0
Bleeding Kansas:
The Antebellum Encounter over Slavery
Justin Hineline
Senior Division
Historical Paper
2,487 Words
1
Slavery was the most divisive issue in the 1850’s. The debate over slavery erupted into
the event known as Bleeding Kansas. When studying this violent period, one must consider how
the concept of liberty influenced each side in the conflict. Bleeding Kansas was an ideological
encounter that transformed into a violent struggle between the pro-slavery and free-soil blocs,
derived from an interpretation of popular sovereignty that rationalized the exchange of land for
votes in order to determine slavery’s eventual status in Kansas. This essay will explore that
theme chronologically throughout the Bleeding Kansas affair. This specific encounter between
the pro-slavery and anti-slavery sides is fascinating because unlike contemporaneous American
conflicts, it swells outside the “public sphere” of newspapers and courthouses into a violent
encounter.
With rapid expansion into the western territories, a public debate began over slavery’s
role in those regions. The Missouri Compromise’s geographical limitations on slavery would be
reconsidered. Congress’ solution, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, partitioned land to create two
eponymous territories, where, slavery’s status would be determined through popular sovereignty,
or majority rule.1 The necessity of a majority to determine slavery’s legality instigated rapid
emigration into Kansas. Initially, Missourians constituted the majority of settlers.2 However,
Missourians were not alone in desiring to influence Kansas’ political outcome. Amos
Lawrence’s financially backed anti-slavery New England Emigrant Aid Company (NEEAC)
recruited and funded anti-slavery settlers.3 This mass migration meant these opposing parties
with opposite interests would be at each other’s throats and conflict was inevitable. Both factions
suspected the other of corruptly shipping in settlers to hijack popular sovereignty and impose
1
An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, 1854; Record Group 11; General Records of the
United States Government; National Archives.
2
Nicole Etcheson. Bleeding Kansas. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 30.
3
Eli Thayer. The New England Emigrant Aid Company, and Its Influence, Through the Kansas Contest, Upon
National History. (Worcester, MA: Franklin P. Rice, 1887), 26-27.
2
their view of slavery in Kansas. Each side recognized that by exchanging land for votes a
strategic advantage could be gained through popular sovereignty in the divisive political and
later violent struggle over slavery.
Immediately, an encounter between Kansas’ settlers over competing interpretations of
liberty with regard to slavery formed. Northern white laborers often supported the free-soil
objection to slavery on the basis of economic prosperity for whites and not black equality.4 Most
southerners viewed slavery as an essential liberty and supported popular sovereignty because it
made expanding slavery into Kansas plausible.5 Popular sovereignty functioned as a justification
for expanding slavery into Kansas, its adherents arguing that as long as no law prevented the
institution, it was inherently legal.6 Missouri Senator Atchison and others promulgated southern
sentiment arguing that, slavery’s health in Missouri depended on expansion into Kansas.7 The
Kansas-Nebraska Act’s enactment created an environment guided by popular sovereignty where
two contrary ideologies were set in course to encounter one another. These ideologies had
particular interests molding their respective opinions on slavery. The anti-slavery sect opposed
slavery not merely from moral abolitionism, although it was a salient influence, but because
competition with slaves hurt their economic interests.8 Contrarily, southerners fought to
legitimize slavery in Kansas to protect their economic interest and conceived inherent political
right from being overwhelmed and dying out by anti-slavery political momentum.
The encounter over slavery in Kansas was first physically manifested in its early
elections. “Border Ruffians,” Missourians who crossed the border into Kansas to vote and
4
Eric Foner. 1965. “Politics and Prejudice: The Free Soil Party and the Negro, 1849-1852”. The Journal of Negro
History 50 (4). Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc.: 239–56.
5
Nicole Etcheson. Bleeding Kansas. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 15.
6
Ibid, 46-47.
7
James C. Malin, “The Proslavery Background of the Kansas Struggle,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 10
(Dec. 1923) . doi:10.2307/1891603: 285-305.
8
Nicole Etcheson. Bleeding Kansas. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 42.
3
influence politics, were common. Pro-slavery vigilante groups seeking to drive “abolitionism”
out of Kansas instigated conflicts at the polls. Easterners were often classified as temporary
residents inhibiting their electoral participation. The integrity of the electoral process was
ignored by its officials. Most famously, Missourians hijacked the territorial delegate election.
