Drifting Toward Disunion

The Debate Over Slavery Intensifies

The issue of slavery continued to be a significant issue in the United States during the 1850s. By 1854, it led to violence with the outbreak of the border war between Free Soil Jayhawkers and Pro-Slavery Border Ruffians known as Bleeding Kansas. In 1857, the situation intensified three years later when the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. The Court ruled the regulation of slavery in U.S. territories was unconstitutional, overturning the Missouri Compromise (1820). The decision pushed both anti-slavery Abolitionists and pro-slavery Fire Eaters to the extreme. In 1860, the Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln for President. Southern leaders believed if the Republicans intended to abolish slavery, as a result, they started to threaten to leave the Union. Soon after Lincoln was elected, the Secession Crisis started, and South Carolina voted to leave the Union.

Stowe and Helper: Literary Incendiaries

Before 1852, many Northerners were not aware of the harsh reality of slavery. That year, Harriet Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which opened the eyes of many to the injustices of slavery, while critics argued her portrayal was unfair. Stowe visited the White House in 1862, where President Abraham Lincoln said,  “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war.”

Harriet Beecher Stowe and Uncle Tom’s Cabin

• In 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a novel about slavery.
• Stowe was upset by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.
• She wanted to expose the cruelty of slavery and the harsh separation of families.
• The book was popular due to its strong imagery and emotional impact.
• Stowe later said, “God wrote it.”

Impact and Success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin

• Uncle Tom’s Cabin achieved success both in the U.S. and internationally.
• Hundreds of thousands of copies were sold in its first year, eventually reaching millions.
• The novel was translated into over 20 languages.
• It was adapted into stage productions known as “Tom shows.”
• It significantly increased awareness of the harsh realities of slavery for many readers.

Stowe’s Meeting with President Lincoln

• In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln reportedly said to Harriet Beecher Stowe, “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war.”
• Uncle Tom’s Cabin was influential in starting and influencing the Civil War.
• The South criticized Stowe as a “vile wretch in petticoats” due to the novel’s impact.
• Stowe’s portrayal of slavery was seen as “unfair” by advocates of slavery.
• She had not directly witnessed slavery in the Deep South but had seen it in Kentucky.
• Stowe had lived in Ohio, which was a key area for the Underground Railroad.

Legacy and Influence of Uncle Tom’s Cabin

• The character of Uncle Tom made a strong impact on Northern readers.
• Many people vowed not to support the Fugitive Slave Law after reading the book.
• The novel was widely read by young people in the 1850s.
• Some of these young readers later became Union soldiers in the Civil War.
• The memory of Uncle Tom’s suffering inspired these soldiers to fight against slavery.

International Popularity and Political Impact of Uncle Tom’s Cabin

• The novel was very popular abroad, especially in Britain and France.
• Readers were moved by the characters of Uncle Tom and Eva, and they condemned Simon Legree.
• Many people in England hoped that a Northern victory would end slavery.
• The British and French governments considered intervening on behalf of the South.
• They were deterred by the possibility that their citizens, influenced by the novel, might oppose such intervention.

Hinton R. Helper and The Impending Crisis of the South

• The Impending Crisis of the South was published in 1857, five years after Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
• The book was written by Hinton R. Helper, a white man from North Carolina, who opposed slavery — but also civil rights for blacks.
• He used statistics to argue that non-slaveholding whites suffered the most from slavery.
• Unable to find a publisher in the South, Helper eventually published the book in the North.

AHC Note — Helper was an Abolitionist and a white supremacist. He dedicated the book to the “non-slaveholding whites” in the South, but some Southerners accused him of being a Northern agent. 

Impact and Reception of The Impending Crisis of the South

• Helper’s book had little impact on poor whites, his intended audience.
• The book was banned in the South and was subject to book-burning events.
• In the North, many copies were distributed as campaign material by Republicans.
• Southerners were angered to see their Northern counterparts spreading what they considered “lies.”
• This reaction intensified Southern hostility towards the North, similar to the response to Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

AHC Note — Harriet Beecher Stowe came from a prominent Abolitionist family. Her father was Lyman Beecher, a leader of the Second Great Awakening. Her siblings included Henry Ward Beecher, educators Catharine Beecher and Thomas K. Beecher, and activists Charles Beecher and Isabella Beecher Hooker. Henry Ward Beecher was famous for holding “reverse slave auctions” at Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, New York.

The North-South Contest for Kansas

The  Abolition Movement faced challenges as Northerners, including those funded by anti-slavery groups like the New England Emigrant Aid Company, moved west to try to make Kansas a Free Soil State. Pro-Slavery factions known as Border Ruffians used coercion and violence to establish a pro-slavery government, leading the anti-slavery Free Soilers to form their own. This led to violence between the Border Ruffians and the Free Soil Militia, the Jayhawkers. Henry Ward Beecher supported the Free Soilers by sending them rifles known as “Beecher’s Bibles.”

Kansas and the Role of Antislavery Pioneers

• Kansas illustrated the problems with “Popular” Sovereignty under unusual conditions.
• Most Northerners who moved to Kansas were simple pioneers seeking a better life, but some were funded by Northern Abolitionists or Free Soilers.
• The New England Emigrant Aid Company, a notable anti-slavery group, sent around 2,000 people to Kansas to establish Free settlements.
• These pioneers, known for their slogan “Ho for Kansas,” carried breech-loading Sharps rifles, called “Beecher’s Bibles” after Reverend Henry Ward Beecher, who provided them.

