SOWING THE SEEDS OF CONFLICT IN A HOUSE DIVIDED By: Angelica Narvaez
Timeline Cotton Gin (1784) Compromise of 1820 Nullification Crisis (1832) Mexican- American War (1846-1848) Compromise of 1850 Harriet Tubman (1853) Kansas- Nebraska Act (1854) Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) 3/5 Compromise (1787) Jacksonian Democracy (1829-1837) Texan War of Independence (1835-36) Wilmot Proviso (1846) Uncle Tom s Cabin (1852) Underground Railroad (1850-60) Bloody Kansas (1854-1861) Lincoln and Douglas Debates (1858)
Background v Slaves replaced indentured servants v Slavery was more prominent and important in the South v South s economy was highly dependent on slavery. Agriculture and plantations were the foundation of their economy v Less field slaves in the North; domestic/house slaves were more prevalent v After Industrial Revolution, North became more industrialized than the South. They did not rely on plantations as much as South did
North v. South North Similarities South More dependent on new technology and new machinery (manufacturing) Agricultural labor force dropped 70%- 40% Racism still blatant More dependent on slave labor and agriculture (large plantations) Women deemed inferior Remained Constant at 80% Urbanized areas Slave marriages not legal Rural areas Majority were educated and literate (6% were not) Favored abolition Half were illiterate Favored slavery 21 million people 9 million people (3.5 slaves) Had more railroads Less railroads
North v. South (Continuation)
Eli Whitney and the Cotton Gin v Separated the cotton from its seeds v Cotton being cleaned at a faster rate meant that slave owners wanted more slaves to increase productivity and increase their wealth slavery became even more profitable v Cotton replaced tobacco as South s main cash crop v South became the largest producer and exporter of cotton in the 19th century v Strengthened the South s economy
Three- Fifths Compromise v Proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman v A compromise between the North and South over slave representation during the Constitutional Convention v Those who opposed slavery only wanted free people to count, those for it wanted slaves to count v South hoped that with slaves counted in the population to increase their political presentation v As time went on the North population just increased which balanced the slave count
Three- Fifths Compromise (Continuation) v Slaves were counted as ⅗ of a person for the purpose of representation v The same number would be counted in regards to taxation v James Madison proposed the three- fifths ratio in 1783 for the Articles of Confederation
Slave Trade v Debates about the abolishment of the slave trade arose during the Constitutional Convention v South wanted it to continue but the North did not v Resolution: Slave trade could continue for about another 20 years (until 1808) and South would pay taxes for every slave imported, but not exported
Manifest Destiny v The idea that it was the God given right of the United States to expand from the Atlantic to Pacific Sea v Drove the United States to acquire Western Territories v Led to debates on whether territories are free or slave territories v Propelled the U.S. to displace the Native Americans and to acquire territories from Mexico
Compromise of 1820 v Devised by Henry Clay v Also known as the Missouri Compromise v Temporarily resolved the debate on whether new western territories can join the Union as a state slave or free state v With the incorporation of new states in the nation, the balance between free and slave states was crucial, especially in Congress v There was a balance of 11 free and 11 slave states in Congress v Missouri petitioned to join the Union in 1819 as a slave state Would create imbalance in Congress
Compromise of 1820 (Continuation) v Pro- Slavery Argument: Congress should not deny new states the right to chose for themselves Debated the idea of popular sovereignty The South s reasoning v Anti- slavery Argument: Slavery should be prohibited in the new territories The North s reasoning Appealed to the slowly growing Abolition Movement v Proposed that Missouri could join as slave state, but Maine (who wanted to separate of Massachusetts) would join as a free state v Slavery would be prohibited in the Louisiana Purchase north of the southern boundary of Missouri.
