Author’s Background
Daniel Webster is considered one of the greatest orators in the history of the American senate. In fact, his speech “Reply to Hayne” is considered to be the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress. Daniel was a senator for Massachusetts and a prominent figure among Northerners. Through his life he was a part of three different parties: Adams, anti-Jacksonian, and Whig. This speech was widely considered to be contrary to the ideals of the Whig party and after giving it Daniel Webster was never fully trusted again by his party(24 Annuls).
Historical Background
The speech "A Plea for Harmony and Peace" was delivered in 1850. It's content touches on problems that would eventually cause The Civil War. One of the main issues mentioned is what should be done with runaway slaves. The country was divided into three groups on this point. The North wanted to stop all expansion of slavery, the South wanted to, at least, retain it’s slavery and, at most, expand slavery into new states and territories. Finally, a third group urged that there should be compromise between the states. Daniel argues that fugitive slaves should be returned in accordance to the Supreme Court's orders. Another topic mentioned in his speech is the possibility of secession. The fact that it mentions secession tells us that this idea was in some people's minds at least as early as 1850. However, compromise, namely, The Compromise of 1850 was also on people’s minds and this very speech was in support of it.
Audience
This speech was delivered to the Senate on the seventh of March, three days after Senator John C. Calhoun gave his speech, “The Clay Compromise Measures.” In Calhoun’s speech, he urges that the cause of dissent between the North...
... middle of paper ...
...aders to win their promised support for the presidency.” Not long after this speech Webster left the Senate and finished his career as Secretary of State.
Final Evaluation
Works Cited
Webster, Daniel. “A Plea for Harmony and Peace.” Annals of America. USA: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1968. 24-27. Print0
The Works of Daniel Webster by Daniel Webster; The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster by Daniel Webster; Fletcher Webster; Life and Memorials of Daniel Webster by Daniel Webster; The Private Life of Daniel Webster by Charles Lanman
The North American Review , Vol. 104, No. 214 (Jan., 1867) , pp. 65-121
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3276
Irving H. Bartlett, Daniel Webster (1978) http://www.nationalcenter.org/CalhounClayCompromise.html http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Speech_Costs_Senator_His_Seat.htm
Lincoln was a very smart lawyer and politician. During his “House Divided” speech he asked the question, “Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently, forever, half slave, and half free?" When he first asked this question, America was slowly gaining the knowledge and realizing that as a nation, it could not possibly exist as half-slave and half-free. It was either one way or the other. “Slavery was unconstitutional and immoral, but not simply on a practical level.” (Greenfield, 2009) Slave states and free states had significantly different and incompatible interests. In 1858, when Lincoln made his “House Divided” speech, he made people think about this question with views if what the end result in America must be.
Unlike today, there was no fast communication methods. The tensions between the "free" and "slave" states was already apparent, thus, inflamed passions now began to result regularly in violence. Under those circumstances, any proposition which restoration of peace and abandoned slavery, were slow to coming. The issue of slavery was no longer a matter which could be argued. President Lincoln and Seward, made some mistakes, by the time of Seward 's famous speech, “irrepressible conflict. " The southern states started to isolate themselves and by the time the Southern States seceded from the Union, the U.S. had virtually become two separate nations and when Lincoln became president, that was the last straw. Because the Southern states felt that President Lincoln 's election was viewed by Southerners as a blow to their well-being and honor. So, some of the wording in the speech sounded like thing were already coming at the end. Therefore, talks were no longer an option, this issues were “irrepressible conflict." war were inevitable. But that 's not absolute, the speech could have been a final call to action, to work together to resolve and complete “the unfinished
Throughout the course of American political history rarely has there ever been a rivalry as fierce and contested as that of the one between Tennessee’s Andrew Jackson, and Kentucky’s Henry Clay. During their extensive political careers the two constantly seemed to cross paths differing in terms philosophically and ideologically. Simply put, these two men profoundly shaped the American Antebellum period, specifically involving the 1820’s to the 1840’s. Their notions of what was best for the country became the basis for their respective parties and consequently their differences in methodology facilitated countless battles in the American political atmosphere. The most significant issues that centered on these types of political skirmishes involved
At the time, the South depended on slavery to support their way of life. In fact, “to protect slavery the Confederate States of America would challenge the peaceful, lawful, orderly means of changing governments in the United States, even by resorting to war.” (635) Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong and realized that slavery was bitterly dividing the country. Not only was slavery dividing the nation, but slavery was also endangering the Union, hurting both black and white people and threatening the processes of government. At first, Lincoln’s goal was to save the Union in which “he would free none, some, or all the slaves to save that Union.” (634) However, Lincoln realized that “freeing the slaves and saving the Union were linked as one goal, not two optional goals.” (634) Therefore, Lincoln’s primary goal was to save the Union and in order to save the Union, Lincoln had to free the slaves. However, Paludan states that, “slave states understood this; that is why the seceded and why the Union needed saving.” (634) Lincoln’s presidential victory was the final sign to many Southerners that their position in the Union was
“A house divided against itself cannot stand (Document M)”, said by Abraham Lincoln about how the North and South couldn’t continue being half free and half slave states it would slowly destroy the government that they tried to create. Lincoln also stated that, “Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it… or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become lawful…(Document M)”. Scott Dred a slave while wanting to become a member of the political community as told by the legislative and the historians that, “...a Negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property (Document L).” With the help of the rights given to him from the North it was stated that, “..in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void (Document L).” Politics assisted with the cause of the Civil war because the Southern and Northern views on freedom were too different that their would never be a real resolution that would make both political parties within the states
Perhaps the three most influential men in the pre-Civil War era were Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster. These men all died nearly a decade before the civil war began, but they didn’t know how much they would effect it. States’ rights was a very controversial issue, and one which had strong opposition and radical proposals coming from both sides. John C. Calhoun was in favor of giving states the power to nullify laws that they saw unconstitutional, and he presented this theory in his “Doctrine of Nullification”. Daniel Webster strongly disagreed with this proposal and showed this by giving powerful support to President Jackson in resisting the attempt by South Carolina to nullify the ‘tariff of abominations’, as they called it; a shipping tax passed in 1828 that they saw as unfairly favoring the industrial North.
