Email articles and communication research

American History

In their considerations of the slavery issue before the Civil War, William Henry Seward, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster contribute a variety of viewpoints. Each author uses a sequence of main ideas upon which to base the progression of their thoughts. A consideration of the slavery issue in general is followed by the roles of the North and the South, after which each author provides his views on how the issue can, should, or is likely to be resolved.

Slavery

Seward states in no uncertain terms his belief that slavery is not only unconstitutional, but also morally wrong, and he spends the majority of the document upon emphasizing his views. He counters the argument that slavery is a lawful institution in the South with the fact that not all persons living in the South are indeed slaves, but that freedom is as much an institution as slavery. According to Seward, freedom is much more constitutional than slavery, and should therefore take precedence in arguments about the nature of the Constitution. He also uses in his argument the fact that the slave population is by far not as numerous as the free population, and that the institution is therefore a violation of the natural state of affairs. Seward furthermore holds that slavery cannot be condoned in terms of humanity; slaves are human beings and therefore their freedom should be constitutionally guaranteed.

In contrast to Seward, Calhoun only briefly states that slavery has been an institution before the inception of the American states. Instead, the majority of his argument focuses upon the stormy relationship between the North and the South at the time.

Like Calhoun, Daniel Webster also spends only a brief time upon the general slavery issue. In contrast to the former, however, he holds that slavery was universally condemned to some degree in all states. The institution however became a necessity due to economic and export developments in the South.

North and South

Although condemning it in the strongest terms, Seward does not appear to hold the South responsible for it as much an unfortunate convergence of circumstances; an "accident," as mentioned above. He sees it as the role of the North to help the South restore the "natural" order of freedom for all people.

John C. Calhoun spends considerably more time on the relationship between the North and South than upon the other two aspects, as mentioned above. According to this author, the North is basically at fault for creating the disjunction between the states. As a reason for this, he cites the disproportionate strength of the North, both in terms of both politics and the economy. According to Calhoun, the North has victimized the South, because the former controls the government and the economy. As such, the South has become the political black sheep, and has suffered severe losses in revenues for export goods.

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, such as spreading anti-slavery literature to the South, essentially dishonorable. According to the author, such tactics ironically lead only to strengthen the Southern cause and increase enmity and violence.

Resolution

William Henry Seward believes that the abolishment of slavery is inevitable as the economy and humanitarian institutions grow. According to this author, the institution is simply an "accidental" institution that came into being as a result of a combination of certain factors at a certain time. As times are changing, Seward appears to believe that the institution will become obsolete to make ways for new and more humane institutions. He however also sees the possibility of violent conflict in the attempt to either hasten or slow this development. Interestingly, he projects that attempting to perpetuate slavery is more likely to lead to violence than hastening its abolition.

Calhoun also suggests that a resolution is the responsibility of the North. He however bases this view not upon the moral right of the North or indeed the fact that slavery should be abolished. Instead, the resolution should focus upon resorting the relations between the North and the South. Being much stronger, the former should then focus upon a more inclusive Constitution that offers a compromise between the slave states and the free states, so that the latter has an equal right to property, revenue, and all the privileges the North enjoys. Like Seward, Calhoun also believes that his suggestion for resolution can occur in a peaceful manner.