Compromise of 1820 (Continuation)
Nullification Crisis v Congress passed high tariffs (Tariff of Abominations) that the South felt only helped the industrialized North Example: tax on textiles: benefitted cloth production in North but decreased raw cotton demand v John C. Calhoun of South Carolina argued Nullification The idea that the federal government derives its powers from the states and if a state deems a federal law unconstitutional then that state has a right to nullify said law v Ties in with the idea of popular sovereignty v Henry Clay proposed to Congress a new tariff bill with lower tariffs, but South Carolina was still unsatisfied
Nullification Crisis (Continuation) v South Carolina decided to nullify the new bill and enacted the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification v Henry Clay devised the Tariff Compromise of 1833 which gradually lowered tariffs over the next decade and South Carolina agreed v Brought attention to the issue of states- rights
Jacksonian Democracy v Andrew Jackson became the president during the Election of 1828 v Democracy for the common man v Brought the rise of the Democratic Party (party of the workers, against elite) v South became more resentful of influential Northerners (manufacturers) v Southerners saw Second Bank of the United States as a tool for Northerners to become rich v Westward expansion at the expense of Native Americans
Texan War of Independence v Mexico controlled Texas and encouraged Americans to settle but were expected to become Mexican (convert to Catholicism and no slavery) v War broke out between Santa Anna s army and Texan revolutionaries v Texas won the war and Santa Anna declared them independence v Texas wanted to join Union as slave state; North refused v Texas formed their own independent country
Mexican- American War v Dispute over border; Nueces River (Mexico) and Rio Grande (U.S) v Congress admitted Texas to Union which angered Mexico v Polk offered Mexico 30 million for New Mexican territory, including California for trade, and Rio Grande boundary v Mexico refused which drove Polk to send General Zachary Taylor to cross Rio Grande River with troops to attempt to taunt Mexico to war v Polk received word that the Mexican army fired on American troops and told Congress that American blood had been shed on American soil v The Mexican- American War has begun
Mexican- American War (Continue) v Antiwar movement began in the North out of fear that the South would use the potential new territories to expand slavery v Battles were fought v United States victorious v Treaty of Guadalupe ended the war v Mexico was paid 15 million for California, Texas, and the New Mexico
Impact of Mexican- American War on Slavery v Land acquisition from the war led to debates between the Northern Whigs and the Southern Democrats v Abolitionists felt that cotton would be introduced to the new territories further reinforcing slavery v South feared that if slavery was banned in the new territories that southern states would lose power in Congress
Wilmot Proviso v Proposed by David Wilmot v Congressional act that prohibited slave expansion in new territories v Act was proposed, not in favor of abolition, but rather as a way to anger President Polk v North was more populous and so the act passed in the House, but balanced Senate was divided on the proposal
Whig Party v Created by Henry Clay and other opponents of Jackson in opposition of the Jacksonian Democrats v Jackson s strong personality made him unlikable v Called themselves Whig due to opposition of King Andrew ; Whig Party was a party in Britain who opposed a strong monarchy v Were never really truly unified
Demise of the Whig Party v By the late 1840s and early 1850s the party started to disintegrate due to: v Important Whig party members started to join the Free- Soil Party (anti- slavery party; against slavery in Western territories) v Henry Clay and Daniel Webster died (founders of party) v Winfield Scott, the Whig presidential candidate of the Election of 1852, only received 42 electoral colleges v A good chunk of the Whig party moved over to the Republican Party
The Know- Nothing Party v Also known as American Party v Main goal was to reduce the power of foreign- born voters v Name derives from when anti- foreign, anti- Catholic, and anti- slavery members Protestants were instructed to respond with I know Nothing when asked about their party v Free- soilers sometimes allied with them while most despised them (steer party towards antislavery) v New Republican party thought them to be hypocrites (anti- slavery but anti- immigrant and anti- Catholic)
Rise of the Republican Party v Disintegration of Whig Party and eclipse of Know- Nothing Party allowed the rise of Republican Party v Formed by opponents of Kansas- Nebraska Act v Combination of Anti- Slavery Whigs (who opposed the Kansas- Nebraska Act), Anti- Slavery Know- Nothing Party, Free- Soil Party, abolitionists, and anti- Nebraska democrats v Called Black Republicans by opponents (wanted to abolish slavery and social equality) v Members were primarily from the North
American State in the 1850 v Increasing sectional conflict Northern Perspective Believed South was trying to control the government Viewed North as dynamic society for the common man Similar Notions Committed to westward expansion Both thought the other side was infringing on basic rights and liberties Southern Perspective Argued for states rights on the issue of slavery Viewed themselves as promoting equality for whites by keeping black in perpetual state of bondage
