Eric Foner Analysis

During the Abraham Lincoln’s short time as president, he managed not only to save a nation deeply divided and at war with itself, but to solidify the United States of America as a nation dedicated to the progress of civil rights. Years after his death, he was awarded the title of ‘The Great Emancipator.’ In this paper, I will examine many different aspects of Lincoln’s presidency in order to come to a conclusion: whether this title bestowed unto Lincoln was deserved, or not. In order to fully understand Lincoln, it is necessary to understand the motives that drove this man to action. While some of his intentions may not have been for the welfare of slaves, but for the preservation of the Union,

Potter argues there are four basic position held by politicians of free and slave states in their views on solving the territorial issue. The first was David Wilmot’s, “that Congress possessed power to regulate slavery in the territories and should use it for the total exclusion of the institution.” The second proposal was to extend the 36 degree Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, allowing slavery south of this line. The Third, known as the popular sovereignty proposal, is where the territorial government, not Congress, possesses the control over the decisions on slavery in the territory. The fourth, contends “that

On January 27, 1838, more then twenty-five years before his first inaugural address, a 28 year-old Lincoln gave a speech before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield Illinois on the topic of ‘The Perpetuation of our Political Institutions’. This young lawyer who had been elected as a state representative gave a very ambitious speech which not only highlighted the issues facing the political institutions of the time, but drew on issues of national importance, including slavery, mob violence, and the future of the nation itself. Drawing from certain events of the time, Lincoln stresses the need for political reform in order to quell rising dissolutions towards governmental policies, which, if not suppressed will inevitably lead to the collapse

At this time it seemed that the issue of slavery was the only problem in the United States, almost as if a slave was being forced down the throats of the freesoilers (Document F). Stephen Douglas drafted the Kansas-Nebraska Acts in hopes of adding two new states: Kansas and Nebraska. Although it seemed that one would be a slave state, and the other a free state, the slavery issue would be decided by popular sovereignty. Many opposed this decision but did not know how to deal with it. The reason they did not know was because the Constitution did not mention it. William Lloyd Garrison said “the Constitution which subjects them to hopeless bondage is one that we cannot swear to support” (Document E). He was trying to say that the constitution can’t answer the question of slavery because the words “slave” and “slavery” are not in the constitution.

The American Founders aimed to take human nature for what it was, as something less elevated and constructing a government characterized for limited power. They questioned the legitimacy of every existing government and even questioned their own practices, such as slavery. Abraham Lincoln and the tragedy of the Civil War compelled the enforcement of the Declaration of Independence. It is a restoration of the principle underlying slavery and the argument of human enslavement between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. Lincoln said that slavery is founded in the selfishness of man’s nature-opposition to it, in his love of justice. Self interest by itself is too base a foundation for America. Selfishness is part of our nature, but it is not the best part. From Lincoln’s position, our children are not really ours; we do not own them but we own ourselves. (821-822)

This book was a view on slavery between during the Civil War. It shows the different views of the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. These two had very different views at first, but then learned to adapt to each other and eventually became great friends.

Archaeologists have traditionally viewed the list of seven debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas through the 1858 Illinois state voting campaign as amongst the most important declarations in American imperial history. Those concerns they addressed were not only of crucial significance to the regional dispute over states’ rights and slavery but also covered deeper into issues that would proceed to change political dialogue. What is usually neglected is that these contests were a component of the comprehensive campaign, that they were intended to achieve some main policy objectives, and that they showed the features of mid-nineteenth-century political speech . Douglas, being part of Congress as from 1843 and a famous nationwide spokesperson for the Democratic body, was contesting for another election for a third season in the Senate, whereas Lincoln was vying for the same seat as a Republican1. Due to Douglas’s political development, the campaign captivated nationwide attention.

The freedom of America’s slaves has always been accredited to Abraham Lincoln, but he was not always the complete abolitionist as he is commonly portrayed. The “house divided”, as Lincoln depicts it in his famous ‘House Divided’ speech, of the United States during the Civil War, was not always lead towards the freedom of all mankind, and there is sufficient evidence to support this claim. The sixteenth president is most commonly remembered for inducing the courage and determination to end the Civil War, with the Emancipation Proclamation, although when it more closely studied he did not cross the great divide of enslavement vs. freedom with the submittal of that fabled document. When following the many famous quotes and speeches of Lincoln’s life, it appears that he was against all slavery and bondage. Although when they are more closely examined, the quotes and speeches actually leaned towards his lack of strong opinion on the outcome of slavery. Lincoln is perceived as the most famous revolutionary of American history, but he does not live up to his legacy of being the eradicator of forced servitude.

One of the most, if not the most, controversial and heated debates following the United States independence was regarding the institution of slavery. In the introduction to his book Half Slave and Half Free, Bruce Levine quotes Carl Schurzs’ observation as the “slave question not being a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country divided by a geographic line, but a great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization (p.15)”. The Nouthern states that allowed slavery benefited from the agricultural labor that those slaves provided. The Northern states that prohibited slavery did so for moral and pragmatic reasons; they felt it was morally wrong to deny another human any form of rights, and did not like the economic advantage it gave to the Southern states. With the use of slavery largely concentrated in the South, the movement against it came from the North and was led by abolitionists; those who were committed to bringing an end to the practice. In this course we have defined “Practice” as the conduct of policy, such as opinion, election, parties and law-making (Lecture). We define Policy as the goals of politics, those being sovereignty, defense, and a collective well-being (Lecture). The following analytical essay will examine antislavery sentiment and practices in the Northern states and the reaction of Southern states. Additionally how the pressures from both sides influenced the Policy of the United States following independence then

In the book, The Radical and the Republican: Fredrick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the triumph of Antislavery Politics, written by James Oakes connected the politics and the point of views of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass towards the issue of slavery and the emancipation of slaves. Oakes interpretations of both men were very detailed in showing their reason and politics behind their positions they served in society on the topic of slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the republican, and Fredrick Douglass, the radical, two incredibly distinct people, yet both shared similar views towards their hatred on the institution of slavery and their highest hopes for freedom. “How can a relationship so different, yet a like lead to the road to emancipation of the slaves?” Both men had different reasons for their detestation toward slavery, yet both worked to bring the emancipation and fix the injustice regarding the slaves.

He keeps to the subject very well in this book, making the tone of it objective, keeping his personal views out. The book is written in an undeviating fashion, looking at Lincoln’s relationship with slavery from his early childhood to his death and beyond.

Even with their different reasons, “by 1858 Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were saying the same thing, preaching the same antislavery politics. Liberty or Slavery must become law of the Land” (Ibid., p.5)

In sequence with these events, Abraham Lincoln returned to politics in 1854 because of the success of Douglas’ Kansas-Nebraska act, and he quickly became the voice of the newly formed Republican Party. Shortly after he accepted the nomination from his party he said, “A housed divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.” This quote is very important because Americans became aware that they would soon have to choose either to favor or oppose slavery, there was no middle ground. In Abraham Lincoln’s eyes, freedom meant the opposition to slavery. Unfortunately for the Republican party, Lincoln lost the election of 1858 and Douglas was reelected, but Lincoln would soon be back.

p. 505). Although the nation before Abraham Lincoln’s presidential win was lawfully united, its mixture of slave states, non-slave states, and the new territories with undeclared laws on slavery was filled with tension.

     In conclusion the question “why...can we not withdraw this vexed question [of slavery in the US] from politics”posed by Stephen Douglas can be answered in this way. The reason why the US could not just forget about the slavery issue and let people decide for themselves if they wanted slaves