Lesson 2: Growing Tensions

Question 1

Arsenal Definition

Answer 1

a place where guns are stored

Question 2

Border Ruffians Definition

Answer 2

proslavery bands from Missouri who often battled antislavery forces in Kansas

Question 3

Dred Scott v. Sanford Definition

Answer 3

an 1857 Supreme Court case that brought into question the federal power over slavery in the territories

Question 4

Guerrilla Warfare Definition

Answer 4

a type of warfare in which small military groups use surprise attacks and other tactics

Question 5

Kansas-Nebraska Act Definition

Answer 5

an 1854 law that established the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, giving the settlers of each territory the right of popular sovereignty to decide on the issue of slavery

Question 6

Lawsuit Definition

Answer 6

a legal case brought to settle a dispute between a person or group

Question 7

Martyr Definition

Answer 7

a person who dies for his or her beliefs

Question 8

Treason Definition

Answer 8

a betrayal of or action against one’s country

Question 9

What was Stephen Douglass’s Kansas-Nebraska Act, introduced in January 1854?

Answer 9

In January 1854, Senator Stephen Douglas introduced a bill to set up a government for the lands covering the northwestern part of the Louisiana Purchase. This territory stretched from present-day Oklahoma north to present-day Canada, and from Missouri west to the Rockies. Douglas knew that white southerners did not want to add another free state to the Union. He proposed that this large region be divided into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska. The settlers living in each territory would then be able to decide the issue of slavery by popular sovereignty. Douglas’s bill was known as the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Question 10

Why did Southerners view the Kansa-Nebraska Act as a positive? What dispute sprung from it?

Answer 10

The Kansas-Nebraska Act seemed fair to many people. After all, the Compromise of 1850 had applied popular sovereignty in New Mexico and Utah. Southern leaders especially supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act. They were sure that slave owners from neighboring Missouri would move with their enslaved African Americans across the border into Kansas. In time, they hoped, Kansas would become a slave state. President Franklin Pierce, a Democrat elected in 1852, also supported the bill. With the President’s help, Douglas pushed the Kansas-Nebraska Act through Congress. He did not realize it at the time, but he had lit a fire under a powder keg. Sectionalist arguments over slavery once again erupted, this time bringing the nation closer to civil war. Many northerners were unhappy with the new law. The Missouri Compromise had already banned slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, they insisted. In effect, the Kansas-Nebraska Act would repeal the Missouri Compromise.

Question 11

How did Northerners react to the Kansas-Nebraska Act?

Answer 11

The northern reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act was swift and angry. Opponents of slavery called the act a “criminal betrayal of precious rights.” Slavery could now spread to areas that had been free for more than 30 years. Some northerners protested by openly challenging the Fugitive Slave Act.

Question 12

Which groups migrated to Kansas over the problem of slavery? What did Stephen Douglass hope the conditions would be on election day, determining if Kansas would have slavery?

Answer 12

Kansas now became a testing ground for popular sovereignty. Stephen Douglas hoped that settlers would decide the slavery issue peacefully on election day. Instead, proslavery and antislavery forces sent settlers to Kansas to fight for control of the territory. Most of the new arrivals were farmers from neighboring states. Their main interest in moving to Kansas was to acquire cheap land. Few of these settlers owned enslaved African Americans. At the same time, abolitionists brought in more than 1,000 settlers from New England. Proslavery settlers moved into Kansas as well. They wanted to make sure that antislavery forces did not overrun the territory. Proslavery bands from Missouri often rode across the border. These Border Ruffians, as they were called, battled the antislavery forces in Kansas.

Question 13

How did rival governments in Kansas form? What did this lead to?

Answer 13

In 1855, Kansas held elections to choose lawmakers. Hundreds of Border Ruffians crossed into Kansas and voted illegally. They helped to elect a proslavery legislature. The new legislature quickly passed laws to support slavery. One law said that people could be put to death for helping enslaved African Americans escape. Another made speaking out against slavery a crime punishable by two years of hard labor. Antislavery settlers refused to accept these laws. They elected their own governor and legislature. With two rival governments, Kansas was in chaos. Armed gangs roamed the territory looking for trouble.

