| The Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Emergence of the Republican Party (1820-1858) |
|
Sections:- The Missouri Compromise
- The New Territories and the Wilmot Proviso
- The Compromise of 1850
- A New Party is Born
- The Kansas-Nebraska Act
- Reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Opposition
- The New England Emigrant Aid Company
- Reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act: Support
- Civil War in Kansas
- Increasing Support for the Republican Party and the Assault on Charles Sumner
- The Building of the Republican Party
- The Election of 1856
|
| Historical Context
The debate over the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the subsequent birth of the Republican Party can be traced back to the enactment of the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Attached Documents
The Missouri Compromise concerned the territory acquired from the Louisiana Purchase, which both expanded America's land holdings, while also posing a threat to the delicate balance achieved in Congress. The dilemma began with the application of Missouri as a slave-state. If admitted, Missouri would upset the even proportion of slave states and free states within the U.S. Senate. Thus the Missouri Compromise was created which called for the admittance of Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. The balance was maintained, yet the vast territories were suddenly a problem. The Missouri Compromise addressed such issues, prohibiting slavery above the 36 30 latitude line. The map provided below depicts the agreement. Slavery was prohibited in the Missouri Territory (Dark Green, the area north of the Arkansas Territory (light blue), with the exception of the state of Missouri (yellow).
Questions to Consider
1) Why was the balance in Congress obtained through the Missouri Compromise so important? |
| | | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
The expansion of the American territories grew considerably after the War with Mexico. Concerned with ensuring prohibition of slavery in the newly acquired territories, David Wilmot, a politician from Pennsylvania proposed before Congress the Wilmot Proviso. This provision called for a prohibition in the territories recently acquired from Mexico. While the Wilmot Proviso was passed by the House in 1846, it was rejected by the Senate. Proposed again in 1847, the Proviso was yet again rejected by the Senate.
Southerners were enraged with the growing abolitionist sentiment embodied in the Wilmot Proviso. In reaction, the outspoken and pro-slavery Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun issued his "Southern Address". The address, in defense of slavery, calls for a uniting of the southern states in order to defend what Calhoun deemed their "right" to own slaves. The address seems to indicate that Calhoun, representing Southern interests, viewed the southern slave states as the actual victims of the northern abolitionists. Calhoun claimed the Proviso unconstitutional, ushering in debate concerning the constitutionality of anti-slavery laws in the new territories.
Questions to Consider
1) Explain the reaction displayed by southerners over the drafting of the Wilmot Proviso. |
| | | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
The debate that followed the proposal of the Wilmot Proviso in the late 1840's was finally resolved through a series of enactments that came to be known as the Compromise of 1850. Originally drafted by Henry Clay, senator from Kentucky and ultimately revised by Stephen Douglas, senator from Illinois, the Compromise brought a temporary end to the slavery question which was causing much strain within Congress. However, this alleviation was merely temporary, as discontent over the Compromise flourished, particularly among abolitionists. The Compromise of 1850 began in 1849 with the newly acquired California wishing to be admitted as a free state. This admittance, much like the earlier application of Missouri, would upset the balance of slave and free state representatives in Congress. To resolve the issue, Clay created a series of resolutions he wished to be adopted by Congress. While not all of his plan was not accepted in full, the subsequent Compromise of 1850, spearheaded by Douglas, was approved. This Compromise called for the admittance of California as a free state, with slavery granted in the territories acquired recently from Mexico. Such provisions directly contradicted certain tenets of the Missouri Compromise, resulting in discontent among many northerners.
Questions to Consider
1) In what ways did the Compromise of 1850 nullify the Missouri Compromise?
2) Was the enactment of the Compromise of 1850 legal? |
| | | | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
Discontent was increasing as fears of further pro-slavery legislation flourished. Salmon Chase of Ohio spearheaded a movement protesting the pro-slavery Democrats. In January of 1854, Chase published his "Appeal of the Independent Democrat", in which he expresses discontent with an act recently proposed in Congress which called for the splitting of the Nebraska territory into two and allowing slavery in one of the new territories. Such sentiment led to the development of a new political party.
Social dissatisfaction with pro-slavery legislation quickly escalated into political action. Even before the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed in May of 1854, it was becoming evident that a new political party was necessary in order to counter the pro-slavery legislation being passed by the Southern Democrats. Just prior to the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, on February 28, 1854, a meeting was held in Ripon, Wisconsin and organized by Alvan Bovay. The meeting consisted of Conscience Whigs, Free Soil members, and Abolitionist Democrats. The meeting expressed the need for a new political party and coined it Republican. The article provided below describes this first Republican meeting in detail.
