Merriam Webster defines an agitator as “a person who tries to get people angry or upset so that they will support an effort to change a government.” Wendell Phillips, once a successful lawyer and politician, left his career behind in 1836 to become an abolitionist and an agitator. With William Lloyd Garrison’s convincing he went on to be “one of the most influential Americans during the few years after the fall of Fort Sumter” (Hofstadter 180). The role of an agitator and that of a politician differ on the basis of their goals, morals, and purpose. Even though Phillips played both roles, he continued to be one of the best in those respects (Hofstadter 170). The tactics and speeches used by Phillips both differed and correlated to that of Henry …show more content…
First, agitators solely obtain their purposes by talking (178). They do not purpose or make laws, hold office, or run the government; they chiefly work to influence public opinion towards that of their own position. Agitators do not crave immediate success or popularity, they are concerned with the morals surrounding various issues. Phillips stated “he feels, with Copernicus, that as God waited long for an interpreter, so he can wait for his followers” (178). Once a morally sound agitator arises, it is worth however long it takes for the public to turn towards the morally right choice no matter what the aftermath. Secondly, Phillips believes that successful republics “exist only on the tenure of being constantly agitated” (Hofstadter 179). Current policies and practices need to be constantly challenged in the fear that “every government is going corrupt” (179). The reason Phillips such a passionate agitator was because he believed slavery was wrong, and that abolition was necessary in order to keep our liberties safe. In essence “his moral judgments are made from the standpoint of absolute values, which with the mass of men cannot comfortably live” (180). On the other hand, politicians are focused solely on success and the issues of now rather than the long-term …show more content…
Unlike Wendell Phillips, Henry Clay was a firm believer in the Constitution. While Phillips disregarded the Constitution because it promoted slavery, Clay followed by its words (Smith). Although Henry Clay was not necessarily “for” slavery, he did own slaves and eventually freed them upon his death (“Henry Clay”). Phillips and Clay correlate in that they were both educated lawyers. Phillips however, used his knowledge as an agitator whereas Clay used his knowledge as a politician. Wendell Phillips differed in some respects to his friend William Lloyd Garrison as well. Garrison is more of an extremist, he believed in going to severe measures in order to prove his points. While Wendell Phillips was believed to be the “voice” of the anti-slavery movement, Garrison was referred to as the “backbone” (Smith). However, both were similar in that they were for the separation of the Union, and the abolition of slavery. Without Garrison’s inspiration Phillips may not have left his political life as a lawyer to become an
In the 1861 speech by Wendell Phillips, he describes the Haitian general Toussaint Louverture, as a hero and a martyr. Phillips is giving the speech to a group of Abolotionists who very clearly support Phillips and Louverture. In his speech, he uses rhetorical devices such as the repitition of historical allusions and parallel sentence structure to emphasize his thoughts on Louverture.
An anti-"city on a hill" with a maypole compensating for something? A pleasurable refuge for indentured servants freed from service and respected natives? A place where a man just wanted to annoy his uptight, religious neighbors? Those are the obvious conclusions, but with like most anything in history, there's meaning and significance that we don't catch at first glance. Thomas Morton had an agenda, puritan leader John Winthrop may have had a secret, and there are so many fictions surrounding their whole story, it's hard to tell what's reality and what's not. It's time to sift through the parts, and piece together a bigger picture, asking one, main question: Why were Morton and the Puritans engaged in a seemingly never-ending conflict with each other?
Throughout the course of American political history rarely has there ever been a rivalry as fierce and contested as that of the one between Tennessee’s Andrew Jackson, and Kentucky’s Henry Clay. During their extensive political careers the two constantly seemed to cross paths differing in terms philosophically and ideologically. Simply put, these two men profoundly shaped the American Antebellum period, specifically involving the 1820’s to the 1840’s. Their notions of what was best for the country became the basis for their respective parties and consequently their differences in methodology facilitated countless battles in the American political atmosphere. The most significant issues that centered on these types of political skirmishes involved
Clay had a unique perspective on the abolishment of slavery. Henry Clay wanted to slavery to be abolished within the early United States, but his motives leaned more towards have these slaves returned to their original countries, thus making them unable to become citizens of the United States. A large number of citizens in the north supported this ideal because they felt it was an effective way to eliminate slavery and remove the possibility of these enslaved men becoming apart of their society. Abraham Lincoln had a strong moral compass that he used to determine decisions on most of the major issues he encountered. He believed slavery to be morally wrong and had difficulty comprehending how people were able to justify its morality. Lincoln was disgusted by the treatment that took place in slavery. He believed that if one to remove the moral obligation within slavery and the mere realization of its cruelty, there are no there reasons to inhibit the expansion of it. At this particular time, slavery was an exceptionally prominent source of income, giving those who owned the most slaves, the most wealth. Because slavery produced such a resource of income, Lincoln knew that if given the opportunity, slavery would only increase.
