Slavery Unit Outline - Schoolwires

edintheRH6- ‐8.1,RH6- ‐8.2,RH6- ‐8.4,RH6- ‐8.8,RH6- ‐8.9,RH6- ‐8.10Unit:WhatarethestandardsoffocusthatWHST6- ‐8.2a,WHST6- ‐8.2b,WHST6- ‐8.2c,WHST6- ‐8.2d,WHST6- ‐8.2e,WHST6- ‐8.2f,WHST6- ‐8.4,WHST6- ‐8.5,WHST6- ‐8.7,WHST6- ‐8.9,WHST6- ttexts.Textsa)allowforCCLS- sessment.InstructionalTasks:Text- whatisthelegalthingtosupportyouranswer.do?

onstitutionExcerptRH6- ‐8.1,RH6- ‐8.2,RH6- ‐8.4,RH6- ‐8.8,,RH6- ‐8.10WHST6- ‐8.2d,WHST6- ‐8.4,WHST6- ‐8.8,WHST6- ‐8.9,WHST6- DBQ:SlaveryintheTerritories,1854RH6- ‐8.1,RH6- ‐8.2,RH6- ‐8.4,RH6- ‐8.8,,RH6- ‐8.10WHST6- ‐8.2d,WHST6- ‐8.4,WHST6- ‐8.8,WHST6- ‐8.9,WHST6- onRH6- ‐8.1,RH6- ‐8.2,RH6- ‐8.4,RH6- ‐8.8,,RH6- ‐8.10WHST6- ‐8.2d,WHST6- ‐8.4,WHST6- ‐8.8,WHST6- ‐8.9,WHST6- ‐8.10RH6- ‐8.1,RH6- ‐8.2,RH6- ‐8.4,RH6- ‐8.8,,RH6- ‐8.10WHST6- ‐8.2d,WHST6- ‐8.4,WHST6- ‐8.8,WHST6- ‐8.9,WHST6- toTBQsDBQ:ExcerptfromTheNorthStar,April3,1851.RH6- ‐8.1,RH6- ‐8.2,RH6- ‐8.4,RH6- ‐8.8,,RH6- ‐8.10WHST6- ‐8.2d,WHST6- ‐8.4,WHST6- ‐8.8,WHST6- ‐8.9,WHST6- ‐8.10RH6- ‐8.1,RH6- ‐8.2,RH6- ‐8.4,RH6- ‐8.8,,RH6- ‐8.10WHST6- ‐8.2d,WHST6- ‐8.4,WHST6- ‐8.8,WHST6- ‐8.9,WHST6- DBQ:ThirteenthAmendmentExcerptRH6- ‐8.1,RH6- ‐8.2,RH6- ‐8.4,RH6- ‐8.8,,RH6- ‐8.10WHST6- ‐8.2d,WHST6- ‐8.4,WHST6- ‐8.8,WHST6- ‐8.9,WHST6- y.Developyouressaywithrelevant,well- bjectivetonethroughoutyouressay.

Why 1808 Marked a Pivotal Moment in US HistoryThe year 1808 is often overlooked when historians and commentators discusskey moments in American history. Why was 1808 a pivotal year in Americanhistory? Its significance has little to do with the fact that James Madison waselected to succeed his friend Thomas Jefferson as President, extending theDemocratic-Republican party’s hold on the White House and increasing Federalistfrustration, or with the new nation’s early drift toward future hostilities with theBritish. Instead, the signal event of the year was the end of the African slave trade.Over the subsequent decades, this ban on the importation of slaves from overseasdramatically reshaped the institution of slavery in the United States.The end of the foreign slave trade limited forever the size of the slavepopulation in the United States. After 1808, the size of the nation’s slave populationdepended on the natural increase of the slave population and the scope of slavesmuggling. Hence southern slaveholders, eager to secure enough slave labor tocultivate their staples, knew that only practices which effectively encouraged slavereproduction could insure the continued growth of their workforce. Once the federalban took effect, more lower South slaveholders accepted the idea that encouraginglongevity and reproduction among slaves held the key to the future of the region’seconomy. William Johnson, a United States Supreme Court Justice and a SouthCarolinian, summed up these views in 1815 when he told a Charleston audiencethat all slaveholders should “see in the propagation of their slaves the only resourcefor future wealth.”Moreover, this limit on size of the southern slave population prompted whitesoutherners to reconsider possible ways of addressing what many of them still saw,in the tradition of the founders, as the problem of slavery. After the closing off theforeign slave trade in 1808, both the upper and lower South sought answers to theslavery question in their respective regions through an internal reconfiguration ofslavery. But the two regions sought very different reconfigurations.With the supply of slaves now permanently limited, whites in the upperSouth could envision reducing their dependency on slaves and “whitening” theirregion through a slow but steady demographic reconfiguration of slavery,accomplished largely be selling off or “diffusing” their slaves to areas of highdemand in the cotton South. Demand for slaves in the domestic market from lowerSouth cotton growers provided an outlet for surplus slaves from the decliningtobacco regions of the upper South. The sale of slaves from the upper South to thelower reduced the enslaved proportion of the upper South population, returnedcapital to the upper South, and supplying the desired labor for lower South staplegrowers.But the newly essential internal slave trade also generated its share oftension between the upper and lower South. Whites in the lower South resentedthe outflow of capital to the upper South and often suspected that upper Southmasters and traders dumped unhealthy, troublesome, and even incendiary slaveson the lower South market. Thus, at times of heightened fear of slave unrest, lowerSouth states passed legislation either banning the importation of slaves for salealtogether or restricting it significantly. In doing so, they sought to control racialdemography, preserve white security, and slow the drain of capital from the region.These efforts of lower South legislatures to restrict the interstate slave trade posed

