1. 1845-1865 U.S. History 1 Coach Pritch, J5
The Civil War Era
U.S. History 1
Coach Pritch, J5

2. Brief Timeline “Bleeding” Kansas “Bleeding” Sumner
1856 Presidential Election
1857 Dred Scott SCOTUS decision
1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates
John Brown’s Harper’s Ferry raid
1860 Presidential election

3. Sectional Tension Missouri Compromise 1820 Compromise of 1850
Compromise of 1850
Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854

4. “Bleeding Kansas”
Emigrant Aid societies: New Englanders to KS to fight slavery = freesoilers
Proslavery forces came to vote illegally in territorial elections
1855: antislavery capital = Topeka; proslavery capital = Lecompton
May 21, 1856 looting/burning of Lawrence, KS, homes+newspapers by proslavery Southerners
While some had hopes that popular sovereignty—allowing an area’s residents to vote directly on an issue—would cleanly settle the fight over slavery in Kansas Territory, reality proved far more complex, volatile, and then violent. Hostilities between pro- and antislavery settlers erupted across Kansas in 1856 as part of a small-scale civil war, earning the territory the grim nickname “Bleeding Kansas.”
Almost immediately after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, pro- and antislavery forces began streaming into the Kansas Territory in order to sway the popular sovereignty vote in their favor. “Emigrant aid societies” formed in both the North and South to encourage settlement in Kansas for this purpose. The slave state of Missouri, already bordered by the free states of Iowa and Illinois, sent thousands of settlers into Kansas to ensure that the territory voted for a proslavery government.
When the election was held in 1854, proslavery forces won a sweeping victory. However, antislavery forces believed that the election had been fraudulent and elected their own legislature. The new legislature banned free blacks as well as slaves. With both sides heavily armed and committed to the righteousness of their cause, the territory neared civil war.
A period map showing free states (red), slave states (gray), territories (green), and Kansas Territory (white, in the center)

5. “Bleeding Kansas”: Violence Erupts
May 24, 1856 John Brown and posse massacre five men at Pottawotomie Creek
Violent summer, raids and counter raids = “bleeding Kansas”
Violence broke out on May 21, 1856, when proslavery forces raided the town of Lawrence, the center of free-state settlement. While only one person died in the “sack of Lawrence,” many in the North saw the attack as a brutal assault on an innocent community. John Brown, an ardent opponent of slavery, decided to retaliate against proslavery settlers in revenge for the violence at Lawrence. He and his followers raided a proslavery settlement at Pottawatomie Creek, where they hacked five settlers to death. Both sides now realized that any settler could be subject to a violent attack by the other side, and small-scale guerrilla warfare broke out across the state.
The ruins of a hotel after the “Sack of Lawrence”

6. “Bleeding Kansas”: Effects
Brown’s attack spurred widespread violence
Republicans trumped up situation to meet their interests; Democrats heavily promoted settlement
Pres. Pierce supported proslavery forces; did nothing to quell violence
Although authorities never captured or tried Brown or his followers for the murders at Pottawatomie Creek, Brown went into hiding and left Kansas in late However, his actions against proslavery settlers caused violence there to increase, and by the end of 1856, more than 200 settlers on both sides of the slavery question had been killed.
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties received blame for the eruption of violence as the territory struggled to make a decision about slavery. Democrats encouraged settlers in neighboring states to stream into the Kansas Territory simply to vote in favor of retaining slavery. Republicans used the clashes between the groups to support their own causes and worked to trump up the “Bleeding Kansas” issue. President Franklin Pierce allowed the situation to worsen, as his administration did little to ensure law and order as settlers debated and then voted on the slavery issue, while his active support of proslavery forces only increased tensions and violence in Kansas.
Missouri raiders shooting down free-soil settlers in Kansas