Perhaps the three most influential men in the pre-Civil War era were Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster. These men all died nearly a decade before the civil war began, but they didn’t know how much they would effect it. States’ rights was a very controversial issue, and one which had strong opposition and radical proposals coming from both sides. John C. Calhoun was in favor of giving states the power to nullify laws that they saw unconstitutional, and he presented this theory in his “Doctrine of Nullification”. Daniel Webster strongly disagreed with this proposal and showed this by giving powerful support to President Jackson in resisting the attempt by South Carolina to nullify the ‘tariff of abominations’, as they called it; a shipping tax passed in 1828 that they saw as unfairly favoring the industrial North.
In order to differentiate from a social collective, a social movement must emulate six essential characteristics. In the book Persuasion and Social Movements, Charles Stewart and other authors list the essential characteristics and how a social movement differs from fads, campaigns, and other disorganized social gatherings. An Organized Collectivity In order for a social collective to be considered a social movement, the movement must have a noticeably clear organizational structure.
In Ira Berlin's, ““I will be heard!”: William Loyd Garrison and the Struggle Against Slavery,” we learn of the inspiration and backlash generated from the publication of Garrison's, The Liberator. Although Garrison's homeland, New England, was already familiar with anti-slavery sentiment, Garrison's publication ignited much anger amongst his supposedly progressive neighbors. In large part, the negative reaction of the north, was due to the humanity in which Garrison asked America to show the black population. Not only did he call for the immediate emancipation of slaves, he denounced the cultural atmosphere of the entire nation in regards to blacks. Berlin states, “Whatever white Americans thought of slavery in principle, they had no desire
Henry Clay, one of America’s greatest legislators and orators, lived from 1777 to 1852. In his lifespan, Henry was a very successful attorney, a well respected farmer, a horse race enthusiast, and a “Great Compromiser”. The name “Great Compromiser” comes from the fact that Clay was very good at negotiation. With this skill at hand, Henry was able to avoid the Civil War until it could not be adverted.
“All machines have their friction―and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… But when the friction comes to have its machine… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 8). In Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the author compares government to a machine, and its friction to inequity. He believes that when injustice overcomes a nation, it is time for that nation’s government to end. Thoreau is ashamed of his government, and says that civil disobedience can fight the system that is bringing his country down. Alas, his philosophy is defective: he does not identify the benefits of organized government, and fails to recognize the danger of a country without it. When looked into, Thoreau’s contempt for the government does not justify his argument against organized democracy.
...at George Henry, like many other reformers of the time believed that efforts to create a balance in the society should not compromise or interfere with any individual or a particular class in the society (Johnson).
In all the history of America one thing has been made clear, historians can’t agree on much. It is valid seeing as none of them can travel back in time to actually experience the important events and even distinguish what has value and what doesn’t. Therefore all historians must make a leap and interpret the facts as best they can. The populist movement does not escape this paradox. Two views are widely accepted yet vastly different, the views of Richard Hofstadter and Lawrence Goodwyn. They disagree on whether populists were “isolated and paranoid bigots” or “sophisticated, empathetic egalitarians”; whether their leaders were “opportunists who victimized them” or “visionary economic theorists who liberated them”; whether their beliefs were rooted in the free silver campaign of the 1890s or the cooperative movement of the 1880s; and finally whether their ideal society was in the “agrarian past” or “the promise of a cooperative future”. They could not agree on anything, over all Richard Hofstadter seems to have a better idea of the truth of populism.
Henry Clay was the first Speaker of the House that really helped to establish the position and increase the power. Clay served three terms as Speaker of the House and in those years demonstrated how his tactics were effective as well as successful. Henry Clay was personable, and his youth and assertiveness made him a popular choice for Speaker. Clay used his position to place his allies in important committees to achieve these goals. As Clay gained clout in the House of Representatives, he was able to introduce his American System and ideas founded in the American Colonization Society. Henry Clay’s greatest accomplishment as Speaker of the House was the drafting of the Missouri Compromise, which gained him the title of the Great Compromiser. Henry Clay became a very powerful, respected and effective Speaker of the House, and set a precedent for future Speakers.
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. Two such cases occurred during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau. Both men courageously confronted the mighty us government; both spent time in jail as a result of their defiant actions; both men stood for a belief in a better future, and both presented their dreams through non-violent protest and civil disobedience. The similarities in their course of action are undeniable, but each man used different terms on which they based their arguments. Martin Luther King Junior's appeal through the human conscience, and Henry Thoreau's excellent use of patriotism, present similar issues in very dissimilar ways.
William Lloyd Garrison was one of the most radical social reformers during his time, and was the publisher of The Liberator which a newspaper that highlighted the Abolitionists’ Movement’s cause. He advocated the immediate and complete emancipation of all slaves although it was an unpopular view amongst people, even to those residing in the North who were against slavery.Garrison managed to remain passive, the amount of violence from those who did not agree with him. He obtained numerous death threats, and the State of Georgia’s government even offered a reward of $5,000 for his arrest. Despite of this, he continued in getting his views across, and burned a copy of the Constitution on J...
In deciphering what constitutes the brilliance of democracy then, we find that it is not citizens’ ability to make informed decisions or an unflawed and subtly manipulated election process, but the unapparent way in which democracy persuades citizens – informed or not - and leaders – corrupt or not – toward working to build better, more prosperous societies.