Emancipation Of The Slaves During The Civil War History Essay

Essays in this volume present an introduction to history of the emancipation of the slaves during the Civil War. The slaves are shown to have shaped the destiny of the nation through their determination to place their liberty on the wartime agenda. Essay examines the evolution of freedom in occupied areas of the lower and upper South. The struggle of those freed to obtain economic independence in difficult wartime circumstances indicates conflicting conceptions of freedom among former slaves and slaveholders, Northern soldiers and civilians. Essay demonstrates how the enlistment and military service of nearly 200,000 slaves hastened the transformation of the war into a struggle for universal liberty, and how this experience shaped the lives of former slaves long after the war had ended.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, the slaves were actually freed. and including President Lincoln, played in freeing the slaves.

The upshot is that it not only demystifies Emancipation, which in any case, was an "evolutionary process" rather than a single "discrete act," it also puts a lie to the accepted legend that American whites were so "freedom-loving" that they fought a war entirely to ensure the freedom of the slave. Despite the well-worn and accepted legend that it was "Lincoln who freed the slaves," the facts revealed in the first essay (as well as in the logic and reality of the social conditions surrounding the war revealed there) -- tell quite a different story. The gates of freedom were simply blown off their hinges and sprung open because no one was available to close them. They were simply left to inhale it on their own accord entirely as an exigent byproduct of the "fog" of the Civil war. And importantly, the fact that whites on neither side of the war could do much about it, does not in and of itself make them, de facto, champions of black freedom. Had they been able to do so, the gates of freedom would have surely been securely slammed shut again. Put simply, the barn gate of slavery had been blown open as a result of the chaos of the war, and the slaves had simply walked out and into the breeze of freedom -- such as it was at the time. Both the North and the South, emancipation was entirely forced upon whites in both regions by the exigencies and the chaos of the Civil War. Thus, the actual "freeing of the slaves" was not a single act as is often depicted in traditional American history.

It was not a heroic single act of white American magnanimity, or an enduring act on their part -- evidence of an ever-dying love for freedom. There is no evidence in the historical records to be found that supports the thesis that whites on neither side of the war, including Lincoln himself, ever had any definite plans of freeing the slaves as a single act of emancipation.

Quite the contrary was true in fact: Whites, whether north or south, were never actually enthusiastic about ending slavery even when they were "backed" into a corner and no longer had a choice in the matter. Nor were they ever openly supportive of it, even when it seemed clear that it would happen no matter what they felt or did about it. And most importantly, even the Abolitionists, who DID support freeing the slaves (for their own selfish moral and religious reasons), were not at the time supporters of making the freed slaves citizens of the US And on this very point, it should be mentioned that even in the North it is a little known fact that freedmen there were often denied US citizenship.

To wit, Lincoln did not even agree to allow blacks to fight in the Union Army until it was an absolute military necessity, and then did so only with the greatest of reluctance. But more importantly, and this is the most telling point of all, just as had been the same case during the Revolutionary War, slaves who fought for Lincoln's Union army (or for the Colonists Revolutionary army, or the army of the Confederacy for that matter) were not freed!

Blacks, who fought on the side of the Americans with General George Washington, were not freed and made citizens of the US as a result of their heroism in the war -- even while, at the same time, the British side was offering both freedom and British citizenship to the more than 100,000 slaves who fought on the British side. The best the "Americans" (the champions, as it were, of white only freedom) could muster was a promise of exile to their own black only colony somewhere else in the world, or a future unspecified timetable for their eventual freedom in the US Which, as subsequent history has shown, were both, in any case.

The truth is that in both the North and the South, emancipation was entirely forced upon whites by the exigencies of the Civil war. After the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation by Lincoln, the slaves of America were free. This was a huge step in making our country truly free to all people. The construction of the South did not however work out smoothly for the freed slaves. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, former slaves took on a new role in American society. This role was one of more significance and self worth than in slavery, but this class of freedmen was anything but appreciated. Without the manpower of the slaves, the south's agricultural society would fail, and without the agriculture there would be little money or food in the south. The passing of the Louisiana Black Code in 1865, confirmed that whites felt as if blacks could not handle the responsibility or the rights of true citizens. Whites thought they did not deserve these rights because they were inferior to themselves and simply less than human. It was almost as if slavery had never ended.

