America in the 1850s
Slavery, States’ Rights & Popular Sovereignty
The Approach to Civil War

The Politics of Slavery in the 1850s. Since the United States Constitution recognized and even protected the institution of slavery, it was clear to everyone at the time that to abolish slavery at the national level would require a Constitutional amendment. To obtain the necessary three-quarters majority of the states to ratify an anti-slavery amendment would have been virtually impossible. Dealing with the issue of slavery therefore had to be carried out in the context of what the Constitution said on the subject.

Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution stated:

“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

At first no federal law was invoked to enforce that article, since it was assumed that the states could handle any problems arising from it. In 1793, however, a dispute between Virginia and Pennsylvania regarding a runaway slave led to passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. The Act stated in part:

Sec. 3. And be it also enacted, That when a person held to labour in any of the United States … shall escape into any other of the said states or territory, the person to whom such labour or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labour, and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, … and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate … that the person so seized or arrested, doth, … owe service or labour to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate … which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labour, to the state or territory from which he or she fled.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, … or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, … shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars.

In 1808, in accordance with the Constitution, Congress banned the further importation of slaves to the United States. Slave trading within the United States, however, remained legal. In 1787 the Northwest Ordinance had prohibited slavery in areas covered by the act, but the restriction was not extended to other territories. (The Ordinance applied to the present-day states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin.) In 1820, however, the acquisition of Louisiana from France precipitated a crisis. The subject of slavery in that territory came to a head over the issue of the admission of the state of Missouri. The Missouri Compromise allowed the extension of slavery into certain areas and prevented it in others, which resolved the issue temporarily. The act merely postponed the crisis, however, as Jefferson and many others recognized at the time.

Although a powerful abolitionist movement began around 1830, it is doubtful that the abolitionist cause ever reached majority proportions throughout the northern states. (Neither, of course, was pro-slavery feeling in the South anywhere near unanimous.) When, as a result of the Mexican-American War, the United States added some 500,000 square miles of new territory in 1848 (over 1,000,000 counting Texas), the nation once again had to decide whether slavery was to be allowed in the new territories of the United States. Both opponents and supporters of slavery recognized that the battle over slavery was to be fought in the territories, where the results would affect the balance in the Senate and House of Representatives. Indeed, that was where it was fought.

The reemergence of the issue in the 1848 election foreshadowed the crisis which evolved and grew in the 1850s. During that election campaign the doctrine of “popular sovereignty” appeared, the idea that people in each territory ought to have the liberty to decide for themselves whether to be slave or free territory. The problem with that idea was that absent laws (such as the Northwest Ordinance) prohibiting slavery, nothing prevented slave owners from taking their “property” into the new territories. Thus, when the population became large enough for the territory to begin thinking of statehood, slavery had to be considered when the people in the territories wrote their constitutions and applied to Congress for admission.

Since approval of those state constitutions was an essential step on the road to statehood, Congress had some control over the process. So the issue became a national one and not one of states’ (or territorial) rights. The issue might have been resolved by extending the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific to cover the new territory, However, since the movement to prohibit slavery in the territories was much stronger in 1850 than it had been in 1820, politicians were not able to deal with it as readily as before.

The idea of popular sovereignty, introduced during the 1848 election, seemed a reasonable solution. After all, it was basically democratic: Why not let the people in each new territory decide for themselves whether or not they want slavery? (Of course participation in that decision was never extended to the slave population.) Second, it seemed acceptable to Americans for whom “states’ rights” was the basis for their attitude toward the federal government The two major problems with the doctrine were, first, that slaves and free blacks were excluded from the decision-making process, and second, that it ignored the concerns of Americans who hoped, as Abraham Lincoln and others did, that slavery was on its way out. If slavery was allowed to go into the territories, then the life of slavery would surely be extended.

In the end, whether it was a wise idea or not, popular sovereignty only made things worse. Some believed that you could allow slavery into the territories but prevent it "de facto" by failing to pass the legislation necessary to support it. In fact, what happened was great turmoil in places like Kansas, where the local population actually got into a civil war over slavery. But that came later. In 1850, when California was ready for admission, slavery was a federal issue. For a short time, it seemed to have been handled reasonably, when after months of debate, the 1850 Compromise was passed.

The Compromise of 1850—Trying to Save the Union

As he had so often done in the past, Henry Clay rose to offer a compromise bill. He submitted a resolution proposing that California be admitted as a free state and that the remainder of the Mexican Cession territory to be organized without mention of slavery. The issue of the Texas-New Mexico boundary, which had created a controversy, would be settled in New Mexico’s favor, but Texas would be compensated with a federal assumption of its state debt. The slave trade (but not slavery) would be abolished in Washington, D.C., and a more stringent fugitive slave law replacing the 1793 fugitive slave act would be enacted and vigorously enforced. Other minor related issues were also included.

In the weeks of Senatorial debate which preceded the enactment of the Compromise of 1850, a range of attitudes was expressed. Clay took the lead early in speaking for the resolutions he had introduced. The Great Compromiser advised the North against insisting on the terms of the Wilmot Proviso and the South against thinking seriously of disunion. South Carolina’s John Calhoun, who was dying, asked Senator James M. Mason of Virginia to read his gloomy speech for him. After explaining why the bonds of sentiment between North and South had been progressively weakened, Calhoun went on, in the section printed below, to say how he thought the Union could be saved. Three days later, he was followed by Daniel Webster, who agreed with Clay that there could be no peaceable secession. Webster’s attempt to restrain Northern extremists brought him abuse from anti-slavery men in his own section, where formerly he had been so admired. Extreme views were expressed on both sides, but the passage of the compromise measures showed that the moderate spirit of Clay and Webster was still dominant.

Here are excerpts from the 1850 Compromise debates. As much as any political debates in the nation’s history, they define the positions held by various parties to the conflict:

HENRY CLAY, February 5 and 6.

… Sir, I must take occasion here to say that in my opinion there is no right on the part of any one or more of the States to secede from the Union. War and dissolution of the Union are identical and inevitable, in my opinion. There can be a dissolution of the Union only by consent or by war. Consent no one can anticipate, from any existing state of things, is likely to be given; and war is the only alternative by which a dissolution could be accomplished. If consent were given—if it were possible that we were to be separated by one great line—in less than sixty days after such consent was given war would break out between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding portions of this Union—between the two independent parts into which it would be erected in virtue of the act of separation. In less than sixty days, I believe, our slaves from Kentucky, flocking over in numbers to the other side of the river, would be pursued by their owners. Our hot and ardent spirits would be restrained by no sense of the right which appertains to the independence of the other side of the river, should that be the line of separation. They would pursue their slaves into the adjacent free States; they would be repelled; and the consequence would be that, in less than sixty days, war would, be blazing in every part of this now happy and peaceful land.

