Warning: This Web site is not being updated at this location any more
(mainly because Argonet don't provide a way of updating it that I can use).
Please try the new location, http://members.xoom.com/mseaborn/,
which should be more up-to-date, instead. If that fails, try e-mailing me at mseaborn@bigfoot.com.
Causes of the American Civil War
Contents
[From Johnson, p352, ch. `Civil War America', sect. `The Constitution as
substitute for national identity']
The Civil War made America a nation:
- America was an artificial series of states.
- Early Americans were of English/British nationality.
- The Declaration of Independence did not include the word `nation' --
Southerners did not like it.
- America had a constitution before it was a nation.
Difference in interpretation of the Constitution:
- Northerners: Believed it ensured total equality before the law.
- Southerners: Believed it could be used to extend the fact and principle of
slavery. They possessed instruments whereby this view could prevail (the Taney
Supreme Court, the Democrat party).
1850s are the story of the frustration of the Southern view of the
Constitution.
All the South had to do:
- Keep the Democrat party united.
- Elect a president, hold the South together and get part of the Northern
vote.
- The Southern interpretation of the Contitution could be secured then, with
Supreme Court appointments.
1850 Compromise worked in their favour.
[See Johnson:
Slavery and the Declaration of Independence
Slavery and
the US Constitution
Thomas Jefferson
p130, p141, p157, p180]
[From Johnson, p53, sect. `The Primitive Structure of Colonial America']
Summary: Slavery originated in Barbados, where it was spread to the
Carolinas, unstoppably against the wishes of the proprietors. A North-South
divide in society was already visible, but not must be exaggerated.
Colonisation of Barbados:
- 1612--46, 40,000 English Puritans emigrated to the West Indies.
- 1640s, English Civil War. Brought an influx of royalist refugees, with
capital and ideas.
- Early colonists tried planting tobacco and later cotton unsuccessfully.
- Dutch colonists knew about sugar planting, which became a commercial
success.
- The richest colony (mid-Charles II reign), but most crowded.
- Barbados became a springboard for mainland colonisation.
1663, Charles II granted a colony in the Carolinas:
- Gave the Carolinas to a group of 8 proprietors.
- Barbadians responded enthusiastically to invitations for colonisation.
- The feudal technicalities of the colony were ignored by colonists.
- Staple crop became rice.
Religion:
- Proprietors wanted religious toleration.
- Planters were Anglicans, and gave others second-class status. Agreed with
Charles II that Anglicanism was ``the only religion for gentlemen''.
Slavery:
- Proprietors opposed slavery.
- Planters needed slaves, and got them.
Character of the Carolinas:
- Stratified society: small ruling class, large class of labourers, huge
class of slaves.
- Essentially a Barbadian slave-owning colony transplanted to the mainland
(despite other settlers).
- There is a gentry-leisure class sitting on the backs of indentured
labourers and slaves, with religion only as a sign of gentility and class.
[From Johnson, p61, sect. `Carolina: The First Slave State']
Contrasting slaveries:
- In the Catholic West Indian islands (Spanish, Portugese, French), slaves
were treated as actual/potential Christians with souls and rights.
- In the Protestant islands (English, Dutch), slaves were seen as legal
chattels, under the Old Testament.
Slavery laws:
- Never bothered to Christianise slaves. Prevented others; early laws stated
that baptism did not change a slave's status.
- Such laws spread north.
- 1692, a Maryland statute said the same.
Slavery was an early source of corruption in politics.
American slavery was still on a small scale; Carolina was an exception.
[From Johnson, p129]
Thomas Jefferson's The Declaration of Independence contained: ``We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain inelienable rights, that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''
However, slavery violated this claim to liberty.
Jefferson and co. (the members of the Committee of Correspondance, ie.
foreign office): Blamed American slavery on the British and King George.
Southern delegates (especially South Carolina): Not prepared to accept that
slavery was wrong.
The war required that states ignore their differences, however.
The slavery passage was removed from the Declaration, although the word
`equality' remained.
[From Johnson, p141]
Effects of the War of Independence:
- Most of the South was impoverished.
- Southerners wanted to restore their fortunes through a restoration of
slavery and its expansion. They pushed westwards.
[From Johnson, p157]
August 1787, the Constitutional Convention turned to the problem of slavery.
On slavery, Northerners were prepared to compromise because they had no
alternative.
Slavery in the Constitution:
- Congress granted the power to regulate or ban the slave trade, as of 1st
January 1808 (Article 1, section 9).
- Three-fifths rule: Gave slave states the power of counting a slave as
3/5ths of a voter (proposed by James Madison).
- Condemnation of slavery was omitted.
- The words `slave' and `slavery' were deliberately avoided.
[From Reid; not very ordered]
American security:
- Reasonably secure by 1796, with Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and a frontier on
the Great Lakes.
- Bruised by the 1812 war with Britain.
- Security guaranteed by isolation against European intervention.
- Security based on the strength of the continental state, as opposed to
smaller states.
- Indivisibility was central to wealth and power.
- There was opposition to union, but democracy needed security.
Reason for the Union: Reduced quarrels between states (or at least was
intended to).
Aaron Burr conspiracy:
- Aaron Burr was Jefferson's Vice President.
- He aimed to detach the western states for his own private empire.
- Conclusion: We cannot take US dominance of North America for granted.
