# data[].attributes.body
The Senate met to find a compromise about slavery, while Lincoln said he would not try to prevent slavery.  At the same time, seven of the southern states seceded from the country, and called themselves the Confederate States of America.

Link to image

# data[].attributes.headline
#14 Abraham Lincoln is Elected as President

# data[].attributes.subject
#14 Abraham Lincoln is Elected as President

# data[].attributes.body
Lincoln won, which meant for the South that they were now more of the minority.  The people of the South then feared that slavery would be prohibited by Congress.

Link to image

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Who Was Abraham Lincoln?

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States and is regarded as one of America's greatest heroes due to his role as savior of the Union and emancipator of slaves. His rise from humble beginnings to achieving the highest office in the land is a remarkable story.

Lincoln was assassinated at a time when his country needed him to complete the great task of reunifying the nation. His eloquent support of democracy and insistence that the Union was worth saving embody the ideals of self-government that all nations strive to achieve. Lincoln's distinctively humane personality and incredible impact on the nation have endowed him with an enduring legacy.

Family

Lincoln was born to Thomas Lincoln and Nancy Hanks Lincoln. Thomas was a strong and determined pioneer who found a moderate level of prosperity and was well respected in the community.

The couple had two other children: Lincoln's older sister Sarah and younger brother Thomas, who died in infancy.

When young Lincoln was nine years old, his mother died of tremetol (milk sickness) at age 34, on October 5, 1818. The event was devastating to him, and young Lincolngrew more alienated from his father and quietly resented the hard work placed on him at an early age.

In December 1819, just over a year after his mother's death, Lincoln's father Thomas married Sarah Bush Johnston, a Kentucky widow with three children of her own. She was a strong and affectionate woman with whom Lincoln quickly bonded.

Early Life and Education

The Lincolns were forced to move from Lincoln's birthplace of Kentucky to Perry County, Indiana, due to a land dispute in 1817.

In Indiana, the family "squatted" on public land to scrap out a living in a crude shelter, hunting game and farming a small plot. Lincoln's father was eventually able to buy the land.

Though both his parents were most likely illiterate, Thomas' new wife Sarah encouraged Lincoln to read. It was while growing into manhood that Lincoln received his formal education - an estimated total of 18 months - a few days or weeks at a time.

Reading material was in short supply in the Indiana wilderness. Neighbors recalled how Lincoln would walk for miles to borrow a book. He undoubtedly read the family Bible and probably other popular books at that time such as Robinson Crusoe, Pilgrim's Progress and Aesop's Fable s

In March 1830, the family again migrated, this time to Macon County, Illinois. When his father moved the family again to Coles County, 22-year-old Lincoln struck out on his own, making a living in manual labor.

How Tall Was Abraham Lincoln?

Lincoln was six feet four inches tall, rawboned and lanky, but muscular and physically strong. He spoke with a backwoods twang and walked with a long-striding gait. He was known for his skill in wielding an ax and early on made a living splitting wood for fire and rail fencing.

Young Lincoln eventually migrated to the small community of New Salem, Illinois, where over a period of years he worked as a shopkeeper, postmaster and eventually general store owner. It was there that Lincoln, working with the public, acquired social skills and honed storytelling talent that made him popular with the locals.

When the Black Hawk War broke out in 1832 between the United States and Native Americans, the volunteers in the area elected Lincoln to be their captain. He saw no combat during this time, save for "a good many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes," but was able to make several important political connections.

Lawyer and Politician

In 1834, Lincoln began his political career and was elected to the Illinois state legislature as a member of the Whig Party.

It was around this time that he decided to become a lawyer, teaching himself the law by reading William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. After being admitted to the bar in 1837, he moved to Springfield, Illinois, and began to practice in the John T. Stuart law firm.

In 1844, Lincoln partnered with William Herndon in the practice of law. Though the two had different jurisprudent styles, they developed a close professional and personal relationship.

Lincoln made a good living in his early years as a lawyer, but found that Springfield alone didn't offer enough work, so to supplement his income, he followed the court as it made its rounds on the circuit to the various county seats in Illinois.

Children and Wife

Lincoln was married to Mary Todd on November 4, 1842. Todd was a high-spirited, well-educated woman from a distinguished Kentucky family.

When the couple became engaged in 1840, many of their friends and family couldn't understand Mary's attraction; at times Lincoln questioned it himself. In 1841, the engagement was suddenly broken off, most likely at Lincoln's initiative.

Mary and Lincoln met later at a social function and eventually married in 1842. The couple had four sons - Robert Todd, Edward Baker, William Wallace and Thomas "Tad" - of whom only Robert Todd survived to adulthood.

