____________________________________

7th Grade Social Studies U.S. History from the Revolution to Reconstruction

Class 147— Uncle Tom’s Cabin April 23, 2018

Focus: Besides Uncle Tom’s Cabin, what other works of fiction have impacted history or have had some kind of impact on the world today?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Student Objectives:1. I will analyze a small portion of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Homework: -Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 2 pgs. 483-487 (due 4/24)-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 488-490 (due 4/26)-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 491-492 (due 4/27)-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 4 pgs. 493-497 (due 4/30)-Chapter 15 Test Thursday 5/3

Handouts:Excerpt-Uncle Tom’s Cabin

I. Harriet Beecher Stowe II. Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Key terms/ideas/ people/places:Abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe Uncle Tom’s Cabin

By the end of class today, I will be able to answer the following:Who is Harriet Beecher Stowe?What is Uncle Tom’s Cabin?

NotesClass 147— Uncle Tom’s Cabin

April 23, 2018

Stowe was the daughter of a minister. She was an abolitionist. She had visited plantations in Kentucky. She published a novel in March of 1852, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, to highlight the cruelty of slavery. The book

featured a wicked overseer, a kindly slave named Uncle Tom, and the injustice he endured. “She made vivid the plight of the slave as a human being held in bondage.”

In its first year, 8 power presses running simultaneously printed more than 300,000 copies to meet demando In the U.S. it will sell over 3 million copies

The book became an international best seller as well, published in 37 languages, and made into a play! It sold another 3, 500, 000 copies in other parts of the world

o As of June 2011, The Harry Potter series has sold about 450 million copies Might have been able to sway public opinion in European countries The book encouraged abolitionists, but enraged Southern slave-owners. When Mr. Lincoln first met her, he said, “So, this is the little lady who started the war!” What did he mean by

this? Southern Women Response

o Louisa McCord-declared angrily that her “obscene and degrading scenes are [as] false as the spirit of mischief which dictated them.” The novel was “one mass of fanatical bitterness and foul misrepresentation wrapped up in the garb if Christian Charity.”

o Catherine Edmondston-blamed her for all the wartime carnage and vehemently denounced her as a “murderess, and murderess for gain.”

Excerpt from Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Two slaves, Cassy and Emmeline, are hiding from their cruel master, Simon Legree. Simon threatens to beat Tom if he will not tell where Cassy and Emmeline are hiding. Tom, a Christian who has always been a loyal, hard-working slave, refuses and Simon swears that he'll conquer Tom or kill him:

"Tom looked up to his master, and answered, "Mas'r, if you was sick, or in trouble, or dying, and I could save ye, I'd give ye my heart's blood; and, if taking every drop of blood in this poor old body would save your precious soul, I'd give 'em freely, as the Lord gave his for me. O, Mas'r! don't bring this great sin on your soul! It will hurt you more than 't will me! Do the worst you can, my troubles'll be over soon; but, if ye don't repent, yours won't never end!"

"Like a strange snatch of heavenly music, heard in the lull of a tempest, this burst of feeling made a moment's blank pause. Legree stood aghast, and looked at Tom; and there was such a silence, that the tick of the old clock could be heard, measuring, with silent touch, the last moments of mercy and probation to that hardened heart. It was but a moment. There was one hesitating pause,--one irresolute, relenting thrill,--and the spirit of evil came back, with seven-fold vehemence; and Legree, foaming with rage, smote his victim to the ground."

"Scenes of blood and cruelty are shocking to our ear and heart. What man has nerve to do, man has not nerve to hear. What brother-man and brother-Christian must suffer, cannot be told us, even in our secret chamber, it so harrows the soul! And yet, oh my country! these things are done under the shadow of thy laws! O, Christ! thy church sees them, almost in silence!"

How does Stowe portray slaveholders in this scene?

How does she portray slaves?

How do you think white Southerners felt when they read of Simon Legree's cruelty in Uncle Tom's Cabin?