AHC Note — Popular Sovereignty meant that the inhabitants of a territory had the right to decide the issue of slavery on their own.

Southern Reactions to Northern Influence in Kansas

• Southerners expressed outrage.
• They had supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act with the expectation that Kansas would be a Slave State and Nebraska a Free State.
• Northern groups, suspected of using dishonest methods, were seen as trying to make both Kansas and Nebraska free states.

Southern Efforts and the Reality of Slavery in Kansas

• Southern extremists tried to send armed slaveowners to Kansas.
• Bringing slaves to Kansas was impractical due to the danger and the possibility of the area being declared free.
• The 1860 census showed only two slaves in the Kansas Territory and 15 in Nebraska.

Political Conflict and Dual Governments in Kansas (1855)

• In 1855, proslavery “Border Ruffians” from Missouri flooded Kansas to influence the election for the first territorial legislature.
• Pro-slavery forces won and established a puppet government at Shawnee Mission.
• Free Soilers, opposing this fraudulent government, created their own separate regime in Topeka.
• Kansans were left with two conflicting governments — one based on fraud and the other that was illegal.

AHC Note — The pro-slavery government was called the “Bogus Legislature” by the Free Soilers.

Escalation of Violence in Kansas

• Tensions increased due to disputes over land claims among settlers.
• In 1856, proslavery raiders attacked and burned parts of the Free Soil town of Lawrence.
• This event marked the beginning of more severe violence.

AHC Note — The border war started with the Warakusa War (November 21–December 9, 1855), followed by the Sacking of Lawrence on May 21, 1856. During this time, John Brown went to Kansas, where he joined the Free Soilers and the Jayhawkers.

Kansas in Convulsion

John Brown, a staunch Abolitionist, arrived in Kansas around the time hostilities started. Brown quickly rose to prominence for his willingness to use violence. After the attack on Lawrence, he led a group to Pottawatomie Creek, where they killed five men who were suspected of being pro-slavery. This intensified the violence in Kansas, which carried over until the Civil War started. In 1857, pro-slavery forces approved the Lecompton Constitution, protecting slavery in Kansas. President James Buchanan supported this Constitution, creating a rift within the Democratic Party. This division weakened the Union and contributed to Kansas remaining a territory until 1861.

John Brown in Kansas

• John Brown, a fanatical Abolitionist, became a significant figure in Kansas.
• He moved from Ohio to Kansas with part of his family
• After the attack on Lawrence, Brown led his followers to Pottawatomie Creek in May 1856.
• There, they violently killed five men suspected to be pro-slavery supporters.
• The Pottawatomie Massacre hurt the Free Soil cause and led to severe retaliation from Border Ruffians.

AHC Note — On the night of May 24, 1856, Brown and his followers raided the homes of three families living near Pottawatomie Creek. They dragged five unarmed men and boys, believed to be slavery supporters, from their homes and brutally murdered them. It is likely Brown did not directly engage in the killings.

The Kansas Conflict and Its Impact

• The conflict in Kansas continued until it was consumed by the Civil War.
• It caused millions of dollars in property damage.
• It disrupted agriculture in several regions.
• The violence resulted in numerous casualties.

The Lecompton Constitution and Kansas Statehood

• By 1857, Kansas had enough people to apply for statehood based on Popular Sovereignty.
• Pro-slavery forces created the Lecompton Constitution with a deceptive voting process.
• Voters could choose between a constitution “with slavery” or “with no slavery” but not vote on the constitution as a whole.
• If the vote was against slavery, the constitution would still protect slaveowners already in Kansas.
• Many Free Soilers, angered by this tactic, refused to vote.
• The pro-slavery forces ultimately approved the constitution with slavery in late 1857.

The Lecompton Constitution and the Washington Politics

• President Franklin Pierce was succeeded by James Buchanan, who was also heavily influenced by the South.
• Buchanan supported the Lecompton Constitution despite divisions in the Democratic party.
• Senator Stephen Douglas, who favored true Popular Sovereignty, opposed the Lecompton Constitution and risked losing Southern support for his presidential bid.
• Douglas advocated for a compromise that allowed the Lecompton Constitution to be put to a popular vote.
• Free Soil voters decisively rejected the Lecompton Constitution.
• Kansas remained a territory until 1861 when Southern secessionists left Congress.

Buchanan’s Impact on the Democratic Party and the Union

• President Buchanan’s support for the Lecompton Constitution angered many Northern Democrats, causing a split in the Democratic Party.
• Before the split, the Democrats were the only remaining national party, as the Whigs had dissolved and the Republicans were sectional.
• The division within the Democrats weakened one of the last major forces keeping the Union united.

“Bully” Brooks and His Bludgeon

In 1856, division over slavery led to a violent incident on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts delivered a speech called “The Crime Against Kansas,” condemning supporters of slavery and insulting Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Congressman Preston Brooks responded by attacking and beating Sumner with a cane.

Charles Sumner and the Crime Against Kansas

• In 1856, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, a leading Abolitionist, gave a powerful speech, “The Crime Against Kansas.”
• Sumner was highly educated but also cold, humorless, intolerant, and egotistical.
• His speech condemned pro-slavery men, calling them “hirelings picked from the drunken spew and vomit of an uneasy civilization.”
• He also insulted Senator Andrew Butler, from South Carolina, who was well-liked.

