THE ROAD TO DISUNION

By Matt Kelley

Mr. Houston US History

Mrs. Hammatt English III

Thesis sentence: In this thesis I shall research the Road to

Disunion in the 1850's and analyze its effect on the Civil War.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe

this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half

free." (Latham, 37) 1858 was the year when soon to be President

Abraham Lincoln gave this response to the question of how slavery

may impact the/union. The roots of disunion can be traced back

as far as the day on which the colonists declared their

independence from England. Within the Declaration of

Independence it states that all men are created equal. (Blum,

A2) However, a little over a decade later the Constitution stated

that when determining population slaves would count as

three-fifths of a person.

This clear contradiction in terms that our founding fathers

presented the young nation was the very root of both disunion

and the Civil War. The nation handled the slavery question

on a state by state basis until the year 1820 when a problem

arose. Missouri had reached the necessary number of people

to apply for statehood. But if Missouri was admitted as a slave

state, it would upset the balance between the slave and free

states within Congress. So with sectional tension running high,

Henry Clay proposed the Missouri Compromise. The Compromise

stated that all territories north of the 36ø30 parallel were

free and all territories South were open to slavery. Thus

Missouri was allowed to enter the union as a slave state and

Maine was carved out of Massachusetts to balance Congress.

(http:/elections.eb.com)

Even though it appeared that the slavery question had been

settled with the Missouri Compromise, the American thirst for

expansion brought new problems to the government. The

slaveholders of the South saw a great chance to expand the

slavery kingdom and thus add to their political power by annexing

Texas into thefunion. (Freehling, 355) The North grew

apprehensive of this for fear that they would lose control of

the power in government. Continuing border disputes and problems

with the Mexican government led the United States to war with

Mexico. Southerners wanted not only to secure control of Texas

but also to conquer all of Mexico. (Freehling, 459) The North

was strongly opposed to the idea of conquering Mexico and cursed

the southerners for getting the United States in a war merely

for territory. After the war with Mexico, sectional tension

reached a fever pitch. The United States acquired land from

Mexico and the slavery issue in those lands had to be decided.

At this point, the union was faced with the dilemma of

whether or not to allow slavery in California and New Mexico.

When President Polk asked Congress for the money to purchase

these two lands from Mexico, the northerners ~ttempted to attach

some anti-slavery legislation to his request. The Wilmont Proviso

would outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude in any acquired

lands. (Rozwenc, 5) Although it was defeated in Congress, the

Wilmont Proviso became a symbol of the northern anti-slave

sentiment. The government needed to answer the slavery question

soon, because the North and the South were feuding like never

before. The South felt that they were protected by the

constitution and the Missouri Compromise when they called for

slavery. But the North felt that since Mexico did not allow

slavery, then the lands acquired from Mexico should not allow

slavery either. (Freehling, 488) The South grew fearful during

this period of waiting. They knew that if California was admitted

as a free state, the balance of power would turn in the favor

of the North. (Freehling, 487) Due to the gold rush of 1849,

California was inhabited with mostly men who had no slaves and

had no desire to get slaves. (Freehling, 487) This provided

the congressmen from the North with their contention that it

was only natural for California to enter the union as a free

state. One southern congressman expressed the view of the

majority of southerners when he said this about the prospect

of slavery being banned from all the acquired lands, "...indeed

the day of compromise will have passed and the dissolution of

our great and glorious Union will become necessary and

inevitable." (Rozwenc, 2)

As a result of all the ill-will being circulated around

Congress, the country was divided. Henry Clay, the senator

from Kentucky and perhaps the greatest pacificator in the history

of our country, took action. He pleaded with the abolitionists

in the North to try and understand southern pride. In turn,

he urged members of the South to remember the great advantages

that our union presented. (Rozwenc, 66) Clay was a unionist

who believed that disunion would solve no problems. So after

many bouts with the southern extremists, Clay's final plan read

this way. California is admitted as a free territory. New

Mexico and Utah are created from the Mexican Cession, no slavery

restrictions. The Texas boundary was changed, and because of

that, Texas was paid ten million dollars by the government.

Washington D.C. was no longer used for slave trade. The final

section of the bill was instituted for southern appeasement.

A new and more effective fugitive slave law was put into place.

(Rozwenc, 77-79)

Reaction was mixed on both sides, but for the most part,

the country had reached a temporary calm. Southern extremists

felt that they were constantly losing ground on slavery and

the latest compromise was just another setback. (Rozwenc, 89)

The northern abolitionist were concerned that their politicians

had aban~0~ the platform of the Wilmont Proviso. But after

the Compromise of 1850, it became clear that southern discontent

was starting to mount. John C. Calhoun, senator from South

Carolina, questioned why the South was making sacrifices to

northern interests. He felt that they were the section protected

by the constitution so the north should be the section that

was adhering to their needs. (Rozwenc, 65) Henry Clay proclaimed

the passage of his compromise a, "triumph for the union..."