Questions to Consider
1) How did slavery lead to the conception of the Republican Party? |
| | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Historical Context
The slavery debate culminated with the proposal of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in late May of 1854, although slavery was not necessarily the only issue at hand. Proposed by Stephen Douglas, the Kansas-Nebraska Act centered on a notion proposed by Douglas, that of "Popular Sovereignty." The Kansas-Nebraska Act concerned the land which had previously been decided upon by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The act succeeded in dividing the region (displayed as tan in the map below) into two territories, the Kansas Territory (south of the 40th parallel) and the Nebraska Territory (North of the 40th parallel). Slavery was to be decided on by the people of the Kansas Territory, hence the notion of popular sovereignty. Slavery was to be prohibited in the Nebraska Territory. Such an act clearly abolished the Missouri Compromise, which called for a complete prohibition of slavery north of the 36 30 latitude line.
Douglas' role in the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act can be seen as an example of his keen compromising skills. The Act was a result of a compromise with southern senators concerning the ever-growing railroad industry. Douglas, senator from Illinois, desired a railroad line to pass through Chicago on its journey to the Pacific Coast. Southern senators, on the other hand, wished the railroad line to begin in New Orleans and continue on to southern California. As a result, Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in exchange for the agreement of the southern Senators to a railroad through Chicago.
Questions to Consider
1) In what ways was the Kansas-Nebraska Act an example of "politics as usual"?
2) Consider the notion of popular sovereignty. Why did Stephen Douglas promote popular sovereignty in the Kansas territory? |
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Historical Context
The enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act resulted in dissent and dissatisfaction among the Northern Abolitionists. While the Democratic Party was largely pro-slavery, anti-slavery factions did exist, as well as those abolitionists left over from the Whig party.
Attached Documents
An editorial from the Evening Journal, a New York Whig newspaper, displays the northern outrage immediately following the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Abraham Lincoln, then a lawyer in Illinois, issued an address in October of 1854 in response to the Act. The rather moving speech, served to rally the northern cause against the clearly pro-slavery Kansas-Nebraska Act. In the address, Lincoln admonishes the institution of slavery, setting the stage for the emerging abolitionist movement.
Questions to Consider
1. What does Lincoln mean by the following: "Why ask us to do for nothing, what two hundred million of dollars could not induce you to do?"
2. How does each side of the debate use the priciples expressed in the Declaration of Independence to justify its position on the spread of slavery?
3. In addition to concerns about human rights, what other objections does Lincoln have to the spread of slavery?
|
| | | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
Eli Thayer of Massachusetts organized The New England Emigrant Aid Company in reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The notion of popular sovereignty espoused in the act incited Thayer to create an organization that would encourage the emigration of New England abolitionists to Kansas in order to vote against slavery. The following speech by Gerrit Smith of the New England Emigrant Aid Company outlines the goals of the organization, while describing the situation that was arising in Kansas.
Questions to Consider
1. Discuss the statement, "inasmuch as a Territory belongs to the whole people of the United States, they the whole people are bound to govern it." Do you think that Smith's view is correct? Or, do you think that the people of a territory should decide their own political questions? What are the pros and cons of each position?
|
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
Southern reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act was largely supportive. Debow's Review, a southern journal largely dedicated to agricultural and political issues, printed the following article entitled "Kansas Matters" in May of 1856. The article encourages southerners to relocate to Kansas for many of the same reasons northern abolitionists wished to, largely to influence the vote on slavery.
Questions to Consider
1. The signatories of the DeBow's Article assert that the "loss of Kansas to the south will be the death knell of our dear Union." Why do they believe that the admission of Kansas as a free state would require the South to exit the Union? What broad political consequences do they fear?
|
| | | Citations: | |
|
| Historical Context
The Kansas-Nebraska Act resulted in the emigration of many Americans to the region in order to affect the vote concerning the legality of slavery in Kansas. The pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups violently clashed between the time the act was passed and 1858. Called "border ruffians" by their Northern counterparts, southern pro-slavery factions, largely from Missouri, fought heavily with northern abolitionists, particularly those associated with the New England Emigrant Aid Company.
Attached Documents
The following documents describe the bloody events which led to the coining of the phrase "Bleeding Kansas" to describe the civil war erupting in the new territory.