Before marrying Todd, Lincoln was involved with other potential matches. Around 1837, he purportedly met and became romantically involved with Anne Rutledge. Before they had a chance to be engaged, a wave of typhoid fever came over New Salem and Anne died at age 22.

Her death was said to have left Lincoln severely depressed. However, several historians disagree on the extent of Lincoln's relationship with Rutledge and his level of sorrow at her death may be more the makings of legend.

About a year after the death of Rutledge, Lincoln courted Mary Owens. The two saw each other for a few months and marriage was considered. But in time, Lincoln called off the match.

Political Career

Lincoln served a single term in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1847 to 1849. His foray into national politics seemed to be as unremarkable as it was brief. He was the lone Whig from the state of Illinois, showing party loyalty, but finding few political allies.

Lincoln used his term in office to speak out against the Mexican-American War and supported Zachary Taylor for president in 1848. His criticism of the war made him unpopular back home and he decided not to run for second term, but instead returned to Springfield to practice law.

By the 1850s, the railroad industry was moving west and Illinois found itself becoming a major hub for various companies. Lincoln served as a lobbyist for the Illinois Central Railroad as its company attorney.

Success in several court cases brought other business clients as well - banks, insurance companies and manufacturing firms. Lincoln also worked in some criminal trials.

In one case, a witness claimed that he could identify Lincoln's client who was accused of murder, because of the intense light from a full moon. Lincoln referred to an almanac and proved that the night in question had been too dark for the witness to see anything clearly. His client was acquitted.

DOWNLOAD BIOGRAPHY'S ABRAHAM LINCOLN FACT CARD

Lincoln and Slavery

As a member of the Illinois state legislature in 1834, Lincoln supported the Whig politics of government-sponsored infrastructure and protective tariffs. This political understanding led him to formulate his early views on slavery, not so much as a moral wrong, but as an impediment to economic development.

In 1854, Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise, allowing individual states and territories to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery. The law provoked violent opposition in Kansas and Illinois, and it gave rise to the Republican Party.

This awakened Lincoln's political zeal once again, and his views on slavery moved more toward moral indignation. Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856.

In 1857, the Supreme Court issued its controversial Dred Scott decision, declaring African Americans were not citizens and had no inherent rights. Though Lincoln felt African Americans were not equal to whites, he believed America's founders intended that all men were created with certain inalienable rights.

Senate Race

Lincoln decided to challenge sitting U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas for his seat. In his nomination acceptance speech, he criticized Douglas, the Supreme Court, and President James Buchanan for promoting slavery and declared "a house divided cannot stand."

During Lincoln's 1858 U.S. Senate campaign against Douglas, he participated in seven debates held in different cities across Illinois. The two candidates didn't disappoint the public, giving stirring debates on issues ranging from states' rights to western expansion, but the central issue was slavery.

Newspapers intensely covered the debates, often times with partisan commentary. In the end, the state legislature elected Douglas, but the exposure vaulted Lincoln into national politics.

President Abraham Lincoln

With his newly enhanced political profile, in 1860, political operatives in Illinois organized a campaign to support Lincoln for the presidency. On May 18, at the Republican National Convention in Chicago, Lincoln surpassed better-known candidates such as William Seward of New York and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio.

Lincoln's nomination was due in part to his moderate views on slavery, his support for improving the national infrastructure, and the protective tariff.

In the general election, Lincoln faced his friend and rival, Stephen Douglas, this time besting him in a four-way race that included John C. Breckinridge of the Northern Democrats and John Bell of the Constitution Party.

Lincoln received not quite 40 percent of the popular vote, but carried 180 of 303 Electoral College votes, thus winning the U.S. presidency.

Lincoln's Cabinet

Following his election to the presidency in 1860, Lincoln selected a strong cabinet composed of many of his political rivals, including William Seward, Salmon P. Chase, Edward Bates and Edwin Stanton.

Formed out the adage "Hold your friends close and your enemies closer," Lincoln's Cabinet became one of his strongest assets in his first term in office, and he would need them as the clouds of war gathered over the nation the following year.

Civil War

Before Lincoln's inauguration in March 1861, seven Southern states had seceded from the Union, and by April the U.S. military installation Fort Sumter was under siege in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

In the early morning hours of April 12, 1861, the guns stationed to protect the harbor blazed toward the fort signaling the start of the U.S. Civil War, America's costliest and bloodiest war.