Question 14

What did a band of proslavery men do in 1856 to the antislavery town of Lawrence? How did this lead to abolitionist John Brown’s attack? What did he claim justified his actions? Due to the violence, what name did newspapers refer to the Kansas territory by?

Answer 14

A band of proslavery men raided the town of Lawrence, an antislavery stronghold, in 1856. The attackers destroyed homes and smashed the press of a Free-Soil newspaper. John Brown, an abolitionist, decided to strike back. Brown had moved to Kansas to help make it a free state. He claimed that God had sent him to punish supporters of slavery. Brown rode with his four sons and two other men to the town of Pottawatomie (paht uh WAHT uh mee) Creek. In the middle of the night, they dragged five proslavery settlers from their beds and murdered them. The killings at Pottawatomie Creek led to even more violence. Both sides fought fiercely and engaged in guerrilla warfare, or warfare in which small military groups use surprise attacks and other methods. By late 1856, more than 200 people had been killed. Newspapers started calling the territory “Bleeding Kansas.”

Question 15

How did violence in the Senate over slavery signal the nation was growing closer to a Civil War?

Answer 15

Even before John Brown’s attack, the battle over Kansas had spilled into the Senate. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was the leading abolitionist senator. In one speech, the sharp-tongued Sumner denounced the proslavery legislature of Kansas. He then viciously criticized his southern foes, singling out Andrew Butler, an elderly senator from South Carolina. Butler was not in the Senate on the day Sumner spoke. A few days later, however, Butler’s nephew, Congressman Preston Brooks, marched into the Senate chamber. Using a heavy cane, Brooks beat Sumner until he fell down, bloody and unconscious, to the floor. Sumner did not fully recover from the beating for three years. Many southerners felt that Sumner got what he deserved for his verbal abuse of another senator. Hundreds of people sent canes to Brooks to show their support. To northerners, however, the brutal act was more evidence that slavery led to violence. The violence in the Senate was another warning that the nation was veering toward a civil war over slavery.

Question 16

Why did many Americans look to the Supreme Court to settle the slavery issue and restore peace? What ended up happening in 1857, during a court case that involved an enslaved man named Dred Scott?

Answer 16

With Congress in an uproar, many Americans looked to the Supreme Court to settle the slavery issue and restore peace. In 1857, the Court ruled on a case that involved an enslaved man named Dred Scott. Instead of bringing harmony, however, the Court’s decision further divided the North and the South.

Question 17

What arguments did Dred Scott’s layers make to justify the Dred Scott v. Sandford case? What was the history of the dispute?

Answer 17

Dred Scott had been enslaved for many years in Missouri. Later, he moved with his owner, who was an army surgeon, to Illinois and then to the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was not allowed. After they returned to Missouri, Scott’s owner died. The owner’s wife took ownership of Scott, and eventually those rights transferred to her brother, John Sanford. Antislavery lawyers helped Scott to file a lawsuit, a legal case brought to settle a dispute between people or groups. Scott’s lawyers argued that, because Scott had lived in a free territory, he had become a free man.

Question 18

What decision was made in the Dred Scott v. Sandford court case? What did it mean? How did the ruling make the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional?

Answer 18

In time, the case reached the Supreme Court as Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court’s decision shocked and dismayed Americans who opposed slavery. First, the Court ruled that Scott could not file a lawsuit because, as an enslaved person, he was not a citizen. Also, the Court’s written decision clearly stated that slaves were considered to be property. The Court’s ruling did not stop there. Instead, the Justices went on to make a sweeping decision about the larger issue of slavery in the territories. According to the Court, Congress did not have the power to outlaw slavery in any territory. The Court’s ruling meant that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision had a far-reaching impact on life in the United States. It meant that enslaved African Americans could not find freedom anywhere in the United States, and together with the Fugitive Slave Act, that no part of the United States could be completely free of slavery. The decision also further increased tensions between the North and South. The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision had a far-reaching impact on life in the United States. It meant that enslaved African Americans could not find freedom anywhere in the United States, and together with the Fugitive Slave Act, that no part of the United States could be completely free of slavery. The decision also further increased tensions between the North and South. The Democratic Party began to divide over the issue of slavery. The decision also increased support for abolition in the North.

