Havana is the capital city, largest city, major port, and leading commercial centre of Cuba. The city extends mostly westward and southward from the bay, which is entered through a narrow inlet, the sluggish Almendares River traverses the city from south to north, entering the Straits of Florida a few miles west of the bay. King Philip II of Spain granted Havana the title of City in 1592, walls as well as forts were built to protect the old city. The sinking of the U. S. battleship Maine in Havanas harbor in 1898 was the cause of the Spanish–American War. Contemporary Havana can essentially be described as three cities in one, Old Havana and the suburban districts. The city is the center of the Cuban government, and home to various ministries, headquarters of businesses, the current mayor is Marta Hernández of the Communist Party of Cuba. In 2009, the city/province had the third highest income in the country, the city attracts over a million tourists annually, the Official Census for Havana reports that in 2010 the city was visited by 1,176,627 international tourists, a 20% increase from 2005.
Old Havana was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1982, the city is noted for its history, culture and monuments. As typical of Cuba, Havana features a tropical climate, in May 2015, Havana was officially recognized as one of the New7Wonders Cities together with Vigan, Doha, La Paz, Durban and Kuala Lumpur. Most native settlements became the site of Spanish colonial cities retaining their original Taíno names, an alternate theory is that Habana is derived from the Middle Dutch word havene, referring to a harbour, etymologically related to the English word haven. All attempts to found a city on Cubas south coast failed, however, an early map of Cuba drawn in 1514 places the town at the mouth of this river. The town that became Havana finally originated adjacent to what was called Puerto de Carenas, the quality of this natural bay, which now hosts Havanas harbor, warranted this change of location. Pánfilo de Narváez gave Havana – the sixth town founded by the Spanish on Cuba – its name, the name combines San Cristóbal, patron saint of Havana.
Shortly after the founding of Cubas first cities, the served as little more than a base for the Conquista of other lands. Havana began as a port, and suffered regular attacks by buccaneers, pirates. The first attack and resultant burning of the city was by the French corsair Jacques de Sores in 1555, ships from all over the New World carried products first to Havana, in order to be taken by the fleet to Spain. The thousands of ships gathered in the bay fueled Havanas agriculture and manufacture, since they had to be supplied with food, water. On December 20,1592, King Philip II of Spain granted Havana the title of City, on, the city would be officially designated as Key to the New World and Rampart of the West Indies by the Spanish Crown
It was passed by the 36th Congress on March 2,1861, and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay. Three fifths of all other Persons, The Migration and Importation of such Persons, in the Congressional session that began in December 1860, more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery, including 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments, were introduced in Congress. Most represented compromises designed to military conflict. Mississippi Democratic Senator Jefferson Davis proposed one that protected property rights in slaves. Corwin proposed his own text as a substitute and those who opposed him failed on a vote of 68 to 121, the House declined to give the resolution the required two-thirds vote, with a tally of 120 to 61, and of 123 to 71.
On February 28,1861, the House approved Corwins version by a vote of 133 to 65, missouri Democrat John S. Phelps answered, Does the gentleman desire to know whether he shall be prohibited from committing that crime. On March 2,1861, the United States Senate adopted it, with no changes, since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority,132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. The Senators and Representatives from the seven states that had already declared their secession from the Union did not vote on the Corwin Amendment. The resolution called for the amendment to be submitted to the state legislatures, the Corwin Amendment was the second proposed Thirteenth Amendment submitted to the states by Congress. The first was the similarly ill-fated Titles of Nobility Amendment in 1810, out-going President James Buchanan, a Democrat, endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unprecedented step of signing it. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express, just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each states governor transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it.
On February 8,1864, during the 38th Congress, with the prospects for a Union victory improving, anthony of Rhode Island introduced Senate Resolution No.25 to withdraw the Corwin Amendment from further consideration by the state legislatures and to halt the ratification process. That same day, Anthonys joint resolution was referred to the Senates Committee on the Judiciary, West Virginia did not ratify the amendment after it became a state in 1863. The joint resolution was referred to the Houses Committee on Constitutional Amendments on March 7,1963, as a result, the Reconstruction Amendments would not have been permissible, as they abolish or interfere with the domestic institution of the states. List of amendments to the United States Constitution List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution Slavery in the United States Peace Conference of 1861 Bryant, stopping Time, The Pro-Slavery and Irrevocable Thirteenth Amendment. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Daniel W. Lincoln and the Politics of Slavery, The Other Thirteenth Amendment and the Struggle to Save the Union.
