American Sectionalism and the Path to the Civil War: From the Missouri Compromise to Dred Scott
Political Equilibrium and Sectional Representation in Congress
The Senate Balance of Power: * Every state, regardless of geographical size or population, is allocated votes in the United States Senate. * In a scenario where there are slave states and free states, there would be an equal distribution of free state senators and slave state senators. * This equilibrium is vital because it allows the slave states to block any legislation passed by the House of Representatives that they find unfavorable.
The House of Representatives Dynamics: * Representation in the House is based on population, giving a distinct "edge" to certain sections of the country. * The Northern Edge: The free states have a larger population than the slave states, granting the North a permanent lead in the House of Representatives. * The Three-Fifths Compromise: Even though the South counts slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, the North still retains the majority because of its higher overall population. * Political Checks: The lead the North holds in the House is consistently checked by the Senate parity, provided the North does not also gain a majority of slave states.
The Strategy of Dual Admission: * Throughout the early-to-mid nineteenth century, the United States maintained equilibrium by admitting states in pairs. * When a free state was admitted, it was typically followed or preceded by a slave state to preserve the balance of power. * Historical Examples of Pairing: * Texas (slave state) admission was balanced by the admission of Iowa (free state). * Florida (slave state) admission was balanced by the admission of Wisconsin (free state). * The last slave state to enter the union was Florida, around .
The Compromise of 1850 and the Territorial Expansion Crisis
Context of the Mexican-American War: * The War of and the subsequent Treaty of expanded U.S. territory, bringing the issue of slavery's expansion back to the forefront of national politics. * The Missouri Compromise had previously attempted to address these divisions, but the new territories required a fresh arrangement.
Five Elements of the Compromise of 1850: 1. California as a Free State: California entered the union as a free state. Despite some Southerners settling there, the region could not support plantation agriculture. It was described as an "irrigated desert" that would look like Las Vegas without modern sprinklers. 2. Fugitive Slave Law: A new, more rigorous federal law was passed requiring Northern states to cooperate in returning runaway slaves. This replaced the ineffective Fugitive Slave Law of . Southerners viewed slaves as "rightful property" and saw the Underground Railroad as a threat to their property rights. 3. Popular Sovereignty in New Mexico and Utah: Congress placed no restrictions on slavery in the newly formed New Mexico and Utah territories. While these areas were largely desert and unlikely to support slavery, the lack of restriction was a symbolic victory for the defensive South. 4. Texas Boundary Adjustments: Texas was originally much larger, claiming territory extending into what is now New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, and potentially Wyoming. As part of the compromise, Texas ceded this territory to the U.S. government in exchange for a significant sum of money. 5. Abolition of the Slave Trade in Washington, D.C.: While slavery remained legal in the capital, the slave trade (the public auctioning of people) was banned. Northerners felt that foreign heads of state arriving in the capital should not be greeted by the sight of human beings being auctioned on a block.
The Myth of Compromise: * The Compromise of was not a single unified agreement that everyone supported; rather, it was a series of bills passed by different coalitions. * Only about of politicians truly "compromised." These individuals typically lived in border states (e.g., Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, or Kentucky) where regional economies were integrated with those of the opposite section. * Most Northerners voted for anti-slavery measures and against pro-slavery measures, while most Southerners did the inverse.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the Collapse of the Second Party System
Stephen Douglas and the Transcontinental Railroad: * Stephen Douglas, a Senator from Illinois, proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act with the ulterior motive of facilitating a transcontinental railroad route from Illinois through the Nebraska territory to California. * To gain Southern support for developing this territory for statehood, Douglas offered to repeal the Missouri Compromise's ban on slavery north of the line.
Provisions of the Act: * The Nebraska territory was split into two: Kansas and Nebraska. * The ban on slavery was removed, allowing "popular sovereignty"—the idea that the settlers themselves would decide whether to allow slavery.
Political Consequences: * Northern Outrage: Northerners viewed this as "reneging on a sacred context," as the Missouri Compromise had stood for thirty-five years. * Whig Party Dissolution: The vote on the Kansas-Nebraska Act completely polarized the Whig Party. Northern Whigs voted against it, and Southern Whigs voted for it, causing the party to dissolve. * Republican Party Emergence: An anti-slavery party emerged, catering specifically to Northern interests of "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men." * Democratic Party Realignment: The Democrats held together longer through organizational loyalty, but the party became increasingly dominated by Southern interests.