Many blacks remained on farms and plantations because they did not know what else they could do after emancipation. However, many were being forced into staying because few knew anything other than farming. Some slaves however would do anything just to leave the farm. Even kind masters lost many slaves due to the want and need of freedom. Outsiders made independence nearly impossible though. The sharecropping system, in which most had worked before, was still the only employment available and certainly the only work blacks knew as familiar. Rural merchants tried to give blacks a chance for employment, but often forced them into a position where they would sharecrop.

Some positive effects on the black community following the war. Black family and social life began to improve. Family structure turned toward a more traditional model, with the man at the head of the household completing most of the manual labor. Many blacks soon wanted to be educated and literate. Many public schools, supervised by the Freedmen s Bureau, were built so ex-slaves and their children could be educated. Black churches also offered a place where blacks were given an environment in which they could participate. Funds were raised for schooling and Republican policies were supported in these churches. By 1865, black ministers assumed political roles and the first black conventions were held.

During the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and part of the Nineteenth Century the White people of North America used the Black people of Africa as slaves to benefit their interests. White people created a climate of superiority of their race over the Black African race that in some places, still lingers on today. The American Civil War however, was a key turning point for the Black African race. Through their actions and the political actions of President Lincoln and his administration. Whites felt that the Civil War was a war started upon the White Man's issues and what possible reason would the Black Man have for wanting to fight in this war. On the contrary The Black Man saw The Civil War as an opportunity to win freedom and gain respect. Blacks in the North who were free from slavery willingly pledged their service to fight in the Union Army however, their allegiance was denied by President Lincoln on political grounds. Lincoln realized that the issue of Black soldiers would be intolerable by the public and would not be accepted. Initially, the Union Army utilized Northern Blacks from the Free states to relieve Whites from daily tasks that were essential to maintain the armies, thus freeing up White soldiers for battle. As the Union Armies began to move further into Confederate territory however, they encountered many runaway slave Blacks. These Blacks were the ones that contributed most to the Union effort. This was true for two reasons. First, there were many more Blacks in the South compared to the North, roughly four million compared to two hundred thousand. Secondly, the Black people in the South had more at stake; once they left the Confederate side to join The Union there was no turning back. Not only would they be deemed as traitors but runaways as well and were likely to face death if they where caught.

The effects of this failure to provide a secure place in the American economic, social and political system for its "freed" slaves, still have deep ramification that are felt painfully even today.

As we can see, freedom for the blacks did not come directly as a result of the emancipation proclamation. And there were plenty of obstacles and people who tried to stop them. Freedom also meant the chance to reunite with lost family members. The end of slavery meant that African Americans could more closely fulfill what they saw as appropriate gender roles. However, slowly and surely the black community earned their right to be recognized.

This is Preview only. If you need the solution of this assignment, please send us email with the complete assignment title: ProfessorKamranA@gmail.com

Early Law During The Salem Witch Trials History Essay

 

“Hearsay, gossip, stories, unsupported assertions, surmises”, spectral evidence, the witch’s touch, and the witches mark. What about the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, or fourteenth Amendment protections? Not in the early days of the United States. Let us look at an example of early law: The Salem Witch Trials. The Salem Witch Trials have a more profound explanation than what most people know, and before we take a look at the trials that occurred during the springtime of 1692 (Puritans, 2008).

We will start in the earlier days of what is known as the Puritan movement in England. The Puritan movement began around the late 1500’s and early 1600’s. Puritans religious beliefs centered on the word of G-D: The Bible. The difference though, centered on the beliefs and ideologies, and the way that the Puritans interpreted the Bible, to Puritans the Bible was the law. They took a very literal, word for word translation of what they thought the Law should be (Puritans, 2008).

