Shannon Napples

T. Hoskisson

History 1700 TR 10 A.M.

December 5th, 2013

Lincoln and Stephens: Two Different Ideas of Liberty

Where is the line drawn? How thin does it become before someone takes notice

enough to put an end to it? I am talking about the line of slavery and the two opposing

sides that took up their cause in the 1900th century. I am talking about the Confederate

and the Union and two men who became outspoken for where they believed the line

was drawn. I simply claim that Alexander H. Stephens and Abraham Lincoln were

arguing the same topic, but on two different sides that were based on what they

believed. We have Stephens, who argued for slavery (that is, he argued that slavery

was a good thing), and Lincoln, who argued that slavery was bad and needed to be

ended. They each believed that what they were arguing was right and moral and that

the country seriously needed to hear what they had to say about African-Americans

having liberty as freely as a white man would have the liberty.

Stephens was confederate and as we know, the Confederates wanted slavery to

stay in tact for as long as it possibly could because they believed that it was the right

thing. Giving African-Americans certain liberties would be like they were infringing in on

their liberties. This was something that just wouldnt fly with the Confederates. Stephens

specifically says, ...the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination

to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. (Pg. 418 middle of 2nd

paragraph). Stephens doesnt think that African-Americans deserve freedom or liberty

because they are the subordinates that are under the white man.

Lincoln, on the other hand, has a completely different view on the situation. He

(being part of the Union) was against slavery because it took away freedom from any

human that was of a different race. Lincoln believed that all men should have the

liberties that are available to other men and not having it based on race. In his speech,

he states that people use words in different ways depending on how they want the

outcome. So, one person could have a clear definition for the word liberty while

someone else can also argue a clear definition of the same word. It is based on the way

you perceive things. Lincoln states, Hence we behold the process by which thousands

are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of

liberty, and bewailed by others as the destructions of all liberty. One views this liberty

as good while others view this liberty as destruction against the very society that they

built.

If Stephens had his way, the country would remain giving only liberty to whites

and keeping it as far away from African-Americans as possible. If Lincoln had his way,

liberty would be offered to all men because all me are created equal. We know who

ends up winning this fight overall because we have the opportunity to be part of a

generation that is living proof that all men are created equal. Stephens would probably

have a heart attack if he knew who our President was.

The line of liberty was vague and once people started speaking up for it is when

the line was fully brought into the light. If it werent for people like Lincoln and even

people like Stephens then an argument would never have come and the liberties

wouldnt be brought up on such a global level. These are the men that gave the liberty
to men because they are the men that spoke up either for them, or gave a good

argument against that made America think.