Hillstrom K., Hillstrom L.C., Baker L.W. (ed.)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

stepped into the middle of the raging

debate with a series of suggested com-

promises designed to avert a tragic

war. In a stirring speech to his fellow

lawmakers, Clay confirmed that the

North would never allow the South to

secede without a fight. He also warned

that if their differences did indeed ex-

plode into war, “we may search the

pages of history, and [find no war that

would be] so ferocious, so bloody, so

of the Southern states would be a crip-

pling blow to America’s growing mili-

tary and economic power in the

world, free-state politicians and news-

papers threatened that the North

would use force, if necessary, to keep

the Union together.

Finally, Senator Henry Clay of

Kentucky, who had authored the Mis-

souri Compromise thirty years earlier,

American Civil War: Almanac40

Henry Clay. (Courtesy of the Library of Congress.)

of the United States, and his peacemaking

efforts throughout the first half of the

nineteenth century earned him the nick-

names “the Great Compromiser” and “the

Great Conciliator.”

Henry Clay, the Great

Compromiser

The architect of both the Missouri

Compromise and the Compromise of

1850, Henry Clay was one of the leading

politicians of his era. Born in Virginia, he

represented his adopted home state of

Kentucky during his long political life.

Working as both a U.S. senator (1806–7,

1810–11, 1831–42, 1849–52) and repre-

sentative (1811–14, 1815–21, 1823–25),

Clay built a reputation as a strong Union

supporter and believer in federal authority.

Clay was a perennial contender for

the American presidency, but although he

was able to win the National Republican

nomination in 1832 and the Whig Party

nomination in 1844, he was never able to

gather enough support to achieve victory

in a general election. Despite his defeats to

Andrew Jackson in 1832 and James K. Polk

(1795–1849) in 1844, Clay is remembered

as one of America’s great statesmen. He

was devoted to the continued preservation

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 40

implacable [unable to be pacified], so

exterminating [deadly].” Clay went on

to urge “gentlemen . . . whether from

the South or the North . . . to pause at

the edge of the precipice, before the

fearful and dangerous leap be taken

into the yawning abyss below, from

which none who ever take it shall re-

turn in safety.”

The measures put forth by Clay

required both sides to make major sac-

rifices. Clay’s compromise called for

California to be admitted into the

Union as a free state and authorized the

abolition of the slave trade in Washing-

ton, D.C., the nation’s capital. Southern

lawmakers did not like either of these

measures, but Clay included other con-

ditions that they did favor. The first of

these was a $10 million payment to the

slave state of Texas to give up its claim

to a section of the New Mexico territo-

ry and pay off debts. The second condi-

tion was a much stronger fugitive slave

law designed to help Southern slave-

holders recapture runaways in the

North. Finally, the last piece of Clay’s

compromise gave each western territo-

ry the power to decide for itself

whether to allow slavery within its bor-

ders. This idea, first suggested by U.S.

senator Lewis Cass (1782–1866) of

Michigan, weakened the slave states’

boundaries set by the Missouri Com-

promise back in 1820.

No one was entirely happy

with Clay’s solution, and Congress

proved unable to pass it in its original

form. In fact, some of the most influ-

ential leaders in both the North and

the South denounced it. U.S. senator

William Seward (1801–1872) of the

Northern state of New York, for exam-

ple, rejected it because it still pre-

served slavery on American soil. The

South’s John Calhoun, meanwhile,

bitterly opposed it as further evidence

of Northern interference with South-

ern affairs. But U.S. senator Stephen A.

Douglas (1813–1861) of Illinois man-

aged to guide each piece of Clay’s

compromise through Congress as a

separate bill.

Still, the Compromise of

1850—as Clay’s compromise came to

be known—probably would have never

become law if not for the death of Pres-

ident Zachary Taylor (1784–1850). Tay-

lor’s strong antislavery feelings and

fierce loyalty to the Union made him

view many Southern positions unfa-

vorably, and he would have probably

vetoed the agreement because of its

pro-South elements. But when he died

in July 1850, Vice President Millard

Fillmore (1800–1874) took his place.

Fillmore was much more willing to ne-

gotiate with the slave states, and he

signed the compromise into law in

September 1850.

Once again, the North and the

South had managed to avoid coming

to blows over their differences. People

all across the nation breathed a sigh of

relief when the agreement was

reached. Nonetheless, hard feelings re-

mained. Politicians and ordinary citi-

zens alike recognized that the two

sides had rolled to the very brink of

war, only to pull back at the last in-

stant. Everyone wondered whether

the fragile peace would last.

