Read this excerpt from the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln: Douglas says, "Why can’t this Union endure permanently, half slave and half free? Why can’t we let it stand as our fathers placed it?" . . . . Judge Douglas assumes that we have no interest in them—that we have no right to interfere. . . . Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so express myself clear? Do we not feel an interest in getting to that outlet with such institutions as we would like to have prevail there? Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home. I am in favor of this not merely for our own people, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over—in which Hans and Baptiste and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their conditions in life. Why does Lincoln believe the nation cannot exist forever half slave and half free?

According to the text, Lincoln seems to believe that if new territories were to become slave states, there would not be enough spare room for the surplus white population living in the Eastern states.

According to historians, Lincoln was not particularly interested in the morality of slavery, but he saw slavery as inconvenient. This is why he did not directly oppose slavery in the South, (only in the new western territories) until the emancipation proclamation, which he saw first as a military strategy.

lost > < > < > < > < > < > < > > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > > < > < > < > < > > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > < > > > > < > < > < > < > < > < > > < > < > < > < > > < > < > < > < > < > > < > < > < > < > > < > < __a__t__l__a_s_|

| |

||

president carter called the victims of kidnapping "victims of terrorism and anarchy" and added that the united states was not going to give in to blackmail. in the united states, they see hostage-taking as an outrage on the part of the islamist movement that violated the principle of international law on the immunity and inviolability of diplomats and their embassies.

carter refused to yield to the demands, khomeini used the situation to consolidate his power and nullify the challenges of the moderate wing of his government, headed by its president. the euphoria over the humiliation of the most powerful nation distracted the iranian people from the economic difficulties of their country. carter, in april 1980, broke diplomatic relations with iran and imposed a trade embargo, except medicine and food. iranian funds in the us they were frozen and accounted for to compensate the hostages when they were released and to pay the demands of us companies against iran.