Bleeding Kansas

Hi there. Class. We are about to jump in to the 1850s. This is a very dynamic very contentious decade and it's really going to fast track the United States toward potential civil war. I've already decided I'm going to divide this lecture into three different pieces. So this one is the first of three. So it's time to look at the 1850s in some depth and let's plunge in.

We talked about the compromise of 1850. That was our bridge between the 40s and the 50s. Well the first event I've got on the docket is the election of 18 50 to.

We see that the Democrats have nominated Franklin Pierce. He is a Mexican war veteran in his own right. The Whigs have nominated General Winfield Scott and you should remember him from the Mexican War lecture. He was one of two prominent generals I mentioned briefly. That's James K. Polk had been worried that he was going to set up potential Whig candidates in the future as president. And that's what happened. Contrary to his wishes Zachary Taylor parlayed his success on the battlefield into president. We saw his presidency in our last lecture as was the case with William Henry Harrison.

Both of these candidates both Harrison and Taylor were successful generals. So we're following kind of the Andrew Jackson method there. Both were successful generals near one ran on a specific political platform. Both of them their parties were essentially running a personality based campaign. And finally as ill luck would have it for the Whigs. Both Harrison and Taylor died in office. Taylor died shortly before the compromise of 1850 was completed. Well we're on to Winfield. Scott talked about how significant Winfield Scott has been throughout American history.

We have Scott. It's a weird we have a free soil candidate John Hayle. So you remember free soil. Those who say do not allow slavery to spread.

Pierce wins this pretty handily. He's got almost. A seven point lead in the popular vote. More importantly he's got a huge lead in the electoral vote. The Whigs have just been hammered. The Whigs have only managed to carry four states. Incredibly what this represents is the Whig Party imploding. The Whig Party is starting to fall apart at the seams. And the reason this is happening to the Whigs is has everything to do with the compromise of 1850. One of the key provisions of that compromise was a newer stronger fugitive slave law. Many Whigs voted for this. Many Northern Whigs did.

In the interests of compromise. But it angered many of their northern constituents. That was certainly the case with Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster supported the compromise of 1850. Many anti-slavery Massachusetts voters really held it against him for this. And the Whig Party is starting to fall apart. The Whig Party can't hold itself together much longer. And so in the wake of this 1852 election and that's what's especially significant about this 1852 election the Whigs are going to collapse as a political party. So say goodbye to the second American party system Democrats versus Whigs. Remember the two party system in the eighteen thirties and forties had one of the functions it had was that it kept the country together. Both of those parties proposed national platforms that Americans across the country north south east and west could get behind. But slavery slowly but surely is becoming an issue that the nation can't ignore. The two parties would really love to ignore the issue of slavery because it's so contentious. But it's becoming harder to the Whigs can't agree on whether they should be supporting something like a stronger fugitive slave law and that largely accounts for Winfield Scott's electoral defeat. During this time. So the Whig Party is going to implode and that leaves a power vacuum. Who is the opposition party going to be. Who's going to mount a challenge to the Democrats. We're going to have to wait and see how that plays out.

We're going to have yet another. Clash in the sectional crisis so far it seems you know OK. 1850 we had a compromise. We papered over you know we we turned down the heat so to speak for the time being.

But the sectional crisis is going to reignite in 1854 with a series of bills collectively known as the Kansas-Nebraska Act. So let's discuss this in detail. Now remember go back to the Missouri Compromise and on our map there you can see the Missouri Compromise line 36 30. Back in eighteen twenty one Congress agreed north of this line except for Missouri north of this line we are going to have no slavery allowed. South of this line. Slavery is allowed.

Stephen Douglas. Influential senator from the state of Illinois is going to. Take a part. That's that's geographic divide. And in doing so inadvertently re-ignites sectional controversy. With this legislation he's the senator who proposes what are known as the Kansas and Nebraska acts.

Douglas isn't trying to cause trouble. What he wants to do is to build a railroad. In the 1850s railroads are a very important emerging technology. They are part of an ongoing. Transportation revolution. That the country is enjoying. During these years and many Americans across the country are seen as as the eastern half the United States is crisscrossed by railroads. What if we could bridge the gap between East and West coasts with the railroad. What if we could build a transcontinental railroad one that would link.

