Troubled Times_ the Tumultuous 1850s
Explore the Troubled Times_ the Tumultuous 1850s study material pdf and utilize it for learning all the covered concepts as it always helps in improving the conceptual knowledge.
Subjects
U.S. HistoryGrade Levels
K12Resource Type
PDFPreview text
FIGURE 14.1 InSouthern Chiv alry: Ar gument v ersus Club ’s(1856), b y John Mag ee, South Car olinian P restonBrooks attack s Mas sachuset ts senat or Charles Sumner aft er his speech denouncing “bor der ruffians” pouring int oKansas fr om Mis souri. F or southerners , def ending sla very meant def ending southern honor .
INTR ODUC TIONCHAP TER OUTLINE14.1 The Compr omise o f 185014.2 The K ansas -Nebr aska Act and the R epublican P arty14.3 The Dr ed Sc ott Decision and Sectional Strif e14.4 John Br own and the Election o f 1860
The he ated sectional c ontro versy between the N orth and the South re ache d new lev els o fintensity in the 1850s . Southerners and nor therners grew ev er more anta gonis tic as the y deb ated theexpansion o f sla very in the W est. The notorious c onfronta tion b etween R epresenta tive Preston Bro oks o f SouthCarolina and Mas sachuset ts sena tor Charles Sumner depicte d in the ima ge above (Figure 14.1 ), illus trates thecontempt b etween e xtremis ts on b oth sides . The “ Caning o f Sumner ” in Ma y 1856 f ollowed up on a sp eech
given b y Sumner tw o da ys earlier in which he c ondemne d sla very in no unc ertain terms , declaring:
“[Admit ting K ansas as a sla ve state] is the rap e of a virgin territor y, comp elling it to the ha teful embrac e ofslavery; and it ma y be cle arly trac ed to a depra ved longing f or a new sla ve state, the hideous o ffspring o f such acrime , in the hop e of adding to the p ower o f sla very in the na tional g overnment .” Sumner criticiz ed prosla verylegisla tors , particularly a ttacking a f ellow sena tor and rela tive of Preston Bro oks. Bro oks resp onde d by beatingSumner with a c ane, a thrashing tha t southerners c elebra ted as a manly def ense o f gentlemanly honor and14Troubled Times: the T umultuous
1850stheir w ay of life. The episo de highlights the violent clash b etween pro - and antisla very factions in the 1850s , aconflict tha t would ev entually le ad to the tra uma tic unra veling o f Americ an demo cracy and civil w ar.
14.1 The Compr omise of 1850LEARNING OBJEC TIVESBy the end o f this section, y ou wil l be able t o:
•Explain the c ontested is sues that led t o the Compr omise o f 1850•Describe and anal yze the r eactions t o the 1850 F ugitiv e Sla ve ActFIGURE 14.2At the end o f the Me xican-Americ an W ar, the Unite d Sta tes g aine d a larg e expanse o f western territor y kno wnas the Me xican C ession . The disp osition o f this new territor y was in ques tion; w ould the new s tates b e sla ve
states or free -soil s tates? In the long r un, the Me xican-Americ an W ar achiev ed wha t abolitionism alone hadfaile d to do: it mobiliz ed man y in the N orth a gains t sla very.
Antisla very nor therners clung to the ide a expres sed in the 1846 W ilmot P roviso: sla very would not e xpand intothe are as tak en, and la ter b ought , from Me xico. Though the pro viso remaine d a prop osal and nev er b ecame alaw, it define d the sectional division . The F ree-Soil P arty, which f orme d at the c onclusion o f the Me xican-Americ an W ar in 1848 and include d man y memb ers o f the faile d Lib erty Party, made this p osition thecenterpiec e of all its p olitic al activities , ensuring tha t the is sue o f sla very and its e xpansion remaine d at the
front and c enter o f Americ an p olitic al deb ate. Supp orters o f the W ilmot P roviso and memb ers o f the new F ree-Soil P arty did not w ant to a bolish sla very in the s tates where it alre ady e xisted; ra ther , Free-Soil adv ocatesdemande d tha t the w estern territories b e kept free o f sla very for the b enefit o f White la borers who might set tlethere . The y wante d to protect White w orkers from ha ving to c omp ete with sla ve labor in the W est.
(Abolitionis ts, in c ontras t, looked to des troy sla very ev erywhere in the Unite d Sta tes.) Southern e xtremis ts,especially w ealth y sla veholders , reacte d with outra ge at this eff ort to limit sla very’s expansion . The y argue d forthe right to bring their ensla ved prop erty w est, and the y vowed to le ave the Union if nec essary to protect theirway of life—me aning the right to ensla ve people —and ensure tha t the Americ an empire o f sla very wouldcontinue to gro w.
BROKERING THE COMPR OMISEThe is sue o f wha t to do with the w estern territories adde d to the republic b y the Mexican C ession consume dCongres s in 1850. Other c ontro versial ma tters , which had b een simmering o ver time , complic ated the problemfurther . Chief among these is sues w ere the sla ve trade in the Dis trict o f Columbia, which antisla very adv ocates354 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850sAccess for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
hop ed to end , and the fugitiv e sla ve laws, which southerners w ante d to s trengthen . The b order b etween T exasand N ew Me xico remaine d contes ted because man y Texans hop ed to enlarg e their s tate fur ther , and , finally ,the is sue o f California had not b een resolv ed. California w as the cro wn jew el of the Me xican C ession , andfollowing the disc overy of gold, it w as flush with thousands o f emigrants . By mos t estima tes, however, it w ouldbe a free s tate, sinc e the f ormer Me xican b an on sla very still remaine d in f orce and sla very had not tak en ro ot
in C alifornia. The map b elow (Figure 14.3 ) sho ws the disp osition o f land b efore the 1850 c ompromise .
FIGURE 14.3 This map sho ws the s tates and t errit ories o f the Unit ed Stat es as the y were in 1849–1850. (cr edit“User:Golbe z”/Wikimedia Commons)The presidential election o f 1848 did lit tle to solv e the problems resulting from the Me xican C ession . Both theWhigs and the Demo crats attempte d to a void addres sing the is sue o f sla very publicly as much as p ossible . TheDemo crats nomina ted Lewis C ass of Michig an, a supp orter o f the ide a of popular so vereignty , or let ting the
people in the territories decide the is sue o f whether or not to p ermit sla very based on majority r ule. The Whigsnomina ted General Zachar y Taylor , a sla veholder from Louisiana, who had achiev ed na tional prominenc e as amilitar y hero in the Me xican-Americ an W ar. Taylor did not tak e a p ersonal s tand on an y issue and remaine dsilent throughout the c amp aign . The fle dgling F ree-Soil P arty put f orward f ormer president Mar tin V an B urenas their c andida te. The F ree-Soil P arty attracte d nor thern Demo crats who supp orted the W ilmot P roviso ,
northern Whigs who rejecte d Taylor b ecause he w as a sla veholder , former memb ers o f the Lib erty Party, andother a bolitionis ts.
Both the Whigs and the Demo crats ran diff erent c amp aigns in the N orth and South . In the N orth, all threeparties a ttempte d to win v oters with promises o f keeping the territories free o f sla very, while in the South ,Whigs and Demo crats promise d to protect sla very in the territories . For southern v oters , the sla veholderTaylor app eared the na tural choic e. In the N orth, the F ree-Soil P arty to ok v otes a way from Whigs andDemo crats and help ed to ensure T aylor ’s election in 1848.
As president , Taylor sought to defuse the sectional c ontro versy as much as p ossible , and , above all else , topreser ve the Union . Although T aylor w as b orn in V irginia b efore relo cating to K entucky and ensla ved morethan one hundre d people b y the la te 1840s , he did not push f or sla very’s expansion into the Me xican C ession .
However, the C alifornia Gold R ush made C alifornia ’s stateho od into an is sue demanding imme diate attention .
In 1849, a fter C alifornia residents adopte d a s tate constitution prohibiting sla very, President T aylor c alled onCongres s to admit C alifornia and N ew Me xico as free s tates, a mo ve tha t infuria ted southern def enders o fslavery who argue d for the right to bring their ensla ved prop erty wherev er the y chose . Taylor , who did notbeliev e sla very could flourish in the arid lands o f the Me xican C ession b ecause the clima te prohibite dplanta tion-s tyle farming , prop osed tha t the W ilmot P roviso b e applie d to the entire are a.
In C ongres s, Kentucky sena tor Henr y Cla y, a v eteran o f congres sional c onflicts , offered a series o f resolutionsaddres sing the lis t of issues rela ted to sla very and its e xpansion . Cla y’s resolutions c alled for the admis sion o fCalifornia as a free s tate; no res trictions on sla very in the res t of the Me xican C ession (a rejection o f the W ilmotProviso and the F ree-Soil P arty’s position); a b oundar y between N ew Me xico and T exas tha t did not e xpand14.1 • The Compr omise o f 1850 355Texas (an imp ortant ma tter, sinc e Texas allo wed sla very and a larg er T exas me ant more opp ortunities f or the
expansion o f sla very); payment o f outs tanding T exas debts from the Lone Star R epublic da ys; and the end o fthe sla ve trade ( but not o f sla very) in the na tion ’s capital , couple d with a more robus t federal fugitiv e sla ve law.
