Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=192.65.245.78McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:25:33ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T11:42:41Z<p>192.65.245.78: /* Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In "Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War" it is apparent that he fells that American is far more superior in terms of an army and stragetgy. I was wondering if this was on of the first times that America is realizing that they are becoming a very strong nation, and that they ahve a superior army?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokes<br />
<br />
This passage was particularly interesting. I was most interested by the statement, "Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the 'invaders' to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras..." (p.232). This statement was very interesting because it shows the taunting behavior that the Americans demonstrated in order for the war to begin so that they did not have to technically initiate combat. This statement also demonstrates the amount of determination that the Americans had to obtain Texas. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
In "Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War" I was wonder why he goes on to describe both Genreal Taylor and General Scott. He describes General Taylor as a man who never wore a uniform and dressed for comfort and General Scott as a man who was always dressed in uniform. Why did Ulysses S. Grant find it nessary to include this in his document?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
So, in Grants Memoir, he writes, "For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure [to annex Texas] and to this day regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger aganist a weaker nation." I take this quote to mean that Grant really did not like the idea of annexing Texas. So my question is that was he unhappy about the annexation because he was from the north, and did others from the north typicaly share this reaction or is it more of a personal issue? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
it's interesting how Grant "reagard the war, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation" and he's fighting in it and how he alludes the republic to the european monarchies. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Grant compared the Mexican War to the events surrounding the Revolutionary War. He sees America as unjust for exerting their power over a weaker country because they want to "acquire more territory," which is what Britain had previously done to America. He also criticizes the Americans who colonized there for bringing slaves into the territory when the Mexican government opposed this institution. Was Grant an abolitionist? Or was he just anti-slavery as most people in the North were? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Lincoln states that he would not even consider holding a slave, yet then he continues to say that as free men, he could not admit that they were equals. Was this contradictory opinion common among Americans at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Linclon's speech, he basicly states in the third full paragraph on page 261, the Southern people are the same as Northern people in that if the rolls were reversed, each side would do the same thing as the other side. I was wondering if this statement had any negative effect on the Northern view of Linclon or any positive effect on the Southern view of Linclon? I was just curious if he recieved any feedback from the public about how he compared the two sides. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
When Lincoln comments, "These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon;..." Who is mammon? - Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm a big fan of Abraham Lincoln. He's just so cool! And I enjoyed this speech as well. He is so smart to talk to the North about the South without anger. Instead he addresses the situation with sympathy and understanding. He recognizes that even if the South wanted to stop slaver it would still be hard. He says at one point in the speech though, that he does not believe total equality between black and white. I found this interesting. I wonder if this is just a way of saying how hard it would be to get to equality. --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In response to alex, hwo could a black slave even attempt to prove himself free? He is not considered a citizen, has no rights, cannot hold any weight in court, and is a piece of property and nothign more. How exactly would a slave go about this process of proving that he was free? - Landon James<br />
<br />
Is Douglas the most dangerous type of abolitonist? One who has seen and lived the terrors of slavery and is educated enought o make solid arguments such as these. - Landon James<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
When writing the Constitution, did Jefferson realize that he was leaving so many issues open ended? I mean, to an extent I'm sure he did, but if he knew that leaving issues such as slavery and equality so generalized was going to be such a problem, do you think he would have been more specific in what they wrote? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
To Mary's question: Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution left out the issue of slavery primarily because they didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to be responsible for creating a situation no one liked and pushed it off to the future generations to deal with, sort of like what Congress is doing with Social Security--they know they should get rid of it, but they don't want to. Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Douglas points out the hypocritical attitude that most Americans have about slavery. He attacks the contradictions in their speech and actions by saying that "when their own [white] liberty is in question they will avail themselves of all the rulse of law which protect and defent their freedom; but when the black man's rights are in question they concede to everything for slavery and put liberty to the proof." This argument is based on the rhetoric of democracy that so many white Americans used, but refused to apply to slavery. Therefore, his arguments are very strong. I also found it interesting when we learned in class that he had white sponsors who bought his and his family's freedom after the court ruling. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
When Douglass says that,"the negro an an exception to general rules... They reserve common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I, on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." This reminds me a lot of innocent until proven guilty in our court system. Is this what Douglass is getting at? - Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