Border Ruffians harassed free-staters preventing them from voting and cast fraudulent ballots to
defend their presupposed right to slavery. Southern efforts to gain the initial upper hand in the
encounter over slavery’s legitimacy in Kansas resulted in 6,000 votes in a territory with a
population of 2,905 (5,427 of the votes were proslavery).9
Following the fraudulent vote tally, those opposed to expanding slavery, the free-soilers,
rejected the legislature’s legitimacy and resigned from the body.10 Free-soilers complained that
Missourians usurped the election’s results and that they had the support to fairly win.11 The
elections and ensuing legislative acts to stifle all anti-slavery actions, often through draconian
usage of the death penalty, resulted in the radicalization of the free-soil movement increasing the
intensity of the conflict.12 Historian Nicole Etcheson reflected upon Kansas’ ensuing polarization
saying, “Missourians had welcomed popular sovereignty in the confident expectation it meant a
slave Kansas. Free-soil settlers thought popular sovereignty offered a fair opportunity to exclude
slavery. The election made the divergent understandings of popular sovereignty apparent.”13
Evidently, neither the application of popular sovereignty to impose or prohibit slavery was
accomplishable.
9
Ibid, 31-32, 48, 52-54, 59.
Ibid, 61-62
11
Ibid, 56-57.
12
"The Border Ruffian Code In Kansas." 1856. MS, YA Pamphlet Collection, Library of Congress, 1-2.
Nicole, Etcheson. Bleeding Kansas. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 64-65.
13
Nicole Etcheson. Bleeding Kansas. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 68.
10
4
The contested elections escalated the conflict producing a political climate in Kansas
where conspiracy and corruption yielded further suspicions and corruption. Kansas’ first
governor, A.H. Reeder personified this corruption. Reeder tried relocating the legislature to land
he invested in.14 The legislature’s lack of compliance resulted in Reeder vetoing every bill
refusing recognition of the legislature’s legitimacy.15 A bout to depose Reeder due to his “freesoil sympathies” ensued: a legislator physically assaulted Reeder and the federal government was
petitioned to uninstall him.16 Ultimately the pro-slavery faction was successful; Reeder was
sacked and a temporary slave code enacted.17 These struggles resulted in the creation of two
governments in open opposition, each denying the other’s legitimacy. Led by abolitionist Charles
Robinson, Democrat Jim Lane, and former governor Reeder, the Big Springs Convention defied
the “bogus legislature”, elected Reeder as an alternative territorial delegate, and passed a
resolution Lane backed effectively banning black emigration.18 This government formed under
the Topeka Constitution formally supported a ban of slavery.19 The anti-slavery faction’s
opposition to black emigration demonstrates that originally the encounter was primarily
concerned with not black but white rights. Only the conflict’s progression would change their
perspective. This sentiment was echoed by its leaders such as Lane who famously declared, “we
were not fighting to free black men but to free white men.”20
In consequence of the flawed territorial legislatures, the previously political encounter
turned violent. Kansas became a militarized territory, permeated with quasi-secret societies. One
representative group, the anti-slavery Kansas Legion stated its mission as, “First, to secure to
14
Ibid, 67.
Andrew H. Reeder. Governor's Message. (John T. Brady, July 26, 1855).
16
Nicole Etcheson. Bleeding Kansas. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 67-69.
17
Ibid, 63.
18
Ibid, 70-72.
19
Constitution of the State of Kansas (Topeka Constitution), October 23, 1855, Records of the U.S. Senate,
National Archives, 2.
20
Nicole Etcheson. Bleeding Kansas. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 120.
15
5
Kansas the blessing and prosperity of being a free State; and, secondly, to protect the ballot-box
from the leprous touch of unprincipled men.” The NEEAC prepared anti-slavery Kansans for
their violent encounter over slavery’s legality by smuggling Sharp’s rifles and ammunition into
Kansas. The Branson Affair was the event that cut open Kansas and made it start bleeding.
Branson, a vigilante leader, was arrested by Sheriff Jones for his violent response to a freesoiler’s murder in a land dispute, and later rescued and brought to Lawrence, the center of
defiance towards the pro-slavery government. The resulting encounter named the Wakarusa War
was a climax in the violent encounter; thousands of Missourians surrounded Lawrence, yet
manipulation of a drunken Gov. Shannon by Robinson resulted in Lawrence’s citizens removal
of culpability and the authorization to repel attackers. This phase of Bleeding Kansas brought
about increased radicalization and was described by the public as “a triumph of lawlessness.”21
Pro-slavery men embraced popular sovereignty so as to impose slavery, while free-state
men used it to legitimize their resistance to the territorial government. Both factions supposed
popular sovereignty granted them license to exchange land for votes. Each side saw the other as
a threat to its rights with the mission of either forcibly imposing or removing slavery from
Kansas. Both sides claimed moral authority and the political legitimacy of acting as true popular
sovereigns when rationalizing their involvement in the encounter. At this time, the conflict
resulting from the political debate over slavery was not concerned with black rights; the freesoilers deemed the pro-slavery faction’s deeds as the direct subordination and obliteration of
their guaranteed right to popular sovereignty causing the inferiority of certain whites to others.22
Again, the bloody encounter between the two factions would materialize in Lawrence.