Lincoln responded to the crisis wielding powers as no other president before him: He distributed $2 million from the Treasury for war material without an appropriation from Congress; he called for 75,000 volunteers into military service without a declaration of war; and he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, arresting and imprisoning suspected Confederate States sympathizers without a warrant.

Crushing the rebellion would be difficult under any circumstances, but the Civil War, after decades of white-hot partisan politics, was especially onerous. From all directions, Lincoln faced disparagement and defiance. He was often at odds with his generals, his Cabinet, his party and a majority of the American people.

Emancipation Proclamation

On January 1, 1863, Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation, reshaping the cause of the Civil War from saving the Union to abolishing slavery.

The Union Army's first year and a half of battlefield defeats made it difficult to keep up morale and support strong for a reunification of the nation. And the Union victory at Antietam on September 22, 1862, while by no means conclusive, was hopeful, giving Lincoln the confidence to officially change the goals of the war.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation stated that all individuals who were held as slaves in rebellious states "henceforward shall be free." The action was more symbolic than effective because the North didn't control any states in rebellion and the proclamation didn't apply to Border States, Tennessee or some Louisiana parishes.

Gettysburg Address

On November 19, 1863, Lincoln delivered what would become his most famous speech and one of the most important speeches in American history, the Gettysburg Address.

Addressing a crowd of around 15,000 people, Lincoln delivered his 272-word speech at one of the bloodiest battlefields of the Civil War, the Gettysburg National Cemetery in Pennsylvania.

The Civil War, Lincoln said, was the ultimate test of the preservation of the Union created in 1776, and the dead at Gettysburg fought to uphold this cause.

Lincoln evoked the Declaration of Independence, saying it was up to the living to ensure that the "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth," and this Union was "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

A common interpretation was that the President was expanding the cause of the Civil War from simply reunifying the Union to also fighting for equality and abolishing slavery.

Civil War Ends

Following Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, the war effort gradually improved for the North, though more by attrition than by brilliant military victories.

But by 1864, the Confederate armies had eluded major defeat and Lincoln was convinced he'd be a one-term president. His nemesis, George B. McClellan, the former commander of the Army of the Potomac, challenged him for the presidency, but the contest wasn't even close. Lincoln received 55 percent of the popular vote and 212 of 243 Electoral votes.

On April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Virginia, surrendered his forces to Union General Ulysses S. Grant. The Civil War was for all intents and purposes over.

Reconstruction has already began during the Civil War as early as 1863 in areas firmly under Union military control, and Lincoln favored a policy of quick reunification with a minimum of retribution.

He was confronted by a radical group of Republicans in the Senate and House that wanted complete allegiance and repentance from former Confederates. Before a political debate had any chance to firmly develop, Lincoln was assassinated.

Abraham Lincoln: Assassination

Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865, by well-known actor and Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C.

He was taken to the Petersen House across the street and laid in a coma for nine hours before dying the next morning. His death was mourned by millions of citizens in the North and South alike.

Lincoln's body lay in state at the U. S. Capitol before a funeral train took him back to his final resting place in Springfield, Illinois.

Legacy

Lincoln is frequently cited by historians and average citizens alike as America's greatest president. An aggressively activist commander-in-chief, Lincoln used every power at his disposal to assure victory in the Civil War and end slavery in the United States.

Some scholars doubt that the Union would have been preserved had another person of lesser character been in the White House. According to historian Michael Burlingame, "No president in American history ever faced a greater crisis and no president ever accomplished as much."

Lincoln's philosophy was perhaps best summed up in this Second Inaugural Address, when he stated, "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States and is regarded as one of America's greatest heroes due to his role as savior of the Union and emancipator of slaves. His rise from humble beginnings to achieving the highest office in the land is a remarkable story.

# data[].attributes.body
John Brown, an abolitionist, decided that he would try to take over an arsenal in Virginia to have weapons for an army of slaves. His raid ended up failing, but it worried white Southerners that a large slave rebellion could happen.

Link to image

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Born in Torrington, Connecticut, John Brown belonged to a devout family with extreme anti-slavery views. He married twice and fathered twenty children. The expanding family moved with Brown throughout his travels, residing in Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York.

Brown failed at several business ventures before declaring bankruptcy in 1842. Still, he was able to support the abolitionist cause by becoming a conductor on the Underground Railroad and by establishing the League of Gileadites, an organization established to help runaway slaves escape to Canada. In 1849, Brown moved to the free black farming community of North Elba, New York.

At the age of 55, Brown moved with his sons to Kansas Territory. In response to the sacking of Lawrence, Kansas, John Brown led a small band of men to Pottawatomie Creek on May 24, 1856. The men dragged five unarmed men and boys, believed to be slavery proponents, from their homes and brutally murdered them. Afterwards, Brown raided Missouri - freeing eleven slaves and killing the slave owner.