"The writer has given only a faint shadow, a dim picture, of the anguish and despair that are, at this very moment, riving thousands of hearts, shattering thousands of families, and driving a helpless and sensitive race to frenzy and despair. There are those living who know the mothers whom this accursed traffic has driven to the murder of their children; and themselves seeking in death a shelter from woes more dreaded than death … "And you, mothers of America … I beseech you, pity the mother who has all your affections, and not one legal right to protect, guide, or educate, the child of her bosom! … I beseech you, pity those mothers that are constantly made childless by the American slave-trade! And say, mothers of America, is this a thing to be defended, sympathized with, passed over in silence? Do you say that the people of the free state have nothing to do with it, and can do nothing? Would to God this were true! But it is not true. The people of the free states have defended, encouraged, and participated; and are more guilty for it, before God, than the South, in that they have not the apology of education or custom. "If the mothers of the free states had all felt as they should, in times past, the sons of the free states would not have been the holders, and, proverbially, the hardest masters of slaves … "… You pray for the heathen abroad; pray also for the heathen at home. And pray for those distressed Christians whose whole chance of religious improvement is an accident of trade and sale; from whom any adherence to the morals of Christianity is, in many cases, an impossibility, unless they have given them, from above, the courage and grace of martyrdom."

Discuss the following questions with the class:

What arguments did Stowe put forth against slavery?

What audience was she trying to reach with her message?

Women in the nineteenth century could not vote, so why did Stowe make a point of addressing mothers?

____________________________________

7th Grade Social Studies U.S. History from the Revolution to Reconstruction

Class 148—Kansas-Nebraska, & Pottawatomie Massacre April 24, 2018

Focus: Look at the photograph on page 486. Read the caption entitled “Bleeding Kansas” and answer the question.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Student Objectives:1 I will describe the impact of the Kansas-Nebraska Act on the growing rift between North and South:2. I will analyze the troubled life and Presidency of Franklin Pierce. 3. I will reenact John Brown’s role in the Pottawatomie Massacre.

Homework:-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 488-490 (due 4/26)-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 491-492 (due 4/27)-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 4 pgs. 493-497 (due 4/30)-Chapter 15 Test Thursday 5/3

Handouts:Jane Pierce letter

I. Uncle Tom’s Cabin A. Harriet Beecher StoweII. Kansas-Nebraska ActIII. President Franklin PierceIV. Pottawatomie Massacre

Key terms/ideas/ people/places:Harriet Beecher Stowe Uncle Tom’s Cabin Kansas-Nebraska Act Stephen DouglasFranklin Pierce Benny Pierce Jane Pierce Border Ruffians Beecher’s BiblesJohn Brown Bleeding Kansas Pottawatomie Massacre

By the end of class today, I will be able to answer the following:What was a Beecher’s Bible? How did they get that nickname?Why did Douglas push for the Kansas-Nebraska Act? Why was Kansas known as “Bleeding Kansas?”

Jane Pierce to her dead son Benjamin Pierce

My precious child - I must write to you, altho' you are never to see it or know it - How I long to see you and say something to you as if you were as you always have been (until these last three dreadful weeks) near me. Oh! How precious do those days now seem, my darling boy - and how I should have praised [sic] the days passed with you had I suspected they might be so short - Dear, dear child - I cannot bear to think of that agonizing [sic] time, when I had just seen you all alive to what was passing around and near me, but not near enough - oh had you but been within reach of your dear father - in a moment changed my dear boy bright form into a lifeless one insensible to your parents' agony - But you spirit yourself, my dear one - was not your redeeming savior ready to receive you? Your sweet little brother? Your dear Uncle Lawrence? - but you are beyond my knowledge at once - Ah, I trust in joy, but I would fain have kept you here - I know not how to go on without you - you were my comfort dear - far more than you thought. I was thinking how pleasantly we should go on together when we found ourselves at home again - and I would do everything to make you love me and have confidence in me and bring you along gently and sweetly - Oh! You were indeed "a part of mine and of your father's heart". When I have told you dear boy how much you depended on me, and felt that you could not do without me - I did not say too how much I depended on you and oh! My precious boy how gladly would I recall all that was unreasonable - or hasty - or mistaken in my conduct toward you. I see surely and I did frequently see afterward that I had wronged you - and would have gladly acknowledged it only that I feared it might weaken your confidence in me and perhaps on that account not be as well for you - and now I am at home again dear boy. Oh what anguish was mine on returning without you, and feeling that it must still be so, while I live - to see your little bed that you loved so much - and which I look at many times in the day, and at night feel as if I must see it shape [?] out again and the clothes turned down for you - and unconsciously look in the morning for it and you - and listen for your bright cheerful voice your blithe "good morrow" - and oh! to look around and see your books and everything so connected with you - your dear self - and now on this Sabbath which you loved so much as you said often how I have marked for you each hour with its wonted occupation - and oh to think of you kneeling by me at our evening prayer tonight, dear child - has not the Savior made you His as we so often asked. But now I must kneel alone and beg for strength and support under this crushing sorrow, that the blessed Savior would comfort the heart of your pain stricken Mother - and help me better to bear the burden of your loss which has brought desolation such as I have never (with all my former griefs) known.