Of major concern was the electing of the territorial legislation in the Kansas territory. Convinced the elections were fraudulent and illegal, Charles Robinson, governor and free-Soiler, wrote a letter to Eli Thayer of the New England Emigrant Aid Company describing the voting irregularities, which is provided below.
The second document is a letter from a settler in Kansas. Her letter to a family member describes the constant fear experienced by her family of the border ruffians.
In order to address the Kansas issue, a Congressional committee, dubbed the Howard Committee was established in 1856. The Committee released a scathing description of the infamous "border ruffians", which is provided below.
R.H. Wilson, a self-proclaimed "border ruffian" published a biography in which he discusses in detail the sack of Lawrence which immediately followed the attack of Charles Sumner. The sack, which resulted in the surrender of the anti-slavery faction in Lawrence, resulted in the burning of the city, as is depicted in the picture below. Of special note within Wilson's account is the mention of Davy Atchison, the U.S. Senator from Missouri. Such a mention of Atchison's involvement in the civil war in Kansas displays the rather "wild west" atmosphere of the time; Atchison, considered to be a distinguished Senator, was also the commander of the unit which attacked Lawrence.
Questions to Consider
1) Discuss the emigration of voters to the Kansas area. Was this what Douglas had in mind by "popular sovereignty"?
|
| | | | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Attached Documents
On May 19 and 20 of 1856, Charles Sumner, Senator from Massachusetts and fierce critic of the Kansas-Nebraska Act addressed the Senate with his speech entitled "The Crime Against Kansas". A brilliant writer and orator, Sumner's speech specifically attacked Stephen Douglas and Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Using graphic language, Sumner's argument was harsh and uncompromising. Provided below is the text of the address.
Sumner's address was not received well by southerners. On May 22, Preston Brooks, cousin of Butler and Congressman from South Carolina entered the Senate chambers, outraged by Sumner's words. Brooks proceeded to violently attack Sumner, beating him mercilessly with a cane. When the attack finally ended, Sumner was badly injured.
The assault sent shockwaves throughout the country. Outraged by the attack, Republicans solidified their base by rehashing the details of the attack exhaustively in newspapers. Increased support for the party was a direct result of the attack of Charles Sumner. Americans were shocked by the event and many found it inappropriate for members of government to act in such ways. The following newspaper article describes the attack and display the attempt of the writers to unite Republicans and would-be Republicans to their side.
Questions to Consider
1. Consider the partisan divisions at work within Sumner's address to the Senate.
|
| | | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Historical Context
The fledgling Republican Party held its first state convention in Jackson, Michigan in July of 1854. The Republicans easily took the state and quickly adopted a platform consisting largely of anti-slavery themes. In February of 1856 the Republicans met in Pittsburgh for the first national organization meeting of the party, followed by the Republican's first nominating convention in Philadelphia on June 17, 1856.
Attached Documents
Expounding the views of the Republicans was Horace Greeley, newspaper editor and founder of the widely popular New York Tribune. Encouraged by the ideals of the Republicans, Greeley did much to lend credibility and publicity to the Republican cause. The New York Tribune article below reacts to the attack on Charles Sumner.
Questions to Consider
1. In what ways did the Republican Party use the assault of Charles Sumner to their advantage?
2. List a few other circumstances in which a scandal or negative action by a member of one party served to elevate the opposing party.
|
| | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Historical Context
The Presidential election of 1856 saw the first Republican Presidential nominee on the ballot. John C. Fremont, a former military officer and explorer known as The Pathfinder, served as the Senator from California from 1850-1851, and was the first Presidential candidate to run on an abolitionist platform.
Attached Documents
The Republican platform of 1856, provided below, expounds the views of the Republican party concerning the crisis in Kansas as well as the Republican's views on slavery.
While Fremont ultimately lost to the Democratic candidate James Buchanan, the returns were largely positive for the Republicans, setting the stage for an era of Republican victory. The Kansas-Nebraska Act as well as other pro-slavery legislation led to the emergence of a strengthened Republican party, which led ultimately to the Civil War.
Questions to Consider
1. After reading the first resolution of the Platform, consider the following question: Are the principles of the right to self government and states' rights antithetical to the preservation of the Union? Why or why not?
2. Briefly summarize the Platform. What are the political priorities of the new party?
|
| | | | | Citations: | |
|
| Back To Module List Back to Sections |
