In a lifetime, one may encounter numerous contradictory situations. Inconsistency between beliefs and actions is usually what characterizes contradiction. Usually, the belief is dismissed by the action because one finds the action more significant or necessary than the belief. There are multiple contradictions in the history of the United States that John Brown has conveyed in his constitution, A Declaration of Liberty by the Representatives of the Slave Population of the United States of America. John Brown conveys what contradiction is with the history of the United States and the problems that derive from the government’s failure to comply with the constitution. Slavery in the United States was still legal in 1859, when John Brown’s document was written. Brown feels the need to make the People realize how unethical slavery is because of the United States government was not honoring its belief of all equal rights. He asserts his opinions and argues that “all men are created Equal; that [everyone, including the slaves] are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights” (Brown 15). The Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers with the basis of “all men are created equal” (Takaki 75). However, Brown proves how contradictory the …show more content…
Government officials - in other words, the fellow countrymen that should be treating the oppressed people as equals - are the ones who are slaveholders. He declares that “our President and other Leeches have called together legislative, or treasonable Bodies… for the sole purpose of fatiguing us into compliance with their measures” (Brown 15). Brown is accusing those who make the laws as treasonable due to their complete apathy towards the larger part of the population’s
Slavery’s Constitution by David Waldstreicher can be identified as a very important piece of political analytical literature as it was the first book to recognize slavery 's place at the heart of the U.S. Constitution. Waldstreicher successfully highlights a number of silences which most of the general public are unaware of, for example, the lack of the word “slavery” in the Constitution of the United States of America. Also, the overwhelming presence and lack of explicit mention of the debate of slavery during the construction of the document.
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
Brown had his mind made up to travel on the pathway to Harpers Ferry right when he was born and believed he is the only one that has to lead this battle. His parents were passionate Calvinists who taught their children to view life as an endless fight contrary to evil. The battle of John Brown was on a more personal level where he remembered a memory when he was five years old and his mother whipped him for stealing a vast amount of brass pins. In addition, the battle was somewhat on a political point as well because Brown and his family considered that the sincere had to be spectators against the bad people in America. They assumed that the biggest evil during their time has to be none other than the establishment of slavery. Therefore, the father of John Brown replaced their family residence in northeast Ohio into a stop on the Underground Railroad and made his son into a dedicated abolitionist. Brown’s developing participation in the movement in the 1830s and ’40s made him set his commitment as well as the rising nationwide fight over slavery’s position in a country supposedly devoted to equal opportunity. During this era, abolition...
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
"The American constitution recognized slavery as a local constitution within the legal rights of the individual states. But in the North slavery was not adaptable to the local economy, and to many, it contradicted the vision of the founding fathers for a nation in which all men are to be free. The South considered slavery as a necessary institution for the plantation economy. It was linked to the local culture and society. As the United states expanded, the North worried that the South would introduce slavery into the new territories. Slavery had become both a moral issue and a question of political power." (Kral p61)
It should be noted that the Declaration of Independence made it clear that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although this progressive view was shared by many of the members of the Constitutional Convention, it is clear that the original text of the American Constitution is rather pro-slavery and up to a certain point protects the slave-owners. It is of utmost importance to note that the words slavery/slave are not used in the text of the Constitution.
It was America mid 1850’s and slavery was a sensitive topic between the north and the south. It seemed slaves had no hope of ever changing America’s ways until a white man by the name of John Brown decided to stand up and fight for the abolishment of slavery, which has been said to be one of the major events leading up to the American Civil War. Browns actions were defended by himself claiming they were “consisting of God’s commandments” (Finkelman 2011). I will explain Brown’s deontological ethical perspective while preforming the actions for the abolishment of slavery.
John Brown believed in armed insurrection.John Brown didn’t believe things could be done peacefully.John Brown believed in violence to help solve problems.John Brown was a big believer in “action,”and John Brown felt a strong urge towards these actions.When he was a little boy,John Browns’s father taught him slavery was a sin against God. John Brown also taught his own children from the get go that slavery was wrong.John Brown needed support for theses actions through physical,emotional and finantial ways.