University of North Carolina Press Books, comprehensive scholarly history of Corwin amendment
United States v. The Amistad
United States v. Schooner Amistad,40 U. S.518, was a United States Supreme Court case resulting from the rebellion of Africans on board the Spanish schooner La Amistad in 1839. It was a freedom suit that involved international issues and parties. The historian Samuel Eliot Morison in 1965 described it as the most important court case involving slavery before being eclipsed by that of Dred Scott, the schooner was traveling along the coast of Cuba on its way to a port for re-sale of the slaves. The African captives, who had kidnapped in Sierra Leone and illegally sold into slavery and shipped to Cuba, escaped their shackles. They killed the captain and the cook, two crew members escaped in a lifeboat. The Africans directed the survivors to return them to Africa, the crew tricked them, sailing north at night. The Amistad was apprehended near Long Island, New York, by the United States Revenue Cutter Service, the widely publicized court cases in the United States federal district and Supreme Court, which addressed international issues, helped the abolitionist movement.
The captives were ruled to have acted as men when they fought to escape their illegal confinement. The Court ruled the Africans were entitled to take whatever measures necessary to secure their freedom. Under international and sectional pressure, U. S. President Martin Van Buren ordered the case appealed to the Supreme Court. It affirmed the court ruling on March 9,1841, and authorized the release of the Africans. Supporters arranged for housing of the Africans in Farmington, Connecticut as well as funds for travel. In 1842 they transported by ship those who wanted to return to Africa, on June 27,1839, La Amistad, a Spanish vessel, departed from the port of Havana, for the Province of Puerto Principe, in Cuba. The masters of La Amistad were the ships captain Ramón Ferrer, José Ruiz, with Ferrer was his personal slave Antonio. Ruiz was transporting 49 Africans, entrusted to him by the governor-general of Cuba, Montez held four additional Africans, entrusted to him by the governor-general. As the voyage took only four days, the crew had brought four days’ worth of rations.
On July 2,1839, one of the Africans, Cinqué, freed himself, the Mende Africans killed the ships cook, who had told them that they were to be killed and eaten by their captors. The slaves killed Captain Ferrer, the struggle resulted as well in the deaths of two Africans, two sailors escaped in a lifeboat
The Missouri Compromise is the title generally attached to the legislation passed by the 16th Congress of the United States on May 8,1820. The measures provided for the admission of the District of Maine as a free to ratify a state constitution that both did not recognize and prohibited slavery within the state. Further, the Compromise provided that the Missouri territory was free to enact a constitution that both recognized as legal and permitted, the institution of chattel slavery. With these actions, the Compromise committed the largest remaining portion of Purchase territory to free soil, South of the parallel no slavery restrictions were imposed in the Arkansas Territory, which became Indian territory and Arkansas. There were not any statements about restrictions or recognition of the institution of slavery at or South of the latitude, President James Monroe signed the legislation on April 6,1820. The compromise bills served to quell the furious sectional debates that had first erupted during the session of the 15th Congress.
On February 3,1819, Representative James Tallmadge, Jr. a Jeffersonian Republican from New York State, had submitted two amendments to Missouris request for statehood. The first proposed to prohibit further slave migration into Missouri. At issue among southern legislators was the encroachment by their northern free state colleagues in what they considered a purely sectional concern, the more populous North held a firm numerical advantage in the House. Jeffersonian Republicans in the North ardently maintained that an interpretation of the Constitution required that Congress act to limit the spread of slavery on egalitarian grounds. The slave-holding states were acutely aware that maintaining a balance in the number of states was necessary to ensure political equilibrium in the US Senate. The South sought to enlist Missouri to maintain Southern political preeminence, the Missouri question in the 15th Congress ended in stalemate on March 4,1819, the House sustaining its northern antislavery position, and the Senate blocking a slavery restricted statehood.