1814, the near-secession of New England:
- New England was hit by trade restrictions with Britain and France.
(Britain had been seizing neutral US ships while trying to break Napoleon's
Continental System.)
- New England feared it would be marginalised within the Union. It called
for a constitutional convention:
- The agenda consisted mainly of narrow issues. No talk of secession.
- It lacked: dynamic leadership, an issue to focus energy, and a network
of sympathetic states.
- Taught future secessionists what not to do.
- Action from the Madison Administration reduced momentum for secession.
- Jefferson was convinced that they would secede, and that he would lack the
resources to suppress it.
``Struggle for stability'':
- After the 1812--5 war with Britain, the aim of the various administrations
was political stability. It was actually a period of stress, political
transition and reorganisation.
- Enthusiasm for the form and spirit of the Constitution. Led to
disillusionment.
- Rapidly-growing economy.
- Demographic change, and social problems.
- American nationalism was invented.
[My interpretation]
Origins: Probably English paranoia about Catholics
Examples:
Later examples:
- The red scare in the 1920s
- The McCarthyite witch hunt in the 1960s
[From Reid, who covers this in depth]
Reasons for domination of cotton:
- 1793, the invention of the cotton gin.
- 1800, the Harrison Frontier Land Act. Limited government charge for
frontier land. Resulted in frantic exploitation of land, after the Louisiana
Purchase, which was suitable for cotton.
- European demand for cotton.
- Growth in cotton aided by the rapid dispossession of Indian lands.
Results:
- Population moved south-westerly to virgin lands.
- ``Restlessness'' and ``frenzy''.
Comparison with the North:
- The South had more social and economic equality.
- Both were entrepreneurial. This increased cotton output, but the
productivity of slavery was limited. The boom was temporary.
- There was nothing like plantation agriculture in the North.
Urban aspect:
- Slavery adapted to cities.
Paternalist society:
- On small farms there was no division of labour, and more intimacy. Slaves
had influence on their owners, since they had to live together in a stable
society.
- The Southern legal system protected slaves from brutality; neighbours
intervened. (Genovese)
- Exaggerated but real.
- Slavery preceded racism and strict racial subordination (segregation came
in the 1890s).
[From Reid]
1833, abolition of slavery in the British Empire
Abolitionists were opposed to it for moral reasons
[From Farmer]
Racist opposition:
- Wanted to keep blacks out of new territories and ensure they were settled
by free whites.
- Did not want whites to suffer competition from slave labour.
- eg. Founding Fathers such as Franklin. [From Johnson, p165]
Sex with slaves played a major but unspoken part. [From Johnson, p356]
The situation in 1819:
- There were 22 states in the US. 11 were slave states, 11 were free states.
1819, Missouri applied to join the Union as a slave state:
- Northern states opposed Missouri's admittance.
- Furious sectional debates resulted.
The Missouri Compromise:
- To balance Missouri, a new state of Maine was carved out of Massachusetts
and admitted as a free state.
- There would be no slavery in the Louisiana Purchase Territory, north of
latitude 36deg30.
Texas becomes independent from Mexico:
- 1820s, Americans had been encouraged to settle in Texas (Mexican).
- Most settlers were Southerners, and many took slaves.
- 1829, Mexico abolished slavery. 1830, Mexico prohibited further American
immigration into Texas. However, the Mexican government was too weak to
enforce this.
- 1835, the new Mexican leader, General Santa Anna, tried to enforce Mexican
authority.
- Winter 1835--6, the American Texans declared independence. A group put up
a failed defence at the Alamo.
- Other Americans come to the Texans' aid and defeat Santa Anna, who
recognises Texas's independence (not officially ratified by Mexican
government).
Texas wanted to join the US; Northerners opposed this.
1844, Democrat James Polk is elected President:
December 1845, Texas entered the Union as a single state:
- Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US.
Mexican government refused to negotiate.
Polk tries to provoke war with Mexico:
- Polk sent American troops, led by General Zachary Taylor, into disputed
Texas-Mexican area.
- This failed to provoke a response.
- May 1846, Polk asked Congress for a declaration of war.
- However, the Mexicans did give him a pretext. War was declared.
Opinions of the war:
- Most Southerners and Westerners supported it.
- Many Northerners were cynical. Known as `Mr. Polk's War'.
The US won; results of the war:
- California and New Mexico were ceded to the US.
- The US agreed to pay Mexico damages.
- The war fuelled nationalism, and revived sectional strife.
August 1846, David Wilmot (Northern Democrat from Pennsylvania) added an
amendment to a bill: Slavery was to be excluded from any territory gained from
Mexico as a result of the war.
Reaction:
- Most Southern Congressmen were outraged at the proposal.
- The Proviso passed the House of Representatives; voting was sectional.
- It failed to pass the Senate.
The Proviso became a rallying cry for anti-slavery forces.
Northerners believed Congress had the power to exclude slavery from the
territories and should do so.
Southerners, for the first time, challenged Congressional authority to
regulate slavery in the territories -- the Calhoun Doctrine: Territories were a
common property of all the states, so citizens could migrate there and take
property (including slaves) with them.
Dramatis personae: John Calhoun:
- 1811, entered Congress.
- Initially an American nationalist, supporting increased federal power.
- Late 1820s, changed his mind and developed the doctrine of nullification.