American State in the 1850s (Continuation) v Southern resentment: Greater population in free states 3x as many people born in slave states move to free states More economic opportunities in the North North more economically developed and diverse Canals, railroad, manufacturing dominated by North
Compromise of 1850 v Devised by Henry Clay to attempt to come a resolution between the North and South v California Gold Rush forced the issue of slavery on new territories v Avoided secession for a few years Northern Benefits California admitted as a free state Slave trade abolished in D.C Texas ceded land to New Mexico Territory Southern Benefits No slave restriction in Utah or New Mexico Territories Slaveholding allowed in D.C Federal government take on $10 million of Texas debt Fugitive Slave Law Prevented adoption of Wilmot Proviso
Compromise of 1850 (Continuation)
Fugitive Slave Law and Northern Reaction v Declared that runaway slaves who are found in the North must be returned in the South with their owners v Punished anyone who tried to attempt runaway slaves escape v Some still tried to help v North refused to enforce it v Massachusetts even tried nullification
The Growing Abolition Movement v Rise of abolition started during the Second Great Awakening v New abolitionist saw slavery as the plague of the Union v Northern churches rallied with the Abolitionist cause while Southern ones used Bible to defend slavery v Abolitionists were often attacked for their views v Relatively stayed as minority
Uncle Tom s Cabin v Written by Harriet Beecher Stowe v Book about a family of runaway slaves v Fueled the abolition movement v People saw slavery on a personal level (saw slaves as humans with families who faced tragic atrocities everyday) v Further outraged the North with slave treatment v South outraged by what they thought were exaggerations in the book v The book swayed British public opinion which made it harder for the government to support the Confederacy later on in the war
Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad v Network of routes and safe houses used to free slaves to the North or to Canada v Tubman was born a slave who started conducting in the railroad to free her family v Freed 300 slaves and acted as a spy for the Union during the war
Underground Railroad Routes
Kansas- Nebraska Act of 1854 v Proposed by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois v Repealed the Missouri Compromise by allowing slavery north of the 36 30 line v Reserved Kansas for slavery and Nebraska for freedom v Allowed each territories to decide on the issue of being a free or slave state based on popular sovereignty
Kansas- Nebraska Act of 1854 (Continuation) v Major victory for pro- slavery people and the South v Abolitionists and the North were outraged v Split Whig Party and gave rise to Republican Party v North felt that if the Missouri Compromise could be violated then the Compromise of 1850 could be too (Fugitive Slave Law)
Kansas- Nebraska Act of 1854 (Continuation)
Bloody Kansas (Bleeding Kansas) v Series of armed conflicts between pro- slavery and anti- slavery forces v Kansas the battleground for disputes
Border Ruffians (1854-55) v Nebraska was most likely going to be a free state v Kansas was like Missouri (cotton grows well) v Kansas status would be decided by the polls (popular sovereignty) v People from Missouri who threatened and killed anyone who tried to oppose slavery in Kansas v Many of them cast illegal ballots v Even though anti- slavery forces were a minority in Kansas, a pro- slavery legislature was formed
Two Governments, One State (1855) v A pro- slavery government was established that enacted harsh slave codes (no opposition against slavery and no helping slaves) v Legalized border ruffian votes v People who called themselves free soilers created a free constitution with another governor and state legislature located in Topeka v Topeka Constitution prohibited slavery in Kansas
Sack of Lawrence (1856) v Lawrence the center for Anti- Slavery Movement in Kansas v Judge Samuel LeCompte demanded for free- soil government to be indicted for treason v Pro- slavery forces went to Lawrence, burned printing presses and homes, and bombed Free Soil Hotel v Republicans proposed a bill to put Kansas under free government while Democrats proposed for Kansas to be a slave state v Further pitted North and South against one another
Pottawatomie Creek Massacre (1856) v John Brown was angered over Sack of Lawrence and decided to enact revenge v Brown, along with 7 others, raided the houses of his enemies and hacked their heads off v Escaped to the North where he was held a hero by abolitionists
Caning of Charles Sumner (1856) v Senator Charles Sumner gave a speech called The Crime Against Kansas in which he severely criticized proslavery forces in Missouri and Senator Andrew Butler v Representative Preston Brooks (distant cousins of Butler) retaliated by assaulting Sumner with a cane in Congress v People started to praise Brooks which angered the North more than the assault v Shows how Bloody Kansas has seeped through federal government
Lecompton Constitution (1857) v Created by pro- slavery legislature in Kansas v Declared slaves as property v Rights of property is higher than any constitutional sanction v Buchanan accepted it with little thought and sent it to Congress without a referendum v Senate accepted, but House did not v Split the Democratic Party and ensured election of a Republican president in 1860
Dred Scott v Slave of army surgeon who sued for his freedom v Argued that he lived in free territories for a period of his life even though he is from Missouri v Therefore, he free on this ground v His case went to the Supreme Court after 11 years