7. The Lecompton Constitution
Territorial governor supported popular sovereignty
Proslavery Kansans held constitutional convention in Lecompton
Series of stacked votes on constitution
Buchanan supported constitution to keep Southern support; clashed with Douglas
Struggles over ratification of constitution
Conflict still was rampant in Kansas. Rival legislatures—one for slavery and one against—wrestled with creating a constitution beneficial to their own cause. President Buchanan appointed a territorial governor supportive of popular sovereignty, Robert J. Walker, who figured that in fair elections free-soil settlers would send a majority of antislavery delegates to the constitutional convention. However, most expected a fraudulent election and didn’t vote, allowing for proslavery delegates to run the convention. These delegates met in the town of Lecompton to draft a constitution to use in applying for statehood. Again assuming fraud, free-soilers abstained from voting on the constitution when it was put to Kansans for approval.
Buchanan changed his position on popular sovereignty in the territory in hopes of placating his Southern supporters and sent the constitution to Congress for ratification. Meanwhile, Kansas’s antislavery legislature arranged for yet another vote—this one boycotted by proslavery settlers—in which Kansans overwhelmingly rejected the constitution. Wholly aware of Kansas’s free-soil majority, Buchanan nevertheless pushed for ratification.
During the bitter debate in Congress, Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas broke with his party and opposed the constitution, disgusted by the twisted version of popular sovereignty in the territory he had essentially created with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Despite increasing pressure from Buchanan, Douglas supported the Republican position against the Kansas statehood bill. Antislavery Congressmen managed to amend the bill to force another vote in Kansas, this one to be closely supervised. Residents voted against Lecompton by about 10:1, leaving the territory safely in the hands of its antislavery legislature.

8. Brooks Attacks Sumner
Sumner made Senate speech against Butler, Brooks’s uncle
Brooks caned Sumner into unconsciousness on Senate floor
Brooks resigned his seat, but was quickly reelected
As sectional tensions continued to build during the 1850s, they also spilled over into both houses of Congress. Members of Congress frequently came to sessions armed and frequently delivered speeches that personally attacked colleagues on the other side of the slavery issue. In 1856, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner delivered a speech on the Senate floor titled, “The Crime Against Kansas.” In his speech, Sumner ridiculed South Carolina Senator Andrew P. Butler, who was not present, for his proslavery views (as well as his speech impediment). Sumner called Butler a “Don Quixote, who had taken the “harlot,” slavery, as his mistress.” Following the speech, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas supposedly remarked, “That damn fool will get himself killed by some other damn fool.”
Butler’s nephew, Congressman Preston Brooks, felt obligated to defend Butler a few days later. Brooks entered the Senate chamber after the day’s adjournment and attacked Sumner, beating him with his cane until it broke and the senator lost consciousness. The attack so scarred Sumner physically and psychologically that he could not return to his Senate seat until 1859.
Both sides in the sectional dispute used this incident to publicize their concerns. Brooks resigned his office after the House censured him but the people of South Carolina reelected him by a large margin. Some sent him new canes to replace the one he shattered during his attack on Sumner. Northerners saw the incident as further proof that Southerners would resort to violence and brutality in order to protect the institution of slavery.
A political cartoon depicts the attack

9. Discussion Questions
What was the Republican Party’s philosophy regarding slavery? What aspect of the slavery issue did the party most object to?
What was “Bleeding Kansas”? How did the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act contribute to this?
How did John Brown’s actions in Kansas add to sectional tensions in the territory?
The Republican Party objected to slavery, saying that slavery took away the dignity of labor from both blacks and whites. Slavery, the party held, also made it more difficult for white workers to find employment, especially in new territories. While the Republicans did not necessarily object to slavery as an absolute moral wrong, they vehemently opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories.
“Bleeding Kansas” referred to the hostilities that developed in Kansas as both pro- and antislavery forces attempted to pack the territory with settlers committed to voting their side to victory via popular sovereignty. Violence erupted in several locations as part of a small-scale civil war, and residents on both sides took casualties, including deaths. The Kansas-Nebraska Act brought on the conflict because it stipulated that popular sovereignty would determine the territory’s slavery status.
John Brown’s slaying of proslavery settlers at Pottawatomie Creek, while in apparent retaliation for proslavery settlers’ “Sack of Lawrence,” contributed to an upturn in violence in the Kansas Territory. Kansans on either side of the slavery issue felt as if they were under the constant threat of attack by the other. Moreover, the fact that authorities never tried (or even arrested) Brown for Pottawatomie only strengthened the “us vs. them” mentality of Kansan settlers.