December 1847, the 30th Congress met:
- The issue of slavery expansion dominated.
A proposed solution was to extend the 36deg30 line across the continent. This
was opposed by Northerners who wanted no expansion, and Southerners who wanted
slavery to expand everywhere. It was voted down.
A more popular proposal was `popular sovereignty': The territories would
decide whether to become slave or free states, not Congress. This could be
favourable to both North and South. Problems:
- Went against previous practice.
- Practical difficulties: When should a territory decide on the question?
Northern Democrats thought it should happen early on. Southern Democrats
thought it should happen when the territory was seeking admission to the
Union; slavery would be protected in the mean time.
Despite the ambiguity, `popular sovereignty' by many Democrats.
Polk gained little credit for the Mexican War; worn out, pledged not to seek
a second term.
Democrat nominations:
- Some Southerners wanted Calhoun.
- Northerners wanted Van Buren of New York.
- A `safe' compromise candidate was chosen, Lewis Cass of Michigan.
Supported expansionism and popular sovereignty.
- Different campaigns were run in the North and South.
Whig Party:
- Nominated Mexican war hero Zachary Taylor. No previous political
experience; a slaveowner. But he seemed a likely winner.
- Also conducted a two-faced campaign.
Free Soil party was formed to fight the election:
Taylor won the election; not sectional
December 1848, Congress met:
- Slavery continued to dominate.
1848--9, the Gold Rush in California:
- January 1848, gold was discovered in the Sacramento Valley.
- This sparked off the Gold Rush. In months, there were 100,000 people in
California -- more than enough to apply for statehood.
New Mexico:
- Spring 1849, drew up a constitution and sought admission to the Union.
Qualities:
- A man of honesty and integrity.
- Judged as a stubborn, naive, political amateur. Over-simplified complex
problems.
Shunned the advice of Henry Clay (Kentucky) and Daniel Webster
(Massachusetts), the great Whig elder statesmen. Influenced by the radical New
York Senator, William Seward.
Few Southern Whigs were happy with this.
March 1849, Congress's sitting came to an end, and would not meet again until
December.
Taylor had to deal with California and New Mexico:
- Encouraged settlers in both to frame constitutions and apply for admission
to the Union, without first establishing territorial governments. He was
confident both would vote for free state constitutions.
- California did this.
- New Mexico did not have enough people. It appeared Taylor was prepared to
admit it anyway.
- New Mexico also had a border dispute with Texas. Southerners tended to
support Texas's claim; Northerners tended to support New Mexico.
Sectional strife was renewed. Talk of secession.
President Taylor:
- Determined not to make concessions to the South.
- Not worried by talk of secession, and prepared to call the bluff and use
force.
Some Northern politicians were worried, and felt the South had to be
placated. Led by Henry Clay.
January 1850, Clay offered the Senate a set of resolutions to avert the
crisis:
- California to be admitted as a free state.
- Utah and New Mexico to be organised as territories with no restriction on
(or mention of) slavery.
- The slave trade to end in DC, but slavery continue.
- A more stringent Fugitive Slave Act should be passed.
- The Texas-New Mexico dispute should be settled by Texas surrendering the
disputed land to New Mexico. In return, Congress would assume Texas's $10m
public debt.
Taylor: Opposed the Compromise.
June 1850, delegates from 9 out of 15 slave states met in the Nashville
Convention:
- Displayed little enthusiasm for secession. Moderates quickly took control,
isolating extremists.
9th July 1850, President Taylor's death (gastro-entiritus):
- Vice President Millard Fillmore took over.
- Fillmore was sympathetic to the South and opposed Seward. He supported the
Compromise.
31st July 1850, Clay's Omnibus Bill was defeated.
Senator Douglas of Illinois took over from Clay:
- He stripped the bill down to its 5 component parts and submitted each as a
separate bill.
- This worked: Northerners and Southerners each voted for the parts they
liked. By September 1850, all the components of the Compromise had been
passed.
However, it was not really a success: It was more of an armistice than a
compromise, in David Potter's view (a historian). Most had still voted
sectionally, and it skirted the problem of slavery in the territories.
Results:
- Many Southerners claimed they had won a victory. This was not reassuring
to Northerners. But the Fugitive Slave Act was the North's only major
concession.
- However, historians tend to think the North gained more. The entry of
California as a free state tilted the balance towards the free states. The
resolutions on New Mexico and Utah were hollow victories for the South -- it
was likely they would also enter the Union as free states in the future.
- Most Americans accepted the Compromise.
- The majority of Southerners still supported the Union. However, most now
accepted Calhoun's doctrine that secession was a valid constitutional solution
to problems.
Features of the Fugitive Slave Act, from Farmer:
- It denied alleged fugitives the right of trial by jury, and did not allow
them to testify on their own behalf.
- It authorised federal marshals to raise posses to pursue fugitives on
Northern soil. Those who refused to join risked a $1000 fine.
- It applied not only to recent runaways, but also to those who had fled
decades ago.
The Act was ``distasteful to moderates and outrageous to abolitionists''.
1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe published the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin:
- Presented a fierce attack on slavery.
- Became an immediate best-seller, in America as well as Britain.
- Stowe had little first hand knowledge of slavery and drew upon her
imagination and abolitionist literature.
Effects:
- Aroused Northern sympathy for slaves.