Clay presente d these prop osals as an omnibus bill , tha t is, one tha t would b e voted on its totality .
Clay’s prop osals ignite d a spirite d and angr y deb ate tha t las ted for eight months . The resolution c alling f orCalifornia to b e admit ted as a free s tate arouse d the wra th o f the a ged and de athly ill J ohn C . Calhoun , the elderstatesman f or the prosla very position . Calhoun , too sick to deliv er a sp eech , had his friend V irginia sena torJames Mason present his as sessment o f Cla y’s resolutions and the current s tate of sectional s trife.
In C alhoun ’s eyes, blame f or the s talema te fell squarely on the N orth, which s tood in the w ay of southern andAmeric an prosp erity b y limiting the z ones where sla very could flourish . Calhoun c alled for a vig orous f ederallaw to ensure tha t esc aped ensla ved people w ere returne d to their ensla vers. He also prop osed a c onstitutionalamendment sp ecifying a dual presidency —one o ffice tha t would represent the South and another f or theNorth—a sugg estion tha t hinte d at the p ossibility o f disunion . Calhoun ’s argument p ortrayed an emb attled
South fac ed with c ontinue d nor thern a ggres sion—a line o f reasoning tha t only fur there d the sectional divide .
Several da ys after Mason deliv ered Calhoun ’s sp eech , Mas sachuset ts sena tor Daniel W ebster c ountere dCalhoun in his “ Seventh o f March ” sp eech . Webster c alled for na tional unity , famously declaring tha t he sp oke“not as a Mas sachuset ts man , not as a N orthern man , but as an Americ an.” Webster ask ed southerners to endthre ats of disunion and re ques ted tha t the N orth stop anta gonizing the South b y harping on the W ilmotProviso . Lik e Calhoun , Webster also c alled for a new f ederal la w to ensure the return o f esc aped ensla ved
people .
Webster’s eff orts to c ompromise le d man y abolitionis t symp athiz ers to roundly denounc e him as a traitor .
Whig sena tor W illiam H. Sew ard, who aspire d to b e president , declare d tha t sla very—which he characteriz edas inc omp atible with the as sertion in the Declara tion o f Indep endenc e tha t “all men are cre ated equal ”—wouldone da y be extinguishe d in the Unite d Sta tes. Sew ard’s sp eech , in which he in voked the ide a of a higher morallaw than the C onstitution , secure d his reputa tion in the Sena te as an adv ocate of abolition .
The sp eeches made in C ongres s were publishe d in the na tion ’s new spapers, and the Americ an public f ollowedthe deb ates with gre at interes t, anxious to le arn ho w the is sues o f the da y, esp ecially the p otential adv ance ofslavery, would b e resolv ed. Color ful rep orts of wrangling in C ongres s fur ther pique d public interes t. Indee d, itwas not unc ommon f or arguments to dev olve into fis tfights or w orse . One o f the mos t astonishing episo des o fthe deb ate occurre d in A pril 1850, when a quarrel er upte d between Mis souri Demo cratic sena tor Thomas Har t
Benton , who b y the time o f the deb ate had b ecome a critic o f sla very (despite b eing an ensla ver), andMississippi Demo cratic sena tor Henr y S. F oote. When the burly Benton app eared re ady to as sault F oote, theMississippi sena tor drew his pis tol ( Figure 14.4 ).
FIGURE 14.4 This 1850 print, Scene in Uncle Sam ’s Senat e, depicts Mis sissippi senat or Henr y S. F oote taking aimat Mis souri senat or Thomas Har t Bent on. In the print, Bent on declar es: “ Get out o f the w ay, and let the as sassin fir e!let the sc oundr el use his w eapon! I ha ve no arm ’s! I did not c ome her e to as sassinat e!” F oote responds , “I onl y356 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850sAccess for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
meant t o def end m yself!” (cr edit: Libr ary of Congr ess)President T aylor and Henr y Cla y, whose resolutions had b egun the v erbal firew orks in the Sena te, had nopatienc e for e ach other . Cla y had long harb ored ambitions f or the White House , and , for his p art, Taylorresente d Cla y and disappro ved of his resolutions . With neither side willing to budg e, the g overnment s talle d onhow to resolv e the disp osition o f the Me xican C ession and the other is sues o f sla very. The drama only
incre ased when on J uly 4, 1850, P resident T aylor b ecame gra vely ill , rep ortedly a fter e ating an e xcessiveamount o f fruit w ashe d do wn with milk . He die d fiv e da ys later, and V ice President Millard F illmore b ecamepresident . Unlik e his pre decessor, who man y believ ed would b e opp osed to a c ompromise , Fillmore w orkedwith C ongres s to achiev e a solution to the crisis o f 1850.
In the end , Cla y stepp ed do wn as le ader o f the c ompromise eff ort in fr ustration , and Illinois sena tor StephenDouglas pushe d fiv e sep arate bills through C ongres s, collectiv ely c omp osing the C ompromise o f 1850. F irst, asadvocated by the South , Congres s passed the F ugitiv e Sla ve Act, a la w tha t pro vide d federal mone y—or“bounties” —to sla ve-catchers . Sec ond , to b alanc e this c oncession to the South , Congres s admit ted California asa free s tate, a mo ve tha t cheere d antisla very adv ocates and a bolitionis ts in the N orth. Third , Congres s set tled
the c ontes ted boundar y between N ew Me xico and T exas b y favoring N ew Me xico and not allo wing f or anenlarg ed Texas, another outc ome ple asing to the N orth. In return , the f ederal g overnment p aid the debts T exashad incurre d as an indep endent republic . Fourth, antisla very adv ocates w elcome d Congres s’s ban on the sla vetrade in W ashington , DC, although sla very continue d to thriv e in the na tion ’s capital . Finally , on the thorn yissue o f whether sla very would e xpand into the territories , Congres s avoide d making a direct decision and
instead relie d on the principle o f popular so vereignty . This put the onus on residents o f the territories todecide f or themselv es whether to allo w sla very. Popular so vereignty f ollowed the logic o f Americ an demo cracy;majorities in e ach territor y would decide the territor y’s laws. The c ompromise , however, fur ther e xposed thesectional divide as v otes on the bills divide d along s trict regional lines .
Mos t Americ ans bre athed a sigh o f relief o ver the de al brok ered in 1850, cho osing to b eliev e it had sa ved theUnion . Rather than resolving divisions b etween the N orth and the South , however, the c ompromise s tood as atruce in an other wise white -hot sectional c onflict . Tensions in the na tion remaine d extremely high; indee d,southerners held sev eral c onventions a fter the c ompromise to discus s ways to protect the South . At thesemeetings , extremis ts who c alled for sec ession f ound themselv es in the minority , sinc e mos t southerners
commit ted themselv es to s taying in the Union—but only if sla very remaine d in the s tates where it alre adyexisted, and if no eff ort was made to blo ck its e xpansion into are as where citiz ens w ante d it, thereb y applyingthe ide a of popular so vereignty ( Figure 14.5 ).
FIGURE 14.5 This map sho ws the s tates and t errit ories o f the Unit ed Stat es as the y were from 1850 t o Mar ch 1853.
(credit “User:Golbe z”/Wikimedia Commons)THE FUGITIVE SLA VE A CT AND ITS CONSEQUENCESThe hop e tha t the C ompromise o f 1850 w ould resolv e the sectional crisis pro ved shor t-lived when the F ugitiv e14.1 • The Compr omise o f 1850 357Slave Act turne d into a major sourc e of conflict . The f ederal la w imp osed he avy fines and prison sentenc es onnortherners and midw esterners who aide d those who had esc aped their c aptivity or refuse d to join p osses to
catch free dom-seek ers. Man y nor therners f elt the la w forced them to act as sla ve-catchers a gains t their will .
The la w also es tablishe d a new group o f federal c ommis sioners who w ould decide the fa te of free dom-seek ersbrought b efore them . In some ins tanc es, sla ve-catchers ev en brought in free nor thern Black p eople , promptingabolitionis t societies to s tep up their eff orts to prev ent kidnappings ( Figure 14.6 ). The c ommis sioners had afinancial inc entiv e to send rec apture d ensla ved and free Black p eople to the sla veholding South , sinc e the yreceived ten dollars f or ev ery Afric an Americ an sent to the South and only fiv e if the y decide d the p erson who
came b efore them w as actually free . The c ommis sioners use d no juries , and the alleg ed runa ways could nottestify in their o wn def ense .
FIGURE 14.6 This 1851 pos ter, writ ten b y Bos ton abolitionis t Theodor e Parker, warned that an y Black person, fr eeor ensla ved, risk ed kidnapping b y sla ve-cat chers .
The op eration o f the la w fur ther alarme d nor therners and c onfirme d for man y the e xistenc e of a “ SlavePower”—tha t is, a minority o f elite sla veholders who wielde d a disprop ortiona te amount o f power o ver thefederal g overnment , shaping domes tic and f oreign p olicies to suit their interes ts. Despite southerners’repeated insis tenc e on s tates’ rights , the F ugitiv e Sla ve Act sho wed tha t sla veholders w ere willing to use thepower o f the f ederal g overnment to b end p eople in other s tates to their will . While rejecting the use o f federal
power to res trict the e xpansion o f sla very, prosla very southerners turne d to the f ederal g overnment to protectand promote the ins titution o f sla very.
