Sectional Crisis & the Road to the Civil War

Essential Framing Question

  • Guiding inquiry posed in lecture: “Why was the institution of slavery allowed to continue and grow in the United States, and by what mechanisms did it expand?”
  • Keep in mind a second, moral corollary raised near the end: If an institution is evil, what actions are morally permissible in opposing it?

William Lloyd Garrison on Northern & Southern Priorities (1854)

  • Quote paraphrased: Southerners place “preservation of slavery” above all else (party, church unity, \text{\$} interests, law, Constitution).
  • North, he argues, places “preservation of the Union” above moral imperatives (honor, justice, freedom, even “the infinite God”).
  • Take-away: Both sections compromise core principles for their supreme goal—South for slavery, North for union.

Early Legislative Foundations (1787–1790s)

  • Northwest Ordinance (1787)
    • Covered present-day OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, part of MN.
    • Explicitly prohibited slavery in that region.
  • Southwest Ordinance (1790)
    • Covered future KY, TN, AL, MS.
    • Allowed slavery despite Jefferson’s plea to ban it.
  • Significance
    • Made western lands the economic salvation of slavery when older Tidewater soils exhausted.
    • Created an internal, domestic slave trade (Upper South → Lower/Western South) once the Atlantic trade was outlawed.

Geographic Growth of Slavery (1800–1820s)

  • 1800 map shows slavery expanding into KY, TN, the Old Southwest.
  • By 1820, sectional political stakes appear: parity in Senate seats (equal free & slave states) becomes vital.

Missouri Compromise (1820)

  • Trigger: MO applies as slave state—would upset balance.
  • Terms:
    • Missouri admitted slave; Maine carved from MA & admitted free.
    • Future boundary at 36^\circ30' latitude: south = eligible for slavery; north = free (except MO).
  • Contemporary belief: Great Plains = “Great American Desert,” so line felt less consequential.

Economic Pressure & Filibustering (1830s–1840s)

  • Land in old South filling; slave values falling → renewed push for new soil.
  • “Filibusters” = private U.S. citizens foment trouble abroad to annex territory (e.g., Cuba, Nicaragua).
    • Texas Revolution (1836) retrospectively fits pattern: U.S. settlers in Mexican Texas refuse to relinquish slaves, rebel, later join Union.

U.S.–Mexican War (1846–1848)

  • Spark: Disputed TX border (Nueces vs. Rio Grande); Democratic Party (pro-expansion) exploits crisis.
  • Outcome: Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1848)—U.S. gains CA, NV, UT, most of AZ/NM, parts of CO & WY.

Wilmot Proviso (1846–1848) ❗ID

  • Rep. David Wilmot (PA) tacks amendment to war-appropriation bills: no slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico.
  • Voting pattern:
    • NOT by party.
    • \text{All Northern Whigs} + (\text{all but }4) \text{ Northern Democrats} FOR.
    • \text{All Southern Democrats} + (\text{all but }2) \text{ Southern Whigs} AGAINST.
  • Never passes—but exposes sectional, not partisan, fault line.

Ideological Claims

  • Southern position
    • “Equal rights in the territories” for slaveholders; banning slavery discriminates against their property → violates 5^{\text{th}} Amendment due-process rights.
    • Slavery = “positive good,” cornerstone of white supremacy.
  • Northern (growing) position
    • Slavery morally wrong; undermines free white labor, retards economic development.
    • Fear of “Slave-Power Conspiracy”—small planter elite using federal power to spread system everywhere.

Compromise of 1850 ❗(mini-settlement)

  • Crafted after two-year debate over Mexican Cession.
  • Key components
    1. Popular Sovereignty in UT & NM Territories.
    2. CA admitted free.
    3. Stronger Fugitive Slave Act—federal agents, penalties on northerners aiding runaways.
    4. Slave trade abolished in Washington, D.C. (slavery itself still legal).
    5. Texas debt settlement & smaller western border.
  • Effect: Replaces 36^\circ30' rule for future territories with popular sovereignty.

Kansas–Nebraska Act (1854) ❗ID

  • Authored by Sen. Stephen A. Douglas (IL Dem.).
  • Purpose: Organize “unorganized territory” ≈ today’s KS/NE to build RR through Chicago.
  • Terms: Repeals Missouri Compromise line; adopts popular sovereignty for KS & NE.
  • Northern backlash:
    • Mass protests; 10 state legislatures condemn act.
    • Douglas: “I could travel from Boston to Chicago by the light of my effigy.”
  • Political upheaval: Whig Party collapses; Republican Party (1854) forms on pledge to repeal act.

Bleeding Kansas (1854–1856)

  • 1854 territorial election swamped by \sim5,000 “Border Ruffians” from MO → pro-slavery legislature.
  • Free-Soilers form rival gov’t in Topeka; write anti-slavery (but also anti-black-immigration) constitution.
  • Violence escalates:
    • Sack of Lawrence (May 21 1856): hotel destroyed, presses burned, 2 dead.
    • John Brown’s Pottawatomie Massacre (May 24): 5 pro-slavery men hacked to death.
    • By end 1856: ≈200 fatalities—often labeled first blood of Civil War.