Many of the laws that the early settlers of the States interpreted, came from Mosaic Law. In the textbook, American Legal History: Cases and Materials (2005) we get many examples of the Puritans incorporation of the Mosaic Law into their own statutes. Many of those laws can be seen in, “The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts” manuscript. As can be noted in the “Capital Law” section of the manuscript, many if not most of the punishments lead to death. Among those capital laws, as the second forbidden law, was, “If any man or woman be a witch, that is, hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit, they shall be put to death” (Hall, Paul, & Ely, 2005). They included the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy as their source and reasoning. How did the Puritans end up in what they considered the New World?

Around the year 1520 English Protestant leaders began to demand that change happen within the England church; this was the start of the Puritan movement. Their demands were that the church and government be conducted according to the Bible. Among their demands were that the church be run by counsels and not through the hierarchy the Church of England had imposed. Moreover, the Puritans sought out a larger emphasis on prayer, bible reading, and sermons to take place during services. They also wanted prayers to be more personal and have more spiritual devotion to G-D, in contrast to the prescribed prayer that the England churches had adopted (Puritans, 2008).

By the year 1642 the Puritans gained much power in the Parliament and a civil war broke out, known as the “Puritan Revolution”. By 1649, under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell, the Puritans seized control of the government. During their reign the Puritans passed many unpopular statutes in England. Even though witch hunting and trials were practiced prior to the Puritan reign (Puritans, 2008). It was during their reign that the majority of witch trials and actual deaths occurred.

Between the years of 1649 to 1658,the time of the Puritans’ reign, the new Puritan government purportedly executed around 4000 witches (Carlson, 2000). Cromwell died in 1658, and by 1960 the Puritan reign ended. Many of the Puritans were not happy with the minimalistic changes taking place within the Church of England. They eventually left England for what we now know as the U.S.A. Many of those settlements happened in Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Among the settled colonies was Salem, Massachusetts (Puritans, 2008).

With the strong Puritan belief as G-D being the center of everything they did, and trying to live to the strict morals of the bible. It worked both to their advantage and disadvantage. Their strict and literal interpretation of the bible and its laws were almost impossible to adhere to. Each city’s church and their members were individually responsible for their relationship with G-D; actions were louder than words. Their belief in predestination led the Puritans to always strive to do well. Above all, they believed that the Devil was the root of all evil deeds; and because of that, it was a persistent teaching at sermons. Puritans, therefore, needed to be on constant alert to an act of evil. It led to one of the worst tragedies in the history of the U.S. (Puritans, 2008).

As a preface to the actual trials, Salem at this time, in 1692, was going through an economic struggle. Two of the more prominent families, the Putnam’s and the Porters’, were vying for political, social, and economical power. Salem was divided in two: Salem Village and Salem Town. The two sides were set apart by economy and class. Salem Village was also known as Salem Farms; whose citizens were know as poor farmers making their living from their hard work tending to the harvest. Salem Town, on the other hand, was considered the wealthy side of town. Most people in Salem Town were merchants. Moreover, those from Salem town dictated the prices of the crops that came from Salem Village; and on top of that they imposed taxes on them (Salem Witch Trials: The World Behind the Hysteria, 2010).

The cause to the hysteria of the Salem Witch Trials appears to have started with the division that was happening inside Salem Village itself. Ipswich Road is the road that separated Salem Village from Salem Town. Those from Salem Village, which lived near Ipswich Road and the commerce that Salem Town offered, began to take on mercantile trades. As they began to prosper many of those who lived in the more rural areas believed that the prosperity of those near Ipswich Road came from the worldly influences from Salem Town; and in a village where they lived by a very rigid moral code; where something as small as falling asleep at church was considered a sin; and the sinner therefore must be punished. Such interaction with the town’s people was a threat to the Puritan way (Salem Witch Trials: The World Behind the Hysteria, 2010).

