Key Topics - Context, Detail and Impacts thereof.

Question	Answer
The 1821 Missouri Compromise	Context: In 1819 Missouri applied to join the Union as a slave state. This would have upset the balance of 11 free and 11 slave states. Furious debates ensued. Detail: A compromise proposed by Henry Clay was agreed where Missouri would enter as slave. Maine would be created and be free to give balance. Slavery would be banned in the Louisiana Purchase above 36°30'. Impact: Initially eased tension but alarmed older statesmen. Would the line be extended in future for territories? Didn't settle the question forever.
The 1830 Webster-Hayne Debate	Context: The Nullification Crisis Detail: Daniel Webster asserted that the Constitution was not a compact among the states but among the people, and the Supreme Court was the only one who could interpret it. Union was intended to be perpetual and nullification was treason. This was a celebrated speech. Robert Hayne was an extreme supporter of states rights. He believed in the theory of nullification.
The 1832 Nullification Crisis	Context: Tariffs imposed on South by North - South Carolina especially affected by tariffs. Cotton price already depressed and the 1828 'Tariff of Abominations' further affected them. Detail: Calhoun wrote anonymously denouncing the tariff as "unconstitutional, unequal and oppressive". He proposed the doctrine of nullification, where a state could nullify any act of the federal government deemed unconstitutional by a special state convention. A new tariff act was passed in July 1832 but it wasn't enough for SC who decided that the tariffs of 128 and 1832 were unconstitutional and null and void. They declared that if troops tried to force them to pay they would secede. President Jackson sent troops and SC started to build an army. Calhoun and SC leaders became aware of their isolation - no support from other Southern States. The Compromise Tariff, proposed by Henry Clay and passed in March 1833, was accepted and SC convention withdrew their nullification ordinance. The Force Act was also passed, though Jackson didn't need to use it. SC defiantly nullified it but Jackson ignored this.
The 1836 Crisis over Texas	Context: Texas was a part of of Mexico which many Southern Americans, with their slaves, had settled in. Mexico freed slaves in 1829 and banned American immigration in 1830. However American Texans defied these laws and continued to immigrate. Detail : Over the winter of 1835-6 American Texans declared independence. General Santa Anna destroyed the 187 Texans in the Alamo in March 1836. Jackson sympathised but sent no reinforcements. However by April 1836 many Southern and Western Americans had rushed to the Texan's aid and defeated Santa Anna at the battle of San Jacinto. Now Texas wanted to be annexed by America but though Adams and Jackson had been interested in Texas, the North were strongly opposed, seeing it as Southern and slave aggression and power. Jackson and Van Buren felt the issue was too explosive in election years and shelved it, but Tyler was interested. Calhoun's involvement in annexing it was so divisive that it was defeated. Impact: The issue had yet to be resolved. Texas had caused American interest in California and New Mexico. Highlights again the Northern/Southern divide - already fear of slave power/expansion in North?
The Mexican War 1846 - 1848	Context: President Polk was committed to Westward expansion and manifest destiny. The annexation of Texas had angered Mexico, and there was disputed borders/land. Mexico still owed $2m in debt to the US government for damages against American citizens. Polk's desire to take California and New Mexico did not help tensions. In 1845 Polk sent Slidell to Mexico hoping to purchase the two areas but a new anti-American government was in power who would not do a deal. Detail: In May 1846 Mexican troops ambushed a patrol of US troops in the disputed border area. Polk had hoped this would happen in order to provoke a war in which America could secure California and New Mexico. Congress declared war - Northerners thought it was Southern aggression, Southerners and Westerners supported it. In the Summer of 1846 Colonel Kearney marched into Santa Fe and declared the annexation of New Mexico. He set off to take California, but by the time he had got there the settlers had proclaimed independence - helped by Colonel Fremont and a US naval squadron. Santa Anna refused to surrender (he had been out of power and was back in again now). General Zachary Taylor won a series of battles in 1846 and then defeated the Mexicans at the battle of Buena Vista in February 1847. General Scott took Mexico City in September. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in February 1848 and ratified in May after Polk reluctantly signed it (Polk felt he could have got more land). Impact: The war cost $100m and 13,000 soldiers. The US got California and New Mexico, but had to pay $15m and agreed to assume the damages Mexico owed to US citizens (around $3.25m).
