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.”