Antislavery agitation grew in the North in the aftermath of the debates, as the 16th Congress assembled in December 1819, the two houses remained thoroughly polarized over slavery in the Louisiana Purchase territories. Thomas of Illinois added a proviso, excluding slavery from all remaining lands of the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36 30’ parallel. The combined measures passed the Senate, only to be voted down in the House by those Northern representatives who held out for a free Missouri, speaker of the House of Representatives Henry Clay of Kentucky, in a desperate bid to break the deadlock, divided the Senate bills. The legislation extracted by the served to effect a brokered truce or armistice rather than a genuine compromise. The crux of the Compromise was that it circumvented the deepening disaffection among Jeffersonian Republicans, the Era of Good Feelings, closely associated with the administration of President James Monroe, was characterized by the dissolution of national political identities.
The end of opposition parties meant the end of party discipline, rather than produce political harmony, as President James Monroe had hoped, amalgamation had led to intense rivalries among Jeffersonian Republicans
Uncle Tom's Cabin
Uncle Toms Cabin, or, Life Among the Lowly, is an anti-slavery novel by American author Harriet Beecher Stowe. Published in 1852, the novel helped lay the groundwork for the Civil War, the sentimental novel depicts the reality of slavery while asserting that Christian love can overcome something as destructive as enslavement of fellow human beings. Uncle Toms Cabin was the novel of the 19th century. It is credited with helping fuel the abolitionist cause in the 1850s, in the first year after it was published,300,000 copies of the book were sold in the United States, one million copies in Great Britain. In 1855, three years after it was published, it was called the most popular novel of our day, to affirm the role of literature as an agent of social change. The book and the plays it inspired helped popularize a number of stereotypes about black people and these include the affectionate, dark-skinned mammy, the pickaninny stereotype of black children, and the Uncle Tom, or dutiful, long-suffering servant faithful to his white master or mistress.
In recent years, the associations with Uncle Toms Cabin have, to an extent. Stowe, a Connecticut-born teacher at the Hartford Female Seminary and an active abolitionist, wrote the novel as a response to the passage, in 1850, of the second Fugitive Slave Act. Much of the book was composed in Brunswick, where her husband, Calvin Ellis Stowe, taught at his alma mater, Bowdoin College. Stowe was partly inspired to create Uncle Toms Cabin by the slave narrative The Life of Josiah Henson, Formerly a Slave, Now an Inhabitant of Canada, as Narrated by Himself. Henson, an enslaved black man, had lived and worked on a 3,700 acres tobacco plantation in North Bethesda, Maryland. Henson escaped slavery in 1830 by fleeing to the Province of Upper Canada, where he helped other fugitive slaves settle and become self-sufficient, Stowe acknowledged in 1853 that Hensons writings inspired Uncle Toms Cabin. When Stowes work became a best-seller, Henson republished his memoirs as The Memoirs of Uncle Tom and traveled on lecture tours extensively in the United States and Europe.
Stowes novel lent its name to Hensons home—Uncle Toms Cabin Historic Site, near Dresden and it is now a part of the National Park Service National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program, and plans are underway to build a museum and interpretive center on the site. American Slavery As It Is, Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses, a volume co-authored by Theodore Dwight Weld and the Grimké sisters, is a source of some of the novels content. Stowe said she based the novel on a number of interviews with people who escaped slavery during the time when she was living in Cincinnati, across the Ohio River from Kentucky, a slave state. In Cincinnati the Underground Railroad had local abolitionist sympathizers and was active in efforts to help runaway slaves on their route from the South. Stowe mentioned a number of the inspirations and sources for her novel in A Key to Uncle Toms Cabin and this non-fiction book was intended to verify Stowes claims about slavery
It ensued after South Carolina declared that the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of the state. The US suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected, many South Carolina politicians blamed the change in fortunes on the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its European competition. The controversial and highly protective Tariff of 1828 was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, the tariff was opposed in the South and parts of New England. By 1828, South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue and its opponents expected that the election of Jackson as President would result in the tariff being significantly reduced. In Washington, a split on the issue occurred between Jackson and Vice President John C. Calhoun, a native South Carolinian and the most effective proponent of the theory of state nullification.
