Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
History
After the war of mexico, it left new territories to US and the most famous was California where nort and south migrate for the gold and the new oportunities. However there was aproblem, it would be allow freedom or slavery.  So my question is,How do the views of Senators Hammond and Seward demonstrate that compromise was unlikely by the late 1850s? Provide 3 examples to prove your argument.   Can you help me with it, I am really confused and I do not how to explain.

After the war of mexico, it left new territories to US and the most famous was California where nort and south migrate for the gold and the new oportunities. However there was aproblem, it would be allow freedom or slavery.  So my question is,How do the views of Senators Hammond and Seward demonstrate that compromise was unlikely by the late 1850s? Provide 3 examples to prove your argument.   Can you help me with it, I am really confused and I do not how to explain.

icon
Related questions
Question

Good afternoon, dear Bartleby 

I am writing to you for help me, 

After the war of mexico, it left new territories to US and the most famous was California where nort and south migrate for the gold and the new oportunities. However there was aproblem, it would be allow freedom or slavery. 

So my question is,How do the views of Senators Hammond and Seward demonstrate that compromise was unlikely by the late 1850s? Provide 3 examples to prove your argument.

 

Can you help me with it, I am really confused and I do not how to explain.

7:28 PM Mon Apr 10 < S T The Impending Crisis - Major Speeches of the years leading to the Civil War This week's assignment asks you to consider the emerging perspectives of the two political parties: the Democrats and Republicans. Yes, these are the same parties that exist today, though obviously they have changed as the nation's domestic and foreign interests have shifted. These two parties were increasingly separating into two camps as the Compromise of 1850 and 'Bleeding Kansas' disrupted politics in America in the 1850s. The Democratic Party, founded in 1828, became increasingly pro-slave and anti-industry, attracting slaveowners AND some poor whites in the North who opposed the poverty of factory work. The Republican Party was a new party in the 1850s, founded in 1856 to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and quickly became the major anti-slavery party in the nation, celebrating the North's industrial system as a 'free labor' society (i.e. a society where people have the freedom to work where they choose, rather than slavery, etc.). The two speeches below represent the general feelings of each party by the late 1850s, to demonstrate just how divided the political parties were by the eve of the Civil War. ●●● William Seward, "The Irrepressible Conflict" (October 25, 1858) William Seward was a New York born politician who eventually joined the very young Republican Party in 1855 after the Whig Party collapsed. He was long an opponent of slavery, and eventually became the Secretary of State under Republican President Abraham Lincoln in 1861, remaining a close friend and advisor to Lincoln during the Civil War. 1. Our country is a theatre, which exhibits, in full operation, two radically different political systems; the one resting on the basis of servile or slave labor, the other on voluntary labor of freemen. The laborers who are enslaved are all Negroes, or persons more or less purely of African derivation. But this is only accidental. The principle of the system is, that labor in every society, by whomsoever performed, is necessarily unintellectual, groveling and base; and that the laborer, equally for his own good and for the welfare of the state, ought to be enslaved. The white laboring man, whether native or foreigner, is not enslaved, only because he cannot, as yet, be reduced to bondage. 2. ... The slave system is not only intolerable, unjust, and inhuman, toward the laborer [because it] loads [slaves] down with chains and converts into merchandise, but is scarcely less severe upon the freeman, to whom, only because he is a laborer from necessity, denies facilities for employment, and expels from the community because it cannot enslave and convert into merchandise also.... 3. The slave system is one of constant danger, distrust, suspicion, and watchfulness. It debases those whose toil alone can produce wealth and resources for defense, to the lowest degree of which human nature is capable, to guard against mutiny and insurrection, and thus wastes energies which otherwise might be employed in national development and aggrandizement. 4. The free-labor system educates all alike, and by opening all the fields of industrial employment and all the departments of authority, to the unchecked and equal rivalry of all classes of men, at once secures universal contentment, and brings into the highest possible activity all the physical, moral, and social energies of the whole state. 5. In states where the slave system prevails, the masters, directly or indirectly, secure all political power, and constitute a ruling aristocracy. In states where the free-labor system prevails, universal suffrage necessarily obtains, and the state inevitably becomes, sooner or later, a republic or democracy... 6. ... Hitherto, the two systems have existed in different States, but side by side within the American Union....These antagonistic systems are continually coming into closer contact, and collision results. Shall I tell you what this collision means?...It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina and the sugar plantations of Louisiana will ultimately be tilled by free labor...or else the rye-fields and wheat-fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture...and Boston and New York becomes once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men... Source: https://teaching americanhistory.org/library/document/an-irrepressible-conflict/ 84% +: < 1 / 3 <
Transcribed Image Text:7:28 PM Mon Apr 10 < S T The Impending Crisis - Major Speeches of the years leading to the Civil War This week's assignment asks you to consider the emerging perspectives of the two political parties: the Democrats and Republicans. Yes, these are the same parties that exist today, though obviously they have changed as the nation's domestic and foreign interests have shifted. These two parties were increasingly separating into two camps as the Compromise of 1850 and 'Bleeding Kansas' disrupted politics in America in the 1850s. The Democratic Party, founded in 1828, became increasingly pro-slave and anti-industry, attracting slaveowners AND some poor whites in the North who opposed the poverty of factory work. The Republican Party was a new party in the 1850s, founded in 1856 to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and quickly became the major anti-slavery party in the nation, celebrating the North's industrial system as a 'free labor' society (i.e. a society where people have the freedom to work where they choose, rather than slavery, etc.). The two speeches below represent the general feelings of each party by the late 1850s, to demonstrate just how divided the political parties were by the eve of the Civil War. ●●● William Seward, "The Irrepressible Conflict" (October 25, 1858) William Seward was a New York born politician who eventually joined the very young Republican Party in 1855 after the Whig Party collapsed. He was long an opponent of slavery, and eventually became the Secretary of State under Republican President Abraham Lincoln in 1861, remaining a close friend and advisor to Lincoln during the Civil War. 1. Our country is a theatre, which exhibits, in full operation, two radically different political systems; the one resting on the basis of servile or slave labor, the other on voluntary labor of freemen. The laborers who are enslaved are all Negroes, or persons more or less purely of African derivation. But this is only accidental. The principle of the system is, that labor in every society, by whomsoever performed, is necessarily unintellectual, groveling and base; and that the laborer, equally for his own good and for the welfare of the state, ought to be enslaved. The white laboring man, whether native or foreigner, is not enslaved, only because he cannot, as yet, be reduced to bondage. 