South
Mainly rural-plantations, small farms
Less than 10% of manufactured goods
Little immigration
River transportation
New immigrants oppose slavery –
competition for wage earners
Slavery
North
Rapid industrialization
Populated urban areas
Increased immigration
Rail tracks expanding
ONGOING ISSUE: SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES
Slavery and Cotton Production Graph
What is occurring to cotton production between 1790
and 1860? Why did this change occur?
The slave trade was outlawed in 1850. How can the
increase of slaves be accounted for between 1850 and
1860?
Slave Owning Population, 1850
What does the above graph
highlight about plantations in the
1850’s?
Which country had the
greatest immigration to the
US between 1840 and
1850?
From your knowledge of
history, what was the
reason for this migration?
According to the graph and your knowledge of history, what might be America’s major
concern in the 1850’s?
Issue of slavery in America is similar to a sputtering
volcano
Wilmot Proviso – 1846
Amendment to a military appropriations bill
No slavery to be permitted in territories acquired from Mexico
Fails to pass, but divided Congress
Wilmot Proviso
Southern Rights
South against Proviso
Refused to vote for
internal improvements
Argued slaves were
property, protected by the
Constitution
Fear Northern power
North for Proviso
Want internal improvements
Protect wage earners
Congressional scales. A true balance. Lithograph published by N. Currier, ca. 1850. The cartoon
lampoons President Zachary Taylor's attempts to balance Southern and Northern interests on the
question of slavery in 1850. Taylor stands atop a pair of scales, with a weight in each hand; the
weight on the left reads "Wilmot Proviso" and the one on the right "Southern Rights." Below, the
scales are evenly balanced, with several members of Congress, including Henry Clay in the tray on
the left, and others, among them Lewis Cass and John Calhoun, on the right. Taylor says, "Who said I
would not make a "NO PARTY" President? I defy you to show any party action here." One legislator
on the left sings, "How much do you weigh? Eight dollars a day. Whack fol de rol!" Another states,
"My patience is as inexhaustible as the public treasury." A congressman on the right says, "We can
wait as long as they can." On the ground, at right, John Bull observes, "That's like what we calls in
old Hingland, a glass of 'alf
and 'alf."
Development of a Third Party
Free-Soil Party - Northerners
Opposed extension of slavery in territories
Opposed black settlement in their communities
Objected to impact of slavery on free white wage earners
Received 10% of vote – threw election to Van Buren
The Modern Gilpins. A parody of Democratic politics in the months preceding the party's 1848 national
convention. The artist ridicules specifically the rivalry within the party between Free Soil or anti-slavery
interests, which upheld the Wilmot Proviso, and regular, conservative Democrats or Hunkers." "The
Gilpins" are regular Democrats Lewis Cass, Thomas Hart Benton, and Levi Woodbury, who ride a giant sow
down "Salt River Lane" away from the "Head Quarters of the Northern Democracy." ("Salt River" is a
symbol of political doom
Parody on the division of the Democratic
party (Free-Soilers)
Northerners – demand abolition of slavery in District of Columbia
Southerners – demand enforcement of Fugitive Slave Act of 1793-if not-SUCCESSION
Clay – Webster Debate
COMPROMISE OF 1850
California admitted as a free state – Appealed to North
Stronger Fugitive Slave Act – Appealed to South
New Mexico and Utah have popular sovereignty
(decide slavery)
Appealed to North and South
Texas paid $10 million to surrender New Mexico
Sale of slaves banned in District, but slavery continues
Result: Compromise is initially rejected – Clay leaves
Stephen Douglas gets bill passed by having members
vote on each issue individually
Complete Explanation:
A satire on the antagonism between Northern abolitionists on the one hand, and Secretary of State Daniel
Webster and other supporters of enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Here abolitionist William
Lloyd Garrison (left) holds a slave woman in one arm and points a pistol toward a burly slave catcher
mounted on the back of Daniel Webster. The slave catcher, wielding a noose and manacles, is expensively
dressed, and may represent the federal marshals or commissioners authorized by the act (and paid) to
apprehend and return fugitive slaves to their owners. Behind Garrison a black man also aims a pistol toward
the group on the right, while another seizes a cowering slaveholder by the hair and is about to whip him
saying, "It's my turn now Old Slave Driver." Garrison: "Don't be alarmed Susanna, you're safe enough."
Slave catcher: "Don't back out Webster, if you do we're ruind."
Webster, holding "Constitution": "This, though Constitutional, is "extremely disagreeable."
