Download 14 The Union in Peril

NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
C
9/28/05
1:31 PM
H
A
Page 456
P
T
E
R
14
The Union
in Peril
George Caleb Bingham’s Stump Speaking (1856) captures the democratic energy of politics
at midcentury. Note the Lincoln-like figure sitting to the right. (Private Collection/Bridgeman Art
Library)
American Stories
Four Men Respond to the Union in Peril
The autumn of 1860 was a time of ominous rumors and expectations.The election
was held on November 6 in an atmosphere of crisis. In Springfield, Illinois, Abraham
Lincoln, taking coffee and sandwiches prepared by the “ladies of Springfield,” waited as
the telegraph brought in the returns. By 1 A.M., victory was certain. He reported later,
“I went home, but not to get much sleep, for I then felt, as I never had before, the
456
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 457
CHAPTER OUTLINE
responsibility that was upon me.” Indeed, he and the American people faced the most
serious crisis since the founding of the Republic.
Lincoln won a four-party election with only 39 percent of the popular vote. He appealed almost exclusively to northern voters in a blatantly sectional campaign, defeating his three opponents by carrying every free state except New Jersey. Only Illinois
senator Stephen Douglas campaigned actively in every section of the country. For his
efforts, he received the second-highest number of votes. Douglas’s appeal, especially in
the closing days of the campaign, was “on behalf of the Union,” which he feared—correctly—was in imminent danger of splitting apart.
That fall, other Americans sensed the crisis and faced their own fears and responsibilities. A month before the election, South Carolina plantation owner Robert Allston wrote his oldest son, Benjamin, that “disastrous consequences” would follow
from a Lincoln victory. Although his letter mentioned the possibility of secession, he
dealt mostly with plantation concerns: a new horse, the mood of the slaves, ordering
supplies from the city, instructions for making trousers on a sewing machine. After
Lincoln’s election,Allston corresponded with a southern colleague about the need for
an “effective military organization” to resist “Northern and Federal aggression.” In his
shift from sewing machines to military ones, Robert Allston prepared for what he
called the “impending crisis.”
Frederick Douglass greeted the election of 1860 with characteristic optimism.This
was an opportunity to “educate . . . the people in their moral and political duties,” he
said, adding,“slaveholders know that the day of their power is over when a Republican
President is elected.” But no sooner had Lincoln’s victory been determined than Douglass’s hopes turned sour. He noted that Republican leaders, who were trying to keep
border states from seceding, sounded more antiabolitionist than antislavery. They
vowed not to touch slavery in areas where it already existed (including the District of
Columbia), to enforce the hated Fugitive Slave Act, and to put down slave rebellions. In
fact, Douglass bitterly contested, slavery would “be as safe, and safer” with Lincoln
than with a Democrat.
Iowa farmer Michael Luark was not so sure. Born in Virginia, he was a typically mobile nineteenth-century American. Growing up in Indiana, he followed the mining
booms of the 1850s to Colorado and California, then returned to the Midwest to
farm. Luark sought a good living and resented the furor over slavery. He could not,
however, avoid the issue. Writing in his diary on the last day of 1860, Luark looked
ahead to 1861 with a deep sense of fear. “Startling” political changes would occur, he
predicted, perhaps even the “Dissolution of the Union and Civil War with all its train
of horrors.” He blamed abolitionist agitators, perhaps reflecting his Virginia origins. On
New Year’s Day, he expressed his fears that Lincoln would let the “most ultra sectional
and Abolition” men disturb the “vexed Slavery question” even further, as Frederick
Douglass wanted. But if this happened, Luark warned, “then farewell to our beloved
Union of States.” Within four months of this diary entry, the guns of the Confederate
States of America fired on a federal fort in South Carolina.The Civil War had begun.
Slavery in the Territories
Free Soil or Constitutional
Protection?
Popular Sovereignty and the
Election of 1848
The Compromise of 1850
Consequences of Compromise
Political Disintegration
Weakened Party Politics in the
Early 1850s
The Kansas–Nebraska Act
Expansionist “Young America” in
the Larger World
Nativism, Know-Nothings, and
Republicans
Kansas and the Two Cultures
Competing for Kansas
“Bleeding Kansas”
Northern Views and Visions
The Southern Perspective
Polarization and the Road to
War
The Dred Scott Case
Constitutional Crisis in Kansas
Lincoln and the Illinois Debates
John Brown’s Raid
The Election of 1860
The Divided House Falls
Secession and Uncertainty
Lincoln and Fort Sumter
Conclusion: The
“Irrepressible Conflict”
The firing on Fort Sumter made real Luark’s fears, Douglass’s hopes, and
Lincoln’s and Allston’s preparations for responsibility. America’s shaky
democratic political system faced its worst crisis. The explanation of the peril
and dissolution of the Union forms the theme of this chapter.
Such calamitous events as Civil War had numerous causes, large and small.
The reactions of Allston, Douglass, and Luark to Lincoln’s election suggest some
of them: moral duties, sectional politics, growing apprehensions over emotional
agitators, and a concern for freedom and independence on the part of blacks,
white southerners, and western farmers. But as Douglass understood, by 1860, it
was clear that “slavery is the real issue, the single bone of contention between all
457
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
458
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 458
PA RT 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
parties and sections. It is the one disturbing force, and
explains the confused and irregular motion of our political machine.”
This chapter analyzes how the momentous issue
of slavery disrupted the political system and eventually the Union itself. We will look at how four major
developments between 1848 and 1861 contributed to
the Civil War: first, a sectional dispute over the extension of slavery into the western territories; second,
the breakdown of the political party system; third,
growing cultural differences in the views and
lifestyles of southerners and northerners; and fourth,
intensifying emotional and ideological polarization
between the two regions over losing their way of life
and sacred republican rights at the hands of the
other. A preview of civil war, bringing all four causes
together, occurred in 1855–1856 in Kansas. Eventually, emotional events, mistrust, and irreconcilable
differences made conflict inevitable. Lincoln’s election was the spark that touched off the conflagration
of civil war, with all its “train of horrors.”
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
458
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 458
PA RT 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
SLAVERY IN THE
TERRITORIES
As Narcissa Whitman sadly discovered with the
Cayuse Indians in eastern Washington (see
Chapter 13), white migration westward was discouraging and downright dangerous. It was especially damaging to the freedom, safety, and cultural integrity of Native Americans and Mexicans,
whose lands stood in the way. Moreover, the westward movement imperiled freedom and eventually
the Union by causing a collision between Yankees
and slaveholders.
The North and the South had mostly contained
their differences over slavery for 60 years after the
Constitutional Convention. Compromise in 1787
had resolved questions of the slave trade and how
to count slaves for congressional representation. Although slavery threatened the uneasy sectional harmony in 1820 (“like a fire bell in the night,” Jefferson
had said), the Missouri Compromise had established a workable balance of free and slave states
and had defined a geographic line (36º30') to determine future decisions. In 1833, compromise had
defused South Carolina’s attempt at nullification,
and the gag rule in 1836 had kept abolitionist petitions off the floor of Congress.
Each apparent resolution, however, raised the
level of emotional conflict between North and
South and postponed ultimate settlement of the
slavery question. One reason why these compromises temporarily worked was the two-party system, with Whigs and Democrats in both North and
South. Party loyalties served as an “antidote,” as
Van Buren put it, to sectional allegiance. The parties differed over cultural and economic issues, but
slavery was largely kept out of political campaigns
and congressional debates. This changed in the
late 1840s.
Free Soil or Constitutional Protection?
When war with Mexico broke out in 1846, Pennsylvania congressman David Wilmot added an amendment to an appropriations bill declaring that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever
exist” in any territories acquired from Mexico. Legislators debated the Wilmot Proviso not as Whigs
and Democrats but as northerners and southerners.
A Boston newspaper prophetically observed that
Wilmot’s resolution “brought to a head the great
question which is about to divide the American
people.” When the war ended, several solutions
were presented to deal with this question of slavery
in the territories. First was the “free soil” idea of preventing any extensions of slavery. Two precedents
suggested that Congress could do this. One was the
Northwest Ordinance, which had barred slaves from
the Upper Midwest; the other was the Missouri
Compromise.
Free soil had mixed motives. For some, slavery was
a moral evil to be destroyed. But for many northern
white farmers looking westward, the threat of economic competition with an expanding system of
large-scale slave labor was even more serious. Nor
did they wish to compete for land with free blacks. As
Wilmot put it, his proviso was intended to preserve
the area for the “sons of toil, of my own race and own
color.” Other northerners supported the proviso as a
means of restraining the growing political power and
“insufferable arrogance” of the “spirit and demands
of the Slave Power.”
Opposed to the free-soil position were the arguments of Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina,
expressed in several resolutions introduced in the
Senate in 1847. Congress not only lacked the constitutional right to exclude slavery from the territories,
he argued, but actually had a duty to protect it.
Therefore, the Wilmot Proviso was unconstitutional.
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/28/05
1:31 PM
Page 459
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 459
Popular Sovereignty and the
Election of 1848
With such divisive potential, it was natural
that many Americans sought a compromise solution to keep slavery out of politics. Polk’s secretary of state, James
Buchanan of Pennsylvania, proposed extending the Missouri Compromise line to
the Pacific Ocean, thereby avoiding thorny
questions about the morality of slavery and
the constitutionality of congressional authority. So would “popular sovereignty,” the
proposal of Michigan senator Lewis Cass to
leave decisions about permitting slavery to
territorial legislatures. The idea appealed to
the American democratic belief in local
self-government but left many details
unanswered. At what point in the progress
toward statehood could a territorial legislature decide about slavery? Cass preferred to
leave such questions ambiguous.
Democrats, liking popular sovereignty
because it could mean all things to all people, nominated Cass for president in 1848.
Cass denounced abolitionists and the
Wilmot Proviso but otherwise avoided the
issue of slavery. The Democrats, however,
Getting the Latest News This 1848 painting by Richard Caton
printed two campaign biographies of Cass,
Woodville, titled War News from Mexico, captures the mood of the period from
one for the South and one for the North.
the Mexican-American War through the Civil War; in towns across the country,
The Whigs found an even better way to
outside countless “American Hotels,” the American people listened eagerly to the
hold the party together by evading the slavlatest news in an era of steadily worsening political, socioeconomic, and constituery issue. Rejecting Henry Clay, they nomitional crises. Separate from the men on the porch, but clearly a part of the picture,
are a black father and daughter in rags; they await the war news with special internated the Mexican-American War hero
est. What would explain their interest in the outcome of the Mexican war?
General Zachary Taylor, a Louisiana slave(Richard Caton Woodville, War News from Mexico. The Manoogian Collection, on loan
holder. Taylor compared himself with
to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, Image © 2005 Board of Trustees, National
Washington as a “no party” man above polGallery of Art ,Washington, 1848, oil on canvas, .686 x .627 (27 x 243/4)
itics. Standing for no party was about all he
stood for. Southern Whigs supported Taylor
So were the Missouri Compromise and other federal
because they thought he might understand the buracts that prevented slaveholders from taking their
dens of slaveholding, and northern Whigs were
slave property into U.S. territories.
pleased that he took no stand on the Wilmot Proviso.
Economic, political, and moral considerations
The evasions of the two major parties disapstood behind Calhoun’s position. Many southerners
pointed Calhoun, who tried to create a new, unified
hungered for new cotton lands in the West and Southsouthern party. His “Address to the People of the
west, even in Central America and the Caribbean.
