Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Here he is presenting the problem and then he presents a solution when he writes that the North can "do justice by conceding to the South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled" (Calhoun). Calhoun believed that the two opposing sides could retain their beliefs if the North would simply let the South live and operate the way they wanted to, as this was clearly not a violation of the Constitution.
Daniel Webster spoke out against secession because he knew that there would no pleasing anybody with the act. He correctly realizes "we could not sit down here to-day, and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country" (Webster). He knew that while the idea of a divided Union might have sounded good, the reality of it simply could not be because while men could agree on some grand notion in words, putting that agreement into action and satisfying everyone was an impossibility. He also considers the reality of some notions such as dividing the Mississippi River. He asked, "Can anybody suppose that this population can be severed, by a line that divides them from the territory of a foreign and alien government, down somewhere, the Lord knows where, upon the lower banks of the Mississippi? What would become of Missouri?" (Webster). He knew that while...
He understood that many individuals demanding secession were being driven by emotions and that acting on raw emotion never is a good thing. Webster tried to appeal to a greater sense of American identity. He spoke to the patriot in all men when he wrote, "instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in these caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and union" (Webster). Here Webster appeals to logic and common sense when he writes because he knew that secession would only create more problems in the long run while meagerly attempting to solve the initial problem between the North and the South.
Works Cited
Calhoun, John. "The Clay Compromise Measures." National Center for Public Policy Online.
Information Retrieved June 13, 2009.
Seward, William. "The Higher Law Speech." Furman University Online. Information Retrieved
June 13, 2009.
Webster, Daniel. "On the Clay Compromise." Bartleby Online. Information Retrieved June 13,
2009.
Works Cited
Calhoun, John. "The Clay Compromise Measures." National Center for Public Policy Online.
Information Retrieved June 13, 2009.
<http://www.nationalcenter.org/CalhounClayCompromise.html>
Seward, William. "The Higher Law Speech." Furman University Online. Information Retrieved
June 13, 2009. <http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/seward.htm>
2009.
Compromise of 1850 Compare and contrast the arguments of the speeches. The different arguments presented by Seward, Calhoun and Webster are illustrating how divisive slavery was to the nation. William Henry Seward was an abolitionist, who felt that slavery should be outlawed in every state. Anything less than this standard, was considered to be unacceptable. This is because he felt that the practice violated the basic ideals established under theological and moral
Webster appears to be in agreement with Calhoun regarding the North's part in damaging the relationship between the North and the South. According to Webster however, the main culprit in this dynamic is the rhetoric of the abolition societies. While the author acknowledges that these societies include mostly honorable and just people who believe in their cause, he also holds that their rhetoric has become unacceptably emotional and their tactics,
Seward provides evidence of this when he comments that the Constitution confers rights to the people of the states, not to the actual states. Finally, Calhoun was as decorated a statesman as there was in 1850: former Vice President, Secretary of War and a present-day Senator from South Carolina. His history also included fighting for the rights of southern states to maintain slaves and for fomenting the Nullification Crisis of
" Although the use of the word "aggressions" in this manner certainly suggests that Calhoun is of the opposite opinion of Seward, his treatment of the issue of slavery offers further insight into how the issue was treated in the mid-1800s. Instead of considering slavery a clear issue of right and wrong, Calhoun treats it like any other political issue, arguing that the real cause between the states' inability to
The problem of fair treatment of the South was the major issue as Calhoun saw it as well. Though he died shortly after this speech was read (too ill to read it himself, Calhoun was escorted from the floor after someone read it in his place), Calhoun is still considered one of the primary instigators of the Civil War. In this speech, he cites not slavery but general under-representation of
A year later, May 8-19, 1864, Lee was again in Virginia at the Battle of Spotsylvania, leading 50,000 men against Ulysses S. Grant's Union forces of 83,000. Again Lee won the battle which resulted in 27, 399 casualties, 18, 399 Union and 9,000 Confederate. The Battle of Antietam in Maryland, on September 17,1862 was commanded by Lee with 51, 844 troops and George B. McClellan with 75,316 Union troops.