Slavery for a better tomorrow ?

Before the Civil War, during the 1850’s slavery was a big topic of discussion. Everyone had their own opinion, followed by their reasoning for having that opinion. George Fitzhugh, a believer in slavery for a better tomorrow and Fredrick Douglas, a former slave himself hoping slavery will end for a better tomorrow. Two different people, with two different stories each are trying to convince the world that their opinion is the right one.

George Fitzhugh, a white male living in the South, was a strong believer in slavery. He felt that slavery was something not only bettering the economy, but bettering the slaves themselves. Living in the south would be extremely hard for a former slave seeing as: "they wouldn’t be far outstripped or outwitted in the chaos of free competition". Slaves or former slaves are seen as helpless creatures that no longer have a chance of a normal life. It's easy to see that Fitzhugh is fighting for something that he grew up with. Never being a slave, or having any evidence of him owning slaves Fitzhugh is clearly fighting for his opinion and not from his own personal experience. It's hard to believe an argument that hasn't been proven. Fitzhugh and his party have no faith in slaves, and are assuming that they will fail if put out in the real world.

Fredrick Douglas, a former slave himself understands the hardships and punishment that slaves endure while living under the roof of a slave owner. Now being a free and successful man Douglas has learned how to live in the real world, without the "help" of a slave owner. "All I ask is give him a chance to stand on his own two legs". How can you judge something, or state something that has yet to be proven? A former slave was never given a fair chance to change the life that they lived, they were just kicked the curb and treated as though that's where they belonged. Fredrick Douglas unlike George Fitzhugh has a personal experience backing up his argument. He's lived through his own examples, and is trying to give the ones he left behind a fight for freedom.

For the most part George Fitzhugh gave a pretty promising argument, though I don't agree with what he's fighting for he did make some valid points. It's clear that slavery really was helping the economy, however morally wrong it really was. When Fitzhugh states the slave owners doing nothing but help the slaves, and it's really them who have everything to worry about I strongly disagree. Yes, it's a great thing to not have to worry about clothing, food, housing, or abusing your spouse but; when the clothes you own are torn, the food you are given is limited, your housing is a shack, and you have no spouse period things are as great as they seem. He talk about slavery like it's a privilege when really it was an awful thing; family's were torn apart, innocent people were beaten practically to death, and children were killed that couldn’t keep up. I personally feel that Fitzhugh, never being a slave himself has no room to talk what so ever.

The argument that Fredrick Douglas gave was for the most part just common sense. You can't judge what you haven't experienced. I agreed with what he said completely. Slaves white or black were never given a fair chance in society. Douglas being a slave himself understands both sides of the argument seeing as he has lived through it. Something that I appreciated about his argument was that he wasn't fighting to end slavery all together but just to give them a chance. Douglas calls out not only Fitzhugh but basically then entire south when stating: "Do nothing with us! You’re doing with us has already played the mischief with us". He basically is stating that slavery is the problem, and seeing as slavery is growing in the south that they are creating the problem.

Both arguments are strong and come with some very valid points however I agree with Douglas over Fitzhugh. Mainly seeing as I do not agree with slavery, and everything that it caused. However, the fact that Douglas was a slave and endured everything to become a successful person proves Fitzhugh wrong, no argument needed. Though Fitzhugh's words were stronger and very persuasive the fact that Douglas was living proof of his own argument is no competition.

Monroe's Presidency

Going into his new found presidency the expectation's for Monroe were high. Previously being the mayor of Virginia, fighting for America in the Revolutionary War and working under James Madison (the previous president) Monroe had every reason to be respected as well as trusted. Along with his presidency came what some liked to call the "era of good feelings", however these good feelings were not around for much longer. In 1819 America began to fall into a depression, leaving small business and farms falling into slumb. Throughout the years that Monroe had taken presidency there were many issues thrown upon America, however Monroe delt with them the best he could. I feel that the era Monroe had taken the job of president was not best times but it was not Monroe himself who cause the "good feelings" to go away. So no, Monroe's period of presideny was not all good but yes he did the best he could under the situations he was given.

The Cotton Gin

XYZ Affair & Alien and Sedition Affair questions & responses

How did the XYZ affair increase tension between France and America?

- The XYZ affair caused a fair amount of tension between France and America seeing as the French acted as though they were above the Americans refusing to speak to them in person. They only accepted talking to them in document form. Also, the French insisted upon the Americans paying them a 250,000 dollar bribe as well as a provide France with a 12 million dollar loan, all of which they expected before even starting to negotiate. This made the Americans feel as though they were considered below the French which cause the Americans to get angry. With John Adams new in the presidency dealing with an unhappy alliance was nothing something he wanted to get into however prepared his country for the worst. Building a far stronger army and creating a navy, this luckily was not used for that affair.

Were the Federalists justified in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts or were they a violation of the Constitution?

- The federalists who created the acts clearly were not justified. What they did was basically created and then passed an act allowing them to judge people. What gives them the right to go around judging people from their appearance? The federalist when bringing the acts to congress said they were to “promote national security”. However all passing these laws did was make local jails more crowded and towns emptier, seeing as everyone considered an alien or stuck someone as “odd” was either thrown in jail or was deported.

Were Kentucky and Virginia justified in their response to the Alien and Sedition Acts?

- Kentucky and Virginia illustrated proper acts of justice when responding to the Alien and Sedition Acts, seeing as they rejected the acts which were unjustified. After the acts had passed congress many people did not agree with what the acts represented nor did they approve of what they were doing to other innocent people living in their communities. Forcing them to move from the republican side to Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party. In response to these acts being passed, Jefferson and Madison wrote their own acts against the acts, sending their resolutions to all the states. Kentucky and Virginia being two that had very positive responses.

George Washington farewell address analysis

Washingtons farewell address summary

Communist view of U.S. Constitution

1. The information given to us from the Soviet Union textbooks obviously include the authors personal opinion. The text book is basically stating the United States sucks, and offers no right what so ever to the people living there. According to this text book our right don't exist: " The freedoms exist even now on paper, but they are constantly violated". Clearly this author does not agree with anything that The United States has ever done, nor accomplished;" They dealt harshly with the revolutionary workers". The Soviet Union writers went back into the United States past just to make us look worse.

2. - "This law recognized the rights of citizens to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.
- "The war of Independence did advance to development of the United States".
Opinions
-"A number of the basic principles of the new American Constitution and the state constitution were manifestly aimed again the masses of people.
-"The land the previously had belonged to the Indians was proclaimed the property of the new states and put up for sale.
The entire article is clearly against the United States Constitution, the writer of this excerpt clearly does not agree with what the United States has done.

3. I think that what this criticiser had to say was all very blown up and I do not agree with any of it. I think that the Constitution gave us order and no our rights are not constinatly voilated like the writer of the excerpt said.