With all the socio-economic problems and division that were plaguing Salem Village at the time things took a turn for the worse in 1688. John Putnam invited Samuel Parris, a somewhat successful merchant and farmer from Barbados, to become the village minister. Mr. Parris was a strong proponent for the strict Puritan way. Moreover, Mr. Parris was in total opposition to witchcraft; and he was in agreement that the prosperity in Salem town was the work of the devil. It did not help that the rhetoric that he preached at his sermons further aliened those within the village. As researcher Kay Kizer said, “it was healthy dose of fear woven throughout the fabric of the literary construction”. Moreover, students were quizzed on the sermons both in their homes and while at school. To further engrave those ideologies within the children’s minds (Kizer, nd).

Of equal importance to this debacle was the fact that children had to live by the same moral code as the adults did. Toys were said to be a way to distract you from the worship of G-D, therefore most households contained no toys; and although children were taught to read, the only type of literature in a Puritan household were bibles and other religious books. The books that were for the children, only focused on the punishment that would come if they were to disobey the law of G-D (Salem Witch Trials: The World Behind the Hysteria, 2010).

With a little background to the Puritan way, along with the political struggles going on at this time in Salem, Massachusetts; I think that we can start to see how this could all have been an elaborate scheme to bring order to a town that had two separate visions for the future of Salem. Interestingly enough, most of the accusers were from the farmland areas of the village (those opposed to the interaction with “worldly” Salem Town). While those accused, happened to reside near Ipswich Road. The following paragraphs will present the facts through the course of this horrific episode of early law.

In the waning months of winter in 1692, Betty Parris, the daughter of new Minister Samuel Parris, came down with an atypical illness. She complained of a fever, had random jactations and very erratic behavior. One explanation of her symptoms was that it could have been related to child abuse, boredom, guilt or a combination thereof. Another diagnosis came from the research of Linda Caporael’s 1976 article in Science, of a disease called, “convulsive ergotism”, “caused by a fungus which invades developing kernels of rye grain, especially under warm and damp conditions such as existed at the time of the previous rye harvest in Salem” (Linder, nd).

The most prominent theory, and the on that was accepted as truth, came from a book recently published by Cotton Mather (Linder, nd). He was a minister in the town of Boston. He and his father Increase Mather were strong proponents to the hunting of witches. His book was titled, Memorable Providences, in which an eerily similar account occurred between three children and a washerwoman; she was accused and punished for supposedly being a witch. Cotton Mather also becomes a very prominent figure in the judges appointed to the witch trials (Salem Witch Trials: The World Behind the Hysteria, 2010).

In all there were seven girls: Ann Putman, Betty Parris, Mercy Lewis, Mary Walcott, Elizabeth Hubbard, Susannah Sheldon and Marry Warren. All of who claimed to have been afflicted by witches. The first to be accused was a salve woman of Minister Parris, known as Tituba. Since Tituba was a stranger amongst those of Salem village, in a place were anyone who was different from them was not to be trusted. She was and obvious scapegoat for the village. Tituba was known for telling stories to the girls about omens, voodoo and witchcraft, it only solidified the villages’ case against her when a fellow village woman suggested that Tituba bake a “counter magic” cake that would supposedly counteract the “witch spell” the girls were experiencing (Linder, nd).

Shockingly, Tituba confessed to being a witch. Some say that it was because she really was. Other documents show that she only confessed because her owner, Mr. Parris beat her into confession and told her that if she were to confess that he would set her free (Salem Witch Trials: The World Behind the Hysteria, 2010). In her confession she named Sarah Good, a beggar and Sara Osborn, an old antagonistic woman who had not attended church service in over a year. Tituba claimed that she and the others would fly around on poles to meet with Satan, and that they had all signed his book to help torment the children. That was all the confession that was needed. It silenced most of those who thought that it was all a hoax, and led Parris and other local ministers on a full on witch-hunt (Linder, nd).

When the three ladies went to trial on March 1, 1692 it became a great deal. Hundreds had shown up. They had to move the trial to a place that would occupy the multitude. Many people started to speak of strange things happening when one of the newly accused witches had stopped for a visit. The girls described attacks by the spirits of the accused and even winched and contorted at the site of those accused of witchcraft. Magistrates Jonathan Corwin and John Hawthorne had already determined in their mind that the woman were guilty. Shortly thereafter the girls and Ann’s mother started to accuse that the ghosts of others were tormenting them. By the time Governor Phips returned, the jails were nearly full of accused witches. The Governor created a court called, “court of oyer and terminer” to deal with the witch trials (Linder, nd).