Southern States” threatened secession and called
Southerners feared that northerners wanted to tramfor a united stand against further attempts to interple on their right to protect their institutions against
fere with the southern right to extend slavery. Alabolitionism. Southern leaders saw the Wilmot Prothough only 48 of 121 southern representatives
viso as a moral issue touching basic republican prinsigned the address, Calhoun’s argument raised the
ciples. One congressman called it “treason to the Conspecter of secession and disunion.
stitution,” and Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia
Warnings also came from the North. A New York
warned that if Congress passed the proviso, he would
Democratic faction bolted to support Van Buren for
favor disunion rather than “degradation.”
president. At first, the split had more to do with
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 460
R ECOVERING THE PAST
Senate Speeches
The history of ordinary Americans is recovered in letters, diaries, folktales, and other nontraditional sources.
But in times of political conflict, as in the years before
the Civil War, historians turn to more conventional
sources such as congressional speeches. Recorded in
the Congressional Globe, these speeches are a revealing
means of recovering the substance, tone, and drama of
political debate.
The mid-nineteenth century was an era of giants in
the U.S. Senate: Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Thomas
Hart Benton, John C. Calhoun, William Seward, and
Stephen Douglas.When Congress debated a major issue, such as the tariff, nullification, or the extension of
slavery, large crowds packed the Senate galleries. The
speeches were quickly printed and widely distributed.
These spectacular oratorical encounters provided
mass entertainment and political instruction. Such
was the case with the Senate speeches over the
Compromise of 1850.The three principal figures early
in the debates were Clay (Kentucky), Calhoun (South
Carolina), and Webster (Massachusetts), each of
whom delivered memorable speeches to crown brilliant careers.
Born within five years of each other as the American Revolution was ending (1777–1782), each man
began his political career in the House of Representatives in the War of 1812 era. Each served a term as
secretary of state; in addition, Clay was speaker of the
House and Calhoun secretary of war and vice president. Each served for more than a decade in the Senate (Clay, 13 years; Calhoun, 15 years; Webster, 19
years). Clay and Webster were leaders of the Whig
party; Calhoun was a leader of the Democrats. During
their 40 years of public service, they represented
strong nationalistic positions as well as their various
states and sections. All three were failing candidates
for president between 1824 and 1844.All three spent
most of their careers in the political shadow of Andrew Jackson, and all three clashed with him.
Forty years of political and ideological conflict with
each other not only sharpened their oratorical skills
but also led to mutual respect. Webster said of Calhoun that he was “the ablest man in the Senate. He
could have demolished Newton, Calvin, or even John
Locke as a logician.” Calhoun said of Clay,
“He is a bad man, but by god, I love him.”
And “Old Man Eloquent” himself, John
Quincy Adams, said of Webster that he was
“the most consummate orator of modern Daniel Webster,
Speech to the
times.”
(March
It was therefore a momentous event Senate
7, 1850)
when they each prepared speeches and
met for one last encounter early in 1850. Clay was
over 70 years old and in failing health, but he sought
to keep the Union together by defending his compromise proposals in a four-hour speech spread over two
days in February.The Senate galleries were so packed
that listeners were pushed into hallways and even into
the rotunda of the Capitol. Copies of his
speech were in such demand that over
100,000 were printed.
A month later, on March 7,Webster rose
to join Clay in defending the compromise,
John C.
Calhoun,
three days after a seriously ill Calhoun had
Proposal to
“tottered into the Senate” on the arm of a
Preserve the
friend to hear James Mason of Virginia read Union (1850)
his rejection of the compromise. Within a
month, Calhoun was dead. Clay and Webster followed
him to the grave two years later, and Senate leadership passed on to Seward, Douglas, and others.
R EFLECTING ON THE PAST As you read these brief excerpts from each speech, try to imagine yourself sitting in the gallery overlooking the Senate floor absorbing the drama.What oratorical devices does each
speaker use? How do they differ? To what extent does
each man reflect his region, especially on the fugitive
slave issue? To what extent do they appeal to an indivisible Union? On whom do you put the burden of resolving the conflicts? Which passages convey the most
emotional power? Which speaker is most persuasive
to you? Why?
460
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 461
Henry Clay
February 5–6, 1850
I have seen many periods of great anxiety, of peril, and of
danger in this country, and I have never before risen to
address any assemblage so oppressed, so appalled, and so anxious; and sir, I hope it will not be out of place to do here, what
again and again I have done in my private chamber, to
implore of Him who holds the destinies of nations and individuals in His hands, to bestow upon our country His blessing, to
calm the violence and rage of party, to still passion, to allow
reason once more to resume its empire. . . .
Mr. President, it is passion, passion-party, party, and
intemperance—that is all I dread in the adjustment of the great
questions which unhappily at this time divide our distracted
country. Sir, at this moment we have in the legislative bodies of
this Capitol and in the States, twenty old furnaces in full blast,
emitting heat, and passion, and intemperance, and diffusing them
throughout the whole extent of this broad land. Two months ago
all was calm in comparison to the present moment. All now is
uproar, confusion, and menace to the existence of the Union,
and to the happiness and safety of this people. . . .
Sir, when I came to consider this subject, there were two or
three general purposes which it seemed to me to be most desir-
able, if possible, to accomplish. The one was, to settle all the
controverted questions arising out of the subject of slavery. . . .
I therefore turned my attention to every subject connected with
this institution of slavery, and out of which controverted questions had sprung, to see if it were possible or practicable to
accommodate and adjust the whole of them. . . .
We are told now, and it is rung throughout this entire country,
that the Union is threatened with subversion and destruction.
Well, the first question which naturally rises is, supposing the
Union to be dissolved,—having all the causes of grievance
which are complained of,—How far will a dissolution furnish a
remedy for those grievances? If the Union is to be dissolved for
any existing causes, it will be dissolved because slavery is interdicted or not allowed to be introduced into the ceded territories;
because slavery is threatened to be abolished in the District of
Columbia, and because fugitive slaves are not returned, as in
my opinion they ought to be, and restored to their masters. These,
I believe, will be the causes; if there be any causes, which can
lead to the direful event to which I have referred. . . .
Mr. President, I am directly opposed to any purpose of secession, of separation. I am for staying within the Union, and defying any portion of this Union to expel or drive me out of the Union.
John C. Calhoun
March 4, 1850
Having now, Senators, explained what it is that endangers
the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature
and character, the question again recurs—How can the
Union be saved? To this I answer, there is but one way by
which it can be—and that is—by adopting such measures as
will satisfy the States belonging to the Southern section, that
they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor
and their safety. . . .
But will the North agree to this? It is for her to answer the
question. But, I will say, she cannot refuse, if she has half the
love of the Union which she professes to have, or without justly
exposing herself to the charge that her love of power and
aggrandizement is far greater than her love of the Union. At
all events, the responsibility of saving the Union rests on the
North, and not on the South. . . .
Daniel Webster
March 7, 1850
Mr. President: I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massachusetts
man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American, and a
member of the Senate of the United States. . . .
I speak to-day for the preservation of the Union. “Hear me
for my cause.” I speak to-day, out of a solicitous and anxious
heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet and that
harmony which make the blessing of this Union so rich, and so
dear to us all. . . . I shall bestow a little attention, Sir, upon
these various grievances existing on the one side and on the other.
I begin with complaints of the South . . . and especially to one
which has in my opinion just foundation; and that is, that there
has been found at the North, among individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully their constitutional
duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who
have escaped into the free States. In that respect, the South, in
my judgment, is right, and the North is wrong. Every member of
every Northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other
officer in the country, to support the Constitution of the United
States; and the article of the Constitution which says to these
States they shall deliver up fugitives from service is as binding in
honor and conscience as any other article. . . .
Where is the line to be drawn? What States are to secede?
What is to remain American? What am I to be? An
American no longer? Am I to become a sectional man, a local
man, a separatist, with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other house of
Congress? Heaven forbid! Where is the flag of the republic to
remain? Where is the eagle still to tower? or is he to cower, and
shrink, and fall to the ground?
461
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 462
A MERICAN V OICES
Henry David Thoreau,
Essay on “Civil Disobedience,” 1849
Henry David Thoreau, as we saw in Chapter 12, went to jail
to protest both slavery and the Mexican War. His essay on
“Civil Disobedience” was—and is—a powerful argument for
how one person of principle can stand up against tyranny
and injustice.
When a sixth of the population of a nation
which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty
are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun
and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to
military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes
this duty the more urgent is the fact that the
country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the
invading army.
state politics than moral principles, but it soon involved the question of slavery in the territories. Disaffected “conscience” Whigs from Massachusetts
also explored a third-party alternative. These groups
met in Buffalo, New York, to form the Free-Soil party
and nominated Van Buren. The platform of the new
party, an uneasy mixture of ardent abolitionists and
opponents of free blacks moving into western lands,
pledged to fight for “free soil, free speech, free labor
and free men.”
Taylor won easily, largely because defections
from Cass to the Free-Soilers cost the Democrats
New York and Pennsylvania. Although weakened,
the two-party system survived. Purely sectional parties had failed. The Free-Soilers took only about 10
percent of the popular vote.
The Compromise of 1850
Taylor won the election by avoiding slavery questions.
But as president, he had to deal with them. When he
was inaugurated in 1849, four issues faced the nation.
First, the rush of some 80,000 gold miners to California
qualified it for statehood. But California’s entry as a
free state would upset the balance between slave and
free states in the Senate that had prevailed since 1820.
The unresolved status of the Mexican cession in the
Southwest posed a second problem. The longer the
area remained unorganized, the louder local inhabitants called for an application of either the Wilmot
Proviso or the Calhoun doctrine. The Texas–New Mexico boundary was also disputed, with Texas claiming
. . . There are thousands who are in opinion opposed
to slavery and to the war, and who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves
children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their
hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what
to do, and do nothing. . . . Unjust laws exist: shall we be
content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend
them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall
we transgress them at once?
■
What is the most powerful point in this passage for
you?
■
Can you apply Thoreau’s argument to contemporary
events in American life?
everything east of Santa Fe. Northerners feared that
Texas might split into five or six slave states. A third
problem was the existence of slavery and one of the
largest slave markets in North America in the nation’s
capital. Fourth, southerners resented the lax federal
enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. They
called for a stronger act that would end protection for
runaways fleeing to Canada.
Taylor was a newcomer to politics (he had never
voted in a presidential election before 1848), and he
tackled these problems somewhat evasively. Sidestepping the issue of slavery in the territories, he invited
California and New Mexico to seek statehood immediately, presumably as free states. But soon he alienated both southern supporters such as Calhoun and
mainstream Whig leaders such as Clay and Webster.
Early in 1850, the old compromiser Henry Clay
sought to regain control of the Whig party by proposing solutions to the divisive issues before the nation.
With Webster’s support, Clay introduced a series of
resolutions in an omnibus package intended to settle
these issues once and for all. The stormy debates,
great speeches, and political maneuvering that followed made up a crucial and dramatic moment in
American history. Yet after 70 speeches on
behalf of the compromise, the Senate defeated Clay’s Omnibus Bill. Tired and disheartened, the 73-year-old Clay left Washington and died two years later. Into the
Henry Clay,
gap stepped Senator Stephen Douglas of
Speech to the
Illinois, who saw that Clay’s resolutions
Senate (Jan.