The very last line of the Douglass pamphlet states, "If slaveholders have ruled the American Government for the last fifty years, let the anti-slavery men rule the nation for the next fifty years." This makes me think that Douglass might be speaking to the advantages the slave states have had in terms of getting bills and legislation passed over anti-slave states. - Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense". My question is defense from what? What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." in the speech; why did they cut down the speech? Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement? Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I find it so interesting when reading these documents, to see how each person can twist a document to either direction. Were they aware of the contradictions against their argument within the document and simply ignore it so they could prove their own point? Or were they both convinced they were completely right?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this article very persuasive. The sentences, "We claim protection [of slavery], first, because it is our right; secondly, because it is the duty of the General Government; and thirdly, because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense. This is the general theory of the right of protection..." (p. 266). This was an excellent argument that truly represented the South in the most positive light. By describing this in a way in which the government looks bad, at a national level, for enabling the Southerners a freedom, a right, the power and trust fell into the hands of the Southern Leaders. While they put up an excellent argument, in what ways were the Northerners persuasive about their argument? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how he refers to slave as property and that it is their right to own slaves. This document displays how torn the states were between pro-slavery and anti-slavery because anti-slavery states would not consider owning slaves a right. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
i find it interesting that Davis is upset that the Territorial Legislature is interfering "with the rights of person or property" when he is supporting slavery which is taking away the rights of african americans. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I felt that in comparison to Douglass' piece about slavery in the constitution, Douglass' had a lot more fact and critical reasoning to stand on. Davis seems to use a somewhat backwards defense, saying nothing of what the constitution MEANS but only how it is being acted out NOW. Douglass addresses the fact that the words of the constitution must be against slavery, and Davis only defends the constitution by saying that the world is how it is, and somehow that proves slavery is legal. It's like he is saying... We use slavery because the constitution says so. The constitution says it's legal because we use slavery. At least, that's the message I received. --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free. However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well. To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting. Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live. Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born. They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage. Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean? How could they afford to move over there? Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia. He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I’m not sure how realistic it is to think that relocation of colored people will solve their problems. First of all, the practicality of such a vast relocation of people is virtually nonexistent; how would you move an incredibly large number of people and all of their belongings to another place, all together? Second, wherever they go, they will be seen as outsiders and/or invaders in someone else’s land. This presents many of the same obstacles that they deal with in America. I doubt that relocation, although perhaps good in theory, was ever a plausible concept. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I have a feeling that most slaves, upon hearing this, would disagree with Blanks. By the time this was written, the population of slaves had already developed their own culture. They had new traditions and completely different skills than would be needed in Africa. I don't believe that most slaves would want to risk cutting the ties of tradition, personal ancestral history and possibly seperation from family members. --Laura Peters<br />
<br />
For Blanks to want to have a mass relocation of blacks to another place seems very brave to me. I can’t imagine it being something that was widely supported. The idea of relocation is just too broad. I wonder if there were ever any ideas of setting up a reserve of some types like what was done with the Indians for the blacks in America. Both ideas are insane, but it’s just a thought. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand why the Brown's killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don't see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths. He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves. He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”. With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Confession by James Townsley, I found it interesting Townsley mentions Brown’s intent to kill pro-slavery men and that he refused to go along with the attacks while Brown in his speech talks of his lack of intent to kill the same men. Both have the motive of claiming innocence to lie in their confessions, so which document is more reliable to what really happened? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Townsley's recollection, I find it very unlikely Townsley, Winer and Frederick Brown all merely sat back and watched these event occurring. It doesn’t make sense for the Browns to even let them do so, because it just provides people who didn’t participate to be witnesses to their murders. Also, Townsley tries far too carefully to be sure to say he has no idea where they were going, what the plan was, and each time there was a murder to say the three of them were 'left outside a short distance from the door'. To me this sounds like a man who doesn't want to share a similar death sentence. But since Brown says "I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case" I assumed there were more accounts of this case so this and the others were based on the fundamental truths of the events, but just worded in a way that made them innocent. Was Townsley a witness for this case or did he come forth with his recollection at a later time? From the way he recalls it, he makes it seem like quite a bit of time had passed. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Since Brown's goal to be a marter is that why he claims his only goal is to find and save slaves and did not intend to "murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"? Was this his way of guiding people who participated in future rebellion to go about it in a way that would not result in a fate similar to his or was he just trying to look good? Further, I thought it was a good point for Brown to bring up the Bible as a way to justify his mentality, since that is what the South was known for doing to justify their ways of slavery. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
John Brown says that he never encouraged any man to cause trouble, but in the previous passage James Townsley states that Brown specifically asked him to join in. I just think that Brown is trying to make himself look much better. ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I notice that John Brown says that it was never his intent to physically harm anyone. However, I can’t imagine what he thought was going to happen in response to his actions. If you steal someone’s property, as slaves were, and you threaten those who agree with slavery, as he was doing, there can be little doubt that those you steal from and threaten will lash out at you. When someone lashes out, you have little choice but to react accordingly, and thus physical harm and violence are inherently a part of what Brown was doing. Also, seeing as Brown was a militant, I seriously question the validity of the claim he never meant any harm. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I don't understand why, as Nick pointed out, John Brown denied his intentions to start riots etc... and essentially denounced why he'd done all this in the first place if he was so dead set on being a martyr. If he was so eager to be a martyr and obviously knew that it would only result in his death why would he say that he didn't really mean what he had obviously intended?