what did daniel webster argue for in 1850?
371896
the Compromise of 1850, thereby repulsing Southern threats of secession while urging Northern support for a stronger law for the recovery of fugitive slaves.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850
18878
I have read the Webster in its entirety, although I cannot recall what edition it was.
763742
You had Stephen Douglas who was an old school Democrat but believed in keeping things the way they were. The Southern Democrats were not pleased and demanded a Constitutional Ammendment or a law that would protect slavery. The argument was so heated the Souther Democrats put up thier own choice; James Breckenridge who promised such. The other two parties were the Constitution Party, equivilent to today's Green Party in the sense that who cares about them? Bah. Then the Republicans. You see; back in the day you had the Whigs and the Democrats. The Democrats were the champions of the everyday man being in charge. The Whigs believed strongly in the smartest of the elite being in charge. Then the Whig Party suddenly went free soil and crazily liberal. The classic conservatives of the day all switched over to the Democratic Party. That left the shattered remnents of the Whig Party which soon collapsed under it's own weight. Then came the Republicans who failed to garner success in their first White House bid with John C. Fre'mont and God be praised for it; he was a loon. Thier next try they got in with Lincoln and then the rest is Civil War history.
925852
haha you must have mr.cuda too! yeah the articles of confederation WEREN"T effective , he doesn't realize that the dbq says to "evaluate this statement". It doesn't say that you HAVE to agree but in class he made it seem as if that's how he wants it written, which is really hard becaue none of the documents support that idea.
68821
William Wordsworth\n1770-1850\n\nWordsworth began work on the first extended poetic efforts of his maturity, Descriptive Sketches, which was published in 1793, after the appearance of a poem written at Cambridge, An Evening Walk (1793). Having exhausted his money, he left France in early December 1792 before Annette Vallon gave birth to his child Caroline. Back in England, the young radical cast about for a suitable career. As a fervent democrat, he had serious reservations about "vegetating in a paltry curacy," though he had written to William Matthews from France in May 1792 that he intended to be ordained the following winter or spring. Perhaps this plan was why he was reading sermons early in 1793, when he came across a sermon by Richard Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, on "the Wisdom and Goodness of God" in making both rich and poor, with an appendix denouncing the French Revolution. His democratic sympathies aroused, he spent several weeks in February and March working on a reply. \n\nBy this time, his relationship with Annette Vallon had become known to his English relatives, and any further opportunity of entering the Church was foreclosed. In any case Wordsworth had been reading atheist William Godwin's recently published Political Justice (1793), and had come powerfully under its sway. "A Letter to the Bishop of Llandaff"--not published until 1876, when it was included in Alexandere B. Grosart's edition of Wordsworth's prose--is the youthful poet and democrat's indignant reply to the forces of darkness, repression, and monarchy.
327460
Unfortunately, slavery was a vital institution for the economic well being of the South. Whenever the issue of slavery came up during the drafting of the Constitution, arguments between North and South arose, which was one of the precursors to the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise, the 2/3 Compromise, both dealt with the issue of slavery and how far north it could extend. Southerners referred to it as a "necessary evil", a bad thing, but nevertheless it was vital to the South's economy, and also the nation as a whole.
183020
bill that became law on May 30, 1854, by which the U.S. Congress established the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. By 1854 the organization of the vast Platte and Kansas river countries W of Iowa and Missouri was overdue. As an isolated issue territorial organization of this area was no problem. It was, however, irrevocably bound to the bitter sectional controversy over the extension of slavery into the territories and was further complicated by conflict over the location of the projected transcontinental railroad. Under no circumstances did proslavery Congressmen want a free territory (Kansas) W of Missouri. Because the West was expanding rapidly, territorial organization, despite these difficulties, could no longer be postponed. Four attempts to organize a single territory for this area had already been defeated in Congress, largely because of Southern opposition to the Missouri Compromise. Although the last of these attempts to organize the area had nearly been successful, Stephen A. Douglas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, decided to offer territorial legislation making concessions to the South. Douglas's motives have remained largely a matter of speculation. Various historians have emphasized Douglas's desire for the Presidency, his wish to cement the bonds of the Democratic party, his interest in expansion and railroad building, or his desire to activate the unimpressive Pierce administration. The bill he reported in Jan., 1854, contained the provision that the question of slavery should be left to the decision of the territorial settlers themselves. This was the famous principle that Douglas now called popular sovereignty, though actually it had been enunciated four years earlier in the Compromise of 1850. In its final form Douglas's bill provided for the creation of two new territories—Kansas and Nebraska—instead of one. The obvious inference—at least to Missourians—was that the first would be slave, the second free. The Kansas-Nebraska Act flatly contradicted the provisions of the Missouri Compromise (under which slavery would have been barred from both territories); indeed, an amendment was added specifically repealing that compromise. This aspect of the bill in particular enraged the antislavery forces, but after three months of bitter debate in Congress, Douglas, backed by President Pierce and the Southerners, saw it adopted. Its effects were anything but reassuring to those who had hoped for a peaceful solution. The popular sovereignty provision caused both proslavery and antislavery forces to marshal strength and exert full pressure to determine the “popular” decision in Kansas in their own favor, using groups such as the Emigrant Aid Company. The result was the tragedy of “bleeding” Kansas. Northerners and Southerners were aroused to such passions that sectional division reached a point that precluded reconciliation. A new political organization, the Republican party, was founded by opponents of the bill, and the United States was propelled toward the Civil War
187643
Mark Twain...  anyone from the South would probably be able to answer that question.\n\nOh, and I don't really think anyone believes the points thing...  :)
238004
Sad thing is that a few years back, some students from Stanford did an experiment...they put the Bill of Rights into contemporary language and presented it as a petition for a month, explaining that they were gathering signatures to get this on the next ballot.... a majority of the people who read the "petition" thought is was some sort of leftist manifesto and wanted nothing to do with it... Poor Mr. Jefferson is STILL spinning in his grave.
