How Lincolns View of Liberty Differed from Stephen Douglasss - Essay Example

American history How Lincoln’s view of liberty differed from Stephen Douglass’s According to Lincoln, Liberty is not correctly defined by the world. Every person has his or her own way to define this term. He first defined liberty as the ability of a citizen to do what he wishes for himself, and whatever that is a product of his labor. This made slave trade an oppression since the person who created labor was not the same one who used it, rather a different person got the freedom to utilize it. In addition, Lincoln defined Liberty as a condition where citizens could do anything they desired with others and anything they had generated with their labor. The definition of slavery was therefore not a matter of liberty, but that of human rights. On the other hand, Stephen Douglass questioned most of Lincoln’s quotes against freedom. He disagreed with most of the phrases, arguing that America had been existing half slave and half free, several years. His view was that there was no issue about some people being at liberty while others were not; the system should have continued. The U.S was a big country and what Liberty meant for one region was not the same as the other. Differences between the North and South view of Liberty To the North, both liberty and power resided often with the community as compared to individuals. Societies had both the liberty and the duty to rule themselves as per their own wishes to invest in their general good, and to punish or favor people whose behavior threatened or improved the rest of the community. An individual was responsible to balance personal desires and needs against entire good of the community. In return, the community was responsible for caring for the sick, educating the young, and providing for the less fortune. This support expanded every person’s liberty to live in self-respect and prosper. In contrast, the South believed that the degree of liberty that one enjoyed was a directly given by God in the social hierarchy. More authority was determined by the level of status one had, and thus, one with more authority had more liberty to exercise. This meant that one had more “liberties” with the rights, properties, and the lives of fellow citizens. How the Free Soilers differed with the Republicans on the meaning of liberty The Free Soil party adopted the motto, “Free Soil, Free Labor, And Free Men.” They opposed the expansion of slavery into the western regions and believed in freedom and equal rights. No party had powers to make a slave than to make a leader. The free soilers viewed that through forgetting all the past political disagreements, they could form a union of free men, to obtain liberty, and have a common goal. Liberty meant having the rights to free labor without the violence of the slave authority, and to safeguard free soil for free citizens. The Republicans had the conception that, an agent is free because he is not dominated by other agents. He is dominated only when and because others have capabilities of interference, deliberately and on a random basis, in particular choices that he has an opportunity to make. The meaning of the fourth of July to Frederick Douglass The Fourth of July was a day to be commemorated, reaffirmation, and celebration, in which the Americans appreciated the American Revolution heroes and the ideals of American Liberty and freedom. The delighted citizens gathered in different venues to listen to the speeches of prominent leaders in the State. Fredrick Douglas had a different feeling and message about the day from what the mass expected. On the Fifth of July, he gave a speech about the forth day of the month, with the title “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” To him, the day was the birthday of America, marking independence and freedom. However, he told the Americans to celebrate as he mourned because he was not included in the blessings that had come forth; those of freedom. The independence, liberty, and justice received by their fathers were to be for the audience, rather than to himself. According to Douglass, the day was significant only to the salves point of view. America had never seemed darker than on that day. He was once a slave and he was glad that the shame of America being associated with slavery was then a past tense. It was a day to mark the beginning of consideration of a salve as a man like any other. To Fredrick Douglass, the fourth of July revealed the justice that a slave was exposed to and what always made him a victim of the day. The great principles and the independence that the day brought were to lead to the decline of slavery. It gave him a hope for the future of America, with equality and change. The fourth of July to John Calhoun John Calhoun was a man known for creating a vision for American government in alignment to how he understood the constitution and the political legacy of America. When he saw the danger of his political cosmos, he called for a return or a reform to the original aims of what he regarded as the heritage of the US regime against the negative effects of the progress in the 19th century. The fourth of July could probably mean the liberation from individuals who dominated with their own interests at the expense of the citizens. He could view it as a day of reform, through the lens of politics. He could saw a prosperous future for his country, with a guarantee to liberty of individuals, as a return to the doctrines of the original statesmen of America. The political and financial struggles by the people were the shadow of a greater battle for the freedom of the nation. This could have been a day for a stronghold of hope and an outstanding example in America to be emulated by the whole world. The forth of July could serve as guide to universal triumph to bring about self-governance. One of the things that he could have celebrated was liberation from corruption in all fields of institutions of America, to declare the citizens as independent and free people. Today, the fourth of July can be of much significance to me. It could mean reconnecting to my heritage, channeling to the wisdom of the elites, and rediscovering the significance behind the creation of my country. I can observe the day by remembering why and how my country came to be independent and to help me transfer that memory to the future generation. Advocating against euthanasia Euthanasia has been an issue of controversy worldwide. Though most countries have laws against