Reference no: EM131166550

Unit Responses

PLEASE RESPOND TO THESE POSTS AND BE SURE TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS AT THE END OF THEIR RESPONSES. RESPONSES MUST BE AT LEAST 75 WORDS

Prompt 1 Responses
(Jamie)

Abraham Lincoln stated, in the White House: Past Presidents "That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." He had visions of freedom, and peace, which still hold true today. Leading up to the Civil War, the south stood steadfast in their believe that all citizens where not created equal. Equality, was a privilege, and with this unfounded truth many stood steadfast. Appealing to the South and their corrupt philosophy on citizens levels in society, James Henry Hammond classified the bottom tier as the mudsill(s), a lower standing of social class. His view was that slaves had a purposeful right in their social standing, and a predetermined purpose for this position. With out them, where would the privileged stand? Slaves were the building blocks to a predestined society.

In the fall of 1829, Angelina Grimke made a very tough decision to leave all that she had known, and travel North where she felt freedom herself, to fight for the abolishonist movement. In her remarkably brave letter to William Lloyd Garrison, a prominent abolishonist himself, and editor for the newspaper The Liberator, she compels to "Christian Women of the South, urging white Southern women to help end the scourge of slavery". This bold, and courageous woman, undaunted by the persecution that could possibly follow, helped open many a person(s) mind encouraging people to open their minds, and not allow the societal impact of their ingrained beliefs to follow this corrupt moral code of degradation. Angelina, and Sarah Grimske inspired many people towards the abolishinist movement and woman's rights.

To say their was a way to bring agreeance from both sides, is like penetrating a bullet proof window. Each side was swayed with a moral code, and extreme ethical principles guiding their unflinching convictions. I can assume, with a larger group of agreeable people, with similar beliefs in regards to abolishonist, the populace could have had a better chance of conforming to a social code of ethics, whether it be supporting the abolishonists or, the right to own slaves. Either way, if more people had outnumbered, the other group, I feel the larger would have a more compelling appeal to the smaller group in swaying their dogmatic and unethical principles.

If you had the opportunity to influence another persons ethical choices, how would you procure this resolution?

(Kayelyn)

The debate on slavery was really a debate between how the North and South viewed slavery. The North had already abolished slavery and allowed previous slaves to be freemen or free women. It was the harsh realities of the South and how they treated their slaves as less than humans. The video first explains a woman named Angelina Grimke who lives in the wealthiest family in South Carolina. She was a woman who grew up having her own personal slave do absolutely everything for her but it was her strong Christian faith that help an internal question whether if slavery was morally right, if it was a sin. The South, for the most part, had no problems with slavery and saw it has a necessity or a norm for society. According to John C Calhoun's "Slavery a Positive Good", he thought slavery was helping the economy and without slavery the South would not be as wealthy as they had been. Calhoun also states that he predicted this abolitionist movement a few years before due to how much power the government had on society. Since the North had already abolished slavery and was doing just fine as far as their economic status was concerned, most people in the North saw slavery as barbarous and extremely sinful to Christian faith. One of the major abolitionist leaders William Lloyd Garrison, believed that no one should have the right to own a human being as property and that no one should be able to take a human's rights away. To treat one as though they were everything less than human. For it to be legal to beat and starve their slaves and be able to pull them apart from their families. People such as Angelina Grimke and William Lloyd Garrison thought that was sinful and unlawful.

For my solution, I would absolutely disagree with slavery in whole and would recommend to ban it all together but that in application was unrealistic at the time in the 1800's. For one, if you're going to allow slavery I don't think it should have been tolerable for slaveholders to beat their slaves into submission. That should have been a law against it. If you're going to see these humans as property, which I don't agree with but for the sake of this time era, you should treat them with respect just as if you have a farm you don't just let it go to waste, don't take care of it or abandon it. I also believe that as far as pulling slave families apart, they should be allowed to say their goodbyes and not let it be a situation of public horror seeing a son being taken away from the mother for all to watch. For the North, I still think they should go on with their movement but maybe accept the fact that it won't be a turn off switch for slavery. To accept that it will take time and patience

Prompt 2 responses (Jamie)

Before the Donner party made their journey West, they were filled with hope and possibility of what this new land could hold for them. The idealism that this new land presented substantial opportunity for this group to flourish, was the dominating factor pushing these frontier men and women to make the untimely and ultimate decision to pack up and go. If they wanted to start a better life for themselves and their families, they felt compelled to make it. The Donner party was sure that taking the route through the Hastings cutoff would make for a faster course of travels, and even with the intelligence of some of the men, and the warnings of the impassible terrain, they still proceeded. Although they made it through much of this terrain, getting stuck in the Sierra Nevada, in the winter, proved to be the biggest adversity. Through the stories of cannibalism, and the fact only half of the massive party was able to make it out , the myth of frontier idealism was largely changed. Many people were scared and through this fear of heading West, they saw through the hyped expectations. This made people think twice about this rugged terrain, the endless days and nights, and chance of imminent starvation. The mere thought of chancing it, and making this journey, was the turning point of future travelers. It begs to wonder, how after all this suffering a human is capable of living a fulfilling and prosperous life after enduring so much suffering. How do you feel the human mind is capable of coping with so much horrendous adversity?