Class Interests and Sectional Ideology
Northern Motivations against Slavery Expansion: * Farmers: Desired Western lands for small, independent farms. They feared they could not compete with wealthy slaveholders who would "gobble up all the good land." They often supported "Free Soil" but were also frequently "anti-black," wanting to keep both slaves and free black people out of the territories (e.g., Oregon's state constitution initially banned black people from entering). * Workers and the Free Labor Ideal: Workers embraced the idea that they "owned themselves," which distinguished them from slaves. Slavery was seen as a degradation of the dignity of manual labor. They feared that if slavery expanded, it would bring down their own wages and status. Additionally, they were often anti-abolitionist because they feared free black people would migrate North and compete for jobs (as seen in the New York City draft riots). * Capitalists: Wanted to expand a fully developed free-market economy across the continent, which they felt was impeded by the plantation system.
Southern Motivations for Slavery Expansion: * Material Necessity: Plantation agriculture (cotton) depleted the soil rapidly. Slaveholders physically needed to expand onto new lands to maintain production. * Political Survival: To prevent the North from gaining a three-quarters majority in the states, which would allow for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery, the South needed to create as many slave states as possible.
Escalating Violence and the Road to Civil War
Bloody Kansas: * A race ensued between Northern abolitionist societies (who sponsored anti-slavery settlers) and the South (who sponsored pro-slavery settlers) to populate Kansas. * While most settlers were just looking for land, political activists turned the territory into a battleground. * Lawrence, Kansas: Pro-slavery settlers attacked the anti-slavery stronghold, destroying property and a newspaper press. * Pottawatomie Creek: In response, the fiery abolitionist John Brown led a raid where he and his sons killed pro-slavery settlers in their sleep, cutting their throats because Brown believed he was an agent of God.
The Caning of Charles Sumner: * In the U.S. Senate, Charles Sumner (an abolitionist from Massachusetts) gave a speech attacking pro-slavery violence in Kansas, specifically insulting Senator Butler of South Carolina. * Preston Brooks, a Congressman and Butler’s nephew, entered the Senate chamber and beat Sumner with a cane until he was nearly dead. * The North was horrified by the breach of civility, while the South praised Brooks for defending his family's "honor." Brooks resigned, was re-elected by a huge margin, and received replacement canes from supporters.
The Dred Scott Decision ()
Case Background: * Dred Scott, an enslaved man, argued that because his owner had taken him into free territories (Illinois and Wisconsin), he had automatically become a free man. * The case was a "test case" supported by Scott's subsequent owner, an abolitionist, who wanted the Supreme Court to rule that touching free soil mandated freedom.
The Supreme Court Ruling: * Citizenship: The court ruled that black people were not citizens of the United States and therefore had "no rights that the white man was bound to respect," including the right to sue in court. * Property Rights: Even if Scott were free, the court ruled that slaveholders have property rights that cannot be interfered with, effectively nationalizing slavery. * Unconstitutionality: The court declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, stating Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories.
Questions & Discussion
Question: Does one section have the edge over the other in the House of Representatives?
Response: Absolutely. The North/free states have the edge because there are more people in the free states than the slave states.
Question: Isn't it, like, runaway slave?
Response: Well, that's one of the things they're fighting over in … the Fugitive Slave Law, supposedly more effective than the last one passed in .
Question: When you had, say, the slave trade banned in DC, do you think then that all Southerners are gonna vote for that, to ban slave trade in DC?
Response: No. The vote was fragmented. Northerners voted for the ban, and Southerners generally voted against it. The compromise was only possible because a tiny minority of border-state politicians crossed sectional lines.
Question: What was Stephen Douglas's motivation for the Kansas-Nebraska Act?
Response: He was looking to build a railroad. He wanted a transcontinental railroad to run through Illinois, into Kansas and Nebraska, and out to California to bring business to his home state of Illinois.
Question: How did the various groups vote on the Kansas-Nebraska Act?
Response: Northern Whigs voted against it; Southern Democrats voted for it; Southern Whigs voted for it; Northern Democrats were split, but some voted for it to maintain party unity, despite it being a pro-slavery bill.
Question: Why did farmers want to keep slavery out of the territories?
Response: They wanted the farmland for themselves and didn't want to compete with slaveholders or free black people for land.
Question: What does it mean in a political sense to be anti-slavery?
Response: It refers to opposing the expansion of slavery, not necessarily being an abolitionist who wants to get rid of it entirely where it already exists.
Question: Why did workers feel threatened by slavery?
Response: It brought down their dignity as workers and contradicted the ideal of "free labor."
Question: How can the North get rid of slavery legally?
Response: Through a constitutional amendment. This requires approval from two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratification by three-quarters of the states. The president has no official role in this process.