Five judges were appointed to the trials, three of them being close friend to Cotton Mather. The fourth, a gung-ho witch hunter named William Stoughton. Mather had a great influence in convincing the court that previous confession should be allowed. Along with the admission of “spectral evidence”, moreover, they allowed for the so-called “touch test” (it was assumed that if a witch touched someone they afflicted, they would be healed). They also allowed for the assessment of a defendants body. To see if they could find the “witches mark”, otherwise known as moles. Shortly thereafter the trials commenced (Linder, nd). Due to the immensity of the trials I will only give examples of trials that had a drastic impact on the village; some led to further accusations the people who were considered outsiders. While others lead to doubt amongst the village that perhaps the accusations were concocted and unjust.

One of the first accused of being a witch was Bridget Bishop. A sixty-year-old, woman tavern owner who didn’t like to pay her bills, and was disapproved by her neighbors. She was the type of social outcast that was prime for accusation of witchcraft. After all, villagers were allowed to satisfy their alcoholic indulgences at her tavern, even on a Sabbath, something that was regarded as a sacred to the Puritans. Many villagers came forth with accusations. She was accused off stealing eggs, transforming into a cat, being responsible for bad luck that had fallen upon them. She was even accused of making the side of a building fall off just by looking at it. It didn’t help her cause that other “confessed witches” testified that she indeed was a witch; and on June 10, 1692, she was hanged (Linder, nd).

Not all of those accused of being witches were of bad reputation. Many of those accused had a history of dissension with the Putnam family. Rebecca Nurse, who is said to have been a “respected woman”, was accused and found guilty; but only after Justice Stoughton had the juries re-evaluate their decision of finding her not guilty. Villagers dared not to dissent with those accusing or judging. For fear of being accused of being witches too. Such was the case of John and Elizabeth Proctor. A tavern owner himself, and once again in much quarrel with the Putnam family (Linder, nd).

John Proctor openly protested the accusation of Rebecca Nurse, and made a statement that would eventually seal his fate. After the investigation of Rebecca Nurse he stated, “If they [the afflicted girls] were let alone, so we should all be devils and witches.” He was the first man to be called a Wizard. At his wife’s trial, she was accused first, Mr. Proctor started to defend his wife, the girls immediately started to accuse him of wizardry. Both were imprisoned, and as he was in his cell he managed to write a letter to the Boston clergy, pleading that they take action claiming that, “we are all innocent”. He went on to say that the trials were unfair, and those who confessed only did so after being tortured. Although it raised awareness, it was too late for John Proctor; he was hanged August 19, 1692. His wife though was spared because she was pregnant with a child (Salem Witch Trials: The World Behind the Hysteria, 2010).

Another, Giles Corey suffered perhaps the most gruesome death. Giles Corey refused to go to trial; and as per the law at that time, if you refused a trial, the penalty was, “peine et fort” or, death by pressing. Perhaps the most significant hanging was that of George Burroughs. He was living in Maine at the time. Burroughs had over thirty accusers. He was claimed to have bewitched soldiers in 1688-1689, in a war against the Wabanakis, a tribe from the nearby lands. It was a failed war, and as historian Mary Beth Norton says in her book, In the Devil’s Snare that, “it is a key understanding to the Salem Trials” (as qouted in, Linder, nd).

Among the accusations, he is said to have flown one of his accusers to the top of a mountain and, “promised her all the kingdoms if she would sign his book”, sound familiar? Check Mathew 4:8. The greatest testament to the eventual change in these court cases happened before Burrows was hung. It was said that it was impossible for a witch (or wizard, in this case) to recite the Lords’ prayer, and Burrows recited it perfectly, causing the crowd to become “greatly moved”. Doubts began to blossom. With so many prominent people being accused; John Hale said, " It cannot be imagined that in a place of so much knowledge, so many in so small compass of land should abominably leap into the Devil's lap at once." (as qouted in, Linder, nd).