Following the events in Kansas, Brown spent two and a half years traveling throughout New England, raising money to bring his anti-slavery war to the South. In 1859, John Brown, under the alias Isaac Smith, rented the Kennedy Farmhouse, four miles north of Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). At the farm Brown trained his 21 man army and planned their capture of the Federal Arsenal at Harpers Ferry. Part of the plan included providing slaves in the area with weapons of pikes and rifles. Brown believed that these armed slaves would then join his army and free even more slaves as they fanned southward along the Appalachian Mountains. If the plan worked it would strike terror in the hearts of slave owners.

On October 16, 1859, John Brown and his men raided the Federal Arsenal. Unfortunately for Brown, nothing went as planned. Slaves living in the area did not join the raid, local militia and the United States Marines, under Robert E. Lee, put down the raid, and most of John Brown's men were either killed or captured, including two of his sons. Ironically, the first man killed during the raid was Hayward Shepherd, a free black man working with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.

Despite being seriously wounded, Brown was tried quickly and found guilty of murder, inciting slave insurrection, and treason against the state of Virginia.

Upon hearing his sentence, Brown said,

"...if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments--I submit; so let it be done!"

Brown told the court that he had hoped to carry out his plans "without the snapping of a gun on either side." But Brown's vision of ending slavery was marred by the deaths of innocent civilians - both in Kansas and at Harpers Ferry. The nation was divided over his actions. Many abolitionists called him a hero. Slaveholders called him a base villain. People on both sides of the fence denounced Brown's use of violence.

John Brown was hanged on December 2, 1859. Before he died, Brown issued these final, seemingly prophetic words in a note he handed to his jailer:

"Charlestown, Va, 2nd, December, 1859

I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty, land: will never be purged away; but with Blood. I had as I now think: vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed; it might be done."

Within one year, the first Southern state would secede from the Union.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Born in Torrington, Connecticut, John Brown belonged to a devout family with extreme anti-slavery views. He married twice and fathered twenty children. The expanding family moved with Brown throughout his travels, residing in Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York. Brown failed at several business ventures before declaring bankruptcy in 1842.

# data[].attributes.body
It consisted of debates that Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas had, as they were both candidates to become a senator.  Stephan Douglas believed that the issue of slavery was over since the Dred Scott decision, while Lincoln believed that it was more of a moral problem than a political problem.

Link to image

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Progressive Culture | Scholars & Rogues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The third and final "debate" between presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is now mercifully in the rearview mirror, but like a direct hit from an aggrieved skunk, it might take weeks for the stink to fully die down. This trifecta of vitriolic spew has held a mirror up before the face of the American system of political discourse, and what we're seeing is utterly wretched.

And for what? What have we learned? Did the debates make us smarter? Did it leave us more capable of rendering an informed decision? Did it shed light on the election and the best interests of the Republic?

The sad truth is that the truth is pretty sad. These charades, these lowest common denominator spectacles, these premeditated travesties of dishonesty and rhetorical misdirection, we call them debates but they are no such thing. A real debate between candidates would be a wonderful thing, though.

There's nothing we can do about 2016, but let's start thinking about 2020 right now.

I used to be a competitive debater. Somewhere there's a box - maybe in my sister's basement - full of trophies I won in high school. Nobody would argue, I don't think, that I was the top individual varsity debater in North Carolina my senior year, although when I moved onto college it became clear quickly that I was just too lazy to be much of a success at that level. Nonetheless, I know a thing or two about policy-focused debate, and there are structures in that world which could be brought to bear on the real world of political campaigning.

In particular, I'd call your attention to the one-on-one format known as, appropriately enough, Lincoln-Douglas Debate. It is modeled on the debates of the 1858 Illinois Senatorial election, which pitted Republican Abraham Lincoln against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas won that election, although you'll recall Lincoln did better in the big rematch a couple years later. In many respects, Lincoln-Douglas - or "LD" - seems an obvious format for modern debates (it was built for campaign debates, after all) and its structure and rules would go a long way toward maximizing the opportunity for substantive examination of relevant issues and minimizing ... well, you've been watching, right?

The Rules

If you'd like to dive into the details you can start with the Lincoln-Douglas Debate Wikipedia page, which provides a nice overview and all the links to further reading you're likely to need. (Warning - there is a lot to know, and not all of it is necessary for the present discussion.)

For our purposes, here's how it would work.