The actual numb er o f free dom-seek ers who w ere not c apture d within a y ear o f esc aping remaine d very low,perhaps no more than one thousand p er year in the e arly 1850s . Mos t stayed in the South , hiding in plain sightamong free Black p eople in urb an are as. Nonetheles s, southerners f eared the influenc e of a v astUnder groundRailro ad: the netw ork o f nor thern White and free Black p eople who s ymp athiz ed with esc apees and pro vide dsafe houses and sa fe passage from the South . Quak ers, who had long b een trouble d by sla very, were esp ecially
activ e in this netw ork. It is uncle ar ho w man y ensla ved people esc aped through the Underground Railro ad, buthistorians b eliev e tha t between 50,000 and 100,000 use d the netw ork in their bids f or free dom . Me anwhile ,the 1850 F ugitiv e Sla ve Act gre atly incre ased the p erils o f being c apture d. For man y thousands o f free dom-seek ers, esc aping the Unite d Sta tes c ompletely b y going to southern Ontario , Canada, where sla very had b eenabolishe d, offered the b est chanc e of a b etter lif e beyond the re ach o f sla veholders .
Harriet T ubman , one o f the thousands o f ensla ved people who made their esc ape through the Underground358 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850sAccess for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
Railro ad, dis tinguishe d herself f or her eff orts in helping other ensla ved men and w omen esc ape. Born a sla vein Mar yland around 1822, T ubman , who suff ered gre atly under sla very but f ound solac e in Chris tianity , madeher esc ape in the la te 1840s . She returne d to the South more than a do zen times to le ad other ensla ved people ,including her family and friends , along the Underground Railro ad to free dom .
Harriet T ubman: An American Moses?
Harriet T ubman ( Figure 14.7 ) was a leg endar y fig ure in her o wn time and be yond. An escaped ensla ved personherself , she r eturned t o the South thir teen times t o help o ver thr ee hundr ed other fr eedom-seek ers thr ough theUnder ground R ailroad t o liber ty in the Nor th. In 1869, print er Wil liam J . Moses published Sar ah H. Br adford’sScenes in the Lif e of Harriet T ubman . Bradford was a writ er and biogr apher who had kno wn T ubman ’s famil y foryears . The e xcerpt belo w is fr om the beginning o f her book, which she updat ed in 1886 under the title Harriet,
the Moses o f Her P eople .
FIGURE 14.7 This ful l-length por trait o f Harriet T ubman hangs in the National P ortrait Gal lery of theSmithsonian.
“It is pr oposed in this lit tle book t o giv e a plain and un varnished ac count o f some sc enes and adv entur es in thelife of a w oman who , though one o f ear th’s lowly ones , and o f dark -hued skin, has sho wn an amount o f her oism inher char acter rarely pos sessed b y those o f any station in lif e. Her name (w e sa y it advisedl y and withoutexaggeration) deser ves to be handed do wn t o pos terity side b y side with the names o f Joan o f Arc, Gr ace Darling ,and Flor ence Nighting ale; f or not one o f these w omen has sho wn mor e courage and po wer of endur ance in facing
dang er and death t o relieve human suff ering , than has this w oman in her her oic and suc cessful endea vors t oreach and sa ve all whom she might o f her oppr essed and suff ering r ace, and t o pilot them fr om the land o fBondag e to the pr omised land o f Liber ty. Well has she been cal led “Moses ,” for she has been a leader anddeliv erer unt o hundr eds o f her people .
—Sarah H. Br adford,Scenes in the Lif e of Harriet T ubman ”How does Br adford char acterize Tubman? What lang uage does Br adford use t o tie r eligion int o the fight f orfreedom?DEFINING AMERICAN14.1 • The Compr omise o f 1850 359The F ugitiv e Sla ve Act pro voked widespre ad re actions in the N orth. Some a bolitionis ts, such as F rederickDouglas s, believ ed tha t standing up a gains t the la w nec essitated violenc e. In Bos ton and elsewhere ,
abolitionis ts trie d to protect fugitiv es from f ederal a uthorities . One c ase in volved Anthon y Burns , who hadescaped sla very in V irginia in 1853 and made his w ay to Bos ton ( Figure 14.8 ). When f ederal o fficials arres tedBurns in 1854, a bolitionis ts staged a series o f mas s demons trations and a c onfronta tion a t the c ourthouse .
Despite their b est eff orts, however, Burns w as returne d to V irginia when P resident F ranklin Pierc e supp ortedthe F ugitiv e Sla ve Act with f ederal tro ops. Bos ton a bolitionis ts ev entually b ought B urns’ s free dom . For man ynortherners , however, the B urns incident , combine d with Pierc e’s resp onse , only amplifie d their sense o f aconspiracy o f southern p ower.
FIGURE 14.8 Anthon y Burns , drawn ca . 1855 b y an ar tist identified onl y as “Barr y,” sho ws a por trait o f thefreedom-seek er surr ounded b y scenes fr om his lif e, including his escape fr om Vir ginia , his arr est in Bos ton, and hisaddr ess to the c ourt.
The mos t conse quential re action a gains t the F ugitiv e Sla ve Act came in the f orm o f a no vel,Uncle T om’s Cabin.
In it , author Harriet Beecher Sto we, born in C onnecticut , made use o f ensla ved people ’s stories she had he ardfirsthand a fter marr ying and mo ving to Ohio , then on the c ountr y’s western frontier . Her no vel firs t app earedas a series o f stories in a F ree-Soil new spaper, the National Era , in 1851 and w as publishe d as a b ook thefollowing y ear. Sto we told the tale o f ensla ved people who w ere sold b y their K entucky ensla ver. While UncleTom is indee d sold do wn the riv er, young Eliza esc apes with her b aby (Figure 14.9 ). The s tory highlighte d the
idea tha t sla very was a sin b ecause it des troyed families , ripping children from their p arents and husb andsand wiv es from one another . Sto we also emphasiz ed the w ays in which sla very corrupte d White citiz ens. Thecruelty o f some o f the no vel’s White sla veholders ( who g enuinely b eliev e tha t ensla ved people don ’t feel thingsthe w ay tha t White p eople do) and the br utality o f the sla ve de aler Simon Legree , who b eats ensla ved peopleand se xually e xploits an ensla ved woman , demons trate the dehumanizing eff ect o f the ins titution ev en on
those who b enefit from it .360 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850sAccess for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
FIGURE 14.9 This dr awing fr omUncle T om’s Cabin , cap tioned “Eliza c omes t o tell Uncle T om that he is sold, andthat she is running a way to sa ve her child, ” illustrates the w ays in which Harriet Beecher St owe’s antisla very no velbols tered abolitionis ts’ ar guments ag ains t sla very.
Stowe’s no vel pro ved a r una way bestseller and w as the mos t-read no vel of the nineteenth c entur y, inspiringmultiple the atrical pro ductions and music al comp ositions . It w as transla ted into sixty langua ges and remainsin print to this da y. Its mes sage about the evils o f sla very help ed convinc e man y nor therners o f therighteousnes s of the c ause o f abolition . The no vel also demons trated the p ower o f women to shap e publicopinion . Sto we and other Americ an w omen b eliev ed the y had a moral oblig ation to mold the c onscienc e of the
Unite d Sta tes, even though the y could not v ote ( Figure 14.10 ).
FIGURE 14.10 This phot ograph sho ws Harriet Beecher St owe, the author o fUncle T om’s Cabin , in 1852. St owe’swork w as an inspir ation not onl y to abolitionis ts, but also t o those who belie ved that w omen c ould pla y a significantrole in upholding the nation ’s mor ality and shaping public opinion.
CLICK AND EXPL OREVisit the Documenting the Americ an South ( offin) collection on the Univ ersity o fNorth C arolina a t Chap el Hill w ebsite to re ad the memoirs o f Levi C offin, a prominent Quak er a bolitionis t whowas kno wn as the “president ” of the Underground Railro ad for his activ e role in helping ensla ved people tofree dom . The memoirs include the s tory of Eliza Harris , which inspire d Harriet Beecher Sto we’s famous
character .
The b acklash a gains t the F ugitiv e Sla ve Act, fuele d byUncle T om’s Cabin and w ell-publiciz ed cases lik e tha t of14.1 • The Compr omise o f 1850 361Anthon y Burns , also f ound e xpres sion in p ersonal lib erty la ws passed by eight nor thern s tate legisla tures .
These la ws emphasiz ed tha t the s tate w ould pro vide leg al protection to an y arres ted free dom seek ers(including the right to trial b y jur y). The p ersonal lib erty la ws stood as a cle ar-cut e xample o f the N orth’s use o fstates’ rights in opp osition to f ederal p ower while pro viding fur ther evidenc e to southerners tha t nor thernershad no resp ect f or the F ugitiv e Sla ve Act or sla veholders’ prop erty rights .
CLICK AND EXPL OREGo to an archiv ed page from the Michig an Dep artment o f Natural R esourc es( reedom) site to re ad the original te xt of Michig an’s 1855 p ersonal lib erty la ws. Ho w do these la ws refutethe pro visions o f the f ederal F ugitiv e Sla ve Act of 1850?