Soon thereafter, Increase Mather, the father of Cotton Mather enacted what was called, “America’s first tract on evidence”, and another work titled Cases of Conscience were Increase Mather says, “were better that ten suspected witches should escape than one innocent person should be condemned." Although, it is said the his change of heart on witch hunting and hanging came about because he was informed that his wife was next to be accused.

Also works from a highly regarded minster in Boston, Samuel Willard, wrote a work called, Some Miscellany Observations, where he mentions that the devil could form a ghost from the image of the innocent. With that, Governor Phips ordered the court to no longer allow spectral evidence, the witch’s touch test, and that “clear and convincing evidence” was required for those accused of witchery. That is all it took, those that remained to be tried were all acquitted for lack of evidence; and by May of 1693 all those remaining in prison were released. And just like that the hysteria that swept through Salem in 1692 was over (Linder, nd).

In the end over two hundred people were imprisoned. Close to twenty four were hanged, squashed to death, or died while in their prison cells. There was not much remorse amongst those who were involved. Only one Judge fully confessed and apologized. Some jurors came forward and said that they were, “sadly deluded and mistaken”. Minister Parris was replaced, but never apologized. As for William Stoughton? Not only did he not apologize, he went on to say that if he had not been interrupted my Governor Phips- who only placed blame on others while never admitting to any fault of his own- he was about to clear the land of all witches (Linder, nd). Of the seven girls who started this hysteria, only Ann Putnam came forth in a confession. In it she states that she was used as an instrument for accusing innocent people. She goes on to say that, “it was a great delusion of Satan that deceived me in that sad time” (as qouted in, Salem Witch Trials: The World Behind the Hysteria, 2010).

Many times we as individuals state that this country has a long way to go in becoming just. At times it may seem that we as a people in this country see the U.S as having a one step forward and two step backwards approach to the progress and equality of mankind, while that may hold some truth. Lest we desire to be in the times of early law as seen in the Salem Witch Trials. A time in which no Constitution or Bill of rights existed.

A time were no right to a counsel was guaranteed, no right to cross examine a witness, no manner in which to appeal, and the fear that you could be tortured into a confession; all lead to the simple joy that we should have to be able to say, yes we have progressed as a country. Albeit, at a slow and methodical cadence. We are blessed to have the protections that the Constitution affords us, to protect our freedoms and liberties against the full grasp of the government, much as was the intention of those who migrated and framed the Constitution.

This is Preview only. If you need the solution of this assignment, please send us email with the complete assignment title: ProfessorKamranA@gmail.com

Involuntary Labor During The Civil War Period History Essay

During the Civil War, an argument prolonged across the world about slavery. This topic became commonly known during the same time as wage labor arguments. Some people who worked with wage labor, said both, slavery and wage labor, owned the freedom and dignity of the workers.

Abolitionists, (those who were against the pro-slavery agreement), did not cooperate with wage labor opponents because they believed that slavery was substantially worse than wage labor. President Lincoln agreed with these abolitionists because in his perspective, the wage laborers had more of an opportunity to gain freedom rather than slaves because wage laborers were capable of escaping easier. Labor advocates desired abolitionists to expand their conception of sovereignty for the anti-wage labor cause. However, while most anti-slavery politicians did not do that, free labor remained a forceful power for the North in the Civil War, involving not only wage labor, but also to slavery and free soil in the West.