(Rozwenc, 80)

Although the Compromise of 1850 created a relative calm

throughout the country, that calm would only last for a couple

of years. Stephen Douglas, senator from Illinois, proposed

the bill that would divide the huge unsettled Nebraska territory

into two smaller territories. (Corder, 12) The two territories,

Kansas and Nebraska would decide the slavery question using

a method that Douglas called popular sovereignty. (Corder, 12)

This method allowed the people who settled the territory to

decide what their slavery policy would be. It was assumed by

both Douglas and by the members of Congress that Nebraska would

vote to be free and that Kansas would vote to allow slavery.

(Corder, 12) On May 30, 1854 President Pierce signed the Kansas-

Nebraska Act into law. (Corder, 13) Pierce might have well called

for the start of the Civil War right then. As expected, Nebraska

entered as a free territory with little problem. Kansas however,

would be another story.

Due to the fact that Kansas was left to popular sovereignty,

both people from the North and the South began to flock to Kansas

in hopes of seeing slavery either allowed or banned. In the

early stages of migration to Kansas, the people from Missouri,

a slave state, poured into Kansas. (Corder, 19) People from

the North knew that if they did not do something, Kansas would

be lost to slavery. So all across the northern states, groups

started to organize sending people to Kansas hoping to keep

slavery out. Eli Thayer, a Massachusetts legislator, said this

about his plans to keep slavery out of Kansas." We fill Kansas

with men who hate slavery and who will drive the hideous thing

from the broad and beautiful plains." (Corder, 18) The

pro-slavery sentiment burned just as hotly as the anti-slavery

sentiment did. Dr. John Stringfellow, who was later to become

one of the leading pro-slavery forces in Kansas, expressed his

view on the abolitionists and the Free-Soil party. "If I had

my way, I'd hang every damned abolitionist! And everyone north

of the Mason-Dixon Line is an abolitionist." (Corder, 14) March

30, 1855 was the date on which Kansas would vote to allow

slavery. The election turned into a fiasco. Pro-slavery

factions won due to their tremendous amounts of illegal support

from Missouri. (Corder, 25) As the pro-slavery folks took over

and began instituting pro-slavery laws, the Free-Soilers cried

foul play claiming there had been over 5,000 false votes

counted. Kansas had taken center spotlight across the country.

Everyone had an opinion and that opinion was dictated by what

side of the Mason-Dixon Line you lived on. (Corder, 58) The

Free-Soilers ignored the existing government and set up their

own.

At this point there were two governments in Kansas, and

by the end of 1855, Kansas was fighting a civil war. Folks

from all across the country flocked to Kansas in hopes of turning

the state their way. John Brown, a radical abolitionist who

was not afraid to use violent tactics, arrived in Kansas on

a mission. (Corder, 75) "No political action will abolish the

system of slavery. It will go out in blood. These men who

held slaves have forfeited the right to live."(Corder, 75) This

was Brown's sentiment as he entered Kansas and it would prove

to be correct not only in Kansas, but also seven years later

in the Civil War.

By the start of 1856, Kansas was at war. There were many

violent battles and many casualties. The Pottawatomie Massacre

was perhaps one of the most brutal incidents that took place

in Kansas. John Brown led a group of Free-Soilers to Lawrence

where he had received word of a pro-slavery attack. (Corder,

66-67) Brown led his group into Lawrence and massacred James

Doyle, along with many prominent pro-slavery people and their

families. Fighting in Kansas continued until 1861, when Kansas

was admitted into the Union. (Corder, 157) But by 1861 the

country was at war. Kansas had provided the country with an

almost eerie foreshadowing of what was to come.

While the war in Kansas was going on, a conflict in Congress

also waged on. Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts gave

a riveting speech in Congress in which he charged the southern

Senators with allowing the virgin lands of Kansas to be raped.

(Corder, 68) Sumner in his "Crime Against Kansas" attacked

Senator Butler calling him a harlot with no ability to speak

the truth. (Corder, 68) This speech was a disgrace to the code

of honor and pride that the South lived by. So a few weeks

later, Preston Brooks, the cousin of Butler and congressman

from South Carolina, walked into the Senate and beat Sumner

with his cane. (Corder, 68) Sumner was beaten to an unconscious

state, and Brooks' cane was smashed in the process. Sumner

was so badly hurt that he did not return to Congress for three

and a half years. The reaction that both sides took was symbolic

of where the country stood. Brooks was praised and honored

in the South as a hero, and was sent many new canes by admirers

(Corder, 69) The North was outraged. Massachusetts refused

to elect another senator and Sumner's seat was left vacant as

a symbol of northern discontent. (Corder 69)

With war going on in Kansas and sectional tension the

highest it had ever been both between Congress and between the

people, the Dred Scott case began. Scott was a slave in Missouri

until his owner died and he was sold to John Emerson who moved

to the free state of Illinois. (Latham, 4) Emerson died and

Scott, through his lawyers saw a chance to gain his freedom.