Dear precious boy! I have passed through the bitter time of leaving our home, and without my child, my own dear Benny. How did I think of you - dear - in every moment - of all your little parting notes and the many good-byes - and again the ride in those rail cars agonizing to my soul - we went in to the same little saloon as when we went down to Andover the last time - we three then, now only two - but we seemed to see you as when there before - and now we are in Boston, still without ,you, but I fancying what I should do and what I should say to you - continually, and now we must "journey on e'en when grief is sorest" with the whole head sick and the whole heart faint. I will "look to Jesus" (how often I have directed you to him my precious one) and sought his blessing for you and myself - but my son, my dear son, how much I feel my own faults in regard to you - I know that I did not take the right way and should have dealt with you very gently often when I judged hastily and spoke harshly. I can see that I was "unreasonable" and sometimes almost wonder that you loved me at all. God help me now to correct in bitterness my errors when oh! It is too late for you to have the sweet benefit of it - and now this Sabbath evening you will come in fancy before me and I sit close by you, with your hand in mine perhaps, or you will lean against me on the sofa, or as sometimes you did on Sunday evening sit on my lap a little while and we talk together and say hymns and then play and then by and by you go to bed first putting your arms around me and laying your dear head on my shoulder and then you get in your bed and we have our Sabbath night kiss - but to think I can never have another - Oh Benny, I have not valued such a sweet blessing as I ought.

NotesClass 148—Kansas-Nebraska, & Pottawatomie Massacre

April 24, 2018

Kansas-Nebraska Act: Kansas and Nebraska need a government so the RR could travel through

o Douglas wants a Trans-Continental RR-wants it to run through Chicago Kansas would enter the Union after addressing the slavery issue through popular sovereignty The Nebraska Territory would be further subdivided into smaller territories (such as the Dakotas). The Compromise of 1820 was repealed. Slavery could exist in the territories. Popular sovereignty would prevail. What does that mean? Supported by Franklin Pierce (D)

o Will not get nominated for a second termo Truly viewed as a poor President and one who leaves the country in a messo Pro slaveryo Talks of expansion-Cuba, South America (keep Britain out) northerners view this as the expansion of

slaveryo Alcoholic

Bleeding Kansas: Popular Sovereignty would determine the slave question

o Boarder Ruffians from MO would commit voter fraud. They would say they had the right to vote because they had their wash done in Kansas or buy land for their child who was nine and say he could vote. They also used force to get to the poles.

Armed with rifles, Bowie knives, revolvers, and wooden clubs Wore no uniforms and had no officers

o There were 2,900 people able to vote in Kansas, 6,300 votes were cast-pro-slavery forces didn’t have to cheat to win, they outnumbered the free-soilers anyways

How did the proslavery forces attempt to silence Free Soil voices?o Legalized slavery, capital offense to assist runaway slaveo Militant organizations form

Kansas now had two governments-slave and free. Pierce (D) and the Senate (D) recognized the slave government and the House recognized the free-soiler- whole nation is now divided. In essence-the war starts six years before Sumter.

Sack of the town of Lawrence Pottawatomie Massacre

o John Brown and several other anti-slavery members kill and hack-up pro-slavery citizens Brown and his sons pass out “Beecher’s Bibles” (i.e., guns-Named for the abolitionist preacher Henry Ward

Beecher-Harriet Beecher Stowe’s brother) to anti-slavery forces-Sharps rifles were shipped in crates marked bibles, medicine etc.

