf.
Overall, most northern states were either pro-popular sovereignty or anti-slavery, and all Southern states that instituted slavery obviously supported it for numerous economic and moral reasons.
In the north, the majority of the public admitted the constitutional obligation which made slaves southern property, but many northern sates passed liberty laws that stopped the return of fugitive slaves; they regarded the institution as inhumane and favored its exclusion from the territories. However, across the Northwest and among many northern laborers, there was a strong anti-Negro attitude of which people who wished to expand westward did not want the slave laborers, or the aristocrats to follow them. (They simply were anti-Negro for economic reasons – it was not a moral issue.)
5) I belonged to the Democratic Party because I was not an abolitionist by any means, which means that I had moderate views. Some Northern representatives were more in favor of abolition than I was, but as a majority they, combined with Southern politicians, agreed to the Compromise of 1850, Fugitive Slave Act and Kansas-Nebraska Act, all of which I helped pass.
The Republican Party was definitely opposed to the extension of slavery, yet they did not discourage allowing slavery where is already existed to keep the slave states satisfied. Until 1855, the Democrats and Republicans also had to compete with the American Party. However, pro-slavery politicians then became Democrats and anti-slavery advocates favored the Republican Party. The Democrat-dominated Supreme Court made the Dred Scott decision in 1857 (which said that a slave entering a free state was still a slave).
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html
Capers, Gerald. Stephen A. Douglas: Defender of the Union. Ed. Oscar Handlin.
Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1959.
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=87
http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/demhist.htm#N_4_
http://www.historyillinois.org/Calendar/History.htm#12/15/1970http://dig.lib.niu.edu/message/candidates-douglas.html
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
Position Paper
Senator of Arkansas, William King Sebastian states:
1. Arkansas’ economy is based mostly on agriculture, with a few industries becoming more and more prevalent towards the latter half of the nineteenth century. Slaves are used to increase productivity in the agricultural field.
2. Arkansas is a slave-holding state; however, the slave owners, as a whole, own very few slaves. The average high slave-owning owner will hold about ten slaves. I am a strong believer in slavery as they are a vital part to our economy. It is both an economical and moral issue for me and many individuals in the state. As previously stated, they are fundamental to our production in agriculture and are morally inept compared to Whites. Some members of Arkansas would care to disagree on this issue, but they are a minority. The Underground Railroad is an abomination and should be stopped. If many slaves leave the state illegally, our whole economic system would shut down. I know some people help fuel the Underground Railroad, but as a state we should try to stop it.
3. Arkansas seems content with the number of slave states, but we could always use more. I, personally, am a little more passionate of the matter. I believe all states should carry the right to own slaves. That is why I decided to side with the growing Confederacy. My state does not seem to enjoy my decision, but I will show them that the Confederacy will lead us to new heights. With more slave states, the South will have more of a say in Congress, a good thing. While the Compromise of 1850 hindered the progression of slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed which helped return our beloved slaves to their rightful place. This should hopefully be a major burden upon the Underground Railroad. Being an advocate of the law; and as far as compromise is I believe this was a step in the right direction. The North is trying to accommodate to the South.
4. Many Southern States agree with the views of my state. Those of the most importance include South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Their senators’ views are the closest in relation to mine. Some of the members in Arkansas would like to side with the Northern States, but that is not the case for the majority. I tend to disagree with many Northern States, so I do not really have companionship there. The Senators from the North do not believe in slavery. That is the main reason, for if there is no slavery, then our economy will collapse. I am rather radical in my view and many are opposed to that.
5. I and my state belong to the Democratic Party. We strongly believe in the use of slavery. We make up the majority of the working man. The yeomen, so to speak. We believe in strict construction of the Constitution and States’ Rights. Morally speaking, this party stands for everything good in life and deity. We belong to the party to make the world a better place, economically, culturally, and socially. Most of my state believes in the Democratic Party due to our slave economy, but some people are starting to stray from that ideal. It is my belief that they do not believe in slavery. This is creating a little tension that, I have a feeling, will lead to ultimate consequences.