14.2 The K ansas-Nebr ask a Act and the R epublican P artyLEARNING OBJEC TIVESBy the end o f this section, y ou wil l be able t o:
•Explain the political r amifications o f the K ansas -Nebr aska Act•Describe the f ounding o f the R epublican P artyIn the e arly 1850s , the Unite d Sta tes’ sectional crisis had a bated somewha t, cooled by the C ompromise o f 1850and the na tion ’s general prosp erity . In 1852, v oters w ent to the p olls in a presidential c ontes t between Whigcandida te W infield Sc ott and Demo cratic c andida te Franklin Pierc e. Both men endorse d the C ompromise o f
1850. Though it w as c onsidere d unseemly to hit the c amp aign trail , Scott did so —much to the b enefit o f Pierc e,as Sc ott’s sp eeches f ocuse d on f orty-year-old b attles during the W ar o f 1812 and the w eather . In N ew Y ork,Scott, kno wn as “ Old F uss and F eathers ,” talk ed about a thunders torm tha t did not o ccur and gre atly c onfuse dthe cro wd. In Ohio , a c annon firing to herald Sc ott’s arriv al kille d a sp ecta tor.
Pierc e was a supp orter o f the “ Young Americ a” mo vement o f the Demo cratic P arty, which enthusias ticallyanticip ated extending demo cracy around the w orld and anne xing additional territor y for the Unite d Sta tes.
Pierc e did not tak e a s tanc e on the sla very issue. Help ed by Sc ott’s blunders and the fact tha t he had pla yed norole in the br uising p olitic al battles o f the p ast fiv e years, Pierc e won the election . The brief p erio d oftranquility b etween the N orth and South did not las t long , however; it c ame to an end in 1854 with the p assageof the K ansas -Nebraska A ct. This act le d to the f orma tion o f a new p olitic al party, the R epublic an P arty, tha tcommit ted itself to ending the fur ther e xpansion o f sla very.
THE K ANSAS-NEBRASK A A CTThe rela tive calm o ver the sectional is sue w as brok en in 1854 o ver the is sue o f sla very in the territor y ofKansas . Pressure had b een building among nor therners to org aniz e the territor y west of Mis souri and Io wa,which had b een admit ted to the Union as a free s tate in 1846. This pres sure c ame primarily from nor thernfarmers , who w ante d the f ederal g overnment to sur vey the land and put it up f or sale . Promoters o f a
transc ontinental railro ad w ere also pushing f or this w estward e xpansion .
Southerners , however, had long opp osed the W ilmot P roviso ’s stipula tion tha t sla very should not e xpand intothe W est. By the 1850s , man y in the South w ere also gro wing resentful o f the Mis souri C ompromise o f 1820,which es tablishe d the 36° 30' p arallel as the g eographic al boundar y of sla very on the nor th-south axis .
Prosla very southerners no w contende d tha t popular so vereignty should apply to all territories , not jus t Utahand N ew Me xico. The y argue d for the right to bring their ensla ved prop erty wherev er the y chose .
Attitudes to ward sla very in the 1850s w ere represente d by a v ariety o f regional factions . For three dec ades , theabolitionis ts remaine d a minority , but the y had a signific ant eff ect on Americ an so ciety b y bringing the evils o fslavery into the public c onsciousnes s. In 1840, the Lib erty Party w as the firs t politic al org aniza tion tocamp aign f or a bolition . This group sought to w ork within the e xisting p olitic al system , a s trategy Garrison andothers rejecte d. Me anwhile , the F ree-Soil P arty commit ted itself to ensuring tha t White la borers w ould find362 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850s
Access for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
work in newly ac quire d territories and not ha ve to c omp ete with unp aid ensla ved people . By the 1850s , someabolitionis ts adv ocated the use o f violenc e agains t sla veholders .
It is imp ortant to note tha t, even among those who opp osed the e xpansion o f sla very in the W est, very diff erentattitudes to ward sla very existed. Some antisla very nor therners w ante d the W est to b e the b est countr y for p oorWhite p eople to g o and seek opp ortunity . The y did not w ant White w orkers to ha ve to c omp ete with sla ve labor,a contes t tha t the y believ ed deme aned White la bor. Radic al abolitionis ts, in c ontras t, envisione d the end o f allslavery, and a so ciety o f equality b etween Black and White p eople . Others opp osed sla very in principle , but
believ ed tha t the b est appro ach w as c oloniza tion; tha t is, set tling free d ensla ved people in a c olon y in Afric a.
The gro wing p olitic al mo vement to addres s the is sue o f sla very stiffened the resolv e of southern sla veholdersto def end themselv es and their so ciety a t all c osts. Prohibiting sla very’s expansion , the y argue d, ran c ounter tobasic Americ an prop erty rights . As a bolitionis ts fanne d the flames o f antisla very sentiment , southernerssolidifie d their def ense o f their enormous in vestment in human cha ttel. Acros s the c ountr y, people o f allpolitic al stripes w orrie d tha t the na tion ’s arguments w ould c ause irrep arable rifts in the c ountr y (Figure
14.11 ).
FIGURE 14.11 In this 1850 political car toon, the ar tist tak es aim at abolitionis ts, the F ree-Soil P arty, Southernstates’ rights activis ts, and others he belie ves risk the heal th of the Union.
As these diff erent factions w ere a gita ting f or the set tlement o f Kansas and N ebraska, le aders o f the Demo craticParty in 1853 and 1854 sought to bind their p arty tog ether in the a fterma th o f intrap arty fights o ver thedistribution o f patrona ge jobs . Illinois Demo cratic sena tor Stephen Douglas b eliev ed he had f ound asolution—the Kansas -Nebraska bill —tha t would promote p arty unity and also sa tisfy his c olleagues from theSouth , who detes ted the Mis souri C ompromise line . In J anuar y 1854, Douglas intro duced the bill ( Figure
14.12 ). The act cre ated tw o territories: K ansas , directly w est of Mis souri; and N ebraska, w est of Iowa. The actalso applie d the principle o f popular so vereignty , dicta ting tha t the p eople o f these territories w ould decide f orthemselv es whether to adopt sla very. In a c oncession cr ucial to man y southerners , the prop osed bill w ould alsorepeal the 36° 30' line from the Mis souri C ompromise . Douglas hop ed his bill w ould incre ase his p olitic alcapital and pro vide a s tep f orward on his ques t for the presidency . Douglas also w ante d the territor y org aniz ed
in hop es o f placing the e astern terminus o f a transc ontinental railro ad in Chic ago, rather than St . Louis or N ewOrle ans.14.2 • The K ansas-Nebr aska Act and the R epublican P arty 363FIGURE 14.12 This 1855 map sho ws the ne w territ ories o f Kansas and Nebr aska, complet e with pr oposed r outes o fthe tr ansc ontinental r ailroad.
After he ated deb ates, Congres s narro wly p assed the K ansas -Nebraska A ct. (In the House o f Representa tives,the bill p assed by a mere three v otes: 113 to 110.) This mo ve had major p olitic al conse quenc es. The Demo cratsdivide d along sectional lines as a result o f the bill , and the Whig p arty, in decline in the e arly 1850s , found itspolitic al power slipping fur ther . Mos t imp ortant , the K ansas -Nebraska A ct gave rise to the Republic an P arty, anew p olitic al party tha t attracte d nor thern Whigs , Demo crats who shunne d the K ansas -Nebraska A ct,
memb ers o f the F ree-Soil P arty, and as sorted abolitionis ts. Indee d, with the f orma tion o f the R epublic an P arty,the F ree-Soil P arty ceased to e xist.
The new R epublic an P arty ple dged itself to prev enting the spre ad o f sla very into the territories and raile dagains t the Sla ve Power, infuria ting the South . As a result , the p arty became a solidly nor thern p olitic alorganiza tion . As nev er b efore, the U .S. p olitic al system w as p olariz ed along sectional fa ult lines .
BLEEDING K ANSASIn 1855 and 1856, pro - and antisla very activis ts flo oded Kansas with the intention o f influencing the p opular -sovereignty r ule o f the territories . Prosla very Mis sourians who cros sed the b order to v ote in K ansas b ecamekno wn as border r uffians ; these g aine d the adv anta ge by winning the territorial elections , mos t lik ely throughvoter fra ud and illeg al vote c ounting . (By some es tima tes, up to 60 p ercent o f the v otes c ast in K ansas w ere
fraudulent .) Onc e in p ower, the prosla very legisla ture , meeting a t Lec ompton , Kansas , dra fted a prosla veryconstitution kno wn as the Lec ompton C onstitution . It w as supp orted by President B uchanan , but opp osed byDemo cratic Sena tor Stephen A . Douglas o f Illinois .
The Lecompton ConstitutionKansas w as home t o no f ewer than f our s tate constitutions in its earl y years . Its firs t constitution, the T opek aCons titution, w ould ha ve made K ansas a fr ee-soil s tate. A pr osla very legislatur e, however, created the 1857Lecomp ton Cons titution t o enshrine the ins titution o f sla very in the ne w Kansas -Nebr aska territ ories . In Januar y1858, K ansas v oters def eated the pr oposed L ecomp ton Cons titution, e xcerpted belo w, with an o verwhelming
margin o f 10,226 t o 138.DEFINING AMERICAN364 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850sAccess for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
“ARTICLE VII.— SLAVER YSECT ION 1. The right o f proper ty is bef ore and higher than an y constitutional sanction, and the right o f the o wnerof a sla ve to such sla ve and its incr ease is the same and as in violable as the right o f the o wner o f any proper tywhat ever.