On July 14,1832, before Calhoun had resigned the Vice Presidency in order to run for the Senate where he could effectively defend nullification, Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most northerners and half of the southerners in Congress, military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement were initiated by the state. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 15,1833, the crisis was over, and both sides could find reasons to claim victory. The tariff rates were reduced and stayed low to the satisfaction of the South, by the 1850s the issues of the expansion of slavery into the western territories and the threat of the Slave Power became the central issues in the nation. Later in the decade the Alien and Sedition Acts led to the states rights position being articulated in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. ”The key sentence, and the word nullification was used in supplementary Resolutions passed by Kentucky in 1799.
He was chairman of a committee of the Virginia Legislature which issued a book-length Report on the Resolutions of 1798 and this asserted that the state did not claim legal force. The declarations in such cases are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied by other effect than what they may produce upon opinion, the opinions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force. But, the four presidential terms spanning the period from 1800 to 1817 did little to advance the cause of states’ rights and much to weaken it. ”Over Jefferson’s opposition, the power of the federal judiciary, led by Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall, increased. Jefferson expanded federal powers with the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory, opposition to the War of 1812 was centered in New England. Delegates to a convention in Hartford, Connecticut met in December 1814 to consider a New England response to Madison’s war policy, the debate allowed many radicals to argue the cause of states’ rights and state sovereignty.
In the end, moderate voices dominated and the product was not secession or nullification. After the conclusion of the War of 1812 Sean Wilentz notes, This spirit of nationalism was linked to the tremendous growth and economic prosperity of this post war era
Compromise of 1850
The compromise, drafted by Whig Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky and brokered by Clay and Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois, reduced sectional conflict. Controversy arose over the Fugitive Slave provision, the Compromise was greeted with relief, although each side disliked specific provisions. Texas surrendered its claim to New Mexico, as well as its claims north of the Missouri Compromise Line and it retained the Texas Panhandle and the federal government took over the states public debt. California was admitted as a state with its current boundaries. In practice, these lands were generally unsuited to plantation agriculture, the slave trade was banned in the District of Columbia. A more stringent Fugitive Slave Law was enacted, the Compromise became possible after the sudden death of President Zachary Taylor, although a slave owner, had favored excluding slavery from the Southwest. Whig leader Henry Clay designed a compromise, which failed to pass in early 1850, upon Clays instruction, Douglas divided Clays bill into several smaller pieces and narrowly won their passage over the opposition of those with stronger views on both sides.
A state the size of Texas attracted interest from both residents and pro and anti-slavery camps on a national scale. Texas claimed land north of the 36°30 demarcation line for slavery set by the 1820 Missouri Compromise, the Texas Annexation resolution had required that if any new states were formed out of Texas lands, those north of the Missouri Compromise line would become free states. The eventual Compromise of 1850 preserved the Union, but only for another decade, passed by the House in August 1846 and February 1847 but not the Senate. Later an effort failed to attach the proviso to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the line was again proposed by the Nashville Convention of June 1850. Popular sovereignty, developed by Lewis Cass and Douglas as the eventual Democratic Party position, none of the area would be left as an unorganized or organized territory, avoiding the question of slavery in the territories. Changing Texass borders, Senator Thomas Hart Benton in December 1849 or January 1850, Texass western and northern boundaries would be the 102nd meridian west and 34th parallel north.