1800–1858: The North and the South Seek Compromise 41

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 41

all U.S. citizens “to aid and assist in

the prompt and efficient execution of

this law, whenever their services may

be required.”

But within a few months, it was

clear that the Fugitive Slave Act infuri-

ated Northern abolitionists, which ulti-

mately hurt the Southern cause. The

law had been designed so that a new

class of federal officials, called commis-

sioners, could help slaveholders capture

runaways. But the law also made it pos-

sible for so-called “slavecatchers” to

grab free blacks and claim that they

were actually escaped slaves. Once cap-

tured, free blacks who were accused of

being fugitives were given little oppor-

tunity to defend themselves. They had

no right to a jury trial or to testify on

their own behalf. Instead, they were

brought before a commissioner, who

decided whether these alleged fugitives

would go free or be forced into enslave-

ment in the South. This situation was

made even worse by the fact that a

commissioner received a higher salary

from the government if he decided that

a black brought before him was an es-

caped slave. As a result, many free

blacks were falsely imprisoned and

forcibly enslaved on cotton and sugar

cane plantations in the South.

Angry Northern abolitionists

vowed to fight the Compromise of

1850 at every turn. Even more impor-

tantly, however, the law turned thou-

sands of other Northerners against

slavery. “The pitiful spectacle of help-

less blacks being seized in the streets

and dragged off to slavery could un-

settle the most prejudiced northern

Fugitive Slave Act

As it turned out, one piece of

the Compromise of 1850—the Fugi-

tive Slave Act—proved to be a disaster

for the badly splintered country. At

first, slaveholders in the South were

quite satisfied with the law. It made

the task of retrieving runaway slaves

living in the North easier, and it called

for severe penalties, including large

fines and prison terms, for anyone

who provided escaped slaves with

food, shelter, or any other kind of as-

sistance. Furthermore, it commanded

American Civil War: Almanac42

President Millard Fillmore (above) signed

the Compromise of 1850 into law two

months after the death of President Zachary

Taylor. (Courtesy of the Library of Congress.)

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 42

white,” wrote Jeffrey Rogers Hummel.

“Northern mobs, which once had di-

rected their fury at abolitionists, now

attacked slave catchers, broke into

jails, and rescued fugitive slaves. . . .

The national government tried vigor-

ously to prosecute the [Northern

white] law-breakers responsible for

such defiance, but northern juries re-

fused to convict.”

1800–1858: The North and the South Seek Compromise 43

After the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

was passed, many Northern abolitionists

vowed to ignore or challenge the law. One

of the best-known examples of this defi-

ance took place in Boston, Massachusetts,

in February 1851, when a group of black

freemen united to free a fugitive slave

named Shadrach, who had been captured

by federal marshals.

During his enslavement in Virginia,

Shadrach had been known as Frederick

Wilkins. But after escaping to Massachu-

setts in 1850, he adopted the name

Shadrach and found work as a waiter at a

coffeehouse in Boston, one of the North’s

centers of abolitionist activity. His slave past

was discovered, however, and on February

15, 1851, he was seized by federal marshals

and taken to a nearby courthouse. But

within hours of his arrest, a group of black

men broke into the courthouse and over-

powered the marshals who were guarding

Shadrach. His rescuers then hid him away

and used the Underground Railroad to de-

liver him to Canada, where the Fugitive

Slave Act could not be enforced.

Shadrach eventually settled in

Montreal, Quebec, where he opened a

restaurant. Back in the United States,

meanwhile, his dramatic rescue triggered

a storm of controversy, especially when

federal prosecutors could not convince ju-

rors to convict eight men (four black, four

white) who were charged with helping

Shadrach reach Canada. Clergyman

Theodore Parker (1810–1860) spoke for

many happy abolitionists when he wrote

that “Shadrach is delivered out of his

burning, fiery furnace. I think [his rescue]

is the most noble deed done in Boston

since the destruction of the tea [in the

Boston Tea Party] in 1773.” But President

Millard Fillmore denounced the action,

and enraged Southerners insisted that

such defiance (bold resistance) of the Act

could not be tolerated. “Every exertion

[effort] must be made to cause the laws to

be respected,” stated a February 21, 1851,

editorial in the Richmond Enquirer. “Now is

the time to act with spirit; now is the time

to assure the whole nation that the laws

must be respected, and that ‘the Union

must be preserved.’ A striking and decided

example [of punishment has so far been

lacking] to repress [restrain] the fury of the

fanatics, and prevent a repetition of simi-

lar offences.”

