Growing Unrest in the 1850s

Growing Unrest in the 1850s

By Andrew Mansfield & Jon McNally

Bleeding Kansas

Bleeding Kansas was a border war at the Kansas territory between free-state forces, who were anti slavery, and Border Ruffians, who were proslavery. The skirmishes were fought over the issue of whether Kansas would be admitted to the Union as a free or slave state.

The admittance of a new free state would mean that the north would gain even more power, and vice versa for the south if Kansas was admitted as a slave state. Neither side wanted the other to succeed, and both went to extreme measures to ensure this.

New England Emigrant Aid Company- formed in the summer of 1854 to promote free-soil settlement of Kansas (McPherson 145).

Missourians crossed the border into Kansas with numbers greater than the free soilers. They cast illegal ballots in an attempt to elect a proslavery candidate for congress. They were successful in their first attempt when they cast over 1,700 ballots.

On the next attempt, 4,908 proslavery men crossed the border from Missouri to Kansas and elected 36 proslavery men for Kansas’ territorial legislature. Free soilers, on the other hand, only managed to elect 3 free soilers.

Senator David Atchison of Missouri was the leader of multiple Border Ruffian Raids on abolitionists in Kansas. He was a proslavery Fire-Eater, and delivered many speeches in which he encouraged Missourians to use violence against abolitionists in Kansas. He was quoted saying “There are eleven hundred men coming over from Platte County to vote, and if that ain’t enough we can send five thousand - enough to kill every God-damned abolitionist in the Territory” (McPherson 147).

Atchison convinced President Pierce to replace Andrew Reeder, the Pennsylvanian democrat who held the title of territorial governor of Kansas, with a more pliable candidate in Wilson Shannon.

Wilson Shannon was responsible for enforcing a slave code that called for harsh punishments for expressing opinions against slavery. Free soilers did not obey the new “bogus” laws, and wrote their own free-state constitution. They created a new territorial government in Topeka to oppose the proslavery one in Lecompton. They also armed themselves with rifles sent from New England to support their anti slavery cause. There was now a clear division within Kansas.

Proslavery Judge Samuel Lecompte wanted free soilers who had created a new government to be charged with treason. He deputized 800 Border Ruffians to combat the abolitionists at Lawrence. There was no fight, but the Border Ruffians destroyed the town, creating further tension between people who were pro and anti slavery.

The unrest between factions in Kansas was also prominent on a much larger scale. Both Republicans and Democrats introduced bills to Congress to admit Kansas as a slave state or a free state. Both sides hoped to use the issue to help their cause in the upcoming presidential election. Each side tried to pass their bill, but it was in deadlock because the House was controlled by the Republicans and the Democrats controlled the Senate.

Debates turned to physical altercation when Preston Brooks assaulted Charles Sumner with his gold-headed cane after Sumner made a speech criticising Brooks’ cousin.

Tension was felt all over the Union because of Bleeding Kansas and the ensuing events. Northerners looked at Southerners as barbarians. They compared Preston Brooks’ assault on Charles Sumner to slavery. The Cincinnati Gazette wrote “Has it come to this, that we must speak with bated breath in the presence of our Southern masters?... Are we to be chastised as they chastise their slaves? Are we too, slaves, slaves for life, a target for their brutal blows, when we do not comport ourselves to please them?” (McPherson 150).

The South on the other hand, rallied in defense of Brooks. They thought he was a hero for standing up for the South.

Following the events of Bleeding Kansas, the Republican party established itself on an anti slavery platform. They did not focus on the issues of nativism or temperance like the Whigs did. The Democrats on the other hand, focused on all issues except slavery. As a result, Kansas became one of the most republican states in the Union, and the democrats had a falling out.

The Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott was a slave to army surgeon John Emerson. Scott accompanied Emerson wherever he had to go for army duty. They spent several years in free territory, and when Emerson died, Scott sued for freedom. The case would last for eleven years. He lost his first case, won his second, and lost his third.

The final ruling made by the Supreme Court was that blacks, regardless of whether they were slaves or free men, were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. The ruling also meant that Congress had no power to exclude slavery from territories, and slaves who were brought to free states were still slaves.

The decision caused a lot of people to join the republican party, and the democratic party took a crushing blow.

Abolitionists quickly realized that Roger B. Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and his court stacked with proslavery justices had made an unjust ruling.

Southerners celebrated the decision as a victory for the South because they believed their opinion of slavery was now adopted as law. They believed that abolitionists were enemies of the South and became more hostile toward the North.

Many people who were against slavery saw the ruling as a ploy by the South to expand slavery across the whole Union. This popular belief caused Northerners who previously did not feel strongly about the issue of slavery to side against the South. The divide between North and South, and proslavery and anti slavery was increasing.

In Battle Cry of Freedom, McPherson notes that Taney freed his slaves, but he clung onto his Southern roots. In some of Taney’s private letters, he expressed growing anger toward northern aggression. He also noted that the southern way of life was in danger. The rest of his court also shared the same worries as Taney (McPherson 174).

The issue of slavery continued to become a sectional issue as well as a political one. Northerners and Southerners as well as Republicans and Democrats were at each others throats. These polarizing issues which were brought to light with the Dred Scott decision were a major driving factor for the outbreak of the Civil War.

Work Cited

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Print.

Professor Haas’ lectures were consulted as well.

The Missouri Compromise

“The Missouri Compromise was an effort by Congress to defuse the sectional and political rivalries triggered by the request of Missouri late in 1819 for admission as a state in which slavery would be permitted.” (History.com)

Southerners were afraid Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in a new state.

(1) Missouri was admitted as a slave state and Maine (formerly part of Massachusetts) as free,

(2) except for Missouri, slavery was to be excluded from the Louisiana Purchase lands north of latitude 36°30 . (History.com)′

Criticized by Southerners because they felt it established the principle that Congress could make laws regarding slavery

Criticized by Notherner’s because they felt it expanded slavery below the Southern line.

Raid on Harpers Ferry

October 16, 1859 John Brown and a group of abolitionists raided Harpers Ferry

Brown and the group captured prominent citizens and seized the federal armory and arsenal.

“Brown had hopes that the local slave population would join the raid and through the raid’s success weapons would be supplied to slaves and freedom fighters throughout the country; this was not to be.” (civilwar.org)

Brown and his men were captured and put on trial for:–Treason–Murder–Slave Insurrection

“His attempts to capture the federal arsenal and free "all the slaves in the South" had failed, but abolitionists quickly made him into a martyr for freedom. It is often said he accomplished with his death what he could not have accomplished while living. (http://www.historynet.com)”

Work Cited

• http://www.history.com/topics/missouri-compromise

• http://www.civilwar.org/150th-anniversary/john-browns-harpers-ferry.html

• http://www.historynet.com/raid-on-harpers-ferry