The Impending Crisis: American Political History, 1850-1860

Question 1

Second Party System: Democrats & Whigs

Answer 1

-Democrats (1830s under Andrew Jackson)
—Favored smaller government, state’s rights, agrarianism, Indian removal; Opposed banks. reform (temperance).

-Whigs (opposition to Jackson, c. 1840)
—Favored strong central government, activist government (internal improvements, national bank), reform; Opposed Indian removal. Tended to be more antislavery.

-Both are national parties, stabilizing institutions
—worked hard to keep the divisive issue of slavery off the national agenda

-Growing sectional strains with annexation of Texas and war with Mexico
—Northern Whigs are becoming increasingly antislavery/“free soil” (not abolitionist!)

Question 2

Incorporation of New Territories/States 1800-1821

Answer 2

-Balance between slave states and free states
—1796: 8 slave, 8 free
—From then on, slave states and free states were admitted alternately (more happenstance than design)
—Always either an equal number of slave and free states or a majority of one free state
—1819: 11 slave, 11 free
—Missouri would tip balance to slave states for first time

Question 3

Missouri Compromise (1820)

Answer 3

-Admit Maine (then part of Massachusetts) as a free state; Missouri as slave, making 12 free and 12 slave states.

-But except for Missouri, all territory above 36-30 latitude would remain FREE; slavery “’forever prohibited”.

Question 4

Political Conflict following the Mexican Cession (1848)

Answer 4

Polk’s administration the most expansionist in American History

All this territory brings up the politically divisive debate once again. How will all this territory be added to the United States? Number of states? Free or slave?

“The United States will conquer Mexico, but it will be as the man swallows the arsenic, which brings him down in turn. Mexico will poison us.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1846)

1846 Wilmot Proviso

1849 Gold Rush to California

1849 California applies for admission to union as a free state; Texas territory poised to enter the union as well. Southerners wanted to make 4-5 slave states from this territory

Question 5

Wilmot Proviso

Answer 5

“neither slavery nor any involuntary servitude shall ever exist” in any territory gained from Mexico (1846).

Fails on a sectional vote (not a Party vote)

Illustrates growing opposition to the expansion of slavery in the North and the weakness of the two party system of Democrats and Whigs.

Question 6

The “Great Triumvirate” and the contentious six-month debate over admission of California (1850)

Answer 6

The “Great Triumvirate” refers to three influential U.S. senators—Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun—who played central roles in the contentious 1850 debate over California’s admission to the Union. California’s request to join as a free state threatened to upset the delicate balance between free and slave states in the Senate. Clay introduced the Compromise of 1850 to resolve this crisis, which included admitting California as a free state, establishing territories with the option of popular sovereignty on slavery, and enacting a stricter Fugitive Slave Law to appease the South. While Webster supported the compromise as a means to preserve the Union, Calhoun opposed it, arguing that the South’s rights must be protected. Ultimately, the compromise passed, temporarily easing tensions, but failed to resolve the deeper conflicts over slavery, which would soon lead to the Civil War.

Question 7

Henry Clay (Whig)

Answer 7

His most notable achievements include the Missouri Compromise (1820) and the Compromise of 1850, both of which aimed to maintain the balance of power between free and slave states and prevent the nation from falling into civil war.

-whig party

Question 8

Daniel Webster (Whig)

Answer 8

support of the Compromise of 1850 to preserve the Union

his strong defense of the U.S. Constitution

Question 9

John C. Calhoun

Answer 9

opposition to the Compromise of 1850

protection of slavery

Question 10

Lewis Cass (Dem) “Popular Sovereignty”

Answer 10

best known for advocating “Popular Sovereignty”—the idea that the people of a territory should decide for themselves whether to allow slavery, rather than having the decision made by Congress

-democratic senator

Question 11

William Seward (Whig) “Higher Law”

Answer 11

Whig senator

famous for his “Higher Law” speech, in which he argued that there was a moral law above the U.S. Constitution that condemned slavery

believed that slavery was morally wrong and should be abolished, regardless of legal or political considerations

Question 12

Compromise of 1850

Answer 12

Borders settled for Texas; California admitted as a free state; slave trade (not slavery) outlawed in D.C.; NM & UT allowed to decide whether slavery would be allowed (popular sovereignty); stricter enforcement of Fugitive Slave Law

Significance?
A short-term basis for sectional peace, but a conditional peace.
Second Party system survives, but severely weakened as politicians vote on sectional lines.

