Through the time period of 1820-1860, a Northern Abolitionist would be upset with both Congress's decisions of laws being passed and well-known social events, as well as the 1860 Presidential Election.
Later, the Compromise of 1850 was passed as law. Even though California was admitted as a free state and slave trade was abolished in the nation's capital, the rest of the territories retrieved from Mexico passed no laws about slavery. Soon after, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed as well, stripping fugitive slaves of their rights and further tightening slavery. Northerners were forced to assist in recapturing fugitives in the South, sometimes even free slaves. If the northerners did not cooperate they were often punished severely.
Soon after, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. It introduced the idea of "popular sovereignty" into the nation, giving residents power to decide and vote on an issue. Due to people illegally voting for slavery in places like Kansas, giving proslavery representatives more power. The state was given the nickname "Bleeding Kansas" because of the amount of violence that occurred in it.
Not only did Congress's decisions overall lead to supporting views of slavery, but social events affected it as well; for example, the Dred Scott Case. Dred Scott, the slave boy, argued that because he was in a free state(where his master died) he was allowed to sue for his freedom. However, judge Roger B. Taney said that Scott was originally from a slave state and was bound by Missouri's slave codes. Taney also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.
Violence also burst out not only in Kansas, but in the Senate. Charles Sumner from Massachusetts was beaten by Preston Brooks with a cane, after he had given an insulting speech against proslavery forces. The happening was called "Bleeding Sumner" and showed that abolitionists were at a huge disadvantage, even when attempting to voice their opinions.
Soon enough, it was time for the 1860 Presidential Election. Lincoln was not an abolitionist himself, but supported the stopping of expansion of slavery; on the other hand, Douglas supported popular sovereignty. Sadly, Douglas won the election, but lead Lincoln to become a famous historical figure. With popular sovereignty now on the president's mind, it again became another issue for abolitionists.
All of these events--legislative and social--gives more than enough reasons to upset and anger a Northern abolitionist.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Essay 1 - Slavery
African Americans(both free and enslaved) encountered various hardships in the United States in the period leading up to the Civil War. In total, about four million enslaved African Americans suffered during this time.
However, among those millions of slaves were a select few people that lived to describe slave live(from their personal experiences) in great detail; Harriet Jacobs was one. She gives a great example in her writing about New Year's Day--a time for whites to celebrate but for slaves to be seperated from their families and sold off to new masters.
Another strong speaker describing slavery was Frederick Douglass. He had barely known his family, most importantly his mother, who he had only caught glimpses of in the night. Bearing witness his Aunt constantly whipped until blood rushed down her back was common, hearing her wailing through the night. Douglass also was deeply frustrated by the fact that he(and all other slaves) had no birthday, and that a slave's funeral consisted of being buried and moving on as if it had no special meaning at all.
What Douglass and Jacobs described were only the beginning of detailing how much slavery tortured African Americans across the U.S. When the Fugitive Slave Lawy of 1850 was passed, it made even free blacks in the North prone to being captured and sold into slavery. It also enabled slave catchers to be able to travel all across the U.S., and not just the South.
African Americans in the North did not have many rights in the first place. They were unable to vote, own land, testify in court and attend schools.
Slave codes limited African Americans even further. It restricted them from rights such as learning to read and write, leave their plantation without a written pass, and owning firearms.
However, among those millions of slaves were a select few people that lived to describe slave live(from their personal experiences) in great detail; Harriet Jacobs was one. She gives a great example in her writing about New Year's Day--a time for whites to celebrate but for slaves to be seperated from their families and sold off to new masters.
Another strong speaker describing slavery was Frederick Douglass. He had barely known his family, most importantly his mother, who he had only caught glimpses of in the night. Bearing witness his Aunt constantly whipped until blood rushed down her back was common, hearing her wailing through the night. Douglass also was deeply frustrated by the fact that he(and all other slaves) had no birthday, and that a slave's funeral consisted of being buried and moving on as if it had no special meaning at all.
What Douglass and Jacobs described were only the beginning of detailing how much slavery tortured African Americans across the U.S. When the Fugitive Slave Lawy of 1850 was passed, it made even free blacks in the North prone to being captured and sold into slavery. It also enabled slave catchers to be able to travel all across the U.S., and not just the South.
African Americans in the North did not have many rights in the first place. They were unable to vote, own land, testify in court and attend schools.
Slave codes limited African Americans even further. It restricted them from rights such as learning to read and write, leave their plantation without a written pass, and owning firearms.
Essay 2 - John Brown
John Brown is a man viewed in many different ways, yet still dedicated many of his actions (violent and non-violent) to ending slavery.
Among Brown's non-violent actions were donating money to abolitionist newspapers, raising a black child of his own, and giving land to fugitive slaves.
However, what sparks up such a great amount of controversy about him is his more violent actions; he once "electrified the nation" with his slave rebellion in Harpers Ferry, Virginia. He also was tried for murdering five pro-slavery Southerners.
All of his acts, helpful or not to ending slavery, pushed the North and South further apart by causing the South to believe all Northerners are as berserk as him. In turn, the United States was drawn closer to the Civil War due to the dispute of Brown between both sides of the nation.
The North, on one hand, viewed John Brown's deeds as heroic. He had took a different intention on ending slavery as opposed to other abolitionists; physically taking action instead of simply talking about it. He had "opened the nation's eyes" in having them realize that words would not stop slave catchers and pro-slavery Southerners--his revolts would.
The South, however, saw Brown as a threat to the U.S.--they believed his acts of violence were out-of-control and drove slavery to be even harsher than ever before.
Among Brown's non-violent actions were donating money to abolitionist newspapers, raising a black child of his own, and giving land to fugitive slaves.
However, what sparks up such a great amount of controversy about him is his more violent actions; he once "electrified the nation" with his slave rebellion in Harpers Ferry, Virginia. He also was tried for murdering five pro-slavery Southerners.
All of his acts, helpful or not to ending slavery, pushed the North and South further apart by causing the South to believe all Northerners are as berserk as him. In turn, the United States was drawn closer to the Civil War due to the dispute of Brown between both sides of the nation.
The North, on one hand, viewed John Brown's deeds as heroic. He had took a different intention on ending slavery as opposed to other abolitionists; physically taking action instead of simply talking about it. He had "opened the nation's eyes" in having them realize that words would not stop slave catchers and pro-slavery Southerners--his revolts would.
The South, however, saw Brown as a threat to the U.S.--they believed his acts of violence were out-of-control and drove slavery to be even harsher than ever before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)