The Caning of Charles Sumner

• Congressman Preston S. Brooks of South Carolina sought revenge for the insults to his state and his cousin, Senator Andrew Butler.
• Brooks felt a duel was not appropriate as Sumner was not considered his social equal.
• Believing Sumner’s language placed him below Brooks’s social rank, he chose to physically assault Sumner instead.
• On May 22, 1856, Brooks attacked Sumner at his Senate desk with an eleven-ounce cane until it broke.

Aftermath of the Attack on Sumner

• Although Sumner’s insults provoked the attack, Brooks’s response was condemned.
• The House of Representatives did not expel Brooks, but he resigned, only to be re-elected by his constituents.
• Southern supporters sent Brooks replacement canes, including some gold-headed ones.
• Sumner’s injuries were severe, affecting his head and nervous system, and he spent three and a half years in Europe undergoing expensive and painful treatment.
• Massachusetts re-elected Sumner, leaving his Senate seat empty as a symbolic protest.
• Sumner’s suffering and the violence in Kansas became key political issues.

Reactions to the Attack on Sumner

• The North was highly outraged by the attack on Sumner and viewed Brooks as “uncouth” and “cowardly.”
• Sumner’s speech gained attention, and thousands of copies were sold.
• Some believe the violence against Sumner boosted Republican support.
• The South was divided about Brooks’s action but was angered by Sumner’s inflammatory speech.
• The incident showed the heated division between the North and the South and the increasing willingness to turn to violence.
• It was troubling that Sumner, a cultured figure, used harsh language, and Brooks, a gentleman, resorted to violent methods.
• The attack was a shift from rational discourse to emotional and physical conflict.

“Old Buck” Versus “The Pathfinder”

As the Presidential Election of 1856 loomed, three candidates emerged — James Buchanan (Democrat), John C. Frémont (Republican), and Millard Fillmore (Know-Nothing). The campaign was intense and filled with personal attacks, especially against Frémont, who was Catholic. The Know-Nothings emerged as a third party. They sought to limit the influx of Catholic immigrants into the country.

The Democratic Nomination of James Buchanan

• In 1856, Democrats met in Cincinnati to nominate their candidate for the Presidential Election of 1856
• They avoided President Franklin Pierce and Senator Stephen Douglas due to their association with the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
• The nomination went to James Buchanan, a Pennsylvania lawyer.
• Buchanan had been serving as Minister to London and was relatively uninvolved in the Kansas-Nebraska controversy.
• Buchanan was seen as mediocre and indecisive.
• The Democrats supported popular sovereignty.

Republican Nomination of John C. Frémont

• The Republican Party met in Philadelphia to select their candidate.
• William H. Seward was a strong contender but lacked confidence in the party’s chances.
• The nomination went to John C. Frémont, known as the “Pathfinder of the West.”
• Frémont was known for his western expeditions for the U.S. Army, involvement in the Bear Flag Revolt, and political connections.
• Frémont was not associated with the Kansas-Nebraska Act controversy.
• The Republicans opposed the extension of slavery into the territories.

The Know-Nothing Party

• Anti-foreignism was another issue in the election.
• Nativists, alarmed by the influx of Irish and German immigrants, formed the American Party, also known as the Know-Nothing Party, due to its secretive nature.
• The Know-Nothings nominated ex-president Millard Fillmore.
• The party was anti-foreign and anti-Catholic and used the slogan “Americans Must Rule America.”
• Remnants of the Whig Party also supported Fillmore, creating potential competition for the Republicans.

AHC Note — The Know-Nothing Party’s platform in 1856 reflected strong anti-immigrant sentiments, advocating that native-born citizens be preferred for government positions.

Campaign Slogans

• Republicans rallied with support for John C. Frémont, using slogans like “We Follow the Pathfinder,” “We Are Buck Hunting,” and  “Free Soil, Free Men, and Frémont.”
• They formed clubs that performed campaign songs to the tune of the “Marseillaise,” including lyrics like: “Arise, arise ye brave! And let our war-cry be, Free speech, free press, free soil, free men, Fré-mont and victory!”
• Buchanan supporters, known as “Buchaneers,” mockingly added, “And free love.”

Campaign Attacks on Buchanan and Frémont

• Both candidates faced mudslinging during the campaign.
• Buchanan, labeled “Old Fogy,” was criticized for being a bachelor.
• Frémont was attacked for his illegitimate birth; his mother had left her elderly husband to elope with a French adventurer, giving birth to Frémont in Savannah, Georgia.
• An additional damaging claim against Frémont was that he was a Roman Catholic, which alienated some Know-Nothings and other Nativists.

AHC Note — John Charles Frémont was born in Savannah, Georgia, on January 21, 1813. He was the first of three children of Charles Fremon and Anne Beverly Whiting. He married the daughter of Thomas Hart Benton, an influential U.S. Senator from Missouri. Benton supported Frémont’s career.

The Electoral Fruits of 1856

Buchanan won the election; however, the Republicans made a strong showing, setting the stage for a showdown between Democrats and Republicans in 1860.