____________________________________

7th Grade Social Studies U.S. History from the Revolution to Reconstruction

Class 149— Brooks Canes Sumner April 25, 2018

Focus: Based on the honor system duels can only take place between what kinds of people? How does honor relate to the Brooks-Sumner affair?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Student Objectives:1. I will analyze how the Brooks-Sumner affair portrays the intense sectional differences that were dividing the country in the 1850s.

Homework:-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 488-490 (due 4/26)-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 491-492 (due 4/27)-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 4 pgs. 493-497 (due 4/30)-Chapter 15 Test Thursday 5/3

Handouts:Crime Against Kansas Speech-Charles Sumner

I. Brooks VS. Sumner

Key terms/ideas/ people/places:Andrew P. Butler Preston Brooks Charles Sumner Lawrence KeitJohn J. Crittenden Ambrose S. Murray Honor Edwin B. Morgan

By the end of class today, I will be able to answer the following:Why did Brooks not duel Sumner?Why did Brooks beat Sumner?How did this event increase sectional tension between the North and South?

The Crime Against Kansas: The Apologies for the Crime; The True RemedyDelivered to the United States Senate, 19-20 May 1856

byHon. Charles Sumner

The wickedness which I now begin to expose is immeasurably aggravated by the motive which prompted it.  Not in any common lust for power did this uncommon tragedy have its origin.  It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of Slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved desire for a new Slave State, hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of Slavery in the National Government.  Yes, Sir, when the whole world, alike Christian and Turk, is rising up to condemn this wrong, making it a hissing to the nations, here in our Republic, force -- ay, Sir, FORCE -- is openly employed in compelling Kansas to this pollution, and all for the sake of political power.  There is the simple fact, which you will vainly attempt to deny, but which in itself presents an essential wickedness that makes other public crimes seem like public virtues.

This enormity, vast beyond comparison, swells to dimensions of crime which the imagination toils in vain to grasp, when it is understood that for this purpose are hazarded the horrors of intestine feud, not only in this distant Territory, but everywhere throughout the country.  The muster has begun.  The strife is no longer local, but national.  Even now, while I speak, portents lower in the horizon, threatening to darken the land, which already palpitates with the mutterings of civil war....

Before entering upon the argument, I must say something of a general character, particularly in response to what has fallen from Senators who have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrong:  I mean the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], who, though unlike as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza1, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the same adventure.  I regret much to miss the elder Senator from his seat; but the cause against which he has run a tilt, with such ebullition of animosity, demands that the opportunity of exposing him should not be lost; and it is for the cause that I speak.  The Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentiments of honor and courage.   Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him, -- though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight:  I mean the harlot Slavery.  For her his tongue is always profuse in words.  Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition be made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator.  The frenzy of Don Quixote in behalf of his wench Dulcinea del Toboso is all surpassed.  The asserted rights of Slavery, which shock equality of all kinds, are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality.  If the Slave States cannot enjoy what, in mockery of the great fathers of the Republic, he misnames Equality under the Constitution, -- in other words, the full power in the National Territories to compel fellow-men to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction-block, -- then, Sir, the chivalric Senator will conduct the State of South Carolina out of the Union!   Heroic knight!  Exalted Senator!  A second Moses come for a second exodus!

Not content with this poor menace, which we have been twice told was "measured," the Senator, in the unrestrained chivalry of his nature, has undertaken to apply opprobrious words to those who differ from him on this floor.   He calls them "sectional and fanatical"; and resistance to the Usurpation of Kansas he denounces as "an uncalculating fanaticism."  To be sure, these charges lack all grace of originality and all sentiment of truth; but the adventurous Senator does not hesitate.  He is the uncompromising, unblushing representative on this floor of a flagrant sectionalism, now domineering over the Republic, -- and yet, with a ludicrous ignorance of his own position, unable to see himself as others see him, or with an effrontery which even his white head ought not to protect from rebuke, he applies to those here who resist his sectionalism the very epithet which designates himself.  The men who strive to bring back the Government to its original policy, when Freedom and not Slavery was national, while Slavery and not Freedom was sectional, he arraigns as sectional.  This will not do.  It involves too great a perversion of terms.  I tell that Senator that it is to himself, and to the "organization" of which he is the "committed advocate," that this epithet belongs.   I now fasten it upon them.  For myself, I care little for names; but, since the question is raised here, I affirm that the Republican party of the Union is in no just sense sectional, but, more than any other party, national, -- and that it now goes forth to dislodge from the high places that tyrannical sectionalism of which the Senator from South Carolina is one of the maddest zealots.