And, sir, how are you going to separate the states of this confederacy? In my humble opinion, Mr. President, we should begin with at least three separate confederacies. There would be a confederacy of the North, a confederacy of the Southern Atlantic slaveholding States, and a confederacy of the valley of the Mississippi. … Such, I believe, would be the consequences of a dissolution of the Union, immediately ensuing; but other confederacies would spring up from time to time, as dissatisfaction and discontent were disseminated throughout the country—the confederacy of the lakes, perhaps the confederacy of New England, or of the middle States. Ah, sir, the veil which covers these sad and disastrous events that lie beyond it, is too thick to be penetrated or lifted by any mortal eye or hand. ….

Mr. President, I have said, what I solemnly believe, that dissolution of the Union and war are identical and inevitable; and they are convertible terms; and such a war as it would be, following a dissolution of the Union! Sir, we may search the pages of history, and none so ferocious, so bloody, so implacable, so exterminating—not even the wars of Greece, including those of the Commoners of England and the revolutions of France—none, none of them all would rage with such violence, or be characterized with such bloodshed and enormities as would the war which must succeed, if that ever happens, the dissolution of the Union.

John C. Calhoun, March 4.

The first question is: What is it that has endangered the Union? . . .

One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the long continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the North and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South . . .

There is another lying back of it, with which this is intimately connected, that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. That is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections in the government, as it stood when the Constitution was ratified and the government put into action, has been destroyed. … I propose … that it is owing to the action of this government that the equilibrium between the two sections has been destroyed and the whole powers of the system centered in a sectional majority.

The next [cause] is the system of revenue and disbursements which his been adopted by the government. It is well known that the government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting states, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue because . . . the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. …

It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected by a single blow. …Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through a long process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped, until the whole fabric falls asunder. Already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the most important and has greatly weakened all the others. . . .

Having now, senators, explained what it is that endangers the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, the question again recurs: How can the Union be saved? To this I answer there is but one way by which it can be; and that is by adopting such measures as will satisfy the states belonging to the Southern section that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. … But, before I undertake to answer this question, I propose to show by what the Union cannot be saved.

It cannot, then be saved by eulogies on the Union, however splendid or numerous. The cry of "Union, union, the glorious Union!" can no more prevent disunion than the cry of "Health, health, glorious health!" on the part of the physician can save a patient lying dangerously ill. So long as the Union, instead of being regarded as a protector, is regarded in the opposite character, by not much more than a majority of the States, it will be in vain to attempt to conciliate them by pronouncing eulogies upon it.

The plan of the administration cannot save the Union, because it can have no effect whatever toward satisfying the states composing the Southern section of the Union that they can, consistently with safety and honor, remain in the Union. …

Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I return to the question with which I commenced: How can the Union be saved? There is but one way by which it can with any certainty, and that is by a full and final settlement on the principle of justice of all the questions at issue between the two sections. The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer but the Constitution, and no concession or surrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she has little left to surrender. Such a settlement would go to the root of the evil and remove all cause of discontent by satisfying the South that she could remain honorably and safely in the Union; and thereby restore the harmony and fraternal feelings between the sections which existed anterior to the Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and forever settle the questions at issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union.

Daniel Webster, March 7.

MR. PRESIDENT, I WISH TO SPEAK TODAY, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American and a member of the Senate of the United States. . . . I have a part to act, not for my own security or safety, for I am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away from the wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the whole and the preservation of the whole; and there is that which will keep me to my duty during this struggle, whether the sun and the stars shall appear or shall not appear, for many days. I speak today for the preservation of the Union. "Hear me for my cause." I speak today out of a solicitous and anxious heart for the restoration to the country of that quiet and that harmony which make the blessings of this Union so rich and so dear to us all. . . .

I put it to all the sober and sound minds at the North as a question of morals and a question of conscience: What right have they, in all their legislative capacity, or any other, to endeavor to get round this Constitution, to embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured by the Constitution, to the persons whose slaves escape from them? None at all—none at all. Neither in the forum of conscience nor before the face of the Constitution are they justified in any opinion. Of course, it is a matter for their consideration. They probably, in the turmoil of the times, have not stopped to consider of this; they have followed what seemed to be the current of thought and of motives as the occasion arose, and neglected to investigate fully the real question, and to consider their constitutional obligations, as I am sure, if they did consider, they would fulfill them with alacrity.

Therefore, I repeat, sir, that here is a ground of complaint against the North, well founded, which ought to be removed;…

… Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish—I beg everybody's pardon—as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees these states, now revolving in harmony around a common center, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres and jostle against each other in the realms of space without producing the crush of the universe. There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility.

Is the great Constitution under which we live here—covering this whole country—is it to be thawed and melted away by secession as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun—disappear almost unobserved and die off? No, sir! No, sir! I will not state what might produce the disruption of the states; but, sir, I see it as plainly as I see the sun in heaven—I see that disruption must produce such a war as I will not describe, in its twofold characters.

Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is the line to be drawn? What states are to secede? What is to remain American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Where is the flag of the republic to remain? Where is the eagle still to tower? Or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the ground? Why, sit, our ancestors—our fathers, and our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living among us with prolonged lives—would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out, Shame upon us! if we of this generation should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of the Union, which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. … And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in these caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and union…

William H. Seward: A Higher Law than the Constitution. March 11.

