constitutional issue or an opportunity for political posturing – hence the heated rhetoric that surrounded them. Many southerners feared that limited petition demands might be accepted 197 Alexandria Gazette, March 7, 1838. 198 William Freehling, Secessionists at Bay, 351-52. For a full treatment of John Quincy Adams’ role, including the story of his cane, see: David C. Frederick, “John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Disappearance of the Right of Petition.” Law and History Review 9, no. 1 (1991): 113-55. 102 and then followed by other anti-slavery policies in the future. Many northerners feared, as Adams himself did, that supporters of slavery would demand “to destroy all the principles of civil liberty in the free States, not for the purpose of preserving their institutions within their own limits, but to force their detested principles of slavery into all the free States.” DC ABOLITION PETITIONS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES It was Nat Turner’s 1831 revolt above all that left many southerners dissatisfied with the Democrats’ policy of allowing abolition petitions to be buried in committee. These southerners wanted to make a stand for slavery. They believed that anti-slavery advocates had shown a willingness to push as far as they could, stopped only by a fear of disunion among the broader northern public. Thus they joined the national Whig opposition in an effort to try to disrupt the Democratic Party’s power and scare the broader northern public into silencing anti-slavery agitation. Many southern Whigs therefore turned against petitions in order to protect what they saw as their most vital institution. The more that discussion of the subject was legitimated, it seemed, the easier it would be for northerners to take steps against slavery. On December 10, 1835, Maine Democratic Congressman John Fairfield presented the House with a petition for DC abolition. He asked that it be referred to the southern-dominated Committee on the District of Columbia, which everyone knew would quickly bury it. New York Democratic Congressman John Cramer, eager to avoid a fight, convinced the House simply to table it. In other words, even northern Democrats had no interest in promoting the petitions. 199 Richard N. Current, Northernizing the South (Athens: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1983), 38. 200 For an example of this argument explicitly articulated, see: Milledgeville Southern Recorder, February 28, 1837. 201 Richmond Whig, December 19, 1835. Also see: Congressional Globe, December 10, 1835. 103 Then Fairfield presented yet another petition – this time, in a friendly gesture, moving to table it himself. But Virginia Democrat John Mason had had enough. Mason hailed from Southhampton County, the location of the Turner Revolt. He wanted to force each representative to go on record as to whether abolition petitions – which Mason saw as fomenting slave revolts – should be discussed. The House tabled the petition 180 to 31. Only six northern Democrats voted to continue discussion, along with 25 northern Whigs and Anti-Masons. This partisan divide, in which most northern opponents of the Democratic Party favored anti-slavery petitions, became typical. Immediately afterwards, the House was forced to vote on a motion merely to print the tabled petition for informational purposes. Whig Congressman William Slade of Vermont thought that this ought to be routine, noting that no member had protested the printing of an even more inflammatory anti-slavery petition in 1828. But this was 1835, in the aftermath of not only the Turner Revolt but also similar unrest in Mississippi, debates over nullification, the Force Bill, and abolitionist mailings of anti-slavery pamphlets. Now, the presentation of an abolitionist petition in Congress carried much greater significance. It could be seen as encouraging violent unrest over slavery, and as pointing a way forward for the federal government to ban slavery across the nation. The House therefore tabled Slade’s motion, refusing even to print the petition for the record. The breakdown on this vote was less lopsided than the vote to table the petition, perhaps due to the routine nature of printing documents in Congress; the tally was 168 to 50 to put off even routine printing. This time an overwhelming majority of Whigs and Anti-Masons voted on the seemingly more anti-slavery side, providing 43 of the 50 votes to print the petition, along with only seven Democrats. And this time free-state northern Whigs were joined by two slave-state Whigs, John Milligan of Delaware and William Carter of Tennessee. The

/pdf/the-american-whig-party-and-slavery-3ecy4k4fdi.pdf

The American Whig Party and Slavery

In his penetrating new book, Making an Antislavery Nation, Graham Peck argues that the origins of the U.S. Civil War lay in the conflicting meanings of “freedom” in the North and the South. Accordi...

/pdf/making-an-antislavery-nation-lincoln-douglas-and-the-battle-zgfp8adfn5.pdf

Making an Antislavery Nation: Lincoln, Douglas, and the Battle over Freedom

Abstract Background Understanding the common facilitators and challenges experienced by those implementing physical activity (PA) interventions in Ireland is crucial for both promoting good practices and solutions to overcome such challenges in the future. The purpose of this study was to interview relevant stakeholders to identify factors associated with implementing PA interventions in Ireland. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with service providers, coordinators, funders, researchers and policy makers involved with selected PA interventions (N = 11) in Ireland. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide the generation of an interview script including key questions and prompts. Prompts were identified through a short survey that was completed by participants before the interview. Interviews lasted approximately one-hour and were conducted by the same interviewer, either in person or over the phone, and recorded using a Dictaphone. All interviews were transcribed and cleaned before being analysed using NVIVO. Open coding, using the CFIR domains as a guide, was used to generate and agree on a code book to analyse all interviews. Once open coding was complete, thematic analysis was used to identify themes in the data related to implementation facilitators and challenges. Results Thirty-eight purposely sampled participants took part in the semi-structured interviews (26.3% service providers, 31.6% coordinators, 10.5% funders, 15.8% researchers, 15.8% policy makers). Some themes related to 1) intervention characteristics included usability, costs, fidelity and practical considerations, 2) characteristics of individuals included constraints, knowledge and attitudes, 3) inner setting included support, staffing, understanding or awareness, 4) outer setting included role responsibility, context changes, partnerships, 5) processes of implementation included advertisement, deliver and scale-up. Relationships were also noted between themes. For example, themes identified for funding and stakeholder engagement were found to influence multiple domains of the CFIR framework. Conclusion Findings from these interviews help to understand the complexity of implementing PA interventions in the Irish context. Furthermore, the findings can be used to aid implementation through the facilitators identified and provide solutions to common challenges experienced by those involved in implementing PA interventions. Future work will see the creation of an implementation toolkit using these findings.

Joe Murphy

Papers

Making an Antislavery Nation: Lincoln, Douglas, and the Battle over Freedom

P06-15 What makes physical activity interventions work in Ireland: findings from interviews with those involved with intervention implementation