PS documents David Wilmont Appeals for Free Soil (1847) 1) What does he conceive the moral issue to be? Wilmont’s speech conceives the moral issue to be carrying slaves to new regions where the footprint of a slave cannot be found, territory is seen as precious, and as Wilmont states, it must be preserved from the aggressions of slavery and its “wrongful usurpations.” As the Mexican war was being fought, California and New Mexico were declared to be free, however there was concern regarding to those providences heritages, would it be the heritage and home of white labor of freeman, or the labor of slaves? Southerners Threaten Secession(1849) 1) Why was the South so bitterly aroused over the question of slavery in the territories? People in the South were bitterly aroused over the question of slavery in the territories due to the lack of justice that used to exist in these territories, as slavery is seen as an economic profit for the South, abolishing it would mean monetary issues for the Southerners. As stated by Toombs, “[We ask] nothing but the maintenance of the principles and the spirit which controlled our fathers in the formation of the constitution.” One of those principles being the right of property, and if not given as desired, a disunion would occur. John Calhoun Demands Southern Rights(1850) 1) What were his views on the Constitution, the Union, and secession? John Calhoun viewed the Constitution as a sacred document that everyone should devote to, however if violated or destroyed, the union would also be destroyed. He stated that the Union could be saved by offering compromises where the South would get equal rights in acquired territory, and “by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled.” However, if no agreement is settled, and rights are not being protected, then the states are able to separate and part in peace, ultimately if resistance occurs then the states will know what to do. 2) How practicable were his remedies for preserving the Union? John’s remedies for preserving the Union would’ve been practicable if applied, but not morally right. The Union could have come to an agreement with the Southern states regarding slavery because they were protesting the 5th amendment, which is the right to property, and at the time slaves used to be considered property. As practical as it may have been, the Union didn’t want slavery anymore and had the desire to abolish it, therefore an arrangement wouldn’t have been possible and the civil war more than likely would have started in any way. Daniel Webster Urges Concession(1850) 1) How good of a prophet was Webster? Webster isn’t considered to be a good prophet since his speech was rejected by the North and South, his ideas of concession didn’t seem to convince the society at the time to make compromises and avoid the separation of states. As Webster states it, “[The disruption of states]must produce such a war as I will not describe, in its twofold characters.” which came to be known as the civil war, both sides were not willing to come to an agreement, and a concession would have made it worse. 2) Which of his arguments on the impracticability of peaceful secession probably carried the most weight in the North? The impracticability of peaceful secession carried the most weight in the North in one of Webster’s arguments, stating that a terrible war would occur if states were to separate. This, being one of the reasons why Webster encouraged a concession in order to avoid a ferocious battle that would destroy the Union, and as no agreement was settled upon due to value conflicts and inequality, the civil war took over. Free- Soilers Denounce Webster 1) What is the authors major argument against Webster’s stance? The author’s major argument against Webster’s stance is that a succession was inevitable as no conciliation occurred, as stated by Emerson, “Cotton thread holds the Union together.” and if slavery were to be abolished, the Union would separate unavoidably, eventually leading to a war.
