THE SECOND PARTY SYSTEM

THE SECOND PARTY SYSTEM The country was created with just one party: The democratic party The leaders who created the U.S. Until the 1820s In response to Andrew Jacksons favoritism of political allies a new party was created called the Whigs The era of the Whigs Vs. the Democrats is known as the second party system 1828-1854 Characterized by: Voting becoming popular Campaigning against other office holders Close elections

WHIGS The Whigs were a community of people who gathered against Andrew Jackson Named the whigs because the English anti monarchist were called the Whigs (in protest of kings) Prominent leader: Henry Clay King Andrew When the expansion of slavery began nothing else held the wigs together - disagreed on slaves (Downfall in 1850)

REPUBLICAN PARTY Anti-slavery activists, modernizers, ex- Whigs, and ex-free Soldiers came together in 1854 and created the republican party in response to the Kansas-Nebraska act Between 1860 and 1932 dominated by northern states Opposition against Democratic party (slaves) - mainly Kansas Nebraska act First came to power in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/republican_party_(united_states)#founding_and_19th_century

KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT(1854) Created by Kansas and Nebraska territories Opening new land to be settled Repeal of Missouri compromise (1819) White male settlers could then decide to allow or deny slavery in each state People from all over the US went to Kansas to try and flip it pro- or antislavery Designed by senator Stephen A Douglas (democrat) Originally made to create a Transcontinental Railroad. Notably New Mexico did not allow slavery because it was ruled under Mexican law. Gave rise to the Republican party

Slave states (gray), Free states (pink), U.S. Territories (green), Kansas (white) (1856 map)

KANSAS Because of the Kansas-Nebraska act pro- and anti slavery activists showed up in Kansas and fought battles over slavery Four different constitutions that were fought over to make Kansas a state Free slavery constitution was picked Senate of Kansas was dominated by pro slavery activist Constitution was not accepted until January 1861

NEBRASKA Effected differently than Kansas Further north Was a larger territory After the Kansas-Nebraska act several bills were brought to abolish slavery but the governor vetoed them awaiting a popular sovereignty vote that would rule in favor of slavery Which did not end up happening The issue was less important because slavery did not exist in Nebraska 1860-81 African American s, only 10 were slaves

IMPACT OF THE DRED SCOTT DECISION Dread Scott was a slave Owned by an army doctor who spent moved him from Missouri to Illinois and Wisconsin Missouri- slave state Illinois free state Wisconsin free territory Appealed to the court after his master died. Supreme court was stacked 6 of the 9 justices anti-slavery Supreme court ruled that dread Scott was not free because slaves we not U.S. citizens Property cannot be taken from owners w/o due process of law Supreme court makes it known that they are pro-slavery above states and individual rights

Lincoln and Douglas both ran for a Illinois Senate chair in 1858. The Senate campaign featured seven debates held in different cities across Illinois.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN Born in Kentucky on Feb. 12, 1809 Moved to Illinois Started poor and built up to be a small store owner social skills Voted Capitan by locals in the Black hawk war of 1832 Lead to being elected into the Whig party of the Illinois state legislature -1834 U.S. House of Representatives from 1847 to 1849 1856 joined republican party (due to Kansas-Nebraska act) Ran for Illinois senate in 1858 (lost but publicity helped) 1860- Lincoln received not quite 40 percent of the popular vote, but carried 180 of 303 Electoral votes. Vs. Douglas

STEVEN DOUGLAS Born April 23, 1813 State's Attorney 1834-36 Illinois House of Representatives Became Illinois Secretary of Sate US Representative in 1843-44 Created the Nebraska- Kansas act Illinois senator 1846 and re elected in 1853 Democratic nominee against Abraham Lincoln in 1860

LINCOLN S VIEW ON DRED SCOTT DECISION Anti- slavery Believes that Douglas s views on states rights are hypocritical Douglas says he is for state s rights yet he is against Utah s constitutional right of polygamy Douglas supports the supreme court ruling on Dred Scott but does not support the National bank ruling Believes that the supreme court decision was wrong Believes that the conditions for slavery are worsening