Senator William H. Seward of New York represented the more radical anti-slavery position that made him the favorite of abolitionists. Although his views would help prevent him from gaining the Republican nomination for president in 1860, he did become Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, a position he held through the administration of Andrew Johnson following Lincoln’s assassination. (William Seward is perhaps best known for the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, known at the time as “Seward’s folly.”) Seward argued:

1…It is insisted that the admission of California shall be attended by a compromise of questions which have arisen out of slavery. I AM OPPOSED TO ANY SUCH COMPROMISE, IN ANY AND ALL THE FORMS IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, because, while admitting the purity and the patriotism of all from whom it is my misfortune to differ, I think all legislative compromises radically wrong and essentially vicious. They involve the surrender of the exercise of judgment and conscience on distinct and separate questions, at distinct, and separate times, with the indispensable advantages it affords for ascertaining truth. They involve a relinquishment of the right to reconsider in future the decisions of the present on questions prematurely anticipated; and they are a usurpation as to future questions of the province of future legislators. …

… There is another aspect of the principle of compromise which deserves consideration. It assumes that slavery, if not the only institution in a slave state, is at least a ruling institution, and that this characteristic is recognized by the Constitution. But slavery is only one of many institutions there - freedom is equally an institution there. Slavery is only a temporary, accidental, partial, and incongruous one; freedom, on the contrary, is a perpetual, organic, universal one, in harmony with the Constitution of the United States. The slaveholder himself stands under the protection of the latter, in common with all the free citizens of the state; but it is, moreover, an indispensable institution. You may separate slavery from South Carolina, and the state will still remain; but if you subvert freedom there, the state will cease to exist.

But there is yet another aspect in which this principle must be examined. It regards the domain only as a possession, to be enjoyed either in common or by partition by the citizens of the old states. It is true, in. deed, that the national domain is ours; it is true, it was acquired by the valor and with the wealth of the whole nation; but we hold, nevertheless, no arbitrary power over it. We hold no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare, and to liberty.

But there is a higher law than the Constitution which regulates our authority over the domain and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part—no inconsiderable part—of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe. We are His stewards and must so discharge our trust as to secure, in the highest attainable degree, their happiness. . . .

… And now the simple, bold, and even awful question which presents itself to us is this: Shall we, who are founding institutions, social and political, for countless millions—shall we, who know by experience the wise and the just, and are free to choose them, and to reject the erroneous and unjust shall we establish human bondage, or permit it, by our sufferance, to be established? Sir, our forefathers would not have hesitated an hour. They found slavery existing here, and they left it only because they could not remove it. There is not only no free state which would now establish it but there is no slave state which, if it had had the free alternative as we now have, would have founded slavery. … I confess that the most alarming evidence of our degeneracy which has yet been given is found in the fact that we even debate such a question.

Sir, there is no Christian nation, thus free to choose as we are, which would establish slavery. I speak on due consideration, because Britain, France, and Mexico have abolished slavery, and all other European states are preparing to abolish it as speedily as they can. We cannot establish slavery, because there are certain elements of the security, welfare, and greatness of nations, which we all admit, or ought to admit, and recognize as essential; and these are the security of natural rights, the diffusion of knowledge, and the freedom of industry. Slavery is incompatible with all of these, and just in proportion to the extent that it prevails and controls in any republican state, just to that extent it subverts the principle of democracy and converts the state into an aristocracy or a despotism. …

(See longer excerpts from the 1850 Compromise debates.)

The debate in Congress was long and tortured, and for a time the cause seemed hopeless. Those 1850 debates were the last great Calhoun, Clay and Webster show, though all three were past their prime and not far from death. John C. Calhoun died in March, 1850. Upon President Taylor’s death, Daniel Webster was called by President Fillmore to return to the post of Secretary of State. Henry Clay and Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois sought to break the impasse. They divided the compromise into separate bills, which allowed members to vote for what they liked and against what they did not like. By so doing, Clay and Douglas brought the seven-month-long debate to a successful conclusion. Congress adopted each of Clay's major proposals as separate measures with only minor alterations.

The Compromise admitted California as a free state, organized the territories of New Mexico and Utah on the basis of popular sovereignty, and retracted the Texas border with New Mexico in return for federal assumption of the Texas debt. It also abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia. The most controversial provision created a strong Fugitive Slave Law to replace the 1793 act. The act denied suspected runaways the right of self-defense, and required Northerners, in effect, to help enforce slavery. The South accepted the Compromise of 1850 as conclusive and backed away from threats of secession. In the North, the Democratic Party gained popularity by taking credit for the compromise, and the Whigs found it necessary to cease their criticism of it.

For the moment, the Compromise of 1850 preserved the Union, and passage of the compromise led to euphoric celebrations of fireworks and bell-ringing throughout the North, but the victory did not last long. Instead of being a “final solution”—to all except northern radical abolitionists—the so-called compromise was never fully accepted by either party; people on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line opposed at least part of it.

Trouble with the compromise centered on the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, which struck fear in the hearts of northern blacks and encouraged more Southerners to try to recover escaped slaves. Northern abolitionists often interfered with the enforcement of the law, and such efforts exacerbated sectional feelings. The sight of blacks being carried off to slavery outraged Northerners, and Southerners resented the Northerners’ refusal to obey the law. Ironically, the traditional position of states’ rights attributed to Southerners now cut the other way, as it was Northern states that sought to nullify a federal statute. Some states passed personal liberty laws to protect free blacks, but the Fugitive Slave Law forced many Northerners to experience the heartlessness of slavery first hand. In a number of instances, resistance to the law led to violence.

Christiana, Pennsylvania, lies about 20 miles north of the Mason-Dixon line. In September, 1851, Edward Gorsuch, a Maryland slave owner, obtained warrants under the new law to search for four escaped slaves who had run away to Pennsylvania. They were being sheltered by William Parker, a free black farmer who lived in Christiana and belonged to a group known for protecting runaway slaves. When Gorsuch and his search party arrived at the Parker farm, they met with resistance. Arguments broke out and shots were fired. Gorsuch was killed and others were wounded. News of the event, which became known as the Christiana riot, spread far and wide, and Christiana became known as the place where the Civil War began. (See Thomas P. Slaughter, Bloody Dawn: The Christiana Riot and Racial Violence in the Antebellum North, New York, 1991.)

Significance of the 1850 Compromise. The compromise marked the transition from the second generation of great political leaders to those who would guide the nation as the Civil War approached. Henry Clay, back in the Senate, helped negotiate the settlement. The dying John Calhoun foresaw the eventual breakup of the Union, as did Daniel Webster. John Mason of Virginia, who delivered Calhoun’s speech, was the grandson of George Mason. The slavery issue became focused on its extension into new territories. Senator William Seward represents the abolitionist view of a “higher law” than that Constitution, which bound him to oppose slavery’s expansion. Senator Douglas’s division of the issue into five separate bills allowed everybody to vote against part of it. Each part passes, including the Fugitive Slave Act that compelled Northerners to cooperate in the identification, capture, and return of runaway slaves. The Compromise of 1850 preserved the Union once more, but practically as soon as the ink was dry, the troubles began again.

