Beginning in 1853, Stephen A. Douglas, a Democratic senator from Illinois, indicated his support for a bill that provided for the organization of territories in the Great Plains west of Missouri — what we know today as the states of Kansas and Nebraska.
Railroad construction, the most significant form of economic and infrastructure development in the United States during the mid-19th century, factored into Douglas’s support of the initiative. Douglas and other supporters of railroad construction wanted a transcontinental railroad that connected the eastern and western United States. The central Plains appeared to be an ideal location for much of this railroad. In addition, the Senator from Illinois (Douglas) wanted the eastern terminus to be located in Chicago.
Douglas feared that progress towards a transcontinental railroad would not continue unless Congress authorized territorial governments for Kansas and Nebraska. This was one reason for his support of what became the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Douglas wanted to maintain unity in the Democratic Party. Southern Democrats were concerned that their region would miss out on economic benefits that accompanied construction of a transcontinental railroad in the central Plains. They also detested the Missouri Compromise, which stipulated that slavery was illegal in territories north of the 36° 30' line: Missouri’s southern border.
In a concession to southern Democrats, Douglas called for repeal of the Missouri Compromise by including popular sovereignty in the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Settlers of both territories would decide whether to allow slavery. This meant that southern slaveholders could hope that racial slavery would expand northward to the central Great Plains.
Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in the spring of 1854. Its political consequences were enormous.
Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act did not create unity in the Democratic Party to the extent that Douglas had hoped. Rather, it divided party members along sectional lines.
Following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Whig Party gradually disappeared. Southern Whigs joined the Democratic Party, which led the South to become solidly Democratic. The Party became the representative of the “Slave Power.” Northern Whigs, some northern Democrats, members of the Free-Soil Party, and assorted abolitionists formed a new political coalition — the Republican Party.
The new Republican Party, operating solely in the North, pledged to prevent the spread of slavery into the western territories. It railed against the Slave Power, which infuriated southern politicians and voters. Members of the Republican Party portrayed themselves as champions of the free labor ideology. They argued that the political dominance of southern slaveholders and the potential expansion of slavery into the West deprived Americans of the liberties and benefits associated with free labor, including property ownership and a fair return for one’s work.
With the rise of the Republican Party in the mid-1850s, the American political system became more polarized, along sectional lines, than it had ever been.
In 1856, a combination of events known as “Bleeding Kansas” further discredited the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and demonstrated that “Slave Power” would defend its interests at all costs.
After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, northern abolitionists sent free soilers — settlers opposed to slavery in the West — to Kansas. Following their arrival, they found themselves surrounded by thousands of pro-slavery settlers, most of whom were from nearby Missouri.
Tensions between the two sides came to a head when Kansas held territorial elections. Pro-slavery Missourians known as border ruffians crossed into Kansas to vote, to ensure that pro-slavery candidates won.
Although most Kansas settlers were free soilers, it is important to remember that many did not move westward for anti-slavery reasons. Rather, free soilers feared that the arrival of slaveholders and slaves, the establishment of slave codes, and the creation of a planter elite in Kansas would deprive settlers (who sometimes referred to themselves as “squatters”) of opportunities to develop western lands.
The poster below is an advertisement for an anti-slavery meeting in Lawrence, Kansas in 1859.
EXAMPLEIn 1856, a pro-slavery mob attacked the town of Lawrence, Kansas, which was founded by free soilers sponsored by the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Society (an abolitionist group). The mob, carrying banners proclaiming “Southern rights” and “The Superiority of the White Race”, burned public buildings and private homes to the ground.
In retaliation for the attack on Lawrence, abolitionist John Brown and a small group of followers (including Brown’s four sons), attacked the homes of pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas, murdering five of them. Two were hacked to death with broadswords; another was shot in the head. None of the victims owned slaves or participated in the raid on Lawrence.
During the violence of “Bleeding Kansas,” which persisted into the late 1850s, approximately 200 people lost their lives. The incidents at Lawrence, Pottawatomie Creek, and elsewhere in the territory suggested that anti- and pro-slavery supporters in Kansas had decided that only violence could solve the problem of slavery.
