Lesson One

Understanding events subsequent to 1877—after the historic compromise that officially ended Reconstruction in the South—requires some knowledge of the sectional "rift" which resulted in the Civil War and Reconstruction. Therefore, we will begin our exploration of History 2B by discussing episodes leading up to these significant events; afterwards, we will commence with our study of post-Reconstruction and the twentieth century.

In the beginning… (sounds like the start of another famous story ☺) seriously, with settlement of western lands beginning with the Missouri Compromise of 1820- which excluded slavery from lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36-30 latitude- followed by Texas’ independence from Mexico in 1836 when she won the Battle of San Jacinto, the western territories of the United States always confronted a singular issue: the expansion of slavery. The Missouri compromise allowed for the admission of both MO and Maine to the union; Missouri a slave state, Maine, free. Yet when Texas sought to gain annexation to the United States in 1845 (for 9 years she was an independent republic, not a state), many northern politicians thought this might give the South more power in Congress for she would have greater voting potential-a new state results in new representatives that would, more or less, represent the regional sympathies of her constituents.

Nevertheless, President John Tyler (a "Whig"; this party wasn’t quite 15 years old at the time; created to counter balance the power of then President Andrew Jackson and the Democrats during the 1830’s) makes it one of his administrative goals to acquire Texas during his tenure in office; Texas is admitted to the Union on December 29, 1845. His successor, James K. Polk, a Democrat, in keeping with the expansionistic attitude prevalent in some regions of the country, sought to purchase California from Mexico for 25 million but is rebuffed by the Mexican government….hmm, there must be some other way to acquire California with its rich harbors, pristine farm land, Anglo-friendly "Californios" (those Mexican Californians who resided in the territory)? I know! War!

The "sticky wicket" revolves around the question of "what’s the true boundary between the United States and Mexico in 1846, the Rio Grande or the Nueces River?" To the Americans, the Rio Grande; however, the Mexicans felt the true border lay a little further northward along the Nueces. Both sides send troops to their borders and on April 25, 1846 the war begins. Who fired the first shot? No one knows for sure, but this "border dispute" ushered in one of the bloodiest conflicts in U.S. history (over 13,000 casualties in two years of fighting). Furthermore, the war did not receive the broad support of the American people. The Whig party denounced the conflict as expansionism at the behest of the "slave power"; New England became a seat of anti-war protest; former Pres. John Quincy Adams denounced the war as did then Illinois Congressman, Abraham Lincoln. Still, although Mexico proved a formidable opponent (I’ll leave you to read on your own about the bravery of the Mexican cadets at the Battle of Chapultepec Castle), the United States won, and the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo ceded much of Mexico’s northern territories to the United States.

Again, the major problem is slavery. Since California –in accordance with the MO Compromise- would gain admittance to the Union as a free state, southerners recognized that admission would offset the ratio of free states to slave states in Congress. What to do? Well, some in the Democratic Party at the time (a representative from PA, David Wilmot, being one of the more prominent figures) wanted some form of compromise. The "Wilmot Proviso," which was an addition to an appropriations bill needed to actually fund the peace negotiations with Mexico, stated that slavery should be excluded from every territory acquired from Mexico. Although the final appropriations bill excluded Wilmot’s proviso, it is significant for it displays early fissures developing in the Democratic Party: Northern Democrats wanting to maintain slavery where it existed (in the South) with their Southern Democrat’s desiring to expand the "Peculiar Institution" westward. In their conversations Southerners often referred to the institution of slavery as "peculiar," for it existed in a land proclaiming "all men equal." Yet the necessity of slave labor for the southern economy superseded any "philosophical" adherence to the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, for that matter.

Southerners were not inclined to allow California’s admittance as a slave state unless they had certain guarantees that, in spite of the fact no new Southern slave states were admitted from lands acquired from Mexico, their regional interests were protected. They certainly did not have an ally in the "Executive Mansion" –as the White House was called then- for President Zachary Taylor (a plantation owner from Louisiana, by the way, and former general during the Mexican-American War, also a member of the Whig party) said he would have taken the field again if "insurrection" would have come about; namely, against his fellow Southerners.