Pro-slavery supporters discussed that if everyone of the slaves were set free, there would be a widespread of unemployment and chaos. In their terminology, chaos meant uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. Those who were pro-slavery began engaged in an argument which was led by the Abolitionists. The pro-slavery movement used references including history, religious values (bible), economics, legitimacy, common good, and sympathy, to add accuracy to their arguments. Those who wanted to keep slavery argued that the dramatic end to the slave lifestyle would have had a profound and murderous economic influence in the South where the dependence on slave labor was the institution of their country. They argued for the extension of the status quo, which was providing prosperity and strength for the lower class and for all free people who relished the reward of the slave society. Those in agreement of pro-slavery also stated that slavery had occurred throughout history and that it was part of human nature. They mentioned the Greeks, the Romans, and the English owned slaves. They said that in the Bible, Abraham possessed slaves. They had pointed out in the bible, many references where it had contained the subject of slavery. They noted one of the commands bestowed by God through the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's…man or female slave...” (Exodus 20 17-18). In the New Testament, they cited that Paul gave back a fugitive slave to his master. However, they preached that even though slavery was commonly known all over the Roman world, Jesus Christ had never said it was wrong. Those in favor of slavery argued that the society was delightful, and that it bestowed Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. In this argument, slavery was a good thing for the imprisoned. People who agreed with pro-slavery argued that slaves were healthier and well cared after when compared with the poverty of Europe and the recruits in the Northern states. They said that their masters would look after and maintain them when they were ill and elderly, unlike those who were unemployed and had to strive to care for themselves without a helping hand.

During the Kansas-Nebraska disputes, the pro-slavery movement collided with the free soil movement. Although the Missouri Compromise limited slavery in some areas, many others sought for an area open to admired sovereignty, where the residents of the land would choose whether they wanted to be a slave or free state. Lincoln disagreed with this policy, however, on distinctly moral grounds. He briefly stated how there is no moral right in correlation with making a man a slave.

However, numerous free-soilers had distinct intentions for wanting the sections of territories to remain free. One of the reasons was the discrimination against African-Americans; they plainly did not feel like sharing their area with blacks. Some slave-masters believed that African Americans were biologically lower standard to their masters. During the 1800s, this argument was relatively critical. Slave territories established a threat to the free labor society. Without free territories in the west, wage laborers would not have any expectation of traveling west to buy an inexpensive farm and settle in. The North and South attempted to negotiate on the issue by respecting each other’s regulations. For instance, the North gave back fugitive slaves, and the South respected the constitutional rights of free African-Americans, but the majority of these superior deeds ended with the Dred Scott decision. This assessment made slavery national and liberty private, for it enforced free states to distinguish slavery. Hence, pro-slavery arguments were brought attention to the court that every black-not just slaves-had no authorized position as a person in our courts-they were possessions, and the Constitution confined the slave’s rights as a possession of their master. At that point, it then became obvious that America would not manage to survive half-slave, and half free. Therefore, when a society constructs revolving around any institution, just as the South did around slavery, it will gather up as much information as possible to support the key elements of its argument. The southerners remained very confident when voicing their opinions on the case even as the political tension escalated because they believed they had collected valuable pieces which were accurate. Their confidence is what lured citizens closer to the Civil War as well as being more engaged in more historical events.

My opinion is that I believe that one should have a voice to choose which side tends to be more accurate and wise especially in a topic like slavery. The Abolitionists and the pro-slavery groups are of great importance in the history of the Civil War and of Slavery. Those, in these two different movements, had tough decisions to make. They had the choice of embracing slavery or to be against slavery. In addition, they, as citizens, had a decision to voice their opinions why they felt slaves should or not be slaves or to be silent. Though they had many choices to make, they would have to be very wise when stating their beliefs because their decisions would change the world forever as well as the lives of others. As far as the argument goes, I think that every man deserves better than slavery. In my viewpoint, I believe every man was born free; thus, that makes them equal, under God. Though the defenders of slavery said Jesus never stated that slavery was wrong, I do not assume that that is correct. For in the bible, it states, “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 4:3 24-30). God never liked slavery because he, like myself, believed everyone was created in his image and were equal. He also showed how he disliked slavery by using Moses, as a messenger, to lead the Israelites out of cruel bondage and slavery of Egypt to a land filled with milk and honey. Many aspects of the bible contained slavery but that was what happened during the days before Christ. If I engaged in this argument, between anti-slavery and pro-slavery, I would have chose anti-slavery because I believe no man or woman should be forced to labor involuntarily for that of another human being by being a slave.

This is Preview only. If you need the solution of this assignment, please send us email with the complete assignment title: ProfessorKamranA@gmail.com