The Rescue of Shadrach

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 43

country so that it would pass through

the Chicago area. The senator, who

was thinking about running for presi-

dent some day, knew that if his route

was chosen, he would be very popular

with voters in his home state and

other regions of the North. In addi-

tion, Douglas owned a lot of real estate

along his proposed route, and he rec-

ognized that he could sell this land to

merchants and other business owners

for a great deal of money.

Douglas faced two major ob-

stacles to his plan, however. First, his

proposed route would take the rail-

road through a vast territory in the

middle of the country that still had

not formed any kind of government.

Several attempts had been made to es-

tablish a territorial government in the

region, but these had been blocked by

Southern legislators, who knew that

the territory’s location would make it

a nonslave state according to the

terms of the Missouri Compromise of

1820. Second, the South wanted the

transcontinental railroad for itself and

resisted all efforts to route the railroad

through the North.

As Douglas studied the situa-

tion, he recognized that there was one

way that he could convince Southern

legislators to give up their claim on

the railroad. In return for their sup-

port of his proposed route through the

North, Douglas submitted a bill that

divided the disputed territory into two

territories—Kansas and Nebraska—

that could decide for themselves

whether to permit slavery. Southern

members of Congress accepted the

As Americans in the North

came to see the Fugitive Slave Act as

little more than government-spon-

sored kidnapping, their support for

the abolitionist movement soared.

Moving testimony from fugitive slaves

who came North via the Underground

Railroad further added to proabolition

feelings. Then, in 1852, a novel by

Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811–1896)

called Uncle Tom’s Cabin was pub-

lished. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was an enor-

mously popular book that provided a

sympathetic portrait of enslaved

blacks. Written by Stowe in response

to the Fugitive Slave Act, the novel be-

came the most important work of lit-

erature in abolitionist history.

Kansas-Nebraska Act

The Fugitive Slave Act and the

publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin com-

bined to create unprecedented (un-

heard of) Northern hostility toward

the South and its continued defense of

slavery. Then in 1854, a new law

called the Kansas-Nebraska Act made

relations between the North and the

South even worse. This law sparked a

terrible eruption of violence between

pro- and antislavery factions that ulti-

mately took the lives of more than

two hundred people.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act had

been crafted by Senator Douglas of Illi-

nois in response to the growing na-

tional call for construction of a rail-

road that would extend from America’s

East Coast to its West Coast. Douglas

wanted to build this “transcontinen-

tal” railroad through the middle of the

American Civil War: Almanac44

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 44

deal, and even though many Northern

lawmakers voted against Douglas’s

Kansas-Nebraska Act, it received

enough support for passage.

Based on the concept of “pop-

ular sovereignty,” which held that the

citizens of each new state should be

able to decide for themselves whether

to allow slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska

Act of 1854 was enormously popular

with Southerners. It explicitly abol-

ished the Missouri Compromise of

1820, which had drawn a line across

the country and outlawed slavery in

thousands of square miles of Ameri-

can territory. This gave the South a

golden opportunity to expand the

practice of slavery.

In the North, however, the

new law was greeted with disgust and

mounting anger. Antislavery congress-

men, led by Senator Salmon P. Chase

(1808–1873) of Ohio, immediately is-

sued a document called The Appeal of

the Independent Democrats. It de-

nounced Douglas’s bill as “a criminal

betrayal of precious rights” and “part

and parcel of an atrocious plot [to

convert the West] into a dreary region

of despotism [acting like a ruler with

total power], inhabited by masters and

slaves. . . . Whatever apologies may be

offered for the toleration of slavery in

the States, none can be offered for its

extension into Territories where it

does not exist.” These feelings were

echoed by abolitionists all across the

North, and millions of the region’s cit-

izens became convinced that the

South meant to spread the stain of

slavery all across the West.

The fight over slavery in

“Bleeding Kansas”

The passage of Douglas’s

Kansas-Nebraska Act triggered a wild

outburst of activity. Nebraska’s reputa-

tion as a solid antislavery territory

spared it from becoming a battle-

ground for abolitionist and proslavery

forces, and it was allowed to move to-

ward statehood in relative peace. It was

a different story in Kansas, however.

