The House Divided Speech was an address given by Abraham Lincoln in 1858 with the goal to make a distinction between himself and Douglas, and to openly talk about a prognostication for time to come. Unlike Douglas, who had long supported popular sovereignty, under which the settlers in each new territory determine their own place as a slave or free state, Lincoln considered that all states had to be the same in order to become a united country. Although Lincoln’s intentions seemed to be pure, the complication with the speech is that it is not absolutely probable because of the fallacies within its wording. This speech may have appeared to be powerful and even authentic in its upholding points, but the fallacies must be recognized. Among these fallacies are false dilemma, ambiguity, appeal to authority, name-calling, and sequential fallacies. …show more content…
Lincoln used the metaphor of a “house divided” to depict the separation of the North and South over slavery. Lincoln provided an image to the audience by saying “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and made it so the audience was forced to think of the issue in a sensible perspective instead of a conceptual one. After this, Lincoln concluded the main idea of his speech by giving the audience a call to action if the form of a false dilemma. Lincoln states clearly that the country “…will become all one thing or all the other,” and by doing that he gave the audience two options, either they support slavery or they don’t. This false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy that involved a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional
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.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were part of a larger campaign to achieve political adjectives from the two. Lincoln was running for Douglas’ seat in the senate as a republican. Douglas had been a member of congress since 1843, a national figure for the Democratic Party, who was running for re-election. The debates attracted national attentions, mostly due to Douglas’ persona. Lincoln took advantage and made a name for himself as a prominent contender in national politics. At the time, the Democratic Party was going through a sectional riff, at the time of the debates. Douglas had recently gone against president Buchanan and the southern democrats when he apposed the admission of Kansas as a slave state. Douglass was against the Lecompton constitution; the stand was popular among republicans. The outcome, would have maintained the unity between the Nor and south sections of the Democratic Party. Buchanan, along with the southern democrats, were in favor of Lincolns candidacy, they feared Douglas’ going interest, and for his lack of support to the Democratic leaders. With Douglas receiving support from republicans, Lincoln would have to keep Illinois republicans from supporting Douglas. Lincoln would use the morality of slavery to wedge support away from Douglas’ famous popular sovereignty, while winning support of abolitionist. The house divided quote Lincoln used in his speech was taken from Mark 3:25.
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
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
As the result, due to the difference between the north and south. They north and south viewed each other differently as two different kind of people. Stephen Douglas explained that the view of southern plantation owners (document 5). They believed the laws fit the northern, not the southern. Therefore, they made their own rules and treated themselves as individual nation which then turned into the confederacy. As a result, Abraham Lincoln gives a speech explaining that in order to succeed we need to work as a nation instead diving each other setting disputes with one in others. (document 4) Therefore, Lincoln goes on to say that two house can’t be divided because they can’t not stand by themselves, but Lincoln challenge the secession of the south because he wonders it would be erupting but he inferred because of slavery. Therefore, the north and south began to have
“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
Ann Richards’s keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1988 was extremely interesting to watch. I believe her speech was intended to be focused on the American family and also the American farmers. These two areas seemed to be very important to Mrs. Richards and she made a point to discuss both.
In the 1860’s the United States weren’t united because of the issue of slavery. The civil war was never just about getting the union back together, but about making it count and getting rid of slavery. The south wanted their slaves and would say they are “-the happiest, and in some, the freest people in the world”. (Doc 5) However, the north knew that was not true because of Harriet Beecher Stowe's “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. In 1854 when the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed it caused some issues. Anti-slavery supporters were not happy because they did not want expansion of slavery, but the pro-slavery supporters weren’t happy because they wanted slavery everywhere for sure. (Doc. 7)The Kansas-Nebraska act caused trouble before it was even passed, Senator Charles Sumner argued against and attacked pro-slavery men causing Preston Brooks to beat Sumner with a cane. The south praised Brooks while the north felt for Sumner. (Doc 8) In 1858 during his acceptance speech Lincoln said his famous line, “A house divided
The turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
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]
The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not
Contrary to what today’s society believes about Lincoln, he was not a popular man with the South at this time. The South wanted to expand towards the West, but Lincoln created a geographical containment rule keeping slavery in the states it currently resided in. Despite his trying to rationalize with the South, Lincoln actually believed something different ”Lincoln claimed that he, like the Founding Fathers, saw slavery in the Old South as a regrettable reality whose expansion could and should be arrested, thereby putting it on the long and gradual road ”ultimate extinction” (216). He believed it to be “evil” thus “implying that free southerners were evil for defending it”(275). Lincoln wanted to wipe out slavery for good, and the South could sense his secret motives.
There are certain historical facts, which have been lost in the public memory, as certain legends have taken the place of reality. In order to fully understand what happened, it is necessary to comprehend that the Northern states were far from being uniformly the champions of equal rights that is generally indicated by popular belief. By this understanding, that is that the abandonment of African-Americans did not constitute a drastic change of moral position for many people in the North, it is easier to understand their subsequent actions in ignoring the plight of African-Americans in the South after the Reconstruction era. An example of one of these overlooked historical facts would be that there were still slaves in the nation’s capital in 1860; and, at that time, the President-elect, Abraham Lincoln, offered, “to support a constitutional amendment to insulate the institution of slavery in the slave states from federal interference. ”6....
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...