Correspondence of John C. Calhoun. J. Franklin Jameson, ed. Annual Report of the American Historical Association 1899. II. 1900.
Henry Clay, one of America’s greatest legislators and orators, lived from 1777 to 1852. In his lifespan, Henry was a very successful attorney, a well respected farmer, a horse race enthusiast, and a “Great Compromiser”. The name “Great Compromiser” comes from the fact that Clay was very good at negotiation. With this skill at hand, Henry was able to avoid the Civil War until it could not be adverted.
... American political thought -- if only for this irony: while he fought to protect the Southern minority's rights and interests from the Northern majority, he felt free to subordinate the rights of the African American minority to the interests of the South's white majority. After Calhoun's death on March 31, 1850, one of his greatest foes, U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, sternly rebuked an associate who suggested that he honor Calhoun with a eulogy in Congress. "He is not dead, sir -- he is not dead," remarked Benton, a staunch Unionist. "There may be no vitality in his body, but there is in his doctrines. (Addressed to John C. Calhoun pg. 347 409)" A decade later, a bloody civil war would prove Benton was right.
22 Brinkley, Alan An Uneasy Peace 1988-, Vol. 10 of 20th Century America, 10 vols. (New York: Grolier 1995):22
Mr. Smith was appointed to be a Senator on a whim. He was the leader of the Boy Rangers with no political experience. He was principled with a clear view on right and wrong. Mr. Smith took his ideals as far as risking his career when he did not compromise in order to maintain his beliefs. In addition, special interest groups did not impact Mr. Smith's decisions. He was untouched by the corruption that he learned existed in the legislature. Yet upon discovering it, he did not change himself. Mr. Smith did not place any emphasis on re-election and did not care if people thought negatively about him as long as he remained with his values.
Clay, Henry. The Papers of Henry Clay, 1797-1852. Edited by James Hopkins, Mary Hargreaves, Robert Seager II, Melba Porter Hay et al. 11 vols. University Press of Kentucky, 1959-1992.
Nullification is a precursor to secession in the United States as it is also for civil wars. However, in contrast, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions did not suggest that states should secede from the union. Under the direct vigilance and radical views of Calhoun, he suggested that states should and could secede from the union if they deem a law was unconstitutional. Calhoun’s reputation as a “Cast Iron” proved fittingly as compromises were reached for the proposed Tariffs. The southern states contribution to the financial welfare of the union as a result of slavery was undoubtedly substantial, but as history unfolded, it was not a just means to financial stability. His views of constitutional propriety was for the “privileges of minority” rather than for the “rights of the minority.” [2]
Abraham Lincoln’s original views on slavery were formed through the way he was raised and the American customs of the period. Throughout Lincoln’s influential years, slavery was a recognized and a legal institution in the United States of America. Even though Lincoln began his career by declaring that he was “anti-slavery,” he was not likely to agree to instant emancipation. However, although Lincoln did not begin as a radical anti-slavery Republican, he eventually issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves and in his last speech, even recommended extending voting to blacks. Although Lincoln’s feeling about blacks and slavery was quite constant over time, the evidence found between his debate with Stephen A. Douglas and his Gettysburg Address, proves that his political position and actions towards slavery have changed profoundly.
"Peace, Love, Unity, and Respect: The Raver's Manifesto." Peace and Loveism. 03 Sept. 2009. Web. 14 May 2014.