Presidential Election of 1856

• James Buchanan (Democrat) won the election with 174 electoral votes despite receiving less than a majority of the popular vote.
• John C. Frémont (Republican) secured 114 electoral votes.
• Millard Fillmore (Know-Nothing) received 8 electoral votes.

AHC Note — Frémont’s strong showing confirmed the viability of the Republican Party, paving the way for Abraham Lincoln’s election four years later.

Reasons for Frémont’s Defeat

• Frémont lost support due to concerns about his honesty, competence, and judgment.
• Threats from Southern Fire Eaters that electing a sectional “Black Republican” would lead to Secession and war intimidated many voters.
• Northerners who wanted to preserve the Union and maintain business relations with the South voted for Buchanan.

Impact on the Union

• It was likely beneficial for the Union that secession and civil war did not occur in 1856.
• Frémont lacked the balance and leadership qualities of Abraham Lincoln.
• In 1856, the North might have been more inclined to let the South secede peacefully than it would be in 1860.

Republicans’ “Victorious Defeat” in 1856

• The Republicans, despite losing, achieved a significant performance for a party only two years old.
• The party’s strong showing against the established Democratic machine was notable.
• The 1856 election set the stage for future political developments and heightened anticipation for the 1860 election.

The Dred Scott Bombshell

The Dred Scott Decision was a historic ruling issued by the United States Supreme Court in 1857 that declared that people of African descent were not citizens of the United States and that Congress had no Constitutional authority to regulate slavery in U.S. territories, making the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. The decision intensified the sectional divide, with Southerners celebrating and Republicans denouncing it as being motivated by politics.

The Dred Scott Decision and Its Impact

• The Dred Scott Decision was issued by the Supreme Court on March 6, 1857.
• The case, Dred Scott v. Sanford, involved Dred Scott, a black slave who had lived with his master for five years in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory.
• Scott, supported by Abolitionists, sued for his freedom based on his residence in Free Soil territories.
• The Supreme Court turned the case into a political matter.
• The Court ruled that Scott was a black slave and not a citizen and thus could not bring a case to federal courts.
• Instead of dismissing the case on these grounds, the Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney from Maryland, decided to address the broader issue of slavery in the territories.
• The pro-Southern majority aimed to resolve the contentious issue of slavery and counter dissenting opinions from free-soil justices.

Impact of the Dred Scott Decision

• Slaves were deemed private property.
• Slaves could be taken into any territory and legally held in slavery. This decision was based on the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits Congress from depriving people of their property without due process.
• The Missouri Compromise (1820) was ruled unconstitutional. The Court ruled Congress had no authority to ban slavery in the territories, regardless of territorial legislatures’ opinions.

Reactions to the Dred Scott Decision

• Southerners were pleased with the decision, seeing it as a victory for their cause.
• Advocates of Popular Sovereignty, including Senator Stephen Douglas and many Northern Democrats, were upset.
• The decision deepened the divide between the northern and southern factions of the Democratic Party.

Republican Response to the Dred Scott Decision

• Republicans were outraged.
• They argued that the Court’s ruling was merely an opinion and not binding, likening it to the views of a “southern debating society.”
• Their defiance was fueled by the fact that the majority of the Supreme Court members were Southerners.
• Republicans believed the Court had compromised its integrity by engaging in political matters.

Southern Reaction to Republican Defiance

• Southerners were angered by the Republican rejection of the Court’s decision.
• They questioned how much longer they could stay connected to a nation that did not respect the Supreme Court’s authority.

The Financial Crash of 1857

The Panic of 1857 was caused by several issues, including bank failures, a drop in the value of gold due to the California Gold Rush, over-speculation in railroads, and over-production of crops. The Panic increased tensions that were already high and were then turned up further by the Dred Scott Decision. In the North, people called for westward expansion and settlement of government lands to help ease the crisis. Southerners fought against it, fearing it would lead to more Free Soil States by reducing the political power of the Slave States. President Buchanan vetoed the 1860 Homestead Act, which would have provided government land to people for free.

Panic of 1857

• Although the Panic of 1857 was not as severe as the Panic of 1837, it was the most psychologically damaging of the 19th Century.
• There were various causes of the Panic:
  • The influx of gold from California contributed to inflating the currency.
  • The Crimean War’s demands led to the overproduction of grain.
  • Speculation in land and railroads further destabilized the economy.

National Impact

• Over 5,000 businesses failed within a year.
• Widespread unemployment led to widespread hunger, especially in urban areas.
• People used slogans like “Bread or Death.”.

Sectional Impact

• The North, including grain growers, was affected by the economic downturn.
• Thanks to high cotton prices, the South handled the panic better, which reinforced its confidence in its “Cotton Kingdom.”

Homestead Act of 1860

• The economic difficulties in the North led to calls for the government to offer public lands for free in return for pioneers settling and developing it.
• Northern industrialists feared free land would lure their underpaid workers to the frontier.
• The South opposed free land because it would hinder the expansion of gang-labor slavery and accelerate the settlement of Free Soilers in the territories, which would shift the political balance against the South.
• In 1860, Congress passed the Homestead Act, which offered land at 25 cents an acre.
• President Buchanan, influenced by Southern sympathizers, vetoed the bill.