“The right to have a slave implies the right in some one to make a slave; that right must be equal and mutual, and this would resolve society into a state of perpetual war.” Senator William Steward, an anti-slavery supporter, issued this claim in his “There is a Higher Law than the Constitution” speech. Steward, like all abolitionist, viewed all of man as equals. This equality came from the “higher law” that is the Bible. Since all men were created by God then all men were equals in God’s eyes. Abolitionist believed that whites had no more right to make a slave out of a African American than the African American had to make a slave out of a white man.
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, the actions still stand. Abraham Lincoln, though motivated by his devotion to his nation, made the first blows against the institution of slavery and rightfully earned his title of ‘The Great Emancipator.’
George Fitzhugh, a well-known planter and lawyer from Virginia, who believes that slavery is a necessary evil. This, however, is untrue, slavery is morally wrong and by enslaving people we are abducting them of their natural rights. Fitzhugh describes slavery as “impractical and self-destructive”, but isn’t it self-destructive to enslave and force manual labor to beings of the same species, one of which are not so different from ourselves other than the tone of their skin? Slavery has and always will be iniquitous. The truth is, all men are created and should be treated as equal because everyone has something to offer. Although Fitzhugh attempts to persuade people that slavery is a requisite, slavery is an atrocious act that is unnecessary to society.
The Petition of Slaves to the Massachusetts Legislature states, “your petitioners apprehend that they have in common with all other men a natural and unalienable right to that freedom which the Great Parent of the Universe has bestowed equally on all mankind and which they have never forfeited by any compact or agreement whatever, but…were unjustly dragged by the hand of cruel power from their dearest friends and some of them even torn from the embraces of their tender parents, from a populous, pleasant, and plentiful country and in violation of laws of nature and of nations and in defiance of all the tender feelings of humanity brought here either to be sold like beasts of burden and like them condemned to slavery for life, among a people professing the mild religion of Jesus, a people not insensible of the secrets of rational being nor without spirit to resent the unjust endeavors of others to reduce them to a state of bondage and subjection.” (“Voices of Freedom” 115) The petitioners continue to state that they are urgently awaiting the consideration of their petition “whereby they may be restored to the enjoyments of that which is the natural right of all men-and their children who were born in this land of liberty may not be held as slaves after they arrive at the age of twenty-one years. “ (“Voices of Freedom” 116) Besides economies and politics benefiting off the unjust servitude of Africans, they also gained power by taking advantage of colonists, who like the
Slavery was the main resource used in the Chesapeake tobacco plantations. The conditions in the Chesapeake region were difficult, which lead to malnutrition, disease, and even death. Slaves were a cheap and an abundant resource, which could be easily replaced at any time. The Chesapeake region’s tobacco industries grew and flourished on the intolerable and inhumane acts of slavery.
“We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” If the confusion has not yet set in, then give it a moment. This nation, the United States of America, prides itself on being far superior to all other nations because here in America we are free men. We set ourselves on a pedestal above Great Britain because the Declaration of Independence clearly states that everyone inside the parameters of our country will be treated as equal as the same individuals neighbor. Yet for nearly three centuries, our nation was full of individuals, including our forefathers, who “owned” people that were regarded as less than themselves simply due to the fact that the pigments in their skin did not allow them to fall within the Caucasian race. The very legal document that had the word “Independence” written within it’s name and blatantly stated that it is obvious that no human is greater than any other because we were all made by the same god for the same reason, is the foundation of a nation that used innocent lives as fuel for slavery. It wasn’t until some educated individuals finally stood up and realized how incredibly wrong these two concepts are when put together. It is said that when the former slave Frederick Douglass
Knowles, H. J. (2007). The Constitution and Slavery: A Special Relationship. Slavery & Abolition, 28(3), 309-328. doi:10.1080/01440390701685514