For each debate, one candidate is the affirmative speaker and the other the negative. This would suggest, in the interest of fairness, that an even number of debates be staged, with candidates alternating sides.

Assume for the moment that there will be four debates. Each will address a specific resolution, to be established by the organizing committee (more on them later). It makes sense that the four topics should address, perhaps, domestic policy, foreign policy, the economy and social issues. (If I were on the committee, I might also agitate for debates on education, the state of media regulation, freedom of speech, the role of religion in government, and any of dozens other topics. But that's just me.)

A foreign policy topic might be something like this: Resolved: the United States government ought to refrain from military interventions in the Middle East. (Obviously the topic would need to be one on which the candidates have stated disagreements, and in this election neither candidate's policies would affirm this particular resolution.)
1: The format:
Time (minutes)Speech Description

2: Preparation time: Speakers will be allowed five minutes of prep time to be used at their discretion.

3: Expansion of allotted time: This adds up to roughly 42 minutes bell to bell, and it would reasonable, given the magnitude of the event, to expand the speaking time. I'd recommend leaving the CX at three minutes, because that's usually plenty of time to extract the information needed (which will be used to set up subsequent arguments), and also because, partisan politics being what they are, this represents the six minutes of the debate when face-to-face contentiousness might break out. If an extra five or six minutes per speaker were distributed among the constructive and rebuttal speeches, the audience would be well served.

4: No interruptions allowed: Debaters may, under no circumstances, speak, interrupt, interject or in any other way impose upon the other speaker's time. The committee will agree on sanctions for such behavior in advance. It would be entirely appropriate for candidates to be off-stage completely when they are not speaking.

The Committee

In order for the process to be fair and productive, it must be administered by a credible non-partisan body. In this case, it strikes me that there are three possibilities:

The League of Women Voters. The LWV's charter notes that it is "proud to be nonpartisan, neither supporting nor opposing candidates or political parties at any level of government, but always working on vital issues of concern to members and the public." The organization is uniquely focused on promoting participation in the electoral process, making it ideally suited to the mission of this debate committee.

The Society of Professional Journalists. The SPJ is "dedicated to encouraging the free practice of journalism and stimulating high standards of ethical behavior...SPJ promotes the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry; works to inspire and educate the next generation of journalists; and protects First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press." It is hard to imagine a mission more in line with the goals of a fair and informative debate process.

The National Speech & Debate Association. "The National Speech & Debate Association believes communication skills are essential for empowering youth to become engaged citizens, skilled professionals, and honorable leaders in our global society. We connect, support, and inspire a diverse community of honor society members committed to fostering excellence in young people through competitive speech and debate activities."

In short, the LWV knows voting and the electoral process. The SPJ knows free speech. And the NSDA knows debate.

I'd propose that a National Presidential Debate Commission (NPDC) be formed by the leadership of these three organizations and that each contribute equally to the membership and governance of the committee.

The Debates

The committee will be responsible for choosing topics (in cooperation with the campaigns, of course), securing venues, selection of moderators and judges, and so on.

As always, news and media outlets will provide coverage and analysis. However, the committee will seat a panel of judges in accordance with the non-partisan charter of the NPDC which, at the conclusion of the event, will render a decision on who won and why. The judges will need to be recognized experts on the subject matter of the debate.

Obviously the decision will hold no official weight (and, in a sideways nod to the way networks operate in the modern world, we can assume that it will actually generate the sort of controversy that drives ratings). News organizations may choose to impanel their own judges who can render decisions as they see fit.

The committee may choose to designate an official media outlet as host for the debates, and in doing so they are advised to consider the impact of doing so on perceptions of fairness and impartiality. A single official network might possibly be a governmental channel like C-SPAN. Alternately the committee may choose to rotate official coverage between networks.

Additionally, the current state of electronic media enables something like instant fact-checking. This information will be made available via the official broadcast at the conclusion of the debate, and judges will have access to the information before making their decisions.

Other Considerations

Those familiar with LD know that it's primarily designed for discussions of values, as opposed to harder debates on policy (which is the domain of team debates in the academic setting). In our present framework we know that there will be extensive discussion on questions of values, but candidates should also be encouraged (if not outright compelled) to speak to policy specifics.

Advantages of the Lincoln-Douglas Format

1: LD Debate affords each candidate an equal opportunity to speak and be heard. No participant can gain an unfair advantage by interrupting or intimidating the process.

2: Since speakers are face to face with the audience, there is greater freedom to address the public in a tone that breeds thoughtfulness and encourages respect for the issues.

3: The aggressive non-partisanship of the process works to restore faith in the system.

4: The centrality of the topic resolution forces focus on an issue of critical importance to the electorate.