Economic Reactions to the Panic of 1857

• The Tariff of 1857 was enacted just before the financial crash; it lowered duties to about 20% on dutiable goods, the lowest since the War of 1812, in response to southern pressures.
• Northern manufacturers, especially Republicans, blamed the economic downturn on the low tariff. 
• The financial crisis led to a call for higher duties and increased protection for Northern manufacturers.
• The Panic of 1857 provided Republicans with two strong issues for the 1860 Presidential Campaign:
  • Advocating for protection for Northern industries
  • Free land for settlers.

An Illinois Rail-Splitter Emerges

In 1858, the race for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois was between Stephen A. Douglas (Democrat) and Abraham Lincoln (Republican). The two engaged in a series of debates in the late summer that allowed Lincoln to rise to the top of the Republican Party.

The Illinois Senatorial Election of 1858

• The Illinois senatorial election of 1858 became a major national event.
• Senator Stephen A. Douglas’s term was ending, prompting a new election.
• The Republicans chose Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer from Springfield, to run against Douglas.

Abraham Lincoln

• Lincoln was born in 1809 in a log cabin in Kentucky to poor parents.
• He attended a frontier school for less than a year and was largely self-educated through reading.
• Lincoln was somewhat awkward but excelled in wrestling and gained strength from hard work on the frontier, including splitting logs.
• He was known for telling engaging, humorous stories but also experienced deep periods of sadness.
• Lincoln married into the prominent Todd family from Kentucky.
• His wife, Mary, was described as the “she-wolf” by her enemies, was temperamental, and taught him patience.
• Lincoln became one of Illinois’s well-known trial lawyers.
• He was nicknamed “Honest Abe” for refusing cases that conflicted with his conscience.
• He often carried important papers in his trademark stovepipe hat.

Lincoln’s Political Rise

• Lincoln’s political rise was gradual rather than rapid.
• He was a Whig who served in the Illinois legislature and one term in Congress from 1847 to 1849.
• Until 1854, Lincoln had not made a significant impact in politics.
• The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 sparked his political passion.
• Lincoln joined the Republican Party and became a leading politician and speaker in the Northwest.
• At the 1856 Philadelphia convention, he received 110 votes for the vice-presidential nomination.

The Great Debate: Lincoln Versus Douglas

For Stephen A. Douglas, the debates put him in a position to make a statement known as the “Freeport Doctrine.” He argued that slavery could not be allowed if local laws prohibited it. As the leader of the Democratic Party, this created a split between Northern Democrats, who opposed slavery, and Southern Democrats, who supported slavery and believed the Doctrine went against the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott Decision. This division eventually led the Democratic Party to split into two factions along sectional lines.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858

• Lincoln, as the Republican Senate nominee, challenged Douglas to debates.
• Douglas was a formidable debater and accepted the challenge.
• Seven debates were scheduled from August to October 1858.

Contrasts Between Lincoln and Douglas

• Douglas was well-groomed and polished with a strong presence, while Lincoln appeared lanky and informal.
• Lincoln, often called “Old Abe,” had a high-pitched voice and was initially uneasy speaking.
• As Lincoln engaged in debate, he appeared to gain confidence and stature.
• Lincoln used logic in his arguments rather than relying on dramatic gestures.

The Freeport Debate

• The most famous debate occurred in Freeport, Illinois.
• Lincoln posed a challenging question to Douglas.
• He asked if the people of a territory could vote against slavery despite the Dred Scott Decision stating they could not.
• The dilemma was whether the Court or the people would prevail in this situation.

AHC Note — The Freeport Debate took place on August 27, 1858, in front of 15,000 people. Lincoln asked Douglas, “Can the people of the United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?” The question put Douglas in a difficult position because he supported Popular Sovereignty.

• If he answered yes, he would be supporting Popular Sovereignty but defying the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott Case. He would risk losing the support of Southern Democrats in the Presidential Election of 1860.
• If he answered no and turned his back on Popular Sovereignty, he risked alienating Illinois voters and losing his seat in the Senate.

Douglas attempted to cater to Illinois voters and Southern Democrats. He said:

“It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution; the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations.”

The Freeport Doctrine

• Douglas and some Southerners had already addressed the Freeport question publicly.
• Douglas responded to Lincoln with the “Freeport Doctrine.”
• He argued that, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling, slavery would not persist if the people voted it down.
• To enforce slavery, laws would need to be passed by territorial legislatures, which would likely not happen without popular support.

AHC Note — While the Freeport Doctrine appeased Illinois voters, it upset Southern Democrats and deepened the section divide within the Democratic Party.

The Outcome of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates

• Douglas won the Senate seat over Lincoln.
• Douglas’s adherence to Popular Sovereignty was influential in Illinois.
• Senators were chosen by state legislatures at the time, not by popular vote of the people.
• Pro-Douglas politicians were elected to the Illinois legislature, who then elected Douglas to the U.S. Senate.
• Lincoln achieved a moral victory despite losing the election.

Impact on National Politics

• Lincoln’s defeat brought him national attention.
• Detailed debate accounts in Eastern newspapers elevated Lincoln as a potential Republican presidential nominee.
• Douglas’s victory in Illinois damaged his presidential prospects.
• Douglas’s opposition to the Lecompton Constitution and the Supreme Court in the Freeport Doctrine deepened divisions within the Democratic Party.
• Southern Democrats were determined to split the party and the Union rather than accept Douglas.
• The debates became a significant moment in the buildup to the Civil War.