10. The Election of 1856 Republicans ran Fremont
Democrats chose Buchanan, a “doughface”
Buchanan won, but Republicans showed strength
By 1856, the new Republican Party had developed enough support to directly challenge Democratic control of the White House. The Republicans made the extension of slavery in the territories their central campaign issue.
The Republicans nominated the “Pathfinder,” explorer John C. Fremont, as their presidential candidate. From the start, the Republicans realized that they would not carry the South, but believed they would have enough Northern and Western support to win. The Democrats nominated James Buchanan of Pennsylvania. Opponents of Buchanan called him a “doughface,” a Northerner with Southern sympathies. Buchanan and the Democrats promoted popular sovereignty as the best way to solve the extension of slavery issue, believing that the Republican opposition to extending slavery into the territories under any circumstances would force the South into secession.
While the Democrats won the election with 174 electoral votes, Fremont made it close by taking 114. Carrying no states below the Mason-Dixon Line, the Republicans’ showing suggested that a candidate could win the presidency without the support of the South. In turn, the slaveholding Southern states had greater concern about the Republicans, now a political force to be reckoned with.
John C. Fremont, the first Republican presidential candidate

11. The Dred Scott Case: Origins
Slave whose master had moved him to free territory for several years
Sued for his freedom under the Northwest Ordinance and Missouri Compromise
Case appealed to U.S. Supreme Court in 1857
What seemed a simple case regarding one slave’s freedom blossomed into a sectional issue of enormous significance. The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford only a few days after Buchanan’s inauguration, but the repercussions lasted for decades.
Dred Scott was a slave who lived in Missouri. When his first master died, an army surgeon named Dr. John Emerson took Scott first to Illinois, and later to the Wisconsin Territory. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 forbade slavery in both locales.
After Scott was returned to Missouri, he and his wife sued for their freedom with the assistance of a sympathetic lawyer. Scott contended that he had become a free man once Emerson had transported him to Illinois; moreover, when taken to Wisconsin, he was freed under the terms of the Northwest Ordinance as well as the Missouri Compromise. In a lower court, Scott lost his case on a technicality. However, he refiled the lawsuit and won. The Missouri Supreme Court subsequently overturned the verdict. Scott filed his suit in federal court, but the Missouri Supreme Court decision was upheld. Finally, Scott and his lawyers appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Dred Scott

12. Dred Scott: The Decision
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
Taney ruled against Scott:
Slaves, as non-citizens, had no constitutional rights
State laws determined a slave’s freedom, not federal
Congress’s power to create territorial rules did not include prohibiting slavery
Missouri Compromise unconstitutional
Dred Scott had the misfortune, perhaps, of having his case reach the Supreme Court while under the stewardship of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, whom Andrew Jackson had appointed in Hailing from the slave state of Maryland, Taney demonstrated in the Dred Scott decision that even the Supreme Court could fall prey to sectional prejudices: his ruling includes a description of blacks as “so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
In the 7–2 decision, Taney delivered the majority opinion:
As a slave, Dred Scott did not have U.S. citizenship. Since he was not a citizen, Scott had no right to sue in U.S. courts; therefore, his lawsuit was invalid.
Taney also asserted that Scott’s home state of Missouri—a slave state—determined his status as a slave or free man, not whether he had lived in free states.
Finally, he added that under no circumstances could Congress prohibit slavery in a territory because to do so would violate the Fifth Amendment’s property clause. Therefore, all congressional attempts to limit slavery—including the Missouri Compromise—were unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

13. Dred Scott: Curtis’s Dissent
Believed that Scott was a citizen
Asserted that Scott’s residence in free territory changed his status as a slave
Missouri Compromise constitutional: Congress had the right to make territorial laws
While Taney’s opinion advanced the Southern view of slavery and its constraints (or lack thereof), the dissent of Justice Benjamin R. Curtis represented the views of most Northern Republicans. To Curtis, Scott deserved his freedom for several reasons:
First, the Constitution did not imply that African Americans could not be citizens. He noted that at the time the Constitution was written, several states allowed suffrage for free blacks, and they participated in the ratification process.
When Scott’s master transported him from Missouri to Wisconsin and Illinois (two areas that prohibited slavery), the condition of involuntary servitude ceased to exist.
Curtis also believed the Missouri Compromise to be constitutional because the Framers had meant for Congress to have the power to make all necessary rules for governing the territories.
Justice Benjamin R. Curtis