2. ... The slave system is not only intolerable, unjust, and inhuman, toward the laborer [because it] loads [slaves] down with chains and converts into merchandise, but is scarcely less severe upon the freeman, to whom, only because he is a laborer from necessity, denies facilities for employment, and expels from the community because it cannot enslave and convert into merchandise also.... 3. The slave system is one of constant danger, distrust, suspicion, and watchfulness. It debases those whose toil alone can produce wealth and resources for defense, to the lowest degree of which human nature is capable, to guard against mutiny and insurrection, and thus wastes energies which otherwise might be employed in national development and aggrandizement. 4. The free-labor system educates all alike, and by opening all the fields of industrial employment and all the departments of authority, to the unchecked and equal rivalry of all classes of men, at once secures universal contentment, and brings into the highest possible activity all the physical, moral, and social energies of the whole state. 5. In states where the slave system prevails, the masters, directly or indirectly, secure all political power, and constitute a ruling aristocracy. In states where the free-labor system prevails, universal suffrage necessarily obtains, and the state inevitably becomes, sooner or later, a republic or democracy... 6. ... Hitherto, the two systems have existed in different States, but side by side within the American Union....These antagonistic systems are continually coming into closer contact, and collision results. Shall I tell you what this collision means?...It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina and the sugar plantations of Louisiana will ultimately be tilled by free labor...or else the rye-fields and wheat-fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture...and Boston and New York becomes once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men... Source: https://teaching americanhistory.org/library/document/an-irrepressible-conflict/ 84% +: < 1 / 3 <
7:28 PM Mon Apr 10 < S T ●●● James Henry Hammond, "Mud Sill" Speech (March 4, 1858) James Henry Hammond was a major plantation and slaveowner from South Carolina, who eventually represented South Carolina as a U.S. Senator in 1857. He was long an outspoken defender of slavery, and this speech demonstrated the moral superiority that he believed the South possessed over the North: 1. In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. 2. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand. A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves by the common "consent of mankind," which, according to Cicero, "lex naturae est." The highest proof of what is Nature's law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; slave is a word discarded now by "ears polite;" I will not characterize that class at the North by that term; but you have it; it is there; it is everywhere; it is eternal. 3. The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name, but not the thing; all the powers of the earth cannot abolish that. God only can do it when he repeals the fiat, "the poor ye always have with you;" for the man who lives by daily labor, and scarcely lives at that, and who has to put out his labor in the market, and take the best he can get for it; in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and "operatives," as you call them, are essentially slaves. 4. The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street in any of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South. We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation. 5. Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositories of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than "an army with banners," and could combine, where would you be? Your society would be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly attempted to initiate such proceedings by meeting in parks, with arms in their hands, but by the quiet process of the ballot-box. You have been making war upon us to our very hearthstones. How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach people this, to in combining, and to lead them? Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/mud-sill-speech/ 84% +: < 213 <
Transcribed Image Text:7:28 PM Mon Apr 10 < S T ●●● James Henry Hammond, "Mud Sill" Speech (March 4, 1858) James Henry Hammond was a major plantation and slaveowner from South Carolina, who eventually represented South Carolina as a U.S. Senator in 1857. He was long an outspoken defender of slavery, and this speech demonstrated the moral superiority that he believed the South possessed over the North: 1. In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. 2. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand. A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves by the common "consent of mankind," which, according to Cicero, "lex naturae est." The highest proof of what is Nature's law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; slave is a word discarded now by "ears polite;" I will not characterize that class at the North by that term; but you have it; it is there; it is everywhere; it is eternal. 3. The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name, but not the thing; all the powers of the earth cannot abolish that. God only can do it when he repeals the fiat, "the poor ye always have with you;" for the man who lives by daily labor, and scarcely lives at that, and who has to put out his labor in the market, and take the best he can get for it; in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and "operatives," as you call them, are essentially slaves. 4. The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street in any of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South. We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation. 5. Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositories of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than "an army with banners," and could combine, where would you be? Your society would be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly attempted to initiate such proceedings by meeting in parks, with arms in their hands, but by the quiet process of the ballot-box. You have been making war upon us to our very hearthstones. How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach people this, to in combining, and to lead them? Source: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/mud-sill-speech/ 84% +: < 213 <
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer