Speech comparison of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas

Speech comparison of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas

Introduction

The speeches made by Fredrick Douglas “what to the slave is the fourth of July?” on July 5, 1852, and Abraham Lincoln, speech on Kansas Nebraska act, Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, form those two speeches there are similarity and dissimilarity, therefore, the research paper is to critically analyze the two speeches through compare and contrast method.

Similarity

Fredrick Douglas in 1852, who was once referred to as the Americas supreme well-known fugitive slave, gave a speech to the organization of the Ladies Anti-Slavery Society in Rochester. The speech was mostly considered as the essential condemnation of America political tradition (Warren 67). He categorized the fourth of July as an insincere imitation from the idea of the millions residing in the country who were still slaves. Therefore, the main topic of Douglas was about slave in America. From the speech that was given by Lincoln also addressed the same topic. Lincoln on the other hand, addressed the issue on the morality of slavery expansion aggressively and he also talked about the Act itself (Warren 100). He said that all human beings are same and equally. Similarly, he further suggested that the Negros were not animals but people who also have their natural rights. He claimed that there is no need for another man to be a slave of another. He was in the forefront to denounce any expansion of slavery in America (Lincoln 20-21).

Dissimilarity

Douglas speech seems to paint the already dark picture of the country. He talked about the clouds threateningly, that lowers beyond the horizon. Additionally, his speech was a compliment to the national liberation, to political freedom and the transformation of the country being a nation (Warren 100). Whereas Lincoln condemned popular independence, he asked how the doctrine could become more powerful than the northwest ordinance and scared Missouri compromise. Similarly, the congress managed to buy the territory, but according to Douglas, they had no power to limit slave trade. Consequently, the whole nation embraced slave trade. Lincoln rejected the claims that some factors such as climate and geography made slavery unmanageable in Kansas and Nebraska. Therefore, an obvious legal ban was a true assurance (Lincoln 32-33).

Moreover, Douglas informed the nation to comprehensively understand the constitution in details, together with the preamble, that he saw as the opener to the true meaning. Additionally, he showed the relationship that connected the constitution and the declaration of independence. From those two elements there was confirmation of liberty and equality. Declaration according to Douglas was an honest truth to the nation history and key to the nation’s undeveloped destiny. On the other hand, Lincoln spoke out his opposition to the act and revived his political ambition in an excellent speech. He was against the repeal of the act; he said that limiting slavery above that geographical frontier had been a southern business to equal northerners’ mission to permit Missouri to join the union as a slave state (Lincoln 33). Additionally, the concession had been rejected and it contained an old policy that limited the expansion of slave trade. Lincoln involved the founders such as Thomas Jefferson, as he struggled that the sage of Monticello had come from the restoration of slavery in relation to Northwest ordinance that was against slavery in the northwest boundaries (Lincoln 23).

Abolitionism and anti-expansionism

The abolition movement that was formed in the United States was aiming at ending the slave trade. Americans respected the freedom of people and champion for the principle that all men were created equal (Harold 56). Due to the growth of abolitionism and their high demands, those who were participating in the trade become strictly and opposed the abolitionism. Consequently, it created tension in the region leading to American civil war (Maier 89). For the anti-slave expansion there was a conflict between the democrats and the Whigs due to admission of California to the union. The war was as a result of declaring California as a free state that triggered a war between the free and slave-states.  The congress that was at war by then was formed by the individuals from the southern and the northern states (Harold 66). The southern representative claimed that the regulation concerning the slavery expansion, the congress nor the states had no power to debate on it. The misunderstanding was seen as a factor that could lead to a massive split in the nation (Maier 90). Therefore, the Whigs and democrats finally came to a compromise that was likely to stop the secession. Finally, succeeding of the compromise of 1850 permitted California to be acknowledged as a free state. The state laws in California were made strong, but there were no outlined procedures for the other territories on how to handle slave matters (Schoolman 122).

Missouri appeal resulted into a conflict between the free and slave states in the congress that was held in 1820.  Each projecting that either the Free states or the slave states would have more advantage over the other (Schoolman 124). The compromise of 1820 developed a law admission of states in pairs, for instance, one slave and one free. The compromise did not allow any act of slavery and all Americans were called upon to return the slaves back into their nations. The return of slaves was documented in the fugitive slave law and it was conducted in Prig v. Pennsylvania. It was formed in 1842, and by 1857 it was found that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional in preventing the slave trade (Harold 69). For the anti-expansionism, the Whigs were not in a position to effectively handle the slavery issue after 1850.  The congress that comes from the north was composed of businessmen who were concerned of the country unity, but paid little attention to the slavery. Therefore, the Whigs could not come to a common idea due to the lack of compromise. Consequently the party was disbanded in 1850s (Maier 121).

Similarly, the abolitionism association expanded, but those who were involved in the slave trade had become rich even before imposing ban on the act. In England, the region was dominated by abolitionist reaction (Schoolman 100). Materials that informed people about the abolitionist, such as newspaper and pamphlets were all over the country. That massive spread of anti-slavery materials made the state of South Carolina to formulate a penalty for an individual found with the materials (Maier 88). On the other hand, anti-expansionism, an election was held in 1852, and the Whigs finally collapsed. The weakening of the union was as a result of the death of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. Those factors made the compromise of 1850 to fracture a long different line. There were those who were pro-slavery and others were anti-slavery (Harold 56).

Fredrick Douglass was a black abolitionist who was also a slave commonly known as Fredrick Bailey while in slavery. Within the abolitionists organization he was the most popular black man. After reading the newspaper of William Lloyd Garrison’s he was pleased with the content. He went for a visit at the Great Britain when he came across the paper talking about the black abolitionist.  The North Star was the title of the paper that was aiming to reach the northern states and Canada (Harold 56-57). Later, before the release of the newspaper, Garrison had advised the anti-slavery organization in Massachusetts to consider working with Douglas as an agent. Douglas being a slave at one time, made him to have more experience into matters relating to slavery. Alternatively, Douglas was currently independent and he was eager to exercise it through his own actions (Schoolman 122).

To terminate slavery completely in the country, it was to be done through constitutional amendments, but there were no states willing to accept the amendments. For the changes to be made in the constitution there was a certain percentage of the sate required to support the motion. At least three-fourth of the states must support the amendments (Harold 100). Of all the states in the United States only a half was willing and able to stop slavery within their boundaries. Therefore, Garrison asked the Free states to quite the union, because termination of slavery was not possible constitutionally (Maier 89). The constitution undermines the power of the congress to pass their legislation mandate to the matter.  In Washington, there was a heavy ban on buying and selling of slaves in the state. The southerners were all willing and they put effort together to end slavery in their territory (Schoolman 134).

Works cited

Harrold, Stanley. The Rise of Aggressive Abolitionism: Addresses to the Slaves. University Press of Kentucky, 2015.

Lincoln, Abraham. Great speeches. Courier Corporation, 2012.s

Maier, Pauline. American scripture: making the Declaration of Independence. Vintage, 2012.

Schoolman, Martha. Abolitionist Geographies. University of Minnesota Press, 2014.

Warren, Dan. “The Declaration of Independence and Slavery Paradox-Warren.” (2013