The Rise of Stephen Douglas. On the grounds of the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield stand three statues: Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, and Everett Dirksen. Abraham Lincoln needs no further introduction—after all, his likeness is on 2Mount Rushmore as well. Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen served in the House and Senate from 1932 until his death in 1969. A Republican, he was nevertheless a strong supporter of Democrat Lyndon Johnson and worked for civil rights legislation.

Stephen Arnold Douglas, less well known today, was the dominant political figure of the 1850s. Known throughout his life as Judge Douglas because of a service on the Illinois Supreme Court, he was a powerful leader in United States Senate from 1847 to 1861. As noted above, he became prominent in 1850 for engineering passage of the 1850 Compromise. Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster and William Seward had debated the issues for months, but the compromise bills were not passed until Douglas took over management of the legislation.

As chairman of the powerful Senate transportation committee, Douglas worked hard to settle territorial issues so that the first transcontinental road could be built. Hoping to have the eastern terminus in his home state of Illinois, he engineered the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which turned out to be an extremely controversial piece of legislation. Douglas had a strong ambition to become president of the United States. In what he saw a as a step in that direction, he defeated Abraham Lincoln for the Illinois Senate in 1858. The contest included the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates, the most famous political debates in American history. He was also the Democratic nominee for president in 1860. (See below.)

Political Upheaval, 1852–1856

ecause of the publicity surrounding the 1850 Compromise debates and the subsequent attempts to retrieve runaway slaves, politics of the 1850s became dominated by the slavery issue. In the 1852 election the Whigs nominated General Winfield Scott, a fine soldier whose service went back to the War of 1812. Although victorious in Mexico, he was a poor political candidate. As the Whigs were divided over slavery in any case, Scott’s loss to dark horse Democratic candidate Franklin Pierce doomed the party to extinction. It ceased to exist as a political force after 1852.

Many of the old Whigs formed the nucleus of the new Republican Party, which emerged in 1854. A strong free-soil movement (people opposed to slavery in the territories) still existed. They would eventually migrate to the Republicans, who would endorse their basic premise in the elections of 1856 and 1860. (More about the Republican Party below.)

The South divided into several different political camps. The most radical of the groups were the secessionists, a pro-slavery faction who feared that the abolitionist cause might eventually lead to the overthrow of the institution. Through the 1850s and leading up to the beginning of the Civil War, the radicals tended to dominate Southern politics. At the opposite end of the spectrum were the “Ultra-Unionists,” who opposed secession under any circumstances. In the center were the “conditional Unionists,” or moderates, who were disposed to remain with the Union but not at all costs. Because of what became known as the “slave power conspiracy,” the secessionists ultimately triumphed in 1861.

Democrat Franklin Pierce, was a colorless, uninteresting president known as a “doughface,” a Northerner who was sympathetic to Southern positions on such things as states’ rights and slavery. In his inaugural address, while extolling the virtues of the Union, he also pledged to support the rights of the Southern states:

If the Federal Government will confine itself to the exercise of powers clearly granted by the Constitution, it can hardly happen that its action upon any question should endanger the institutions of the States or interfere with their right to manage matters strictly domestic according to the will of their own people.

An Appeal to Nativism: The Know-Nothing Episode

(“Nativism” refers to an attitude of antipathy toward newcomers. During the 1800s, Nativist feelings were directed toward Irish and German immigrants. Later in the century, other ethnic groups were met with similar hostility. Today, much Nativist sentiment is focused on illegal immigrants, generally of Hispanic origin.)

As the Whigs collapsed, a new party, the Know-Nothings, or American Party, gained in popularity. (The name came from the fact that members of the party, a semi-secret organization, were told to respond to queries about their activities with “I know nothing.”) Originally known as the Native American Party, the Know-Nothing party especially appealed to evangelical Protestants, who objected to the millions of Catholics immigrating to America. By the 1850s, the Know-Nothings also picked up support from former Whigs and Democrats disgusted with “politics as usual.” In 1854, the American party suddenly took political control of Massachusetts and spread rapidly across the nation. In less than two years, the Know-Nothings collapsed for reasons that are still obscure. Inexperienced leaders, a lack of cohesion, and a failure to address the nation's major problems certainly contributed to their demise. Most probably, Northerners worried less about immigration as it slowed down, and turned their attention to the slavery issue.

The “Young America” Spirit

Foreign affairs offered a distraction from the growing sectional hostility. In 1848 a series of revolutions swept across Europe, and informed Americans saw it as another manifestation of the revolutionary spirit that had begun in America in 1776. Americans sympathized with European attempts to overthrow autocratic governments, and some felt that the United States ought to extend itself further into new territories in the Western Hemisphere—the idea of manifest destiny was alive and well. A movement within the Democratic Party became known as “Young America.” Its adherents supported the idea of worldwide republican revolutions based on the American model. They also believed that focusing on foreign matters might draw attention away from the controversy over slavery, a vain hope as it turned out.

 In 1854 the American minister in Spain, Pierre Soulé, offered to purchase Cuba but was rebuffed by the Spanish government. Soulé was instructed to meet in Ostend, Belgium, with two other American ambassadors, James Buchanan, the U.S. Minister to Great Britain and John Y. Mason, Ambassador to France. The resulting “Ostend Manifesto” was a statement of intent to wrest Cuba from Spain by whatever means were necessary. This move aroused opposition both in the North, where it was viewed as an attempt to expand the slave territory into the Caribbean, and in Spain. James Buchanan’s support for the manifesto gained him favor in the South and helped him get elected president in 1856.

he new territory on the West Coast renewed enthusiasm for improving communications with the Far East and passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In 1850 the United States signed the Clayton Bulwer Treaty with Great Britain concerning rights to build a canal across the narrow isthmus between Central and South America. The British had been interested in the same region for some time. To ensure the neutrality of the canal and to keep it open to both nations on an equal basis, the two nations agreed in the treaty not to claim exclusive control over a canal between the Atlantic and Pacific, nor to fortify it.

The United States sought to further trade relations with Asia by sending an expedition commanded by Commodore Matthew C. Perry to Japan in 1854. The ostensible purpose was to deal with the issue of shipwrecked American sailors who were detained in Japan. President Fillmore sent a message to the Japanese emperor and presented gifts to Japanese authorities. The result was the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, which opened ports to American ships and addressed the issue of American seamen. Additional ports were opened by later treaties, and at about the same time new agreements were reached to enhance American trade opportunities in China. America’s complex relationships with Asian nations were advancing.

