Lincoln Douglass Debate Essay

Sectional Tensions Gadsden Purchase: The Gadsden Purchase was a treaty made in 1853 by James Gadsden of South Carolina. Gadsden was appointed by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis to secure a chunk of Mexico for a railway route. He was able to negotiate land along the southern tips of current day Arizona and New Mexico, the northern border of Mexico, for $10 million from Spaniard Santa Anna. The land Gadsden had managed to obtain would have made making a southern railroad much more simple than cutting through more northern mountains.

With that being said, one can wonder if between these men was as described. It is difficulty to know if Douglass was very focused on Lincoln, and if Lincoln was very concerned with Douglass as portrayed in this book. It is important that we remember that although the two were once opponents, politics of racism and the emancipation allocated them to be closer, to the point that both would ultimately become heroes of American history. Furthermore, despite continued points of views on various concepts, Douglass emotionally spoke highly of Lincoln after he was assassinated. As Oakes speaks on this, one can find the uniqueness in their relationship.

Stephen A. Douglas was born in Brandon Vermont in 1813. Douglas grew up and studied law in New York before moving to Illinois in 1833. In Illinois, Douglas helped to organize a Democratic party. He played a large part in the setup and and organization of said party, introducing many useful features such as committees and regularity of meetings. Stephen Douglas held many positions during his time, including several state offices, a seat on the House of Representatives, and the position of United States Senator.

Abraham Lincoln, Frederic Douglass, were one of the most appealing well-known speakers, people who did believe that slavery was morally wrong and devote their lives to fight for freedom. However, there are several differences between the view of the Constitution’s position differences between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Kansas-Nebraska Act indicated that the recognition of slavery should be determined by the decision of these residents (popular or squatter sovereignty). This act itself conflicted heavily with the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, which was essentially seen as the admittance of slavery anywhere in the country. This act made a political issue of confrontation between North and South.

Rough Draft of Frederick Douglass paper Ratification of the Thirteen Amendment abolished the slavery throughout the United States. Abolitionist movement played a huge part in abolishing slavery to its core. Abolitionist like Frederick Douglass, WM. Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips were part of the abolitionist movement; among these abolitionist Frederick Douglass stands out the most because he was born as a slave, he had experienced the slavery, and despite being a slave he taught himself how to read and write.

Frederick Douglass is making many different arguments in his autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. One that sticks out in the novel is that some slave owners would suffer just as much as a slave would. When we are first introduced to Douglass’s new owners, Mr. and Mrs. Auld, he describes Mrs. Auld as, “ […] A woman of the kindest heart and finest feelings” (Douglass, 19). When Mrs. Auld was “caught” teaching Douglas how to read and write she was then forbidden to teach him anything.

¨Freedom means you are unobstructed in living your life as you choose. Anything less is a form of slavery.¨ This is similar to Frederick Douglass because he lived his most of his life in slavery and then after slavery ended he chose to live his life the way he wanted. Frederick Douglass was an African American slave who wanted to abolish slavery after hearing the word abolish so many times. Douglass´s audience were many other African Americans who also said slavery was a bad thing. How slavery was bad for slaves and how it corrupts slave owners.

Lincoln and Douglass were self-made, self-educated, and ambitious, and each rose to success from humble backgrounds. Douglass, of course, was an escaped slave. Douglass certainly and Lincoln most likely detested slavery from his youngest days. But Lincoln from his young manhood was a consummate politician devoted to compromise, consensus-building, moderation and indirection. Douglass was a reformer who spoke and wrote eloquently and with passion for the abolition of slavery

After being separated from his mother at a young age, Frederick Douglass fights back against slavery and human rights. In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, the author, Frederick Douglass, uses powerful rhetoric to disprove the Pragmatic and the Scientific pro-slavery arguments of Pre-Civil War America. The Pragmatic Argument is about how many people believe that if all black slaves were to be freed, then this would result in convulsions which would then lead to extermination of the one or other race. Many people also believed that black slavery was necessary for American history.

Group Essay on Frederick Douglass “That this little book may do something toward throwing light on the American slave system”, and that Frederick Douglass does in his eponymous autobiography. Douglass throws light by dispelling the myths of the slave system, which received support from all parts of society. To dispel these myths Douglass begins to construct an argument composed around a series of rhetorical appeals and devices. Douglass illustrates that slavery is dehumanizing, corrupting, and promotes Christian hypocrisy. Using telling details, Douglass describes the dehumanizing effects of the slave system which condones the treatment of human beings as property.

The Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass shows the imbalance of power between slaves and their masters. In his book, Douglass proves that slavery is a destructive force not only to the slaves, but also for the slaveholders. “Poison of the irresponsible power” that masters have upon their slaves that are dehumanizing and shameless, have changed the masters themselves and their morality(Douglass 39). This amount of power and control in contact with one man breaks the kindest heart and the purest thoughts turning the person evil and corrupt. Douglass uses flashbacks that illustrate the emotions that declare the negative effects of slavery.

In “The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass”, Douglass narrates in detail the oppressions he went through as a slave before winning his freedom. In the narrative, Douglass gives a picture about the humiliation, brutality, and pain that slaves go through. We can evidently see that Douglass does not want to describe only his life, but he uses his personal experiences and life story as a tool to rise against slavery. He uses his personal life story to argue against common myths that were used to justify the act of slavery. Douglass invalidated common justification for slavery like religion, economic argument and color with his life story through his experiences torture, separation, and illiteracy, and he urged for the end of slavery.

Ferederick Douglass was born a slave and start learned to write in the Master Hugh’s family. His mistress has changed from kindly to violent. At the beginning the msitress didn’t see Douglass as a slave, so she taught him the basic needs. Because his Mistress and her husband think that learning can make slaves unmanageable. That’s where they started keeping Dauglass away from newspaper.

There were many important Compromises between the years of 1820 and 1860, some that worked completely and some that didn’t. In the early nineteenth century, people were good at compromising and making things work for everyone. How long did perfect compromising actually last? Slavery began to split the nation apart, causing compromising to become hard to do.

Americas Sixteenth President Abraham Lincoln once said, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.” That would be viewed as a fair statement to almost anyone. If you deny freedom, you do not deserve it. Maybe people view that as a fair statement only because of the modern times. So, a frequent question that might be asked about history might be, is it fair to judge events or people based on modern times?