The United States the East Coast with the far west with California and many people are proposing one a transcontinental railroad. And to that this should be government sponsored that this should be government subsidized. That there should be government money used to help build this. Now when I teach Modern U.S. History Post 1865 I talk about the various transcontinental railroads and I actually challenge this assumption was federal money required. But that's another story. Douglass wants to propose a federally subsidized transcontinental railroad. And Douglas Wood likes said railroad to begin in Illinois specifically in Chicago Illinois. Now that made sense on paper real Chicago was already becoming a very important real hub where all sorts of different railroad lines met.

Douglas is senator from Illinois. Naturally this will benefit Illinois naturally he wants to bring this to his his adopted state. Douglas is a Chicago win by residents. And so it would be great for Chicago. Douglas also owns some land that would become very very valuable. Were this railroad to be built in Chicago. So he's got all sorts of motives for wanting this to happen. But if Douglas proposes this legislation this is gonna be a northerly railroad. It's going to if it starts in Chicago and goes west it's going to more strongly favor the north the free states. How can Douglas hope to bring on Southern support. Why should Southern congressmen and senators support his bill.

Douglas knows he is going to have to strike a deal with them. And what he does is he proposes new legislation the Kansas Nebraska Act and it would basically undo. The Missouri Compromise it would erase this line that line remember said that anything north of this line that was a territory would be free. No slavery allowed. Douglas says let's get rid of that restriction and instead let's allow the settlers who move into these territories and we organize them into two separate territories Kansas territory and Nebraska territory. Let's let the people decide whether or not they wish to allow slavery. This is an idea he calls popular sovereignty. Sovereignty refers to basically ruling independence decision making.

And it's a very majoritarian position on Douglas's part. Let's let the voters decide. Let's take a purely Democratic outlook toward this and let them vote. This is a super big deal because you are undoing that sectional compromise. You were racing that line we drew on the map that said slavery allowed here and not allowed here. It passed. The Kansas Nebraska act was successful. This was super controversial in the north especially among people who did not want to see slavery expand who were firmly free soil in their outlook. And one of these people was one of Douglas's political rivals in Illinois politics a wig by the name of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had some essentially stepped away from politics. He had served in the Illinois legislature and in the U.S. House of Representatives. And having kind of done his turn he decided to retire from politics and focus on his law practice. But all of a sudden Lincoln who from as long as he can remember hated the institution of slavery. Now Douglass has opened up the West to potentially allowing slavery to expand. And that was something Lincoln could not stand and had to jump back into politics. He felt to oppose the expansion of slavery into the West. So the Kansas Nebraska Act really adds fuel to the fire of this sectional divide.

This map goes in to greater detail. So you see in blue the free states where slavery was not allowed in the darker red you see the slave states where slavery was legal and in kind of the pinkish salmon colored area. Those whole sections of the country were now eligible to become slave states based on Douglass's new legislation. And many Americans wanted to resist this idea wanted to ensure that at the very least we should not allow slavery to expand. We should contain it. No new slave states. It's why Douglass's legislation is as controversial as it was.

Popular sovereignty means that the people of the state or the settlers or the territory in this case are going to decide that important issue of slavery. And what happened is settlers started pouring into Kansas territory especially voting with their feet if you will. To moving into Kansas to help determine whether this would become a slave state or not and it is a partisan settlement. We've got pro-slavery settlers and anti-slavery settlers moving in. Many anti slavery settlers came directly from Missouri. Missouri was a slave state. They went due west and crossed into Kansas territory. The Free Staters saw these pro-slavery Missourians as these kind of dirty unkempt uncouth violent individuals who were more interested in using violence to get what they wanted instead of the political process. And these pro-slavery settlers quickly became known as border ruffians. On the opposite side we have free staters are free spoilers. Who are moving in. And both sides are armed and willing to fight for control of Kansas. Before we get into the Civil War in 1861 before the Civil War officially starts we have kind of a mini civil war playing out in Kansas. We have these militia groups or paramilitary groups engaging in skirmishes with one another. We have outright civil violence. And so in the late 1850s we have what emerges as bleeding Kansas. This kind of mini civil war over control of whether Kansas territory will allow slavery or not. And these guys are very serious about arming themselves and fighting. What is essentially a civil war you've got a picture border ruffians there in the top left. Down the bottom right. We've got some free state militia. What are they armed with. They have a cannon. This is artillery. This is a crew manned weapon. So when I say this is a mini civil war Ivan I very much mean that.

