North American History Essay

In the words of Abraham capital of Nebraska and Stephen A. Douglas, two great rivals in Ameri screw History, were not march on their honor and image, but the principles and ideals that would lead the legislation of a country in the frustrated process of amalgamation and integration. As Abraham capital of Nebraska proposed in his Republi apprize State Convention of 1858 saving, on that exhibit were two American concussion ideologies in debate, ideologies that could not coexist forever inside a House Divided. Moreover, he emphasizes his beliefs when he statesEither the opp integritynts of thrall will ar peacefulness the further 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 public treasury it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, coupling as well as South (Lincoln)By his immediate rhetorical question of Have we no tendency to the latter condition? (Lincoln) it is obvious that he, as a republican and abolitionist, is against the prevailing of the substructure of slavery, something that is set into doubt by the accusations made to him by his opponent who adheres himself to prove the lack of congruence in Lincolns speeches. This accusation can be tangible to a mastermind, for the speeches were more emphatic towards authentic ideas in the northeastward, than in the south and vice versa, but the main principles of Lincolns ideas tend to show his point of view as aligned with that of the Abolitionists, in quite a particular way.Taking into account certain confusing ambivalence in Lincolns speech, although he proposed equality when he invited Americans to combine as one people throughout this land until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. (Douglas, quoting Lincoln), he also encouraged certain division and incompatibleiated whites from lightlessnesss when he utter I am not nor ev er have been in favor of bringing about in every way, the social and political equality of the white and black races (Douglas, quoting Lincoln), referring to certain ways of life and the position to be held by African Americans in his opinion. A difference in these denotations is evident, but it is taken as a cautious step towards safekeeping his political career, and expressing a certain opinion that financial backinged the abolition of slavery, but not intend to radically change the position of hegemony of the white men. A great conflict can come out of this ideology, but it was a great step forward in the emancipation of the black people.Although Abraham Lincolns idea of the condition of humans as slaves is left idle for a moment, the event that he takes it to be an evil that must be stopped is catch when we think it is a moral, a social and a political wrong. (Lincoln) is stated, but the fact that it should be dealt with as with any different wrong, in so far as we can preve nt its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it. (Lincoln) also makes exculpated that although intervention in the south is not within his policy, it is his intention to stop its growth and contain it within its boundaries until, as stated in another occasion, it would perish.In our opinion, Lincolns plan is very heavy thing to attain, for how could one oppress an institution such as slavery, and promote openly pro north policies, supposedly leaving the south to their ideals until the times and abolitionist movement created such a situation where the institution would collapse by itself? This is what Judge Douglas questions the most, making Lincoln seem as incoherent. To a point he was, but the great tension created between both ideologies had separated the country to a point in which Lincoln had to have great care.The Missouri compromise dividing free and slave states in the latitude duplicate 3630 and the later Ka nsas Nebraska act only temporally detained the and smoothed the tension that existed in the fight for power and representation between North and South, abolitionists and slave obligeers. The Dred Scott versus Stanford case only augmented the tension, making the questions of its constitutionality and rightfulness be debated across the area.While Douglass position tends to favor a patched treaty between south and north, one of mutual non intervention (Douglas) that could lead to further separation as we think, Lincolns policy, ambiguous as it might be in certain respects, was very clear in one thing the separation that up to now had existed dividing the country in two could not bear upon overmuch further. For him, apart of his abolitionist principles, above all was the union of the Federation, he could not permit distributively part of the nation to take its own course, something that would change the fate of the united States forever. A pivotal occlusive would come out of his later governance that would lean the countries future northwards, until again unity would rise much later.This intention would not be clear since the beginning of Lincolns political career, despite his clear ideals regarding slavery. This is obvious in the difference in his House Divided speech, and his Sixth Joint Debate with Douglas, at Quincy. Even in the different speeches mentioned in the second paper, where the words of this leader can be confusing, there is certain continuity in his thought. The Dred Scott case is very important in both of his situations. In the start-off one he addresses it as if the slave policies were tending (Lincoln) the nation towards them, in the second one he is reassuring the possibilities this interpretation of the constitution of the United States by the Supreme Court opens, such as slavery would be established in all the States as well as in the Territories. (Lincoln)Within these puffs, the point of view of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Dougla s is made clear. While the first clearly wants to avoid the spreading of slavery, for the moment being, and finally eradicate it, Douglas, claiming to have a care-not (Lincoln) policy as stated by Lincoln, endorsed the popular sovereignty doctrine. It is Douglas who previously had proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, giving power of decision on the free or slave state issue to the inhabitants of the area, not based on the moral and ethical consequences of this, for he was not concerned with these but more so in expansion of settlement and commerce (Divine, Robert, et al. 271).Both politicians have a diverging speech and line of thought, for Abraham Lincoln concentrates more on repudiating the idea of slavery itself, while Douglas is not focuses on this, but preferably on another scheme one which was more pleasing to draw support from both sides, one that was in the middle of supporting and fighting slavery, one which proved a failure as the al-Quran just cited comments, for the two currents of thought, the one supporting and the other rejecting slavery are very difficult to unite as a whole.It can be said that all these ideological questions surge between attacks and allegations against each(prenominal) other. The first House Divided speech is more of a uplifting, but challenging and persuasive speech in which Lincoln confronts the problems of the nation, the second speech, or debate between Lincoln and Douglas is more of a defending and offensive one in which one politician is going to enhance his reputation, beneficial for a further political career and the other is going to worsen it. This is obvious for most of the speech is consumed in correcting fallacies said by the other or accusations of perjuries. Between lines is when the true nature of the politicians though reveals itself with clarity.It is precisely no other than the putting of that most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. (Lincoln) is the q uotation that convinces the readers of the Lincoln-Douglas debate of Americas strain, the point of view of slavery cannot coexist with abolitionism, not even Douglass view of giving the choice to the inhabitants of the place is viable. Of course Lincoln has to be careful with such a theme, and he is, sounding flexible when he states that Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the way in which I understand it. (Lincoln), yet firm in his convictions.In conclusion, it can be said that the rivalry of these men and ideals they stand for are representative of a nation, a nation that is divided by many issues, of which slavery is a crucial one in understanding the different semi spheres that were being created within what was supposed to be a federation. Although the role of it as such had not yet been clearly defined, it was up for Abraham Lincoln, after he was elected leader, to define with these speeches and hints were making more evident. The American Civil War was just a step away, and Lincoln, Douglas and the slave owners could not agree on the topic that could free a large proportion of the population, the African slaves. Based on what we see, it is clear that what was to come would figure America into what it is now, a united, slave free nation. Yet these are the roots of what is taken for granted today. This distaste fueled some of the fiercest and defining battles fought in U.S. continental grounds.Bibliography* Divine, Robert A., Breen, T.H., Fredrickson, George M., Williams, R. Hal, Gross, Ariela J., Brands, H.W. and Roberts, Randy America Past and Present United States, Pearson Longman, 2005.* Lincoln, Abraham House Divided Address Republican State Convention, Springfield, Illinois, June 17th, 1858.* Lincoln, Abraham and Douglas, Stephen A. Sixth Joint Debate Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Quin cy, Illinois, October 13th, 1858.