Question 19

What were the reactions towards the Dred Scott v. Sandford court case?

Answer 19

White southerners rejoiced at Dred Scott v. Sandford. It meant that slavery was legal in all the territories. This was just what white southerners had been demanding for years.
African Americans responded angrily to the Dred Scott decision. In the North, many held public meetings to condemn the ruling. At one meeting in Philadelphia, a speaker hoped that the ruling would lead more whites to “join with us in our efforts to recover the long lost boon of freedom.” White northerners were also shocked by the ruling. Many had hoped that slavery would eventually die out if it were restricted to the South. Now, however, slavery could spread throughout the West. Even northerners who disliked abolitionists felt that the ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford was wrong. A newspaper in Cincinnati declared, “We are now one great … slaveholding community.”

Question 20

What was Frederick Douglass’s view on the Dred Scott v. Sandford court case?

Answer 20

Abolitionist Frederick Douglass also spoke out against Dred Scott v. Sandford: “This infamous decision,” he declared, “maintains that slaves … are property in the same sense that horses, sheep, and swine are property … that [people] of African descent are not and cannot be citizens of the United States.” He told his listeners:

“All I ask of the American people is that they live up to the Constitution, adopt its principles, [take in] its spirit, and enforce its provisions. When this is done … liberty … will become the inheritance of all the inhabitants of this highly favored country.”

—Frederick Douglass, Collected Speeches,1857

Question 21

How did the Republican party form? For what reason? Which political groups made up this party?

Answer 21

By the mid-1850s, people who opposed slavery in the territories sought a new political voice. Neither Whigs nor Democrats, they argued, would take a strong stand against slavery. “We have submitted to slavery long enough,” an Ohio Democrat declared. A group of Free-Soilers, northern Democrats, and antislavery Whigs gathered in Michigan in 1854. There they formed the Republican Party. Its main goal was to keep slavery out of the western territories. Some Republicans were abolitionists. They hoped to end slavery in the South as well. Most Republicans, however, wanted only to stop the spread of slavery.

Question 22

Who was elected to run for each party in the election of 1856? What were their backstories? Who won the election? Why did the success, yet not victory, of the Republican Party make Southerners feel like their influence in the national government was fading?

Answer 22

The new party grew quickly. By 1856, it was ready to challenge the older parties for power. Republicans selected John C. Frémont to run for President. Frémont was a frontiersman who had fought for California’s independence. He had little political experience, but he opposed the spread of slavery. Frémont’s main opponent was Democrat James Buchanan of Pennsylvania. Many Democrats saw Buchanan as a “northern man with southern principles.” They hoped that he would attract voters in both the North and the South. Former President Millard Fillmore also ran as the candidate of the American, or “Know-Nothing,” party. A strong supporter of the Union, Fillmore feared that a Republican victory would split the nation apart. Buchanan won the election with support from a large majority of southerners and many northerners. Still, the Republicans made a strong showing in the election. Without the support of a single southern state, Frémont won one third of the popular vote. Southerners worried that their influence in the national government was fading.

Question 23

What was another test against the Republican Party that occurred in 1858 between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass?

Answer 23

The next test for the Republican party came in 1858 in Illinois. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, challenged Democrat Stephen Douglas for his seat in the Senate. Because most Americans expected Douglas to run for President in 1860, the race captured the attention of the whole nation.

Question 24

What was Lincoln’s Early life like? What qualities made him a good speaker? What was his character like? What ideas did he oppose?