The hostilities associated with “Bleeding Kansas” were not limited to Kansas: it was the controversy over Kansas that prompted the beating — with a cane — of Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner by Congressman Preston Brooks on the Senate floor.
Just before the attack on Lawrence in 1856, Sumner made a speech that would later be titled “The Crime Against Kansas”. Congress was considering whether to admit Kansas as a free or slave state. Sumner attributed the desire of southerners to admit another slave state to the “Slave Power”. He warned that to do so would mean “the rape of a virgin territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery….”
Among the proponents of the “Slave Power” who Sumner accused in his speech was Senator Andrew P. Butler of South Carolina. He insulted Butler by comparing slavery to a prostitute, declaring, “Of course he [Butler] has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight. I mean the harlot Slavery.”
Two days after Sumner gave his speech, Preston Brooks (who was a cousin of Butler’s) approached Sumner at his desk on the Senate floor. “I have read your speech twice over carefully,” Brooks said. “It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine.”
Brooks then proceeded to beat Sumner senseless over the head with a cane.
The political cartoon provided below, titled Southern Chivalry: Argument versus Club’s, depicted the incident.
The cartoon mocks southern chivalry, indicating that southerners like Brooks resort to violence rather than reason or argument to defend slavery.
Many in the South approved of Brooks’s actions as justly defending southern society, including the institution of slavery. Some sent him canes emblazoned with the words “Hit him again!”
Northerners referred to the incident as “Bleeding Sumner”, seeing it as a reflection of the violence occurring in “Bleeding Kansas.”
The following year, the Supreme Court seemed to align itself with the "Slave Power" in the infamous Dred Scott decision, announced by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney on March 6, 1857.
Dred Scott, born a slave in Virginia during the 1790s, was one of the thousands of African Americans forced to relocate as a result of the domestic slave trade in the early 19th century. He was first taken to Missouri, then sold to a U.S. Army surgeon named John Emerson. Scott accompanied Emerson to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory, where he married a woman named Harriet Robinson, who was also owned by Emerson. Both of these locations had been organized under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery.
Shortly after returning to Missouri, Emerson died and Scott sued for his and Harriet’s freedom in 1846. He did so on the grounds that he had lived in areas where slavery was banned, which made him a free man.
After several sets of legal proceedings (during which Scott became the property of John Sanford of New York), Scott lost his bid for freedom. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1854.
When considering Scott’s case for freedom, the Supreme Court justices asked three questions:
In 1857, the Supreme Court — led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, a former slaveholder who had freed his slaves — handed down its decision. An excerpt of the decision, written by Taney, is provided below. While reading it, keep the three questions listed above in mind.
The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. . .
Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property. . .
The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. . .
Prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory . . . is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution, and the removal of the plaintiff [Dred Scott] by his owner to that Territory gave him no title to freedom.”
The excerpt above shows that the Supreme Court went beyond the issue of Scott’s freedom to make a sweeping and momentous judgment about the status of African Americans in the United States. By ruling that Congress had no authority to limit the spread of slavery to western territories, the Court’s decision made it unlikely that northern state governments could prevent the “Slave Power” from reintroducing slavery in the North.
This tutorial curated and/or authored by Matthew Pearce, Ph.D
Source: Map of Kansas and Nebraska, 1855, PD http://bit.ly/2kY2qSm, Kansas a Free State poster, ca. 1859, Kansas Historical Society, retrieved from http://bit.ly/2lmH94Q, Southern Chivalry: Argument versus Club’s (1856), PD, http://bit.ly/2lQn9Iu, Portrait of Dred Scott, 1888, PD, http://bit.ly/2kOGzJG, Derived from Openstax tutorial 14.2 http://bit.ly/2kcvdmy and 14.3 http://bit.ly/2lsZ36K . Some sections edited removed for brevity.