During this point of the affair, pro-slavery President Pierce sought to manage Kansas by placing
21
22
Ibid.76-88.
Ibid, 93-94.
6
federal troops at Ft. Leavenworth and attempting to disperse armed bands, while Robinson
advocated for statehood under the Topeka Constitution.23 Free-state officials, hotels, and
newspapers were indicted following Sheriff Jones’ near assassination. Although, Lawrence’s
weakening reaped a short-term advantage for the pro-slavery sect, the “Sack of Lawrence” would
secure a “moral victory for the free-state side; it shifted national public opinion from distaste for
free-state defiance of territorial law to admiration for restraint in not responding to the
violence.”24
Nevertheless, this would not last as with any encounter advantages come and go like the
ebbs of the tides. Public opinion fluctuated to pro-slavery Kansans following John Brown’s
Pottawatomie Massacre.25 Religious abolitionist Brown killed three men during the night for
supporting slavery.26 The Pottawatomie Massacre was the key turning point throughout Bleeding
Kansas in regard to how people viewed their world developing the encounter from a political
into a moral issue.27 As Kansas became further engulfed in three pronged guerilla warfare with
“free-state men on one side, pro-slavery men on the other, and Uncle Sam’s men pretending to
keep the peace, but not able to do it.”, the turmoil was capitalized on by slaves and free blacks
seeking to include black liberty within the free-state cause.28
Those seeking to keep the interest of two conflicting parties at bay could not survive in
Kansas’ political atmosphere more than temporarily, where the encounter over slavery was the
most salient issue. Col. Edwin Sumner temporarily was respected mutually, accomplishing the
disbandment of hundreds of Missourians. However, Sumner’s dispersal of the Topeka
23
Ibid, 92-93.
Ibid, 100-106.
25
Ibid, 106-112.
26
James Hanway. 1856. MS 90225, Kansas State Historical Society. Accessed February 8, 2016.
http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/90225.
27
Nicole Etcheson. Bleeding Kansas. (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 106-112.
28
Ibid, 113-114.
24
7
Legislature by bayonet resulted in a public opinion backlash and ultimately his removal. Later,
Kansas’ new governor, John Geary, would transition the encounter back into the realm of politics
through his conscious impartiality over slavery. The pro-slavery legislature overrode Geary’s
vetoes and held a constitutional convention. An overwhelmed Geary resigned and was replaced
by Gov. Walker, who would oversee the final great political battle over slavery in Kansas and be
hailed by some and hated by others for his administration of a pro-slavery biased census. This
period of Bleeding Kansas demonstrates a dramatic shift in the encounter’s trajectory, because
despite the presence of a powerful “peacekeeper” these two ideologies were so incompatible that
coexistence was only temporarily possible and the course of collision remained in effect. 29
The free-staters, strongly desiring a favorable outcome, chose to take part in the
democratic process and let slavery be decided by popular sovereignty. Their faction won the
majority in the 1857 territorial elections following the removal of fraudulent votes.30 Despite
this, the pro-slavery faction used intimidation and questionable political procedures to pass the
Lecompton pro-slavery territorial constitution.31 The encounter became more of a political
maneuvering to try to influence the outcome of whether Kansas would be a slave state and less
of a violent encounter. The issue was critical at both the territorial and federal levels and
although an “illegitimate election” made Lecompton the territorial constitution the federal
government stalled admittance.32 After congressional gridlock regarding Kansas’ status, the
English Compromise determined Kansas would retain its territorial status until a greater
population was reached postponing the issue over slavery.33 The Lecompton Constitution’s
29
Ibid, 114-142.
Ibid, 153-155.
31
Ibid, 157.
32
Ibid, 158-176.
33
Ibid, 180-184.
30
8
failure defeated the pro-slavery faction as popular sovereignty now gave the upper hand to the
anti-slavery side which merely had to wait it out for Kansas to become a free state.
This ideological encounter would leave a legacy within the state and across America.
Bleeding Kansas was an inspiration to abolitionists urging them to take their battles within the
slave-owning south. At Kansas’ next constitutional convention, rights and liberties were
extended to include equal rights for blacks, something unthought of when the encounter began.