29, 1850)
had a better chance of passing if voted on
462
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 463
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 463
Henry Clay Addresses
the Senate Henry Clay
argues for the compromise
package of 1850 in this painting
by R. Whitechurch, titled The
United States Senate, 1850. Clay
warned that failure to adopt
his bill would lead to “furious”
and “bloody” civil war. Was he
right? (Library of Congress, LCUSZ62-689)
The Compromise of 1850
“I have seen many periods of great anxiety, of peril, and of danger in this country,” Henry Clay told Congress in February 1850,
“and I have never before risen to address any assemblage so oppressed, so appalled, and so anxious.” What followed were the debates that led eventually to the passage of the Compromise of 1850. Can you find three of the four major parts of the bill on the
map? What was the fourth?
BRITISH CANADA
VERMONT
IG
H
IC
WISCONSIN
UNORGANIZED
TERRITORY
IOWA
UTAH TERRITORY
1850
INDIANA
OHIO
ILLINOIS
VIRGINIA
CALIFORNIA
1850
Ceded
by
Texas
INDIAN
ARKANSAS
TERRITORY
DELAWARE
MARYLAND
NORTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
Washington, D.C.
(slave trade
abolished but
slaveholding
allowed)
SOUTH
CAROLINA
GEORGIA
TEXAS
LOUISIANA
MEXICO
MASSACHUSETTS
RHODE ISLAND
CONNECTICUT
NEW JERSEY
PENNSYLVANIA
KENTUCKY
MISSOURI
NEW MEXICO
1850
MAINE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW
YORK
AN
MINNESOTA
TERRITORY
1849
M
OREGON
TERRITORY
1848
ALABAMA
Free states
and territories
Slave states
FLORIDA
MISSISSIPPI
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
Territories open
to slavery
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
464
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 464
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
individually. Under Douglas’s leadership, and with
the support of President Millard Fillmore, who succeeded to the presidency upon Taylor’s sudden
death, a series of bills was finally passed.
The Compromise of 1850 put Clay’s resolutions,
slightly altered, into law. First, California entered
the Union as a free state, ending the balance of free
and slave states. Second, territorial governments
were organized in New Mexico and Utah, letting local people decide whether to permit slavery. The
Texas–New Mexico border was settled, denying
Texas the disputed area. In return, the federal government gave Texas $10 million to pay debts owed
to Mexico. Third, the slave trade, but not slavery,
was abolished in the District of Columbia.
The fourth and most controversial part
of the compromise was the Fugitive Slave
Act, containing many provisions that offended northerners. One denied alleged
The Fugitive
fugitives a jury trial, leaving special cases for
Slave Act
decision by commissioners (who were paid
(1850)
$5 for setting a fugitive free but $10 for returning a fugitive). An especially repugnant provision
compelled northern citizens to help catch runaways.
Consequences of Compromise
The Compromise of 1850 was the last attempt to
keep slavery out of politics. Voting on the different
bills followed sectional lines on some issues and
party lines on others. Douglas felt pleased with his
“final settlement” of the slavery question.
But the compromise only delayed more serious
sectional conflict, and it added two new ingredients
to American politics. First, political realignment
along sectional lines tightened. Second, although
repudiated by most ordinary citizens, the ideas of
secessionism, disunion, and a “higher law” than the
Constitution entered political discussions. People
wondered whether the question of slavery in the
territories could be compromised away next time.
Others were immediately upset. The new fugitive
slave law angered many northerners because it
brought the evils of slavery right into their midst.
Owners of runaway slaves hired agents (labeled
“kidnappers” in the North) to hunt down fugitives.
In a few dramatic episodes, notably in Boston, literary and religious intellectuals led mass protests to
resist slave hunters. When Senator Webster supported the law, New England abolitionists denounced him as “indescribably base and wicked.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson said he would not obey the
“filthy law.”
Frederick Douglass would not obey it either. As a
runaway slave, he faced arrest and return to the
South until friends overcame his objections and
purchased his freedom. Douglass still risked harm
by his strong defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Dangers of Escape As a group of runaways makes its way north in this painting by Theodor
Kaufmann entitled On to Liberty (1867), the peril of the journey, even if successful, is reflected in this broadside
published by Boston abolitionist Theodore Parker, which alerted the city’s black community in 1851 to the
dangers posed by the Fugitive Slave Act. (Left: Theodor Kaufmann, On to Liberty, 1867. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Erving and Joyce Wolfe, 1982. (1982.443.3) Photograph © 1982 The Metropolitan Museum of
Art; right: Harold Washington Library Center, Special Collections & Preservation Division, Chicago Public Library)
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 465
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 465
Arguing the “rightfulness of forcible resistance,” he
urged free blacks to arm themselves. “The only way
to make the Fugitive Slave Law a dead letter,” he
said in Pittsburgh in 1853, “is to make a half dozen
or more dead kidnappers.” Douglass raised money
for black fugitives, hid runaways in his home,
helped hundreds escape to Canada, and supported
black organizations such as the League of Freedom
in Boston.
Other northerners, white and black, stepped up
work for the Underground Railroad and helped runaway slaves evade capture. Several states passed
“personal liberty laws” that prohibited
using state officials and institutions in the
recovery of fugitive slaves. But most
northerners complied. Of some 200
blacks arrested in the first six years of the
Hypocrisy of the
law, only 15 were rescued, and only 3 of
Fugitive Slave
Act, 1851
these by force. Failed rescues, in fact, had
more emotional impact than successful
ones. In two cases in the early 1850s (Thomas Sims
in 1851 and Anthony Burns in 1854), angry mobs of
abolitionists in Boston failed to prevent the forcible
return of blacks to the South. These celebrated cases
aroused more antislavery emotions among northerners than the abolitionists had been able to do
with all their tracts and speeches. Amos Lawrence, a
textile tycoon in Massachusetts, wrote of the trial of
Anthony Burns that sent him back to the South: “We
went to bed one night old fashioned, conservative
Compromise Union Whigs and waked up stark mad
abolitionists.”
Longtime abolitionists escalated their rhetoric,
fueling emotions over slavery in the aftermath of
1850. In an Independence Day speech in
1852, Frederick Douglass wondered,
“What, to the American slave, is your 4th
of July?” (See “How Others See Us,” p. 385)
It was, he said, the day that revealed to
Frederick
Douglass,
the slave that American claims of national
Independence
greatness were vain and empty; the
Day Speech
“shouts of liberty and equality” were
(1852)
“fraud,
deception,
impiety,
and
hypocrisy.” Douglass’s speeches, like those of another ex-slave, Sojourner Truth, became increasingly strident.
At a women’s rights convention in 1851 in Akron,
Ohio, Truth made one of the decade’s boldest statements for minority rights. Clergymen attending the
convention heckled female speakers. Up stood Sojourner Truth to speak in words still debated by historians. She pointed to her many years of childbearing and hard, backbreaking work as a slave, crying
out a refrain, “And ar’n’t I a woman?” Referring to Jesus, she said he came “from God and a woman: Man
had nothing to do with Him.” Referring to Eve, she
concluded, “If the first woman God ever made was
strong enough to turn the world upside down all
alone, these women together ought to be able to
turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now
they is asking to do it, the men better let them.” She
silenced the hecklers.
As Truth spoke, another American woman, Harriet Beecher Stowe, was finishing a novel, Uncle
Tom’s Cabin, that would go far toward turning the
world upside down. As politicians were hoping the
American people would forget slavery, Stowe’s novel
brought it to the attention of thousands. She gave
readers an absorbing indictment of the horrors of
slavery and its impact on both northerners and
southerners. Published initially as magazine serials,
each month’s chapter ended at a nail-biting dramatic moment. Readers throughout the North
cheered Eliza’s daring escape across the ice floes on
the Ohio River, cried over Uncle Tom’s humanity
and Little Eva’s death, suffered under the lash of Simon Legree, and rejoiced in the reuniting of black
family members.
Although it outraged the South when
published in full in 1852, Uncle Tom’s
Cabin became one of the all-time bestsellers in American history. In the first
Harriet Beecher
year, more than 300,000 copies were
Stowe, Uncle
Tom’s Cabin
printed, and Stowe’s novel was eventually
(1852)
published in 20 languages. When President Lincoln met Stowe in 1863, he is reported to have said to her: “So you’re the little woman
who wrote the book that made this great war!”
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 465
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 465
POLITICAL
DISINTEGRATION
The response to Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Fugitive
Slave Act indicated that politicians had congratulated themselves too soon for saving the Republic in
1850. Political developments, not all dealing with
slavery, were already weakening the ability of political parties—and ultimately the nation—to withstand the passions slavery aroused.
Weakened Party Politics in the
Early 1850s
As we see today, political parties seek to persuade
voters that their party stands for moral values and
economic policies crucially different from those of
the opposition. In the period between 1850 and
1854 these differences were blurred, thereby undermining party loyalty.
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
466
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 466
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
Changing Political Party Systems
and Leaders
It is characteristic of American politics that when the two
major parties fail to respond to the pressing issues of the
day, third parties are born and major party realignment occurs.This happened in the 1850s over the issue of slavery
and its extension into the territories, which resulted in the
collapse of the Whigs and the emergence of the Republican
party. Note that the “Republican” party begins in one tradition and ends up in the other. Is political realignment happening again in American politics? What do the two parties
stand for today?
First Party System: 1790s–1820s
Republican
Jefferson
Madison
Monroe
Federalist
Hamilton
John Adams
Transition: 1824 and 1828
Democrat-Republican
Jackson
National Republican
J. Q.Adams
Second Party System: 1830s–1850s
Democrat
Jackson
Van Buren
Calhoun
Polk
Whig
Clay
Webster
W. H. Harrison
Third Party System: 1856–1890s
Democrat
Douglas
Pierce
Buchanan
Republican
Lincoln
Seward
Grant
Both parties scrambled to convince voters that
they had favored the Compromise of 1850. In addition, several states rewrote their constitutions and remodeled their laws. These changes reduced the
number of patronage jobs that politicians could dispense and regularized the process for securing banking, railroad, and other corporate charters, ending
the role formerly played by the legislature and undermining the importance of parties in citizens’ lives.
For almost a quarter of a century Whigs and Democrats had disagreed over the tariff, money and banking, and government-supported internal improvements. Now, in better times, party distinctions over
economic policies seemed less important.
Political battles were fought over social rather than
economic issues and locally rather than at the national level. Thus, Georgia voters in 1851 pitted “the
jealousies of the poor who owned no slaves, against
the rich slaveholder.” In Indiana, where Congressman
George Julian observed that people “hate the Negro
with a perfect if not a supreme hatred,” legislators
rewrote the state constitution in 1851, depriving
blacks of the rights to vote, attend white schools, and
make contracts. Those who could not post a $500
bond were expelled from the state, and an 1852 law
made it a crime for blacks to settle in Indiana. In
Massachusetts, temperance reform and a law limiting
the working day to 10 hours were hot issues. Fleeting
political alliances developed around particular issues
and local personalities. As a Baltimore businessman
said, “The two old parties are fast melting away.”
The election of 1852 illustrated the lessening significance of political parties. The Whigs nominated
General Winfield Scott, another Mexican-American
War hero, who they hoped would repeat Taylor’s
success four years earlier. With the deaths of Clay
and Webster, party leadership passed to Senator
William Seward of New York, who desired a president he could influence more successfully than the
pro-southern Fillmore. Still, it took 52 ballots to
nominate Scott over Fillmore, alienating southern
Whigs. Democrats had their own problems. After 49
ballots, the party turned to a lackluster compromise
candidate, Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire.
The two parties offered little choice and downplayed issues so as not to widen intraparty divisions. Voter interest diminished. “Genl. Apathy is
the strongest candidate out here,” was a typical report from Ohio, while the Baltimore Sun remarked,
“there is no issue that much interests the people.”