This impasse over California’s admittance is broken due to several reasons: 1) Taylor dies in office; 2) Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky introduces an "Omnibus Bill" to bring "Cal-lee-forn-yah" into the Union. History has bestowed the title of the "Great Compromiser" on Henry Clay for he made the Missouri Compromise possible, mitigated the crisis over South Carolina wanting to "nullify" a federal order on tariffs in 1832, and, once again, crafted legislation in hopes of saving the Union from dissolving by introduction of his bill in 1850.

"Henry! Henry! He’s our Man! If he can’t do it, no one can!" Well, not quite…Clay’s bill had a number of key provisions that he could not get through Congress in just one piece of legislation. The mantle then passes to Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois who pushes through 5 key provisions in separate bills. The components: 1) Introduce a more stringent fugitive slave law; 2) Assume war debts incurred by Texas in her struggle with Mexico; 3) Utah and New Mexico territories would be seen as "territories" without the mention of slavery; later, their inhabitants would decide on whether or not they wanted slavery in these areas; 4) Abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia; slavery was still practiced there, however; 5) Admittance of the "Govenator’s State" as a free state.

Thus the Compromise of 1850 allows for California’s admittance, delaying the inevitable "showdown" coming over the Peculiar Institution in just little over a decade. Stephen A. Douglas is seen as a hero by most all Democrats (North and South), for he ushered in the compromise through separate legislation denying any of the more "radical" elements of his party a platform.

Now here’s where history gets cruel. As previously mentioned, President Taylor died in office. As a result, his successor (also a Whig) Millard Fillmore considers the Compromise "a final settlement." Well, although many of his Whig constituents could stomach most parts of the Compromise, the provision concerning the Fugitive Slave Law was un-palatable. Primarily the act required the citizenry to assist in looking for runaways, imposing fines and/or imprisonment if caught aiding a runaway; in addition, fugitives were denied trials in northern courts. Northern opinion is galvanized against the compromise resulting in protests over its enactment. You see, even those in the North who were completely indifferent to slavery, slaveholders, and territorial disputes over which territories were free and which slave, felt that this law impeded their liberties. In essence, the "slave power" had become too big; big in the sense that it could now command Northern assistance when carrying out its policies. Deputizing citizens of local communities-in a sense- infringes upon states’ rights; paradoxically, Southerners held the same beliefs as paramount to their existence.

So Fillmore has no support within his own party, making his chances for nomination in 1852 "null and void." Whigs are split between the more conservative Southern wing of the party and the Northern moderates, tipping the advantage to the Democrats; Franklin Pierce (Democrat) becomes president that year. That’s the cruelty: what you inherit may bite you in the ______ (you fill the blank J)

If Fillmore inherited a problem that stymied further presidential aspirations, history dealt a much crueler deck of cards to Franklin Pierce. Even before taking the oath of president he witnesses the decapitation of his son caused by a train accident on the way back to his home in New Hampshire. Completely distraught during the time he’s engaged in picking his cabinet (that period from November to March; back then presidents took the oath the following March), he really did not give much thought to whom he chose. By this we mean his cabinet lacked any real "balance" of southern and northern Democrats who might have compromising opinions on slavery in the territories. So when Pierce is selecting his "Rumsfelds," "Powells," and "Condi’s," his mind "just ain’t right…" And given the circumstances, ours probably would be in the same state.

Stephen Douglas, of "compromise fame" and riding the political winds of popularity at the time, enters into the picture again in 1854 with a plan on how to settle slavery in the territories. Through a policy entitled "Popular Sovereignty" settlers in areas west of Missouri (namely those arriving in Kansas and Nebraska territories) would decide if they –through suffrage- wanted slavery or free labor. Sounds simple, right? WRONG!!! Douglas’ scheme would undo the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that outlawed slavery in the west.

