Question 1 Document 1 and 2

History 1301
Students Name
Institution of Affiliation
Date
Question 1: Document 1 and 2
Daniel Webster was a nationalist who defended the federal government’s power to formulate laws that applied to all states in the union. Robert Hayne on the other side, supported states’ rights to protect their liberties through resisting federal laws to which were deemed unconstitutional. Webster declared that freedom and the union went together, claiming that all the origin of the government and of the foundation on which it starts is erected by the people while those who minister it, are responsible to the people and can only modify the constitution just as the people make sure it to be modified.
The Southerners thought that the reduced rate of tariffs was still too high. South Carolina threatened that the tariffs of 1828 and 1830 were not abolished they would withdraw from the union if the federal government tried to correct the tariffs. According to the southerners, the two acts enacted were an authorized by the United States constitution. The tariffs violated the true meaning of democracy, therefore were null and void at the new law. Abiding upon this state, its officers, citizens, and all contracts, promises, and applications made all for the purpose of securing the duties imposed by the act, as well as all the judicial proceedings would be held utterly null and void.
In my view, the most effective primary document is that of the South Carolina. It defends the people and is against the rise of the tariffs on raw materials as well as the manufactured goods and this affects the production and the income of the producers and manufacturers of the United States. According to the southerners, the old tariffs had to be abolished to give room for new tariffs to be enacted through new legislation.
Question 2: Document 3 and 4
In the 1851 political cartoon, they southerners are protesting against the north of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, passed by the Congress on Sep 18, 1850, as part of 1850 compromise between the Northern Free Soilers and the Southern slaveholding interest. In the cartoon, the national government to whom enacted the slave act takes away the slave as they are named fugitive, but the states have its own rules that prohibit and oppose the national law. The states claim that they have a higher law and that they don’t recognize any law from the national government of the United States. The political cartoon also applies to the document one and two as it argues that both the national government and that of the state are different and that the national government law does not with any effect affect the state law.
The 1856 political cartoon document 4 relates to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed by the Congress on May 30, 1854. The Act allowed the people within Kansas and Nebraska’s territories to make their own decisions as whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. According to the cartoon, the national government allowed the individual states to make their own decisions on onto whether they could retain slavery or abolish it. The black men were considered to be slaves, and the act of leaving the decision to the individual states would only encourage the white to continue oppressing the blacks. In the picture senator, Stephen Douglas, President Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and Levies Cars who all are running to be the Democratic Party nominees for president in the 1856 elections are seen forcing a black man against his will an intimidating action, indicating how the whites are racist.
From the picture, the background of making the decisions on whether the states will vote against slavery is made to be seen as democratic, but in the other side, the grounds to which democracy is to be practiced is limited as the black people have no room to express themselves.
Question 3: Document 5 and 6
Dred Scott was one of the many slaves who needed to seek freedom through the American judicial system, to which emanated with the worst ruling ever. The 1857 decision by the US Supreme Court on Dred Scott’s case implies that no ‘Negro’ the term which used to describe people of African blood could never be American citizens. The Supreme Court decision also invalidated the 1820 Missouri compromise which are the anti-slavery in certain US territories.
Frederick Douglas in document