Democratic leaders resorted to bribes and drinks to
buy the support of thousands of new Catholic immigrants from Ireland and Germany, who could be
naturalized and were eligible to vote after only three
years. Pierce won easily, 254 to 42 electoral votes.
The Kansas–Nebraska Act
The Whig party’s final disintegration came on a February day in 1854 when southern Whigs, choosing to
be more southern than Whig, supported Stephen
Douglas’s Nebraska bill. The Illinois senator had
many reasons for introducing a bill organizing the
Nebraska Territory (which included Kansas). As an
ardent nationalist, he was interested in the continuing development of the West. He wanted the eastern
terminus for a transcontinental railroad in Chicago
rather than in rival St. Louis. This meant organizing
the lands west of Iowa and Missouri.
Politics also played a role. Douglas hoped to recapture the party leadership he had held in passing
the Compromise of 1850 and aspired to the presidency. Although he had replaced Cass as the great
advocate of popular sovereignty, thus winning favor
among northern Democrats, he needed southern
Democratic support. Many southerners, especially
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 467
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 467
Celebrating a Political Victory In George
Caleb Bingham’s Verdict of
the People (after 1855), the
American flag flies proudly
over a happy throng celebrating the outcome of democratic politics. How well
did the political process
work in the 1850s? In an
earlier version of this same
painting, the women on a
hotel balcony in the upper
right display a banner announcing (ironically?) “Freedom for Virtue.” What do
you think that means?
(George Caleb Bingham, Verdict of the People, No. 2 (after 1855), Courtesy of the
R.W. Norton Art Gallery,
Shreveport, Louisiana)
neighboring Missouri slaveholders, opposed organizing the Nebraska Territory unless open to slavery.
But the Nebraska Territory lay north of
the Missouri Compromise line prohibiting slavery.
Douglas’s bill, introduced early in 1854,
recommended using popular sovereignty
Stephen
Douglas
in organizing the Kansas and Nebraska
territories. Douglas reasoned that the climate and soil of the prairies in Kansas and Nebraska
would never support slavery-based agriculture, and
that people would choose to be a free state. Therefore, he could win the votes he needed for the railroad without also getting slavery. By stating that the
states created out of the Nebraska Territory would
enter the Union “with or without slavery, as their
constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission,” his bill in effect cancelled the Missouri
Compromise.
Douglas miscalculated. Northerners from his
own party immediately attacked him and his bill as
a “criminal betrayal of precious rights” and as part
of a plot promoting his own presidential
ambitions by turning free Nebraska over
to “slavery despotism.” Whigs and abolitionists were even more outraged. Frederick Douglass branded the act a “hateful”
attempt to extend slavery, the result of the
The
Compromise of
“audacious villainy of the slave power.”
1850 and the
But the more Stephen Douglas was atKansas–
tacked, the harder he fought. What began
Nebraska Act
as a railroad measure ended in reopening the question of slavery in the territories, which Douglas had
thought finally settled in 1850. What began as a way
of avoiding conflict ended in violence over whether
Kansas would enter the Union slave or free. What began as a way of strengthening party lines over issues
ended up destroying one party (Whigs), planting
deep, irreconcilable divisions in another (Democrats), and creating two new ones (Know-Nothings
and Republicans).
Expansionist “Young America”
in the Larger World
The Democratic party was weakened in the early
1850s not only by the Kansas–Nebraska Act but also
by an expansive energy that led Americans to adventures far beyond Kansas. As
republican revolutions erupted in 1848 in
Europe (Austria-Hungary, France, Germany) and had initial successes, AmeriSong of the
cans hailed them as evidence that free reOpen Road—
publican institutions were the wave of the
Calamus
future. “Young America” was the label assumed by patriots eager to spread Americanism
abroad; however, these ardent republican nationalists ironically also abetted the spread of slavery.
Pierce’s platform in 1852 reflected this nationalism, declaring that the war with Mexico had been
“just and necessary.” Many Democrats took the overwhelming victory as a mandate to continue adding
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
468
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 468
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
Expansionist “Young America” in the 1850s: Attempted Raids into Latin America
Note the flurry of expansionist American raids and forays southward into Mexico and the Caribbean between the mid-1840s and
mid-1850s. Reflecting on the Past What major events and motives caused the expansionist interest? Why was Cuba a key target? Are there any similar events today?
GADSDEN PURCHASE
(1853)
CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES
TEXAS
(1845)
ATLANTIC OCEAN
BAHAMAS
MEXICO
HISPANIOLA
CUBA
HAITI
PUERTO
RICO
JAMAICA
HONDURAS
TRINIDAD
NICARAGUA
VENEZUELA
PACIFIC
OCEAN
COLOMBIA
territory. A Philadelphia newspaper in 1853 described the United States as a nation bound on the
“East by sunrise, West by sunset, North by the Arctic
Expedition, and South as far as we darn please.”
Many of Pierce’s diplomatic appointees were
southerners interested in adding new cotton-growing lands to the Union, especially from Latin America where the newly independent nations were
wracked by internal disputes over the distribution
of land. Pierce’s ambassador to Mexico, for example,
South Carolinian James Gadsden, had instructions
to negotiate with Mexican president Santa Anna for
the acquisition of large parts of northern Mexico.
Gadsden did not get all he wanted, but he did manage to purchase a strip of southwestern desert for a
transcontinental railroad linking the Deep South
with the Pacific Coast.
Failure to acquire more territory from Mexico
legally did not discourage expansionist Americans
from pursuing illegal means. During the 1850s, Texans and Californians staged dozens of raids (called
“filibusters”) into Mexico. The most daring such adventurer was William Walker, a tiny Tennessean with
a zest for danger and power. In 1853, he invaded
Mexican Baja California with fewer than 300 men
and declared himself president of the Republic of
Sonora. Arrested and tried in the United States, he
was acquitted in eight minutes. Two years later, he
invaded Nicaragua, where he proclaimed himself an
elected dictator and legalized slavery. When the
Nicaraguans, with British help, regained control, the
U.S. Navy rescued Walker. After a triumphant tour in
the South, he tried twice more to conquer
Nicaragua. Walker came to a fitting end in 1860
when, invading Honduras this time, he was captured and shot by a firing squad.
Undaunted by failures in the Southwest, the
Pierce administration looked to the acquisition of
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 469
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 469
Cuba. Many Americans thought this Spanish colony
was destined for U.S. annexation and would be an
ideal place for expanding the slave-based economy.
Some argued that Cuba belonged to the United
States because it was physically connected by alluvial deposits from the Mississippi River. “What God
has joined together let no man put asunder,” one
said. In the 1840s, the Polk administration had
vainly offered Spain $10 million for Cuba. Unsuccessful efforts were then made to foment a revolution among Cuban sugar planters, who were expected to request annexation by the United States.
Several plans, including one by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, were made to invade
Cuba and carve it into several slave states.
Although President Pierce did not support these
illegal efforts, he wanted the island. Secretary of
State William Marcy instructed the minister to
Spain, Pierre Soulé, to offer $130 million for Cuba,
upping the price. If that failed, Marcy suggested
stronger measures. In 1854, the secretary arranged
for Soulé and the American ministers to France and
England to meet in Belgium, where they issued the
Ostend Manifesto to pressure Spain to sell Cuba to
the United States.
The manifesto argued that Cuba “belongs naturally” to the United States and that they were “one
people with one destiny.” Trade and commerce in
the hemisphere would “never be secure” until Cuba
was part of the United States. Moreover, southern
slaveholders feared that a slave rebellion would
“Africanize” Cuba, like Haiti, suggesting all kinds of
“horrors to the white race” in the nearby southern
United States. American acquisition of Cuba was
necessary, therefore, to “preserve our rectitude and
self-respect.” If Spain refused to sell, the ministers at
Ostend threatened a Cuban revolution with American support. If that failed, “we should be justified in
wresting it from Spain.”
Even Marcy was shocked when he received the
document and he quickly repudiated the manifesto.
Like the Kansas–Nebraska Act, Democrats supported the Ostend Manifesto in order to further the
expansion of slavery. The outraged reaction of
northerners in both cases divided and further weakened the Democratic party.
Nativism, Know-Nothings, and
Republicans
Meanwhile, increasing immigration also damaged an
already enfeebled Whig party and alarmed many native-born Americans. To the average hardworking
Protestant American, the foreigners pouring into the
cities and following the railroads westward spoke unfamiliar languages, wore funny clothes, drank alcohol
The Prejudices of the Know-Nothings
The American
(Know-Nothing) party campaign against the immigrants is shown dramatically in the cartoon (above) of a whiskey-drinking Irishman and
beer-barreled German stealing the ballot box while native-born
Americans fight at the election poll in the background. The KnowNothing flag (right) makes starkly clear the origin of the danger. Can
you imagine what Native Americans might have thought of this banner? (Photo: Courtesy of the Milwaukee County Historical Society)
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 470
A MERICAN V OICES
Henry Villard, A German Immigrant
Discovers American Politics
Henry Villard, born in Bavaria, emigrated to the United
States in 1853 just in time for the intense political
upheavals over the extension of slavery into the Kansas and
Nebraska territories. In his Memoirs (1904), he described
his first “lesson in practical politics” shortly after he arrived.
The deliberate attempts of the Democrats in
the South, aided by the bulk of their Northern
sympathizers, to secure an extension of the territory open to slavery [to Kansas] was the all-absorbing and all-exciting topic. . . . It was made the
dividing line in the Chicago municipal election that
spring [1856]. Of course, I had no right to vote,
but that did not prevent me from enlisting as a violent partisan on the anti-Democratic side. The
contest was fought directly over slavery. . . . On
election day, I acted as a ticket-distributor, and had
then my first sight of violent scenes and rioting at
the polls. The ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ seemed to be so
clearly defined that I could not understand how
any intelligent mind could be at all in doubt. That
freely, and bred crime and pauperism. Moreover, they
seemed content with a lower standard of living by
working for lower wages and thus threatened to take
jobs away from American workers.
Worst of all from the Protestant perspective, Irish
and German immigrants spearheaded an unprecedented growth of American Catholicism. By the
1850s, there were nearly 3 million Catholics in the
United States, not only in eastern cities but expanding westward into the Ohio valley (Germans in
Wheeling, Cincinnati, and St. Louis) and along old
French-Canadian trade routes through Detroit,
Green Bay, and Vincennes. A surprising and, to many,
disturbing development was Catholic success in converting Protestants. As one Catholic explained, it was
“a time when great throngs of Americans began to
flock to the Roman Catholic Church despite bitterly
intense propaganda and overt opposition.”
Two notable conversions in 1844 compelled
Protestant Americans to take the threat seriously.
Orestes Brownson, a Jacksonian Democrat and spiritual seeker, moved successively through Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Unitarianism, and Transcendentalism until finally converting to a
Catholicism he argued was fully compatible with
democracy. His disciple, the Methodist German immigrant Isaac Hecker, converted to Catholicism two
the ignorant, priest-ridden Irish should support
the Democratic candidates was comprehensible,
but it aroused my disgust and indignation that
there were Germans on the Democratic ticket, a
German newspaper and prominent Germans who
actually supported it. I looked upon them as contemptible apostates. I was confident, too, that the
unholy combination would be overwhelmingly defeated. My unutterable humiliation and grief may
be imagined, therefore, when the Democrats obtained a decisive victory. Influenced by the predictions of the dire . . . evils that would befall the
country if the Democrats carried the day, I felt wofully depressed in spirit. It seemed to me almost as
if the world would come to an end.
■
What was Villard’s lesson in “practical politics”?
