5.6_Failures of Slavery Compromise

All previous efforts for compromise over slavery likened to a jellyfish trying to blow up balloons for a birthday party due to their inherent ineffectiveness.
The failure of compromises is highlighted as a precursor to the Civil War.

Earlier discussed in previous content, the Compromise of 1850 aimed to settle sectional tensions concerning the expansion of slavery into the West.
By 1860, states were seceding from the Union due to unresolved issues of slavery.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 established that territories north of the 36°30' latitude line were closed to slavery while those south were open to slavery, applicable only to lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase.
Post-Mexican American War, the United States acquired additional territories where the Missouri Comprise's application was not clear.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act, introduced by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, proposed creating two new territories (Kansas and Nebraska) where inhabitants could decide on the slavery issue through popular sovereignty, thus disregarding the Missouri Compromise.
Douglas's motivation was partially driven by his desire for a transcontinental railroad to pass through Illinois, which would favor his state's economic growth through increased traffic and trade.

Practical implementation of popular sovereignty proved problematic as many questions concerning eligibility to vote, particularly concerning existing populations of slaveholders, remained unclear.
Pro-slavery and anti-slavery advocates flooded Kansas to influence the outcome, leading to chaotic and illegal voting.
An analogy is made to potential interference from foreign nationals (Canadians voting in US elections) to emphasize the disruption of the voting process.

Since the majority of Kansas residents favored entering as a free state, pro-slavery elements manipulated the system to declare it a slave state.
This scenario led to the establishment of two rival state governments: a pro-slavery government and an anti-slavery government, leading to violence.
The violent clashes termed “Bleeding Kansas” resulted in numerous deaths (50 total reported) and a protracted conflict from 1854 to 1859, signaling a grim reality for the resolution of the slavery debate through bloodshed.

Republican Senator Charles Sumner delivered a forceful speech against slavery, specifically targeting southern politicians, particularly Andrew Butler.
Preston Brooks, a relative of Butler, reacted violently by attacking Sumner in the Senate chamber, which resulted in heightened tensions.
Sumner became a martyr for the anti-slavery cause, while Brooks was celebrated by southerners, receiving support and praise within his faction—demonstrating the extreme polarization of sentiments around slavery at the time.

Landmark Supreme Court case involving Dred Scott, an enslaved man who sued for freedom based on his residence in free states (Illinois and Wisconsin).
Chief Justice Roger Taney’s ruling stated that a black man could not be a citizen and thus lacked the legal right to sue.
The ruling set a precedent declaring that slaveholder’s property rights extended into free states, effectively allowing slavery to expand into all U.S. territories, reversing the intentions of the Missouri Compromise.
Further exacerbated tensions, solidifying sectional divisions as the northern states reacted against the establishment of the Slave Power.

Before the 1850s, political parties in the U.S. included members from both the North and South.
By 1854, the formation of political factions began representing strictly sectional interests:
- Democrats concentrated in the South advocated for states’ rights and the expansion of slavery.
- The Free Soil Republicans, concentrated in the North, opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories while accepting its existence in current slave states.
Internal divisions existed within these factions, such as fears of violent radicalism among Republicans and attempts to unify southern and northern Democrats.

The sectional rift solidified political lines leading to the presidential election of 1860, setting the stage for potential civil conflict.
Reflect on the extreme partisanship of the era and its implications alongside the reflection on modern political conflicts.

View recommended videos from Unit 5 for more context and to understand how the lead-up to the Civil War unfolded.
Video note guides available for consolidating course material effectively.