Ben Cacioppo

Amistad Project
3-4-15

Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln, had he been around to have a specific opinion on this case, would have
wanted to return the group of Mende Africans to their homeland. He would have seen their
enslavement and trade as an expansion of slavery, which he was against. ...I do oppose the
extension of slavery, because my judgment and feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation
to the contrary. He would have seen the evidence that proved that they were in fact from Africa, and
not Cuba, and supported their release. In his speech on September 17, 1859, he stated that; We
must prevent the revival of the African slave trade and the enactment by Congress of a territorial
slave code.

Lincoln was often adamant in his speeches that slavery should be left as it is, not expanded,
not immediately emancipated, but left to die out slowly on its own. I say that we must not interfere
with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the
general welfare does not require us to do soI desire that it should be no further spread in these
United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union. But he still
did strongly dislike it; I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politicallywe should in every way resist
it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end.
Lincoln stated himself that he only saw slavery hurting the US and felt that it deprives our
republican example of its just influence in the world -- enables the enemies of free institutions, with
plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites -- causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and
especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the
very fundamental principles of civil liberty -- criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting
that there is no right principle of action but self-interest. He explains here that the slavery in the US

makes the real friends of freedom see the whole country as hypocritical. He also says that it causes
good men, US citizens, to argue amongst themselves about the very fundamental principles of civil
liberty.

He was kind in the way that although he did strongly dislike slavery, he did not speak out
against slave owners. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and
carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. He let them be
and hoped that it would eventually die out. He also emphasized that he did not see slave owners,
more specifically southerners, as different from any other US citizen. I have no prejudice against the
Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist
amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give
it up. He saw that the large population of slaves in the south was purely situational, and that not all
southerners were pro-slavery, nor all northerners abolitionists. We know that some southern men do
free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and
become most cruel slave-masters.

If Lincoln had been present for the United States v. The Amistad case, he certainly wouldve
been on the Mendes side. His strong stance against the expansion of slavery makes that quite clear.

John C. Calhoun
John C. Calhoun, a southerner, a slave owner, would have certainly been against the Mende
had he been present for this court case. Being that he so strongly defended slavery, and the
expansion thereof, he would have certainly wanted to have the Mende sold into slavery. In a speech
on February 6, 1837, Calhoun had not simply excused slavery as a necessary evil, as most southern

politicians did, but asserted that it was a positive good. In this speech, Calhoun also claimed that all
wealthy societies are ruled by an elite group, a group that enjoys the fruits of the labors of a lessprivileged group. He also stated that that There never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society
in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other.

How very firmly Calhoun was set in his beliefs, along with his rigid political ideology earned him
the nickname the cast-iron man. Every debate he was a part of, he always sided against
abolitionists and anti-slavery decisions. Calhoun led the pro-slavery faction in the Senate during the
1830s and 1840s, opposing any and all attempts to limit the expansion of slavery into the western
territories. He also was a major advocate of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. If it was pro-slavery in any
way, shape, or form. He was for it.

Calhoun believed that African slaves were to be seen as property simply because of their racial
background. His stance would have surely overlooked the fact that the Mende were illegally obtained,
kidnapped, but without doubt wouldve held true to his nickname, cast-iron man, and sided himself
with people that shared his political ideology. Never once would he have considered the other side of
the argument.

Calhoun was also a man that was often stressed and anxious. Many an occasion he had
threatened the secession of the south because he believed that abolitionist movements were
becoming more powerful than slavery. In court, Calhoun certainly wouldve argued that freeing the
Africans would help abolitionist and any other anti-slavery movement to gain momentum, eventually
overrunning slavery, at which point the south would secede.
With his narrow-minded ideology, Calhoun believed that the very economic well-being of the
United States depended on slavery, especially the south. He saw that if, or when, in his mind, slavery
was abolished, all of the south would launch into a devastating financial crisis. Now, while there was

some factual basis for this belief, his views were still rather exaggerated. All of this ties into how he
believed that if abolitionist movements gained any momentum, slavery would be done for. He
certainly would not have wanted there to be any chance for the Mende Africans to be released.

John C. Calhouns views on slavery are quite honestly almost the exact opposite of Abraham
Lincolns. He believed that it was necessary, even a good thing, and did whatever he could to defend
it. There is certainly no question as to which side of the United States v. The Amistad case he would
have been on.
United States. National Park Service. "Lincoln on Slavery." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the
Interior, 01 Mar. 2015. Web. 05 Mar. 2015. <http://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm>.
Ford, Lacy K. "Republican Ideology in a Slave Society: The Political Economy of John C. Calhoun." The
Journal of Southern History 54.3 (1988): 405-24. JSTOR. ITHAKA, 13 Nov. 2003. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2208996?
sid=21105576129681&uid=3739808&uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4>.
Calhoun, John C. "Slavery a Positive Good | Teaching American History." Teaching American History. N.p., 3
June 2009. Web. 05 Mar. 2015. <http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/slavery-a-positivegood/>.
"Wilmot Proviso." - Slavery, Senate, Territories, and Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2015.
<http://law.jrank.org/pages/11335/Wilmot-Proviso.html>.