Question 13

Lewis Hayden

Answer 13

-Abolitionist/Civic Leader
-Led rescue of Shadrach Minkins
-Boston, 1852

Lewis Hayden was an abolitionist and civic leader in Boston, known for his active role in the Underground Railroad and his leadership in the rescue of Shadrach Minkins in 1852. Minkins was an escaped slave who was captured under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and was being held in a Boston courtroom. Hayden, along with other abolitionists, led a bold rescue operation, freeing Minkins from custody and helping him escape to Canada. Hayden’s actions were part of his broader commitment to fighting slavery and supporting African Americans’ rights in the years leading up to the Civil War.

Question 14

Anthony Burns

Answer 14

Anthony Burns was a runaway slave from Virginia who became the center of a highly publicized and controversial case in Boston in 1854. After escaping to the North, Burns was captured under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required that escaped slaves be returned to their owners. His arrest sparked widespread protests in Boston, where abolitionists, including Lewis Hayden, rallied in support of Burns. Despite the efforts to free him, Burns was eventually returned to his owner in the South.

Question 15

Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)

Answer 15

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 had two key provisions:

1. It explicitly repealed the Missouri Compromise, which had previously prohibited slavery north of the 36°30′ parallel.
2. It implemented popular sovereignty, allowing settlers in the Kansas and Nebraska territories to decide whether to permit slavery.

This act is often considered one of the most significant events pushing the nation toward the Civil War because:

—It increased sectional tensions by reopening the debate over slavery in areas where it had been previously settled, leading to violence in Kansas (known as “Bleeding Kansas”).

—The act led to the collapse of the Whig Party, as it divided the party over the issue of slavery, and created space for the Republican Party to rise as an anti-slavery party.

—It also weakened the northern Democratic Party, as many Northern Democrats opposed the expansion of slavery, upsetting the balance within the party and deepening the regional divides that would eventually contribute to the Civil War.

Question 16

Kansas-Nebraska Act (origins)

Answer 16

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 originated from two main needs: first, the necessity for an expanded railroad route, specifically a transcontinental route to link the eastern states with California, and second, the need to organize the Nebraska Territory in preparation for new states. Senator Stephen A. Douglas championed a northern route for the railroad, with Chicago as the key hub. However, Southerners preferred a southern route for the railroad, and they held the political power to block any bill unless it addressed their concerns. To gain Southern support for the bill, Douglas agreed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had previously prohibited slavery north of the 36°30′ parallel. This repeal opened the possibility for slavery to be allowed in the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska, even though they were located north of the line.

Question 17

Stephen A. Douglas

Answer 17

-Democratic Senator (Illinois),
-Chair Senate Committee or Territories,
-Presidential ambitions and personal
economic motivations

Question 18

Kansas-Nebraska Act (outcome)

Answer 18

The Kansas-Nebraska Act created the Kansas and Nebraska territories, explicitly repealing the Missouri Compromise, which had previously banned slavery north of the 36°30′ parallel. This repeal was particularly controversial, as many Northerners viewed the Missouri Compromise as a “sacred pledge” that had maintained the balance between free and slave states. Under the act, the question of whether slavery would be allowed in any state formed from these territories would be decided by popular sovereignty, meaning that the settlers of each territory would vote on the issue. The act passed in the Senate with a vote of 37-14 and in the House by a narrow margin of 113-110, with 90% of Southerners supporting it and 64% of Northerners opposing it, reflecting the deep sectional divide in the country.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act ultimately failed to achieve its primary goals. Despite the hope that it would resolve the issue of slavery’s extension and establish a clear route for the transcontinental railroad, it instead intensified sectional tensions. Rather than easing the slavery debate, the act stimulated a strong reaction against slavery in the North, especially as it led to violence in Kansas (known as “Bleeding Kansas”) and a breakdown of the idea of popular sovereignty. It also caused major disruptions in U.S. politics: the Whig Party collapsed, with many Northern Whigs abandoning their party in protest, and the Democratic Party split along sectional lines, with Northern and Southern factions at odds. The Northern Democrats suffered major losses in the 1854 elections, with their representation in the House of Representatives plummeting from 93 to 23. The act also severely tainted the concept of popular sovereignty, as it was seen as a tool for the expansion of slavery rather than a fair democratic process. The fallout from the act contributed to the rise of the Republican Party (which was founded on an anti-slavery platform) and the American Party (also known as the Know Nothing Party), both of which sought to address the growing sectional crisis and the slavery issue in new ways.