Violence Spills into Congress (May 22 1856)

  • Charles Sumner (MA) delivers “Crime Against Kansas” speech; insults Sen. A.P. Butler (SC).
  • Rep. Preston Brooks (Butler’s nephew) canes Sumner on Senate floor.
    • Sumner absent 2 yrs; MA leaves seat vacant as symbol.
    • Brooks resigns, re-elected; Southern admirers send hundreds of canes.
  • Illustrates elevated culture of honor & violence (Southern homicide rate 9/100{,}000 vs. national 1.4/100{,}000).

Party Realignments & Elections

  • 1854 midterms: Republicans run first campaigns.
  • 1856 presidential race
    • Democrat James Buchanan wins (only president rated worst by most historians).
    • Republicans: slogan “Free soil, free labor, free men, free Kansas, Fremont.”
    • Sectional map: GOP sweeps North; not competitive South of Mason-Dixon.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ❗ID

  • Background: Enslaved Dred & Harriet Scott lived in free MN Territory; sue for freedom.
  • Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (Southern Dem.) delivers 7-2 ruling:
    1. Blacks (slave or free) ≠ U.S. citizens → cannot sue in federal court.
    2. Congress lacks power to ban slavery in territories; doing so violates 5^{\text{th}}-Amendment property rights.
    3. Thus Missouri Compromise unconstitutional; popular-sovereignty bans also suspect.
  • Northern outrage; confirms Slave-Power fears.

Lecompton Constitution Crisis (1857–1858)

  • Pro-slavery KS convention offers constitution with only two choices: “slavery” or “no further importation” (still keeps existing slaves).
  • Free-Soilers boycott; vote passes among pro-slavery minority.
    • Final tally (Jan 1858 referendum): Against 11{,}812 vs. For 1{,}926.
  • Pres. Buchanan backs constitution; splits Democratic Party (Douglas opposes).
    • Compromise English Bill lets KS vote again but delays statehood if rejected → voters reject; KS remains territory until 1861 (joins Union free).

Republican Surge (1858)

  • GOP wins every Northern state legislature except IL & IN.
  • Lincoln–Douglas Debates (IL Senate race) elevate Abraham Lincoln as national spokesperson vs. expansion of slavery.

John Brown & Harpers Ferry (Oct 16–18 1859) ❗ID

  • Brown’s plan: seize federal arsenal, arm slaves, launch guerrilla war in Appalachian Mountains.
  • Force: 18 men (5 black); takes hostages.
  • U.S. Marines under Col. Robert E. Lee recapture arsenal; 2-day fight.
  • Brown tried by VA, hanged Dec 2 1859.
    • Leaves note: “The crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.”
  • Northern reaction: mixed but many churches toll bells; some hail him as martyr.
  • Southern reaction: panic over imminent slave revolt; link Brown → Republican Party → rationale for secession.

Election of 1860 & Immediate Aftermath

  • Democrats split:
    • Northern Dem.: Stephen Douglas (popular sovereignty).
    • Southern Dem.: John C. Breckinridge (federal protection of slavery).
  • Constitutional Union Party: John Bell (neutral on slavery, pro-Union).
  • Republicans nominate Lincoln; not on ballot in most Southern states.
  • Result: Lincoln wins clear Electoral College majority with only \approx 40\% popular vote—entirely Northern & far-West support.
  • Several Deep South states immediately call secession conventions, citing threat of “Black Republican” rule.

Ethical & Philosophical Threads Raised in the Lecture

  • Garrison & Brown push question: Is union or law worth preserving if it shelters evil?
  • Violence (Bleeding KS, Brooks–Sumner, Brown) forces public to ponder limits of moral action.
  • Southern “states’ rights” rhetoric shown to be opportunistic (e.g., Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott overruling Northern sovereignty).

Numerical & Statistical References (Quick List)

  • Homicide rates: 1.4/100{,}000 (US & Europe) vs. 9/100{,}000 (VA).
  • Kansas anti-slave vote: 11{,}812 : 1{,}926 (≈6:1).
  • Congressional homicide victims in KS guerrilla war: \sim200 by end-1856.

Connections & Significance

  • Each compromise (1820, 1850) buys only short-term peace; repeated Southern demands intensify Northern radicalization.
  • Legal milestones (Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott) show federal power wielded for, not against, slavery.
  • Political realignment (death of Whigs, birth of Republicans) crystallizes sectional identities → smoother path to two-bloc civil war.
  • John Brown’s raid + Lincoln’s election convince South that constitutional mechanisms cannot secure slavery → secession seen as only safeguard.

Reflection Prompt (as professor closed)

  • If slavery is an unequivocal evil, what forms of resistance—political, legal, violent—are justifiable?
  • How do historical actors’ answers to that question shape the path to civil war?