14. Lincoln-Douglas Debates
Lincoln challenged Douglas to a series of debates
Douglas saw Lincoln as a tough opponent
Thousands viewed the pair as they spoke
Both candidates used different styles to explain their views
“He is the strong man of the party,” Douglas stated, “full of wit, facts, dates, and the best stump speaker, with his droll ways and dry jokes, in the West. He is as honest as he is shrewd, and if I beat him my victory will be hardly won.”
Soon after his nomination, Lincoln challenged incumbent Senator Douglas to a series of debates across Illinois. Douglas accepted the challenge, but recognized Lincoln as a formidable challenger. “He is the strong man of the party,” Douglas stated, “full of wit, facts, dates, and the best stump speaker, with his droll ways and dry jokes, in the West. He is as honest as he is shrewd, and if I beat him my victory will be hardly won.”
Seven different cities hosted their debates in August and September of Not only did thousands of Illinois voters turn out to see the two candidates, but the national media also followed the two as they continued their speaking tour. The debaters seemed as different in appearance as in their views: Douglas, the impeccably groomed “Little Giant,” spoke powerfully, gesticulating wildly and paced up and down the stage as he spoke. Lincoln took pains to portray himself as a “common man.” His suits didn’t seem to fit him, and he had a generally rumpled appearance; he made no grand entrance, tending simply to walk from the rail station to the debate site. Frequently speaking slowly and in a high pitched voice, Lincoln made his points in a deliberate manner.
Lincoln and Douglas spoke in seven different Illinois communities

15. The “Freeport Doctrine”
Lincoln asked Douglas how, in light of Dred Scott, the people of a territory could exclude slavery
Douglas said that slavery could only flourish when supported by local laws; no laws, no slavery
Douglas’s response probably helped him win the election, but killed any future presidential bid
When the two candidates met at Freeport, in north central Illinois, he hoped to trap Douglas with a loaded question. The question, and Douglas’s response, became known as the “Freeport Doctrine.”
In the debate, Lincoln pressed Douglas as to how, in light of the Dred Scott decision, a territory could stop the extension of slavery before becoming a state. This put Douglas in a corner: If he stated support for the Dred Scott decision, he would likely lose the election. He instead answered that slavery could not exist unless supported by local law, and if the territory enacted no laws in support of it, slavery would not take hold there.
While the Freeport Doctrine probably kept Douglas from defeat in the Senate race, it probably ended any chances for winning the presidency in Southern slaveholders distrusted someone who suggested the Dred Scott decision could be bypassed to prohibit slavery in a territory. While Lincoln would go down to defeat in the 1858 Senate race, he became a national figure as a result of the publicity the debates generated nationwide. Many began talking of Lincoln as a strong candidate for the 1860 election.

16. Discussion Questions
What was significant about Fremont’s candidacy in the 1856 election? What did the results demonstrate about the Republican Party?
What was the ruling in the Dred Scott case, and what made it so controversial? On what grounds did Justice Curtis dissent?
What was the Freeport Doctrine? Why might it have helped Douglas defeat Lincoln in 1858, but hurt him in the 1860 presidential election?
Fremont ran as the first Republican candidate in a national election. Knowing that their opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories would cost them dearly in the South, the Republicans concentrated on states in the North and West. While Fremont lost the election, his better-than-expected showing proved the viability of the party, which demonstrated that it could likely win an election without Southern support.
First, Taney stated that since slaves did not and could not be citizens, they had no right to sue for their freedom. Rather than stop there, Taney also asserted that state laws—not federal—determined one’s status as a slave. Finally, the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from taking one’s property without due process, allowed slave owners to take their slaves (i.e., their property) anywhere without penalty. With this last point, Taney declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, even though the Kansas-Nebraska Act had already repealed it. The decision destroyed the fragile system of compromises that had held the country together until then by striking down prohibitions against it. Justice Curtis’s dissent held that (1) the Constitution didn’t say or imply that slaves couldn’t be citizens, (2) Scott had gained his freedom when he entered free territory, and (3) the federal government had the right to make laws in the territories (against slavery or otherwise).
In a debate with Douglas in Freeport, IL, Lincoln pressed him on how a territory might stop the expansion of slavery prior to becoming a state, especially in light of the Dred Scott decision. Douglas replied with the “Freeport Doctrine”: since slavery couldn’t exist (or at least flourish) in an area without the support of local laws, a territory could effectively bar slavery by not passing such laws. Douglas’s answer apparently satisfied the voters of Illinois, who on the whole opposed slavery in the territories; however, in a national election, his position on this issue—effectively circumventing the Dred Scott ruling—cost him the Southern support he needed as a Democratic presidential candidate.