First draft of the compromise of 1850, Texass northwestern boundary would be a diagonal line from the Rio Grande 20 miles north of El Paso to the Red River at the 100th meridian west. On January 29,1850, Whig Senator Henry Clay gave a speech called for compromise on the issues dividing the Union. However, Clays specific proposals for achieving a compromise, including his idea for Texas boundary, were not adopted in a single bill, upon Clays urging, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, Democrat of Illinois, divided Clays bill into several smaller bills, and passed each separately. When he instructed Douglas, Clay was nearly dead and unable to guide the congressional debate any further, the Compromise of 1850 was formally proposed by Clay and guided to passage by Douglas over Northern Whig and Southern Democrat opposition. Texass boundaries were set at their present form, El Paso, where Texas had established county government, was left in Texas, Slave trade was abolished in Washington, D. C
Charles W. Morgan (ship)
Charles W. Morgan is an American whaling ship built in 1841 whose active service period was during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Ships of this type were used to harvest the blubber of whales for whale oil. The ship has served as a ship since the 1940s. She is the worlds oldest surviving merchant vessel, and the surviving wooden whaling ship from the 19th century American merchant fleet. She was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1966, Charles Waln Morgan chose Jethro and Zachariah Hillmans shipyard in New Bedford, Massachusetts to construct a new ship. Charles W. Morgans live oak keel was laid down in February 1841, the bow and stern pieces of live oak were secured to the keel by an apron piece. The sturdy stern post was strengthened with hemlock root and white oak, yellow pine shipped from North Carolina was used for the ships beams and hemlock or hackmatack was used for the hanging knees. Construction of Charles W. Morgan proceeded until April 19,1841, the strike gathered support until it encompassed the shipyard, the oil refineries, and the cooper shops, Morgan was appointed chairman of the employers and given the task of resolving the strike.
Morgan opposed their demands, and a meeting with four master mechanics ended in failure, on May 6, an agreement was reached when the workers accepted a ten-and-a-half-hour workday. Work resumed on the ship without incident and she was launched on July 21,1841, the ship was registered as a caravel of 106 1⁄2 feet in length,27 feet 2 1⁄2 inches inches in breadth, and 13 feet 7 1⁄4 inches in depth. The ship was outfitted at Rotchs Wharf for the two months while preparations were made for its first voyage. The eponymous name, Charles W. Morgan, was rejected by her namesake builder before being used. Captain Thomas Norton sailed Charles W. Morgan into the Atlantic alongside Adeline Gibbs, a stop was made at Porto Pim on Faial Island to gather supplies before crossing the Atlantic. The ship passed Cape Horn, charted a course to the north, on December 13, the men launched in their whaling boats and took their first whale and killing it with the thrust of a lance under the side fin. Charles W. Morgan entered the port of Callau in early February, in 1844, the ship sailed to the Kodiak Grounds before sailing for home on August 18.
Charles W. Morgan returned to her port in New Bedford on January 2,1845.56. In her 80 years of service from her port of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Charles W. Morgan, in total, brought home 54,483 barrels of sperm and she sailed in the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans, surviving ice and snow storms
In the 19th century, manifest destiny was a widely held belief in the United States that its settlers were destined to expand across North America. Generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven, historians have emphasized that manifest destiny was a contested concept—pre-civil war Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, American imperialism did not represent an American consensus, Whigs saw Americas moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest. The term was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico, but manifest destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says Merk. It never became a national priority, Merk concluded, From the outset Manifest Destiny—vast in program, in its sense of continentalism—was slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude, the reason was it did not reflect the national spirit.
The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence. There was never a set of principles defining manifest destiny, therefore it was always a general rather than a specific policy made with a motto. Andrew Jackson, who spoke of extending the area of freedom, typified the conflation of Americas potential greatness, the nations budding sense of Romantic self-identity, yet Jackson would not be the only president to elaborate on the principles underlying manifest destiny. Owing in part to the lack of a definitive narrative outlining its rationale, while many writers focused primarily upon American expansionism, be it into Mexico or across the Pacific, others saw the term as a call to example. Without an agreed upon interpretation, much less a political philosophy. This variety of possible meanings was summed up by Ernest Lee Tuveson, A vast complex of ideas and they are not, as we should expect, all compatible, nor do they come from any one source.
This destiny was not explicitly territorial, but OSullivan predicted that the United States would be one of a Union of many Republics sharing those values. Six years later, in 1845, OSullivan wrote another essay titled Annexation in the Democratic Review, in this article he urged the U. S. Overcoming Whig opposition, Democrats annexed Texas in 1845, OSullivans first usage of the phrase manifest destiny attracted little attention. OSullivans second use of the phrase became extremely influential, on December 27,1845, in his newspaper the New York Morning News, OSullivan addressed the ongoing boundary dispute with Britain. That is, OSullivan believed that Providence had given the United States a mission to spread republican democracy, because Britain would not spread democracy, thought OSullivan, British claims to the territory should be overruled. OSullivan believed that manifest destiny was an ideal that superseded other considerations