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how John Brown used quotes from the Bible to justify his actions. He chose only quotes that support his position and completely disregarded all of the scripture that puts limitations on that. It shows that some trends in politics never die. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Just by reading the first part, the confession, it almost makes me want to think Brown is slightly unstable. If one is trying to get a mass of people to join their side of an argument, the last thing I think one would want to do was to kill others. It turns people off from your viewpoint and doesn’t help you at all. ---Virginia Stratton.</div>192.65.245.78https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T11:38:19Z<p>192.65.245.78: /* Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In "Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War" it is apparent that he fells that American is far more superior in terms of an army and stragetgy. I was wondering if this was on of the first times that America is realizing that they are becoming a very strong nation, and that they ahve a superior army?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokes<br />
<br />
This passage was particularly interesting. I was most interested by the statement, "Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the 'invaders' to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras..." (p.232). This statement was very interesting because it shows the taunting behavior that the Americans demonstrated in order for the war to begin so that they did not have to technically initiate combat. This statement also demonstrates the amount of determination that the Americans had to obtain Texas. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
In "Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War" I was wonder why he goes on to describe both Genreal Taylor and General Scott. He describes General Taylor as a man who never wore a uniform and dressed for comfort and General Scott as a man who was always dressed in uniform. Why did Ulysses S. Grant find it nessary to include this in his document?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
So, in Grants Memoir, he writes, "For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure [to annex Texas] and to this day regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger aganist a weaker nation." I take this quote to mean that Grant really did not like the idea of annexing Texas. So my question is that was he unhappy about the annexation because he was from the north, and did others from the north typicaly share this reaction or is it more of a personal issue? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
it's interesting how Grant "reagard the war, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation" and he's fighting in it and how he alludes the republic to the european monarchies. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Grant compared the Mexican War to the events surrounding the Revolutionary War. He sees America as unjust for exerting their power over a weaker country because they want to "acquire more territory," which is what Britain had previously done to America. He also criticizes the Americans who colonized there for bringing slaves into the territory when the Mexican government opposed this institution. Was Grant an abolitionist? Or was he just anti-slavery as most people in the North were? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Lincoln states that he would not even consider holding a slave, yet then he continues to say that as free men, he could not admit that they were equals. Was this contradictory opinion common among Americans at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Linclon's speech, he basicly states in the third full paragraph on page 261, the Southern people are the same as Northern people in that if the rolls were reversed, each side would do the same thing as the other side. I was wondering if this statement had any negative effect on the Northern view of Linclon or any positive effect on the Southern view of Linclon? I was just curious if he recieved any feedback from the public about how he compared the two sides. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
When Lincoln comments, "These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon;..." Who is mammon? - Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm a big fan of Abraham Lincoln. He's just so cool! And I enjoyed this speech as well. He is so smart to talk to the North about the South without anger. Instead he addresses the situation with sympathy and understanding. He recognizes that even if the South wanted to stop slaver it would still be hard. He says at one point in the speech though, that he does not believe total equality between black and white. I found this interesting. I wonder if this is just a way of saying how hard it would be to get to equality. --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In response to alex, hwo could a black slave even attempt to prove himself free? He is not considered a citizen, has no rights, cannot hold any weight in court, and is a piece of property and nothign more. How exactly would a slave go about this process of proving that he was free? - Landon James<br />
<br />
Is Douglas the most dangerous type of abolitonist? One who has seen and lived the terrors of slavery and is educated enought o make solid arguments such as these. - Landon James<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
When writing the Constitution, did Jefferson realize that he was leaving so many issues open ended? I mean, to an extent I'm sure he did, but if he knew that leaving issues such as slavery and equality so generalized was going to be such a problem, do you think he would have been more specific in what they wrote? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
To Mary's question: Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution left out the issue of slavery primarily because they didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to be responsible for creating a situation no one liked and pushed it off to the future generations to deal with, sort of like what Congress is doing with Social Security--they know they should get rid of it, but they don't want to. Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Douglas points out the hypocritical attitude that most Americans have about slavery. He attacks the contradictions in their speech and actions by saying that "when their own [white] liberty is in question they will avail themselves of all the rulse of law which protect and defent their freedom; but when the black man's rights are in question they concede to everything for slavery and put liberty to the proof." This argument is based on the rhetoric of democracy that so many white Americans used, but refused to apply to slavery. Therefore, his arguments are very strong. I also found it interesting when we learned in class that he had white sponsors who bought his and his family's freedom after the court ruling. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense". My question is defense from what? What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." in the speech; why did they cut down the speech? Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement? Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I find it so interesting when reading these documents, to see how each person can twist a document to either direction. Were they aware of the contradictions against their argument within the document and simply ignore it so they could prove their own point? Or were they both convinced they were completely right?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this article very persuasive. The sentences, "We claim protection [of slavery], first, because it is our right; secondly, because it is the duty of the General Government; and thirdly, because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense. This is the general theory of the right of protection..." (p. 266). This was an excellent argument that truly represented the South in the most positive light. By describing this in a way in which the government looks bad, at a national level, for enabling the Southerners a freedom, a right, the power and trust fell into the hands of the Southern Leaders. While they put up an excellent argument, in what ways were the Northerners persuasive about their argument? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how he refers to slave as property and that it is their right to own slaves. This document displays how torn the states were between pro-slavery and anti-slavery because anti-slavery states would not consider owning slaves a right. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
