kansas nebraska act and bleeding kansas/sumner

reason for railways

need to connect america, will end in california but question is where to start

railway reason for dividing people

wherever it starts fed gov will invest lots of money in that area, will need new land to build routes

southern railway start point

jefferson davis wants new orleans but no obvious territorial route so want to buy land from mexico to aid this, davis responsible for adminstration for surveying possible routes but only look sat southern routes

northern railway start point

want chicago, upset (especially douglas) because pushing for northern route but feel pierce administration against them

stephen douglas interest in railway

if railway built in illinois it will prosper and secure douglas’s nomination for democrat candidate for 1856 election

stephen douglas starting point for railway

looks west of illinois and finds nebraska, nebraska must become a territory in order to buy land as needs a land office

stephen douglas position in senate

chairman of committee of territories

stephen douglas 1st attempt for bill

1853 senator atchison of missouri says will support bill if slavery guaranteed to be allowed in nebraska, this kills the bill because nebraska is above 36×30’ of louisiana purchase so cant have slavery

stephen douglas getting support for 2nd attempt of bill

new bill has no mention of slavery - says slavery allowed to south but north have a choice, new clause of popular sovereignty

archibald cox on 2nd bill attempt

raises issue of missouri compromise, revised bill introduced which would split nebraska into 2 (nebraska territory and kansas territory), and repeal missouri compromise

why northeners could be okay with revised bill

dense soil not good enough for cotton growth in nebraska so slave owners cant go there due to geographical barrier

support necessary for revised bill

missouri compromise line big deal so needs support of president, if have support of president have support of all office holders in the democrat party

debate around revised bill

northeners see missouri compromise as part of constitution, exemplifies the idea that congress has right to determine what happens to slavery in the south, by voiding it can of worms will be opened

how bill gets through

pierce white house uses its weight (political patronage and party pressure) to pass through bill, final vote in favour was 113 to 100

northern voting for bill

northern democrats split in favour by 44 to 42, all 45 northern whigs opposed

southern voting for bill

southern democrats voted in favour 57 to 2, whigs by 12 to 7

question of slavery

people began to move into kansas and question of slavery expansion arose, northeners felt threatened by possible expansion of slavery while southeners thought its expansion may be crucial to the existence of slavery

northern influencing question of slavery

eli thayer set up a massachusetts emigrant aid company in 1854 to encourage northeners to move to kansas

southern influencing question of slavery

most of the original kansas settlers come from missouri so pro-slavery in best position

colonel buford

Alabamian who sold his slaves to raise money for army of 300 men to fight for slavery in kansas and promised free land to his recruits, baptist and methodist ministers blessed the men before they set off

northern response to buford’s army

sent 25 bibles and 25 rifles to pro free state men who were about to fight for anti-slavery in kansas

first territorial legislature elections significance

march 1855, would decide on subject of slavery

first territorial legislature elections outcome

many pro-slavery missourians travelled to kansas to vote, dominated by pro-slavers and eventually free state representatives were expelled or resigned so pro-slavery laws passed

situation in 1856 kansas

had two rival govs, official pro slavery legislature and free state government, tensions between 2 govs grew and northern groups sent weapons to help free state while missourians moved into kansas to help pro slave

pierce’s view of govs

sees free state one as purposely stirring up trouble

media view of govs

presenting situation as civil war, nothern see as forcing slavery onto kansas and stopping slave power, papers aligned with parties so propaganda

sack of lawrence

may 1856 pro-slavery posse sacked free state centre lawrence and northeners blew story out of proportion, in reality was only 1 casualty (a pro slave man who was killed when a burning building collapsed on him)

pottawatomie massacre

may 1856 murder of 5 men from a pro-slavery settlement on pattawatomie creek by antislavery party led by abolitionist john brown

bleeding kansas narrative

events of 1856 fed into bleeding kansas narrative, media were attempting to shape sectional opinion and popularies idea of conspiracies being hatched by eg slave power or black republicans to undermine popular sovereignty or legitimate territorial gov in kansas

charles sumner speech

may 1856, abolitionist responds to southern banter towards him and tries to frame slavery as a sexual crime

sumner speech result

public humiliation for southeners, a few days later preston brooks beats sumner with a cane at his desk in congress

bleeding sumner northern view

symbol for free speech against tyranny of the slave power, slave power in government not just deep south

bleeding sumner southern view

chivalrous defence of honour

bleeding sumner effect

brought to forefront of peoples minds by press, shapes how each section sees the other and radicalises public discourse

le compton constitution

1857/58 pro slavery constitution for kansas, south desperate for slave state and kansas last hope, big cabinet figures are southern, pressure through congress as cabinet working with/encouraging le compton

lecompton constitutional convention

2 opposing territorial legislatures but need to draw up constitution for kansas to be recognised as state, follows idea of popular sovereignty, favours pro-slavery electorate

lecompton constitutional convention free soiler response

boycott their constitution referendum because both pro-slavery options

lecompton constitutional convention governor response

governor saw outcome as not legitimate because not true result of popular sovereignty, however was a slave owner living in mississippi so expected to support, in reality was more concerned that kansas comes into union democrat and idea of popular sovereignty upheld

lecompton constitutional convention buchannon

endorses constitution and makes clear to democrats in congress they must pass bill which accepts lecompton constitution, justifies because free soilers chose not to vote so got what was expected, however free soilers not given a real choice so thats why they didnt vote

douglas response to lecompton

cant accept because believes idea of popular sovereignty has been tainted/undermined, people in north will turn against it for this reason and go against party which introduced it (democrats), his career tied to this idea too so cant take backlash if it collapses

douglas action against lecompton

outwardly opposes new constitution and fights it, starts political insurgence, uses as evidence of buchanon wanting to expand slavery and is in pocket of slave power, however douglas fails in senate because narrower margin of northeners to southeners

william english solution

proposes compromise bill, kansas accepts pro slavery constitution or cant join union until population reaches 60,000. referendum in kansas results in lecompton failing

southern view of english bill

deprived expansion of slavery, anger directed at douglas

northern view of english bill

douglas protecting free soilers and popular sovereignty, rise in northern support, buchannon seen as undermining authority and dividing democrats

republican view of english bill

support douglas because he won for free soilers, eg william seward now supports douglas, however if join douglas may lose support of democrat party