the catalysts
Civil War
There are several catalysts to the
Civil War and each can be tied to
slavery.
Louisiana Purchase
Missouri Compromise
Wilmot Proviso
Compromise of 1850
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Bleeding Kansas
Bleeding Sumner
Uncle Tom’s Cabin
John Brown’s Raid
Dred Scott decision
Louisiana Purchase
• Doubled the size of the United States
• Increased the size of the national
government
• Increased tension over the admission
status of states
MISSOURI COMPROMISE
1820 the Missouri Compromise dealt
with the Louisiana Purchase territory
• The compromise attempted to solve
the problem of slavery in the LA
Purchase
– stating that in LA Purchase territory and
only in territory draw a line at 36*30′
– the southern boundary of MO.
• Slavery would be allowed south of
that line, not north, except in
Missouri
WILMOT PROVISO
The question still remained, what
to do with all new territory?
• The Wilmot Proviso tried to
attach an amendment to
appropriations bill that would
support the Mexican War if
territory obtained would not
allow slavery.
Wilmot Proviso, 1846
• Amendment to a bill put before the U.S. House of Representatives
during the Mexican War; it provided an appropriation of $2 million
to enable President Polk to negotiate a territorial settlement with
Mexico. David Wilmot introduced an amendment to the bill
stipulating that none of the territory acquired in the Mexican War
should be open to slavery. The amended bill was passed in the
House, but the Senate adjourned without voting on it. In the next
session of Congress (1847), a new bill providing for a $3-million
appropriation was introduced, and Wilmot again proposed an
antislavery amendment to it. The amended bill passed the House,
but the Senate drew up its own bill, which excluded the proviso.
The Wilmot Proviso created great bitterness between North and
South and helped crystallize the conflict over the extension of
slavery. In the election of 1848 the terms of the Wilmot Proviso, a
definite challenge to proslavery groups, were ignored by the Whig
and Democratic parties but were adopted by the Free-Soil party.
Later the Republican party also favored excluding slavery from new
territories.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0852373.html
Free-Soil Party
• Political party that came into existence in
1847–48 chiefly because of rising
opposition to the extension of slavery into
any of the territories newly acquired from
Mexico
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0819616.html
COMPROMISE OF 1850
•
Compromise of
1850…background
Proposed to solve several issues regarding
admittance to the Union.
• The question most addressed is slavery and the
determination of slave or free states.
• Some proposed the question be answered by
popular sovereignty.
• This opened questions as to when the people
decide.
– Should they decide before being admitted as
a state? Should they decide with the
adoption of a Constitution? Or, should they
decide with a vote after statehood?
Compromise of
1850…background
• With the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in
California it became necessary to create a
formal government there.
• The New Mexico area also needed proper
government organization.
• Recommendations were made for both areas
to create a constitution and apply for
statehood.
• The question was whether they would be
slave or free.
• New Mexico faced other challenges as well.
Other issues…
• New Mexico was involved in a border
dispute with Texas. There was also the
Mormon question. The Mormon’s had
proposed their own state status near the
Great Salt Lake. Although not pro-slavery
they did accept polygamy, which was just
as deplorable as slavery to some members
of Congress. Therefore, the focus was
drawn to California.
California
• California quickly embraced the
opportunity to become a state.
• A constitution was created, but did not
allow slavery.
• This was frightening to Southerners due to
the vast size of the area.
• To solve the issue the Compromise of
1850 was proposed.
Compromise of 1850
• Sought to appease both the pro- and antislavery factions
• California would be admitted as a free state.
• Texas would be excused from war debts if
they would settled with the New Mexico
border.
• All new territory below the 36*30′ line could
enter the Union as slave states and that above
as free which would in part allow slaver into
new territories.
• Stronger fugitive slave law
1854
KANSAS – NEBRASKA ACT
Kansas-Nebraska Act
• The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed
for the determination of slave or
free to be by popular sovereignty.
• It also divided the territory into
two.
• Having two territories would
allow a slave/free balance in
Congress.
Kansas-Nebraska Act…results
• Many in Kansas did not desire to
be a slave state. However, Kansas
would be bordered on three sides
by slave states. As Kansas is
created as a territory and creates
a Constitution leaving slavery to
be voted on by the people,
Missouri gets involved.
Bleeding Kansas
• At the first election of a Congressional representative
1700 Missourians cross the border to sway the vote,
choosing a pro-slavery candidate.
• In March 1855 a territorial legislature had to be
selected, 4-5000 crossed the MO/Kansas border for this
vote.
• Over 5000 pro-slavery votes were cast.
• Almost 5000 were fraudulent but President Pierce did
nothing.
• A pro-slavery legislature passed a strict slave code
restricting office holding to only those with proslavery
views, imprisonment for anyone questioning pro-slavery
views, death for anyone supporting slave rebellion or
runaways.
Free state settlers began to organize. Henry
Ward Beecher suggested sending “Beecher
Bibles”, or rifles, in support saying sharps
rifles would do more than Bibles as that time
to enforce morality. Free state settlers
organized a free state party and held a
constitutional convention to create a
constitution prohibiting slavery. They
established their own legislature in 1855-56.