■
Have you had a similar lesson in politics, local or
national?
months earlier in 1844, joining the Redemptorist order. Led by Jesuits and Redemptorists like Hecker,
more than 400 parish mission revivals and retreats
were held in the 1850s in an aggressive effort to convert urban American Protestants to Roman Catholicism. The opening of Catholic schools especially offended and threatened Protestants.
Many Protestants charged that Catholic immigrants corrupted American politics. Indeed, most
Catholics did indeed prefer the Democratic party,
which was less inclined than Whigs to interfere with
religion, schooling, drinking, and other aspects of
personal behavior and rights. It was mostly former
Whigs, therefore, who in 1854 founded the American
party to oppose the new immigrants. Members
wanted a longer period of naturalization to guarantee the “vital principles of Republican Government”
and pledged never to vote for Irish Catholics, whose
highest loyalty was supposedly to the pope in Rome.
They also agreed to keep information about their order secret. If asked, they would say, “I know nothing.”
Hence, they were dubbed the Know-Nothing party.
The Know-Nothings appealed to the middle and
lower classes—to workers worried about their jobs
and to farmers and small-town Americans nervous
about change. A New Yorker said in 1854, “Roman
Catholicism is feared more than American slavery.”
470
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 471
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 471
It was widely believed that Catholics slavishly
obeyed the orders of their priests, who represented
a Church associated with European despotism. The
Church’s opposition to the European revolutionary
movements of 1848 intensified nativist fears that
Catholicism threatened the democratic order. In the
1854 and 1855 elections, the Know-Nothings gave
anti-Catholicism a national, political focus for the
first time.
To other northerners, however, the “slave power”
seemed a more serious threat than the pope. No
sooner had debates over Nebraska ended than the
nucleus of another new party appeared: the Republican party. Drawn almost entirely from “conscience”
Whigs and disaffected Democrats (including FreeSoilers), the Republicans combined four elements.
Moral fervor led the first group, headed by senators Seward (New York), Charles Sumner (Massachusetts) and Salmon P. Chase (Ohio), to demand
prohibiting slavery in the territories, freeing slaves
in the District of Columbia, repealing the Fugitive
Slave Act, and banning the internal slave trade.
There were, however, limits to most Republicans’
idealism. A more moderate and larger group, typified by Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, opposed slavery
in the western territories, but would not interfere
with it where it already existed. This group also opposed equal rights for northern free blacks.
Many Republicans were anti-Catholic as well as
antislavery. A third element of the party, true to traditional Whig reformist and revivalist impulses,
wanted to cleanse America of intemperance, impiety, parochial schooling, and other forms of immorality—including voting for Democrats, who
catered to the “grog shops, foreign vote, and
Catholic brethren” and combined the “forces of Jesuitism and Slavery.”
The fourth element of the Republican party, a
Whig legacy from Henry Clay’s American System, included those who wanted the federal government to
promote economic development and the dignity of
free labor, believing that both led to progress. At the
heart of the new party and the American future, Republicans proclaimed, were hardworking, middleclass, mobile, free white laborers—farmers, small
businessmen, and independent artisans. Lincoln’s
hometown paper, the Springfield Republican, said in
1856 that Republican strength came from “those who
work with their hands, who live and act independently, who hold the stakes of home and family, of
farm and workshop, of education and freedom.”
These strengths were tested in a three-party race
in 1856. The Know-Nothing (American) party nominated Fillmore, who had strong support in the Upper
South. The Republicans chose John C. Frémont, an
ardent Free-Soiler from Missouri with virtually no
political experience but with fame as an explorer of
the West and a military record against Mexicans in
California. The Democrats nominated Pennsylvanian
James Buchanan, a “northern man with southern
principles.” Frémont carried several free states, while
Fillmore took only Maryland. Buchanan, benefiting
from a divided opposition, won with only 45 percent
of the popular vote.
After 1856, the Know-Nothings died out, largely
because Republican leaders cleverly redirected nativist fears—and voters—to their broader program.
Moreover, Know-Nothing secrecy, hatred, and occasional violent attacks on Catholic voters damaged
their image. Still, the Know-Nothings represented a
powerful current in American politics that would return each time social and economic changes seemed
to threaten the nation. It became convenient to label
certain people “un-American” and try to root them
out. The Know-Nothing party disappeared but nativist hostility to new immigrants did not.
KANSAS AND THE TWO
CULTURES
The slavery issue also would not go away. As Democrats sought to expand slavery and other American institutions westward across the plains and
south into Cuba, Republicans wanted to halt the advance of slavery. In 1854, Lincoln worried that slavery “deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world.” The specific cause of his
concern was the likelihood that slavery might be extended into Kansas as a result of the passage that
year of Stephen Douglas’s Kansas–Nebraska Act.
Competing for Kansas
During the congressional debates over the Nebraska
bill, Seward accepted the challenge of slave-state senators to “engage in competition for the virgin soil of
Kansas.” Soon after Congress passed the Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1854, the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid
Society was founded to recruit free-soil settlers for
Kansas. Frederick Douglass called for “companies of
emigrants from the free states . . . to possess the
goodly land.” By the summer of 1855, about 1,200
New England colonists had migrated to Kansas.
One migrant was Julia Louisa Lovejoy, a Vermont
minister’s wife. As a riverboat carried her into a slave
state for the first time, she wrote of the dilapidated
plantation homes on the monotonous Missouri
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
472
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 472
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
The Fight for Kansas
Led by Senator David Atchison, thousands of gun-toting Missourians crossed
into Kansas in 1854 and 1855 to vote illegally for a proslavery territorial government. The ensuing bloodshed
made Kansas a preview of the Civil War. Why in Kansas? (Courtesy of The Newberry Library, Chicago)
shore as the “blighting mildew of slavery.” By the time
she and her husband arrived in the Kansas Territory,
Julia had concluded that the “morals” of the slaveholding Missourians moving into Kansas were of an
“undescribably repulsive and undesirable character.”
To her, northerners came to bring the “energetic Yankee” virtues of morality and economic enterprise to
drunken, unclean slaveholders.
Perhaps she had in mind David Atchison, Democratic senator from Missouri. Atchison believed that
Congress must protect slavery in the territories, allowing Missouri slaveholders into Kansas. In 1853,
he pledged “to extend the institutions of Missouri
over the Territory at whatever sacrifice of blood or
treasure.” New England migrants, he said, were “negro thieves” and “abolition tyrants,” and recommended that Missourians defend their property and
interests “with the bayonet” and, if need be, “to kill
every God-damned abolitionist in the district.”
Under Atchison’s inflammatory leadership, secret
societies sprang up in the Missouri counties adjacent to Kansas dedicated to combating the FreeSoilers. One editor exclaimed that northerners came
to Kansas “for the express purpose of stealing, running off and hiding runaway negroes from Missouri
[and] taking to their own bed . . . a stinking negro
wench.” Not slaveholders, he said, but New Englanders were immoral, uncivilized, and hypocritical.
Rumors of 20,000 such Massachusetts migrants
spurred Missourians to action. Thousands poured
across the border late in 1854 to vote on permitting
slavery in the territory. Twice as many ballots were
cast as the number of registered voters; in one
polling place only 20 of more than 600 voters were
legal residents.
The proslavery forces overreacted. The permanent population of Kansas consisted primarily of
migrants from Missouri and other border states—
people more concerned with land titles than slavery. They opposed any blacks—slave or free—moving into their state. As one clergyman put it, “I kem
to Kansas to live in a free state and I don’t want niggers a-trampin’ over my grave.”
In March 1855, a second election was held to select
a territorial legislature. The pattern of border crossings, intimidation, and illegal voting was repeated.
Atchison himself, drinking “considerable whiskey,”
led an armed band across the state line to vote and
frighten away would-be free-soil voters. Not surprisingly, swollen numbers of illegal voters elected a
proslavery territorial legislature. Free-Soilers, meanwhile, held their own convention in Lawrence and
created a free-soil government at Topeka. It banned
blacks from the state. The proslavery legislature settled in Lecompton, giving Kansas two governments.
The struggle shifted to Washington. Although
President Pierce could have nullified the illegal election, he did nothing. Congress debated and sent an
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 473
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 473
investigating committee, further inflaming passions.
Throughout 1855, the call to arms grew more strident. One proslavery newspaper invited southerners
to bring their weapons and “send the scoundrels”
from the North “back to whence they came, or . . . to
hell, it matters not which.” In South Carolina, Robert
Allston wrote his son Benjamin that he was “raising
men and money . . . to counteract the effect of the
Northern hordes. . . . We are disposed to fight the battle of our rights . . . on the field of Kansas.”
Both sides saw Kansas as a holy battleground. An
Alabama colonel sold his slaves to raise money to
hire an army of 300 men to fight for slavery in
Kansas, promising free land to his recruits. A Baptist
minister blessed their departure from Montgomery,
promised them God’s favor, and gave each man a
Bible. Northern Christians responded in kind. At
Yale University, the noted minister Henry Ward
Beecher presented 25 Bibles and 25 Sharps rifles to
young men who would go fight for the Lord in
Kansas. “There are times,” he said, “when self-defense is a religious duty. If that duty was ever imperative it is now, and in Kansas.” Beecher suggested
that rifles would be of greater use than Bibles. Missourians dubbed them “Beecher’s Bibles” and
vowed, as one newspaper put it, “Blood for Blood!”
“Bleeding Kansas”
As civil war threatened in Kansas, Brooklyn poet Walt
Whitman heralded American democracy in his epic
poem Leaves of Grass (1855). Whitman
identified himself as the embodiment of
average Americans “of every hue and caste,
. . . of every rank and religion.” His poems
Walt Whitman,
embraced urban mechanics, southern
Preface to
woodcutters, runaway slaves, mining
Leaves of
camp prostitutes, and a long list of others
Grass (1855)
in his poetic celebration of “the word Democratic, the word En-Masse.” But Whitman’s faith in
the American masses faltered in the mid-1850s. He
worried that a knife plunged into the “breast” of the
Union would bring on the “red blood of civil war.”
Blood indeed flowed in Kansas. In May 1856, supported by a pro-southern federal marshal, a mob
entered Lawrence, smashed the offices and presses
of a Free-Soil newspaper, fired several cannonballs
into the Free State Hotel, and destroyed homes and
shops. Three nights later, believing he was doing
God’s will, John Brown led a small New England
band, including four of his sons, to a proslavery settlement near Pottawatomie Creek and hacked five
men to death with swords.
Violence also entered the halls of Congress. That
same week, abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner
delivered a tirade known as “The Crime Against
Kansas.” He lashed out at the “incredible atrocities
of the Assassins and . . . Thugs” from the South. He
accused proslavery Senate leaders, especially Andrew Butler of South Carolina, of cavorting with the
“harlot, Slavery.” Two days later, Butler’s nephew,
Congressman Preston Brooks, avenged his honor by
beating Sumner senseless with his cane as he sat at
his Senate desk.
The sack of Lawrence, the Pottawatomie massacre, and the caning of Sumner set off serious civil
disturbances in “Bleeding Kansas” that lasted
throughout the summer. Crops were burned, homes
were destroyed, fights broke out in saloons and
streets, and night raiders tortured and murdered
their enemies. For Charles Lines, who just wanted to
farm his land in peace, it was impossible to remain
neutral. Lines hoped his neighbors near Lawrence
would avoid “involving themselves in trouble.” But
when proslavery forces tortured a mild-mannered
neighbor to death, Lines joined the battle. “Blood,”
he wrote, “must end in the triumph of the right.”
Even before the bleeding of Kansas began, the
New York Tribune warned, “We are two peoples. We
are a people for Freedom and a people for Slavery.