[From Farmer, except where stated otherwise]
[From Johnson, p352, ch. `Civil War America', sect. `The Era of Pierce and
Buchanan']
Dramatis personae: Franklin Pierce (1804--69):
- Born in New Hampshire, practised as a lawyer.
- Should have been an abolitionist, etc.
- In reality, a nationalist, for expansion into the Hispanic South and ally
to the slavery-extenders.
- ``Colourless.''
Pierce's nomination: A dark horse compromise candidate; nominated on 49th
ballot.
[From Farmer]
Democrats expected to do well:
- Had done well in the 1850 mid-term elections.
- Many Irish and German immigrants were now entitled to vote, and were
expected to vote Democrat.
- The core of the Free Soil party (Van Buren etc.) had returned to the
Democrats.
Democrats chose Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire as their candidate:
- He was acceptable to all party factions: a Northerner known to be
sympathetic to the South.
Democrats ran a campaign supporting the 1850 Compromise.
The Whig party:
- A convention met at Baltimore.
- The party was divided sectionally: both in choosing a platform and a
candidate.
- 4 possible candidates:
- Millard Fillmore (current President): a Northerner, favoured by the
Southern Whigs.
- Daniel Webster.
- William Seward.
- General Winfield Scott (Mexican war hero): a Southerner, supported by
Northern Whigs.
- Scott was nominated. A good choice: the Whigs had won two elections with
military heroes.
- Whigs could not agree on a platform:
- Feebly endorsed 1850 Compromise.
- Made some effort to appeal to Irish and German immigrants. This failed
to win many Catholics over, and alienated anti-Catholics Protestant.
- Northerners unhappy with platform, Southerners unhappy with candidate.
Election results: Pierce (Democrat) won.
- A landslide in the electoral college.
- Winfield Scott only carried 4 states.
[From Johnson]
Failures of Winfield Scott:
- Anti-slavery views (of course).
- A nativist; alienated German and Irish voters.
[From Farmer]
The Whig party:
- There are moans that ``the Whig Party is dead'' -- somewhat premature.
- 1852, two of the Whig Party's best-known leaders, Webster and Clay, died.
[From Johnson, p353]
In theory, Pierce bridged the gap between the North and South, but in reality
he was committed to Southern policies.
Pierce's Cabinet:
- In theory, bridged North and South.
- North:
- Secretary of State, Marcy (New York). But did not care about slavery;
supporter of Mexican war.
- Attorney-General, Cushing (Mass.). A `Manifest Destiny' man, and
Southern ally.
- South:
- Secretary of War, Jefferson-Davis. Future President of the
Confederation!
The Senate had an anti-slave majority.
1853, Gadsden Purchase:
- Part of a scheme for a transcontinental railway in the South.
- Required buying Mexican territory, which would become slave soil.
- Passed by the Senate by a narrow margin.
[From Johnson, p354]
Northerners in Congress frustrated attempts to purchase Cuba.
Seen as important:
- ``The acquisition of Cuba is essential to our prosperity and security'' --
Jefferson-Davis.
[From Farmer]
1853, Pierce tried to purchase some Mexican territory: limited success.
Pierce tried to acquire the island of Cuba (Spanish):
- 1851, `filibuster' (unofficial military) coup failed.
- 1853--4, larger filibuster expedition planned. Aborted due to Northern
opposition.
- Pierce offered Spain $130m for the island. Turned down.
- October 1854, Ostend Manifesto. Leaked, and denounced.
Southerners were keen on slavery expansion.
Northerners regarded it as
Slave Power expansion.
[From Farmer, except where not]
Summary: The Kansas-Nebraska Bill was opposed by Northerners, and this helped
split the Democrat party. [From Johnson:] President Pierce's support for the
bill ruled out his chance of re-election.
The issue of Nebraska becoming a territory:
- The remaining part of the Louisiana Purchase.
- Settlers wanted to move in, but could not buy land until it was organised
into a territory.
- Railway promoters wanted to build a line through Nebraska to the West
Coast. This also required the area to become a territory.
- Northerners were keen to see it become a territory. Southerners were not,
since it would eventually become free states, under the Missouri Compromise.
Nebraska would allow a Northern transcontinental railway (to go with the
South's new one). [From Johnson, p355]
January 1854, Kansas-Nebraska bill introduced:
- Introduced by Democrat Senator Stephen Douglas, Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Territories. He had pushed for Nebraska's territoryship since
1844. He realised Southern support was needed.
- The bill endorsed popular sovereignty for slavery in Nebraska.
Amended Kansas-Nebraska bill:
- Specifically repealed the 1820 Missouri Compromise.
- Instead of a single territory, set up Kansas and Nebraska separately. It
was unlikely slavery would spread to Nebraska, but it might to Kansas.
Douglas did not think the bill would arouse sectional tension:
- Slavery was unlikely to spread North for geographical and climatic
reasons.
- Other motives.
However, reactions to the bill:
- The bill was seen by many Northerners as a Slave Power conspiracy.
- This led to a Southern counter-attack.
- The bill would also require expulsion of Indians (outraged Southerners).
[From Johnson]
- President Pierce supported the bill; a mistake. [From Johnson]
The bill was passed in both Houses.
Results:
- Split and weakened the Democrat party. After 1854, many Northern Democrats
drifted away from the party.