Dred Scott vs. Sanford v Court ruled that: living in free states does not make Scott free once he returned to Missouri African- Americans are not citizens and could not take legal action Congress never had authority to prohibit slavery in new territories as it was a violation of the 5th amendment (eminent domain) Missouri Compromise unconstitutional v Most Supreme Court judges were Southerners; North refused to acknowledge the decision
James Buchanan (1857-61) v Avoided the issue of slavery v Like Pierce and Fillmore before him, he yielded to pro- slavery forces v Had little understanding of the conflict that was plaguing the country v Urged Pennsylvanian justice to support Southern majority in Dred Scott Case v Believed slavery issue was solved with the Dred Scott Decision v Supported entry of Kansas as a slave state (even though legal majority voted no)
Lincoln and Douglas Debates v Held 7 debates across Illinois for seat in the Senate v Gained national attention v Lincoln gave his House Divided Speech v Douglas argued for popular sovereignty
Abraham Lincoln s Perception Towards the Slave Issue v Warned that the issue of slavery will not cease unless it expands throughout the nation or is prohibited altogether v Believed threat to expansion of slavery was the idea of popular sovereignty v Accused Douglas of wanting to expand slavery to free states v Argued that slavery was morally wrong and it violated the Declaration of Independence v Assured Southerners that he had no intention of interfering with existing slave states v Assured Northerners that he opposed political and social equality for all races
Stephen Douglas Perception Towards the Slave Issue v Countered Lincoln s argument by stating that the Founding Fathers owned slaves v Insisted that power should reside at the local level v Agued that slavery would be limited based on economy and geography v Claimed that citizens could keep slavery out of their territory by withholding protection of local law (Freeport Doctrine)
Impact of Lincoln- Douglas Debates v Lincoln lost the seat in Senate Lincoln Gained reputation for being a great orator Invited to campaign for Republican presidential candidates Considered as presidential candidate Douglas Further alienated the South with Freeport Doctrine Contributed to division of Democratic Party Lost power in the Senate
OPCVL (Origin) v http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech- on- the- dred- scott- decision/ v Abraham Lincoln s Reaction Towards the Dred Scott Decision v Speech made by Abraham Lincoln regarding the Dred Scott Decision v Springfield, Illinois v June 26, 1857
OPCVL (Purpose) v Show the public on where the Republican Party stands in regards to the Judiciary Branch (and to an extent, the Dred Scott decision) We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendment of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. v Counter argue Douglas notions towards people who disagree with the decision He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? v Justify his position for going against the Dred Scott decision I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part; based on assumed historical facts which were not really true; and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I therefore give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me.
OPCVL (Value) v Showed Republican Party and Lincoln s attitude towards the Dred Scott case and slavery But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over- ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over- rule this. We offer no resistance to it. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform opposition to the spread of slavery is most favorable to that separation. v Showed Lincoln s views towards slavery pre- Civil War v Conveys his interpretation of the Declaration of Independence in regards to slavery I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men crated equal equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this meant. v Illustrates his perspective of racial equality But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agreed with the Judge
OPCVL (Limitation) v Speech made as a counter argument He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? v Extremely biased towards Republican ideas But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform opposition to the spread of slavery is most favorable to that separation. v Attack on Douglas, Chief Justice Taney, and the Democrats in attempt to have the public favor him and his party The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment themselves as Union- savers for doing so; and call the indefinite outspreading of his bondage a sacred right of self- government. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another.
Sources v Beck, T. (2007). The Civil War Era, 1848-1877. v Beck, T. (n.d.). Lesson 2 Mastery Check. Tim Beck Press. v Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. (2016). Know- Nothing Movement. v Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. (2016). Republican Party. v Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th EdiJon. (2016). Whig Party. v History.com Staff. (2009). Lincoln- Douglas Debates. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from www.history.com/topics/lincoln- douglas- debates. v History.com Staff. (2012). Jacksonian Democracy. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from www.history.com/topics/jacksonian- democracy. v McPherson, J. (1988). BaEle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press. v The Lehrman InsJtute. (2016). Speech at Springfield, June 26, 1857. Retrieved September 17, 2016 v USHistory.org Staff. (2008). American History. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from www.ushistory.org/us/index.asp.