Between the two, conflict is inevitable.” As the
rhetoric and violence in Kansas demonstrated,
competing visions of two separate cultures for the
future destiny of the United States were at stake. Despite many similarities between the North and the
South, the gap between the two sides widened with
the hostilities of the mid-1850s.
Northern Views and Visions
As Julia Lovejoy suggested, the North saw itself as a
prosperous land of bustling commerce and expanding, independent agriculture. Northern farmers and
workers were self-made free men and women who
believed in individualism and democracy. The “free
labor system” of the North, as both Seward and Lincoln often said, offered equality of opportunity and
upward mobility. Both generated more wealth. Although the North contained many growing cities,
northerners revered the values of the small towns
that spread from New England across the Upper
Midwest. These values included a respect for the
rights of the people, tempered by the rule of law; individual enterprise, balanced by a concern for one’s
neighbors; and a fierce morality rooted in Protestantism. Northerners would regulate morality—by
persuasion if possible but by legislation if necessary—to purge irreligion, illiteracy, and intemperance from American society. It was no accident that
laws for universal public education and against the
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
474
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 474
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
A Northern City and
a Southern Plantation These scenes illustrate
the contrasting socioeconomic
cultures of the antebellum
North and South. Chicago
(top) was a rapidly growing,
bustling northern city in the
1850s; situated on the Great
Lakes and a developing railroad hub, Chicago became the
distribution center for industrial and agricultural goods
throughout the Midwest. The
vital unit of southern commerce was, by contrast, the individual plantation (bottom),
with steamboats and flatboats
carrying cotton and sugar to
port cities for trade with Europe. Are there examples today of two sides portraying
each other in such starkly contrasting ways? (Top: Corbis; bottom: Library of Congress)
sale and consumption of alcohol both began in New
England.
Northerners valued the kind of republican government that guaranteed the rights of free men, enabling them to achieve economic progress. This belief supported government action to promote free
labor, industrial growth, immigration, foreign trade
(protected by tariffs), and the extension of railroads
and free farm homesteads westward across the continent. Energetic mobility, both westward and upward, would dissolve state, regional, and class loyalties and increase the sense of nationhood. A strong
Union could achieve national and even international greatness. These were the conditions befitting
a chosen people who would, as Seward put it,
spread American institutions around the world and
“renovate the condition of mankind.” These were
the principles of the Republican party.
Only free men could achieve economic progress
and moral society. In northerners’ eyes, therefore,
the worst sin was the loss of one’s freedom. Slavery
was the root of all evil. It was, Seward said, “incompatible with all . . . the elements of the security, welfare, and greatness of nations.” The South was the
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 475
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 475
antithesis of everything that northerners saw as
good. Southerners were unfree, backward, economically stagnant, uneducated, lawless, immoral, and
in conflict with the values and ideals of the nineteenth century. Julia Lovejoy’s denunciation of
slaveholding Missourians was mild. Other Yankee
migrants saw southerners as “wild beasts” who guzzled whiskey, ate dirt, swore, raped slave women,
and fought or dueled at the slightest excuse. In the
slang of the day, they were “Pukes.”
Each side saw the other threatening its freedom
and degrading proper republican society. Each saw
the other imposing barriers to its vision for America’s
future, which included the economic systems described in Chapters 10 and 11. As hostilities rose, the
views each section had of the other grew steadily
more rigid and conspiratorial. Northerners saw the
South as a “slave power,” determined to foist the
slave system on free labor throughout the land.
Southerners saw the North as full of “black Republicanism,” determined to destroy their way of life.
The Southern Perspective
Southerners were a diverse people who, like northerners, shared certain broad values, generally those of
the planter class. If in the North the values of economic enterprise were most important, southerners
revered social values most. They admired the English
gentry and saw themselves as courteous, refined, hospitable, and chivalrous. By contrast, they saw “Yankees” as coarse, ill-mannered, aggressive, and materialistic. In a society where one person in three was a
black slave, racial distinctions and paternalistic relationships were crucial in maintaining order and white
supremacy. Fear of slave revolt was ever-present. The
South had five times as many military schools as the
North. Northerners educated the many for economic
utility; southerners educated the few for character. In
short, the white South saw itself as an ordered society
guided by the planters’ genteel code.
Southerners agreed with northerners that sovereignty in a republic rested in the people, who created
a government of laws to protect life, liberty, and property. But unlike northerners, southerners believed
that the democratic principle of self-government was
best preserved in local political units such as the
states. They were ready to fight to resist any tyrannical
encroachment on their liberty, as they had in 1776.
They saw themselves as true revolutionary patriots.
Like northerners, southerners cherished the Union.
But they preferred the loose confederacy of the Jeffersonian past, not Seward’s centralized nationalism.
To southerners, Yankees were in too much of a
hurry—to make money, to reform others’ behavior,
to put dreamy theories (such as racial equality) into
practice. Two images dominated the South’s view of
northerners: either they were stingy, hypocritical,
moralizing Puritans, or they were grubby, slumdwelling, Catholic immigrants. A Georgia paper
combined both images in an 1856 editorial: “Free
society! we sicken at the name. What is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives,
small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists?”
These northerners, the paper said, “are devoid of society fitted for well-bred gentlemen.”
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 475
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 475
POLARIZATION AND THE
ROAD TO WAR
The struggle over Kansas solidified the image of the
Republicans as a northern party and seriously weakened the Democrats. Further events, mostly over the
question of slavery in the territories, soon split the
Democratic party irrevocably into sectional halves:
the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court (1857),
the constitutional crisis in Kansas (1857), the Lincoln–Douglas debates in Illinois (1858), John Brown’s
raid in Virginia (1859), and Lincoln’s election (1860).
These incidents further polarized the negative images each culture held of the other and accelerated
the nation down the road to civil war.
The Dred Scott Case
The events of 1857 reinforced the arguments of those
who believed in a slave power conspiracy. Two days after James Buchanan’s inauguration, the Supreme Court
finally ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford. The case had been
before the Court for nearly three years, longer for the
Scott slave family. Back in 1846, Dred and Harriet Scott
had filed suit in Missouri for their freedom. They argued that their master had taken them into northern
territories where the Missouri Compromise prohibited
slavery, and therefore they should be freed.
By the time the case reached the Supreme
Court, the issue of slavery in the territories
was a hot political issue.
When the Court, with its southern ma- Supreme Court
Decision, Dred
jority, issued a 7–2 decision, it made three
Scott v.
rulings. First, because blacks were, as Chief Sanford
(1857)
Justice Roger Taney put it, “beings of an inferior order [who] had no rights which white men were
bound to respect,” Dred Scott was not a citizen and
had no right to sue in federal courts. Justice Peter
Daniel of Virginia was even more indelicate in his consenting opinion, saying that the “African Negro race”
did not belong “to the family of nations” but rather
was a subject for “commerce or traffic.” The second
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
476
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 476
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
ruling stated that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because Congress had no power to ban
slavery in a territory. Third, the court decided that taking the Scotts into free states did not affect their status.
The implications of these decisions went far beyond the Scotts’ personal freedom. The arguments
about black citizenship infuriated many northerners. Frederick Douglass called the ruling “a most
scandalous and devilish perversion of the Constitution, and a brazen misstatement of the facts of history.” Many citizens worried about the few rights free
blacks still held. Even more troubling, the
decision hinted that slavery might be legal
in the free states of the North. People who
suspected a conspiracy were not calmed
when Buchanan endorsed the Dred Scott
Dred Scott
decision as a final settlement of the right
of citizens to take their “property of any kind, including slaves, into the common Territories . . . and to
have it protected there under the Federal Constitution.” Far from settling the issue of slavery in the territories, as Buchanan had hoped, Dred Scott threw it
back into American politics, opened new questions,
and increased sectional hostilities.
Constitutional Crisis in Kansas
The Dred Scott decision and Buchanan’s endorsement
fed northern suspicions of a slave power conspiracy
to impose slavery everywhere. Events in Kansas,
which still had two governments, heightened these
fears. In the summer of 1857, Kansas had yet another
election, with so many irregularities that only 2,000
out of a possible 24,000 votes counted. A proslavery
slate of delegates was elected to a constitutional convention meeting at Lecompton as a preparation for
statehood. The convention barred free blacks from
the state, guaranteed the property rights of the few
slaveholders in Kansas, and asked voters to decide in
a referendum whether to permit more slaves.
The proslavery Lecompton constitution, clearly
unrepresentative of the wishes of the majority of the
people of Kansas, was sent to Congress for approval.
Eager to retain southern Democratic support,
Buchanan endorsed it. Stephen Douglas challenged
the president’s power and jeopardized his standing
with southern Democrats by opposing it. Facing reelection to the Senate from Illinois in 1858, Douglas
needed to hold the support of the northern wing of
his party. Congress sent the Lecompton constitution
back to the people of Kansas for another referendum. This time they defeated it, which meant that
Kansas remained a territory rather than becoming a
slave state. While Kansas was left in an uncertain
status, the larger political effect of the struggle was
to split the Democratic party almost beyond repair.
No sooner had Douglas settled the Lecompton
question than he faced re-election in Illinois. Douglas’s opposition to the Lecompton constitution had
restored his prestige in the North as an opponent of
the slave power. This cut some ground out from under the Republican party’s claim that only it could
stop the spread of southern power. Party leaders from
the West, however, had a candidate who understood
the importance of distinguishing Republican moral
and political views from those of the Democrats.
Lincoln and the Illinois Debates
Although relatively unknown nationally and out of
elective office for several years, by 1858 Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was challenging William Seward for
leadership of the Republican party. Lincoln’s character was shaped on the midwestern frontier, where he
had educated himself, developed mild abolitionist
views, and dreamed of America’s greatness.
Douglas was clearly the leading Democrat, so the
1858 election in Illinois gave a preview of the presidential election of 1860. The other Douglass, Frederick, observed that “the slave power idea was the ideological glue of the Republican party.” Lincoln’s
handling of this idea would be crucial in distinguishing him from Stephen Douglas. The Illinois
campaign featured a series of seven debates between Lincoln and Douglas, which took place in different cities. Addressing a national as well as a local
audience, the debaters confronted the heated racial
issues before the nation.
Lincoln set a solemn tone when he accepted the
Republican senatorial nomination in Chicago. The
American nation, he said, was in a “crisis” and
building toward a worse one. “A House divided
against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and
half free.” Lincoln said he did not expect the Union
“to be dissolved” or “the house to fall,” but rather
that “it will become all one thing, or all
the other.” Then he rehearsed the history
of the South’s growing influence over national policy since the Kansas–Nebraska
Act, which he blamed on Douglas. LinLincoln, “A
coln stated his firm opposition to the House Divided”
(1858)
Dred Scott decision, which he believed
part of a conspiracy involving Pierce,
Buchanan, Taney, and Douglas. He and others like
him opposing this conspiracy wished to place slavery on a “course of ultimate extinction.”
Debating Douglas, Lincoln reiterated these controversial themes. Although far from a radical abolitionist, in these debates Lincoln skillfully staked out
a moral position on race and slavery not just in advance of Douglas but well ahead of his time.
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 477
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 477
Lincoln was also very much a part of his time. He
the election. Elsewhere in 1858, however,
believed in white superiority, opposed granting speDemocrats did poorly, losing 18 congrescific equal civil rights to free blacks, and said that
sional seats.
physical and moral differences between whites and
Lincoln and
blacks would “forever forbid the two races from living
Douglas,
John Brown’s Raid
Galesburg
together on terms of social and political equality.”