5: Knowing that speeches are being fact-checked in live time should encourage most candidates to be diligent about the accuracy of their claims.

6: Several facets of the process - the topic-driven nature of the discussion, the independent, non-partisan committee, the judging panel and fact-checking function, to name a few - are designed to compel candidates to stay on point and to discourage irrelevant tangents.

Conclusion

We have reached a point in our history where there are no magic wands to insure trust on all sides. We're a bitterly divided and dangerously uninformed society, qualities that make us easy to deceive and manipulate.

But as the old saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. The fact that no debate process we can imagine will heal our wounds overnight doesn't mean we shouldn't immediately begin taking steps to stop the bleeding. If you've been paying attention, you have to realize that there are few things in the US today that are more damaging than the electoral process and there are even fewer things that more grotesquely typify what we have become than the reprehensible ritual of our presidential debates. If you can watch one without feeling diminished, then it's likely you're part of the problem.

This proposal therefore makes no guarantees, save one: it is a far, far better means for comparing what our candidates have to say than the appalling exhibition we saw last night.

Both parties should embrace it, too. The Democrats profess a love of free speech and fair deliberation, so they can't possibly veto the proposal. And if the GOP can't get on board with Lincoln-Douglas Debates, they never get to use the phrase "party of Lincoln" again. Ever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resolved: that future presidential debates ought to use the Lincoln-Douglas format

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Partisan discourse can't sink much lower. Now is the time to resurrect a format that was made for political debates. The third and final "debate" between presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is now mercifully in the rearview mirror, but like a direct hit from an aggrieved skunk, it might take weeks for the stink to...

# data[].attributes.body
The Chief Justice explained that Dred Scott could not become a citizen because he was African American.  He also said that the Missouri Compromise does not follow the constitution because slaves are considered property

Link to image

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dred Scott, was an enslaved person noted mainly for the unsuccessful lawsuit brought to free him from bondage. The decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott case, said that no blacks slave or free were U.S. citizens and allowed slavery in all U.S. territories. The decision helped propel the United States toward the Civil War.

Scott was born into slavery in Southampton, Virginia, around 1795, the property of the Peter Blow family. He was given the name "Sam" but took the name of his older brother, Dred, when the latter died. Scott was taken by the Blow family to Huntsville, Alabama where they settled on a nearby farm. When farming proved unsuccessful, the family in 1830 relocated to St. Louis, Missouri. In 1831 his owner, Peter Blow, died, John Emerson, U.S. Army surgeon, bought him and took him to Fort Armstrong, in 1833 when Emerson was assigned there. In 1836 Emerson was transferred to Fort Snelling in Wisconsin Territory (later Minnesota Territory) and Scott was taken with Emerson.

In 1836, Scott who was approximately 41, married a teenaged slave, Harriett Robinson, at Fort Snelling who was owned by another U.S. Army officer, Major Lawrence Taliaferro of Virginia. Scott and Robinson gave birth to their first child, Eliza, in 1838 and a second daughter, Lizzie, in 1840. The U.S. Army reassigned Emerson to Jefferson Barracks, south of St. Louis in 1837 and Fort Jessup, Louisiana, in 1838. The Scotts were brought briefly to Louisiana where Emerson married Irene Sanford, a native of New York. The Emersons and Scotts returned to Fort Snelling later in 1848 and remained there for four years until 1842 when Emerson permanently left the Army and settled in St. Louis with the Scott family. By this point Scott had been in free territory nearly a decade, Harriett even longer, and their two children were born free.

In 1843, Emerson died and left his estate to his widow, Irene Sanford Emerson. When Scott offered to purchase his freedom for $300 in 1846, Emerson refused his offer. He then obtained the assistance of two St. Louis attorneys who helped him to sue for his freedom. His 1846 lawsuit was filed in the St. Louis Circuit Court and went to trial in 1847.

Scott lost this case, but later that year he won a second trail. By this point Scott received financial support and legal representation from the sons of Peter Blow, his former owner, who had become anti-slavery advocates, Irene Sanford Emerson's brother, John Sanford, and her second husband, Dr. C.C. Chaffee, a Massachusetts abolitionist. All of them the Scott case as an important challenge to slavery.

In 1850, a Missouri jury decided in favor of the freedom of both Dred and Harriett Scott on the grounds that they had illegally been held as slaves while living in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory. Two years later, in 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court struck down the lower court's ruling and the Scotts who had been living away from Irene Sanford, were immediately returned to her. The Missouri Supreme Court's decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. By this point the case garnered national attention. One of the attorneys for Scott was Montgomery Blair who would emerge as a leading figure in the newly created Republican Party.

