Chapters 18 & 19 – The Civil War -The end of the Mexican War and the acquisition of the Southwest reopened the debate over slavery in the West. The main question was whether or not the status of slavery in the The Compromise of 1850 territories should be decided by the federal government (supported by those who wished to limit slavery and the precedent for which had been provided through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which banned slavery in the Northwest Territory), or through popular sovereignty, or the idea that the question of slavery should be left up to the people of that territory (supported by those who wished to see slavery expand). -With such massive population growth in California due to the Gold Rush of 1849, California was able to skip the territorial stage of development and apply directly for statehood. Pro- slavery politicians worried that if admitted as a free state, it would upset the balance of power between free and slave state, giving the North and anti-slavery advocates an unfair advantage in Congress. -In order to prevent a stalemate over California in Congress, Senator Henry Clay, known for his reputation as a negotiator, was able to find a compromise between the two sides of the issue with the Compromise of 1850, which had five main provisions, or features. 1) California would be admitted as a free state, 2) the status of slavery in the federal territories of New Mexico and Utah would be determined through popular sovereignty, 3) Texas would give up part of its territory to New Mexico in exchange for the federal government assuming some of its debts, 4) the slave trade, but not slavery itself, would be banned in Washington, DC, and 5) a new, stronger fugitive slave law would be passed. -The plan had many critics. Anti-slavery advocates demanded that California be admitted with no additional conditions. Pro-slavery advocates argued that the plan was inherently unfair to them, and that if their demands were not met, secession by Southern states may be the result. Moderates, or those in the middle, believed it was the best compromise possible and the most important thing was preserving the Union above all else. -Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Compromise of 1850 was the new Fugitive Slave Act, which was highly controversial for a number of reasons. Anyone caught actively helping escaped slaves, even in free states, could be prosecuted. Anyone with knowledge of an escaped slave and did not alert the authorities could be charged with a crime as well. It required states to use state, not federal, funds and resources to assist in the capture of escaped slaves, even in free states. In addition, captured slaves would be brought in front of special courts, the judges of which would be paid more for declaring a suspected fugitive a slave rather than a free man, which made the process inherently biased and unfair. -Also at this time, anti-slavery literature began to appear, such as the novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin by author Harriet Beecher Stowe. Through her characters and setting, Stowe describes the cruelties of slavery in a way that few had done before. The novel was shocking to the millions of people who had read the book, shattering illusions of Southern life. It outraged many in the South, because of its potential to harm the institution of slavery, and millions in the North because the cruelties of slavery were being exposed as never before. -Despite having purchased the land in 1803 from the French, there The Kansas-Nebraska Act were parts of the Louisiana Purchase that were still unorganized territory, and thus not legally open to settlement of any kind. Senator Stephen Douglas, of Illinois, also known as the Little Giant, wished to see the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, and have it travel through his home state in which the city of Chicago would be a major hub, or stop. He thought this would make his state wealthy, powerful, and a key stop for settlers and travelers headed west. But until the area known as Kansas and Nebraska was organized into federal territories, which must be accomplished by an act of Congress, no such railroad could be built. Douglas also hoped to one day be elected President, and being the driving force behind the railroad could help him achieve this. -Douglas knew he would need support from Southern and pro-slavery politicians to get any potential bill passed. He also knew that many Southerners wished to see the railroad go through the South. So, in order to gain their support, Douglas authored the Kansas-Nebraska Act, containing provisions attractive to Southern lawmakers. In this bill: 1) The remaining unorganized territories in the LA Purchase would be divided into Kansas and Nebraska, 2) popular sovereignty would decide the status of slavery in those territories, essentially removing the ban on slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line of 36*30’N. In exchange for this, Southern politicians agreed to support Douglas’ bill and drop demands that the railroad be built in the South. -Northerners were outraged, and many felt betrayed. Here was Douglas, a northern politician, willing to “sell out” to Southern pro- slavery lawmakers simply because he wanted to build a railroad. For many, this solidified their belief that there was a conspiracy afoot to spread slavery not just throughout the South and West, but also North and perhaps one day, slavery would be legal everywhere. -The Kansas-Nebraska Act passed Congress and was signed into law in 1854. Ironically, Douglas’ dream of having the railroad built through his home state would never be realized, and his political ambitions, including one day being elected President of the United States, were ruined. -Now that Kansas and Nebraska were open to settlement, both anti and pro slavery supporters would now “race” to the area in an effort to populate it first in efforts to create either free or slave states once the population reached high enough numbers. The effort to settle these areas would bring anti and pro slavery settlers into conflict with one another. -The Kansas-Nebraska act left the status of slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territories open to popular sovereignty. Territorial legislative elections were Bleeding Kansas scheduled to be held in March of 1855, and so both anti and pro slavery groups “raced” to settle Kansas to form a majority and achieve victory in the upcoming election. Whoever won the election would likely decide the status of slavery in Kansas for good. -This led to a number of pro-slavery “settlers” reportedly entering Kansas from Missouri to vote in territorial elections, and then return to Missouri. These people were labelled as “border ruffians” by those in the anti-slavery group, as they were committing voter fraud, and also used threats and scare tactics to intimidate the anti-slavery settlers and prevent them from voting. Thanks to these illegitimate votes provided by these “settlers”, Kansas elected a pro-slavery legislature to be based at Lecompton, Kansas. This legislature would then pass a series of laws favorable to the practice of slavery to help ensure Kansas would be the next slave state admitted to the Union. -However, the anti-slavery settlers refused to recognize the results of the territorial elections due to voter fraud on the part of the pro-slavery groups like the Missouri border ruffians. The anti-slavery settlers formed their own territorial legislature at Topeka, Kansas. Both the Lecompton and Topeka legislatures claimed to be the rightful and legitimate government of Kansas. Many of the pro-slavery settlers came to Kansas heavily armed, and those sympathetic to the anti-slavery groups bought and sent them weapons. With both sides armed to teeth, violence soon erupted. For instance, a pro-slavery posse of 700 men raided, looted, and burned Lawrence, Kansas while looking for anti-slavery settlers. -After the “sack” or destruction of Lawrence, settler and abolitionist John Brown claimed that God ordered him to take revenge on the pro-slavery settlers. Brown was from New England and believed slavery to be a sin. Brown, his sons, and several other men killed five pro-slavery settlers in what became known as the Pottawattamie Creek Massacre. Brown then fled Kansas, but it would not be the last time Brown would figure into the debate over slavery. After the massacre, Kansas fell into a state of civil war, in which over 200 settlers were killed. The press dubbed it “Bleeding Kansas”. Many felt it was a preview of things to come, and a new breed of militant abolitionist was born. -The violence wasn’t contained to Kansas. Fights even broke out in Congress as well, between anti and pro-slavery politicians. In one such incident, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was attacked while giving a speech called “The Crime of Kansas” in which he outlined the crimes of the pro-slavery groups in that territory, and managed to insult a fellow Senator named Andrew Butler from South Carolina. In revenge, Preston Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives and cousin to Butler, entered the Senate chamber and beat Sumner with his cane, breaking it. Dozens of Southern supporters throughout the South sent replacement canes to Brooks as gifts. -After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the events in Kansas, a Dred Scott v. Sanford new political party was formed. Created by members of already existing or failed parties like the Whig Party, Free-Soil Party, and even Democratic Party, the Republican Party wanted to stop the spread of slavery, but not necessarily to abolish slavery altogether.