Debate (1858)
Unlike Lincoln, John Brown was prepared
“Separation” and colonization in Liberia or Central
to act decisively against slavery. On October 16, 1859,
America was the best solution. But Lincoln differed
he and a band of 22 men attacked a federal arsenal at
from most contemporaries in his deep commitment
Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). He hoped
to the equality and dignity of all human beings.
to provoke a general uprising of slaves throughout the
Countering Douglas’s racial slurs, Lincoln
Upper South or at least provide the arms for slaves to
said that he believed not only that blacks
make their way to freedom. Although he seized the arwere “entitled to all the natural rights . . . in
senal for a time, federal troops soon overthe Declaration of Independence” but also
came him. Nearly half his men were killed,
that
they
had
many
specific
economic
Lincoln,
including two sons. Brown was captured,
rights as well, such as “the right to put into
Charleston
Debate (1858)
tried, and hanged for treason, ending a lifehis mouth the bread that his own hands
time of failures.
have earned.” In these rights, blacks were
John Brown,
In death, however, Brown was not a fail“my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the
ca. 1850
ure. His daring if foolhardy raid and his digequal of every living man.”
nified behavior during his trial and speedy execution
Unlike Douglas, Lincoln hated slavery. At Galesunleashed powerful passions. The North–South gap
burg, he said, “I contemplate slavery as a moral, sowidened. Although Brown’s death was widely concial, and political evil.” In Quincy, he said that the
demned, many northerners responded to it with an
difference between a Republican and a Democrat
outpouring of sympathy at memorial rallies, parades,
was quite simply whether one thought slavery
and prayer meetings. Thoreau compared him to
wrong or right. Douglas was more equivocal and
dodged the issue in Freeport,
pointing out that slavery
would not exist if favorable local legislation did not support
it. But Douglas’s moral indifference to slavery was clear: he
did not care whether a territorial legislature voted it “up or
down.” Republicans did care,
Lincoln answered, and said
that stopping the expansion of
slavery would set the course
toward “ultimate extinction.”
Although barred by the Constitution from interfering with
slavery where it already existed, Lincoln said that because Republicans believed
slavery was wrong, “we propose a course of policy that
shall deal with it as a wrong.”
What Lincoln meant by
“policy” was not yet clear, not
even to himself. However, he
did succeed in affirming that
Republicans were the only
John Brown as an Avenging Hero This modern mural captures both the madness
moral and political force capaand passionate larger-than-life commitment of John Brown against a backdrop of flag-covered
ble of stopping the slave power.
wagon trains across the Great Plains, a raging tornado and angry sky (God’s wrath?), struggling
It seems ironic now (though
slaves (by his left knee), and a violent confrontation between those for and against slavery. How
not then), that Douglas won
do you respond to these images? (Kansas State Historical Society)
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
478
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 478
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
Tarring and Feathering of a Southern Sympathizer In the aftermath of John Brown’s
raid, passions fed by fear were unleashed throughout the South against northern sympathizers, and vice versa.
A year later, the editor of a Massachusetts newspaper who expressed Democratic, southern sympathies found
himself the victim of the time-honored mob punishment of tarring and feathering. (Picture Collection, The New
York Public Library, Astor, Lenox & Tilden Foundations)
Christ, calling Brown an “angel of light.” Abolitionist
William Lloyd Garrison, a pacifist, wished “success to
every slave insurrection” in the South. Ministers called slave revolt a “divine weapon”
and glorified Brown’s treason as “holy.”
Brown’s raid, Frederick Douglass
pointed
out, showed that slavery was a
John Brown,
Address Before
“system of brute force” that would be
Sentencing
ended only when “met with its own
(Nov. 2, 1859)
weapons.” Southerners were filled with
“dread and terror” over the possibility of a wave of
slave revolts led by hundreds of imaginary John
Browns and Nat Turners, and concluded that northerners would stop at nothing to free the slaves. This
suspicion further eroded freedom of thought and expression. A North Carolinian described a “spirit of
terror, mobs, arrests, and violence” in his
state. Twelve families in Berea, Kentucky,
were evicted from the state for their mild
abolitionist sentiments. A Texas minister
who criticized the treatment of slaves in a
Battle Hymn of
sermon got 70 lashes.
the Republic
With Brown’s raid, southerners also
became more convinced, as the governor
of South Carolina put it, of a “black Republican” plot in the North “arrayed
William Lloyd
against the slaveholders.” In this atmosGarrison on
John Brown’s
phere of mistrust, southern Unionists
Raid (1859)
lost their influence, and power became
concentrated in the hands of those favoring secession. Only one step remained to complete
the southern sense of having become a permanent
minority within the United States: withdrawal to
form a new nation. Senator Robert Toombs of
Georgia, insistent that northern “enemies” were
plotting the South’s ruin, warned fellow southerners late in 1859, “Never permit this Federal government to pass into the traitorous hands of the black
Republican party.”
The Election of 1860
When the Democratic convention met in Charleston,
South Carolina, a secessionist hotbed, it sat for a
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 479
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 479
Two Maps of the Presidential Election of 1860
This 1860 pre-election cartoon shows Lincoln and
Douglas (left) fighting for the
midwestern states (and California and Oregon), while
Breckinridge tears off the
South, and the compromise
candidate Bell, standing on
the chair, tries to hold the
nation together with a little
glue. Lincoln won with only
40 percent of the popular
vote. Note on the map below the states Lincoln and
Breckinridge won: what
does that suggest? Although
he was second in many
states, Douglas took only
one, Missouri, perhaps for
both real and symbolic reasons. Why do you think so?
How do you explain the
three states Bell won? Why
did Lincoln win the election?
(Cartoon: Library of Congress)
SHIR
NEW HAMP
(5)
VERMONT
UNORGANIZED
TERRITORY
WASH
INGT
ON
TERR
ITOR
Y
OREG
(3)
(5)
MINNESOTA
(4)
NEBRASKA TERRITORY
ON
SETTS
MASSACHU
(3)
WISCONSIN
(5)
IOWA
(4)
UTAH
TERR
ITOR
Y
KANSAS TERRITORY
CALIF
NEW
ORNIA
(4)
MEXIC
MICHIGAN
(8)
INDIANA OHIO
(23)
(13)
ILLINIOS
(11)
MISSOURI
(8)
O TE
RR
ITOR
Y
INDIAN
TERRITORY
ARKANSAS
(UNORGANIZED)
(4)
TEXAS
(4)
Lincoln, Republican
Douglas, Democratic (Northern)
NEW YORK
(35)
TE
ANIA
MAINE
(8)
RHODE
ISLAND
(4)
CONNECTI
(6)
(12)
SOUTH
CAROLINA
(6)
GEORGIA
(10)
FLORIDA
(3)
Breckinridge, Democratic (Southern)
Bell, Constitutional Union
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
CUT
NEW JERSEY
(4)
DELAWARE
VIRGINIA
(3)
(15)
KENTUCKY
MARYLAND
(12)
(8)
ROLINA
NORTH CA
0)
(1
E
SE
NNES
I
MISSISSIPP
(7)
ALABAMA
(7)
LOUISIANA
(8)
PENNSYLV
(27)
E
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
480
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 480
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
record 10 days and went through 59 ballots without
being able to name a candidate. Southern delegates
withdrew twice, forcing adjournments. Reconvening
in Baltimore, the Democrats acknowledged their irreparable division by choosing two candidates at two
separate conventions: Douglas for northern Democrats and John C. Breckinridge, Buchanan’s vice president, for the proslavery South. The Constitutional
Union party, made up of former southern Whigs and
border-state nativists, claimed the middle ground
and nominated John Bell, a slaveholder
from Tennessee who favored compromise.
With Democrats split and a new party
in contention, the Republican strategy
aimed at keeping the states carried by
1860
Presidential
Frémont in 1856 and adding PennsylvaElection Banner
nia, Illinois, and Indiana. Seward, the
(Republican)
leading candidate, had been tempering
his antislavery views to appear more electable. So
had Lincoln, who seemed more likely than Seward
to carry those key states. After shrewd maneuvers
emphasizing his “availability” as a moderate, Lincoln was nominated.
The Republican platform also exuded moderation, opposing only slavery’s extension. Mostly it
spoke of tariff protection, subsidized internal improvements, free labor, and a homestead bill. Republicans, like southern Democrats, defended their
view of what republican values meant for America’s
future. It did not include the equal rights envisioned
by Frederick Douglass. An English traveler in 1860
observed that in America “we see, in effect, two nations—one white and another black—growing up
together within the same political circle, but never
mingling on a principle of equality.”
The Republican moderate strategy worked as
planned. Lincoln was elected by sweeping the entire
Northeast and Midwest. Although he got less than
40 percent of the popular vote nationwide, his triumph in the North was decisive. Even a united Democratic party could not have defeated him. With
victory assured, Lincoln finished his sandwich and
coffee on election night in Springfield and prepared
for his awesome new responsibilities. They came
even before his inauguration.
THE DIVIDED HOUSE FALLS
The Republicans overestimated Unionist sentiment
in the South. A year earlier, some southern congressmen had walked out in protest when the
House chose an antislavery speaker. A Republican
leader, Carl Schurz, recalling this, said that the
southerners had taken a drink and then come back.
Now, Schurz predicted, they would walk out, take
two drinks, and come back again. He was wrong.
Secession and Uncertainty
On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded from
the Union, declaring the “experiment” of
putting people with “different pursuits and
institutions” under one government a failure. By February 1, the other six Deep
South states—Mississippi, Florida, Al- South Carolina
abama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas— Declaration on
the Causes of
also left. A week later, delegates meeting in
Secession
Montgomery, Alabama, created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson
Davis, a Mississippi senator and cotton planter, its
provisional president. The divided house had fallen,
as Lincoln had predicted. But it was not yet certain
whether the house could be put back together or
whether there would be civil war.
The government in Washington had three options.
First was compromise, but the emotions of
the time ruled that out, as the proposed
compromises were mostly pro-southern.
Second, as suggested by New York Tribune
editor Horace Greeley, was to let the seven Jefferson Davis,
Address to the
states “go in peace,” taking care not to lose
Provisional
the border states. Northern businessmen,
Congress
fearing the loss of profitable economic ties
(1861)
with the South, were opposed, as were
those who believed in an indissoluble Union. The
third option was to compel secessionist states to return, which probably meant war.
Republican hopes that southern Unionism
would assert itself and make none of these options
necessary seemed possible in February 1861. No
more states seceded. The nation waited, wondering
what Virginia and the border states would do, what
outgoing President Buchanan would do, and what
Congress would do. Buchanan did nothing. Congress made some feeble efforts to pass compromise
legislation, waiting in vain for the support of the
president-elect. And as Union supporters struggled
with secessionists, Virginia and the border states,
like the entire nation, waited for Lincoln.
Frederick Douglass waited, too, without much
hope. He wanted the “complete and universal
abolition of the whole slave system,” as well as
equal suffrage and other rights for free blacks. His
momentary expectation during the presidential
campaign, that Lincoln and the Republicans had
the will to do this, had been thoroughly dashed. In
November, the voters of New York State had
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 481
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 481
The Causes of the Civil War
Using this chart as a summary, how would you explain the primary cause of the Civil War? Which four or five of the “issues and
events” would you use to support your argument?