SEC. 2. The L egislatur e shal l have no po wer to pas s laws for the emancipation o f sla ves without the c onsent o fthe o wners , or without pa ying the o wners pr evious t o their emancipation a ful l equiv alent in mone y for the sla vesso emancipat ed. The y shal l have no po wer to prevent immigr ants t o the Stat e from bringing with them suchpersons as ar e deemed sla ves b y the la ws of any one o f the Unit ed Stat es or T errit ories , so long as an y person o fthe same ag e or descrip tion shal l be c ontinued in sla very by the la ws of this Stat e: Provided, That such person or
slave be the bona fide pr oper ty of such immigr ants .”How ar e "sla ves" defined in the 1857 K ansas c onstitution? Ho w does this c onstitution saf eguard the rights o fslaveholders?
The majority in K ansas , however, were F ree-Soilers who seethe d at the b order r uffians’ c o-opting o f thedemo cratic pro cess (Figure 14.13 ). Man y had c ome from N ew England to ensure a numeric al adv anta ge overthe b order r uffians . The N ew England Emigrant Aid So ciety , a nor thern antisla very group , help ed fund theseefforts to halt the e xpansion o f sla very into K ansas and b eyond .
FIGURE 14.13 This ful l-pag e edit orial r an in the F ree-Soiler Kansas T ribune on Sep tember 15, 1855, the da yKansas’ Act t o Punish Off ences ag ains t Sla ve Proper ty of 1855 w ent int o eff ect. This la w made it punishable b ydeath t o aid or abet a fugitiv e sla ve, and it cal led f or punishment o f no les s than tw o years f or an yone who might:
“print, publish, writ e, circulat e, or cause t o be intr oduc ed int o this T errit ory . . . [an y mat erials] . . . c ontaining an ydenial o f the right o f persons t o hold sla ves in this T errit ory.”CLICK AND EXPL OREGo to the K ansas His toric al So ciety ’sKansap edia( onst)to re ad the f our diff erentstate constitutions tha t Kansas had during its e arly y ears as a Unite d Sta tes T erritor y. Wha t can y ou de duce
about the a uthors o f each c onstitution?
In 1856, clashes b etween antisla very Free-Soilers and b order r uffians c ame to a he ad in La wrenc e, Kansas .
The to wn had b een f ounde d by the N ew England Emigrant Aid So ciety , which funde d antisla very set tlement inthe territor y and w ere determine d tha t Kansas should b e a free -soil s tate. Prosla very emigrants from Mis souriwere e qually determine d tha t no “ abolitionis t tyrants” or “negro thiev es” w ould c ontrol the territor y. In the14.2 • The K ansas-Nebr aska Act and the R epublican P arty 365spring o f 1856, sev eral o f Lawrenc e’s leading antisla very citiz ens w ere indicte d for tre ason , and f ederalmarshal Israel Donaldson c alled for a p osse to help mak e arres ts. He did not ha ve trouble finding v olunteers
from Mis souri . When the p osse, which include d Douglas C ounty sheriff Samuel J ones , arriv ed outsideLawrenc e, the antisla very town’s “commit tee o f safety” agree d on a p olicy o f nonresis tanc e. Mos t of those whowere indicte d fle d. Donaldson arres ted tw o men without incident and dismis sed the p osse.
However, Jones , who had b een shot during an e arlier c onfronta tion in the to wn, did not le ave. On Ma y 21,falsely claiming tha t he had a c ourt order to do so , Jones to ok c ommand o f the p osse and ro de into to wn arme dwith rifles , rev olvers, cutlas ses and b owie kniv es. At the he ad o f the pro cession , two fla gs flew: an Americ anflag and a fla g with a crouching tig er. Other b anners f ollowed, bearing the w ords “ Southern rights” and “ TheSup eriority o f the White Rac e.” In the re ar w ere fiv e ar tiller y piec es, which w ere dra gged to the c enter o f town.
The p osse smashe d the pres ses o f the tw o new spapers,Herald o f Freedom and the Kansas F ree Sta te, andburne d do wn the deser ted Free Sta te Hotel ( Figure 14.14 ). When the p osse finally left , Lawrenc e residentsfound themselv es unharme d but terrifie d.
The ne xt morning , a man name d John Bro wn and his sons , who w ere on their w ay to pro vide La wrenc e withreinf orcements , heard the new s of the a ttack . Bro wn, a s trict , Go d-fearing C alvinis t and s taunch a bolitionis t,once remark ed tha t “God had raise d him up on purp ose to bre ak the ja ws of the wick ed.” Disapp ointe d tha t thecitiz ens o f Lawrenc e did not resis t the “ slave hounds” o f Mis souri , Bro wn opte d not to g o to La wrenc e, but tothe homes o f prosla very set tlers ne ar P ottawatomie C reek in K ansas . The group o f sev en, including Bro wn’s
four sons , arriv ed on Ma y 24, 1856, and announc ed the y were the “N orthern Arm y” tha t had c ome to ser vejustice. The y burs t into the c abin o f prosla very Tennes sean J ames Do yle and marche d him and tw o of his sonsoff, sp aring the y oung est at the desp erate re ques t of Do yle’s wif e, Mahala. One hundre d yards do wn the ro ad,Owen and Salmon Bro wn hack ed their c aptiv es to de ath with bro adswords and J ohn Bro wn shot a bullet intoDoyle’s forehe ad. Bef ore the night w as done , the Bro wns visite d tw o more c abins and br utally e xecute d tw o
other prosla very set tlers . None o f those e xecute d ensla ved an y people or had had an ything to do with the raidon La wrenc e.
Brown’s actions precipita ted a new w ave of violenc e. All told , the guerilla w arfare b etween prosla very “b orderruffians” and antisla very forces, which w ould c ontinue and ev en esc alate during the Civil W ar, resulte d in o ver150 de aths and signific ant prop erty los s. The ev ents in K ansas ser ved as an e xtreme reply to Douglas’ sprop osition o f popular so vereignty . As the violent clashes incre ased, Kansas b ecame kno wn as “ Blee dingKansas .” Antisla very adv ocates’ use o f force carved out a new direction f or some who opp osed sla very.
Distancing themselv es from W illiam Llo yd Garrison and other p acifis ts, Bro wn and f ellow abolitionis tsbeliev ed the time had c ome to fight sla very with violenc e.
FIGURE 14.14 This undat ed imag e sho ws the aft ermath o f the sacking o f Lawrence, Kansas , by bor der ruffians .
Shown ar e the ruins o f the F ree Stat e Hot el.
The violent hos tilities as sociated with Blee ding K ansas w ere not limite d to K ansas itself. It w as the c ontro versyover K ansas tha t prompte d the c aning o f Charles Sumner , intro duced at the b eginning o f this chapter with the366 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850sAccess for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
politic al cartoonSouthern Chiv alry: Argument v ersus Club ’s(Figure 14.1 ). Note the title o f the c artoon; itlamp oons the southern ide al of chiv alry, the c ode o f behavior tha t Preston Bro oks b eliev ed he w as following inhis a ttack on Sumner . In Sumner ’s “Crime a gains t Kansas” sp eech he w ent much fur ther than p olitics , fillinghis v erbal attack with allusions to se xuality b y singling out f ellow sena tor Andrew B utler from South C arolina, azealous supp orter o f sla very and Bro oks’ s uncle . Sumner insulte d Butler b y comp aring sla very to pros titution ,
declaring , “Of c ourse he [B utler] has chosen a mis tres s to whom he has made his v ows, and who , though ugly toothers , is alw ays lovely to him; though p ollute d in the sight o f the w orld , is chas te in his sight . I me an the harlotSlavery.” Bec ause B utler w as a ged, it w as his nephew , Bro oks, who sought sa tisfaction f or Sumner ’s attack onhis family and southern honor . Bro oks did not challeng e Sumner to a duel; b y cho osing to b eat him with a c aneinstead, he made it cle ar tha t he did not c onsider Sumner a g entleman . Man y in the South rejoic ed over
Brooks’ s def ense o f sla very, southern so ciety , and family honor , sending him hundre ds o f canes to replac e theone he had brok en as saulting Sumner . The a ttack b y Bro oks left Sumner inc apacita ted ph ysically and mentallyfor a long p erio d of time . Despite his injuries , the p eople o f Mas sachuset ts reelecte d him .
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELEC TION OF 1856The electoral c ontes t in 1856 to ok plac e in a trans forme d politic al landsc ape. A third p olitic al party app eared:
the anti-immigrant Americ an P arty, a formerly secretiv e org aniza tion with the nickname “ the K now-N othingParty” because its memb ers denie d kno wing an ything a bout it . By 1856, the Americ an or K now-N othing P artyhad ev olved into a na tional f orce commit ted to halting fur ther immigra tion . Its memb ers w ere esp eciallyopp osed to the immigra tion o f Irish C atholics , whose lo yalty to the P ope, the y believ ed, preclude d their lo yaltyto the Unite d Sta tes. On the W est Coast, the y opp osed the entr y of immigrant la borers from China, who w ere
thought to b e too foreign to ev er as simila te into a White Americ a.
