1

The Americans © McDougal Littell Inc

 

 

 

 

 

 

from

A L E C T U R E O N T H E

A N T I - S L A V E R Y M O V E M E N T

1 8 5 5

––––––––––––––––––––– Frederick Douglass –––––––––––––––––––––

 

 

 

 

              Let us now…examine the anti-slavery movement in its branches, for divisions  are here, as well as elsewhere. I will not enter into an examination of their causes. God forbid! that I should open here those bitter fountains.…

 

There are four principal divisions.

 

1st. The Garrisonians, or the American Anti-Slavery Society.

2d. The Anti-Garrisonians, or the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.

3d. The Free Soil Party, or Political Abolitionists.

4th. The Liberty Party, or Gerrit Smith School of Abolitionists.…
 

        I shall consider, first, the Garrisonian Anti-Slavery Society.…the oldest of modern Anti-Slavery Societies.…Its peculiar and distinctive feature…of “no union with slaveholders,” carried out, dissolves the Union, and leaves the slaves and their masters to fight their own battles, in their own way. This I hold to be an abandonment of the great idea with which that Society started. It started to free the slave. It ends by leaving the slave to free himself. It started with the purpose to imbue the heart of the nation with sentiments favorable to the abolition of slavery, and ends by seeking to free the North from all responsibility for slavery, other than if slavery were in Great Britain, or under some-other nationality. This, I say, is the practical abandonment of the idea,

with which that Society started. It has given up the faith, that the slave can be freed short of the overthrow of the Government; and then, as I understand that Society, it leaves the slaves, as it must needs leave them, just where it leaves the slaves of Cuba, or those of Brazil. The nation, as such, is given up as beyond the power of salvation by the foolishness of preaching; and hence, the aim is now to save the North ; so that the American Anti-Slavery Society, which was inaugurated to convert the nation, after ten years’ struggle, parts with its faith, and aims now to save the North.…

 

       In Frederick Douglas’s lecture to the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society in 1855, Douglas explained the political party’s position in the slavery movement. Here in this paragraph Douglas explains what each party means and where it stands in the Anti-Slavery movement, if they are in favor of ending slavery or merely appearing like they are.

 

       I chose this paragraph, because we see these same things with the main political parties of today. Political parties have not evolved much from the past in my view. In my view, political parties and politicians say whatever the voting public wants to hear to incite us to vote for them. Douglas understood

 “The Garrisonians”, “The Anti-Garrusinians” and “The Free Soil Party” where just putting on a face for the Anti-Slavery movement. In his speech to this group, he went into detail and to me, it was telling them to continue the fight against slavery, because if they don’t know one else will help them out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://bbhosted.cuny.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-23841811-dt-content-rid-115477599_1/courses/LEH01_POL_166_H01_1162_1/DOUGLA1%20%281%29.PDF

 The Seventh of March Speech
           March 7, 1850
          Source: Shewmaker, 121-130 

Then, Sir, there are the Abolition societies, of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which I have very clear notions and opinions. I do not think them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, I believe thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what else they can do than to contribute to an Abolition press, or an Abolition society, or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings. I cannot but see what mischiefs their interference with the South has produced. And its it not plain to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this point recur to the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made by Mr. [Thomas] Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery was discussed in that body. Every one spoke of slavery as he thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. The debates in the House of Delegates on that occasion, I believe, were all published. They were read by every colored man who could read, and to those who could not read, those debates were read by others. At that time Virginia was not unwilling or unafraid to discuss this question, and to let that part of her population know as much of   discussion as they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been said by the honorable member from South Carolina [Calhoun], these Abolition societies commenced their course of action in 1835. It is said, I do not know how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications into the slave States; at any rate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling; in other words, they created great agitation in the North against Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The bonds of the slave were bound more firmly than before, their rivets were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up in its castle. I wish tooknow whether any body in Virginia can now talk openly as Mr. Randoph, Governor [James] McDowell, and others talked in 1832 and sent their remarks to the press? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and every thing that these agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster the slave population of the South...

In the speech of March 7^th, 1850 from Senator Daniel Webster we read how he felt about ending slavery and how he viewed talks of abolition of slavery. In his speech he asks the other members on the senate to not even entertain the talk of slavery. He mentions how the talks of this subject in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1832 brought to light the sentiments of many in the South particularly of Virginia’s representatives. They wanted no part of it.

I chose this paragraph because it shows how a lot of people used to think about slavery in that time. We see Senator Webster speak like slavery was never going to end. Yet we had the 13^th Amendment 14 years after his speech. Mr. Webster died two years after this speech, from a fall off his horse and suffering injuries to the head, thus not seen the 13^th Amendment come to pass. I would had liked for Mr. Webster and a lot of the people that were against slavery see this very important feat.

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/seventh-march.html

John BinghamCredit Library of Congress

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Article I

Section 2,

of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14^th amendment.

