Upload
carli-bascomb
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Popular Sovereignty• One of the key issues in the development of the Civil War
• This is the concept that the citizens/voters of a newly developed territory should have the final say on the existence of slavery in that territory
• It’s a concept that makes sense on some levels
• It’s a concept that also takes a lot of responsibility away from politicians; they really don’t have to take a firm stance on the issue of slavery
• The biggest problem with popular sovereignty is regulation- how can the government make sure that these votes are handled safely and efficiently?
• The rush of settlers moving into the new territories creates some major conflicts
Kansas and Nebraska• The settlement of the western
territories (LA Purchase/Mexican Cession) has become an urgent matter
• Lots of different reasons:
• 1) Traditional expansion
• 2) Removal of Native Americans
• 3) Development of states
• 4) Building of a transcontinental railroad
• 5) Land sales
The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)The Illegitimate Love Child of Stephen Douglas• Stephen Douglas had become the rising
star of the Democratic Party
• Was obsessed with becoming President, and most people felt he would ultimately achieve it
• Douglas saw Kansas and Nebraska as a major opportunity, both personally and politically
• This could help establish his hometown of Chicago as a financial hub
• Transcontinental railroad could cut through the territory
• Native Americans would be forcibly removed
• Douglas also stood to profit greatly from land sales
The Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)• One sticking point- gaining
Southern support
• Douglas wanted to make sure that he could line up Southern votes for this bill AND his eventual run for President
• All of this territory was above the MO Compromise line
• The answer from Douglas- popular sovereignty
• Introduces the Nebraska Bill calling for the issue of slavery to be determined by popular sovereignty
The Kansas-Nebraska Act• The South was not satisfied with the Bill and had a few suggestions/demands
• 1) The territory needed to be split into two: Kansas and Nebraska with popular sovereignty deciding the issue of slavery in both areas
• 2) The language of the bill had to include the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
• Douglas agrees to both- he thinks it’s a shrewd political move
• He felt both territories would ultimately be “free” states- the climates really aren’t conducive to the crops associated with slave labor
• He also believed that the concessions made in the bill would gain Southern support for his Presidential bid (whenever that may be)
• The former Nebraska Bill was redrafted, and in May 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act went into effect
• The domino effect of its passage is massive
The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• Because of its geography,
Nebraska would most likely be a free state
• Kansas was a very different situation, especially because of its proximity to Missouri
• Establishing its territorial constitution became mayhem
• Both pro-slavery and abolitionist forces start to flood into Kansas
• Whichever side could pack more voters would control the constitutional convention
The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• Pro-slavery forces will overwhelm the
legislature
• Border Ruffians from Missouri spill into the territory
• Two capitals develop:
• 1) Lecompton- Pro-Slavery
• 2) Lawrence- Abolitionist
• Both camps elect representatives and draft constitutions and see the other side as illegitimate
• Violence is pretty much unavoidable, as there is a lack of law enforcement
• “The Sack of Lawrence”
The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• Violence in Kansas isn’t the only problem- it
will extend to Washington
• The day before the attack on Lawrence, Charles Sumner (MA) delivered a speech called “The Crime Against Kansas”
• The speech was antagonistic toward Stephen Douglas and Sen. Andrew Butler (SC), and used graphic sexual imagery
• Nobody was surprised at the comments about Douglas, but the attack on Butler was unfair
• Rep. Preston Brooks (SC) was a relative of Butler and defended him violently
• When Sumner would not agree to a duel, Brooks attacked Sumner, beating him with a cane
• Sumner was so severely injured that he would not return to Washington for nearly three years
The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• The situation deteriorates quickly with
the arrival of John Brown
• Brown did not have the easiest existence (more on that later), but he was an extreme abolitionist
• In retaliation for the attack on Lawrence, Brown led an 8-man assault party to attack pro-slavery forces
• The attack is referred to as the Pottawatomie Massacre
• Brown and his crew (including four of his sons) attacked and mutilated five men and boys along the Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas
• This represents a significant shift in the conflict
The Kansas-Nebraska Act- Effects• Kansas-Nebraska alters the existing political parties
• Democrats will gain a lot of momentum in the South, but it’s clear that the party is splitting along North/South lines
• The Whigs will disintegrate
• The American Party (Know-Nothings) form- develops based on negative reactions to Irish/German/Catholic immigration
• American Party scores some Congressional victories from 1854-1856, but they aren’t built to last
• The Republican Party is born in 1854- originally developed in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act
• It’s a big mix of other political parties- unhappy Democrats, Whigs, Libertys, Free Soilers, and Know-Nothings
The Election of 1856• James Buchanan (D-PA)
• John C. Fremont (R-CA)
• Millard Fillmore (A-NY)
• Buchanan wins, but there were some notable developments
• First presidential election for the Republican Party, and they perform well
• Most of the Republican success is in the North
• Southern representatives are worried about the success of Republicans continuing
The Dred Scott Decision• Two days after Buchanan’s inauguration, the Supreme Court made one of its most
controversial rulings
• Dred Scott was the slave of an Army Surgeon named John Emerson
• Emerson lived in multiple states, taking Scott with him
• MO → IL → WI → MO
• Slavery was technically prohibited in IL and WI
• Scott v. Sandford
• 1) Could Scott bring a case before the Supreme Court?
• 2) Did living in a free state make him free?
• Chief Justice Taney rules that freedmen/slaves were not citizens, that slaves were property (meaning they can be taken anywhere), and that the MO Compromise was unconstitutional
• Taney saw African-Americans “as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”