The Missouri Compromise

The Missouri Compromise was a legislation that admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a non-slave state. Missouri applied for statehood in 1817. However, anti-slavery politicians feared upsetting the power balance between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states in the Senate. Maine wanted independence from Massachusetts and became a free state through the Missouri Compromise.

Later, James Tallmadge tried to add anti-slavery to the amendment. It provided for the emancipation of those already there when they reached the age of 25.  The House of Representatives passed this amendment, but in the Senate, it failed. This ultimately divided the North and South more. 

In 1819, a petition for statehood from Maine was presented to Congress. At the time, the United States of America had 22 states, half of them being free states and the other half being slave states. The Senate admitted Maine as a free state and Missouri with no slavery restrictions.

The Louisiana Territory implemented a ban on slavery north of the 36º 30' latitude line. However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed a part of the Missouri Compromise. As a result, settlers were given the authority to decide whether they wanted slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, which caused tension.

Overall, this caused a lot of uproar in the United States and many disputes between the North and South for many years regarding slavery.

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

Reaction to Town Hall Meeting

During the town hall meeting, I was very engaged to hear what both sides had to say. I was fascinated to learn about unfamiliar historical figures. I was on the pro-slavery side so I was very intrigued by what the anti-slavery side presented. 

Throughout listening, I realized how many Presidents were slaveholders. The pro-slavery side focused heavily on the economic values of having slaves. They focused mainly on what the slaves did economically and socially for their owners. Slaveholders also believed it gave them a social hierarchy, thinking they were considered better.

I especially enjoyed hearing about woman slaves and their stories. I found Harriett Tubman's story fascinating. Her initiative at just 12 years old to fight against slavery is inspiring to many by her escape in the Underground Railroad. 

Anti-slavery people thought that if the North was free, then the South should be free too, which was a very good point discussed in the meeting. 

Overall, this was a very eye-opening meeting to hear the perspectives on both sides of the case. And I think that the country as a whole needs to change and turn to anti-slavery.

Town Hall Meeting on John C Calhoun

Hello, my name is John Caldwell Calhoun. I was born on March 18, 1782, in Abbeville County, South Carolina. You might know me as the 7th vice president of the United States from 1825-1832. Here is my story, I started my political career and entered politics in 1808 when I was elected to the state legislature. In 1811 I moved to the U.S. House of Representatives. I served as Vice President under President John Quincy Adams starting in 1825. I was re-elected vice president in 1828, this time serving under President Andrew Jackson. From 1817-1825 I served as U.S. secretary of war. In 1832 I resigned the vice presidency and was elected to the U.S. Senate, where I served until 1850. 

Yes, I am a proud slave owner and have owned a few dozen slaves. First, I believe that slavery is necessary for the economic growth of the South. Farming crops such as cotton and tobacco depended heavily on the labor of slaves. The concept of slavery was directly linked to the usefulness of Southern agriculture, in my opinion. I believe that the Southern economy would suffer greatly without it.

Second, I believed in a firm social hierarchy, with white plantation owners at the top. The use of slavery serves as a method to uphold the existing social hierarchy and prevent any potential disruptions. I believed that individuals who were enslaved were considered racially inferior and therefore would be allowed for servitude. This ideology allowed me to justify the brutal treatment of enslaved individuals and the denial of their basic human rights.

Third, I strongly supported states' rights, believing that each state should have the power to make decisions regarding issues such as slavery within its own borders. I stated that the government at the federal level should not get involved with slavery in states where it was legal.

Fourth, I argued that the United States Constitution was an agreement made among independent states. I believe that the federal government did not have the power to abolish slavery in the Southern states according to the Constitution. This allowed me to justify the expansion of slavery without federal intervention.

The last point I would like to make is that I believe that defending the Southern way of life was closely linked to slavery. I argued that any threat to slavery endangered Southern culture and economy. According to my "Calhoun Doctrine," any state had the right to nullify federal laws it deemed unconstitutional. However, this was often used to protect slavery.

I have written "A Disquisition on Government" and "A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States." I have written two illustrated books that present my philosophical views on American politics in detail. In my writing, I talk about two things: the concurrent majority and my thoughts on the Constitution and states' rights. I believe that both of these are important topics to discuss.

"I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good."-John C. Calhoun

For these reasons, I support and will uphold the act of slavery. It is "a good, a positive good"

Bible Team Challenge Post 2

Can you remember the last time that slavery existed? The answer is no, you cannot. However, slavery unfortunately was in existence and it can not just be looked over. Just because slavery is over now, it can not be passed over in history. 

Many Christians saw no conflict between keeping the faith and keeping slaves, they believed they could do both. An example of this is found in Genesis when Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen. 21:9–10).

1 Peter 2:18 says "Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." It's important to recognize that God's commands to slaves about submission do not endorse slavery as an institution, but acknowledge it as a reality of the day.

Additionally, Colossians 4:1 says "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." This verse is showing that these slaveholders have a Master in Heaven. 

Furthermore, Christian views on slavery have changed drastically. Later in the 1800's, the Quakers became a huge part of assisting the Underground Railroad and helping thousands of slaves to escape. Christians worldwide now view slavery as immoral and unjust, although religion was once used to justify it.

I believe that slavery is not negatively mentioned in the Bible. Now, as Christians have moved away from slavery, we use these important references to remind and reflect on the tragedy that happened. In the end, religions have moved away from the concept of slavery though. 

https://freetheslaves.net/take-action/faith-in-action-ending-slavery/

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/slavery-old-and-new

https://slaveryandremembrance.org/articles/article/?id=A0059

Supreme Court Videos Blog Post 1

Watching the Supreme Court videos definitely broadened the scope of what I already knew. First and foremost, the Supreme Court must begin with a case, a written petition asking the Supreme Court to act. Only nine justices review petitions from lawyers, prisoners, and others. All petitions are given equal consideration. I didn't realize the judicial branch was so powerful. It's interesting that it takes new members three to five years to get used to it, out of their sixteen-year term.

The 1803 Marbury v. Madison case gave the court a lot of respect and value as a co-equal branch of government. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" -John Marshall, Marbury V. Madison (1803). 

One of the most debated issues in American history is the case of Dred Scott, who claimed his freedom under the Congress Act. After the war, the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery. 

 I was amazed to learn that there are 7,000 cases per year. Newly arrived petitions are sent to the justices just once a week. I learned that each justice is responsible for deciding each case with very little assistance. Also, a cool fact that I learned is that before every meeting, each justice shakes each other's hand.

A huge point that was made was that there is no inside story of the court. The experience of being in a courtroom is truly awe-inspiring and remarkable. In the video, a gentleman discusses the feeling of being in the courtroom with the nine justices and how the feeling of tension disappears. 

After all of the action in the courtroom takes place, the nine justices go to a conference room alone to vote and decide the case. One justice from the majority must write a binding opinion for future cases. Additionally, I learned in the videos that the justice can switch sides and that the majority sometimes becomes the minority. 

Having watched these videos, I am truly impressed by the intricate process and hard work that is involved in the functioning of the Supreme Court. I now hold the system in high regard and appreciate the benefits it offers to the American people.