Not all Americans could pick up and leave for Kansas to vote with their feet. The way these settlers did but some wanted to support their respective causes especially many abolitionists wanted to help out the free state settlers and help them defend themselves against attacks by the so-called border ruffians.

One of the most famous Christian ministers of the era was New York Pastor Henry Ward Beecher and he arranged for large crates big wooden crates to ship out to Kansas. And the story goes. These crates were marked Bibles as to their contents. Now these crates were pretty sturdy and and fairly long crates bigger than you know kind of the cardboard box. You know they were using cardboard but bigger than a box for shipping books like Bibles. Well it wasn't actually Bibles inside those crates. It was these state of the art breech loading carbines Sharps carbines .52 caliber. This is a breech loader a breech loader means that instead of a muzzle loader a muzzle loader you have to ram powder and bullet from the opening the barrel. You have to ram it down and then it comes back out when you fire it. A breech loader like most modern firearms today. You you load it in the breach in the rear of the firearm of the firing mechanism. It's a much faster way of loading and gives you a higher rate of fire. These are the state of the art weapons of their day and age. And because they're being shipped out in crates from Reverend Beecher marked Bibles they go down in history as Beecher's Bibles.

Bleeding Kansas sees very real violence between free state and pro-slavery factions. And each of these factions had their own respective capital. Each one actually was vying to become the legitimate government the legitimate territorial government of Kansas. The free state capital was Lawrence Kansas and the pro slave capital was Le Compton Kansas and you'll see that later on in these lectures.

And the headquarters of the free state movement was the so-called Free State Hotel which was really kind of a a strong fortified building. Well May 21st 1856 a band of border ruffians stormed in to Lawrence and what followed was the so-called sack of Lawrence. They attacked and burned down the hotel burned down the building. In a military style raid nobody was killed in the actual burning. I think the only people killed were were two border ruffians when a wall fell down on top of them. But for many Free Staters for many abolitionists this was an outrage. Here was a very distinct very aggressive act of violence against Free Staters. Now events are really going to start to pile up the very next day. We're also going to see violence the next day the day after the sack of Lawrence we see violence play out in the very halls of Congress itself in the Senate chamber. This is the Sumner-Brooks Affair. It involves two members of Congress Senator Charles Sumner a Republican from Massachusetts. The Republicans are a new emerging party at this time. And Democrat from South Carolina Preston Brooks.

Sumner was an outspoken abolitionist absolutely hated the institution of slavery and he hated what was happening in Kansas. He gave a speech on the floor of the Senate. It was called the Crime Against Kansas and it talked about the violence being perpetrated against free spoilers. It talked about the violent efforts to install slavery in the West. He used a very loaded terminology. He lote used terms like outrage terms that had a very loaded subtext that implied rape. And he is intentionally using this language. And that language was a big part of the rhetoric of anti-slavery too because of course sexual assault sexual abuse was among the many evils of the slave the institution that was slavery. He attacks members of the Senate who are outspokenly pro-slavery. He attacks a senator by the name of Butler and he says of this guy that slavery the harlettes slavery is like his mistress the harlot slavery who is always chaste in his sight. These pro-slavery. He says he implies are essentially in love with or in lust with the institution of slavery. This is a very loaded language. It carries with it a really really. Impactful subtext.

Now a kinsman a relative of Senator Butler. Preston Brooks a South Carolinian. A very hard core pro slavery state in 1856. Heard about the speech and he was outraged. He was outraged about the insult to the southern states. He was insult in outrage to the insult to his family in this era. What does a self styled southern gentleman do when someone has insulted him or those close to him when there is a threat to one's honor.

Well in southern culture southern culture was still hanging on to the notion of dueling a formal affair in which you can settle matters of honor.

But Brooks's companions and friends told me no you can't challenge Sumner to a duel. He probably will turn you down. Besides he's a dirty Yankee. You know challenging someone to a duel implies that you are your equals. And we don't want to call this man an equal. Well what do you do instead when you want to show him up when you want to show your displeasure about a slight to your honor.

May 22nd 1856 Brooks decided what he should do and he and several companions acted on it.