1 Don Quixote is a fictitious novel written by Miguel de Cervantes in the 1600s.

Thus was the Crime consummated.  Slavery stands erect, clanking its chains on the Territory of Kansas, surrounded by a code of death, and trampling upon all cherished liberties, whether of speech, the press, the bar, the trial by jury, or the electoral franchise.  And, Sir, all this is done, not merely to introduce a wrong which in itself is a denial of all rights, and in dread of which mothers have taken the lives of their offspring, -- not merely, as is sometimes said, to protect Slavery in Missouri, since it is futile for this State to complain of Freedom on the side of Kansas, when Freedom exists without complaint on the side of Iowa, and also on the side of Illinois, -- but it is done for the sake of political power, in order to bring two new slaveholding Senators upon this floor, and thus to fortify in the National Government the desperate chances of a waning Oligarchy.  As the gallant ship, voyaging on pleasant summer seas, is assailed by a pirate crew, and plundered of doubloons and dollars, so is this beautiful Territory now assailed in peace and prosperity, and robbed of its political power for the sake of Slavery.  Even now the black flag of the land pirates from Missouri waves at the mast-head; in their laws you hear the pirate yell and see the flash of the pirate knife; while, incredible to relate, the President, gathering the Slave Power at his back, testifies a pirate sympathy.

With regret I come again upon the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler], who, omnipresent in this debate, overflows with rage at the simple suggestion that Kansas has applied for admission as a State, and, with incoherent phrase, discharges the loose expectoration of his speech, now upon her representative, and then upon her people.  There was no extravagance of the ancient Parliamentary debate which he did not repeat; nor was there any possible deviation from truth which he did not make, -- with so much of passion, I gladly add, as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration.  But the Senator touches nothing which he does not disfigure -- with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact.  He shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the Constitution or in stating the law, whether in details of statistics or diversions of scholarship.  He cannot ope[n] his mouth, but out there flies a blunder....

 

NotesClass 149— Brooks Canes Sumner

April 25, 2018

Preston Brooks of South Carolina caned Charles Sumner of Massachusetts

Sumner’s Crime Against Kansas Speech: Calls Andrew P. Butler a Senator of South Carolina and cousin of Brooks the Don Quixote of slavery Immediately after Sumner’s Crime against Kansas speech a South Carolinian “could not go into a parlor, or

drawing-room, or to a dinner party, where he did not find an implied reproach that there was an unmanly submission to an insult to his State and his countrymen.”

Butler was old and Sumner was a rather large and powerful man. Therefore, Preston Brooks, cousin of Butler “felt it be my duty to relieve Butler and avenge the insult to my State.”

Brooks could not challenge Sumner to a duel. First, he knew Sumner would not accept. Secondly, a duel can only happen between equals. To duel Sumner would be to admit he was a social equal and was a man of honor. Therefore “to punish an insulting inferior one used not a pistol or sword but a cane or horsewhip.”

If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel.  Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs.  For Southerners, Brooks’ actions were manly and honorable. According to the Southern Honor System, a duel could only be fought between equals. Whippings, canings, and other forms of physical abuse were reserved for inferiors. “The lesson that slaveholders wanted to instill was fairly simple: to take up the slave’s cause was to suffer like a slave, to have no honor, to be condemned to a “social death,,” and to be virtually outside the rule of law.”

May 22, 1856 about 12:45 P.M-Brooks Canes Sumner on the Senate Floor Preston Brooks: “I struck him with my cane and gave him about 30 first rate stripes with a gutta perch can…

Every lick went where I intended. For about the first five or six licks he offered to make a fight but I plied him so rapidly that he did not touch me. Towards the last he bellowed like a calf.”

