The Missouri Compromise

One of the most significant pacts in American history was the Missouri Compromise of 1820. On March 6, 1820, President James Monroe signed it. This agreement demonstrated how difficult it was for the nation to remain cohesive when opinions on slavery differed. America had eleven slave states and eleven free states by 1819. This indicated that the Senate had an equal number of each class. Because it meant that neither the North nor the South could dictate how slavery laws were implemented, this equilibrium was crucial. Subsequently, Missouri sought to admit slavery and become a state. Slave states would have had a 12 to 11 advantage as a result, which deeply alarmed Northerners.

This was a serious issue. It involved more than simply one state joining the union. How America might continue to grow without collapsing was the key question. The crisis revealed long-standing, stark differences between the North and South's views on slavery. Northerners did not wish for slavery to expand to other areas. Southerners expressed concern that they were losing control and argued Congress could not dictate to them what to do about their slaves.

The Speaker of the House, Henry Clay, devised a solution to this issue. He was known as "The Great Compromiser" because he was skilled at persuading others to agree with him. There were three components to his solution. First, the South was pleased that Missouri could become a slave state. Second, the balance was maintained since Maine would simultaneously become a free state. Third, he drew a hypothetical line across all of the land that America had purchased from France at 36°30'. Slavery would not be permitted above this boundary. Slavery may be practiced south of this boundary. Although this line at 36°30' was innovative, it eventually caused issues. It made tensions between the two groups while supporting their respective concerns.

Although no one was entirely happy with the compromise, it stopped a significant conflict from breaking out right away. The statement "We got Missouri but lost everything else" was made by proponents of slavery because they believed Congress was being unjust by restricting the areas where slavery could operate. Southerners were concerned that states' rights were being overruled by the federal government. Even though the agreement was limited, those in the North who opposed slavery believed it was risky because it permitted slavery in some new locations. Several immediate impacts resulted from the compromise. It also made clear that the North and South held essentially divergent opinions on slavery, which were difficult to reconcile.

For over three decades, peace was maintained by the Missouri Compromise. However, a new statute known as the Kansas Nebraska Act essentially shattered the agreement in 1854. People in territories were given the opportunity to vote on whether or not they wanted slavery under this new law. As a result, Kansas experienced horrific violence that many referred to as "Bleeding Kansas." The nation was pushed toward the Civil War by the breaking of the Missouri Compromise.The Missouri Compromise demonstrates both the positive and negative aspects of attempting to reach political agreements. For over thirty years, it was successful in avoiding a national crisis, allowing the nation to mature and prosper. 

However, it also demonstrated that rules and map lines alone could not permanently solve some challenges, particularly ethical ones like slavery. Although the compromise bought America some time, it was unable to close the wide divide between those who believed slavery was morally acceptable and those who did not. The Civil War would ultimately split the nation along this line. Knowing the Missouri Compromise enables us to see how tensions between the North and South increased over time and why, despite its temporary success, the compromise was ultimately unable avoid America's most pressing problem.

Sources:

National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/missouri-compromise

Library of Congress: https://guides.loc.gov/missouri-compromise

History.com: https://www.history.com/articles/missouri-compromise

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/event/Missouri-Compromise

Essential Civil War Curriculum: https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/the-missouri-compromise-of-1820.html

Video Reflections

History changed in 1772 by a courageous slave named James Somerset. His tale demonstrates how the bravery of one individual can spark a movement that spans generations. Although his master transported Somerset to England, he was able to get away. Something extraordinary occurred when he was taken prisoner and his master attempted to enslave him again. A judge decided that slavery had no legal foundation under English common law after Somerset retaliated in court. As a result, Somerset could not be compelled to return to slavery on English territory. (Somerset v Stewart, 1772; James Somerset, Wikipedia).

This was a big legal win. Abolitionists, or those who wished to abolish slavery entirely, saw hope in the significant foundation it established, even though it did not abolish slavery everywhere. The Somerset case demonstrated that the legal system might be employed as a tool to combat injustice. William Wilberforce was one of the most well-known abolitionists who was motivated by situations such as Somerset's. Even when it appeared impossible, he persisted. Wilberforce advocated for justice and compassion for enslaved people in Parliament year after year. Despite resistance and obstacles, he persisted in his fight because he believed that slavery was wrong. (Somersett case | Great Britain – Britannica; The Somerset v Stewart Case – English Heritage).