So let’s do a quick recap…Texas comes into the Union not free of controversy over slavery; we fight a war with Mexico over California for access to the pacific, BUT we get territories below the Missouri  Compromise line which, plausibly, could become slave states…that issue is settled (compromised, mind you, by accepting a rather divisive issue like the fugitive slave law)…and now comes S.A. Douglas with his plan which President Pierce endorses! With both houses of congress having passed the bill Pierce knew that if he signed it he would anger the North. If vetoed, the South might secede from the Union. He took the path of least resistance and the act became law with his signature on May 30^th, 1854 …and we think America’s experiencing tough times in 2006! Dios Mio!

The Kansas-Nebraska Act, with its call for Popular Sovereignty, effectively rescinded the Missouri Compromise. Furthermore it led to confrontations between settlers advocating slavery and those who did not; "Bleeding Kansas" resulted from indiscriminate attacks by one group against the other. On the anti-slavery, free soil side of the "fence" was the New England Emigrant Aid Society founded by abolitionists who financially supported the colonists; pro-slavers created groups such as the "Society of Missourians for Mutual Protection." Kansas had two territorial governments: one slave, the other free. Pro-slavers would sack farms and imprison abolitionist leadership. In one act of retaliation, John Brown, an anti-slavery activist, abducted 5 pro-slavery men (none of whom owned any slaves) from Dutch Henry’s Crossing at Pottawatomie Creek instructing his confederates to hack the pro-slavers to death with sabers. These sentiments and heinous offenses continued even during the Civil War when armed guerillas known as Jayhawkers and Boarder Ruffians, free soil and proslavery guerrillas, respectively, roamed the Kansas-Missouri boarder.

Kansas continued as a hot bed of sectional discord with the adoption of the Lecompton Constitution from 1857-58. The town of Lecompton established a pro-slavery government in 1857 in hopes of allowing slavery to flourish throughout the territory, and, eventually, the state of Kansas. Accordingly, anti-slavery constituents boycotted the election.

President James Buchanan (Lincoln’s predecessor) supported the pro-slavers and pushed for admission of Kansas as a slave state. Southern Democrats, holding the majority of the Senate, fought for statehood, but the House was a different story. The vote’s casts by Stephen Douglas and some anti-slavery Northern Democrats against Southern Democrats defeated passage of the bill, but only after brawls took place between congressmen on the floor of Congress! Alexander Stephens of Georgia said "if any weapons had been on hand it would probably have been a bloody one. All things here are tending my mind to the conclusion that the Union cannot and will not last long"¹ Lawmakers did pass a compromise bill, which, given its land grant size for statehood, was rejected outright by those at Lecompton. In effect, this bought Congress some time and deferred the slavery question (the inevitable, really) for a couple of years…or so they thought.

In 1857 a Supreme Court decision in a case entitled Dred Scott v. Sanford further divided the nation. Dred Scott had been a slave whose family moved with his master from Missouri to Illinois and back over the course of 5-8 years. Scott sued for his family’s freedom in Missouri court and lost in 1847; is declared free on appeal in 1850, but the decision is overturned in 1852. By 1857, the case was on its final leg and had been scheduled to go before the Supreme Court of the United States. There, Chief Justice Roger Brooks Taney in a 7-2 decision rendered the court’s verdict: "Negroes" had no right to sue in court because they were not citizens (not even free blacks); the due process clause of the Constitution which protected private property applied to the states and territories, therefore, slavery could not be barred from the territories. And the "inferiority of Negroes" implied they had no rights a white man had to respect. Talk about restrictive! Taney’s ruling effectively struck down the Missouri Compromise.

Again, even those Northerners who were somewhat indifferent to the Peculiar Institution found the decision repugnant for it rendered all territories open to slavery; consequently, Popular Sovereignty was void given this decision. On March 12, 1857 the Salem Register lamented: "The truth is the Court has been wholly revolutionized. The sleepless vigilance of the Slave Power has been constantly watching its opportunity to invade the temple of justice."² On April 2, 1857, The Charleston Mercury, while a bit more insightful regarding the political outcome of the high courts decision, spewed with invective: "The Black Republican party will go into [election] of 1860, strengthened rather than discredited and weakened by the adverse judgment of the Supreme Court; and we might as well prepare for the struggle"³

The last in a series of "slavery related" causes of the Civil War involved John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, VA, on October 16^th, 1859. Harper’s Ferry (now in the state of W. Virginia since those Virginians who sided with the Union during the Civil War broke away and formed their own state) is a small town located where the Potomac and the Shenandoah Rivers converge- or "confluence."