The Fugitive Slave Act and Uncle Tom's Cabin

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 led, among other things, to the writing of what can be called the most influential work of fiction in American history: Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. The novel’s power comes from its portrayal of slaves as human beings. Even though Stowe had spent practically no time in the South, she had frequent contact with former slaves through her friendship with members of the abolitionist movement, of which her father, Lyman Beecher, was an important leader. She also had in her household an African-American woman who had been a slave.

Even though the book’s characters—Tom, Eliza, Cassy, Little Eva, Augustine St. Clare, Simon Legree and the others—do not come across as completely realistic, (this was the Romantic era, after all) they have sufficient human qualities and are drawn richly enough that they present the full range of human emotions. The emotions felt by the players can easily be understood. Though the book is not always accurate on slavery in its details, the impact of the work in the north was immediate and strong; the reaction in the South was predictably negative, and publication of the book heightened national tension. By 1857 the work had sold an astounding two million copies and was translated into many languages. It was praised by Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy.

Regardless of its romanticism, the novel presented the evils of slavery—its corrupting effect on whites and the pain it brought to African-Americans. Most noteworthy is that fact that as a white woman, Stowe nevertheless depicted the slaves as people. Her female characters were also strongly drawn, a fact noted by later feminist critics. Legends arose around her: when President Abraham Lincoln met Mrs. Stowe, he is supposed to have said, “So you’re the little lady who wrote the book that started this big war.” Whether true or not, the remark reflects the huge impact the book had on the slavery debate.
(The Showtime Film Uncle Tom's Cabin with Avery Brooks, Bruce Dern, Felicia Rashad, Samuel L. Jackson and Edward Woodward is worth seeing—a brief but faithful rendition of Mrs. Stowe's novel.)

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854: A Giant Step on the Road to War

Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas hoped to become president of the United States. Toward that end, from his powerful position as chairman of the Senate transportation committee he decided to begin to organize the territory to the west of Missouri so as to enable the building of the first transcontinental railroad. He wanted the eastern terminus to be in Illinois in the hope that the benefits to commerce would have the same kind of effect on Chicago that the Erie Canal had on New York. In 1854 he brought forth an act organizing the territories of Kansas and Nebraska on the basis of popular sovereignty.

As a Democrat Douglas was aware that to have any chance of winning the White House, he would need Southern support. Southerners were unhappy with the proposed legislation. They wanted a  Southern route for the railroad, and because the Nebraska Territory was north of the Missouri Compromise line, it was off-limits to slavery. Douglas proposed to solve that issue by organizing the territory on the basis of popular sovereignty, so he inserted into the act a provision for the specific repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

When the bill passed, many in the North were outraged by repeal of what was regarded as a sacred pledge—the prohibition of slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line. Passage of the act contributed to the final demise of the Whig party as its members disagreed on whether or not to support the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Many Northern Democrats also left the party because of the Nebraska bill. Some of those anti-Nebraska Democrats migrated to the new Republican Party which formed in 1854. In the congressional elections of that year the Democrats lost heavily in the North and became virtually the only political party in the South.

Although the 1850 Compromise might have delayed the inevitable slide towards secession and war, Douglas’s Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 very likely speeded up the process. Douglas’s biographers point out that although he was personally opposed to the institution of slavery, as an ambitious politician he was obliged to avoid any action which might alienate him from the South. Thus he adopted the doctrine of “popular sovereignty,” hoping to attract the South without alienating the North. In other words, Douglas tried to have it both ways by taking a stance that would alienate neither side. In the end, that strategy failed him, as the breakup of the Democratic Party in 1860 helped elect Abraham Lincoln.

The repeal of the Compromise of 1820 soon led to the “Appeal of the Independent Democrats”:

We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves.

“Bleeding Kansas.” It has been claimed that the Kansas-Nebraska act was the greatest single step on the road to the Civil War. That claim is borne out by what occurred in Kansas once the act went into effect. Settlers moving into Kansas, beec herespecially anti-slavery settlers from the Northeast, were often threatened with violence. Travelers were met at the border by rifle-toting Missourians who suggested that Kansas might not be “safe” territory and strongly urged them to turn around. When word got back to abolitionist leaders in New England, they responded in kind. Pro-abolitionist northerners armed with rifles—“Beecher’s Bibles”—began to clash with “border ruffians” from Missouri. 

Before long a mini-Civil War had broken out, where competing governments, one “legal” and one legitimate, vied for control. John Brown and his followers carried out what became known as the “Pottawatomie Massacre,” in which five slave owners were murdered. The Governor received federal troops, but many were killed and much property was destroyed. In Congress Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner’s “Crime Against Kansas” speech led to his being severely beaten by a Southern Congressman, Preston Brooks, on the grounds that Southern honor had been offended. Brooks resigned but was later reelected to Congress. Sumner was incapacitated for months.

Kansas and the Rise of the Republicans

Formed in protest of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Republican party took root in Ripon, Wisconsin, in February, 1854. Emerging as a coalition of former Whigs, Know-Nothings, Free-Soilers, and disenchanted Democrats, the party adopted a firm position opposing any further extension of slavery. They rejected further compromise with slavery, emphasized the sectional struggle and appealed to northern voters. The party found its identity in 1856 with the nomination of John Frémont as its candidate for president. Election fraud and violence in Kansas discredited the principle of popular sovereignty and strengthened Republican appeal in the North.

Events in Kansas helped the Republicans. Abolitionists and pro-slavery forces raced into the territory to gain control of the territorial legislature. Proslavery forces won and passed laws that made it illegal even to criticize the institution of slavery. Very soon, however, those who favored free soil became the majority and set up a rival government. President Pierce recognized the proslavery legislature, while the Republicans attacked it as the tyrannical instrument of a minority. The fighting that broke out helped Republicans win more Northern voters.

Republican Party Positions on National Issues:

Opponents called party members “Black Republicans,” “Puritans” (interfering meddlers) etc., and believed them to be acquisitive, given to “sharp practice” (shady business dealings), and hypocritical.

The Election of 1856

The election of 1856 was the first election in which the Republican Party fielded a candidate, John C. Frémont, known as “the Pathfinder” because of his explorations in the West. Composed heavily of former “Conscience Whigs,” anti-Nebraska Democrats and old Free Soil party members, the party adopted a motto of “free speech, free soil, free labor, free men, Frémont.” They criticized repeal of the Missouri Compromise and opposed extension of slavery into the territories.