[From Farmer]
1854, mid-term elections:
- A disaster for the Democrats, losing the support of many of the free
states. Lost many Northern seats in Congress, and lost control of Northern
state legislatures.
- The Whig party did not benefit from the Democrats' unpopularity; it was no
longer a serious force.
Temperance:
- Alcohol was seen as a dangerous drug. Prohibition was hoped to be a
solution to many serious social problems.
- 1851, Maine became the first state to ban the manufacture and sale of
alcoholic drinks.
- 12 further Northern states also passed similar prohibition legislation.
- Democrats generally opposed prohibition; the Whig party was divided.
- Supporters of temperance tended to be native, Protestant Americans, who
disliked the immigrants and Catholicism.
Catholic immigrants from Ireland and Germany:
- 1845--54, 3m immigrants entered the US. Over 1m were Irish Catholics, many
escaping the Irish potato famine. German Catholics were the second largest
immigrant group (the failure of the 1848 revolutions was not a major factor).
- Many Germans had enough money to buy farms west, eg. in Wisconsin or
Minnesota.
- The Irish, with less money, tended to settle in North-eastern cities.
- Both groups had a reputation for heavy drinking.
- Many Catholics voted for the Democrat party, which opposed prohibition and
restrictions of immigrant rights.
- Protestant natives feared a subversion of the US and its values by
Catholics.
Economic and social consequences of immigration:
- The Irish provided a source of cheap labour, reducing wage levels and
taking jobs from natives.
- Irish immigrants were associated by natives with increased crime and
welfare costs.
- However, the 1850s were boom years for most Americans. Recession did not
set in until 1857.
The second party system did not respond:
- The Democrat party relied on immigrants for votes, and went out of their
way to woo them.
- The Whig party failed to respond to nativist voters. Some were afraid of
alienating `wet' voters (ie. those who drank). Others thought they should try
to gain the large immigrant vote.
The Know Nothing movement:
- A nativist movement: concern about temperance, immigration and the
expansion of Catholicism.
- An offshoot of the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner, a secret nativist
society, founded in New York, 1849.
- Early 1850s, the Know Nothing movement mushroomed. A key figure in this
was James Barker. An elaborate structure was created.
- Members pledged to vote only for Protestants, learned rituals, and when
asked about the society, were to respond ``I know nothing'' -- hence the name.
Political influence:
- Initially, it secretly backed its own members, or suitable candidates from
other parties.
- By 1854, it was so successful, it became more open and more like a
political party, and selected its own candidates. There were various actual
parties; in the Midwest these were often known as the `People's Party'. Had
over 1m members.
- June 1854, elected in Philadelphia.
- Other victories.
- 1855, held open conventions nationally and at state level, calling itself
the American party.
The political agenda varied, but mostly covered:
- Checks on immigration.
- Legislation preventing ``the dumping of European paupers and criminals''
in the US.
- Laws restricting office-holding to native-born citizens (this applies to
presidents).
- A 21 year probationary period before immigrants became US citizens with
voting rights.
Events boosting Know Nothing support:
- Catholic attempts to influence school teaching, and to set up schools.
- President Pierce's appointment of a Catholic as Postmaster General.
- June 1853, the visit of the Papal nuncio Archbishop Bedini to the US.
Other reasons for support:
- People liked its anti-establishment stand, and its promise to return power
to the people.
- Dislike for the Democrat party. Some Democrats thought the Know Nothings
were part of the Whig party, until their own supporters migrated to it.
Actions in office, eg. in Massachusetts:
* Banned the teaching of foreign languages.
* Set up a nunnery committee.
* Literacy tests for voting.
* Barred any ``foreign prince, power or potentate'' from government office.
`Progressive' reforms:
* Women's rights.
* Prison reform.
* A maximum 10 hour working day.
* Temperance legislation.
[From Farmer]
There were efforts to form parties opposed to the Slave Power -- these were
difficult, because many seemed more interested in nativist issues.
1854, a number of anti-slavery coalitions were formed, with different names.
The Republican name caught on.
The Republicans and Know Nothings were not in competition, and often avoided
contest. Some Republicans, though, opposed the Know Nothings (eg. Lincoln).
[From Johnson, p357]
Intro on the party:
Deliberately designed to evoke
the memory of Jefferson, with anti-slavery quotations of him.
[From Farmer, except where not]
Summary: Elections in Kansas territory were fraudulently fixed by pro-slavers
from neighbouring states. However, pro-slavers would have dominated anyway. The
effect was to discredit the concept of popular sovereignty.
Attempts to influence developments in Kansas:
- 1854, Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company set up to encourage Northerners
to settle in Kansas. Limited success.
- However, pro-slavers had a stronger position.
October 1854, elections for a Kansas territory delegation to Washington:
- Pro-slavers from Missouri moved in for the day to vote.
- Pro-slavers won.
March 1855, elections for the first Kansas legislature:
- The legislature would decide on the slavery issue, so this was crucial.
- Again, pro-slavers crossed from Missouri to vote.
- Pro-slavers won, but would probably have won anyway. The event cast doubt
on the principle of popular sovereignty.
New elections ordered by Governor Reeder.
The pro-slave Kansas legislature
passed tough pro-slavery laws.
Anger from Northerners at the measures.