The election also f eature d the new R epublic an P arty, which o ffered John C . Fremont as its c andida te.
Republic ans ac cuse d the Demo crats of trying to na tionaliz e sla very through the use o f popular so vereignty inthe W est, a view c apture d in the 1856 p olitic al cartoonForcing Sla very Do wn the Thro at of a F ree Soiler (Figure14.15 ). The c artoon f eatures the ima ge of a F ree-Soiler set tler tie d to the Demo cratic P arty pla tform whileSena tor Douglas (a uthor o f the K ansas -Nebraska A ct) and P resident Pierc e force an ensla ved person do wn histhro at. Note tha t the ensla ved person cries out “Murder!!! Help —neighb ors help , O m y poor W ife and Children ,”
a ref erenc e to the a bolitionis ts’ argument tha t sla very des troyed families .
FIGURE 14.15 This 1856 political car toon, Forcing Sla very Do wn the Thr oat o f a F ree Soiler , by John Mag ee, sho wsRepublican r esentment o f the Democr atic plat form—her e represent ed as an actual plat form— of expanding sla veryinto ne w western t errit ories .
The Demo crats offered James B uchanan as their c andida te. Buchanan did not tak e a s tand on either side o f theissue o f sla very; ra ther , he a ttempte d to ple ase b oth sides . His qualific ation , in the minds o f man y, was tha t hewas out o f the c ountr y when the K ansas -Nebraska A ct w as p assed. In the a bove politic al cartoon, Buchanan ,along with Demo cratic sena tor Lewis C ass, holds do wn the F ree-Soil adv ocate. Buchanan w on the election , butFremont g arnere d more than 33 p ercent o f the p opular v ote, an impres sive return f or a new p arty. The Whigs14.2 • The K ansas-Nebr aska Act and the R epublican P arty 367
had c eased to e xist and had b een replac ed by the R epublic an P arty. Know-N othings also trans ferre d theirallegianc e to the R epublic ans b ecause the new p arty also to ok an anti-immigrant s tanc e, a mo ve tha t fur therboosted the new p arty’s standing . (The Demo crats courted the C atholic immigrant v ote.) The R epublic an P artywas a thoroughly nor thern p arty; no southern deleg ate voted for F remont .
14.3 The Dr ed Scott Decision and Sectional Strif eLEARNING OBJEC TIVESBy the end o f this section, y ou wil l be able t o:
•Explain the impor tanc e of the Supr eme Cour t's Dr ed Sc ott ruling•Discus s the principles o f the R epublican P arty as e xpressed b y Abr aham Linc oln in 1858As president , Buchanan c onfronte d a difficult and v olatile situa tion . The na tion nee ded a s trong p ersonality tolead it , and B uchanan did not p ossess this trait . The violenc e in K ansas demons trated tha t applying p opularsovereignty —the demo cratic principle o f majority r ule—to the territor y offered no solution to the na tional
battle o ver sla very. A decision b y the Supreme C ourt in 1857, which c oncerne d the ensla ved Dre d Sc ott, onlydeep ened the crisis .
DRED SCO TTIn 1857, sev eral months a fter P resident B uchanan to ok the o ath o f office, the Supreme C ourt ruled in Dre dScott v . Sandf ord. Dre d Sc ott (Figure 14.16 ), born with sla ve status in V irginia in 1795, had b een one o f thethousands f orced to relo cate as a result o f the mas sive internal sla ve trade and tak en to Mis souri , whereslavery had b een adopte d as p art of the Mis souri C ompromise . In 1820, Sc ott’s owner to ok him firs t to Illinois
and then to the W isconsin territor y. Ho wever, both o f those regions w ere p art of the N orthwest Territor y, wherethe 1787 N orthwest Ordinanc e had prohibite d sla very. When Sc ott returne d to Mis souri , he a ttempte d to buyhis free dom . After his o wner refuse d, he sought relief in the s tate courts, arguing tha t by vir tue o f having liv edin are as where sla very was b anne d, he should b e free .
FIGURE 14.16 This 1888 por trait b y Louis Schul tze sho ws Dred Sc ott, who f ought f or his fr eedom thr ough theAmerican c ourt system.
In a c omplic ated set o f leg al decisions , a jur y found tha t Scott, along with his wif e and tw o children , were free .
However, on app eal from Sc ott’s owner , the s tate Sup erior C ourt rev erse d the decision , and the Sc ottsremaine d ensla ved. Scott then b ecame the prop erty of John Sanf ord ( his name w as mis spelled as “ Sandf ord”in la ter c ourt do cuments), who liv ed in N ew Y ork. He c ontinue d his leg al battle, and b ecause the is sue in volvedMissouri and N ew Y ork, the c ase f ell under the jurisdiction o f the f ederal c ourt. In 1854, Sc ott los t in f ederal368 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850sAccess for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
court and app ealed to the Unite d Sta tes Supreme C ourt.
In 1857, the Supreme C ourt—led by Chief J ustice Roger T aney, a former sla veholder who had free d his those hehad ensla ved—hande d do wn its decision . On the ques tion o f whether Sc ott was free , the Supreme C ourtdecide d he remaine d ensla ved. The c ourt then w ent b eyond the sp ecific is sue o f Scott’s free dom to mak e asweeping and momentous judgment a bout the s tatus o f Black p eople , both free and ensla ved. Per the c ourt,Black p eople c ould nev er b e citiz ens o f the Unite d Sta tes. Further , the c ourt ruled tha t Congres s had no
authority to s top or limit the spre ad o f sla very into Americ an territories . This prosla very ruling e xplicitly madethe Mis souri C ompromise unc onstitutional; implicitly , it made Douglas’ s popular so vereignty unc onstitutional .
Roger T aney on Dred Scott v . Sandf ordIn 1857, the Unit ed Stat es Supr eme Cour t ended y ears o f leg al bat tles when it ruled that Dr ed Sc ott, an ensla vedperson who had r esided in se veral free s tates, should r emain ensla ved. The decision, writ ten b y Chief Jus ticeRoger Taney, also s tated that Black people c ould not be citiz ens and that Congr ess had no po wer to limit thespread o f sla very. The e xcerpt belo w is fr om T aney’s decision.
“A free negr o of the African r ace, whose anc estors w ere brought t o this c ountr y and sold as sla ves, is not a“citiz en” within the meaning o f the Cons titution o f the Unit ed Stat es. . . .
The onl y tw o clauses in the Cons titution which point t o this r ace treat them as persons whom it w as mor allylawful ly to deal in as ar ticles o f proper ty and t o hold as sla ves. . . .
Every citiz en has a right t o tak e with him int o the T errit ory an y article o f proper ty which the Cons titution o f theUnit ed Stat es recognises as pr oper ty. . . .
The Cons titution o f the Unit ed Stat es recognises sla ves as pr oper ty, and pledg es the F eder al Go vernment t oprotect it. And Congr ess cannot e xercise an y mor e authority o ver pr oper ty of that descrip tion than it ma yconstitutional ly exercise o ver pr oper ty of any other kind. . . .
Prohibiting a citiz en o f the Unit ed Stat es fr om taking with him his sla ves when he r emo ves to the T errit ory . . . isan e xercise o f authority o ver priv ate proper ty which is not w arranted b y the Cons titution, and the r emo val of theplaintiff [Dr ed Sc ott] by his o wner t o that T errit ory gave him no title t o freedom. ”How did the Supr eme Cour t define Dr ed Sc ott? Ho w did the c ourt interpr et the Cons titution on this sc ore?
The Dre d Sc ott decision infuria ted Republic ans b y rendering their g oal—to prev ent sla very’s spre ad into theterritories —unc onstitutional . To Republic ans, the decision o ffered fur ther pro of of the re ach o f the South ’sSlave Power, which no w app arently e xtende d ev en to the Supreme C ourt. The decision also c omplic ated lif e fornorthern Demo crats, esp ecially Stephen Douglas , who c ould no long er sell p opular so vereignty as a s ymb olicconcession to southerners from nor thern v oters . Few nor therners fa vored sla very’s expansion w estward.
THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBA TESThe turmoil in K ansas , combine d with the furor o ver the Dre d Sc ott decision , pro vide d the b ackground f or the1858 sena torial c ontes t in Illinois b etween Demo cratic sena tor Stephen Douglas and R epublic an hop efulAbraham Linc oln ( Figure 14.17 ). Linc oln and Douglas eng aged in sev en deb ates b efore hug e cro wds tha t metto he ar the tw o men argue the c entral is sue o f sla very and its e xpansion . Newspapers throughout the Unite d
States publishe d their sp eeches . Where as Douglas alre ady enjo yed na tional rec ognition , Linc oln remaine dlarg ely unkno wn b efore the deb ates. These app earanc es pro vide d an opp ortunity f or him to raise his pro filewith b oth nor therners and southerners .DEFINING AMERICAN14.3 • The Dr ed Sc ott Decision and Sectional S trife369FIGURE 14.17 In 1858, Abr aham Linc oln (a) debat ed St ephen Douglas (b) se ven times in the Il linois r ace for theU.S. Senat e. Although Douglas w on the seat, the debat es pr opel led Linc oln int o the national political spotlight.
