Senator Clay means that the succession of SC is not important and doesn't carry any weight. There's no reason to compromise because SC can't make it on its own.
The Pinckney resolution was essentially a gag rule for Congress. It received many petitions advocating the abolition of slavery. This resolution said that Congess wouldn't print these petitions and would not refer to them. You can't have a compromise if one side is being ignored.
The documents you are citing all fall in the details of this: Differing economies, admitting new states and their right to vote on their own laws, and the Abraham Lincoln election.
There were a lot of battles on each of these issues, as you cited. Don't overlook the forest when examining the trees.
Sorry one more:
Abraham Lincoln: basically asks many questions, im having hard time seeing the underlying point:
"you may say that all of this difficulty in regard to the institution of slavery is the mere agitation of office seekers and ambitious Northern Politicians...is it true that the insitituiotn of sslavery springs from office seeking from mere ambition of politians? does this question make a disturbance outisde of political circles? does it not enter into the churches and rend them to asunder? is this the work of politicians?
i don't understand how this has to do with debate
In this passage, Lincoln is quoting his opponents who have said that the issue of slavery has been generated only by politicians. Lincoln makes the point here that the issue of slavery has torn the citizens apart and is not the work of politicians.
You may want to read the entire passage to get a better idea about Lincoln's views.
Your essay is about how the spirit of compromise was dead by 1860. Lincoln's point is that it was impossible to compromise because so many people were ferociously involved and had split the country.
I am reminded of the current split on abortion, and gay marriage. A lot of people have polarized these issues (right vs wrong, Godly vs sinful, moral vs unjust, evil vs understanding) that compromise is hardly thinkable.
can you read my introduction please?
Since the beginning of ‘United’ States of America, a division has been very apparent between the North and the South; however, compromise has always sufficed in calming the controversy, but nearing 1860, political compromise seemed unfeasible. From 1820 to 1860 there were many political compromises that were attempted, yet compromises merely postponed addressing the issue, and later resulted in a bigger predicament: the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise in 1820, succession attempts, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act are all examples of how political compromise gradually became unfeasible nearing 1860.
Why is United in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting? Where is your citation?
"division has been" indicates that the division occurred in the past and continues into the present. Is that true?
"compromise has always sufficed" -- always??
I think you need to work on your choice of words and tenses of verbs.
Your introduction is great! I'm doing the same essay, and I used your introduction as a reference. Thanks!
imma sine your pitty on the runny kine
anybody wnna smoke some hash rocks??
Can you please post the rest of your essay it sounds really good so far and I'm interested in reading the rest!
this really helped thanks so much!