As soon as the Kansas-Nebras-

ka Act was passed, abolitionist and

proslavery forces rushed into the

Kansas territory in order to claim the

land, knowing that a vote of its citi-

zenry would determine its status.

“Come on, then, gentlemen of the

Slave States,” said Senator Seward of

New York, who held the widespread

belief that the frantic race for superior-

ity in the territory would ultimately

determine slavery’s future throughout

all of America. “Since there is no es-

caping your challenge, I accept it in

behalf of the cause of freedom. We

will engage in competition for the vir-

gin soil of Kansas, and God give the

victory to the side which is stronger in

numbers as it is in right.” Southerners

recognized that the fight over Kansas

was an important one as well. “We are

playing for a mighty stake,” wrote

Missouri senator David Atchison

(1807–1886). “If we win we carry slav-

ery to the Pacific Ocean [but] if we fail

we lose Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas

and all the territories.”

The struggle to control Kansas

continued on throughout 1854 and

1855. Aided by a Northern antislavery

1800–1858: The North and the South Seek Compromise 45

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 45

As the two factions struggled

for supremacy, violence swept across

the territory. In May 1856, hundreds

of proslavery Missourians raided the

abolitionist stronghold of Lawrence,

terrorizing citizens and destroying

buildings. This raiding party was led

by Atchison, who resigned his Senate

seat to lead the battle in Kansas. A few

days after the attack on Lawrence, a

radical abolitionist named John

Brown (1800–1859) and a number of

his sons captured five proslavery set-

tlers and executed them with

broadswords in front of their families.

Throughout the summer of 1856, the

federal government watched helpless-

ly as lynchings (murders by a mob

without a trial), horse theft, arson,

and murder became common tactics

throughout “Bleeding Kansas.” The

territory had become a nightmarish

battle zone in which no one was safe.

The violence in Kansas even

spread to the nation’s capitol at one

point. In May 1856, abolitionist senator

Charles Sumner (1811–1874) of Massa-

chusetts launched into a speech called

“The Crime Against Kansas.” During his

speech, Sumner bitterly criticized several

proslavery senators, including the uncle

of Congressman Preston Brooks

(1819–1857) of South Carolina. A few

days later, Brooks strode over to Sumn-

er’s desk on the Senate floor and brutally

attacked him with a cane. Beaten into

semi-consciousness, Sumner took nearly

three years to recover from his injuries.

Southerners, meanwhile, called Brooks a

hero. In the weeks following the attack,

the South Carolina legislator received

dozens of canes in the mail from admir-

organization known as the Emigrant

Aid Society, settlers who supported a

free state poured into Kansas. Many of

these settlers were equipped with rifles

known as “Beecher’s Bibles” because

they had been provided by a Brooklyn,

New York, church headed by abolition-

ist Henry Ward Beecher (1813–1887).

Proslavery forces flooded the

territory in even greater numbers,

however. Many of these people actual-

ly lived in the neighboring slave state

of Missouri, but they were determined

to see slavery’s expansion into Kansas.

These “border ruffians” (bullies), as

they were often called, threatened and

intimidated abolitionist settlers, and

they cast thousands of illegal votes on

behalf of proslavery political candi-

dates. By mid-1855, a proslavery terri-

torial legislature had established itself

in Kansas on the strength of these

false votes. After being formally recog-

nized by the federal government,

these antiabolitionist lawmakers

promptly passed a wave of proslavery

laws and expelled all abolitionists

holding political office in the territory.

But antislavery groups refused

to give up. Instead, they met in

Lawrence, Kansas, to formally protest

the earlier elections and to request ad-

mission into the Union as a free-soil

state (although they also called for a

law that would have prevented any

blacks—free or slave—from living in

the territory). By mid-1856, two sepa-

rate legislatures—one fiercely proslav-

ery, the other equally dedicated to

free-soil ideals—had been established

in Kansas.

American Civil War: Almanac46

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 46

ers, many of whom urged Brooks to “Hit

[Sumner] again.” Brooks’s attack, for

which he was fined $300, remains one

of the most infamous incidents in the

history of Congress.

Buchanan supports the

Lecompton Constitution

In early 1858, the federal gov-

ernment was finally able to regain

some measure of control over the

Kansas territory, and the violence less-

ened. Both sides continued to battle in

the political arena, however. As order

was restored, it became clear to

proslavery Kansans that they were

outnumbered by abolitionists. Sup-

porters of slavery, though, had an im-

portant ally in President James

Buchanan (1791–1868), a Democrat

who was sympathetic to the South.