LINCOLN'S VIEWS ON SLAVERY In 1834 Viewed slavery as not morally wrong but bad for the economy 1854 had a more moral view on slavery (leaning more towards anti slavery) 1857 Lincoln thought African Americans were not equal to whites, but that the founders had intended to make all men have certain rights and liberates

DOUGLAS S VIEW ON DRED SCOTT DECISION If resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and the enemies of the Constitution-the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws. Pro- Slavery Appears to be for sates rights (but only when it benefits slavery) Believes that people who contradict the Dred Scot ruling are enemies of the US Constitution and are revolutionary.

DOUGLAS S VIEW ON SLAVE ISSUE Never spoke directly about his views on slavery But believed that it was a states right to decide if they accept or prohibit slavery

LINCOLN S HOUSE DIVIDED SPEECH http://www.history.com/topics/lincoln-douglasdebates/videos/gilder-lehrman-house-divided

PRIMARY DOCUMENT 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. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States. On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen states, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina, free negroes were voters, and, in proportion to their numbers, had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had. He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth; and, as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language: The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of `the people of the United States,- by whom the Constitution was ordained and established; but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and, doubtless, did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. Again, Chief Justice Taney says: It is difficult, at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says: The general words above quoted would seem to include the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so understood. In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but, as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five States-New Jersey and North Carolina-that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in a third-new York-it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, though the number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then, such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation, as to amount almost to prohibition. In those days, Legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective States; but now it is becoming quite fashionable for State Constitutions to withhold that power from the Legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man s bondage to new countries was prohibited; but now, Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days, our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him; ambition follows, and philosophy follows, and the Theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him, and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is. Speech on the Dred Scott Decision Abraham Lincoln Speech at Springfield, Illinois June 26, 1857

ORIGIN This is a section of an original speech by Abraham Lincoln. It states Lincoln s opinion on the Dred Scot Decision. It was given on June 26 of 1857 in Springfield Illinois.

PURPOSE Abraham Lincoln wrote this speech to address the mistake made in the ruling of the Dred Scott case, I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true and to respond to the wrongful statements made by Judge Douglas.

VALUE Its states Lincoln's and the Republican parties position on slavery. 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. And for Lincoln it was one of the nine debates in his campaign to be elected as the Illinois Senate member.

LIMITATION Lincoln wrote this speech which therefore put himself and the republican party in a good light for the upcoming election. It is reliable because it is a primary source and because it is clear through the document that Lincoln is highly educated on the matter. Two weeks ago Judge Douglas spoke here on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the time, and have read the report of it since.

SUMMARY How Lincoln changed history Illinois seemed to dominate politics Border of the established and new states The debate over slavery dominated this period of time How slavery related to Federalism and state s rights Law of the states or law of the constitution?

A SHORT VIDEO RECAP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ronmeoojcdy

SOURCES "Abraham Lincoln Biography." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television. Web. <http://www.biography.com/people/abrahamlincoln-9382540#entering-politics>. "Abraham Lincoln's House Divided Speech Video." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 16 Jan. 2009. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. <http://www.history.com/topics/lincoln-douglas-debates/videos/gilder-lehrman-house-divided>. McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford UP, 1988. 47-145. Print. "Kansas Nebraska Act." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. <https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/kansas Nebraska_Act>. "Speech on the Dred Scott Decision Teaching American History."Teaching American History. Ashbrook Center, 2006. Web. 18 Sept. 2015. <http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-dred-scott-decision/>. "Stephen A. Douglas." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2009. Web. 20 Sept. 2015. <http://www.history.com/ topics/stephen-a-douglas>. "The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18." YouTube. YouTube, 13 June 2013. Web. 20 Sept. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ronmeoojcdy>. "Whig Party." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2009. Web. 12 Sept. 2015. <http://www.history.com/topics/whigparty>. Photos: en.wikipedia.org www.regentsprep.org www.american-historama.org www.thefederalistpapers.org thomaslegion.net www.pbs.org http://izquotes.com/quote/112724 digital.vpr.net