17. John Brown Raised in an antislavery family
Never financially successful
Involved in abolitionist activities, including the Underground Railroad
Pottawatomie Massacre
John Brown, one of the most well-known figures of the abolitionist movement, seemed far from destined to be a historical figure. Born in 1800 into a religious, antislavery family in Connecticut, Brown had great difficulty attaining financial success. He and his family (20 children total, though many died young) resided in a string of states throughout New England and the Midwest, where he tried his hand at a variety of trades, most of which left him with huge debts.
Brown contributed substantially to parts of the antislavery movement of the first half of the 19th century. He financially supported the publication of the abolitionist pamphlet Walker’s Appeal, and also helped runaway slaves on the Underground Railroad. Upon meeting abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass, Brown outlined his plan to start a war designed to end slavery.
Brown became a national figure in May 1856, after he and five of his sons led the Pottawatomie Massacre in supposed retaliation for the sack of Lawrence. Eluding capture by federal authorities, Brown continued his violent campaign in Kansas and Missouri for nearly a year.
John Brown

18. Harpers Ferry
October 1859
Brown and followers planned to seize arsenal and arm slaves
Slaves failed to join in rebellion
Some of Brown’s men killed; he was captured
By the fall of 1859, John Brown had decided on his next step for ending slavery through violent revolt. He planned to lead 18 of his followers in a raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). Once he had taken the arsenal, Brown thought, he would distribute the cache of weapons to local slaves in an attempt to start a rebellion. If successful, these newly freed slaves could gather others and establish a base of operations in Virginia for inspiring and organizing support for further insurrections.
Brown and his followers seized the arsenal as well as took several hostages. However, slaves did not rally to Brown’s cause, probably because they were largely unaware of the raid; federal troops led by Colonel Robert E. Lee stormed the arsenal two days later and captured Brown. The incident left 14 dead, including two of Brown’s sons.
Federal troops prepare to storm the arsenal at Harpers Ferry

19. The Execution of John Brown
Brown convicted of treason against Virginia
Hanged in December 1859
Considered a hero to many Northerners
Southerners feared that some might follow his example
After his capture, John Brown was quickly tried and sentenced to death for treason against Virginia, becoming the only American ever convicted of committing treason against a state. Although Brown appeared mentally unstable (several family members, including his mother and two sons, were declared legally insane), he found no mercy in the jury’s verdict.
As he awaited execution, Brown demonstrated his commitment to racial equality: in several instances, he ate at the same table with blacks and allowed them to sit with his family at religious services. Authorities hanged Brown on December 2, While most Northerners condemned the raid at Harpers Ferry (as well as his exploits in Kansas Territory), the steadfastness he displayed between his capture and execution bought him a sort of grudging respect. Some well-known Northerners, such as the writers Emerson and Thoreau, vocally supported Brown and his actions. To some, Brown achieved a near-saintly status. Many in the North marked Brown’s execution with prayer vigils.
Many Southerners became fearful of the celebrity status that Brown achieved, thinking that perhaps others who opposed to slavery would follow his example. Many openly considered Brown no more than a murderer and robber. Still others, convinced that the Republicans had actively supported Brown, threatened never to allow the government to fall into Republican hands.
Brown kisses a slave child on the way to his execution

20. Brown’s Speech Before the Virginia Court
Upon receiving the death sentence for his involvement in the raid on Harpers Ferry, John Brown made the following remarks to the jury which convicted him:
“Now if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel and unjust enactments, I say, let it be done.”
Discussion questions:
Have students read the above quote and ask them why Brown would have made such a statement. Who might Brown have been referring to when he mentioned “the blood of my children”? Ask students if they believe that Brown was predicting a civil war with the phrase, “with the blood of millions in this slave country.” What rationale can they give for their view?
Responses will vary. Students may note that his statement signified Brown’s eloquence and his total commitment to his cause. Others may feel that by making such a statement, Brown might have been trying to gain sympathy from the jury which convicted him. Regarding “the blood of my children,” Brown might have been referring to the two sons he lost at Harpers Ferry; some may feel that Brown might have been referring to the slaves, whom he in a sense saw as “children” he had to fight for and protect. Whether Brown was specifically predicting civil war is difficult to determine; his statement might have been a warning that other antislavery activists would be willing to pick up where he left off with another attempt to foment a rebellion, should slavery not end.

21. Southern Extremism Grows
Southerners fearful of Northern dominance
Worried that new free states would be able to abolish slavery
State legislatures restricted civil liberties; made freeing slaves illegal
Concept of secession became popular
By 1859, more and more Southerners felt threatened by the North’s increasing power and influence. The North was growing in size and population, and Southerners became increasingly fearful that a large number of new Northern free states would have the votes to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery. In response, several Southern state legislatures took steps to maintain the status quo: they limited freedom of expression on the slavery issue, prohibited free blacks from living in their states, and denied slaveholders the power to free their own slaves. Convinced of no other way to stop the abolitionist movement swelling in the North, Southerners increasingly began to consider secession as a viable option for keeping their slaves and maintaining their way of life.