The Wilmot Proviso - August 1846	Context: The Mexican war, from the very start of which many Americans anticipated winning territory. Politicians and people worried because it was unclear whether states formed from Mexican land would be free or slave. Detail: In August, David Wilmot - a Northern Pennsylvania Democrat and NOT an abolitionist - proposed that slavery should be excluded from territory gained from Mexico. Like many Northerners, he resented the fact that Polk seemed to be pursuing a pro-Southern Policy. Polk had been happy to fight the Mexican war, but reneged on his promise to take the whole of Oregon, giving the British the North and the USA the South. By supporting the Wilmot Proviso, Northern Democrats hoped to keep the blacks out of new territories and ensure that white settlers would not face competition from slave planters. Impact: Southern congressmen, regardless of party, were outraged. The proviso passed the House of Representatives 83-64 after bitter debate and sectional voting. Senator Toombs of Georgia warned that if it passed he would favour disunion. The proviso failed to passed the Senate and thus did not become law.
Popular Sovereignty	Context: Issue over slavery in land gained from the Mexican War. Detail: Two Mid-Western Democrats, Lewis Cass and Stephen Douglas proposed the idea that settlers themselves rather than Congress would decide whether a territory should prohibit slavery. This offered the South federal non-intervention and the possibility of slave extension, and the North the fact that it was unlikely the settlers in the new territories would vote for slavery. Impact: The problem was popular sovereignty went against past practice, with congress deciding previously - did popular sovereignty mean they lost that power? The main issue was when the territory would decide on the slavery question. Northerners envisaged the decision being made early, whilst Southerners saw it being made just before application for statehood, with slavery being recognised and protected by that time. Regardless, it was supported by many Northern and Southern Democrats
The 1850 Compromise	Context: The California gold rush had meant that there were enough people to apply for statehood long before anyone had envisaged that being the case. The question now was whether, after winning the land from Mexico, slavery would be allowed. Southerners were outraged that there was a possibility of this happening and tensions grew. Fights in congress, flouting of the Fugitive Slave Law (FSL) and a land dispute between Texas and New Mexico added to the tension. Detail: Taylor was determined to make no concessions to the South, ready to call their bluff and send in an army if necessary. However many politicians from Mid-Western states, lead by Henry Clay, were worried by events. Clay - who had experience solving the Missouri crisis of 1821 and the Nullification crisis of 1832 - offered the Senate of resolutions as a basis for compromise in January 1850. California was to be admitted as a free state. Utah and New Mexico were to be organised as territories without any mention of or restriction on slavery. Slave trading but not slavery would end in Washington. A more stringent FSL would be passed. Texas would give New Mexico the disputed land and congress would assume the $10m public debt they owed. This omnibus bill was defeated in July because Northern congressmen were afraid of looking as if they were bargaining with the South and voted it down. Senator Douglas (proposed Popular Sovereignty) replaced Clay as leader of the compromise movement, breaking the bill into its separate components and passed all of them by September. Impact: Each segment of the bill was passed sectionally, meaning that it had skirted around, rather than settled, the issue of slavery in the territories. It provided no formula for the future. The Southern secessionist hopes were floundered after the failure to radicalise states at the Nashville conference. However, many Southerners HAD now accepted Calhoun's doctrine that secession was a valid constitutional remedy applicable in appropriate circumstances.
The Fugitive Slave Act - 1850	Context: Part of the 1850 Compromise, many saw it as the price to pay for continuing union, but it contained a number of features which were distasteful to moderates and appalled abolitionists. Detail: It authorised federal marshals to raise posses to pursue fugitives on Northern soil. If someone refused, a $1000 fine could be enforced. The law targeted not just recent runaways, but those whom had fled decades ago. Impact: Efforts to catch and return slaves inflamed sectional tension. In 1854 a mob broke into a courthouse and killed a guard in an attempt to catch Anthony Burns. In response to the act, 'vigilance committees' sprung up in many communities to help Blacks escape to Canada. Northern states also passed personal liberty laws and forbade the use of state jails to imprison alleged fugitives - this made it hard to enforce federal law. The fact that some free states went to such lengths to negate the law caused resentment. However it is likely that the overt to resistance to the Act was exaggerated by both Southerners and Abolitionists, and it was enforced without too much trouble in most states.
