Indeed all the speeches had one main agenda, to formulate a way of saving sustaining union. There sure was a way of saving the union of the state and this was by adopting the Compromise of 1850. As much, Seward, an able lawyer and the New York senator, was willing to save the state of union; there was little he was putting in the efforts. He agrees that the northern and southern states were naturally divided on the basis of resources. The senator, however, remains rigid on his stand against slavery, not considering the economic well being of the southern states. Despite the fact that he was being human and compassionate, I view John Calhoun’s comments as unreasonable for the sake of the union. Just like Seward, he failed to appreciate the provisions of the compromise which was the only way to maintain the union. I liked Daniel Webster’s comments in this context since he was for The Compromise. He understood and appreciated the different culture and economic activities engaged in both sides and therefore resolved that The Compromise was the only way to appease the interests of both the southerners and the northerners to avoid secession.
Ken’s argument is well justified. Basing on the fact that Sward was a brilliant lawyer, there was no doubt that he had an ability to express himself articulately as seen in the second discussion. Looking at human perspective, I am in support of his views. As much as the white despised the blacks, it was against the natural human principles as the blacks were equally people. The senator takes a biblical approach saying explaining that God’s will is for each man to be treated equally. This means that a man should not force dominion over a fellow person, degrading them as animals or a piece of property. I am in support of this argument since nobody chose to be born the color they are. It is God’s will. The scripture does not show discrimination, nor does it show God favoring one group of people against the others, as long as people did what was right before His eyes. Therefore, slavery was uncalled for.
If I was to give my contribution to The Compromise, I would oppose it .This is because, it was selfish of the southerners to insist on slavery when knowing very well that is was an evil an inhuman culture. The main reason for their liking of slavery was that it provided them with cheap labor in their large plantations. They only want to safeguard their revenue while giving little attention to the well being of the blacks. As noted from Seward’s speech, slaves were considered two fifths of a person. They were seen as property and not people worth to be cared for. This is against God’s will according to the scripture since man was created on the basis of equality and no one is more special than the other before the eyes of God.
I like Ken’s comment especially when dealing with Seward’s speech. Indeed, Seward had a lot of passion for humanity and compassion too. He quoted the scripture in a way to convince his fellow senators that since the culture of the Americans should be founded on Godly way, slavery should not be embraced. He goes ahead to talk about liberty. From Ken’s observation, Seward notes that everybody on the American soil should equally be considered American. The constitution therefore gives all the Americans liberty and freedom, and therefore no American should suppress, or express dominion over the other. Ken is also keen to state that even though Senator Calhoun was anti-slavery, he took a milder stance which was more constitutional than God-based.
From customer #3909 to Writer Thank you very much for the paper, it totally points out the ideas I meant...Read more...
|Similarities in the Testability of the Articles||Ownership Society|