The Democratic candidate, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, was nominated in part because he had been out of the country during the Kansas-Nebraska episode and thus had not taken a position on it. Republicans labeled Buchanan a “doughface”—a northerner with  Southern principles like Franklin Pierce, and Buchanan in turn portrayed the Republican Party as a sectional party opposed to many of the positions taken by Southerners. The Democrats supported the Kansas-Nebraska act and affirmed the 1850 Compromise. Their vice presidential candidate was John C. Breckenridge.
The American Party, whose primary position was that of anti-immigration, nominated former President Millard Fillmore, who won a significant percentage of the vote.

James Buchanan won the election, and national harmony was temporarily maintained. Southern attacks on Frémont were vicious, even though Frémont had been born in Savannah. Southern firebrands threatened secession if Frémont were elected. The young Republican Party showed surprising strength, however, carrying many states in the North, which looked promising for its future. With the addition of as few as two more states in the North, they saw themselves possible victors in 1860. Although Buchanan was sympathetic to  Southern causes, as the country drifted further towards disunion, he became more of a Unionist himself.

The House Dividing, 1857-1860: The Rise of Abraham Lincoln

3The rise of Abraham Lincoln reflects one of the myths of American history: that it is possible for a person to rise from the humblest of origins to the highest office in the land. That myth is rooted in considerable truth, for a number of American presidents have come from very modest backgrounds. On the other hand, that Lincoln would become president of the United States was somewhat unlikely in that in addition to his humble beginnings, Lincoln also suffered numerous failures in the course of his political life. He managed to overcome them, however, for which the nation can be grateful.

Despite the negative influences that might have prevented Abraham Lincoln from succeeding in life, he possessed many qualities that were bound to lead him upwards. Lincoln was a humble man who always understood his place in the scheme of things. He had a brilliant mind—he was a fine constitutional lawyer, an eloquent speaker, a more than competent historian, and a sensitive man who seldom held grudges or wished ill to others, even when they might have deserved it. He was a working man—the “rail splitter” who was not afraid to pick up a shovel or an axe when there was work to be done. He could be tough when necessary, but was never petty or mean. He was a kind and gentle man, a good husband and father, and on top of everything else he had a well-developed if somewhat earthy sense of humor.

Lincoln arrived on the national political scene in 1846, when he was elected to Congress. A political Whig, he opposed Democratic president James K. Polk's Mexican-American War. Polk’s justification for his incursion into Mexico was his claim that American blood had been shed on American soil. Lincoln introduced what were known as his “spot resolutions,” demanding to know from the president the exact spot on which blood had been shed; for American blood being shed on American soil was one thing, but American blood being shed on Mexican soil was something else. In the end the Mexican War was seen as a success, and Lincoln retired to Illinois with no chance of reelection.

Lincoln and Nebraska

The Nebraska Act, discussed above, was a major turning point in the evolution toward civil war, and it provided an opportunity for Abraham Lincoln to advance against his fellow politician from Illinois, Stephen A. Douglas.

As the remnants of the old Whig party sought to find a home, they were joined by disaffected Democrats upset by the implications of Kansas-Nebraska. The feature of the act that distressed them most highly was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which many saw as a “gross violation of the sacred pledge.” Anti-Nebraska Democrats, as they became known, along with “conscience” Whigs and former supporters of the Liberty and Free Soil Parties joined together in 1854 to form the Republican Party.

As a Whig, Abraham Lincoln migrated naturally to the Republican Party and soon became recognized as one of its leaders. Although he was unsuccessful in his attempts to gain a Senate seat in 1854 or the vice presidential nomination in 1856, he nevertheless made friends within the party and positioned himself to challenge Stephen Douglas in the senatorial election in Illinois in 1848. Because Kansas-Nebraska caused so much discontent among Americans concerned about the extension of slavery into the territories, it propelled Abraham Lincoln's career forward.

In 1858, in one of the most famous senatorial races ever, Lincoln debated the powerful Senator Stephen A. Douglas in seven lengthy meetings, only to lose the election. Since the debates were published in newspapers throughout the country, however, Lincoln became known far beyond the borders of Illinois and earned the nomination for president in 1860.

Lincoln's political philosophy can best be understood from his own life experiences and writings. As a young man he traveled down the Mississippi on a raft with a friend, and all along the way he observed the institution of slavery along the river banks where he rested on his trip to New Orleans. He soon came to see slavery as wrong, and fragments from his writings indicate that his opposition to slavery came early. Like most Americans of his time, however, Lincoln did not believe in full racial equality. As he said in his debates with Judge Douglas, he believed that every man had the right to work in freedom.

As a lawyer familiar with the Constitution, Lincoln fully understood the difficulties in trying to end slavery where it already existed, but he vigorously opposed its expansion beyond the existing slave states. He argued against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, he argued against the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case (see below), and he argued that the government had the full right to prevent the spread of slavery into the territories. In has famous speech at the Cooper Union in New York in 1860 he laid out his position and attitudes toward slavery in great detail, even as he revealed his deep understanding of the situation created when slavery was recognized in the Constitution.

Lincoln assumed office during the worst crisis in American history. He was, in some ways, unprepared for the job; for example, he knew little of military strategy or tactics, and he had no experience in foreign policy, save his brief involvement with the causes of the Mexican War while he was in Congress. Lincoln was a quick study, however, and he was humble enough to recognize his shortcomings and to work to overcome them. He weighed and took  advice from any source he found credible. He was a brilliant politician who did not hesitate to surround himself with powerful men who sometimes opposed his policies. He also proved to be a brilliant leader and manager even as he modestly refrained from asserting his authority just for the sake of showing that he had it. He knew when to pick a fight and when to back down. Above all, he was willing to do whatever it might take to save the Union he loved so dearly, even though the cost was immense.

The Dred Scott Decision: The Court Takes a Stand

In the late 1840s a slave named Dred Scott who had been passed from a former owner to relatives upon the owner's death, was beaten by his new master. Scott tried to have the man arrested for assault, on the grounds that he (Scott) was no longer a slave since he had lived in free territory. The case became famous—for some infamous—and the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave and that African Americans (whether slave or free) had no rights as citizens under the Constitution.