Uncle Tom's Cabin - 1851	Context: Just after the 1850 Compromise, despite President Fillmore saying that the compromise was final and irrevocable and Douglas resolving never to make another speech on slavery. Detail: Harriet Beecher Stowe published the novel in weekly instalments. It presented a fierce attack on slavery, but was written without any first hand knowledge. The novel drew heavily on abolitionist literature and her imagination. Regardless, it sold 300,000 copies in 1852 and over two million in the next 10 years. It was turned into songs and plays and almost all Northerners knew the theme. Impact: It aroused wide Northern sympathy for slaves and probably pushed some towards a more aggressively anti-slavery stance.
The Rise of the Republicans - 1854-6	Context: In the 1854 Mid-Term elections, the Democrats lost many of their seats (Kansas-Nebraska Act). The Whigs were also weakened through division over the Act, though Whig failure was also down to not dealing with Nativist concerns about Irish and Catholic immigration. They decided to be pro-catholic in an attempt to gain voters of that creed, but instead lost many traditional Whig voters. The Know-Nothings appeared, catering to Nativist concerns and first entered politics by supporting suitable current candidates. However by 1854 they took on the characteristics of a traditional political party and had over a million members, wielding real political power. The Know Nothing order called itself the American Party in 1855 and was winning large scale support from Northerners and Southerners (mostly ex-Whigs in the South and nativists of both parties in the North). Detail: At the same time in 1854, numerous anti-slave coalitions formed and the Republican name eventually caught on. The Republicans were supported because of their harsh stance on slavery - a spectre which had been awakened by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Republicans and the American Party thus tried to avoid competition in order to defeat the Democrats. Impact: The Republicans could obviously only ever be a Northern party, whilst the American party drew support from both sides of the sectional divide. For this reason, most people expected the Know Nothings to be the main opponents of the Democrats in 1856.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854	Context: Nebraska was part of the Louisiana Purchase and was still unsettled by Americans in the early 1850s. Congress had not yet organised the area into a territory, surveyed land, and put it up for sale. Northerners wanted Nebraska developed, whilst Southerners didn't as it was above the Missouri compromise line and thus would be a free state. Detail: In January 1854 Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska bill to congress. He had been pushing since 1844 for Nebraska to become a territory. In order to get the bill passed, he knew he would need some hard won Southern support. The original bill said that Nebraska was to be organised into a territory, and that states formed from it would enter the union free or slave, as their constitution prescribed at the time of their admission. This substituted popular sovereignty for the Missouri Compromise. This did not satisfy Southerners, who said they wanted a specific repeal on the slavery ban there. Douglas reluctantly agreed to it, and the final bill divided the Nebraska territory into two, Nebraska and Kansas. Douglas was a dedicated patriot who firmly believed in manifest destiny. He wanted the bill passed and Nebraska/Kansas settled for a number of reasons: He was confident the inhabitants would not vote for slavery. He didn't want sectional controversy to stall westward expansion. A Northern trans-continental railway would have to be built through Kansas-Nebraska, and he and his constituents in Illinois stood to benefit from this. Settlement of the issue would enhance his presidential ambitions. Impact: "A hell of a storm" Northerners saw it as proof that the slave power conspiracy was still at work. Repeal of the Missouri Compromise caused uproar. Though the South had initially been apathetic about the bill, the Northern response meant that the passing of it became a symbol of Southern honour. The bill eventually passed, splintering the Whig and Democrat party sectionally. The bill damaged the Democrats, damaged Douglas's presidential ambitions, and revived North-South rivalry.