Sectionalism o It was duplicated by slavery proponents with the slogan, “Hit him again!”o Brooks reported that “fragments” of his cane “are begged for as sacred relics.”o Inspired John Brown-he visited Sumner and saw his bloodied coato Definition of manhood

South Brooks-manly spirit and praised for manliness Sumner-unmanly, acting like a woman

North Sumner-true manliness lay in self-control-not force Brooks-brute

What happens to both? Brooks did not get the 2/3 votes to expel him from Congress (sectional voting) Brooks resigns but is elected unopposed back to Congress. Sumner’s Chair remains empty for the next 2 and half years-suffered severe psychosomatic shock.

“When the two sections no longer spoke the same language, shared the same moral code, or obeyed the same law, when their representatives clashed in bloody conflict in the halls of Congress, thinking men North and South began to wonder how the union could longer endure. ‘I do not see how a barbarous community and civilized community can constitute one state. I think we must get rid of slavery, or we must get rid of freedom (Ralph Waldo Emerson).’”

____________________________________

7th Grade Social Studies U.S. History from the Revolution to Reconstruction

Class 150— Republican Party and Dred Scott April 26, 2018

Focus: How did the Dred Scott decision overturn the Missouri Compromise? What was the reaction to this decision in both the North and the South?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Student Objectives:1. I will analyze how the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott case further increased sectional tensions between the North and the South.2. I will analyze the values of the Republican Party.

Homework:-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 3 pgs. 491-492 (due 4/27)-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 4 pgs. 493-497 (due 4/30)-Chapter 15 Test Thursday 5/3

Handouts:none

I. Dred ScottII. Republican Party

Key terms/ideas/ people/places:Dred Scott Roger Taney Missouri Compromise

By the end of class today, I will be able to answer the following:Why was the Dred Scott so important to the topic of slavery?What were the effects of the Dred Scott decision in terms of increasing sectionalism?

NotesClass 150— Republican Party and Dred Scott

April 26, 2018

Dred Scott: suing on the ground that his former residence in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory made him free Scott couldn’t sue-not a citizen-slave=property Congress did not have the power to outlaw slavery in the territories-MO Compromise Unconstitutional. Backlash because:

o The court majority consisted of 5 Southerners and one Northerner, with the other Northern judges dissenting

o 1st time the Supreme Court invalidated a major act of Congresso Dealing with the Constitutionality of the MO Compromise, the Court took up a question that was not

properly before ito Thomas Hart Benton- Scott was “turned back from the door, for want of a right to enter the court room—

debarred from suing for want of citizenship; after which it would seem to be a grave judicial solecism to proceed to try the man when he was not before the court.”

Election of 1856: Republican Party created-makes slavery an official party platform John C. Fremont (R) James Buchannan (D)-wins

o Only president from PAo Only bachelor president

____________________________________

7th Grade Social Studies U.S. History from the Revolution to Reconstruction

Class 151— Lincoln-Douglas Debates April 27, 2018

Focus: Why do you think the whole country was paying attention to the Lincoln-Douglas Debates?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Student Objectives:1. I will describe how the Douglas-Lincoln debates foreshadowed the future of our country.

Homework:-Read and take notes on Chapter 15, Section 4 pgs. 493-497 (due 4/30)-Chapter 15 Test Thursday 5/3

Handouts:Lincoln-'First Joint Debate at Ottawa, August 21, 1858' Lincoln-'Fourth Joint Debate at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858'Douglas-'Third Joint Debate at Jonesboro, Illinois, September 15, 1858'

I. Lincoln VS. Douglas

Key terms/ideas/ people/places:Abraham Lincoln Stephen Douglas Popular Sovereignty

By the end of class today, I will be able to answer the following:What were the differences between Lincoln and Douglas?What were their similarities?

Abraham Lincoln'First Joint Debate at Ottawa, August 21, 1858'

When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South. When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go info our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter. I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechize me unless he pays back for it in kind. I will not answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on the fugitive-slave law.

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the African American is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the a is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence-the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

Abraham Lincoln'Fourth Joint Debate at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858'

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the African Americans and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of African Americans, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the African American should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a African American woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of African Americans. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between African Americans and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglases old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry African Americans if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there was no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with African Americans. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the African American and the white man can be made except in the State legislature -- not in the Congress of the United States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose, as the best means to prevent it, that the judge be kept at home and placed in the State legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on the subject.