Kansas’ opposition to slavery evolved from exclusively fighting for the rights of white men to
include the liberties of blacks; this trajectory of ideology would not be unique to Kansas,
reappearing in the Civil War. Only the face to face violent encounter with the pro-slavery side
would mold this worldview into the minds of free-soilers. The political dichotomy and
ideological encounter over slavery which prevented Kansas’ statehood changed with southern
secession allowing Kansas to be admitted as a state. Alumni of Bleeding Kansas applied the
experiences from their local encounter over slavery to the national fight. John Brown would
famously bring his terrorizing moral abolitionism to Virginia where he would raid Harper’s
Ferry and attempt to incite a slave rebellion. All and all, Kansas became a haven for blacks
during the Civil War era and the first state to openly use black men in the military.34
An analysis of the encounters of Bleeding Kansas reveals that its violent and political
encounters can undoubtedly be described as the embodiment of the encounter between two
competing incompatible ideologies set in full force by the promise of popular sovereignty. This
encounter would form an essential piece of the black rights movement which culminated in the
eventual nationwide abolition of slavery following the civil war. The nationwide struggle leading
to emancipation can confidently be inferred to have been the child of Kansas’s blood. Although
over a century and a half ago, the encounter in Kansas always provides a coherent example of the
34
Ibid, 190-230.
9
turmoil that occurs when two opposing ideologies are set in a violent trajectory. It is when we
consider the events of our past, such as this, that we can truly make sense of the present.
10
Bibliography
Primary Sources
An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, 1854; Record Group 11; General
Records of the United States Government; National Archives. Web.
This piece of legislation, commonly referred to as the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the
catalyst that set Bleeding Kansas into Action. It was this act that made popular
sovereignty essential in Kansas.
"The Border Ruffian Code In Kansas." 1856. MS, YA Pamphlet Collection, Library of Congress.
Web.
“The Border Ruffian Code in Kansas” is an excellent primary source from the Bleeding
Kansas time period. This source demonstrates the Missourian attitude towards slavery in
Kansas and the political process.
Constitution of the State of Kansas (Topeka Constitution), October 23, 1855, Records of the U.S.
Senate, National Archives. Web.
The Topeka Constitution was one of the most important legislative documents of the
Bleeding Kansas era. This constitution was passed by free-staters in response to the
fraudulent election of a pro-slavery territorial government.
Hanway, James. 1856. MS 90225, Kansas State Historical Society. Web. Accessed February 8,
2016. http://www.kansasmemory.org/item/90225.
This manuscript written by James Hanway and stored in the Kansas State Historical
Society Archives provides significant insight into the events that occurred during John
Brown’s Pottawatomie Massacre where 5 pro-slavery men were murdered in the night.
Reeder, Andrew H. Governor's Message. John T. Brady, July 26, 1855. Web.
This article written by Governor A.H. Reeder provides his justification for vetoing all
bills passed by the territorial legislature. He refuses to sign any of their bills because he
refuses to recognize their legitimacy as they do not convene in Pawnee, where he moved
the capital.
Thayer, Eli. The New England Emigrant Aid Company, and Its Influence, Through the Kansas
Contest, Upon National History. Worcester, MA: Franklin P. Rice, 1887. Web.
This primary source written by Eli Thayer provides great context about the role the New
England Emigrant Aid Company played in Kansas. Eli Thayer, the author, was the
founder of the New England Emigrant Aid Company and later a member of the U.S.
House of Representatives from Massachusetts.
11
Secondary Sources
Etcheson, Nicole. Bleeding Kansas. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004. Print.
This scholarly book written by historian Nicole Etcheson prevents a comprehensive view
of the entire encounter of Bleeding Kansas. The book provides historical description and
analysis ranging from the Kansas-Nebraska Act to the Civil War.
Foner, Eric. 1965. “Politics and Prejudice: The Free Soil Party and the Negro, 1849-1852”. The
Journal of Negro History . Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Inc.:
239–56. Web.
Eric Foner is one of our time’s leading experts on the history of the Free Soil Party. Foner
is well known for his book, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the
Republican Party Before the Civil War. In this article written on the Free Soil Party for
the Journal of Negro History, Foner provides relevant context about the free soil
ideology.
James C. Malin, “The Proslavery Background of the Kansas Struggle,” Mississippi Valley
Historical Review 10 (Dec. 1923) . doi:10.2307/1891603: 285-305. Web.
In this article written for the Mississippi Historical Review, James Malin provides
context on what southerners viewed as the consequences of either a free or slave Kansas
were.