Scott's lawyers argued that since he had spent time in a free

territory that he was a free man. ( Latham, 6) The local court

agreed with the lawyers and ruled that Scott was a free man.

But on appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that Scott

had come back to Missouri thus forfeiting his right to be free.

(Latham, 6) So the Dred Scott Case was headed to the United

States Supreme Court. The question the court had to decide

was whether or not black people had the same rights as other

American citizens and if the Missouri Compromise was

constitutional. (Latham, 27)

The court was anchored by Chief Justice Taney. Taney like

the majority of the court was a southerner appointed by a

southern democratic president. As the day of the decision drew

close, sectional tension heightened. Abolitionists and

free-soilers from the North grumbled that no good decision could

come from such a pro-south court. (Latham, 29) The court's ruling

came down on March 6, 1857. Chief Justice Taney said that the

court would uphold the ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri.

This meant that Scott was still a slave because he returned

to a slave state. The court also said that since Scott was

a slave he had no right to sue. (Latham, 26) Taney could have

stopped there and he would have decided the case, but the court

had decided to use the case to start a forum on slavery. Taney

continued to say that even if Scott had the right to sue, he

would have lost. He cited the Fifth Amendment as the reason.

Negroes were not and could not be citizens of the United States.

They were considered property. Under the Fifth Amendment,

private property was protected. So slave owners had the right

to bring their slaves anywhere they chose. (Latham, 31) With

this ruling, Taney and his court made the Missouri Compromise

of 1820 unconstitutional. Congress could not forbid slavery.

Reaction to the ruling went by region. The North was in

disbelief. The New York Times called the ruling, "wicked and

false", and charged that: "The court has jumped into politics,

voluntarily without any other purpose than to preserve the cause

of slavery." (Latham, 33) After twenty-five years of heated

debate, the Dred Scott decision was supposed to bring the nation

to a calm. Instead it became one of the foremost reasons that

there was a Civil War. (Latham, 1) At this point, the political

parties were divided strictly~regions. There was no chance

for compromise on any issue and nothing could get done in

Congress. (Latham, 32) The abolitionists of the North were forced

to live with Taney's words that, "black people are beings of

an inferior order."

In the year 1858, Abraham Lincoln and t/eh~e Douglas were

running for senator of Illinois. They engaged in a series of

debates that would become the nation's most famous forum on

the slavery question. (Latham, 37) The debate in Freemont would

spell the end of the career of Stephen Douglas. Although he

won the race for senator, he would never win again. Lincoln

proved that the Dred Scott decision could not aid slave owners,

if the territorial government refused to pass laws helping

slavery. Douglas could not defend his popular sovereignty

against this and because of that he lost southern support and

the Democratic Party was now divided. (Latham, 37)

Shortly there after, John Brown, the radical who killed

hundreds in Kansas resurfaced in the South in 1859. Brown and

a group of fellow radicals raided the Federal Arsenal at Harpers

Ferry, Virginia in hopes of distributing the weapons across

the South for slaves to revolt against their leaders. (Latham,39)

His plan failed and he was captured and executed. Brown's

tactics terrified northerners and southerners alike. To the

South, this was a symbol of the rebels up North. Brown would

later become a hero to many northerners.

At this point the nation's direction was undecided. The

election of 1860 would determine the fate of the Union. The

pro-slavery Democrats had split and Stephen Douglas ran in the

North and John Breckinridge ran down South. Lincoln was the

Republican candidate and a third party candidate named John

Bell entered the race. Lincoln won the election. (Latham, 43)

This was devastating to the South, who knew that Lincoln would

work hard to give the North the advantage. The southerners

were left with no choice but secession. Lincoln was not even

on the ballot down South, yet he was now president. The South

had lost control of Congress and of the presidency and they

felt the government had become the agent of one interest, the

North's. (Rozwenc, 9) So on December 20, 1860, South Carolina

alled a special meeting and the secession of many southern

states began. (Latham, 42) By 1861 The Confederate States of

America were formed.

At this point in time, the Civil War began. What was the

cause of the Civil War? Some historians point to years of unfair

legislation against the South. Passage of tariffs favorable

to the commerce of the North, rather than the farming of the

South, led to southern discontent. Due to the fact that the

South had fewer people, they continually lost measures in

Congress. Industrialism vs. agrarianism, biased tariff laws,

unfair legislative representation and Yankee oppression all

contributed to the outbreak of Civil War. (Corder, 1) But I

found that without the peculiar institution of slavery, there

would have been no war. Abraham Lincoln summed up the difference

between the North and the South best when he said, "You think

slavery is right and should be expanded, and we think it is

wrong and should be restricted. That, I suppose is the rub.

I!

It is certainly the only substantial difference between us.

(Latham, 43) War was inevitable the day a slave was brought

on to American soil. Both North and South believed that God

was on their side, and because of that, they would hold their

position until death. Without slavery, there would have been

no Compromise of 1850, no war in Kansas, no Dred Scott decision,

and ultimately no Civil War.