The Situation in Kansas - 1854-6	Context: After the Act passed in 1854 settlers moved in, but whilst for them the main concern was land and water rights, for the politicians far more was at stake. Northerners feared that the spread of slavery into Kansas would set a precedent for elsewhere. Southerners felt a free Kansas would be a sign of the death of slavery. Detail: In the Senate, Seward of New York threw down the gauntlet saying that they should compete for Kansas and whoever was stronger in numbers would rightfully win. Both Northerners and Southerners tried to influence events. The Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company sponsored over 1500 Northerners to settle in Kansas. Senator Achinson formed the Platte County Defensive Association which was pledged to ensure slave status of Kansas. Southerners seemed to have the upper hand due to the proximity of Missouri to Kansas. In March 1855 Kansas elected it's first territorial legislature which would decide on the subject of slavery. The elections were crucial. Hundreds of Missourians crossed over to vote in the elections and this was a tactical mistake - the pro-slavers would probably have won anyway but this cast doubts on the victory. The legislature then passed many tough pro-slavery laws (capital offence to aid a fugitive slave). Northerners were outraged. The free-staters in Kansas denied the validity of the Lecompton constitution and set up the Topeka government. They comprised of a minority abolitionists and majority moderates. The moderates were openly racist and simply didn't want blacks in Kansas. For this reason, the Topeka government banned blacks - slave or free. Impact: Bleeding Kansas! The competition between pro-slavers and free-staters was running high, with the state now having two governments - Topeka and Lecompton.
Bleeding Kansas - 1856	Context: The events from 1854 to 1856 and the existence of TWO governments at Lecompton (slave) and Topeka (free) Detail: In May 1856, a pro-slavery posse sacked Lawrence - a free state centre. Buildings were burned, but though Northern newspapers reported dozens of free-staters killed, only one PRO-SLAVERY person was killed when a burning building collapsed on him. The Lawrence raid sparked off more violence - all mainly down to John Brown, a fervent abolitionist. He, with several of his sons, murdered five pro-slavery settlers at Pottawatomie Creek. Overnight, as a result of a vicious crime aided by Northern newspaper reports which said he had acted in self defence, Brown became a hero in the North. In Kansas however, his actions lead to increased tension and a series of killings. The Northern press once again exaggerated the issue and described it as civil war. Impact: President Pierce appointed a new governor - Geary - who managed to patch up a truce. Events in Kansas and their distorted reporting HELPED BOOST REPUBLICAN FORTUNES. Bleeding Kansas was evidence of Slave Power at work once more for Northerners.
The Rise of the Republicans - 1856 onwards	Context: In 1855 the American Party (Know-Nothings) were the largest anti-democrat party in both the North and South (in the South it was practically the Whigs under a new name). The problems of the American party was what allowed the Republicans to rise. Detail: Success in the South for the Republicans was a major reason for the AP's undoing - they had won massive Northern support in 1854-5 by exploiting both anti-slavery and nativist issues. In 1856 the AP dropped it's anti-Kansas-Nebraska position to keep the South, and this damaged Northern support. The decline of immigration made it harder for them to play on Nativist concerns. The legislatures they controlled failed to make good their campaign promises. Their success made it hard to carry on its image as a 'people's party', and they attracted the very same old-guard politicians they had been set up to purge. Some Americans hated the secretive side of the party. The AP was split North and South and during December and January there was a struggle between the AP and the Republicans for the position of speakership in the House - Nathanial Banks a Republican (ex-AP) won. The Republicans were anti-Democrat, anti-Slave Power Conspiracy (though they were not consistent or agreed upon amongst their leaders in defining who constituted Slave Power proponents). Republicans had moral antipathy to slavery, but though they opposed expansion many did not support immediate abolition as relatively few believed in black equality - and they didn't want thousands flooding North! The party was fairly divided on economic issues - which refutes the early 20th century thesis that the Republican were concerned with promoting industrialisation and represented the emergence of capitalism. The leaders were also divided on nativist issues. 'Bleeding Sumner' in May 1856: Sumner attacked Butler verbally in a speech, then Congressman Preston Brooks came and beat the crap out of him. Brooks became a Southern hero and Sumner a Northern martyr. Impact: The ebbing of the AP tide let the Republicans emerge. The speakership position helped weld the Republicans into a more coherent party. Bleeding Sumner outraged Northerners more than Bleeding Kansas! It was clear evidence of Slave Power at work, using violence to silence free speech - this made the Republicans and their strong anti-slave platform attractive to Northerners.