Aided by Buchanan, the territory’s

proslavery leaders made one final at-

tempt to add Kansas to the Union as a

slave state by presenting to Congress a

proslavery state constitution called

the Lecompton Constitution.

(“Lecompton” comes from the fact

that the constitution was signed in

Lecompton, Kansas.)

Buchanan’s decision to sup-

port the Lecompton Constitution in-

furiated Stephen Douglas, the archi-

tect of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Douglas viewed the Lecompton Con-

stitution as an obvious attempt to

force slavery on the people of Kansas,

even though the majority of its citi-

zens did not want it. “Why force this

constitution down the throats of the

people of Kansas, in opposition to

their wishes and in violation of our

pledges?” asked Douglas. He further

claimed that neither the North nor

the South had the right to resort to

“trickery or fraud” in the struggle over

slavery. “If Kansas wants a slave-state

constitution she has a right to it,” said

Douglas. “If she wants a free-state con-

stitution she has a right to it. It is

none of my business which way the

slavery cause is decided. . . . I will

stand on the great principle of popular

In May 1856, abolitionist senator Charles

Sumner of Massachusetts (above) was

attacked with a cane by proslavery

congressman Preston Brooks of South

Carolina. (Courtesy of the National Archives and

Records Administration.)

1800–1858: The North and the South Seek Compromise 47

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 47

al Whig political party, which finally

divided into Northern and Southern

factions over the slavery issue. The

Southern Whigs, also known as “Cot-

ton Whigs,” subsequently joined the

proslavery Democratic Party, while

members of the Northern Whigs and

the Free-Soil Party combined to form

the antislavery Republican Party in

the North.

This political turmoil was re-

flected in the national elections of

1856. When the Whig Party fell apart,

the Democratic Party stood as the

only political party in America with

significant influence in both the

North and the South. As the only na-

tional party still in existence, the De-

mocrats were able to nudge their pres-

idential candidate, James Buchanan,

into the White House. But the 1856

election results showed that the

proslavery leanings that made the

party so powerful in the South were

eroding its popularity in the North. In

addition, the 1858 fight over the

Lecompton Constitution further

bruised the Democrats, sparking bitter

divisions among party leaders like

Buchanan and Douglas.

The Republicans took full ad-

vantage of the growing fragmentation

in the Democratic Party. Gathering

support throughout the North with

their message of abolitionism and eco-

nomic opportunity in the West, Re-

publicans replaced Democrats in

many Northern states by the late

1850s. But Republican officeholders

remained practically nonexistent in

the South during this time. Indeed,

sovereignty, which declares the right

of all people to be left perfectly free to

form and regulate their domestic insti-

tutions in their own way.”

Led by Douglas, a coalition of

Republican and Northern Democratic

legislators blocked the Lecompton

Constitution from being passed.

Buchanan and his allies did not give

up though. Instead, they attempted to

bribe the people of Kansas into join-

ing the Union as a slave state. They

passed legislation that guaranteed the

people of Kansas a large amount of ad-

ditional federal land if they voted to

accept the Lecompton Constitution in

a special referendum. If Kansas voted

against the controversial constitution,

on the other hand, it would be unable

to petition for statehood until its pop-

ulation reached ninety thousand. But

this effort to bribe the citizens of

Kansas failed, and the Lecompton

Constitution was defeated decisively.

In 1861, three years after the Lecomp-

ton Constitution was rejected, Kansas

was finally admitted into the United

States as a free state.

Legislation triggers political

upheaval

Kansas endured several years

of fear and hatred in the years after

Douglas’s Kansas-Nebraska Act became

law, but the Act’s impact also was felt

far beyond the Kansas and Nebraska

borders. The entire nation was deeply

involved with political change and

uncertainty in the months and years

following its passage. The law trig-

gered the disintegration of the nation-

American Civil War: Almanac48

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 48

the Democrats had assumed a stran-

glehold on positions of power

throughout the South on the strength

of their increasingly proslavery atti-

tudes. As observers looked over the

new political landscape, they saw that

the North and the South were pitted

against one another once again.

1800–1858: The North and the South Seek Compromise 49

Civil War Almanac MB 10/7/03 4:01 PM Page 49

Hillstrom K., Hillstrom L.C., Baker L.W. (ed.) - American Civil War. Almanac

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.