Douglas p ortrayed the R epublic an P arty as an a bolitionis t eff ort—one tha t aime d to bring a boutmisc egenat ion, or rac e-mixing through se xual rela tions or marria ge. The “Black R epublic ans,” Douglasdeclare d, posed a dang erous thre at to the C onstitution . Indee d, because Linc oln declare d the na tion c ould notsurvive if the sla ve state–free s tate division c ontinue d, Douglas claime d the R epublic ans aime d to des troy wha tthe f ounders had cre ated.
For his p art, Linc oln said: “ A house divide d agains t itself c annot s tand . I believ e this g overnment c annotendure p ermanently half Sla ve and half F ree. I do not e xpect the Union to b e dis solv ed—I do not e xpect thehouse to fall—but I do e xpect it will c ease to b e divide d. It will b ecome all one thing , or all the other . Either theopp onents o f sla very will arres t the fur ther spre ad o f it, and plac e it where the public mind shall res t in thebelief tha t it is in the c ourse o f ultima te extinction: or its adv ocates will push it f orward till it shall b ecame alik e
lawful in all the Sta tes—old as w ell as new , North as w ell as South .” Linc oln interprete d the Dre d Sc ott decisionand the K ansas -Nebraska A ct as eff orts to na tionaliz e sla very: tha t is, to mak e it leg al ev erywhere from N ewEngland to the Midw est and b eyond .
The Lincoln-Douglas DebatesOn Aug ust 21, 1858, Abr aham Linc oln and St ephen Douglas met in Ot tawa, Illinois , for the firs t of seven debat es.
People s treamed int o Ot tawa from neighboring c ounties and fr om as far a way as Chicag o. Repor ting on the e ventwas strictl y par tisan, with each o f the candidat es’ suppor ters claiming vict ory for their candidat e. In this e xcerpt,Linc oln addr esses the is sues o f equality betw een Black and Whit e people .
“[A]n ything that ar gues me int o his idea o f per fect social and political equality with the negr o, is but a speciousand fantas tic arr angement o f words, . . . I ha ve no purpose , directly or indir ectly, to int erfere with the ins titutionof sla very in the Stat es wher e it e xists. I belie ve I ha ve no la wful right t o do so , and I ha ve no inclination t o do so .
I have no purpose t o intr oduc e political and social equality betw een the whit e and the black r aces. Ther e is aphysical diff erence betw een the tw o, which, in m y judgment, wil l probabl y forever forbid their living t ogetherupon the f ooting o f per fect equality , . . . I, as w ell as Judg e Douglas , am in fa vor of the r ace to which I belonghaving the superior position. . . . [N]otwiths tanding al l this , ther e is no r eason in the w orld wh y the negr o is notentitled t o all the natur al rights enumer ated in the Declar ation o f Independenc e, the right t o life, liber ty, and the
pursuit o f happines s. I hold that he is as much entitled t o these as the Whit e man. . . . [I]n the right t o eat thebread, without the lea ve of anybody else , which his o wn hand earns , he is m y equal and the equal o f Judg eDouglas , and the equal o f every living man.DEFINING AMERICAN370 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850sAccess for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
—Linc oln’s speech on Aug ust 21, 1858, in Ot tawa, Illinois ”How would y ou char acterize Linc oln’s position on equality betw een Black and Whit e people? What types o fequality e xist, ac cording t o Linc oln?
CLICK AND EXPL OREGo to the Linc oln Home N ational His toric Site ( )on the N ational P arkService’s website to re ad e xcerpts from and full te xts o f the deb ates. Then , visit The Linc oln/Douglas Deb ates o f1858 ( on the N orthern Illinois Univ ersity w ebsite to re ad diff erentnew spaper ac counts o f the deb ates. Do y ou see an y major diff erenc es in the w ay the new spapers rep orted the
deb ates? Ho w do es the c ommentar y vary, and wh y?
During the deb ates, Linc oln demande d tha t Douglas e xplain whether or not he b eliev ed tha t the 1857 SupremeCourt decision in the Dre d Sc ott case tr ump ed the right o f a majority to prev ent the e xpansion o f sla very underthe principle o f popular so vereignty . Douglas resp onde d to Linc oln during the sec ond deb ate at Freep ort,Illinois . In wha t became kno wn as the Freep ort Do ctrine , Douglas adamantly upheld p opular so vereignty ,declaring: “It ma tters not wha t way the Supreme C ourt ma y here after decide as to the a bstract ques tion
whether sla very ma y or ma y not g o into a territor y under the C onstitution , the p eople ha ve the la wful me ans tointro duce it or e xclude it as the y ple ase.” The F reep ort Do ctrine anta goniz ed southerners who supp ortedslavery, and c aused a major rift in the Demo cratic P arty. The do ctrine did help Douglas in Illinois , however,where mos t voters opp osed the fur ther e xpansion o f sla very. The Illinois legisla ture selecte d Douglas o verLinc oln f or the sena te, but the deb ates had the eff ect o f launching Linc oln into the na tional sp otlight . Linc oln
had argue d tha t sla very was morally wrong , even as he ac cepte d the racism inherent in sla very. He w arne d tha tDouglas and the Demo crats w ould na tionaliz e sla very through the p olicy o f popular so vereignty . ThoughDouglas had sur vived the sena te election challeng e from Linc oln, his F reep ort Do ctrine dama ged the p olitic alsupp ort he nee ded from the Southern Demo crats. This help ed him to lose the f ollowing presidential election ,undermining the Demo cratic P arty as a na tional f orce.
14.4 John Br own and the Election of 1860LEARNING OBJEC TIVESBy the end o f this section, y ou wil l be able t o:
•Describe John Br own’s raid on Harpers F erry and its r esul ts•Anal yze the r esul ts of the election o f 1860Events in the la te 1850s did nothing to quell the c ountr y’s sectional unres t, and c ompromise on the is sue o fslavery app eared imp ossible . Linc oln’s 1858 sp eeches during his deb ates with Douglas made the R epublic anParty’s position w ell kno wn; R epublic ans opp osed the e xtension o f sla very and b eliev ed a Sla ve Power
conspiracy sought to na tionaliz e the ins titution . The y quickly g aine d politic al momentum and to ok c ontrol o fthe House o f Representa tives in 1858. Southern le aders w ere divide d on ho w to resp ond to R epublic ansuccess. Southern e xtremis ts, kno wn as “ Fire-Eaters ,” op enly c alled for sec ession . Others , like Mis sissippisena tor J efferson Da vis, put f orward a more mo dera te appro ach b y demanding c onstitutional protection o fslavery.
JOHN BR OWNIn Octob er 1859, the radic al abolitionis t John Bro wn and eighteen arme d men , both Black and White , attack edthe f ederal arsenal in Harp ers F erry, Virginia. The y hop ed to c apture the w eapons there and dis tribute themamong ensla ved people to b egin a mas sive uprising tha t would bring an end to sla very. Bro wn had alre adydemons trated during the 1856 P ottawatomie a ttack in K ansas tha t he had no p atienc e for the non violent
appro ach pre ache d by pacifis t abolitionis ts lik e William Llo yd Garrison . Born in C onnecticut in 1800, Bro wn14.4 • John Br own and the Election o f 1860 371(Figure 14.18 ) spent much o f his lif e in the N orth, mo ving from Ohio to P enns ylvania and then ups tate N ewYork as his v arious busines s ventures faile d. To him , sla very app eared an unac cepta ble evil tha t mus t bepurg ed from the land , and lik e his Puritan f oreb ears, he b eliev ed in using the s word to def eat the ung odly.
FIGURE 14.18 John Br own, sho wn her e in a phot ograph fr om 1859, w as a r adical abolitionis t who adv ocat ed theviolent o verthrow of sla very.
Brown had g one to K ansas in the 1850s in an eff ort to s top sla very, and there , he had p erpetra ted the killings a tPottawatomie . He told other a bolitionis ts of his plan to tak e Harp ers F erry Armor y and initia te a mas sive sla veuprising . Some a bolitionis ts pro vide d financial supp ort, while others , including F rederick Douglas s, found theplot suicidal and refuse d to join . On Octob er 16, 1859, Bro wn’s force easily to ok c ontrol o f the f ederal armor y,which w as unguarde d (Figure 14.19 ). Ho wever, his vision o f a mas s uprising faile d completely . Very few
ensla ved people liv ed in the are a to rally to Bro wn’s side , and the group f ound themselv es hole d up in thearmor y’s engine house with to wnsp eople taking shots a t them . Federal tro ops, commande d by Colonel R obertE. Lee , soon c apture d Bro wn and his f ollowers. On Dec emb er 2, Bro wn w as hang ed by the s tate of Virginia f ortreason .