Problems in Kansas (After Geary restored order)	Context: Buchanan seemed to face a situation with some hope in Kansas. Though there were two governments, the new governor Geary (appointed by Pierce) had restored order in the territory. It was obvious to Geary and other independent observers that free staters now had a clear majority. All that Buchanan had to do - having declared his commitment to popular sovereignty - was ensure that the will of the majority prevailed. Detail: Geary had arrived despising the abolitionists, but had turned against the Lecompton constitution by 1857. If Buchanan ensured a fair solution, it would deprive the Republicans of one of their most effective issues. Geary resigned in March 1857 and warned Buchanan not to support the pro-slavers. Buchanan appointed Walker, an experienced Southern politician, to take his place. Walker only accepted the position after being assured that Buchanan would support fair elections. It seemed logical that Kansas should enter the Union as a free, Democrat-voting, state. In February 1857, the Lecompton government authorised an election in June of a convention to draw up a constitution which would set the territory on the road to statehood. Free staters refused to get involved because they suspected that any election held by the pro-slavers would be rigged. Thus the pro-slavers won all the convention seats. This made a mockery of popular sovereignty and raised the expectations of pro-slavers. Elections were held for a new territorial legislature in October. Walker convinced free-staters they should participate - and when the pro slavers won, they were charged with fraudulence. Walker investigated the claims and found them to be true, finding enough fraudulent votes to overturn the result and give free-staters the majority. The constitutional convention was now the last refuge for the pro-slavers. Few people believed it represented the majority, and it offered voters the choice of accepting the pro-slavery constitution or accepting a different constitution which banned future importation of slaves but guaranteed the rights of existing slave holders. Walker denounced the convention's actions as vile fraud and urged Buchanan to repudiate the Lecompton constitution. However, influential Southerners insisted on making the Lecompton constitution a test - Lecompton or disunion! Buchanan knew he couldn't afford to lose Southern support. However it seems that he supported the pro-slavery constitution because he thought it was the right thing to do! Buchanan endorsed the actions of the convention in his annual message to Congress in December 1857. Impact: This was a huge blunder, even some Southerners were embarrassed by such fraud. If Buchanan had accepted Walker's advice he might not have lost so much Southern support. He gave the Republicans massive political ammunition and angered Northern Democrats like Douglas. Douglas, committed to popular sovereignty attacked Buchanan and the Lecompton constitution. Southern Democrats declared Douglas and the Northerners traitors. Thus the Democrats were now split North and South. In congress Buchanan managed to pull every string possible and get the Northern Democrats to vote for the constitution. In the House of Representatives the constitution was defeated. Buchanan now accepted his position and fair elections meant a free-state win. In January 1861 Kansas joined the Union as a free state.
The Dred Scott Case - 1857	Context: Dred Scott was a slave who had accompanied his army-surgeon master to Illinois, Wisconsin and then Missouri. In the 1840s, with the help of anti-slave lawyers, he went before the Missouri courts claiming that he was free as he had resided in a free state and a free territory. Different Courts gave different verdicts, and the case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The questions were: Did Scott have the RIGHT to sue in federal courts? Was he free because he had lived in a free state? Was he free because he had lived in a free territory, where slavery had been outlawed by the Missouri Compromise. Detail: By March 1857 the Supreme Court was ready to give judgement. The court had 9 Justices - 5 Southern, 4 Northern. The court decided, by 7 votes to 2, that Scott could not sue, as blacks did not have the same rights as whites. Scott's stay in a free state (Illinois) did not make him free. Scott's stay in a free territory made no difference as though slavery was banned, all citizens had the right to take their 'property' into the territories. Impact: Northerners were horrified - further proof of Slave Power at work. The decision simply annulled a law which had already been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Scott actually soon purchased his own freedom. The decision provoked further sectional antagonism - rather than settling the issue of slavery in the territories it was seen by Northerners as an attempt to outlaw the Republicans (who were committed to exclude slavery from the territories) and undermined the concept of popular sovereignty where territorial legislatures could ban slavery if they wanted. It set a precedent going forwards.