John Brown: Murderer or Martyr?

In October 1859, John Brown led a raid on Harpers Ferry, intending to spark a slave revolt. The raid failed, and Brown was captured by U.S. Marines led by Robert E. Lee. Convicted of murder and treason, Brown’s trial and execution turned him into a martyr for the Abolitionist Movement.

John Brown’s Raid on Harpers Ferry

• John Brown, known for his role in “Bleeding Kansas,” planned to invade the South.
• He wanted to incite a slave rebellion and establish a state for free blacks.
• Brown secured funding for firearms from Northern Abolitionists.
• In October 1859, he and about 20 men, including several blacks, attacked the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry.
• The raid resulted in the deaths of seven people, including a free black, and injuries to 10 more.
• The anticipated slave uprising did not occur, as many slaves were unaware of the plans.
• Brown and his remaining followers were captured by U.S. Marines led by Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee.

John Brown’s Trial and Conviction

• Brown was convicted of murder and treason.
• His defense claimed insanity, supported by affidavits from 17 friends and relatives.
• Among his relatives, 13 were considered insane, including his mother and grandmother.
• Critics suggest that Virginia Governor Wise should have committed Brown to an asylum instead of executing him.

John Brown’s Execution and Legacy

• John Brown, known as “God’s angry man,” used his trial and execution to further the Abolitionist Movement.
• Despite likely being of unsound mind, he realized his martyrdom was valuable to the cause.
• Brown’s demeanor during the trial was dignified and courageous; his last words, “this is a beautiful country,” became legendary.
• He ascended the scaffold steps without flinching, and his exemplary conduct enhanced his reputation.
• His execution led to his world fame, immortalized in the Civil War song: “John Brown’s body lies a-mould’ring in the grave, His soul is marching on.”

Impact of the Harpers Ferry Raid

• The South viewed John Brown as a murderer and traitor.
• Many Southerners questioned remaining in the Union, fearing further attacks from Abolitionists.
• Moderate Northerners, including Republican leaders, condemned Brown’s actions.
• The South assumed that the violent stance was representative of the entire North and its Republican leaders.

Northern Reaction to Brown’s Execution

• Abolitionists and Free Soilers were outraged by Brown’s execution.
• Many were unaware of Brown’s violent actions and saw him as a martyr for a righteous cause.
• On the day of his execution, northern Free Soilers observed the event with tolling bells, gunfire, and rallies.

The Disruption of the Democrats

The division in the Democratic Party came to a head in the buildup to the Presidential Election of 1860. Northern Democrats supported Stephen A. Douglas, while Southern Democrats, supported John C. Breckinridge. They were opposed by Abraham Lincoln, who won the Republican nomination. A fourth candidate, John Bell, was nominated by the Constitutional Union Party. Lincoln won with the support of the Free Soil States, setting the stage for the Secession Crisis. 

The 1860 Presidential Election and Democratic Split

• The 1860 Presidential Election was critical.
• The Democratic Party, deeply divided, met in Charleston, South Carolina.
• Northern Democrats supported Stephen A. Douglas, but Southern Fire Eaters viewed him as a traitor due to his stance on the Lecompton Constitution and the Freeport Doctrine.
• A dispute over the party platform led to delegates from most Southern States walking out.
• The convention failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote for Douglas, leading to the dissolution of the convention.
• This marked the beginning of the Secession trend as Southerners left the Democratic National Convention.

The Democratic Attempt in Baltimore

• The Democratic Party reconvened in Baltimore to resolve the split.
• Douglas Democrats, primarily from the North, were dominant in this meeting.
• Many delegates from the Southern States walked out again.
• The remaining convention members nominated Stephen A. Douglas.
• The platform supported Popular Sovereignty and opposed state obstruction of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Southern Democrats Form Their Own Convention

• Southern Democrats set up a rival convention in Baltimore.
• They chose John C. Breckinridge as their candidate.
• Breckinridge was from Kentucky, a border state, and held moderate views.
• The platform supported the extension of slavery into the territories and the annexation of slave-populated Cuba.

The Constitutional Union Party Emerges

• A middle-of-the-road group formed the Constitutional Union Party.
• It was derisively called the “Do Nothing” or “Old Gentleman’s” Party.
• The party was mainly composed of former Whigs and Know-Nothings.
• They met in Baltimore and nominated John Bell of Tennessee for President.
• The party’s campaign slogan was “The Union, the Constitution, and the Enforcement of the Laws.”
• Their campaign involved ringing handbells and distributing handbills.

Election of 1860 Results

• Abraham Lincoln:
  • Popular Vote: 1,865,593 (39.79%)
  • Electoral Vote: 180 (all free states except 3 of New Jersey’s 7 votes)
• Stephen A. Douglas:
  • Popular Vote: 1,382,713 (29.40%)
  • Electoral Vote: 12 (Missouri and 3 of New Jersey’s 7 votes)
• John C. Breckinridge:
  • Popular Vote: 848,356 (18.20%)
  • Electoral Vote: 72 (all cotton states)
• John Bell:
  • Popular Vote: 592,906 (12.61%)
  • Electoral Vote: 39 (Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee)

A Rail-Splitter Splits the Union

At the 1860 Republican National Convention in Chicago, William H. Seward was considered the likely nominee, but it eventually went to Abraham Lincoln. The Republican platform supported limitations on slavery in western territories, protective tariffs, and the Homestead Act. Southern Fire Eaters threatened secession from the Union if the Republicans won the election. Despite his moderate stance on slavery, Lincoln won, forcing the Fire Eaters to decide on secession.