[See also Johnson, p356]
The free soil settlers (and neutrals), and the
Topeka government:
- Denied the validity of the pro-slavery legislature.
- Set up their own government at Topeka, and drafted a constitution
excluding slavery. Elected unlawfully.
- 1855, most Kansas settlers supported the Topeka government.
- Topeka government banned both slaves and free blacks. Applied for
admission to the US as a state. [From Johnson]
Northerners and Southerners sent forces to aid their sides in Kansas.
Violence, and distorted reporting in press: a miniature civil war:
- Sacked Lawrence, a free soil town. [From Johnson]
[From Johnson]
As a result of the violence:
- Senator Sumner made a two-day speech in Congress against the violence of
the pro-slavers. Used sexual metaphors.
- Sumner's metaphors were provocative, and he was attacked by Southern
Congressman Brooks.
- This symbolised the conflict. Both Sumner and Brooks were supported by
their sections.
President Pierce appointed a new Kansas governor, John Geary, who managed to
patch up a truce between the warring factions.
The Know Nothings were split by the slavery issue:
- The American party had increased success in the slave states.
- June 1855, a national convention of Know Nothings. Delegates were split
over the issue of Kansas-Nebraska.
- 1856, the American party dropped its anti-Kansas-Nebraska stance. As a
result, it lost Northern support.
Other factors damaging the American party:
- Mid-1850s, immigration declined, causing a decline in nativism.
- Know Nothing legislatures had failed to carry out campaign promises.
- Some disliked the movement's secret side.
- Others disliked its tactics against immigrants.
- Its strength attracted `old guard' politicians.
The movement's success led to disillusionment.
Autumn 1855 elections: Know Nothings continued to do well.
December 1855--January 1866, struggle for the position of speakership in the
House of Representatives:
- The Republicans won with Nathaniel Banks.
- The Northern and Southern Know Nothings had been split by his appointment.
- The Republicans had been welded into a more coherent party.
[From Johnson, p357]
The Democrat party:
- Fairly united.
- Rejected Pierce as a sure loser.
- Rejected Douglas as too all-things-to-all-men.
- Chose James Buchanan.
The Republican party:
- Rejected William H. Seward as too extreme.
- Chose John Charles Fr\'emont.
Results:
- James Buchanan won.
- Buchanan carried all the Southern states, plus 5 Northern states. A
minority of electoral college votes, but a large margin of win.
[From Farmer, except where not]
Southern principles:
- A `doughface', a Northerner with Southern principles.
- Despised abolitionists.
- Placed maintaining the Union over interfering with slavery.
More (see Farmer).
[From Johnson, p358]
Character:
- Weak and vacillating.
- Not out of touch with imperialist and Southern opinion. Sympathised with
adding new states to the South.
Asked Congress to buy Cuba:
- Spain was asking $150m. Blocked by Republicans.
[From Johnson, p358]
1807, an Act made the slave trade illegal.
Background:
- The price of slaves was rising all the time.
- This was despite the efforts of Virginian slave farms.
- Results: Slave smuggling grew. Calls for legalisation of the slave trade.
Calls by South Carolina in 1856, and the Vicksburg Commercial Convention in
1859.
The Dred Scott case and the Kansas-Nebraska Act had opened up plantation
opportunities. Both economic case and Southern insecurity.
[From Farmer]
The Southern-dominated Supreme Court made a comprehensive (and unnecessary)
ruling in favour of slavery, undermining popular sovereignty. This was naturally
unpopular with Northerners. Combined with President Buchanan's involvement, this
furthered the idea of a Slave Power conspiracy, and undermined Buchanan.
However, it had little immediate effect.
Background:
- Dred Scott was a slave. He accompanied his master to Illinois (a free
state), then to Wisconsin territory, before returning to Missouri (a slave
state).
- Scott went before the Missouri courts claiming to be free since he had
resided in a free state and a free territory.
- Scott's case reached the US Supreme Court.
The key questions:
- Was Scott a citizen with the right to sue in a federal court?
- Was he free as a result of having lived in an area where slavery was
illegal (Wisconsin, as a result of the Missouri Compromise)?
The Supreme Court's composition:
- 9 Justices in total.
- 5 Southerners.
- 4 Northerners.
- The Chief Justice was Roger Taney. He had liberated his own slaves, but
was committed to the Southern way of life.
- Under Taney's leadership, the Court decided to make a comprehensive
ruling, rather than ruling under Missouri law.
8th March 1857, the Supreme Court's judgement was made public:
- Scott could not sue for freedom. Blacks could not have citizenship.
- The 1820 Missouri Compromise's ban on slavery in territories was illegal,
since citizens had the right to take property into the territories.
- The minority view:
- The Constitution did not deny citizenship to blacks.
- The Constitution gave Congress the power to govern the territories.
- The Missouri Compromise was constitutional.
President Buchanan's involvement:
- 6th March 1857, Buchanan's inaugural address. He claimed he knew nothing
of the Court's decision. He was confident it would provide a ``final
settlement'' and urged people to ``cheerfully submit'' to the ruling.
- Taney had been seen whispering to Buchanan on his inauguration. This was
seen as part of a conspiracy by the North, and evidence that Buchanan did know
of the ruling.
Result:
- The judgement undermined the Northern Democrat version of popular
sovereignty.
- It could be seen as an attempt to outlaw the Republican party.