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates - 1858	Context: The debates were in aid of the 1858 Mid-Term Elections. Douglas agreed to meet Lincoln for seven open-air, face to face debates. These have become part of American folklore, running from August to October and drawing huge crowds. Both Douglas and Lincoln were gifted speakers. Detail: The debates were confined almost exclusively to race, slavery and slavery expansion. By today's standards, Lincoln and Douglas do not seem far apart, both were moderates in their parties and both were fighting for middle ground, both considered blacks inferior to whites. Lincoln declared - "I am not, nor have ever been in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor have ever been in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people". Even the difference between Lincoln's free soil doctrine and Douglas's popular sovereignty was not that pronounced - both expected that they would keep slavery out of the territories. The difference was that Lincoln did see slavery as a moral evil, whereas Douglas never said this. Lincoln expected slavery to survive and believed that ultimate extinction should be the goal. Impact: Lincoln won 125,000 popular votes to Douglas's 121,000, but Douglas's supporters kept control of the Illinois legislature which thus elected him as senator. This was a significant triumph for Douglas, solidifying his leadership of the Northern democrats and ensuring he would be in a good position to battle for presidential candidacy in 1860. However, Douglas had said much to alienate the South in the debates - including his support of the Freeport Doctrine which was a view saying that a territory could exclude slavery by refusing to enact laws that gave legal protection to owning slaves (effectively invalidating the Dred Scott ruling). Lincoln, though he lost, emerged as a Republican spokesman of National Stature - battling Douglas on even terms and clarifying the issues dividing the Republicans from the democrats.
John Brown's Raid of Harper's Ferry - 1859	Context: John Brown had risen to fame/infamy in Kansas. Now in his late fifties but still determined that God had put him on the earth to battle slavery, he wanted to do something decisive for the anti-slavery cause. Many thought he was mad (there was a history of metal illness in his family), but some abolitionists thought he was a man of integrity and moral conviction. The very fact he could win financial support from Northern businessmen was testimony to both his charismatic personality and the level of abolitionist sentiment about. Detail: On the night of 16th October 1859, Brown and 18 men (including 3 of his sons) left Maryland and rode to the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry. Brown wanted to seize weapons, retreat to the Appalachian mountains and spark a major slave revolt. The fact it was impossible to warn the slaves in advance was a major - but by no means the only - flaw in his plan. It is remarkable that the raid was kept secret, as the 'Secret Six' unknown major financiers of the plan managed to keep quiet. Brown captured the arsenal easily and a few slaves were induced or compelled to join him. A few hostages were taken. A train pulled into Harper's Ferry and one of Brown's men accidently shot a black baggage master. Rather than escape to the hills he took refuge in the fire-engine house at the arsenal. His position became desperate when Virginia and Maryland state militia units and a detachment of troops led by Colonel Robert Lee converged on the fire-engine house. After a 36 hour siege where Lee attempted in vain to persuade Brown to give himself up and not kill the hostages, they stormed the house. Impact: Brown was wounded and captured along with six of his men. Two of his sons and eight of his 'army' were killed. Seven other people also died. Brown was tried for treason, refused to plead insanity, and executed on 2 December. By dying this martyrs death he helped the anti-slavery cause even more than the raid had done. Southerners were appalled - their fears of Northern opposition to slavery were confirmed. They suspected he had strong Northern support, and whilst in some places church bells were rung in remembrance on the day of his execution, many did not approve. Northern Democrats condemned him out of hand and leading Republicans depicted it as 'fatally wrong'. Many Southerners saw the Republicans and abolitionists like Brown as one and the same. Tensions increased over the winter of 1859-60. Rumours of Slave insurrection meant slave patrols were strengthened, dozens of slaves were rounded up and some lynched, Southern state governments purchased additional weapons and drilled militias more than previously. When congress met in December 1859 the House was completely sectionally divided - Northerners opposed all Southern measures and vice versa. By 1860, inflammatory rhetoric had grown to new heights - far from easing tension and avoiding controversy, Buchanan had led policies which exacerbated the sectional rift and is consistently regarded as the worst US president ever.