Question 19

Rise of Republican Party

Answer 19

The Republican Party experienced the most rapid rise of any third party in American history, emerging in the wake of the political fallout from the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Its origins can be traced to a meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854, where former Northern Whigs, Free Soilers, and even some Northern Democrats (such as David Wilmot) united in protest against the expansion of slavery into the territories. The party’s key ideas included a commitment to resist the growing influence of the “slave power”, the belief that the federal government had jurisdiction over territories, and a strong emphasis on the free labor ideology, which argued that free men should work for wages rather than being bound by slavery. The Republican Party quickly gained traction in the North, capitalizing on widespread anti-slavery sentiment, and in the 1854 elections, it won a significant victory, taking the majority of House of Representatives seats, marking the party’s swift rise as a political force in American politics.

Question 20

“Bleeding Kansas” or the “Crime Against Kansas”

Answer 20

“Bleeding Kansas” and the “Crime Against Kansas” refer to the violent conflict in Kansas Territory during the mid-1850s, sparked by the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the principle of popular sovereignty. The act allowed settlers to decide whether Kansas would allow slavery, leading to the establishment of rival territorial governments: a pro-slavery government (formed in 1855) and an anti-slavery government (formed in 1856).

Antislavery forces, largely backed by the New England Emigrant Aid Company and the arrival of settlers armed with “Beecher’s Bibles” (a nickname for rifles sent to protect anti-slavery settlers), concentrated in towns like Lawrence and Topeka. By the fall of 1855, these forces had outnumbered pro-slavery settlers.

However, pro-slavery forces, initially stronger, were supported by Missouri border “ruffians”—armed groups from Missouri who crossed into Kansas to vote in favor of slavery and intimidate anti-slavery settlers. They concentrated in Leavenworth and Atchison. The two competing governments created their own constitutions: the Lecompton Constitution (pro-slavery) and the Topeka Constitution (anti-slavery).

This led to a guerilla war or mini Civil War from 1855 onward, with widespread violence, including attacks and raids. The Lecompton Constitution was eventually defeated in 1858 in the House of Representatives by a narrow vote of 120-112, though it remained a source of conflict. Kansas remained a territory until it was admitted as a free state in 1861, just before the Civil War broke out. This violent struggle was a significant preview of the larger national conflict to come.

Question 21

Charles Sumner

Answer 21

“Crime Against Kansas” speech (May 1856)

included personal attacks on southern slaveholders

Question 22

Preston Brooks

Answer 22

Congressman,
Cousin to Andrew Butler of SC

Question 23

Dred Scott Decision (1857)

Answer 23

The Dred Scott Decision (1857) was a pivotal Supreme Court ruling with far-reaching implications for slavery in the United States. The case involved Dred Scott, a slave who had been taken by his owner to free states and territories and sued for his freedom, arguing that living in these areas should make him free. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, delivering the majority opinion, declared that blacks, whether free or enslaved, had “no rights which white men are bound to respect”. Additionally, Taney ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, asserting that Congress had no authority to ban slavery in the territories. He also stated that slaves were considered property, and as property, they could be taken anywhere without losing their legal status.

The political fallout from the Dred Scott decision was profound. Republicans strongly condemned the ruling, arguing that the Constitution did indeed empower Congress to regulate slavery in the territories. The decision also fed conspiracy theories, with many believing it was part of a larger Southern strategy to expand slavery nationwide. Northerners were alarmed by the implications, seeing it as a victory for pro-slavery forces and a threat to freedom. The ruling further weakened the Northern faction of the Democratic Party, particularly because it undermined the concept of popular sovereignty. If Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories, the principle that settlers could decide the slavery question for themselves seemed untenable. This decision deepened divisions within the Democratic Party and further heightened the nation’s sectional tensions, pushing it closer to the Civil War.

Question 24

Lincoln – Douglas Debates (1858)

Answer 24

Series of 7 debates between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln for 1858 Election of Illinois Senator

National attention because of Douglas’ stature

Deservedly among most famous debates in American history

Focused almost entirely on issue of slavery, especially issues related to Kansas-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott Court decision, popular sovereignty.

Question 25

1859-60, Southern Anxiety 🡪 Crisis of Fear

Answer 25

-In wake of Kansas being declared a free territory in 1858, South increasingly anxious
-Refused to believe Republicans’ promise not to interfere with slavery where it already existed.
-John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry, VA.
—Oct. 16, 1859: Brown seized federal arsenal with band of 18 black and white men with the intention of arming local slaves for a rebellion
—Failed raid, but success as a martyr
—Refused defense: “I am worth inconceivably more to hang, than for any other purpose.”
—Reaction to raid varied markedly between North and South
~In North, Brown treated as a martyr (although the “work of a mad man”)
~In South fear of slave insurrections; equated Brown with abolitionists, abolitionists with Republicans, Republicans with the North. Secession only way to protect southern interests?