On March 6, 1857, the United States Supreme Court finally ruled in Dred Scott v Sandford [Sanford was misspelled by a court clerk]. In a 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the majority of justices said that Scott and all slaves and free blacks were not citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing in the courts. Shortly after the decision was handed down Mrs. Emerson freed Scott. The case itself led to the nullification of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, allowing the expansion of slavery into formerly free territories and the legal principle that African Americans, slave or free, were not citizens of the United States. The backlash to this decision strengthened the abolitionist movement and further divided the North and South, leading four years later to the U.S. Civil War.

After he was freed, Dred Scott went to work as a porter in the St. Louis area. He died from tuberculosis in September 1858. Harriett Scott died eighteen years later on June 17, 1876.

Contributor:
Arizona State University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scott, Dred (1795-1858) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dred Scott, was an enslaved person noted mainly for the unsuccessful lawsuit brought to free him from bondage. The decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott case, said that no blacks slave or free were U.S. citizens and allowed slavery in all U.S. territories.

# data[].attributes.body
Senator Charles Sumner decided to speak about how he viewed the attack against abolitionists in Kansas as a, "crime against Kansas."  After that, Preston Brooks, the nephew of someone Sumner spoke badly about, attacked Sumner with a cane as a retaliation.

Link to image

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the mid-1850s, the United States was being torn apart over the issue of slavery. The abolitionist movement was becoming increasingly vocal, and enormous controversy focused on whether new states admitted to the Union would allow slavery.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established the idea that residents of states could decide for themselves the issue of slavery, and that led to violent encounters in Kansas beginning in 1855.

While blood was being spilled in Kansas, another violent attack shocked the nation, especially as it took place on the floor of the United States Senate. A pro-slavery member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina strolled into the Senate chamber in the U.S. Capitol and beat an anti-slavery senator from Massachusetts with a wood cane.

Senator Sumner's Fiery Speech

On May 19, 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, a prominent voice in the anti-slavery movement, delivered an impassioned speech denouncing the compromises that helped perpetuate slavery and led to the current confrontations in Kansas. Sumner began by denouncing the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the concept of popular sovereignty, in which residents of new states could decide whether to make slavery legal.

Continuing his speech the next day, Sumner singled out three men in particular: Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, a major proponent of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Senator James Mason of Virginia, and Senator Andrew Pickens Butler of South Carolina.

Butler, who had recently been incapacitated by a stroke and was recuperating in South Carolina, was held to particular ridicule by Sumner. Sumner said that Butler had taken as his mistress "the harlot, slavery." Sumner also referred to the South as an immoral place for allowing slavery, and he mocked South Carolina.

Listening from the back of the Senate chamber, Stephen Douglas reportedly said, "that damned fool will get himself killed by some other damned fool."

Sumner's impassioned case for a free Kansas was met with approval by northern newspapers, but many in Washington criticized the bitter and mocking tone of his speech.

A Southern Congressman Took Offense

One southerner, Preston Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina, was particularly incensed. Not only had the fiery Sumner ridiculed his home state, but Brooks was the nephew of Andrew Butler, one of Sumner's targets.

In the mind of Brooks, Sumner had violated some code of honor which should be avenged by fighting a duel. But Brooks felt that Sumner, by attacking Butler when he was home recuperating and not present in the Senate, had shown himself not to be a gentlemen deserving of the honor of dueling. Brooks thus reasoned that the proper response was for Sumner to be beaten, with a whip or a cane.

On the morning of May 21, Preston Brooks arrived at the Capitol, carrying a walking stick. He hoped to attack Sumner, but could not locate him.

The following day, May 22, proved fateful. After trying to find Sumner outside the Capitol, Brooks entered the building and walked into the Senate chamber.

Sumner sat at his desk, writing letters.

Violence on the Floor of the Senate

Brooks hesitated before approaching Sumner, as several women were present in the Senate gallery. After the women left, Brooks walked to Sumner's desk, and reportedly said: "You have libeled my state and slandered my relation, who is aged and absent. And I feel it to be my duty to punish you."

With that, Brooks struck the seated Sumner across the head with his heavy cane. Sumner, who was quite tall, could not get to his feet as his legs were trapped under his Senate desk, which was bolted to the floor.

Brooks continued raining blows with the cane upon Sumner, who tried to fend them off with his arms. Sumner finally was able to break the desk free with his thighs, and staggered down the aisle of the Senate.

Brooks followed him, breaking the cane over Sumner's head and continuing to strike him with pieces of the cane.