Date
Issues and Events
Deeper, Underlying Causes of Civil War
1600s–1860s
1700s–1860s
Slavery in the South
Development of two distinct socioeconomic
systems and cultures
States’ rights, nullification doctrine
Missouri Compromise (36°30′)
South Carolina tariff nullification crisis
Antislavery movements, southern justification
War with Mexico (Wilmot Proviso, Calhoun,
popular sovereignty)
Major underlying pervasive cause
Further reinforced slavery as fundamental socioeconomic,
cultural, moral issue
Ongoing political issue, less fundamental as cause
Background for conflict over slavery in territories
Background for secession leadership in South Carolina
Thirty years of emotional preparation for conflict
Options for issue of slavery in territories
Date
Issues and Events
Specific Impact on the Road to War
1850
1851–1854
Compromise of 1850
Temporary and unsatisfactory “settlement” of divisive issue
Fugitive slaves returned and rescued in North;
Heightened northern emotional reactions against
personal liberty laws passed in North;
the South and slavery
Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin
Breakdown of Whig party and national
Made national politics an arena where sectional and
Democratic party; creation of a new party
cultural differences over slavery were fought
system with sectional basis
Ostend Manifesto and other expansionist
Reinforced image of Democratic party as favoring slavery
efforts in Central America
Formation of Republican party
Major party identified as opposing the extension of slavery
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Reopened “settled” issue of slavery in the territories
“Bleeding Kansas”; Senator Sumner physically
Foretaste of Civil War (200 killed, $2 million in property lost)
attacked in Senate
inflamed emotions and polarized North and South
Dred Scott decision; proslavery Lecompton
Made North fear a “slave power conspiracy,” supported by
constitution in Kansas
President Buchanan and the Supreme Court
Lincoln–Douglas debates in Illinois;
Set stage for election of 1860
Democrats lose 18 seats in Congress
John Brown’s raid and reactions in
Made South fear a “black Republican” plot against slavery;
North and South
further polarization and irrationality
Democratic party splits in half; Lincoln elected
Final breakdown of national parties and election of
president; South Carolina secedes from Union
“northern” president; no more compromises
Six more southern states secede by February 1; Civil War begins
Confederate Constitution adopted
February 4; Lincoln inaugurated March 4;
Fort Sumter attacked April 12
1787–1860s
1820
1828–1833
1831–1860s
1846–1848
1852–1856
1854
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
defeated a referendum for black suffrage by more
votes than a similar measure 14 years earlier. Moreover, Douglass saw northern politicians and businessmen “granting the most demoralizing concessions to the Slave Power.”
In his despair, Douglass began to explore possibilities for emigration and colonization in Haiti, an
idea he had long opposed. To achieve full freedom
and citizenship in the United States for all blacks, he
said in January 1861, he would “welcome the hardships consequent upon a dissolution of the Union.”
In February, Douglass said, “Let the conflict come.”
He opposed all compromises, hoping that with Lin-
coln’s inauguration in March it would “be decided,
and decided forever, which of the two, Freedom or
Slavery, shall give law to this Republic.”
Lincoln and Fort Sumter
As Douglass penned these thoughts, Lincoln began
a long, slow train ride from Springfield, Illinois, to
Washington, writing and rewriting his inaugural address. Lincoln’s quietness in the period between his
election and his inauguration led many to judge
him weak and indecisive. He was not. Lincoln firmly
opposed secession and any compromises with the
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
482
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 482
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
principle of stopping the extension of slavery. He
would neither conciliate secessionist southern
states nor force their return.
Lincoln devoutly believed in his constitutional
responsibility to uphold the laws of the land. The focus of his attention was a federal fort in the harbor
of Charleston, South Carolina. Major Robert Anderson, the commander of Fort Sumter, was running
out of provisions and had requested new supplies
from Washington. Lincoln would enforce the laws
and protect federal property at Fort Sumter.
As the new president delivered his inaugural address on March 4, he faced a tense and divided nation. Lincoln asserted his unequivocal intention to enforce the laws of the land,
arguing that the Union was constitutionally “perpetual” and indissoluble. He reminded the nation that the “only subLincoln, First
stantial dispute” was that “one section of
Inaugural
our country believes slavery is right, and
Address
(1861)
ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended.” Still appealing to Unionist strength among
southern moderates, Lincoln said he would make
no attempts to interfere with existing slavery and
would respect the law to return fugitive slaves.
Nearing the end of his address, Lincoln put the burden of initiating a civil war on the “dissatisfied fellow-countrymen” who had seceded. As if foreseeing
the horrible events that might follow, he closed his
speech eloquently:
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We
must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained,
it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic
chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and
patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all
over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the
Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the
better angels of our nature.
Frederick Douglass was not impressed with Lincoln’s “honied phrases” and accused him of “weakness, timidity and conciliation.” Also unmoved,
Robert Allston wrote his son from Charleston,
where he was watching the developing crisis over
Fort Sumter, that the Confederacy’s “advantage” was
in having a “much better president than they have.”
On April 6, Lincoln notified the governor of South
Carolina that he was sending “provisions only” to
Fort Sumter. No effort would be made “to throw in
men, arms, or ammunition” unless the fort was attacked. On April 10, Jefferson Davis directed General P. G. T. Beauregard to demand the surrender of
Fort Sumter. Davis told Beauregard to reduce the
fort if Major Anderson refused.
On April 12, as Lincoln’s relief expedition neared
Charleston, Beauregard’s batteries began shelling
Fort Sumter, and the Civil War began.
Frederick Douglass was about to leave for
Haiti when he heard the news. He immediately changed his plans: “This is no
time . . . to leave the country.” He anFort Sumter—
nounced his readiness to help end the war
Lithograph
by aiding the Union to organize freed
slaves “into a liberating army” to “make war upon . . .
the savage barbarism of slavery.” The Allstons had
changed places, and it was Benjamin who described
the events in Charleston harbor to his father. On April
14, Benjamin reported exuberantly the “glorious, and
astonishing news that Sumter has fallen.” With it fell
America’s divided house.
Conclusion
The “Irrepressible Conflict”
Lincoln had been right. The nation could no longer
endure half-slave and half-free. The collision between North and South, William Seward said, was
not an “accidental, unnecessary” event but an “irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces.” Those forces had been at work for
many decades, but they developed with increasing
intensity after 1848 in the conflict over the extension of slavery into the territories. Although
economic, cultural, political, constitutional, and
emotional forces all contributed to the developing
opposition between North and South, slavery was
the fundamental, enduring force that underlay all
others, causing what Walt Whitman called the “red
blood of civil war.” Abraham Lincoln, Frederick
Douglass, the Allston family, Michael Luark, and
the American people all faced a radically altered
national scene. All wondered whether the American democratic system would be able to withstand
this challenge.
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
9/28/05
1:31 PM
Page 483
CHAPTER 14 The Union in Peril 483
TIMELINE
1832 Nullification crisis
1835–1840 Intensification of abolitionist attacks on slavery
Violent retaliatory attacks on abolitionists
1846 Wilmot Proviso
1848 Free-Soil party founded
Zachary Taylor elected president
1850 Compromise of 1850, including Fugitive Slave Act
1850–1854 “Young America” movement
1851 Women’s rights convention in Akron, Ohio
1852 Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes Uncle Tom’s
Cabin
Franklin Pierce elected president
1854 Ostend Manifesto
Kansas–Nebraska Act nullifies Missouri
Compromise
Republican and Know-Nothing parties formed
1855 Walt Whitman publishes Leaves of Grass
1855–1856 Thousands pour into Kansas, creating months of
turmoil and violence
1856 John Brown’s massacre in Kansas
Sumner–Brooks incident in Senate
James Buchanan elected president
1857 Dred Scott decision legalizes slavery in territories
Lecompton constitution in Kansas
1858 Lincoln–Douglas debates
1859 John Brown’s raid at Harpers Ferry
1860 Democratic party splits
Four-party campaign
Abraham Lincoln elected president
1860–1861 Seven southern states secede
1861 Confederate States of America founded
Attack on Fort Sumter begins Civil War
Questions for Review and Reflection
1. What options existed for dealing with slavery in the
territories, and what compromises did Congress propose? How well did they work?
2. How did political party alignments change in the
1850s and how did that affect the path to civil war?
3. Examine how southerners and northerners viewed
each other, especially in Kansas. How did cultural
stereotypes and emotional attitudes contribute to
the outbreak of civil war?
4. Can you explain four basic, underlying causes of the
American Civil War? Which do you think was most
significant, and what specific events would you use
to support your choice?
5. To what extent was the American democratic political system flexible enough to handle the issues of the
1850s? Could the Civil War have been avoided, or was
it inevitable?
Recommended Reading
Recommended Readings are posted on the Web site for this textbook. Visit www.ablongman.com/nash
Fiction and Film
The most important novel about slavery during the
antebellum era was Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle
Tom’s Cabin (1852). Written in serial form, each
episode stopped at a nail-biting moment and
aroused the conscience of the North. Walt Whitman’s collection of poems, Leaves of Grass (1855),
celebrates not only the poet’s own ego but also the
common people and democratic American values
in a decade that sorely tested those values. Russell
Banks’s Cloudsplitter (1998) is a long but riveting
novel about John Brown and his activities during
the 1850s, told through the eyes of one of his sons.
The Bondswoman’s Daughter by Hannah Crafts
(2002), recently discovered by Henry Louis Gates,
Jr., is a captivating story of a runaway slave woman
in the 1850s. Toni Morrison’s award-winning novel
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.
NASH.7654.CP14.p456-485.vpdf
484
9/12/05
1:56 PM
Page 484
PART 3 An Expanding People, 1820–1877
Beloved (1988), later made into a feature film, tells
the story, based on a true event in 1856, of an escaped slave mother who killed her child as bounty
hunters were about to seize her family and return
them to slavery. Part I of Ken Burns’s PBS film series
The Civil War (1989) sets the slavery and 1850s
background for his haunting documentary portrayal of the Civil War. Another fine video is John
Brown’s Holy War (1999) from the PBS series The
American Experience.
Discovering U.S. History Online
Compromise of 1850
www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm043.html
This exhibit shows digitized images of compromise documents by John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster’s notes for
introductory remarks.
Uncle Tom’s Cabin and American Culture
www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/sitemap.html
Along with searchable access to the text of Uncle Tom’s
Cabin, this site contains an archive of primary material
(texts, images, songs, 3-D objects, film clips, and so on),
an interactive timeline, and virtual exhibits designed for
exploring and understanding the primary material.
Bleeding Kansas
www.ukans.edu/carrie/kancoll/galbks.htm
Contemporary and later accounts of America’s rehearsal
for the Civil War make up this excellent University of
Kansas site, filled with primary documents from the mid1850s.
Africans in America, Judgment Day, 1831–1865
www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/index.html
A large collection of people and events, historical documents, and modern voices on antebellum slavery, abolitionism, slavery in the territories, John Brown’s raid, and
the Civil War.
Secession Era Editorials Project
http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/index.htm
This site presents a Furman University digital collection of
northern and southern newspaper editorials on the
Kansas–Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott case, John Brown’s raid,
and other issues form the 1850s. Excellent links and context.
The Dred Scott Case
www.library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/
This site presents digital images and transcriptions of 85
original documents and a timeline of events surrounding
the case.
John Brown’s Holy War
www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/brown
This companion Web site to the video contains primary
source and biographical materials, a timeline, profiles of
related people and events, information on the song “John
Brown’s Body,” and a bibliography.
Crisis at Fort Sumter
www.tulane.edu/~latner/CrisisMain.html
This site presents “an interactive historical simulation and
decision making program. Using text, images, and sound,
it reconstructs the dilemmas of policy formation and decision making in the period between Abraham Lincoln’s
election in November 1860 and the battle of Fort Sumter
in April 1861.”
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Longman. All rights reserved.