Lincoln's Election - 1860	Context: The events of the 1850s had brought a growing number of Southerners to the conclusion that the North had deserted the true principles of the Union. The North had indeed changed - it had urbanised, industrialised and absorbed large numbers of immigrants. The South had stayed agricultural. Not only did the South worry about a Republican victory damaging slavery, they felt the South was treated as an inferior by the North. Detail: The Democrats needed to heal their rifts to beat the Republicans in 1860. Through walk-outs from Southern delegates in Charleston SC and Baltimore, Douglas won the nomination from the official convention. The Southern delegates now set up their own convention and nominated the current vice-president John Breckinridge of Kentucky on a platform that called the federal government to protect slavery in the territories. Breckinridge was supported by Cass, Pierce and Buchanan, along with 8/10 of the Northern Democrat senators. However it was clear that the party had split along sectional lines. The Republicans met in May in Chicago, agreeing easily on a platform but not so easily on a candidate. They wanted higher protective tariffs, free 160-acre homesteads for western settlers, a Northern trans-continental railway, opposed the extension of slavery but promised specifically that they would not interfere with it where it currently was. They also condemned John Brown's raid. Seward was actually the favourite to win the Republican presidential nomination, but his many years of public service had left him with many enemies. Though he was a pragmatic politician who opposed extremism, he was seen has having radical views on slavery. Lincoln had many advantages however: He came from the key battleground state of Illinois, he had gained a national reputation through his debates with Douglas, he had gained many friends and made himself known, it was difficult to attach an ideological label to him so he could appeal to all people, his lack of experience boosted his reputation for honesty and integrity. Lincoln won the nomination on the third ballot, almost certainly with the help of his campaign managers making secret deals with delegates from Pennsylvania and Indiana. Impact: In the North, the fight was between Lincoln and Douglas, in the South it was between Bell and Breckinridge. Douglas was the only one to actively campaign. In November 81% of people voted. Lincoln carried all the Northern states apart from New Jersey. With a majority of 180 to 123 in the electoral college he became the new president. Northerners voted for him because he seemed to represent them - a force against Slave Power.
Secession from December 1860 to February 1861.	Context: Lincoln's victory in November 1860 was a green light for Secessionists - however there were a number of reasons not to secede: Lincoln posed no threat as he had promised not to interfere, and also didn't control congress or the supreme court, secession would push up the price of slavery because the FSL would disappear, civil war could come from secession and this would threaten slavery far more than just Lincoln's election. Detail: Southerners depicted Lincoln as a rabid abolitionist who would encourage slave insurrections, stop expansion and eventually vote slavery out of existence. For more than a generation, Southerners had seen themselves as aggrieved innocents in an unequal struggle that unleashed more and more aggressions on Southern rights. Fire-eaters were now supported by mainstream politicians. Impact: Secession was still not inevitable - there was much Union sympathy in the South, and there was no overarching organisation to organise a secession movement. There was internal tensions between self-sufficient farmers and the great planters. Immediate secessionists knew that if they forced the issue onto those who thought it would be best to wait, they would destroy the unity they needed. The two situations to avoid were the possibilities of a 1832 Nullification Crisis style situation where only one state seceded with no support, or a 1850 situation where they couldn't organise and persuade them to secede together. Unsurprisingly, South Carolina seceded in December 1860. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas then followed suit during January and February of 1861. Republicans saw this as a slave-power conspiracy - with a minority of planters conning the electorate into voting for secession. This is not necessarily true, and the debate about whether it is continues.
The Creation of the Confederacy	Context: Most Northerners believed that the seceded were states were bluffing, or that an extremist minority had seized power. In contrast, most Southerners felt that the North would not go to war to preserve the Union. Border state Americans - like Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, Delaware and Missouri - were confident that a compromise could be arranged. Detail: In February 1861, 50 delegates met in Montgomery to launch the Confederate Government. Most of the delegates were lawyers or well-to-do planters. Almost all had extensive political experience. Fire-eaters were distinctly under-represented at Montgomery and there was good breadth of positions. The Constitution, ratified in March, was closely modelled on the US constitution and simply protected slavery and state's rights to a greater extent. Jefferson Davis was unanimously elected as provisional president. He was by no mean a fire-eater and had worked hard to maintain national unity. Alexander Stephens became vice-president. As a leading anti-secessionist he attracted and welded cooperationists to the new Government. The cabinet was made up of men from each Confederate state. In his inaugural speech he asked that the Confederacy be left alone - his main concern was that no upper-South states had yet joined. Impact: Though the upper-South states rejected secession, they made it clear in their legislatures that any attempt to force the seceded states back into the union would lead them to put their Southern loyalties before their Union ones.