- However, the Republican Party did not gain as much political capital as
they had hoped. 1857, Democrats continued to do well in elections.
A short depression hit the North more than the South. The Buchanan
Administration, being Democrat, took little action about this.
1848--56, the US had enjoyed an economic boom.
1857, a depression set in:
- Hundreds of American businesses collapsed.
- Mass Northern employment.
- It had little effect in the South, where cotton prices remained high.
Inaction of the Buchanan Administration and Congress:
- Buchanan and most Democrats in Congress believed that federal government
should not interfere in economic matters. Republican economic proposals were
blocked in Congress.
- Result: Buchanan and the Democrats were blamed for indifference to the
plight of Northern industry.
1859, recovery was almost complete. The depression was relatively
short-lived.
[From Farmer]
Summary: The problems in Kansas led to increased sectional strife due to
President Buchanan's mishandling of the situation.
1856, the situation in Kansas territory:
- Governor Geary had restored order to Kansas.
- The free-staters had a clear majority in Kansas.
- President Buchanan was committed to popular sovereignty, as were the
Democrats.
- There were still two governments in Kansas:
- The official pro-slave Lecompton government.
- The unofficial free state government at Topeka.
March 1857, governor Geary resigned:
- He had initially despised abolitionists.
- Early 1857, he turned against the pro-slavery party.
- He was threatened with assassination by pro-slavers, and resigned, warning
Buchanan that he should not support the pro-slavers.
Buchanan appointed a replacement, Robert Walker:
- Walker supported popular sovereignty, and was an experienced Mississippi
politician.
- Walker was given assurances by Buchanan that he would support fair
elections.
June 1857, pro-slavers dominated the new constitutional convention:
- February 1857, the Lecompton government had authorised the election, in
June, for a constitutional convention for statehood.
- Walker was too late to change this.
- Free-staters suspected that the election would be rigged, and did not get
involved.
- As a result, 2/9ths voted, and the pro-slavers won all the seats in the
convention.
- Southerners now realised that a new slave state was a real possibility.
- There was little that could be done, since the election had been done
legally.
- September 1857, the convention met, but not for long due to other
elections.
October 1857, free-staters now dominated the Kansas territory legislature:
- Walker had now persuaded the free-staters to take part in elections.
- Walker prevented pro-slavers entering from Mississippi, and over-turned
fraudulent votes.
The constitutional convention drafted the pro-slavery `Lecompton
constitution':
- The convention had said there referendum to confirm the constitution.
- However, instead it offered a choice between two constitutions with
different degrees of slavery.
Buchanan was pressured into supporting the Lecompton convention
Wider results:
- Buchanan alienated the North, thereby boosting the Republican party and
splitting the Democrat party. There was increased sectional strife.
- Had he done the opposite, he was unlikely to have lost much Southern
support.
- The concept of popular sovereignty was discredited.
January 1858, there was another referendum on the Lecompton constitution,
called by the Topeka government:
- Voted against the constitution.
- Buchanan did not use this as an excuse to change his mind.
Debates in Congress over the Kansas constitution:
- The Senate passed the Lecompton constitution (33 to 25 votes).
- The House defeated the constitution (120 to 112 votes).
Buchanan changed his policy:
- Accepted that Kansas should vote again on its constitution.
- August 1858, voted against the Lecompton constitution.
This focused on Illinois:
- Douglas was standing for re-election.
- The Republicans put forward Abraham Lincoln.
Dramatis personae: Abraham Lincoln
Election results:
- A disaster for the Northern Democrats. Republicans now controlled the
House.
John Brown, an abolitionist, did a raid which failed:
- Tried for treason, found guilty, and sentenced to death.
Results:
- Increased sectional tension further. Southerners' worst fears of a
Northern abolitionist attempting to spark a slave revolt had come true. More
now listened to Southern `fire-eaters'.
Rumours of slave insurrection during the winter of 1859--60.
Congress divided along sectional lines:
- Southerners opposed all Republican measures.
- Republicans opposed Southern plans.
Douglas would be a good candidate, but was seen as a traitor:
- Determined to run for president.
- He was the South's best hope:
- 1859--60, made efforts for unity.
- He would carry some Northern states.
- But now seen as a traitor by the South:
- His stand against the Lecompton constitution.
- His support for the `Freeport Doctrine' (what was that?).
April 1860, the Democrat convention:
- Met at Charleston, South Carolina, the capital of the most `fire-eating'
state.
- Locals made their opposition to Douglas clear.
- Northerners outnumbered Southerners and wanted Douglas.
- ...
- Breckinridge nominated.
- The party was split sectionally, and had little chance.
Results:
- The split has been seen as a major cause for the Republican victory.
- However, even without the split, the Republican party was favourite to
win.
- Could have weakened the Republicans, since Douglas could now campaign in
the North without Southern ties.
May 1860, the Republican convention met, in Chicago, Illinois.
Found it easy deciding on a platform:
- 1856, had been a single-issue, free-soil party.
- Needed to broaden its appeal, added an economic policy:
- Higher protective tariffs (popular in Pennsylvania).
- Free homesteads in the West (popular in the Midwest).
- Still opposed to slavery; opposed to popular sovereignty as ``deception
and fraud''.
- However, the party was now more moderate:
- It specifically promised it had no intention of interfering with
existing slavery.