Republican Nomination of 1860

• Republicans gathered for their convention in Chicago in a large wooden structure called the “Wigwam.”
• William H. Seward was undermined by his radical statements and his “irrepressible conflict” speech he delivered in 1858.
• Lincoln, though considered a “Mr. Second Best,” was a stronger candidate due to having fewer political enemies.
• Lincoln was nominated on the third ballot, even though Seward had been the favorite.

Republican Platform of 1860

• The Republican Platform was intended to appeal to various groups:
  • Non-extension of slavery appealed to Free Soilers.
  • A protective tariff appealed to Northern manufacturers.
  • Protection of rights appealed to immigrants.
  • Support for a Pacific railroad appealed to the Northwest.
  • Federal funding for internal improvements appealed to the West.
  • Free homesteads from public land appealed to farmers.
• Republican slogans included:
  • “Vote Yourselves a Farm”
  • “Land for the Landless”

Southern Opposition and Threats

• Southern Secessionists and Fire Eaters warned electing Lincoln would lead to secession.
• They called Lincoln the “baboon” and an “abolitionist rail-splitter.”

Lincoln’s Strategy

• Although Lincoln opposed slavery, he was not an outright Abolitionist.
• By February 1865, Lincoln considered compensating slave owners for freeing their slaves.
• Lincoln chose not to make statements to calm southern fears to avoid exacerbating tensions.
• He had already expressed his views; additional statements might provoke further antagonism.

The 1860 Campaign

• Lincoln supporters held energetic rallies and parades with torches and oilskin capes.
• Lincoln was praised as “High Old Abe,” the “Woodchopper of the West,” and the “Little Giant Killer.”
• Supporters of Douglas, known as “Little Giants,” countered by emphasizing the need for a “statesman, not a rail-splitter.”
• Douglas conducted a vigorous speaking campaign, including appearances in the South.
• He threatened to personally deal with secessionists.
• The election results showed a decisive victory for Lincoln.

The Electoral Upheaval of 1860

Lincoln received approximately 40% of the popular vote and did not appear on the ballot in 10 Southern States. Despite Lincoln’s victory, the South still held considerable political power, but Southern Fire Eaters pushed forward with secession.

A Sectional and Minority President

• Lincoln was a minority president, with 60% of voters preferring other candidates.
• Only John Quincy Adams had a similar situation among previous presidents.
• Lincoln did not appear on the ballot in 10 Southern States.
• The election of 1860 was effectively two separate elections: one in the North and one in the South.
• Lincoln’s win led to the secession of the South, starting with South Carolina.

Performance of Democrats in the Election of 1860

• Douglas broke with tradition by actively campaigning for himself.
• Presidential candidates usually remained silent and dignified.
• Douglas received only 12 electoral votes but made a significant impact.
• He was a close second in the popular vote.
• Combined, the Douglas Democrats and Breckinridge Democrats received 365,476 more votes than Lincoln.
• This suggests that a united Democratic party would have won the election.
• In reality, even if all votes for Douglas’s opponents had gone to him, Lincoln would still have won the electoral vote, 169 to 134 (instead of 180 to 123).
• The election results did not show strong support for Secession.

Southern Political Power After the Election

• The South maintained a five-to-four majority on the Supreme Court.
• Despite Lincoln’s election, Republicans did not control the Senate or the House of Representatives.
• The Federal Government could not directly affect slavery in states where it existed without a Constitutional Amendment.
• An Amendment could be blocked by one-fourth of the states.
• The 15 Slave States comprised nearly half of the total number of states.

The Secessionist Exodus

South Carolina led the secession movement and voted to leave the Union on December 20, 1860. By February 1861, six more states followed, creating the Confederate States of America in Montgomery, Alabama, and electing Jefferson Davis as President. During the “lame duck” period before Lincoln’s inauguration, President Buchanan struggled with a pro-Southern cabinet. During this time, Secretary of War John B. Floyd and others helped the Southern States take over Federal forts and military installations while funneling military supplies to them.

Secession Begins: South Carolina Leads the Way

• South Carolina seceded four days after Lincoln’s election.
• The state legislature called a special convention to secede.
• Charleston hosted the convention in December 1860.
• South Carolina’s secession was unanimous.
• Six other southern states followed: Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
• Four more states followed — Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina — making 11 states that seceded.

Formation of the Confederate States of America

• The first seven met in Montgomery, Alabama, in February 1861.
• They established a new government called the Confederate States of America.
• Jefferson Davis was elected as the President of the Confederacy.

The “Lame Duck” Period and Secession

• Lincoln did not take office until March 4, 1861.
• During this four-month period of uncertainty, he remained a private citizen in Illinois.
• Seven of the 11 seceding states left the Union before he assumed office.

President Buchanan and the Secession Crisis

• Buchanan has been criticized for not using force to prevent secession.
• At nearly 70 years old, Buchanan was not vigorous and was surrounded by pro-Southern advisers.
• Although devoted to the Union, Buchanan did not believe Southern states could legally secede.
• He found no constitutional authority to use military force against the seceding states.