Having been there a few years ago back during Summer of 2001, it seemed like a tranquil, quiet town; hilly, in that most main streets are on an incline, but nothing so tedious requiring the need for immediate oxygen. The place definitely posses nineteenth century charm…literally, it feels that you have stepped back in time. (OK, I’m back from the Twilight Zone…Earth to "teach," Earth to "teach" Come in, over….) All kidding aside, when walking through town it’s hard to believe that this little place was the point of so much excitement for a couple of days during the fall of 1859…but it was.

As mentioned earlier, John Brown had made a name for himself in Kansas. Not the most commercially successful person in the world, Brown often borrowed money from friends trying to make a go at one business venture or another, but nothing ever came into fruition. Having a likeable, charismatic personality friends often "bet on Brown" but most of the time they were left "on the hook." In addition to his business interests he embraced abolitionism with an almost messianic bent, maintaining a circle of friends including Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass.

His plan involved seizing the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, rally the slaves on the surrounding farms to join his insurrection, and establish a colony of freed slaves in the hills of Virginia. Some of you may be thinking "what a doof….even if initially successful they’re still surrounded by slave holders and militia." True, but such insurrections had worked for slaves in Latin America where "Maroon" type colonies were formed and colonial militias simply left runaways alone. But there’s a difference in Virginian and Latin American topography: one has dense, thick jungles with few or no settlers; the other has forests often populated by white settlers. Any attempts of trying to "hold out" for a length of time would have proven futile.

From the start John Brown’s plan is doomed to failure. Upon entering the town, he and his band encounter a porter with the B&O Railroad (Hayward Shepherd) who notices the armed group and asks them to halt; Shepherd is shot to death. Incidentally, Shepherd is a free black …a strange irony that the first person to die on Brown’s raid was a black man.

Reality begins to set in…although he did capture weapons from the arsenal, no slaves came to his aid –most if not all knew nothing about Brown’s plans- and townspeople entrap his band inside a firehouse. Then Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee shows up with the marines and Brown is captured. From his original group of 21 men, 10 are dead, including Brown’s sons, and 5 have escaped. Brown is later tried in Charles Town, VA, and sentenced to death by hanging. To most abolitionists he’s a martyr; Southerners, of course, think quite differently for he is seen as murderer receiving tacit support by a region (North) hostile to the interests of the South.

No candidate for president who would not guarantee slavery protections and support for the Peculiar Institutions expansion westward had a chance of becoming president in 1860. The Southern Democrats, bitter over Stephen Douglas’ defection over the Lecompton issue, nominate John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky as their candidate from the South. Northern Democrats nominate Douglas as their standard bearer, and John Bell of Tennessee runs on the Constitutional Union Party (a hybrid party of former Whigs and "Know-Nothings"; yes, this was a political party…). The newly created "Republican Party," not quite five years old, nominated Abe Lincoln. Having previously been congressmen from Illinois, Lincoln had gained the party’s respect for his moderate position on slavery espoused during his debates in 1858 with Senator Douglass for the Illinois senate seat. While he lost the race, he propelled himself to national awareness with his eloquence, and moderate positions on slavery and other issues. Lincoln wins with 180 electoral votes and 39.9% of the popular vote; he’s elected president.

Next week’s lesson discusses "other" issues contributing to the sectional crisis. We’ll embark on those subjects then. J

Footnotes

^1.Stephens quote taken from James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. (Oxford University Press, Inc.) 1988. Pg. 168

^2. Paul Finkelman. Dred Scott v. Sanford, A Brief History with Documents. (The Bedford Series in History and Culture, Boston and New York). 1997. Pg. 153.

^3. Ibid, Pg. 132.

Discussion Group

Discussion Question will be posted in the discussion group by the instructor. Please wait for the instructor posting before attempting to complete your discussion assignment.