Sources:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Compromise1850.html
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000216
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=489
The American Pageant by Thomas A. Bailey, David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen
Kevin Meier
Junior
Montgomery High School
HSC Committee
Senate Sub-Committee
Sen. John H. Clarke (W), Rhode Island
1. The state of Rhode Island is more industrial based than agricultural. Samuel Slater introduced industrialization to the United States first in Rhode Island making us one of the most developed states in the Union. Therefore, our opinion on slavery is that we require the cotton and other raw material in order to supply the textile factories that scour our state.
2. However, being a New England state we feel that slavery is a moral injustice and are willing to accept the loss of supply in the event of emancipation. New England as a whole emancipated our slavery before 1805, and feels unanimously in our stance on slavery. Slaves attempting to flee to our state, under the new fugitive slave act, should be returned to their rightful owners. However, religious persons seeking to give aid do so. The personal liberty laws, passed by a majority of states without slavery protects the rights of people who do so. The Underground Railroad, an organization that helps lead slaves to the North is in the eyes of the Federal law illegal. Yet under Rhode Island law, the persons who support it are protected. Therefore, we have taken our stance against the evils of slavery and wish to see it end.
3. We feel that there should be a majority of free states to slave states. The South would never openly admit it, but slavery cannot exist if this nation is to remain Christian. Emancipation may take years, but the process can be sped up with the inclusion of more free states. The Compromise of 1850, although necessary makes it possible for the new states of the territory to enter the Union as free or slave. This cannot be, slavery must not be allowed to spread to the West, and it must stop in the South.
4. Rhode Island resides in the New England region of the United States and generally New Englanders agree with us. Northerners who could perhaps be indifferent or even disagree with us would be bellwether states like Maryland and Delaware, where slavery exists and renders them our political rival. States to the south of New Jersey is who we are at odds with. The only truly Northern state who could possibly disagree with us is New Jersey or New York who boast a wide variety of white foreigners. Rhode Island aims to maintain a low population of pure white, protestant people. The Irish have moved to our state in greater number and therefore a young upstart political party the ‘Know-Nothings’ have taken hold (1850’s). They seek to keep out these undesirables, and states such as New York or New Jersey who boast centers of urban expansion are taking in these people (with some reluctance) and using them as a cheap labor force. We feel that these people, in some cases, be deported, but the states named prior would object of course as they now rely on them for labor.
5. I belong to the Whig party, the party created after the presidency of Andrew Jackson. We believe in the legitimacy of the legislative branch and seek to undo the damages done by Jackson on our system of checks-and-balances. He catapulted the executive to the degree of partial dictatorship and we will not live under the tyranny of a powerful executive after we fought against it in our War for Independence. I belong to this political party because I feel strongly in the power of the power of state government against the federal, and because I do not want to see this country sink into monarchy as so many democracies do. My state is in support of my views because it was New England that first rebelled against the tyrannical Crown of England and we wish to maintain the tranquility that has been established by separating the powers of the federal government. There is was a change in the mood of my state form Federalist to more Whig and Know-Nothing as a result of the disbandment of the Federalist Party. We maintain our conservative approach to government and reflect that by not electing the more liberal and slaveholding Democrats.
Sources:
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/studteaguide/RhodeIslandHistory/chapt5.html
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000466
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h279.html
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cescott/antebell.html
Robert Badger Position Paper-Sandy Ghosalkar-Montgomery HS
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.
Doug Fell
HSC Position Paper
I am James Dobbin and my role within the bloc is Secretary of the Navy. Some of my
responsibilities include the authority to organize and conduct all aspects of the Department of the Navy. I am also in charge of the construction and repair of naval ships and equipment. In the past, I have graduated from the University of North Carolina. I have also served as a Member of Congress from 1845 to 1847, and a member of the North Carolina Legislature from 1848 to 1852. A year before being appointed to my current position, I served as a delegate to the 1852 Democratic National Convention. I am a proud member of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party was founded on the basis that wisdom and compassion could be found within every individual and that a stable government should be formed upon this statement. We believe that America should be established on a popular, broad base. If I were to create my own political party, it would be established around law and the military. I am a very firm believer in the Navy and other military in our country. I firmly believe that a strong Navy and military serves as a huge advantage in achieving peace with other nations. The principles of my political party would be a lot like that of the Democratic Party, except the United States Navy would be particularly incorporated a bit more.
