Heading to the Civil WarSasso

US I

Popular Sovereignty• One of the key issues in the development of the Civil War

• This is the concept that the citizens/voters of a newly developed territory should have the final say on the existence of slavery in that territory

• It’s a concept that makes sense on some levels

• It’s a concept that also takes a lot of responsibility away from politicians; they really don’t have to take a firm stance on the issue of slavery

• The biggest problem with popular sovereignty is regulation- how can the government make sure that these votes are handled safely and efficiently?

• The rush of settlers moving into the new territories creates some major conflicts

Kansas and Nebraska• The settlement of the western

territories (LA Purchase/Mexican Cession) has become an urgent matter

• Lots of different reasons:

• 1) Traditional expansion

• 2) Removal of Native Americans

• 3) Development of states

• 4) Building of a transcontinental railroad

• 5) Land sales

The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)The Illegitimate Love Child of Stephen Douglas• Stephen Douglas had become the rising

star of the Democratic Party

• Was obsessed with becoming President, and most people felt he would ultimately achieve it

• Douglas saw Kansas and Nebraska as a major opportunity, both personally and politically

• This could help establish his hometown of Chicago as a financial hub

• Transcontinental railroad could cut through the territory

• Native Americans would be forcibly removed

• Douglas also stood to profit greatly from land sales

The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)• One sticking point- gaining

Southern support

• Douglas wanted to make sure that he could line up Southern votes for this bill AND his eventual run for President

• All of this territory was above the MO Compromise line

• The answer from Douglas- popular sovereignty

• Introduces the Nebraska Bill calling for the issue of slavery to be determined by popular sovereignty

The Kansas-Nebraska Act• The South was not satisfied with the Bill and had a few suggestions/demands

• 1) The territory needed to be split into two: Kansas and Nebraska with popular sovereignty deciding the issue of slavery in both areas

• 2) The language of the bill had to include the repeal of the Missouri Compromise

• Douglas agrees to both- he thinks it’s a shrewd political move

• He felt both territories would ultimately be “free” states- the climates really aren’t conducive to the crops associated with slave labor

• He also believed that the concessions made in the bill would gain Southern support for his Presidential bid (whenever that may be)

• The former Nebraska Bill was redrafted, and in May 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act went into effect

• The domino effect of its passage is massive

The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• Because of its geography,

Nebraska would most likely be a free state

• Kansas was a very different situation, especially because of its proximity to Missouri

• Establishing its territorial constitution became mayhem

• Both pro-slavery and abolitionist forces start to flood into Kansas

• Whichever side could pack more voters would control the constitutional convention

The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• Pro-slavery forces will overwhelm the

legislature

• Border Ruffians from Missouri spill into the territory

• Two capitals develop:

• 1) Lecompton- Pro-Slavery

• 2) Lawrence- Abolitionist

• Both camps elect representatives and draft constitutions and see the other side as illegitimate

• Violence is pretty much unavoidable, as there is a lack of law enforcement

• “The Sack of Lawrence”

The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• Violence in Kansas isn’t the only problem- it

will extend to Washington

• The day before the attack on Lawrence, Charles Sumner (MA) delivered a speech called “The Crime Against Kansas”

• The speech was antagonistic toward Stephen Douglas and Sen. Andrew Butler (SC), and used graphic sexual imagery

• Nobody was surprised at the comments about Douglas, but the attack on Butler was unfair

• Rep. Preston Brooks (SC) was a relative of Butler and defended him violently

• When Sumner would not agree to a duel, Brooks attacked Sumner, beating him with a cane

• Sumner was so severely injured that he would not return to Washington for nearly three years

The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• The situation deteriorates quickly with

the arrival of John Brown

• Brown did not have the easiest existence (more on that later), but he was an extreme abolitionist

• In retaliation for the attack on Lawrence, Brown led an 8-man assault party to attack pro-slavery forces

• The attack is referred to as the Pottawatomie Massacre

• Brown and his crew (including four of his sons) attacked and mutilated five men and boys along the Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas

• This represents a significant shift in the conflict

The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• Kansas-Nebraska alters the existing political parties

• Democrats will gain a lot of momentum in the South, but it’s clear that the party is splitting along North/South lines

• The Whigs will disintegrate

• The American Party (Know-Nothings) form- develops based on negative reactions to Irish/German/Catholic immigration

• American Party scores some Congressional victories from 1854-1856, but they aren’t built to last

• The Republican Party is born in 1854- originally developed in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act

• It’s a big mix of other political parties- unhappy Democrats, Whigs, Libertys, Free Soilers, and Know-Nothings

The Election of 1856• James Buchanan (D-PA)

• John C. Fremont (R-CA)

• Millard Fillmore (A-NY)

• Buchanan wins, but there were some notable developments

• First presidential election for the Republican Party, and they perform well

• Most of the Republican success is in the North

• Southern representatives are worried about the success of Republicans continuing

The Dred Scott Decision• Two days after Buchanan’s inauguration, the Supreme Court made one of its most

controversial rulings

• Dred Scott was the slave of an Army Surgeon named John Emerson

• Emerson lived in multiple states, taking Scott with him

• MO → IL → WI → MO

• Slavery was technically prohibited in IL and WI

• Scott v. Sandford

• 1) Could Scott bring a case before the Supreme Court?

• 2) Did living in a free state make him free?

• Chief Justice Taney rules that freedmen/slaves were not citizens, that slaves were property (meaning they can be taken anywhere), and that the MO Compromise was unconstitutional

• Taney saw African-Americans “as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”