It is the opinion of this historian that while the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford is offensive to our sensibilities, the real problem lay in the Constitution. What the court said was that a document which purported to extend civil rights to citizens, but which at the same time acknowledged the enslavement of a segment of the population, could not possibly have intended for those rights to be extended to those who were enslaved. It can be argued that when you protect slavery in the Constitution, you are just asking for trouble down the road, as George Mason and others predicted at the time. Since Dred Scott was not a citizen, he could not sue, and there was no case before the court. The Court would have done well to shut up at that point, but it went further, declaring that the Missouri Compromise had been unconstitutional and denying that Congress had any power to prohibit slavery in the territories. In fact, however, the Court helped clarify the issue by pointing out, (as Lincoln said a year later) that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Dred Scott highlighted the difficulty of allowing slavery and freedom to co-exist under the same Constitution.

The Dred Scott Case posed three questions:

The decision was clearly a Southern victory; Northern abolitionists charged that there was a “slave power conspiracy,” and rekindled their efforts to oppose slavery. The case clearly made things worse, but again, only hastened a crisis that was bound to blow up anyway. The Republican fallback position was that since the Court said that Scott was not a citizen, no case had legally been before the court. Therefore, all but that part of the decision was irrelevant and had no force; thus the case accomplished nothing.

In fact, what the Court really said was that since a person could not be deprived of property without due process of law, and crossing a state boundary did not constitute due process by any means, that a slave owner could take his slaves anywhere in the country without fear of losing them. For all practical purposes, then, the decision made slavery legal everywhere.

1857 Lecompton Constitution

Troubles in Kansas persisted into Buchanan’s term. The territory had two governments, one legal but fraudulent, the other one representative but illegal. Governor Geary, appointed by President Pierce, tried to steer nonpartisan course but was unable to govern effectively. He was succeeded by President Buchanan’s appointee, Robert J. Walker of Mississippi. A pro-slavery convention met in Lecompton to write a constitution for the territory, but the meeting was unrepresentative of territorial residents. The proposed constitution was submitted to the people for a vote. But since the could only vote for the constitution “with or without slavery,” they did not have the option to reject it altogether. The “with” vote won, and President Buchanan submitted the Lecompton Constitution to Congress and recommended that Kansas come in as slave state. Stephen Douglas revolted against the President, calling the questionable constitutional vote a violation of popular sovereignty. Although the Senate voted to admit Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution, it was later put to the voters again. They rejected it by a wide margin, and thus Kansas remained a territory. Violence continued into 1858. In 1861 Kansas entered the Union as a free state under the Wyandotte Constitution as the “most Republican state in the Union.”

Douglas’s opposition shattered the Democratic Party when he broke with Buchanan over the issue. He also made himself unpopular in the South by doing so, further undermining his chance for the presidency.

Lincoln and Douglas: Debating the Morality Of Slavery

On June 16, 1858, Abraham Lincoln accepted the Republican nomination for Senate from Illinois. Having failed to get reelected to Congress in 1848, the nomination for the United States Senate in 1854 or the nomination for vice president in 1856, it might well have appeared that Lincoln’s political career was over. In fact, it was just beginning, although he lost this race as well. In his acceptance speech for the nomination he said:

‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Lincoln was in effect reflecting at least one idea of the Dred Scott decision, that if slavery existed anywhere, in effect it existed everywhere. The debates between the two men were lengthy—each lasting a matter of hours. Both men opposed the expansion of slavery, and neither was an abolitionist. Both believed slavery was a wasteful labor system, and both believed blacks were inferior to whites. But they differed sharply on the details.

Douglas began the debates with a sharp attack on Lincoln on the issue of slavery. Indeed, although other issues were mentioned during the seven debates, the issue of slavery occupied the vast majority of the time in which they spoke. Asserting that slaves could never be the equal of whites even if freed, Douglas said,

I believe this Government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races.

He claimed that Lincoln’s desire was to remove slavery and eventually allow equality among the races.

Lincoln responded quickly and directly:

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

Thus Lincoln is thus revealed as a racist, and his position would be absolutely unacceptable to us in the 21st century. But Lincoln did not live in the 21st century, and at the time in which he was living, it is safe to say that the vast majority of Americans, especially those residing in Illinois, would have agreed with him. But he made his position on slavery clear, and would reiterate that position on a number of occasions in the coming months and years, including his inaugural address as president in 1861.

During the second debate in Freeport, Illinois, Douglas announced what became known as his “Freeport Doctrine.” He said:

… that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature, and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst.

In other words, Douglas suggested that the territories could discourage slaveholders from moving in by failing to provide the legislation necessary for slavery to exist. Coupled with his stand against the Lecompton constitution, Douglas’s Freeport Doctrine guaranteed loss of  Southern support for his presidential bid.

The two men went at each other five more times before the October elections to the state legislature, in which the most important issue was whom the legislature would elect as Senator from Illinois. Douglas made points against Lincoln’s “house divided” by asserting that the nation had survived quite well since the Revolution although divided, and in the end he won the Senatorial contest. But the wide dissemination of the debates, which were published practically verbatim in newspapers across the country, made Lincoln a national instead of a local figure, which set up his nomination for president in 1860. (See further excerpts from the Lincoln-Douglas debates.)

The Court speaks again. In 1859 the issue of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 came before the Supreme Court in the case of Abelman v. Booth. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had freed an abolitionist convicted of violating the federal law and the case was appealed. The essence of the issue was states’ rights, and the court unanimously decided that federal law overrode state law, a principle first established by John Marshall. A number of northern states had passed, on moral grounds, personal liberty laws whose purpose was to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The court ruled such laws unconstitutional.

John Brown’s Raid. John Brown was an American abolitionist who was in Kansas during the tumultuous first years following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, along with several of his sons and other relatives. As the violence escalated between pro- and anti-slavery people, Brown and his men killed five pro-slavery settlers in a brutal nighttime attack that became known as the Pottawatomie Massacre. Although Brown’s actual actions have been debated, he was present and approved of the killings.

Several years later, in 1859, Brown organized a raid on the federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry, Virginia, apparently intending to foment a slave rebellion. Although Brown got little if any support from abolitionist groups, he nevertheless proceeded with his plan. (The western portion of Virginia broke from the rest of the state in 1863. Harpers Ferry is now in West Virginia.) Although the arsenal was located in Virginia, state authorities preferred to have the federal government deal with the matter. At Army headquarters Colonel Robert E. Lee, home on leave from his post in Texas, was directed to proceed to Harpers Ferry, along with Marines from the Washington barracks. Hearing of the operation, Lt. Jeb Stuart volunteered to accompany Lee and the Marines. Stuart was directed to deliver an ultimatum to Brown to surrender. When he saw Brown's face, Stuart recognized him, as he had been in Kansas at the time of the Pottawatomie Massacre. When Brown refused to accept terms, Marines stormed the arsenal and Brown was captured.