The Failure of the Crittenden Compromise	Context: Buchanan continued as president till March 1861. Blaming the Republicans for disunion, he did little to stem the tide of secession. He did not wish to provoke war, and thus took no action as Federal institutions across the South were taken over by the Confederate states. Detail: Congress met in December, with few representatives from the confederate states. Many congressmen from the North and upper South wished to seek compromise, and thus both the House and the Senate set up committees to explore conciliation plans. The house committee, with 33 members, was too cumbersome and the Senate Committee of 13 was much more effective. Kentucky Senator John Crittenden played a significant role, and the compromise proposal package came out under his name - the Crittenden compromise. The Missouri compromise line would be extended to the Pacific - giving the South hope of slavery expansion. There would be a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that there would be no interference with slavery where it existed. Congress would not be allowed to interfere with inter-state slave trade or abolish slavery in Washington. The Republican strength in Congress had significantly grown and rejected the proposals - which seemed more like surrender than compromise. A Peace convention also met in Washington in February 1861 at the request of Virginia. 133 Delegates attended, including some of the most famous names in US politics - however the Confederate states did not send delegates. After three weeks of deliberation, the convention supported proposals similar to Crittenden's - these were ignored by congress. Impact: Though slavery had been the main issue dividing North and South, secession was now the main debate. Some felt the erring states should be allowed to go in peace, whilst most refused to accept the dismemberment of the Union. Few Republicans supported the dispatch of troops to suppress the 'rebellion' however. Lincoln stayed silent, though in a letter written in February to Seward he made it clear that he would compromise on issues such as the FSL, slavery in Washington and even some concessions with regard to New Mexico. Lincoln believed he had fairly won the election and was unwilling to concede to much to the South - like many Republicans he exaggerated the union feeling in the Confederate states. There was the principle that if a small dissatisfied section of the union could break away when it wanted, it undermined the whole concept of democracy and government.
Fort Sumter and Civil War	Context: Over the winter, the Confederacy had taken over most of the (virtually unmanned) forts and arsenals in the South. Only two exceptions remained - Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. Pickens, off Pensacola, Florida was well out of range of shore batteries and could easily be reinforced by the Federal navy. Sumter however was in the middle of Charleston harbour with Union troops numbering less than 100. They were led by Major Anderson who, though an ex-Kentucky slaveholder with some sympathy for the South, was determined to remain loyal to the Union. Detail: In January 1861, Buchanan sent a ship with supplies and reinforcements for Anderson. As the ship approached, SC batteries opened fire. Anderson didn't return fire and war was avoided. Southern states were worried that SC actions might precipitate a war before the South was ready and so a true of kinds was made where SC would not try and seize the fort and Buchanan would not send reinforcements. By March the Fort had become the symbol of national sovereignty for both sides. Retention of Sumter was a test of Lincoln's credibility in carrying out the promises of his inaugural speech, and the South could hardly allow a foreign fort in the middle of one of its main harbours. The Sumter garrison only had enough supplies of food left for four to six weeks. Winfield Scott felt that Sumter's evacuation was almost inevitable. After much indecision and change in cabinet opinion, Lincoln sent a small resupply fleet for Charleston in April. By attempting to resupply Sumter, he put the ball in Jefferson Davies court. If he fired on unarmed boats supplying hungry men, he would clearly be in the wrong. Impact: Davies issued orders that Sumter must be taken before it was resupplied. Anderson refused to evacuate and on the 12th April, Beauregard ordered the opening shots of the war to be fired. Anderson evacuated on 13th April and the troops were evacuated to Washington. Two days later, Lincoln issued a Call to Arms and both sides were inundated with troops. On the 19th he blockaded the Confederacy. Arkansas, Virginia, NC and Tennessee joined the Confederacy, though Delaware, Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky did not secede.

Next up

Key Topics - Context, Detail and Impacts thereof.

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Alec Stevens almost 11 years ago