May 22nd they walked into the Senate chambers. The Senate was not in session but various senators were in there working at their desks. Sumner was sitting at his desk and Brooks approached him and said something like you know I've read your speech sir. It's an insult to South Carolina and to my family etc. etc..

The next thing you know. Brooks is beating Charles Sumner about the head with his cane with his walking stick. It's kind of a gentlemanly accessory. This walking stick. It's made of gutta percha which is kind of an early version of hard rubber. It's got a metal a brass tip on it. This is a substantial weapon. This is you know this is attack with a blunt object.

And to such a sucker punch all of a sudden he is raining down blows on Charles Sumner's head. Brooks will not challenge into a duel because that implies equality. Instead what a Southern gentleman does when he feels insulted by a quote unquote inferior is you beat the person whether that person is white or black. If you believe they are below your station you whip or cane them. And he is using his cane as a weapon. Charles Sumner is putting up his hands to deflect against these blows. He's sitting under his desk. Sumner is a fairly tall robust guy and he's kind of wedged under his desk. The desk is bolted down to the floor. And so he can't really escape. He's pinned there. He's trapped until finally as he's exerting himself he actually ends up breaking the desk from its screws. And it falls over. He falls over well-trimmed in his own blood. The Senate chambers his fellow senators are taken aback by this. Some of them make. Moves to approach and try to stop this but if you look at the background of this illustration and this is true to history. Sumner had brought along companions and these companions were actively keeping people at bay essentially saying no this isn't your business let them fight stay out of this. So this is a premeditated act and he's got accomplices.

The cartoonists incidentally did not know what Brooks looked like. And so you'll notice his face is hidden by his arm here. The message of the cartoon is very clear Southern chivalry arguments vs. clubs. And it's this notion. That here you know for all the pretensions to gentleman leanness to honor. Here is what the cartoonist is saying. Southerners are really about southern chivalry. Really looks like pure unrestrained violence against somebody who disagrees with you rather than settling things with words. He's using a blunt object.

Sumner I'm sorry. Brooks done with the caning strode out of the Senate.

Congress was going to officially vote to censure Brooks for this attack before they could censure him. This would be a vote condemning what he did before that could happen. He resigned. But then there was a special election and the people of South Carolina voted him back into office.

Moreover this beating was so. Sustained so violent that he actually broke this hard rubber cane. Over Sumners head. And to show their appreciation many people across the slave states sent replacement canes to Brooks some of them with funny mottos on them such as you hit them again. Use this. Things like that.

Sumner was grievously injured by this and it would be some time it'll be years before he would actually be able to return to his seat in the Senate as he recovered from these grievous wounds to the head. Arguably. It seems that he suffered some lasting damage from this. He still had his faculties. He's still.

He still could do his work. They're seeing it seems to he might have suffered something that we would consider a form of post-traumatic stress syndrome based on this attack. And and no wonder he had the last laugh though because Brooks actually took ill and died and did not survive the decade. He did not live to see the civil war. Sumner however survived and lived through and beyond the civil war and was one of the major opponents of the institution of slavery. What's more even before Sumner could return to work the people of Massachusetts kept his seat empty rather than vote for somebody else. When the next election came around they reelected him and many of his voters wanted to keep him in office not only for how they served him but they left his empty Senate chair there in the chamber as a testimony to the violence perpetrated by one member of Congress against another. Things are really heating up when Americans are fighting each other in Kansas and even members of Congress are fighting one another in the nation's capital.

There's going to be retaliation for these attacks on free spoilers. And one of these attacks one of these acts of retribution is going to come at the hands of John Brown. John Brown was a white abolitionist. He was born in eighteen hundred so it's always easy to figure out you know how Brown was at any given year. Brown moved around. He lived in a lot of different states. He he tried his hand at a lot of different jobs. He tried raising sheep and selling wool and things like that. He was much more successful at raising a very very large family ended up having a lot of kids. He had one wife. She died. He married a second wife. And together they bought him a host of children. Brown from an early age learned to hate the institution of slavery.