Answer 24

Abraham Lincoln was born on the Kentucky frontier. Like many frontier people, his parents moved often to find better land. The family lived in Indiana and later in Illinois. As a child, Lincoln spent only a year in school. Still, he taught himself to read, poring over his books by firelight. After Lincoln left home, he opened a store in Illinois. There, he studied law on his own and launched a career in politics. He served eight years in the state legislature and one term in Congress. Bitterly opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, he decided to run for the Senate in 1858. When the race began, Lincoln was not a national figure. Still, people in Illinois knew him well and liked him. To them, he was “just folks”—someone who enjoyed picnics, wrestling contests, and all their favorite pastimes. His honesty, wit, and plain-spoken manner made him a good speaker. Lincoln strongly opposed the Dred Scott decision and used his political platform to speak against it. He voiced his opposition when he debated Stephen Douglas. He later spoke against it during his presidential campaign, rallying Republicans to oppose the Court’s decision.

Question 25

What was the main topic discussed in Lincoln’s and Douglass’s debate? How did the debate go?

Answer 25

During the Senate campaign, Lincoln challenged Douglas to a series of debates. Douglas was not eager to accept, but he did. During the campaign, the two debated seven times. Slavery was the important issue. Douglas wanted to settle the slavery question by popular sovereignty, or a popular vote in each territory. He personally disliked slavery, but stated that he did not care whether people in the territories voted “down or up” for it. Lincoln, like nearly all whites of his day, did not believe in “perfect equality” between blacks and whites. He did, however, believe that slavery was wrong.

“There is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights [listed] in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. … 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.”

—Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858

Since slavery was a “moral, social, and political wrong,” said Lincoln, Douglas and other Americans should not treat it as an unimportant question to be voted “down or up.” Lincoln was totally opposed to slavery in the territories. Still, he was not an abolitionist. He had no wish to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed.

Question 26

What was the result of Lincoln’s and Douglass’s battle for a seat in the Senate? What did Lincoln gain from it?

Answer 26

Week after week, both men spoke nearly every day to large crowds. Newspapers reprinted their campaign speeches. The more northerners read Lincoln’s words, the more they thought about the injustice of slavery. In the end, Douglas won the election by a slim margin. Still, Lincoln was a winner, too. He was now known throughout the country. Two years later, the two rivals would again meet face to face—both seeking the office of President.

Question 27

What revolt was John Brown planning in Virginia to defeat slavery?

Answer 27

In the meantime, more bloodshed inflamed divisions between the North and the South. In 1859, the radical abolitionist John Brown carried his antislavery campaign from Kansas to the East. He led a group of followers, including five African Americans, to the town of Harpers Ferry, Virginia. There, Brown planned to raid a federal arsenal, or gun warehouse. He thought that enslaved African Americans would flock to him at the arsenal. He would then give them weapons and lead them in a revolt.

Question 28

What was the impact of John Brown’s planned revolt in Harpers Ferry, Virginia? What reactions did it gain?

Answer 28

Brown quickly gained control of the arsenal. No slave uprising took place, however. Instead, troops under the command of Robert E. Lee killed ten raiders and captured Brown. Most people, in both the North and the South, thought that Brown’s plan to lead a slave revolt was insane. After all, there were few enslaved African Americans in Harpers Ferry. Furthermore, after seizing the arsenal, Brown did nothing further to encourage a slave revolt. At his trial, however, Brown seemed perfectly sane. He sat quietly as the court found him guilty of murder and treason, or actions against one’s country. Before hearing his sentence, he gave a moving defense of his actions. He showed no emotion as he was sentenced to death.

Question 29

How did the North commemorate John Brown? What was the South’s view on this?

Answer 29

Because he conducted himself with such dignity during his trial, John Brown became a hero to many northerners. Some considered him a martyr because he was willing to give up his life for his beliefs. On the morning he was hanged, church bells rang solemnly throughout the North. In years to come, New Englanders would sing a popular song with the chorus: “John Brown’s body lies a mold’ring in the grave, but his soul is marching on.” When poet Julia Ward Howe heard the song, she was inspired to write the poem “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” which became a popular Civil War song set to the same tune, a piece of music that was unique to American culture. To white southerners, the northern response to John Brown’s death was outrageous. People were singing the praises of a man who had tried to lead a slave revolt! Many southerners became convinced that the North wanted to destroy slavery—and the South along with it. The nation was poised for a violent clash.