Question for the test

As we discussed in class, below is the essay question everyone must do on the test. You will not be allowed to use your notes when you write it on the test; you must pull it from memory.

Since this is essentially a take home question, I expect well thought out answers from everyone. Also, I'm going to increase the number of points this question is worth from 5 points to 10 points, and also reduce the number of additional essay questions that you need to do from 4 questions to 2 questions (it's to your advantage, trust me :-)  ). So here's the question:

The political debate about slavery began at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and continued until 1860 and the start of the Civil War. Is it safe to say that things really got "heated up" when slavery went from being just a political issue to also being a moral one? If so, when and how did this transition happen? What were some of the events that contributed to the increase in tensions over slavery? (I just added this last sentence)

You may work together on this question as well as post your thoughts and comments here for everyone else to see and respond to.

Comments

[Naima Alaoui-Ismaili]

No it’s not safe to say that things got “heated up” when slavery went from being just a political issue to also being a moral one, it began way before. First, it was the economic hardship that the south would face if slavery was abolished. Since their economy was pretty much solely based on agrarian production getting rid of slaves would slow down cotton production for example because the south needed the manual labor that they didn’t have to pay for. But since the north was developing into more of an industrialized economy and the south wasn’t really changing this created a sectioned country.
Also, one of the main things that was a start to the issue of slavery was the 3/5 compromise, when each slave in the united states was counted as 3/5th of a person so that this can go in the total population for congress seats. This to me was one of the first steps that showed Americans going toward the fact that these slaves are indeed humans and not property.

[Prof. Weir]

What I hope everyone sees as they consider this question is that slavery was always a political issue, even up through 1860 -- consider the Constitutional Convention and the decision to put off discussing the slave trade until 1809, as well as the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Compromise of 1850. Certainly these added to the anxiety of the South and the North, and also have a place in answering the question at hand, but they didn't inspire or incite much of the violence (with the exception of the Kansas-Nebraska Act) that will be seen when the morality of slavery was thrust to the fore. Although the morality was always there beneath the surface, tensions rose beginning in the early 1800s with the infusion of the moral issue. Now you're appealing to people on a different plane and inciting different emotions and anxieties. You hit people more on an emotional level than a logical one. I think, and you can disagree with me on this, that once the morality became more evident, the issue of slavery was like a snowball rolling down a hill, picking up more and more mass as it rolled toward the bottom until it hit the tree of Civil War and smashed. Again, I refer to the present debate about abortion. When you talk about abortion on a constitutional level, it can be argued that it's "acceptable," and it's left at that. BUT, argue it from the standpoint of morality and religion, and the debate takes on an entirely different perspective; on that can incite violence.

I hope some of this makes my question more clear.

[Teresa Miller]

Professor Weir,
I'm glad you pointed this out. From my perspective, I did not view this as “heating up” the debate over slavery. I know they are very important events but he Southerners did not receive a wake-up call until much later. I will continue to study! This will hep me prepare for the exam. Is there anything else to include?

[Professor Weir]

Did the morality of slavery really enter the political and cultural scene so late in the game (Lincoln Douglas debates and the publishing of "Uncle Tom's Cabin")? I'm thinking William Lloyd Garrison, and the 1833 American Anti-Slavery society, as well as the abolition movement that began in ernest in the 1830s as a result of the Second Great Awakening. Certainly these framed the morality of slavery politically and culturally before Lincoln/Douglas and "Uncle Tom's Cabin"....no?

[Teresa Miller]

The political debate intensified during the 1840’s. Congress demonstrated the growing conflicts with the following: the Compromise of 1850, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the William Proviso that proposed to ban slaves from any territory (free or not) in any territory acquired after the American-Mexican War, Popular Sovereignty, sectional division during the election of 1856, cultural sectionalism, the Dred Scott Case, and the presidential election in 1860.

The morality of slavery entered the political scene in Illinois during the 1858 Senate race. During the political debate, Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) asked Stephen Douglas (a Democrat) how he would reconcile popular sovereignty when considering the recent Supreme Court decision handed down in the Dred Scott case. Stephen Douglas offered a doctrine suggesting that territories could discourage slave holders that move in by providing no legislative support regarding slavery.

Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party would stress the immorality of slavery and set the stage for the election in 1860. It was a political showdown between the anti and pro slavery positions in our county.

The morality of slavery entered to a cultural scene with the publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The book was a best-seller. The reaction in the North was a reminder of the harsh reality of slavery. The reaction in the South was the opposite. Southerners viewed this as a threat to their way of life. The issue of slavery polarized the country.

The morality of slavery was pronounced with the controversial court case, Dred Scott vs. Sanford. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Scott was a slave, whether free or not, and he had no rights as a citizen. The court also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. The decision denied Congress any power to prohibit slavery in the territories.

The Supreme Court decision also intensified sectional discord because the six judges were considered pro-slavery Southerners.

Southern succession was prompted by the ideology of the profound difference between the North and the South concerning states rights and the election of Abraham Lincoln. After the succession and the beginning of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln was able to turn the cause of the war as a conflict over the morality of slavery.