it, it has been legalized in some states such as Switzerland, Netherlands, Thailand, as well as in Washington and Oregon states in America. Several lessons can be learned from the reformers during the age of reform, who advocated against particular issues in the society. Among the reformers of this age were Sarah and Angelina Grimke, who were social reformers as well as American feminists who dedicated their lives working and piloting in suffrage and abolitionist movements. Due to their wealth and refinement, their writings and speeches against slavery got the attention of many. The two sisters’ public speeches for the abolitionist cause were criticized in America since their society was against women speaking in public, particularly on issues of controversy. Even thought they had one objective, each sister had her own method of reform. Angelina Grimke was talented with oratory, and she enthralled many peoples’ hearts when she addressed women rights and abolitionism. Nonetheless, she was not gifted in writing; hence, her sister used this method. Sarah, as compared to her sister, was not an eloquent speaker, but she was an expert in the art of writing. Most of her speeches, messages, and letters about the reform were printed in papers and books. With the combination of these methods, the two sisters emerged as great reformers. The most important lesson to be learned from these two reformists is their activism and moral courage. Thought their societies were against female reformers and being public figures, they went ahead to challenge the public about slavery. The fact that they resided from a slave-holding background made it even more amazing that they supported the abolitionist movement. In the same perspective current reformers should not allow the misconceptions and the limits that their societies have placed on them, but instead conquer the undesirable beliefs to pursue what they think is right. Giving up should be the last resort. For instance, reforms in euthanasia can be achieved only if the reformers base their arguments basing on ethical reasons and disregard what their religions say about the issue. They should emulate the idea that change can be achieved no matter how arduous and difficult it might seem. Some of the lessons from such reformers may still work in the current-day American society with the reason that the controversies in societies only vary narrowly and the vices to be addressed may be related. However, some may fail if the society in context is deeply routed to particular beliefs and fallacies. In addition, what the reformers experienced has changed over time. Currently, women reformers in many societies have been empowered to talk publicly on whatever issues. Technology has also made it easy for reformers to pass their messages apart from using books and speeches. Social networks such as facebook make it easier for reforms to be accomplished as masses of people can be reached within a short time. Today’s reformers have some weapons that the 19th century lacked. These include the legal empowerments, laid down in the constitutions or legal documents that can support their reforms and protect their rights. In contrast, the 19th century reformers’ legal rights were restricted such as the right of women to vote. Additional weapons for current reformers are quality education and employment opportunities that ease their campaigns. What freedom meant to Henry Clay Henry Clay believed that freedom meant compromising. He always perceived that being right was the key matter than holding a prominent position. His view was that freedom could not be obtained all at once, but through slow strategies. Justice was all people needed to get to this gradual process. Meaning of freedom to Olaudah Equiano Equiano was born in Eboe but was kidnapped at the age of eleven from his home and sold in Barbados as a slave. His life centered around his employment as a sailor, which gave him a greater chance for fairly decent treatment, income, and learning opportunities as compared to laborers working on plantations. Black sailors like him were often given a taste of freedom but were still expected to give their wages to their employers, denied an opportunity to learn some kinds of skills, and were ever ready to be sold to any place. In an autobiography documented by a former slave, Aquiano wrote about what he experienced. It was entitled, “The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano.” He used a narrative of a man who struggled for independence to illustrate what freedom really meant. To him, freedom was defined by two concepts; the capacity to better oneself through earning a living and pursuing education as well a recognition as a coherent being, equal in cleverness to the white man. What freedom meant to Tecumseh From his words of wisdom, Tecumseh, who was a Native American says that the whites were fooling blacks so that they could assimilate them. To him, freedom meant leaving the blacks to live their lives in their own way, and practice their own cultural patterns, rather than obtaining happiness from greed and materials. Freedom meant not being integrated, not as part of white establishment. To be free is to raise one’s children in his religion, in his ways, and to be left to fish and hunt in peace. It is not about having power or being influential, but being oneself, with own heritage, own land, and belong to where they were born. Meaning of freedom to Abby Kelley Abby Kelley was a teacher in Lynn, whose life was devoted to end slavery. Her speeches were so influential throughout the North. She always lectured about freedom of slaves and civil equality in its fullest. Abby opposed war, government coercion forms, and equality for slaves and women. She believed that a free country was the only legacy she could leave for her children. The issue of slavery was a moral one, and the freedom of slaves could only be obtained through the use of moral weapons. She also predicted that if freedom was granted to the slaves for the exceptional aim of keeping the Union safe, then hatred of blacks would go on; and this poison will ultimately destroy the State. To her, freedom is knowledge, and the reverse is true. It is when people lack knowledge, or become ignorant that they loose their freedom. She realized the power of being literate as a moral weapon to wipe out slavery. Work Cited Foner, Erick. Give Me Liberty!: An American History (Seagull Third Edition) (Vol. 1). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011. Print. Read More