When the Slave Trade Act was ultimately passed by Parliament in 1807, his perseverance paid off. This law made it unlawful to purchase and sell slaves within the British Empire, but it did not immediately free all enslaved individuals. It was a significant step in the direction of total abolition. We can learn valuable  lessons about activism and social change from the lives of William Wilberforce and James Somerset. Somerset shown that one individual speaking out for what's right may have a significant impact. Wilberforce demonstrated that even if it takes decades, perseverance and a refusal to give up may result in significant change. (William Wilberforce – Britannica; 1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade – UK Parliament).

The story of Somerset and Wilberforce is so compelling because it demonstrates that regular people can bring about enormous change. Somerset was an enslaved man who merely refused to accept his lot in life; he was neither a well-known leader nor a wealthy politician. Wilberforce had the option of leading a comfortable life free from political involvement, but instead he decided to utilize his position to advocate for others. Their examples demonstrate that we don't have to wait for others to find solutions to our difficulties. Whether it's through large-scale endeavors like running for office or more modest ones like speaking up when we observe injustice, each of us has the ability to change the world. (Slave Trade Act 1807 – Wikipedia; How did the slave trade end in Britain? – Royal Museums Greenwich; William Wilberforce – Britannica).

AI Disclaimer: “This assignment was created with the assistance of AI for research and formatting support.”

The Theory of Free Speech/Democracy

Meiklejohn’s Theory of Free Speech and Democracy

Alexander Meiklejohn, in his work Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government, explains why free speech is such a useful resource in a democracy. Candidates for office need to be able to speak freely so that voters can hear all of the arguments before they cast their ballots. By doing so, citizens can make informed decisions regarding who they wish to have govern them and what needs to be done by way of policy.

Why Elections Depend on Free Speech

The stronger the democracy, the more important it is that the voters understand what they are voting on. If the representatives are not able to express their opinions freely, or if there are unclear issues provided, the voters will never understand the true story. Without clear information, it is much harder for them to make smart and educated choices. For example, a local election about highway repair. Candidates running for mayor wanted to talk about repairing highways but were not allowed to present their ideas, voters would have no clue what these candidates intend. A comparison we see today often is that, environmental groups typically get shut down about pollution, and citizens generally have no clue that there is a serious problem in their own community. The issue along with silence essentially harms democracy because it keeps voters in the dark about what they're supposed to know. The important aspect is that an electorate is required to self-rule. Which means that the voters need to thoroughly understand the issues and in result can compare the positions of different candidates. This allows a better stand of making informed decisions about who will be in power and what policies to support.

Spreading Public Awareness

Meiklejohn argues that a democracy depends on an educated public, people who understand how their government and society work. To be truly informed, citizens need to hear different perspectives and viewpoints from others so they can think carefully about issues and make wise decisions for themselves and their communities. When different people are able to open their mouths freely without restriction, that is a type of public space where ideas get challenged and criticized. Criticism is a superb way to find issues. Great ideas get backing, while awful ideas get crushed and thrown away. This system would only work if every member was considered worthy of taking part in the discussion without any limits. When the government tries to silence certain political ideas or stops people from talking about issues that matter to them, it goes too far. This keeps people from hearing different opinions and makes it harder for them to think carefully about issues that affect their decisions.

Why Restricting Political Speech is Harmful

Even political statements that might seem awkward or offensive to some people still need protection from censorship. Meiklejohn believes that democracy works best when the government allows open public debate instead of deciding what can or cannot be said on its own. Sometimes political statements can be false or careless. But Meiklejohn says that is not a reason to restrict them. Instead, false statements give people a chance to respond and debate, so citizens can hear both sides and decide for themselves what to believe. A more serious problem happens when the government decides which political opinions people are allowed to hear. Often, politicians may allow some claims but try to block opinions that disagree with them. If opposing opinions are silenced or important information is hidden from citizens, elections would be unfair and democracy would not work properly.

Conclusion

Alexander Meiklejohn’s ideas show why protecting free speech is so important for democracy. When people can share their ideas freely, citizens are able to vote with understanding and make informed choices. Political speech might cause disagreement or even upset some people, but Meiklejohn believes this is better than letting the government control who knows what about politics and policies.