As a young man John Brown was driving cattle in the Northwest Territory and he this is a long. This is an a day trip. You know this is a trip that would you know taking cattle to market. This would take him a number of days. He stopped at a tavern where you could spend the night get food and so forth. The owner of the tavern took a liking to Brown and was real impressed. Think Brown was about 12 at this time. And as you know Europe. Tough kid responsible kid. Doing a man's job like this. Was very doting towards Brown. But Brown noticed that the tavern keeper also got a slave a young boy about Brown's own age. But while the keeper doted on Brown and treated him so kindly the man was terribly cruel. To this slave Brown's own age even hitting him with a fire shovel when he was unhappy with his work and this disconnect this inherent unfairness really rocked John Brown to his core. And from a very early age. Brown nursed an absolute hatred for the institution of slavery. Brown was also a devoted devotedly religious person. He was a devoted Christian.

And firmly believe that it violated God's law to own men women and children and treat them in the various ways that slave owners did. And he. Gained this conviction in his adult life that his purpose in life should be to. Strike out to fight against the institution of slavery. So in Kansas opened up for settlement Brown and several of his adult sons went there and they were part of a free soil militia outfit.

We know that when Brown learned about the sack of Lawrence he was absolutely enraged that this just filled him with a burning anger. We're not sure if he heard about the caning of Sumner but if he had that certainly would about reached him as well. Brown decided to take retribution. He some of his sons and some of his other allies in his militia outfit marched down to Pottawattamie Creek and they were in an area settled primarily by pro-slavery settlers.

And at three different cabins. Brown and his followers stormed these cabins in the middle of the night. They dragged out the menfolk and the any sons of adult age. Five men total and down by Pottawatomie Creek. His men used these short swords. These broadswords. They were about.

They're about the length of your forearm. They were essentially military surplus. They use these broadswords to. Brutally slay these pro-slavery. Settlers that were already their enemies. Brown does not seem to have wielded one of the swords. But it seems that he did fire basically an execution shot a coup de gras to finish off one of the victims. This went down in history as the Pottawattamie massacre.

Brown is a very controversial figure in American history. For two summers I worked as a historical interpreter at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. And it wasn't uncommon to hear. Really far apart takes on Brown from visitors. You know we tried to approach a. Provide the history and let people make up their own minds. And I would talk to visitors sometimes in the same day. One person would say you know Brown really was a hero wasn't he. He was a great patriot. Here's a white man who wanted to fight against slavery. And other people would tell me he was the first terrorist wasn't he. You know he was kind of domestic terrorist. And you know what Brown is. It's a very enigmatic figure. He is a figure that he's hard to. Put into a box. He is absolutely a zealot one who believes and acting very strongly based on his beliefs and it's really something in the eye of the beholder. Is is he a freedom fighter. Is he a terrorist. Is he a patriot. A recent biography about Brown is called Patriotic Treason. And it kind of the title kind of implies that enigma. That paradox that is John Brown. He is still a lightning rod figure in American history to this day. And we're going to hear more about Brown in a subsequent lecture. Just how far he's willing to go to strike a blow against slavery.

This is an image I always look forward to having my students look at and analyze. You take apart and that's one of the times when the main times it's it's a real shame I don't have you folks in the classroom. Think back to when we looked at the death of Wolf that painting about the French Indian War and all the different symbolism we could find there. This is a painting called The Tragic Prelude. It's by a regional artist from Kansas by the name of Jon Steuart Curry painted it in 1940. He painted it for the Kansas statehouse. There there's a room inside the Kansas capital. This is basically part of a mural. And this isn't the entire mural. You know it's a four sided room. And this mural wraps around and it's got scenes from Kansas history. And you're really looking at one wall. And to get some sides of the scale of this painting.

Try to imagine what this would look like. Broadcast on the overhead on our classroom wall. That will give you some idea of the sides of it at this point class. I would encourage you guys. OK. Tell me about the painting. What sort of things can you see. But I don't have you in front of me so I have to examine this painting. Now I'm interested. And I I can say a lot about this painting because we had a great reroduction of this. We had a copy of this in the John Brown Museum in Harpers Ferry. And the first thing when you walked into this particular museum you saw was this big painting. And we had a really excellent source book about this. That gave me all sorts of kind of secret insights about the painting. So we've got John Brown here. He is literally larger than life. He has this colossus style pose. He's dividing these two sides. Appropriate because because Brown was a divisive figure. The two sides we can see kind of this is a tragic prelude a prelude to watch a prelude to the civil war. And we can see that in the American flag and the Confederate flag and on these two opposing sides free soil and pro-slavery.

