MISSOURI COMPROMISE
- Slow down while reading this one and THINK! Jefferson called the Missouri Compromise a “fire bell in the night.” As in a fire alarm, which wakes us and warns us, the danger is imminent. We see two different arguments in this reading. What are the moral arguments in this reading? What are the Constitutional arguments? What issues seemed to carry the most weight?
From a moral perspective, Jefferson believes the Missouri compromise was a way for slaves to acquire a cultivated life with the benefits of civilization and science to offer retribution to them so that they are more good than evil. It is an opportunity for families in slavery to be under the patronage and protection of their masters but as free and independent people. Constitutionally, most states, especially the southern ones, had a majority of their populations as negro slaves, which means their economies relied almost entirely on slavery. The Missouri Compromise controlled the limits of slavery to the states with large slave numbers; it cut off slave trades to prevent new entries and to slowly reduce impact from total slavery abolition(Pyne 50). The constitutional sentiments carry the most weight as immediate slavery abandonment would have a negative economic impact as much as Jefferson felt morally obligated to stop the slavery culture.
- How did the different arguments affect the final compromise? Was this a good compromise for the time? Why were both sides willing to compromise at this point?
Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The Missouri compromise expanded slavery to form territories. Rather than a continuous trend in the extinction of slavery culture, people started to justify the fatal system and advocated for the long term continuation of slavery. The situation got worse when more states admitted themselves into the Union as slave states, and others became free states. It legitimatized the plan of regular admissions. Keeping the Union glued would need some more toleration of Southern slavery, which saw many politicians raise the opinion of separation because the south was healthy to be on its own. Jefferson Davis criticized politicians like Jefferson and Madison, who based their arguments on necessity instead of accepting slavery as an indispensable trend to the south. Both sides were willing to compromise because it was a matter of economic stability for the southern side and observation of natural human rights.
- Knowing the Civil War is coming (SPOILER ALERT!), why was this compromise just not enough? Base this on the arguments presented in the reading–moral v constitution.
The Missouri compromise was on a genuine conviction that termed slavery as morally wrong, which was almost baseless in comparison to putting a whole country’s economy at risk. As much as the compromise measures seemed to settle the issue of extension of slavery, John Quincy termed it as “a mere preamble- a title page to a great, tragic volume.” It would mean a constitutional crisis and the start of civil wars. The Missouri compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Dred Scott decision.
INDIAN REMOVAL
- How did President Andrew Jackson justify moving the tribes?
Jackson claimed the moving of tribes was a wise move that would benefit both the States of America and the Indians. It was a move to liberate Indians from being controlled by the states and to have them rule themselves by their constitution. In the real sense, the Indian Removal Act intended to strengthen the Southern frontier and to strengthen adjacent states to enable them the capability to repel invasions in the future without remote help. It would relieve Mississippi and the west of Alabama from Indian occupancy and to advance those states in terms of wealth status, population statistics, and power(Davis 51).
- Google Mashpee Wampanoag Reservation. Compare and contrast this to Jackson’s Indian Removal.
In the Indian Removal Act, Jackson gave the Indian occupants the right of the free will of relocation. He gave them added benefits like land to settle and fully catered for moving expenses. In the recent Mashpee Wampanoag Reservation scandal, it was a matter of forceful and rush movement(Prucha 206). Their reservation is to disestablish, and the land exited from the trust by order of office of the Interior Secretary. Both the Indian Removal Act and the Mashpee Wampanoag Reservation are based on the government’s ambitions to protect the interests of the nation’s citizens and to achieve the advancement of wealth and population across states.
WIELAND; OR THE TRANSFORMATION
- In these chapters, particularly the ones that focus on Clara and Pleyel, Brown places a great emphasis on Truth. What is it that Brown is trying to suggest, that Truth ultimately overrides all passion, that Truth becomes subjective, or that Truth may often not matter in the face of desire?
Charles Brockden Brown attempts to show that Truth overrides all passion, and despite any attempt to replace Truth with falsehood to suit one’s needs, it will always prevail.
- Why does Carwin want so badly to meet with Clara alone?
Carwin wants to clear misunderstandings between him and Clara. She believes he is the reason that her brother, Theodore, turned mad and killed his children, Catherine and Louisa Conway. Carwin desires to explain to her that he is only a Blomquist. He caused most of the voices but did not tell Theodore to kill anyone. He does not want Clara to view him negatively.
- Chapter 19 focuses on Wieland’s confession. He attributes his actions, in detail, to the word of God. There are three options to consider here: Wieland was commanded to act by a divine voice, Wieland’s passion for God has dissolved his sense of reason entirely and he is insane, or he was manipulated by a human voice. Discuss which you think is the most likely here, though the lines may blur between them.
Theodore Wieland is prone to religion fanaticism just like his father before him. However, he garners knowledge from studying science, literature and Cicero which tamper with his religiosity. He is extremely deluded on being in intimate communication with God and being channelled as his instrument of good will. It leads him to hear voices which eventually tell him to kill himself(Hobson 308). Clara, his sister, at one point believes he was under the influence of Carwin’s voice, who denies manipulating Theodore. It is correct to make the assumption that Theodore was a combination of all three options.
Work cited
MISSOURI COMPROMISE (pp. 49-60) From: Slopovers: Fire Surveys of the Mid-American Oak Woodlands, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska STEPHEN J. PYNE University of Arizona Press (2019
Davis, Ethan. “An Administrative Trail of Tears: Indian Removal”. The American Journal of Legal History. 50 (1): 50–55
The U.S. Senate passed the bill on April 24, 1830 (28–19), the U.S. House passed it on May 26, 1830 (102–97); Prucha, Francis Paul, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, Volume I, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984, p. 206.
Voices of Carwin and Other Mysteries in Charles Brockden Brown’s “Wieland” Robert W. Hobson Early American Literature, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Winter, 1975/1976), pp. 307-309