The entire attack probably lasted for a full minute, and left Sumner dazed and bleeding. Carried into a Capitol anteroom, Sumner was attended by a doctor, who administered stitches to close wounds on his head.

Brooks was soon arrested on a charge of assault. He was quickly released on bail.

Reaction to the Capitol Attack

As might be expected, northern newspapers responded to the violent attack on the Senate floor with horror. An editorial reprinted in the New York Times on May 24, 1856, proposed sending Tommy Hyer to Congress to represent northern interests. Hyer was a celebrity of the day, the champion bare-knuckles boxer.

Southern newspapers published editorials lauding Brooks, claiming that the attack was a justified defense of the South and slavery. Supporters sent Brooks new canes, and Brooks claimed that people wanted pieces of the cane he used to beat Sumner as "holy relics."

The speech Sumner had given, of course, had been about Kansas. And in Kansas, news of the savage beating on the Senate floor arrived by telegraph and inflamed passions even more. It is believed that abolitionist firebrand John Brown and his supporters were inspired by the beating of Sumner to attack pro-slavery settlers.

Preston Brooks was expelled from the House of Representatives, and in the criminal courts he was fined $300 for assault. He returned to South Carolina, where banquets were held in his honor and more canes were presented to him. The voters returned him to Congress but he died suddenly in a Washington hotel in January 1857, less than a year after he attacked Sumner.

Charles Sumner took three years to recover from the beating. During that time, his Senate desk sat empty, a symbol of the acrimonious split in the nation. After returning to his Senate duties Sumner continued his anti-slavery activities. In 1860, he delivered another fiery Senate speech, titled "The Barbarism of Slavery." He was again criticized and threatened, but no one resorted to a physical attack on him. Sumner continued his work in the Senate and died in 1874.

While the attack on Sumner in May 1856 was shocking, much more violence lay ahead. In 1859 John Brown, who had gained a bloody reputation in Kansas, would attack the federal armory at Harper's Ferry. And of course, the issue of slavery would only be settled by a very costly Civil War.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bloody Beating In the U.S. Senate Inflamed America Before the Civil War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the mid-1850s, the United States was being torn apart over the issue of slavery. The abolitionist movement was becoming increasingly vocal, and enormous controversy focused on whether new states admitted to the Union would allow slavery.

# data[].attributes.body
Many abolitionists and supporters of slavery moved to Kansas, and created two governments.  In 1856, supporters of slavery from Missouri attacked the city of the anti-slavery government; the attack ended up causing John Brown to attack.

Link to image

# data[].attributes.body
It created the Kansas and Nebraska territories, and repealed the Missouri Compromise.  Then, the settlers in the territories would choose whether they would be slave or free states.

Link to image

# data[].attributes.body
People that were arrested for being fugitive slaves had very little rights under the new act.  Also, anyone that helped a runaway slave, or did not help a slave catcher could be arrested.

Link to image

# data[].attributes.body
The compromise allowed in California as a free state, and let the New Mexico and Utah territories chose whether or not they will be slave or free states.  It also stopped the trading of slaves in Washington D.C., which could support abolitionists but also wouldn't hurt the slave owners.  It created a fugitive slave law, which could help slave owners recapture their slaves.

Link to image

# data[].attributes.body
The South suggested extending the line of the Missouri Compromise, but the North disagreed.  Later, California applied to be a free state, which upset Southerners.

Link for image

# data[].attributes.body
The Wilmot Proviso made it so that slaves would not be allowed on any territory that was gained from the Mexican-American War.  This angered many slave owners and it was rejected at the senate.

Link for image

# data[].attributes.body
Some Northerners would help slaves escape, which would upset slave owners because they viewed slaves as property. They wanted Congress to pass a law to help them reclaim the fugitive slaves.

Link for image

# data[].attributes.body
It resulted in the "gag rule" which prevented Congress from debating over slavery.
At the same time, abolitionists provided their views through newspapers, books, and meetings; Southerners decided to created more strict laws to control slaves.

Link for image

# data[].attributes.body
The Missouri Compromise allowed in a slave state, Missouri, and a free state, Maine, into the country. At this time, a "line was drawn" seperating where slave and free states were, although Missouri didn't follow the line.

Link for image

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
what is the missouri compromise history missouri compromise of 1820 act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the missouri compromise map purpose goal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
results summary missouri compromise definition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Missouri Compromise 1820 Details, What is the Missouri Compromise History Missouri Compromise of 1820 Act, The Missouri Compromise Map Purpose Goal, Results Summary Missouri Compromise Definition