i find it interesting that Davis is upset that the Territorial Legislature is interfering "with the rights of person or property" when he is supporting slavery which is taking away the rights of african americans. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free. However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well. To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting. Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live. Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born. They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage. Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean? How could they afford to move over there? Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia. He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I’m not sure how realistic it is to think that relocation of colored people will solve their problems. First of all, the practicality of such a vast relocation of people is virtually nonexistent; how would you move an incredibly large number of people and all of their belongings to another place, all together? Second, wherever they go, they will be seen as outsiders and/or invaders in someone else’s land. This presents many of the same obstacles that they deal with in America. I doubt that relocation, although perhaps good in theory, was ever a plausible concept. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I have a feeling that most slaves, upon hearing this, would disagree with Blanks. By the time this was written, the population of slaves had already developed their own culture. They had new traditions and completely different skills than would be needed in Africa. I don't believe that most slaves would want to risk cutting the ties of tradition, personal ancestral history and possibly seperation from family members. --Laura Peters<br />
<br />
For Blanks to want to have a mass relocation of blacks to another place seems very brave to me. I can’t imagine it being something that was widely supported. The idea of relocation is just too broad. I wonder if there were ever any ideas of setting up a reserve of some types like what was done with the Indians for the blacks in America. Both ideas are insane, but it’s just a thought. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand why the Brown's killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don't see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths. He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves. He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”. With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Confession by James Townsley, I found it interesting Townsley mentions Brown’s intent to kill pro-slavery men and that he refused to go along with the attacks while Brown in his speech talks of his lack of intent to kill the same men. Both have the motive of claiming innocence to lie in their confessions, so which document is more reliable to what really happened? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Townsley's recollection, I find it very unlikely Townsley, Winer and Frederick Brown all merely sat back and watched these event occurring. It doesn’t make sense for the Browns to even let them do so, because it just provides people who didn’t participate to be witnesses to their murders. Also, Townsley tries far too carefully to be sure to say he has no idea where they were going, what the plan was, and each time there was a murder to say the three of them were 'left outside a short distance from the door'. To me this sounds like a man who doesn't want to share a similar death sentence. But since Brown says "I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case" I assumed there were more accounts of this case so this and the others were based on the fundamental truths of the events, but just worded in a way that made them innocent. Was Townsley a witness for this case or did he come forth with his recollection at a later time? From the way he recalls it, he makes it seem like quite a bit of time had passed. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Since Brown's goal to be a marter is that why he claims his only goal is to find and save slaves and did not intend to "murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"? Was this his way of guiding people who participated in future rebellion to go about it in a way that would not result in a fate similar to his or was he just trying to look good? Further, I thought it was a good point for Brown to bring up the Bible as a way to justify his mentality, since that is what the South was known for doing to justify their ways of slavery. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
John Brown says that he never encouraged any man to cause trouble, but in the previous passage James Townsley states that Brown specifically asked him to join in. I just think that Brown is trying to make himself look much better. ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I notice that John Brown says that it was never his intent to physically harm anyone. However, I can’t imagine what he thought was going to happen in response to his actions. If you steal someone’s property, as slaves were, and you threaten those who agree with slavery, as he was doing, there can be little doubt that those you steal from and threaten will lash out at you. When someone lashes out, you have little choice but to react accordingly, and thus physical harm and violence are inherently a part of what Brown was doing. Also, seeing as Brown was a militant, I seriously question the validity of the claim he never meant any harm. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I don't understand why, as Nick pointed out, John Brown denied his intentions to start riots etc... and essentially denounced why he'd done all this in the first place if he was so dead set on being a martyr. If he was so eager to be a martyr and obviously knew that it would only result in his death why would he say that he didn't really mean what he had obviously intended?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how John Brown used quotes from the Bible to justify his actions. He chose only quotes that support his position and completely disregarded all of the scripture that puts limitations on that. It shows that some trends in politics never die. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Just by reading the first part, the confession, it almost makes me want to think Brown is slightly unstable. If one is trying to get a mass of people to join their side of an argument, the last thing I think one would want to do was to kill others. It turns people off from your viewpoint and doesn’t help you at all. ---Virginia Stratton.</div>192.65.245.78 Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38