Stephen Douglas'Third Joint Debate at Jonesboro, Illinois, September 15, 1858'

But I wish to invite your attention to the chief points at issue between Mr. Lincoln and myself in this discussion. Mr. Lincoln, knowing that he was to be the candidate of his party on account of the arrangement of which I have already spoken, knowing that he was to receive the nomination of the convention for the United States Senate, had his speech, accepting that nomination, all written and committed to memory, ready to be delivered the moment the nomination was announced. Accordingly when it was made he was in readiness and delivered his speech, a portion of which I will read in order that I may state his political principles fairly, by repeating them in his own language: “We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object, and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation; under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, North as well as South.”

There you have Mr. Lincoln's first and main proposition, upon which he bases his claims, stated in his own language. He tells you that this republic cannot endure permanently divided into slave and free States, as our fathers made it. He says that they must all become free or all become slave, that they must all be one thing or all be the other, or this government cannot last. Why can it not last, if we will execute the government in the same spirit and upon the same principles upon which it is founded? Lincoln by his proposition, says to the South, "If you desire to maintain your institutions as they are now, you must not be satisfied with minding your own business, but you must invade Illinois and all the other Northern States, establish slavery in them, and make it universal"; and in the same language he says to the North, "You must not be content with regulating your own affairs, and minding your own business, but if you desire to maintain your freedom, you must invade the Southern States, abolish slavery there and everywhere, in order to have the States all one thing or all the other." I say that this is the inevitable and irresistible result of Mr. Lincoln's argument, inviting a warfare between the North and the South, to be carried on with ruthless vengeance, until the one section or the other shall be driven to the wall, and become the victim of the rapacity of the other. What good would follow such a system of warfare? Suppose the North should succeed in conquering the South, how much would she be the gainer? or suppose the South should conquer the North, could the Union be preserved in that way? Is this sectional warfare to be waged between Northern States and Southern States until they all shall become uniform in their local and domestic institutions merely because Mr. Lincoln says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and pretends that this scriptural quotation, this language of our Lord and Master, is applicable to the American Union and the American Constitution? Washington and his compeers, in the convention that framed the Constitution, made this government divided into free and slave States. It was composed then of thirteen sovereign and independent States, each having sovereign authority over its local and domestic institutions, and all bound together by the Federal Constitution. Mr. Lincoln likens that bond of the Federal Constitution, joining free and slave States together, to a house divided against itself, and says that it is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand. When did he learn, and by what authority does he proclaim, that this government is contrary to the law of God and cannot stand? It has stood thus divided into free and slave States from its organization up to this day. During that period we have increased from four millions to thirty millions of people; we have extended our territory from the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean; we have acquired the Floridas and Texas, and other territory sufficient to double our geographical extent; we have increased in population, in wealth, and in power beyond any example on earth; we have risen from a weak and feeble power to become the terror and admiration of the civilized world; and all this has been done under a Constitution which Mr. Lincoln, in substance, says is in violation of the law of God, and under a Union divided into free and slave States, which Mr. Lincoln thinks, because of such division, cannot stand. Surely Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those who framed the government. Washington did not believe, nor did his compatriots, that the local laws and domestic institutions that were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Vermont were suited to the rice plantations of South Carolina; they did not believe at that day that in a republic so broad and expanded as this, containing such a variety of climate, soil, and interest, uniformity in the local laws and domestic institutions was either desirable or possible. They believed then, as our experience has proved to us now, that each locality, having different interests, a different climate, and different surroundings, required different local laws, local policy, and local institutions, adapted to the wants of that locality. Thus our government was formed on the principle of diversity in the local institutions and laws, and not on that of uniformity….