AHC Note — While there may not have been Constitutional authority to use military force, the precedent to do so was set by President Andrew Jackson during the Nullification Crisis.

Buchanan’s Challenges and the Call for Stronger Action

• Advocates wished Buchanan had the decisiveness of Andrew Jackson, but Buchanan faced a complex situation.
• The small standing army of about 15,000 was needed to manage ongoing conflicts with Native American Indians in the West.
• Northern public opinion was not ready for military action, as fighting would hurt prospects for reconciliation.
• Lincoln followed Buchanan’s cautious approach.

The Collapse of Compromise

Senator James Henry Crittenden proposed a compromise to resolve the Secession Crisis. The Crittenden Compromise sought to protect slavery south of the 36° 30′ line and allow states to choose if they wanted to legalize slavery. President-elect Lincoln and Radical Republicans rejected the compromise. When Lincoln took office in March 1861, he was cautious, but determined to maintain the Union.

Crittenden Compromise

• Rising tensions led to efforts at compromise.
• Senator James Henry Crittenden of Kentucky, following in the footsteps of Henry Clay, spearheaded the most notable effort.
• Crittenden proposed Constitutional Amendments to appease the South and address the Secession Crisis.
  • Slavery was to be prohibited north of the 36° 30′ line but protected south of the line.
  • Slavery was to be federally protected in all existing and future southern territories, such as Cuba.
  • Future states, whether north or south of 36° 30′, could decide to enter the Union with or without slavery.
• The amendments sought to guarantee full rights for slavery supporters in southern territories, overriding Popular Sovereignty.
• Federal protection in southern territories could potentially lead to permanent slavery, though this was unlikely.

Lincoln Rejects the Crittenden Compromise

• Congress rejected the Crittenden Compromise.
• President-elect Lincoln opposed it and described the proposal as creating “a perpetual covenant of war against every people, tribe, and state owning a foot of land between here and Tierra del Fuego.”

AHC Note — At the urging of Lincoln, Radical Republican Senators opposed the Crittenden Compromise because it would have permitted the extension of slavery in future U.S. territories and states. Lincoln believed that his party should not concede its success at the polls the previous November on the floor of the Senate. On January 16, 1861, the Senate defeated Crittenden’s proposal by a vote of twenty-five to twenty-three. Republican senators cast all twenty-five votes against the measure. By the time of the Senate vote, four southern states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama) had seceded from the Union. Fourteen senators from southern states that had seceded or were about to secede did not take part in the vote, almost assuring its defeat.

Challenges of Buchanan’s Position

• Buchanan faced criticism for not using force against South Carolina.
• Using force might have triggered the Civil War three months earlier.
• Early conflict would have cast the North as the aggressor.
• Such actions could have alienated the crucial Border States, pushing them towards the Confederacy.

Farewell to Union

Secession was driven by fears of losing political power due to the growing Northern population and the rise of the Republican Party, which was viewed as a threat to slavery. While the Southern Fire Eaters viewed their cause as another American Revolution, they underestimated the Northern resolve to maintain the Union.

Reasons for Southern Secession

• Secessionists were concerned about the political balance shifting against them.
• They viewed the growing Northern population as a threat.
• The rise of the Republican Party was seen as a danger to slaveholding rights.
• Southern frustration included criticism from free-soilers, abolitionists, and Northern interference.
• Jefferson Davis emphasized the desire to be left alone in his early message to the Confederacy.

Southern Beliefs About Secession

• Many Southerners thought Secession would face no serious opposition.
• They underestimated the North’s willingness and ability to fight.
• There was a belief that Northern manufacturers and bankers, reliant on Southern cotton, would not risk their economic interests.
• Some Southerners anticipated that if war occurred, they could quickly repudiate the South’s debt to Northern creditors.

Southern Motivations for Secession

• Southern leaders saw Secession as a chance to end their dependence on the North.
• They envisioned an independent South with its own banking, shipping, and direct trade with Europe.
• The Tariff of 1857, favored by the South, was not threatening, but future Republican tariffs could be.
• There was an ongoing conflict between the North’s manufacturing economy and the South’s agricultural economy.

Nationalism and Southern Secession

• Nationalism movements in Italy, Germany, Poland, and other regions influenced the South.
• The South saw itself as a distinct sub-nation with a unique culture.
• There was a strong resistance to being controlled by what they perceived as a hostile northern nation.

Principles of Self-Determination and Secession

• Many Southerners believed in the principles of self-determination from the Declaration of Independence.
• They felt they were following the same principle that had guided the Original States.
• The thirteen original states had joined the Union voluntarily, so the seceding Southern States were also withdrawing voluntarily.

Additional Resources for Drifting Toward Disunion

The notes on this page are based on the 16th edition of The American Pageant. We have expanded on the source material with additional details, corrections, and links to Encyclopedia Entries that explain topics in more detail. For more information, including terms and definitions, see the following:

• Advanced Placement United States History (APUSH) Units
• The South and the Slavery Controversy (1793–1860)
• Manifest Destiny and Its Legacy (1841–1848)
• Renewing the Sectional Struggle (1848–1854)
• Drifting Toward Disunion (1854–1861)
• Girding for War: The North and the South (1861–1865)
• The Furnace of Civil War (1861–1865)
• The Ordeal of Reconstruction (1865–1877)