     “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (pg1)

      In this Clauses, the primary author of the first section of the 14^th amendment and also nationalized the Bill of Rights, was the congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio. Following the Civil War this amendments as part of the Reconstruction, it was to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, Especially for the black citizens and immigrants after acquiring the citizens, although the part of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” won cover the parent of any born or naturalized person in the US.

    I chose this passage from the Constitution of the United States because this is what I consider true freedom. We are hearing very scary talk from the candidates running for president this Presidential election cycle that threaten a lot of people’s freedom here in the United States. For example the talk of deporting or blocking Muslims from this country is not only racist but most importantly unproductive; I say unproductive because I feel like this is fuel for Isis recruitment of young people to join such a terrorist group. This talk and mentality takes away what the 14^th amendment is intended to be; true freedom to citizens of religion, liberty and justice for all.

  

pg-1 http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#13

"The Melting Pot"

Randolph Silliman Bourne (May 30, 1886 – December 22, 1918)

Trans-national America

                        "The Melting Pot"                                                                        by Randolph S. Bourne                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                             

     "THE failure of the melting- pot, far from closing the great American democratic experiment, means that it has only just begun. Whatever American nationalism turns out to be, we see already that it will have a color richer and more exciting than our ideal has hitherto encompassed. In a world which has dreamed of internationalism, we find that we have all unawares been building up the first international nation. The voices which have cried for a tight and jealous nationalism of the European pattern are failing. From that ideal, however valiantly and disinterestedly it has been set for us, time and tendency have moved us further and further away. What we have achieved has been rather a cosmopolitan federation of national colonies, of foreign cultures, from whom the sting of devastating competition has been removed. America is already the world-federation in miniature, the continent where for the first time in history has been achieved that miracle of hope, the peaceful living side by side, with character substantially preserved, of the most heterogeneous peoples under the sun. Nowhere else has such contiguity been anything but the breeder of misery. Here, notwithstanding our tragic failures of adjustment, the outlines are already too clear not to give us a new vision and a new orientation of the American mind in the world." (pg1)

    

       Randolph S. Bourne wrote this paragraph "the Melting Pot" within the article "Tran-National America", why I think he wrote this paragraph is because to me he sat back and studied what was happening within the United States in the early 1900s; off the heals of the "Race Riots" that happened between 1900 to 1910. He saw that the United States was changing from and all Anglo-Saxon majority. He sees the United States for what it was meant to be a land open to different people around the world. Unbeknownst to the American ideal the United States was becoming a country of the world, to me meaning having a good representation of every nation in the world. (pg2)

      I chose this passage from Mr. Bourne because no one could had written it better of what was happening in the United States back in 1916 when he wrote it, but more so 100 year after In 2016. We see no truer words in this passage than now having President Obama, an African American finishing his 2nd term as the United States President, I don't think anyone in 1916 would had predicted that or a women as a viable candidate for the Presidency of the US, or a Hispanic in the Supreme Court represented by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, these are some example of different races in high offices, but if we see around us, take into account the big cities in this country, NYC, NY, Chicago, IL, Miami, FL or Houston, TX we see how truly diverse the communities are. We see how truly of a melting pot the United States has become with communities represented by different countries around the world and all getting along. I really like this passage, and that's why I love the United States where to me you come here with a dream and it's actually possible to achieve it with hard work and dedication. You cannot say that of another country.

pg-1  http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/16jul/bourne.htm

pg-2 http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?query=&prodId=UHIC&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&zid=&search_within_results=&action=2&catId=&activityType=&documentId=GALE%7CCX2831200309&source=Bookmark&u=mlin_s_martha&jsid=f26d4a420f49a00c775c39e87eecb4b1

Americans Name Government as No. 1 U.S. Problem

by Justin McCarthy

http://www.gallup.com/poll/181946/americans-name-government-no-problem.aspx

    "Americans continue to name the government (18%) as the most important U.S. problem, a distinction it has had for the past four months. Americans' mentions of the economy as the top problem (11%) dropped this month, leaving it tied with jobs (10%) for second place".

   This paragraph speaks at volumes of how the American public sees our Government. At 18% naming the government as the most important problem and we can easily see why; with congress, parties, and branches of government not been able to agree or accomplish much.

   The Gallup‘s article “Americans Name Government as No.1 U.S. Problem”, should come as no surprise to any of us. Surely some can argue the numbers are even a little low, how we see congress acting, where they cannot agree on much. According to Wikipedia there have been 18 government shutdowns since 1976. Why more data you ask? So we can see the extent of it. Just today we see the bickering and the no-communication coming from the top 2 parties with the sad death or Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden and unexpected death. Already the Republicans are talking about blocking anyone that President Obama nominates saying that with just little time for the next President to take office it should be there responsibility. On the other side of the aisle Democrats are arguing that is simply irresponsible to leave such an important seat vacant so long. I chose this paragraph because I would be one of the 18%.