I hold that a African American is not and never ought to be a citizen of the United States. I hold that this government was made on the white basis, by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others. I do not believe that the Almighty made the African American capable of self-government. I am aware that all the Abolition lecturers that you find traveling about through the country, are in the habit of reading the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. Lincoln is very much in the habit of following in the track of Lovejoy in this particular, by reading that part of the Declaration of Independence to prove that the African American was endowed by the Almighty with the inalienable right of equality with white men. Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion the signers of the Declaration had no reference to the African American whatever, when they declared all men to be created equal. They desired to express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference either to the African American, the savage Indians, the Fee-Jee, the Malay, or any other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men. One great evidence that such was their understanding, is to be found in the fact that at that time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration represented a slaveholding constituency, and we know that no one of them emanciated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to them, when they signed the Declaration; and yet, if they intended to declare that the African American was the equal of the white man, and entitled by divine right to an equality with him, they were bound, as honest men, that day and hour to have put their African Americans on an equality with themselves. Instead of doing so, with uplifted eyes to heaven they implored the divine blessing upon them, during the seven years' bloody war they had to fight to maintain that Declaration, never dreaming that they were violating divine law by still holding the African Americans in bondage and depriving them of equality. My friends, I am in favor of preserving this government as our fathers made it. It does not follow by any means that because a African American is not your equal or mine, that hence he must necessarily be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to extend to the African American every right, every privilege, every immunity which he is capable of enjoying, consistent with the good of society. When you ask me what hese rights are, what their nature and extent is, I tell you that that is a question which each State of this Union must decide for itself. Illinois has already decided the question. We have decided that the African American must not be a slave within our limits; but we have also decided that the African American shall not be a citizen within our limits; that he shall not vote, hold office, or exercise any political rights. I maintain that Illinois, as a sovereign State, has a right thus to fix her policy with reference to the relation between the white man and the African American; but while we had that right to decide the question for ourselves, we must recognize the same right in Kentucky and in every other State to make the same decision, or a different one. Having decided our own policy with reference to the black race, we must leave Kentucky and Missouri and every other State perfectly free to make just such a decision as they see proper on that question. Kentucky has decided that question for herself. She has said that within her limits a African American shall not exercise any political rights, and she has also said that a portion of the African Americans under the laws of that State shall be slaves. She had as much right to adopt that as her policy as we had to adopt the contrary for our policy. New York has decided that in that State a African American may vote if he has two hundred and fifty dollars Worth of property, and if he owns that much he may vote upon an equality with the white man. I, for one, am utterly opposed to African American suffrage anywhere and under any circumstances; yet, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has decided in the celebrated Dred Scott case that a State has a right to confer the privilege of voting upon free African Americans, I am not going to make war upon New York because she has adopted a policy repugnant to my feelings.

NotesClass 151— Lincoln-Douglas Debates

April 27, 2018

Lincoln faces off against Stephen Douglas (the Little Giant) in a series of senatorial debates.o 7 debates-Debated what America ought to do about slavery-gives it special historical significance

Festivity prevailed-like a Big Game in a college towno Douglas-popular sovereignty-effective device to restrict slavery without a battle in Congress

Anti-slavery man Callous scorn for African Americans Slavery was unworthy of a progressive society like the U.S. Slavery not worth a political crisis African Americans should never be a citizen/inferior to whites, government made by white men

for white meno Lincoln-did not believe in perfect equality

Morally wrong “I…contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil.” “If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so

think, and feel.” Opposed expansion Two races would never achieve social and political equality, must always be a superior and an

inferior-superior=white race Not an abolitionist No voting rights to African Americans Conflicting values-valued freedom, which impelled him towards emancipation but also valued

Union which repelled him from emancipation because the South would react-shrank from “doing anything to bring about a war between the free and slave states”

Accepted obligation to leave slavery undisturbed where it existed and even the law to return fugitive slaves

Believed the Founding Fathers had given clear indication that they “intended and expected the ultimate extinction” of slavery-end slave trade, banned slavery from the Northwest

Lincoln recognized that most whites in the North would support emancipation, but not equality. Tried to get listeners to recognize they shared a common humanity with African Americans People see his tall stature. His sense of humor is evident. Lincoln states that a nation cannot survive half slave and half free-“House Divided…” speech Loses election but becomes part of the national spot light-Douglas wins immediate Stakes, the

Senate, but Lincoln gained position for the greater prize-Presidento “The difference between Douglas and Lincoln—and in large sense between proslavery and antislavery

thought—was not that Douglas believed in chattel servitude (for he did not), or that Lincoln believed in an unqualified, full equality of blacks and whites (for he did not). The difference was that Douglas did not believe that slavery really mattered very much, because he did not believe that [blacks] had enough human affinity with him to make it necessary for him to concern himself with them. Lincoln, on the contrary, believed that slavery mattered, because he recognized a human affinity with blacks which made their plight a necessary matter of concern to him.”