problems for the upper South’s strategy of whitening itself by selling off slaves tothe lower South.In the lower South, the same growing dependence on slave labor that gaverise to efforts to better control the domestic slave trade also accelerated theregion’s interest in its own reconfiguration of slavery. To achieve greater securityand peace of mind, lower South whites sought not a demographic but an ideologicalreconfiguration of slavery, one centered around developing a better rationale forthe holding and managing of slaves. Led by a group of unlikely ideologicalinsurgents (Christian ministers and lay leaders), this movement found expression inthe ideology of paternalism. Beginning in the early 1800s as a small but vocalgroup eager to “reform” slavery, the paternalist movement grew slowly to aposition of respectability and eventually to one of dominance by the late 1830s.Paternalistic masters were expected to attend to their slaves’ spiritual welfare aswell as their physical needs, most often by inculcating Christian doctrine andmorality, or at least the masters’ version of them, among the enslaved. The end ofthe African slave trade in 1808 made the paternalist project of “domesticating”slavery plausible in a way unthinkable as long as large numbers of Africanscontinued to flow into the slave population. Over the course of three decades, theideology of paternalism gradually gained hard-won acceptance among lower Southwhites who sought an ideological reconfiguration that would render slaveholdingconsistent with existing republican and emerging humanitarian ideals whileaccepting the inevitability of the region’s reliance on slave labor.To be sure, the paternalistic ideal was not the reality of plantation, farm orurban life across the slaveholding South. The cotton boom and the rapid expansionof slavery across the lower South in these decades produced as much cruelty andas much disruption of slave family and community life as occurred in earliergenerations, and as much tension between masters and slaves as ever. But eventhough the precepts of paternalism were honored mainly in their breech, southernslaveholders increasingly conceived of themselves, and explained themselves to aquestioning world, through the prism of paternalism. By accelerating theemergence of paternalism as dominant social ideology in the region, the end of theforeign slave trade facilitated an ideological reconfiguration of slavery in the lowerSouth.Thus the desire of whites in the upper South to whiten their region using theinternal slave trade ironically cemented upper South whites’ commitment to theconcept of “property in man” while lower South whites’ desire to rely heavily onslave labor and yet convince themselves that slavery was both safe and consistentwith Christianity generated an ideology that reminded them that their slaveproperty consisted of men and women, who, as southern theologian JamesThornwell pointed out, “had a soul of priceless value.” In sum, the closing of theforeign slave trade facilitated both the upper South’s desire to whiten itself and thelower South’s eagerness to “domesticate” slavery as a way of making it seem saferand less inhumane. In doing this, the end of transatlantic slave trade reshaped theinstitution of slavery in antebellum America.Source: www.hnn.us/articles/118969.html

sentence.Mypointofvieworopinion:

Part AShort-Answer QuestionsDirections: Analyze the documents and answer the short-answer questions that follow each document in thespace provided.Document 1. . . Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, one thousand eighthundred and eight [1808], it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States orthe territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, any negro, mulatto, orperson of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person ofcolour, as a slave, or to be held to service or labour. . . .Source: United States Statutes1 According to this law, what restriction did the United States Congress place on slavery in 1808? [1]ScoreInter.-Level Social Studies — June ’10[4]

Popular SovereigntyNational Statuary Hall Collection, Lewis Cass ofMichigan, Democratic candidate for President in theelection of 1848, coined the term "popular sovereignty.In the heat of the Wilmot Proviso debate,many southern lawmakers began toquestion the right of Congress todetermine the status of slavery in anyterritory. According to John Calhoun, theterritories belonged to all the states. Whyshould a citizen of one state be denied theright to take his property, including slaves,into territory owned by all? This line ofreasoning began to dominate the southernargument. The Congress had a precedentfor outlawing slavery in territories. It haddone so in the Old Northwest with thepassing of the Northwest Ordinance in1787. The Missouri Compromise also hadbanned slavery above the 36º30' latitudelines. But times were different.As the Mexican War drew to a close andno compromise could be reached in theWilmot argument, the campaign forPresident became heated. The Democraticstandard bearer, Lewis Cass of Michigan,coined the term "popular sovereignty" fora new solution that had begun to emerge.The premise was simple. Let the people ofthe territories themselves decide whetherslavery would be permitted. The solutionseemed perfect. In a country that haschampioned democracy, letting the peopledecide seemed right, if not obvious.Although Taylor didn't advocate any position regarding slavery during his campaign,after his election he stated that California and New Mexico should be admitted tothe union and should decide their status by means of popular sovereignty. Taylor'scabinet, shown here, had members of different sections of the nation with differingopinions on slavery.However simple popular sovereignty seemed, it was difficult to put into practice. Bywhat means would the people decide? Directly or indirectly? If a popular vote werescheduled, what guarantees could be made against voter fraud? If slavery werevoted down, would the individuals who already owned slaves be allowed to keepthem? Cass and the Democrats did not say. His opponent, Zachary Taylor, ignoredthe issue of slavery altogether in his campaign, and won the election of 1848.As the 1840s melted into the 1850s, Stephen Douglas became the loudestproponent of popular sovereignty. As long as the issue was discussed theoretically,he had many supporters. In fact, to many, popular sovereignty was the perfectmeans to avoid the problem. But problems do not tend to disappear when they areevaded — they often become worse.www.ushistory.org/us/30b.asp

ypointofvieworopinion: