The Sectional Crisis & The Coming of the U.S. Civil War, 1820-60

A guide intended to help you understand the causes of the war and how they may have shaped Reconstruction, 1865-1877

The Missouri Compromise, 1820-21

The Missouri Compromise, 1820-21

The 1819 application for statehood by the Missouri Territory sparked a bitter debate in Congress over the issue of slavery in the new territories that had been created as a result of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.

Missouri, 1820-21

Concerned that the South would have a representational advantage, Congressman James Tallmadge of New York introduced a bill that would prohibit any further growth of slavery in Missouri, and would eventually set the children of Missouri's slaves free.

The bill passed in the House but failed to pass the Senate.

Leaders of the slave South were appalled by Tallmadge’s efforts; Sen. John C. Calhoun predicted that unless slavery were more formally sanctioned and protected by the federal government, the union would eventually dissolve.

Missouri, 1820-21

The issue was resolved with a two-part compromise.

First, the northern part of Massachusetts became Maine and was admitted to the Union as a free state at the same time that Missouri was admitted as a slave state, thereby maintaining a balance of 12 slave and 12 free states.

Missouri, 1820-21

Second, a line was drawn at 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, and any portions of the Louisiana Territory lying north of the compromise line would be free. But the compromise provided that fugitive slaves "escaping into any... state or territory of the United States...may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labour or service." And even in the free territories, "slavery and involuntary servitude ... in the punishment of crimes" was not prohibited.

South of 36/30, slavery was permitted.

The compromise -- an unanswered question: where would the 36/30 line end?

Slave Rebellions, 1800-31

Slave Rebellions

What do they mean? How did white Southerners –

masters, in particular – interpret them?

How did the rise of abolitionism in the North affect such Southerners?

Why did the rebellions occur in these particular years?

“Indian Removal” in the 1830s

“Indian Removal”

Why did the federal government pursue this policy?

How was the policy related to slavery?

Overview of Continental Expansion, 1780s-1850s

Expansion forces the question of slave labor or free labor in the new territories

There are conflicting visions of the “just” society and social order in the North & South.

This conflict informs the debate over slavery expansion prior to the Civil War.

Most of the new territory west of the Mississippi River comes to the U.S. as a result of its War with Mexico in the 1840s.

The Problem of Slavery in the Mexican Cession

Slavery traditionally kept out of politics

Congressional power over slavery includes setting conditions to accept territories

as states forbidding slavery in new states

Mexican Cession of 1848 directly raises the question of slavery in new territory

The Wilmot Proviso Launches the Free-Soil Movement

Mexican War mobilizes antislavery groups Antislavery – Free-Soilism – is not the same as

Abolitionism Very few Northerners were abolitionists – less

than 1%, in fact. Wilmot Proviso of 1846 seeks to outlaw slavery

in the new territories gained from Mexico. Why? To ban black Americans, and thereby to preserve the new territories for white farmers.

This encapsulates the politics of Abraham Lincoln – see Hofstadter.

Proviso passes in House, fails in Senate

1848: Free-Soilism becomes a force in presidential politics

President Taylor Precipitates a Crisis

Taylor proposes admitting California and New Mexico as states immediately

The White South reacts angrily Proposed Nashville convention

prompts the possibility of Southern secession

Forging a Compromise

Henry Clay’s compromise package California admitted as a free state slave trade, but not slavery, prohibited in

District of Columbia strong fugitive slave law enlarged New Mexico/Utah territory will be

admitted on basis of “popular sovereignty” This overturns the territorial ban on slavery

enacted by the Missouri Compromise, therby enraging “Free-Soilers”

The Compromise of 1850

Political Upheaval, 1852-1856 Whigs and Democrats manage

controversy in 1850 But the territorial question destroys

both parties in 1850s

The Kansas-Nebraska Act Raises a Storm

1854--Stephen Douglas introduces Kansas-Nebraska bill apply popular sovereignty to Kansas,

Nebraska Formal repeal Missouri Compromise line

Act passes on sectional vote Most Northerners outraged

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854

The Kansas-Nebraska Act Raises a Storm (2)

Mass defection among Northern Democrats

“Anti-Nebraska” candidates sweep North in 1854 congressional elections

Democrats become sole Southern party

Republican Party is organized

Kansas and the Rise of the Republicans

Republican party unites former Whigs, Know-Nothings, Free-Soilers, Democrats

Appeals to Northern sectional sympathies

Defends West for white, small farmers

“Bleeding Kansas” helps Republicans struggle among abolitionists, proslavery

forces for control of Kansas territory Republicans use conflict to appeal for

voters

“Bleeding Kansas”

Sectional Division in the Election of 1856

Republican John C. Frémont seeks votes only in free states

Democrat James Buchanan defends the Compromise of 1850, carries election

Republicans make clear gains in North

The House Divided, 1857-1860

Sectional quarrel becomes virtually irreconcilable under Buchanan

Growing sense of deep cultural differences, opposing interests between North and South

Cultural Sectionalism

Major Protestant denominations divide into northern and southern entities over slavery

Southern literature romanticizes plantation life

South seeks intellectual, economic independence

Northern intellectuals condemn slavery

Uncle Tom's Cabin an immense success in North

The Dred Scott Case, 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857):

Supreme Court can decide on slavery in the territories

Court refuses narrow determination of case

Major arguments Scott has no right to sue because neither

he nor any other black person, slave or free, a citizen

Congress has no authority to prohibit slavery in territories, Missouri Compromise unconstitutional

Ruling strengthens Republicans

Debating the Morality of Slavery Lincoln, in 1858 race for the U.S.

Senate: decries “Southern plot” to extend slavery promises to work for slavery’s extinction casts slavery as a moral problem defends white supremacy in response to

Douglas Douglas accuses Lincoln of favoring

equality Lincoln loses election, gains national

reputation

The South's Crisis of Fear October, 1859--John Brown raids

Harper’s Ferry Brown executed, mourned as martyr

by abolitionists Republicans seen as radical

abolitionists Most white Southerners convinced

they must secede on election of Republican president

The Election of 1860: Democrats

Party splits Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas Southern Democrat John

Breckenridge

The Election of 1860: Constitutional Union Party

Candidate John Bell Promises compromise between

North and South

The Election of 1860: Republicans

Abraham Lincoln nominated home state of Illinois crucial to election seen as moderate

Platform to widen party’s appeal free homesteads for small, white

farmers Lincoln wins by carrying North,

mostly on a campaign grounded in “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men”

Explaining the Crisis Republicans a strict sectional party Fundamental conflict of values Southern values

paternalism, generosity, white supremacy slavery defended on the grounds of race

Northern values Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men each person free and responsible slavery tyrannical and immoral White supremacy

Implications for Reconstruction?

What are they?