Pro-slavery voters boycotted. To prove
themselves as not sympathetic to blacks they
adopted an ordinance banning the entry of
free blacks as well as slaves.
James McPherson describes the two
Kansas legislatures, one legal but
fraudulent, the other illegal but
representing a majority of settlers.
The Democratic Senate recognized
the first along with the President. The
Republican Senate recognized the
second.
• November of 1855 each side mobilized several
hundred armed men along the Wakarusa river
• Consisted of only a few skirmishes
• Following a harshly cold winter 700 pro-slavery
men rode into Lawrence destroying offices,
businesses and the newspaper, throwing its
press into the river.
• The house of the free state governor was
burned as well as a nearby hotel.
Wakarusa War
THE ACTIONS LEAD
TO BLEEDING
SUMNER AND JOHN
BROWN’S RAID.
Bleeding Sumner
• May19-20 Charles Sumner speaks to the
Senate regarding “the crime against
Kansas”, using sexual metaphors of a rape
against Kansas.
• Sumner also made abusive references to
Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina.
• Two days later in retaliation for his cousin
Andrew Butler, Preston Brooks enters the
Senate Chamber and proceeds to beat
Charles Sumner with a cane.
Why a cane?
When someone is
insulted, to get
revenge they either
challenge the person
to a dual if he is an
equal, or cane/whip
them if they are an
inferior. Caning
Sumner was
symbolic.
The Caning of Sumner
• Brooks continued beating Sumner, who was
trapped at his desk, until other members pulled
Brooks away. Sumner was unable to return to his
Massachusetts Senate seat for 3 years. It had been
saved for him as a symbol of the barbaric nature
of slavery.
• Southern moderates denounced Brooks for his
actions. However, others applauded him.(There
were some who actually sent him engraved
canes.) Due to Southern vote the necessary 2/3
majority needed to expel him could not be
reached. Brooks resigned, but was unanimously
re-elected in his district, and he returned.
John Brown
John Brown’s reaction
• John Brown believed an “eye for an eye”. He had
organized a militia for the Wakarusa War. After
learning of the caning of Sumner, Brown led a raid
along the Pottawatomie Creek. They seized five proslavery settlers and murdered them by splitting their
skulls with broad swords. This launched a guerilla war
in Kansas. About 200 men died in Kansas fighting in
1856. A truce and strained peace was finally brought
to Kansas after the replacement of Kansas Governor
Shannon with John Greary.
• According the James McPherson, the “violent conflict
(at Harpers Ferry) climaxed more than a decade of
rising sectional tensions.”
John Brown: At Harper’s Ferry
• John Brown planned to capture the
arsenal at Harpers Ferry, seize weapons,
and supply slaves he thought would join
him.
• October 16, 1859: Brown rented a farm in
Maryland across the river from Harper’s
Ferry. He had 17 white and 5 black
recruits to help. (He tried to get Frederick
Douglas to join in, but Douglas refused,
thinking the attack would be futile.)
 Brown made several mistakes:
failed to inform slaves of his
intentions
had no escape route
had no extended supplies
had no defense for counter attack
ultimately he had no plan, but
attack.
The raid
• October 17: Local citizens and militia
responded to the raid. They cut off
bridges across the Potomac, blocking
escape. The raid was put down by
Robert E. Lee and Jeb Stuart. Brown
would be tried and hanged for his
insurrection.
• No slaves voluntarily participated.
John Brown’s Raid:
The Results
• The actual raid was a failure, but the effects were
tremendous. Brown was almost revered as a martyr
for the cause of abolition. His trial and post-trial
behavior was respected. People felt he acted with
dignity. He accepted his fate and almost embraced it,
telling friends and family he was worth more to the
cause hanged. Brown gained Northern sympathy.
Although many disagreed with his method, they
embraced his teaching.
• John Brown’s Harpers Ferry raid was divisive. The
North sympathized with the cause. The South,
according to McPherson, identified Brown with
abolition, abolition with Republicans, and Republicans
with the North.
DRED SCOTT
• During the 1850's in the United States, Southern support of
slavery and Northern opposition to it collided more violently
than ever before over the case of Dred Scott, a black slave
from Missouri who claimed his freedom on the basis of
seven years of residence in a free state and a free territory.
When the predominately proslavery Supreme Court of the
United States heard Scott's case and declared that not only
was he still a slave but that the main law guaranteeing that
slavery would not enter the new midwestern territories of
the United States was unconstitutional, it sent America into
convulsions. The turmoil would end only after a long and
bloody civil war in which an important issue was the
question of slavery and its extension into America's
unorganized territories. The Supreme Court's ruling in Dred
Scott v. Sandford helped hasten the arrival of the American
Civil War, primarily by further polarizing the already tense
relations between Northerners and Southerners.
http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/
War was the result of this polarization
because no compromise completely
settled the issue of slavery. Each
compromise postponed the inevitable.
Upon the deaths and destruction, public
emotions became involved. The morals
of people would not be subject to
political compromise.
The Civil War.
A failure to compromise