Sources:

Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (1948) – Library of Congress

Stephen Bates, “Meiklejohn, Hocking, and Self-Government Theory” – UNLV Scholarly Repository

John P. Frank, Book Review of Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government – Indiana University Law Repository

Review in The Georgetown Law Journal (1949)

Bible Supporting/Against Slavery

How The Bible Supported Slavery 

Back when slavery existed, many people would argue that the bible justified slavery, but many would argue the opposite. During this time people would even use the Bible in court to argue for and against slavery. Because of this it sparks the argument of whether slavery is justified and supported by the bible or if it was seen as wrong and shouldn't exist. The answer to this will never truly be known because of the many ways the bible argues for and against slavery and the many different ways one could interpret the verses in the bible.

Many verses from the bible show how slavery was supported through the bible. One of the scripts from the bible that shows support towards slavery is from Ephesians 6:5 and says, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ". This quote from the bible is showing that slavery was a part of the bible because the first word of the quote is slaves which shows that slaves or slavery was a part of the bible and they practiced slavery during this time period.

Another quote from the bible that supports slavery is from

This quote from the bible not only justifies slavery but also justifies beating your owned slaves. These two quotes are just two of many from the bible that show support towards and justify slavery. While the Bible was used to justify slavery it can also be flipped and used to fight against slavery.

How The Bible Was Against Slavery 

The Bible was also used to fight slavery by a majority of people. The abolitionists found the words that were supportive of what they were fighting for, like Genesis 1:27, which said all human beings are made "in the image of God" and all individuals are unique no matter what race they belonged to. 

They also used Galatians 3:28 that states "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" to show that everyone is equal. Matthew 7:12, or the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," was another important verse because it meant you shouldn't own a person as a slave if you would not wish to be a slave yourself. The story of Moses and the Israelites' freeing from Egyptian slavery served also as an example of God's viewpoint for freedom for humans. 

When Jesus informed us that he came "to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and release for the oppressed" in Luke 4:18, this gave reformers additional proof for their movement. All of these support the manner in which people could read the same Bible and arrive at completely different conclusions about slavery based on which verses they focused on and how they read them

AI Disclosure; I used AI for this assignment, but used credible sources and created changes based on a reader's understanding so it’s fully implemented into their brains for a true understanding. 

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1688_Germantown_Quaker_Petition_Against_Slavery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatians_3%3A28

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/blog/335-year-old-antislavery-arguments

https://drjimsebt.com/2024/05/31/slavery-and-freedom-in-the-bible

https://textandcanon.org/the-bible-and-slavery-in-colonial-america

https://web.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/speccoll/quakersandslavery/commentary/organizations/underground_railroad.php

Supreme Court Reflection

 

The Supreme Court is one of the most powerful buildings in the United States. Its societal view point is shown as tree with many different branches following specific ruling. The ruling involves a smooth operation where its goals include a series of checks and balances in secret to determine constitutional  laws.                                                                                    

The Constitution is a chaotic piece of paper that lists the values of America's nation as a whole. Its main goal is to serve the people of the Nation in a positive way, where revolting is allowed based on citizens rights. It has the nickname of the "Supreme Law of the Land" which means this is the stepping stool of America. It has the connection and aligning structure of each individual state forming a power through checks and balances to create an agreed upon series of events to support constitutional laws.

The Supreme Court has been important in shaping America throughout its history. To sum up John Marshall's connection to the government, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice and revolutionized the way the Court operated. He led it from a weak third branch and created a Congress with the President as an equal branch of government. John Marshall's court issued a structured amount of decisions that we still have to live with today. A noticed amount of information in history is that they upheld the doctrine of judicial review, under which the Supreme Court could nullify laws that were against the Constitution. They also defined federal power, determining that national legislation could change order of state law when the national laws were in conflict with each other. This changed the nature of our government and helped bring about the balance of power we have between the three branches today.

The Dred Scott case, where the Court ruled Congress had no power to ban slavery, showed the restriction of power in American society. The Civil War did resolve this issue in a way, because the case is shown to be helpful in legal ways towards citizens lives. The process of the Supreme Court contains a series of cases thrown together and reflected through checks and balances together. The goal of the supreme court is not to over rule individuals, but support them in a strong way where everyone is treated equal throughout judicial power.

AI Disclosure; AI was used for this assignment, I used ideas and transformed them into a simpler way for better understanding and an alternative view point of learning.

Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/

Dred Scott Case: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford

John Marshall: https://www.oyez.org/justices/john_marshall