983732
The guy with the last name of Webster. I think he lived in George Washington's time.
491771
by Martin Luther King\n"Whenever this issue [compensatory treatment] is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more."\n\nthat is what he said the white man will say. \n\n "On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the second would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up." \n"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." \n"... for 15 centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages — potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. \n\nHe was a leader how did he fail his people. The real question is what is whites excuse not to be successful. When they had 400 years of benefiting for slavery. Somethings black never had, some still do get that benefit. Others wasn't even allowed to vote until 1965.
351684
If you mean Abraham Lincoln, it was 1860.  I have no idea who "licon" is.
533639
Elizabeth Cady Stanton (November 12, 1815 – October 26, 1902) was a social activist, and a leading figure of the early women's rights movement in the United States. With her husband, Henry Stanton and cousin, Gerrit Smith, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was also active in the anti-slavery Abolitionist movement. Stanton had a strong friendship with abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass.\n\nStanton was an outspoken supporter, and speech writer, of the 19th century temperance movement. She and Susan B. Anthony were instrumental in founding the short-lived Woman's State Temperance Society (1852-53). During her presidency of the organization, she scandalized many supporters by suggesting that drunkenness be made sufficient cause for divorce. She was a strong critic of religion in general and Christianity in particular, which distanced her from the religiously oriented Woman's Christian Temperance Union. She also addressed other issues including the guardianship of children, reformation of divorce laws, and the economic health of the family.\n\nIn a view different from many modern activists, Stanton believed that abortion was infanticide (The Revolution, I, No. 5 (February 5, 1868), 1). She addressed the issue in an 1873 letter to Julia Ward Howe, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library, and in editions of the newsletter The Revolution. Stanton wrote, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." She suggested that solutions to abortion would be found, at least in part, in the elevation and enfranchisement of women.\n\nalso the mother of of a daughter named harriot.
228360
Webster was the attorney general of Missouri\n\nMissouri passed a law stating in its preamble that life begins at conception.  The Supreme Court said that this preamble was not a statute but an expression of the legislature's opinion and therefor had no pertinence to the case.\n\nMissouri chose only to appeal to the Supreme Court the Court of Appeals' invalidation of the public funding provision.  \n\nWebster argued that there was no requirement that a state spend any of its public funds on or to support abortions.  The Supreme Court agreed with this argument.\n\nWebster also argued that physicians were required to perform tests to determine if a fetus was viable and the court agreed that viability of the fetus rather than a bright line "second trimester vs. third trimester test" was a line which could properly be drawn by a state consistent with the Constitution.\n\nThe opinion of the Supreme Court was highly divided and given the change in the Court's personnel cannot be expected to be the same should similar issues come before the Court in the future.\n\nThe Court noted that Roe v Wade was entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis but Justice Rehnquist seemed to indicate that he did not believe that Roe v Wade was by any means engraved in stone as precedent.
116490
You have a twisted view of the First Amendment - as do most Americans today. Until the mid-1900s, this amendment was understood to be exactly what it said:\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF ..." (caps added)\n\nThe statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:\n\n"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.\n\nThe reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:\n\n"When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world..." \n\nThe "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.\n\nOur Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians. We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas.\n\nThis is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible.\n\nThe founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.\n\nAn example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..."  The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government.\n\nFor instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came
510708
Abraham Lincoln, "Second Inaugural Address," 4 March 1865\n\n\nFellow-Countrymen:\n\nAt this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.\n\nOn the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.\n\nOne-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."\n\nWith malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting
101012
Jefferson was the author of the Declaration (1776), Governor of Virginia (1779-81), US Secretary of State (1789-1795), Vice President (1797-1801) and President (1801-1809).\nHe was a strong beleiver in individualism and individual autonomy, free markets, and limited government.   \n\nJohn Locke is consider the origin of the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as a fundamental ("unalienable") right of humanity.  Locke wrote of the rights ot "life, liberty and estate (or property)."  Jefferson thought the right to "estate" was too closely tied to the concept of "feudalism."  The idea of phrasing it "life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth" was considered, but eventually the current phraseology won out.  In any event, the idea that life and liberty were fundamental rights had previously been expressed by Locke and others.\n\nYour question is really too broad to be covered in a brief answer here.  I suggest looking up James Madison, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights on Wikipedia or some other encyclopedic site.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/