Tried for treason, Brown was quickly found guilty. When asked if he had any final comments, Brown made a very moving speech in which he defended his actions even while acknowledging that justice had been served. Claiming that the Bible urged him to align himself with “God’s despised poor,” he declared his actions right, not wrong. As to his imminent execution he said, “I submit; so let it be done!”

In the South, Brown's actions, like the 1851 events in Christiana, Pennsylvania, were held up as an example of the lengths to which abolitionists would go to interfere with their right to own slaves. In the North, John Brown was portrayed as a martyr for freedom and justice, a response which further infuriated the South. Coming when it did on the eve of the election of 1860, the John Brown Harpers Ferry episode pushed the division between North and  South to the breaking point. (See John Brown’s final speech to the court. An early version of what became “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” included the lines: “John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, but his soul is marching on." And "He's gone to be a soldier in the army of the Lord, but his soul is marching on." )

The Election of 1860 and the Secession Crisis

When the Democrats convened to nominate their candidate in 1860, Stephen Douglas was a clear favorite among Northern men, but he had alienated the  Southern wing of the party by refusing to vigorously support slavery. At their first convention in Charleston, South Carolina, some Southerners walked out over a platform dispute, and the convention could not agree on a nominee. Meeting later for a second time in Baltimore, Southerners again bolted and the convention nominated Stephen Douglas.

In 1860, as a Democrat, Douglas found himself in a difficult place. The Democratic Party dominated the South, and Douglas had alienated many Southern Democratic slaveholders. In their opinion he was not a strong enough advocate of the extension of slavery into the territories, a move which Abraham Lincoln strongly opposed. Thus in 1860 the Democratic Party split, with the Northern Democrats nominating Douglas for president, and the Southern component of the party nominating John C. Breckenridge. Abraham Lincoln, of course, was the Republican candidate.

The  Southern wing reconvened and nominated John C. Breckenridge and demanded federal protection for the ownership of slaves in the territories. A fourth party, the Constitutional Union party, nominated John Bell of Tennessee.

The Republican Party, meeting in Chicago, nominated Abraham Lincoln on a free-soil position and a broad economic platform. The nominating process centered on several strong candidates. New York Governor William Seward, the pre-convention favorite, was too radical—too close to being an out-and-out abolitionist. As a senator and governor of New York, he had had time to make enemies. Salmon P. Chase of Ohio was also considered too radical. Edward Bates of Missouri was too weak on the slavery issue. Senator Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania had little support outside his own state.

Lincoln men worked to get him in the position of being “everybody’s second choice.” He won the nomination on the third ballot on the strength of his clear but moderate views, as he had laid them out in his famous debates with Douglas. It helped that Lincoln was from Illinois, home to the convention, and that he was not as controversial as other Republican leaders. Lincoln’s chief rivals, Seward, Chase, Bates and Cameron all eventually became members of Lincoln’s cabinet. (See the 1860 Republican Platform, Appendix. Also, for a fascinating account of the Republican Convention and the workings of Lincoln’s administration, see Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin, New York, 2006.)

The Election divides the Union. The campaign was fought out in the South between Bell and Breckinridge, although neither had much chance of victory, as the majority of electoral votes were in the North. Lincoln and Douglas fought it out in the North. Although Lincoln won only 40 percent of the total popular vote, he swept the North for a majority (180 out of 303) of the electoral votes and election as president. (The 15 Southern states had 120 out of 303 electoral votes; 152 were needed to win.) He received no  Southern votes in the electoral college, and in some  Southern counties, he did not receive a single vote. He was not even on the ballot in ten Southern states. Breckinridge came in second with 72 electoral votes; Douglas gained only 12. Douglas realized early in the race that he had no chance to win. Nevertheless he campaigned courageously throughout the South. His message to the Southern people was a plea not to destroy the Union over the results of a presidential election. In that effort he failed, of course, as the election of Lincoln immediately led to the secession of seven Southern states. Stephen Douglas died in 1861.

The Secession Crisis: A Constitutional No-Man's Land

As predicted, the outcome of the election led to crisis. Immediately upon learning of the election results, the state of South Carolina, which had been in the forefront of the agitation on the slavery question, called a special convention to consider the issue of secession. The secessionists staked their case on fears that the institution of slavery would be attacked by the “Black Republicans,” and that their wives and daughters would not be safe if the slaves were freed. The Charleston convention unanimously adopted an ordinance which, having reviewed the issues confronting the slave states, and claiming that the free states had not upheld their contractual obligations under the Constitution, declared:

We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this state and the other states of North America is dissolved; and that the state of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world. (See the entire Ordinance in the Appendix.)

Thus, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina left the Union. By February1861 the six other states around the edge of the South—Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas—had also seceded. President Buchanan, feeling with some justification that he had not created the situation, saw no immediate way to resolve it. Congress attempted to find possibilities for compromise, including the introduction of the 13th amendment to the Constitution which would have guaranteed permanent existence of slavery in states where it already existed. Given the decades of angry confrontation between the North and South, it was very unlikely that a compromise had any real possibility of being accepted by either side. Some historians have offered the opinion that if the votes on secession had been thrown open to the entire Southern people, it might not have passed in some of the states that did leave the Union. But in the seven states that seceded before Lincoln’s inauguration, the vote for secession probably reflected popular opinion. (Four slave states—Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware—did not secede in any case.)

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as president. Armed soldiers were positioned on rooftops between the White House and the Capitol as Lincoln rode in an open carriage with outgoing President James Buchanan.

In his inaugural address, he reiterated his position that, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He asserted his belief that the Constitution was perpetual and that secession was therefore illegal. Declaring that the Union would continue and all federal services would continue to operate, he claimed that he offered no threat to the  Southern, seceded states. His address was, however, seen by many in the South as a direct threat to their sovereignty.

In his closing words, Lincoln appealed to his countrymen to be patient:

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

lincoln inaugural

Sadly, it was too late for reconciliation.

Academic American Home | American Civil War Part 1 | Updated May 28, 2010