Three major issues I would be involved in would be the government and policies, slavery, and world peace. I will have to keep our government and its policies strong, even if many people disagree or feel it is the wrong decision. I will have to respond in difficult times by staying confident and keeping my views strong. I will have to respond to slavery and racism by keeping all men equal, and striving to keep the principles of our nation strong. Slavery is a big issue throughout America and it must be dealt with accordingly. The most important issue that I will be a part of is world peace and my duties as Secretary of the Navy. I am in charge of all operations in the Navy and plan on instituting reform throughout the Navy. I believe that a strong Navy is very important and eventually will lead to peace in everything we do as a country.
The mass movement of people to California due to the gold rush will affect the government and their policies very much. The sudden, extreme increase in population created some problems in the government. These people that had just migrated to California had to find places to live and had to follow the policies of the government. The government may even have to change or edit a few of their policies so that all the people can be treated fairly and justly. It wasn’t until 1851 that gold was discovered elsewhere and the pressure of the population was taken off the California government and its policies.
After the end of the Mexican-American War, the relationship between Mexico and America will be greatly effected. The United States made many gains in territory and took full control of California, New Mexico, and Texas. This exchanging of land led to even more conflicts between Mexico and America, as well as a few nations across the rest of the world. Another issue that caused conflict after the war was slavery. It was a big issue as to what would be the future of the states that were given up to America after the war. The outlaw of slavery was favored in the new states and it was later passed in Congress to end slavery in the newly gained states. Overall, the relationship between Mexico and the United States will never be the same again due to the war. Whether they are big or small, there will always be conflicts between these two countries.
With all the racism and strong opinions about slavery that exist in the world today, preventing an event such as Bleeding Kansas would be a very difficult task. However, I would go about doing this by placing severe consequences on anyone that chooses to act as those did at the time of Bleeding Kansas. An event like Bleeding Kansas can tear apart a nation and cause many problems. I would figure out a way to put an end to it and have everyone be peaceful with each other.
The building and expanding of railroads may have a slight impact on the government, but not a huge one. Mainly, railroads would be used for transporting goods to different places. With a larger and more advanced railroad system, the economy may be able to function better. A good economy will positively affect the government and strengthen it. Also, railroads can be used for the transportation of people as well, which can also positively affect the government. The expanding and reforming of railroads will always make our government and society better.
I am against slavery because I believe that all men are equal, and that nobody should have to serve another. All men should work for what they get and should earn everything. I also believe that the Missouri Compromise was done very well and nothing needs to be changed. It is a good document with a good message and the compromise has and will work out very well. I also believe that the Underground Railroad is very creative. It was the slaves’ way of trying to be free and freedom is something that everyone should have the right to. I have no problem with the Underground Railroad and it should continue as long as slavery does.
Relations between England and Mexico will affect America’s foreign policy simply because of the location of these two countries. These relations may affect the way America interacts with both England and Mexico. England and Mexico are America’s two closest neighbors, and whatever happens between those two could very well end up creating a problem for America.
I believe that the Compromise of 1850 will definitely help America to be successful in preventing a civil war because it is fair. The Compromise will be fair and just to all people. Although some people may not agree with the Compromise, I believe it was proposed very well by Henry Clay and should work out. Our country was very close to a civil war, but there is always a way to work it out and I believe the Compromise of 1850 did just that. It is a very effective Compromise and will be remembered in history.
Works Cited:
• http://www.democrats.org/a/party/history.html
• http://ceres.ca.gov/ceres/calweb/geology/goldrush.html
• http://ncamel214.tripod.com/id4.html
• http://www.nps.gov/archive/fosc/bleeding.htm
Post a Comment