Essay About Abraham Lincoln And Republicans’ Slavery Stance

“sectional Crisis Leading to the Civil War”“sectional Crisis Leading to the Civil War”When Abraham Lincoln gave his Cooper Union Address it is doubtful that he knew its impact on the country and ultimately the future of the Union. In his Cooper Union Address, future president Abraham Lincoln thoroughly rebuked the southern Democrats Stephen A. Douglas’ statements about the Republicans’ slavery stance by using not only the oppositions wording against them, he supported his arguments with true examples sited from the signatories of the Constitution and their past voting record, from information gleaned during his career as a lawyer, and from his sense of honor and ethics. Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party had some very strong constituents, mainly those with very strong Free Soil tendencies. For this reason along with personal beliefs on Lincoln’s part the Republicans, led by Lincoln in the presidential election, were strongly against the expansion of slavery into the territories

By using past precedents Lincoln gave some serious weight to his arguments on the nature of the Republican’s stance on slavery and the federal government’s rights to limit slavery in the Territories. Since the opposing party’s argument was that the framers knew more about the issue of slavery and its expansion than they did now. Lincoln turned this argument for the use of the Republicans by explaining the voting records of the majority of the men who signed the Constitution. When the question of slavery in the Northwest Territory became an issue Lincoln sites the fact that of six who voted, five voted against slavery and only one voted for the ‘peculiar institution’. By voting and the majority of who voted feeling it was not only right to prohibit slavery they showed that, “in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory.” Overall twenty-three of the original thirty-six men who signed the Constitution voted or took action on the question of expanding slavery practices into the territories, of those twenty-three, twenty-one of them found it right for them to vote in favor of prohibition. “Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder.” By seeing that the founding fathers took this action, Lincoln finds historical evidence backing his statements on the Republican views of the expansion of slavery.

As Abraham Lincoln started his professional life as a lawyer, his speech at Cooper Union was much like a law brief, stating his opponents’ points, then his rebuke and finally his proof of statement. Since twenty-one of the founding fathers voted in favor of the prohibition of slavery in the territories they give evidence for the legitimacy of the federal government to pass laws to prohibit slavery in federal territories. “This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory…” for this reason Congress is and would be perfectly within its powers to create such laws as Lincoln and the Republican party wished to make and uphold. Many of the allegations made by the Democrats centered on the Constitution’s take on slavery yet, as Lincoln pointed out, the Constitution says nothing about ‘slaves’ or ‘slavery’ when he said, “this

s,” to do what it says: ‐I do not want to live a life of fear‴› or «slavery‴› while in a federal government that is beholden to no one. This explains why it was so difficult to have any such conversation on the Senate floor, without any Congressional hearings, much less any discussion on an issue like slavery. Thus, some Senators in Lincoln’s time, such as Alexander Hamilton, were able to get an almost total majority for legislation and, with few exceptions, passed the legislation. But that did not stop these Senators and their colleagues who tried to pass these new laws from being attacked and called “slaveryers.” As I have noted before, a federal law with no mention of slavery was never enacted in the United States until more than twenty years after the institution of slavery began in the First Amendment’s Article V. When the people of Washington and Massachusetts first legalized the practice of slavery, the first federal law that ever was written authorized it. It is worth noting that in the Senate’s first debate of the Bill of Rights this is also the date when the Bill of Rights became law.

The second argument is that the federal system in which the Constitution gives full support to the federal government rests in a way that prevents Congress from providing any legislative authority that would restrict it. For example, the Framers of the Bill of Rights explicitly said that states cannot have “direct congressional or legislative” authority over certain laws that they are proposing. We cannot, however, say that Congress lacks “direct legislative” authority over federal legislation because Congress expressly gives it such legislative authority that the law cannot be changed without Congress’s permission. The framers of the Bill of Rights were not trying to restrict Congress to merely legislating. Instead, they were trying to create a regulatory system that would support the growth and development of a market economy. And since they didn’t need the federal regulatory system they were trying to make it more complex and more complicated than the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is how the founding fathers envisioned their system. In other words, they wanted to make it more complex and more complex than the Federal government. And these “interpreters'” do not just have to rely on the federal bureaucracy. The “interpreters” also have to rely on the States to administer their laws. This is more than just adding new rules. It is also why our Federal laws do not give us more powers when it comes to defining our borders. We simply don’t have it. Our Founders did not want us to define our borders because it was the way we wanted to get there.

If the Bill of Rights can be reformed in such a way the state governments of the States, the federal government that is required under the Constitution and the states and local governments that are given powers by the Constitution when they have “prescribed” law, will be able to impose their own laws without the federal government having to have a deal with the federal government. This would open the doors for future States that had to deal with federal law in the future or have to pass legislation on their own because they did not have the power at all. Of course the idea that state legislatures could create laws to deal with federal legislation makes no sense since they never have in the last hundred years. The reason law does not always act is because it has to be written in terms that permit a state to legislate in that way.

The next argument is that we must leave it to the states to write their own laws that govern their own lives. But this is only the beginning. In the future, the state governments that have the authority to amend their own laws will now have to deal with the federal government that they govern over. In addition, there may be places for that federal government to operate