"Man holding volumes "Law & Gospel": "We will give these fellows a touch of South Carolina."Man with quill
and ledger: "I goes in for Law & Order."
A fallen slaveholder: "This is all "your" fault Webster."
In the background is a Temple of Liberty flying two flags, one reading "A day, an hour, of virtuous Liberty, is
worth an age of Servitude" and the other, "All men are born free & equal."
The print may (as Weitenkampf suggests) be the work of New York artist Edward Williams Clay. The
signature, the expressive animation of the figures, and especially the political viewpoint are, however,
uncharacteristic of Clay. (Compare for instance that artist's "What's Sauce for the Goose," no. 1851-5.) It is
more likely that the print was produced in Boston, a center of bitter opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act in
1850 and 1851.
FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT 1850
1. Fugitives not entitled to trial by jury (6th Amendment)
2. Fugitives could not testify on their own behalf
3. Federal commissioners received $10 if fugitive was returned; $5 if freed
4. $1,000 fine and/or prison for 6 months for assisting a fugitive
What problem(s) are inherent in the new Fugitive Slave Act?
NORTHERN RESPONSE
Personal Liberty Laws passed in the North – forbade imprisonment of runaway slaves
jury trials assured
Free runaway slaves from prisons
Africans sent to Canada for safety
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Story inflames the issue of slavery
Slavery Resurfaces
Stephen Douglass proposed that Kansas and Nebraska be
divided into two territories = Repeal the Missouri
Compromise of 1820
Prediction: Slavery could not exist in open prairies because
of the type of crops (he was wrong)
Felt repeal of Missouri Compromise of 1820 would cause “a
storm” (he was right)
Result: Popular sovereignty for both territories
Vote: 90% of South voted for bill – passed in 1854
BLEEDING KANSAS
Some emigrants used to supply weapons to
antislavery migrants
1855 – Kansas can vote to become a territory
Proslavery Missourians cross into Kansas and vote
illegally and Lecompton set up pro-slavery
government
Abolitionists set up a second abolitionist
government in Topeka, Kansas
Result: Two capitals in Kansas
Sack of Lawrence:
Anti-slavery Lawrence residents declared
traitors
Pro-slavery posse ransacked Lawrence
John Brown
“began the war that ended slavery”
Believed God selected him to fight slavery
Pottawatomie (Creek) Massacre
Brown killed 5 men
In all this event triggered the killing of
200 men
Attacked the arsenal at Harpers Ferry to
supply arms for a slave insurrection.
SENATE VIOLENCE
Sumner verbally attacked colleagues in Senate that supported slavery – focus on Andrew
Butler
Butler’s nephew (Preston Brooks) hit Sumner with cane
Southerners supported Brooks
RESULT OF BLEEDING KANSAS
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES FORMED
Whigs Divided
Know-Nothing Party (American Party)
Nativism – Favor native-born Americans,
not immigrants
Republican Party
Whigs and antislavery Democrats
Opposed Kansas-Nebraska Act
Middle-class Protestants
Dislike Catholics – Pope influenced
Sectional split over slavery
Bring together radical abolitionists
and those who want to bring
back the Missouri Compromise
Significance of 1856 Election
1. Democrats can win without alienating Southern voters
2. Know-Nothings in decline
3. Republicans were new political force in the North
Dred Scott Decision v. Sandford - 1857
Supreme Court
1834 – Scott’s master takes him to Illinois and Wisconsin for 4 years
Scott and master return to Missouri, master died
Scott claimed he was a free person by living north of Missouri Compromise Line
Ruling:
1. Slaves do not have rights of citizens
2. Scott had no claim because he lived in the slave state of Missouri
3. Ruled Missouri Compromise unconstitutional – right to own property is
protected by the 5th Amendment
What do you think proved to be the most explosive section of the Dred
Scott ruling? Why?
Lecompton Constitution – 1857
Apply for statehood as proslave state
Free-Soilers reject proposal
Referendum: People vote down entry as
a slave state
President Buchanan supports pro-slave
Constitution
Stephen Douglas argues for another
referendum
Referendum #2: Voters again vote down
entry as slave state
Major Political Parties 1850-1860
Party
Free-Soil
Know-Nothing
Whig
Republican
Democratic
Established
Major Platform
1. Slavery is immoral and needs to be outlawed
1. Supported popular sovereignty as
the means to rid country of slavery
2. Slavery an outdated labor system,
not immoral