FIGURE 14.19 John Br own’s raid on Harpers F erry represent ed the r adical abolitionis t’s attemp t to start a revoltthat w ould ul timat ely end sla very. This 1859 il lustration, cap tioned “Harper ’s Ferry insurr ection— Interior o f theEngine -House , jus t bef ore the g ate is br oken do wn b y the s torming par ty—Col. Washingt on and his as sociat es ascaptives, held b y Brown as hos tages,” is fr omFrank L eslie ’s Illustrated Mag azine . Do y ou think this imag e representsa southern or nor thern v ersion o f the r aid? Ho w ar e the char acters in the sc ene depict ed?372 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850s
Access for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
CLICK AND EXPL OREVisit the Avalon P roject ( ohnBro wn) on Y ale La w Scho ol’s website to re ad theimp assione d sp eech tha t Henr y Da vid Thore au deliv ered on Octob er 30, 1859, arguing a gains t the e xecution o fJohn Bro wn. Ho w do es Thore au characteriz e Bro wn? Wha t do es he ask o f his f ellow citiz ens?
John Bro wn’s raid on Harp ers F erry genera ted intense re actions in b oth the South and the N orth. Southernersgrew esp ecially apprehensiv e of the p ossibility o f other violent plots . The y view ed Bro wn as a terroris t bent ondestroying their civiliza tion , and supp ort for sec ession grew . Their anxiety le d sev eral southern s tates to p asslaws designe d to prev ent reb ellions b y the ensla ved. It seeme d tha t the w orst fears o f the South had c ome tr ue:
A hos tile majority w ould s top a t nothing to des troy sla very. Was it p ossible , one resident o f Mar yland ask ed, to“live under a g overnment , a majority o f whose subjects or citiz ens reg ard J ohn Bro wn as a mar tyr andChris tian hero? ” Man y antisla very nor therners did in fact c onsider Bro wn a mar tyr to the c ause, and those whoview ed sla very as a sin sa w easy comp arisons b etween him and J esus Chris t.
THE ELEC TION OF 1860The election o f 1860 thre atene d Americ an demo cracy when the elev ation o f Abraham Linc oln to thepresidency inspire d sec essionis ts in the South to withdra w their s tates from the Union .
Linc oln’s election o wed much to the disarra y in the Demo cratic P arty. The Dre d Sc ott decision and the F reep ortDoctrine had op ened up hug e sectional divisions among Demo crats. Though Bro wn did not intend it , his raidhad fur there d the split b etween nor thern and southern Demo crats. Fire-Eaters v owed to prev ent a nor thernDemo crat, esp ecially Illinois’ s Stephen Douglas , from b ecoming their presidential c andida te. These prosla veryzealots insis ted on a southern Demo crat.
The Demo cratic nomina ting c onvention met in A pril 1860 in Charles ton, South C arolina. Ho wever, it brok e upafter nor thern Demo crats, who made up a majority o f deleg ates, rejecte d Jefferson Da vis’s eff orts to protectslavery in the territories . These nor thern Demo cratic deleg ates knew tha t supp orting Da vis on this is sue w ouldbe very unp opular among the p eople in their s tates. A sec ond c onferenc e, held in Baltimore , fur ther illus tratedthe divide within the Demo cratic P arty. Northern Demo crats nomina ted Stephen Douglas , while southern
Demo crats, who met sep arately, put f orward V ice President J ohn Breckinridg e from K entucky . The Demo craticParty had fracture d into tw o comp eting sectional factions .
By offering tw o candida tes f or president , the Demo crats gave the R epublic ans an enormous adv anta ge. Alsohoping to prev ent a R epublic an victor y, pro -Unionis ts from the b order s tates org aniz ed the C onstitutionalUnion P arty and put up a f ourth candida te, John Bell , for president , who ple dged to end sla very agita tion andpreser ve the Union but nev er fully e xplaine d ho w he ’d ac complish this objectiv e. In a pro -Linc oln p olitic alcartoon o f the time ( Figure 14.20 ), the presidential election is presente d as a b aseb all g ame . Linc oln s tands on
home pla te. A sk unk raises its tail a t the other c andida tes. Holding his nose , southern Demo crat JohnBreckinridg e holds a b at labeled “Slavery Extension ” and declares “I gues s I’d better le ave for K entucky , for Ismell something s trong around here , and b egin to think , tha t we are c ompletely sk unk ’d.”14.4 • John Br own and the Election o f 1860 373FIGURE 14.20 The national g ame . Thr ee “outs” and one “ run”(1860), b y Currier and Iv es, sho ws the tw oDemocr atic candidat es and one Cons titutional Union candidat e who los t the 1860 election t o Republican Linc oln,
shown at right.
The R epublic ans nomina ted Linc oln, and in the N ovemb er election , he g arnere d a mere 40 p ercent o f thepopular v ote, though he w on ev ery nor thern s tate except N ew J erse y. (Linc oln’s name w as blo cked from ev enapp earing on man y southern s tates’ b allots b y southern Demo crats.) More imp ortantly , Linc oln did g ain amajority in the Electoral C olleg e (Figure 14.21 ). The F ire-Eaters , however, refuse d to ac cept the results . WithSouth C arolina le ading the w ay, Fire-Eaters in southern s tates b egan to withdra w formally from the Unite d
States in 1860. South C arolinian Mar y Bo ykin Chesnut wrote in her diar y about the re action to the Linc oln’selection . “Now tha t the Black radic al Republic ans ha ve the p ower,” she wrote , “I supp ose the y will Bro wn usall.” Her s tatement rev ealed man y southerners’ f ear tha t with Linc oln as P resident , the South c ould e xpectmore ma yhem lik e the J ohn Bro wn raid .
FIGURE 14.21 This map sho ws the disposition o f elect oral votes for the election o f 1860. The v otes w ere dividedalong almos t per fect sectional lines .374 14 • T roubled Times: the T umul tuous 1850sAccess for fr ee a t opens tax. org.
Key T ermsAmeric an P arty also c alled the K now-N othing P arty, a p olitic al party tha t emerg ed in 1856 with an anti-immigra tion pla tformBlee ding K ansas a ref erenc e to the violent clashes in K ansas b etween F ree-Soilers and sla very supp ortersborder r uffians prosla very Mis sourians who cros sed the b order into K ansas to influenc e the legisla ture
Compromise of 1850 five laws passed by Congres s to resolv e issues s temming from the Me xican C essionand the sectional crisisDre d Sc ott v . Sandf ord an 1857 c ase in which the Supreme C ourt ruled tha t Black p eople c ould not b ecitiz ens and C ongres s had no jurisdiction to imp ede the e xpansion o f sla veryFire-Eaters radic al southern sec essionis ts
Free-Soil P arty a politic al party commit ted to ensuring tha t White la borers w ould not ha ve to c omp ete withunp aid ensla ved people in newly ac quire d territoriesFreep ort Do ctrine a do ctrine tha t emerg ed during the Linc oln-Douglas deb ates in which Douglasreaffirme d his c ommitment to p opular so vereignty , including the right to halt the spre ad o f sla very,despite the 1857 Dre d Sc ott decision a ffirming sla veholders’ right to bring their prop erty wherev er the y
wishe dHarp ers F erry the site o f a federal arsenal in V irginia, where radic al abolitionis t John Bro wn s taged an ill-fated eff ort to end sla very by ins tigating a mas s uprising among ensla ved peoplemisc egenat ion race-mixing through se xual rela tions or marria gepopular so vereignt y the principle o f let ting the p eople residing in a territor y decide whether or not to
permit sla very in tha t are a based on majority r uleRepublic an P arty an antisla very politic al party forme d in 1854 in resp onse to Stephen Douglas’ s Kansas -Nebraska A ctUnder ground Railro ad a netw ork o f free Black and nor thern White p eople who help ed ensla ved peopleescape bonda ge through a series o f designa ted routes and sa fe houses
Summary14.1 The Compr omise of 1850The difficult pro cess of reaching a c ompromise on sla very in 1850 e xposed the sectional fa ult lines in theUnite d Sta tes. After sev eral months o f ranc orous deb ate, Congres s passed fiv e laws—kno wn c ollectiv ely as theCompromise o f 1850—tha t people on b oth sides o f the divide hop ed had solv ed the na tion ’s problems .
However, man y nor therners f eared the imp act o f the F ugitiv e Sla ve Act, which made it a crime not only to helpensla ved people esc ape, but also to fail to help c apture them . Man y Americ ans, both Black and White , floute dthe F ugitiv e Sla ve Act by particip ating in the Underground Railro ad, pro viding sa fe houses f or free dom-seek ers on the r un from the South . Eight nor thern s tates p assed personal lib erty la ws to c ounteract the eff ectsof the F ugitiv e Sla ve Act.
14.2 The K ansas-Nebr ask a Act and the R epublican P artyThe applic ation o f popular so vereignty to the org aniza tion o f the K ansas and N ebraska territories ende d thesectional tr uce tha t had prev ailed sinc e the C ompromise o f 1850. Sena tor Douglas’ s Kansas -Nebraska A ctopened the do or to chaos in K ansas as prosla very and F ree-Soil f orces w aged war a gains t each other , andradic al abolitionis ts, nota bly J ohn Bro wn, commit ted themselv es to violenc e to end sla very. The act also
upende d the sec ond p arty system o f Whigs and Demo crats by inspiring the f orma tion o f the new R epublic anParty, commit ted to arres ting the fur ther spre ad o f sla very. Man y voters appro ved its pla tform i