- Did not brand slavery as ``a relic of barbarism'' (had done in 1856).
- Condemned John Brown's raid.
Potential nominees
Chose Lincoln
Composition:
- Largely Southern ex-Whigs and American party supporters.
- Main strength lay in the upper South.
Policy:
- Wanted to remove the slavery question.
- Denounced Republicans as abolitionists, and Democrats disunionists.
- ``The Constitution of the Country, the Union of the States and the
Enforcement of the Laws of the United States.''
Strategy:
- Weaken Lincoln's support in the lower North.
- This would deny Lincoln a majority, leaving the election to the House of
Representatives.
Candidate: John Bell of Tennessee, a large slaveholder.
The campaign was largely sectional:
- In the North, it was between Lincoln and Douglas.
- In the South, it was between Bell and Breckinridge. (Lincoln was not on
the ballot in 10 Southern states.)
Lincoln and the Republican party's campaign:
- Lincoln remained at home in Springfield, Illinois. His supporters
campaigned for him.
- Made no effort to reassure Southerners that he was not a `Black
Republican' or a threat:
- Some historians have criticised him for this.
- However, reassuring the South would have been at the expense of Northern
support.
- He (and most Republicans in 1860) did not take the threat of secession
seriously.
- The Republican party was well-organised with lots of money, and the North
was flooded with campaign literature.
- Republican propaganda concentrated on the Slave Power conspiracy.
Southern Democrat campaign:
- Stereotyped all Northerners as `Black Republicans' set on abolishing
slavery.
- Most of Breckinridge's supporters did not say they would be disunionists
if Lincoln became President.
November 1860:
- 81% of the electorate voted.
Bell (Constitutional Unionist):
- Carried 3 upper South states (Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee).
- Won 39% of the Southern vote, but only 5% of the free states' vote.
- Popular votes: 593,000
Breckinridge (Southern Democrat):
- Carried 11 of the 15 slave states.
- Won 45% of the Southern vote, and only 5% of the free states' vote.
- Popular votes: 843,000
Douglas (Northern Democrat):
- Carried only 2 states (Missouri and New Jersey).
- Won only 12% of the Southern vote.
- Popular votes: 1,383,000
- His support was mainly in the North, winning the Catholic immigrant and
traditional Democrat vote, especially in the Midwest.
Lincoln (Republican):
- Carried all the 18 free states.
- Won 40% of the total vote (10% more than Douglas); 54% of the Northern
vote.
- Popular votes: 1,866,000
Would Northerners have voted for Lincoln if they had known that his election
would lead to secession?
The corruption issue
Reasons for the South to stay in the Union:
- Lincoln's election posed no immediate threat to slavery:
- He had promised not to interfere with slavery in existing slave states.
- He could not interfere with slavery, without support from Congress
(which was still Democrat dominated).
- Southerners still dominated the Supreme Court.
- If Southern states seceded, they would be abandoning the Fugitive Slave
Act, and slaves would be able to flee to the North more easily.
- Secession would not prevent John Brown-style raids.
- Most importantly, secession could lead to civil war, which could do more
to threaten slavery than Lincoln's election.
Southern fears
Secession not inevitable
Individual states were committed to individual action initially, but
Southerners were also committed to joint action.
South Carolina's secession:
- 10th November 1860, South Carolina's state legislature (which had remained
in session due to the likelihood of a crisis) called for elections for a
special state convention to meet on 17th December 1860. This convention would
decided whether to secede.
- This sparked off a chain reaction of similar conventions (in Alabama,
Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, and after a few weeks, Texas).
- 20th December 1860, the South Carolina convention voted 169--0 for
secession.
- 24th December 1860, South Carolina defended its action in a ``Declaration
of Causes of Secession''.
Northern opinion; the seceded states would soon be back in the Union:
- Thought the seceded states were bluffing. The bluff would be called.
- Or, though an extremist minority had seized power in the South. The
majority would assert itself.
Southern opinion, in contrast:
- Thought the North would accept the inevitable and not fight to preserve
the Union.
General opinion:
- February 1861, few expected war.
- Many thought a compromise deal would be arranged to bring the seceded
states back.
The Confederacy
The Upper South
The search for compromise
[From Farmer]
View: Slavery was the cause of the war.
View: The Southern states had gone to war not to protect slavery, but to
protect states' rights. The conflict was one of Northern aggression against
Southern rights.
Who: The Confederate leaders at the time, and Southerners after the war.
View: The war was a conflict between plantation agriculture and
industrialising capitalism. It was not specifically a conflict between freedom
and slavery; these just happened, through accidents of geography, to be the
labour systems in the North and South. Slavery was not a moral issue except for
abolitionists; the real issues were the tariff, government subsidies to
industry, and public land sales.
Who:
- `Progressive' historians, mostly in the 1920s.
- Southern historians.
View:
- America was more united than divided.
- Rather than being caused by genuine issues, it was caused by extremists on
both sides, and the politicians of the time who lacked the skills of
negotiation of previous generations. The war was not inevitable.
- Slavery would have died of natural causes in a couple of generations
anyway.
Who:
- Revisionist historians, mainly in the 1940s.
Books used:
- Paul Johnson, A History of the American People.
- Alan Farmer, The Origins of the American Civil War (Access to
History series).
- Brian Holden Reid, The Origins of the American Civil War.