Also foreshadowing the civil war we have dead soldiers at Brown's feet a dead union soldier dead Confederate soldier and we have bloody ground. Beneath them.

We have symbols of chaos and turmoil and strife. We have a burning prairie fire. Prairie fires are famous for just how quickly they can spread. We have a burning prairie fire. We have a Kansas twister. A tornado on the horizon. And it's kind of like that impending storm. That bleeding Kansas signifies and  Curry is holding that Brown as this enigmatic figure as this complex figure who is at the forefront of events leading the country toward a civil war.

You should notice too Brown is is heavily armed. He's got a sword. He's got a pistol. Look at what he's holding. In one hand in his left hand he has a Bible. The Bible is open the letters alpha and Omega. Those are Greek letters. They're written there. And that's a reference to the Bible's Book of Revelation. Which is an apocalyptic book. Brown's other hand has a rifle. Not just any rifle but one of those sharps carbines a.k.a. a Beecher Bible. And so you might say there's a visual pun going on here because he's got a different sort of Bible in each hand and that really you know the Bible in one hand and the rifle in another. Really.

Characterizes John Brown.

Many students from ARC he's got kind of this wild eyed pose. He looks like a mad man. And many people to this day say you know what John Brown crazy. A lot of people like to believe that.

Fast forward I say he he doesn't he doesn't fit the legal definition of insanity. Whether there's something weird about him mentally I can't put him on the couch. But a lot of people view him as this crazed figure. At the very least he is a zealous figure.

If you compare this painting to the previous slide that one of those is a photograph.

The larger photograph the photograph without the flag that was taken of Brown in Kansas. Notice he's clean shaven. He's got a beard in this one. Well later on when we see John Brown at Harpers Ferry he will have that long flowing beard which he grew. Essentially it's a disguise because he was on the run from people who wanted to get back at him for the Pottawattamie massacre. But it's almost like we wouldn't recognize Brown without the beard today. And it gives him actually if you will this kind of biblical this kind of Old Testament look.

And when I ask students you know if they don't and if they don't suggest it you know does this remember any kind of other art you've seen. Right. What kind of figure does he look like. Well. You'll remember some of you when we looked at the death of Wolf recognized that Michelangelo sculpture of Jesus taken down from the cross. Well there's another biblical allusion here between the beard and the very specific way he's drawn John Brown's hair. Curry is making a very deliberate. Oh Monge to Michelangelo again this time to Michelangelo's sculpture of Moses. Look up Michelangelo's Moses and you will absolutely see the parallel. And this is a deliberate reference or a deliberate allusion that Curry was trying to make in part because Brown saw himself as this essential Moses figure as somebody who is trying to strike against slavery and free people from bondage. Currie's own attitude toward Brown was mixed. Curry was one of those folks who saw Brown as one of the extremists on both sides that brought on the Civil War and it curious time in history. It was fashionable to say the Civil War didn't necessarily need to happen. He was really just the extremists on both sides. And ordinary Americans didn't really want to see it happen or weren't really on board until it actually happened. Well a lot of historians push back against that today. We're more likely to see the civil war as many people saw it during the civil war itself as this almost irrepressible conflict. And as we'll see in the 1850s as things heat up between north and south between free and slave states it's begun coming harder and harder to avert a purse a possible conflict an outright civil war between these two sections of the country.

Here's one more bit of trivia. That's twister. That tornado in the background the state of Kansas the people who paid courey weren't too crazy. That included it. Actually they were too crazy about him painting John Brown either you know they kind of gave him free rein to paint what he wanted. We didn't really want to you know call attention to bleeding Kansas that sort of thing. And they were really sensitive about the twister especially in 1940 because 1939 one of the most successful movies of all time The Wizard of Oz hit theaters. And what do you associate with The Wizard of Oz. Well there's that tornado that twister that that sweeps away Dorothy's home. Right. And the last thing Kansas wanted to advertise was you know we're in the middle of Tornado Alley. But Perry painted his painting. And that's what you'll see if you ever trant travel to the Kansas statehouse. So that's your first look at the 1850s. Remember this will be the first of three video lectures so stay tuned for more. Good luck with all of your studies. Stay safe stays healthy and I will share more history with you in my next lecture.