22. Essential Questions Was the Civil War “unavoidable”?
Was the Civil War fought to end slavery?
Are we still fighting the Civil War today?
What was the greatest cause of the Civil War and why?
How did the Civil War “make” modern America?
What if the Confederacy had won the war?

23. Fundamental Causes of the War
Sectionalism and states’ rights
Slavery
Economic issues
The North and South differed on the proper function of the federal government. In the North, most felt that the power of the federal government was supreme over the power of the states. Most Southerners felt differently, believing that state governments and loyalty to one’s state or region should take precedence over federal power and allegiance to the nation as a whole.
The North—with an abundance of free, skilled labor—had little use for slavery. The South, however, with a smaller population and an agricultural economy, needed labor brought in from outside the white population. Slavery fit that bill nicely, although only a small percentage of white Southerners owned slaves. As the United States expanded due to territorial acquisitions and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a struggle ensued as to whether slavery should be allowed in those territories.
It becomes evident early on in the nation’s history that the North and South were moving in different economic directions. The North thrived on its industrial economy, while the South remained primarily agricultural. As a result, the South frequently opposed tariffs for internal improvements that the North supported. In the 1830s, tariff debates nearly led to secession of Southern states, especially South Carolina.

24. The Dividing Union Missouri Compromise (1820)
Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Law
Kansas–Nebraska Act (1854)
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
As the nation expanded due to the Louisiana Purchase and territory acquired in the Mexican-American War, questions arose as to whether slavery would be permitted in these new lands. Congress sought to resolve the issue through various legislative compromises. However, the Dred Scott decision destroyed the fragile balance between pro-slavery and free factions, putting the nation on the road to war.
The impending statehood of the Missouri Territory in 1820 led to the Missouri Compromise. Congress agreed to admit Missouri to the union as a slave state and Maine as a free state. The 36o30´ line officially divided Northern free territories from Southern slave ones.
The admission of California to the Union caused further sectional unrest. The Compromise of 1850 was a package of several measures; some benefited the North, others benefited the South. Perhaps the most controversial provision was the Fugitive Slave Law, which required Northern law enforcement agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. Several states enacted “personal liberty” laws to prohibit this.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act, introduced by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, allowed the Kansas and Nebraska territories to determine their slave/free status by having their residents vote on the issue (popular sovereignty). This plan led to violence between pro- and anti-slavery factions in the Kansas territory, most famously a raid led by anti-slavery fanatic John Brown.
In the Dred Scott case in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that a slave moved from slave to free territory remained a slave. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Many historians hold that this decision so inflamed sectional tensions that it made the Civil War inevitable.
Dred Scott
Cartoon criticizing the Fugitive Slave Law

25. The Election of 1860 Abraham Lincoln Stephen A. Douglas
Sectional tensions were at a fever pitch as the presidential election of 1860 approached. Four diverse candidates secured their party’s nominations. Abraham Lincoln, a relatively obscure ex-congressman from Illinois, defeated several better-known candidates to become the nominee of the Republican party. The Democrats split over the issue of slavery and ended up nominating two candidates: the Northern anti-slavery wing chose Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, while former Vice-President John C. Breckenridge represented the Southern pro-slavery faction. John Bell, former Speaker of the House and senator from Tennessee, represented the slavery-neutral Constitutional Union party.
Lincoln won the electoral vote by a wide margin, 180 to 123 for the other three candidates combined. However, he only carried 40 percent of the popular vote and did not win a single Southern state; in some, his name didn’t even appear on the ballot. Lincoln’s election intensified the widening divisions between North and South. Several states had already threatened to leave the Union if Lincoln won, and they were now ready to make good on that threat.
John C. Breckin-ridge
John Bell

26. Electoral Votes in 1860
This map shows the breakdown of both the electoral and popular votes in the 1860 election. Lincoln carried every Northern state except Maryland and Delaware, and he and Douglas split New Jersey’s electoral votes. Douglas also won Missouri, a border state. Breckenridge prevailed in the southeastern U.S., and Bell carried Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The regional implications of the map are evident. Lincoln didn’t carry a single state in the South. In addition, the popular vote was much more closely divided, with Lincoln receiving just 40 percent.

27. Seceding states appear in green
Secession
South Carolina was first to secede
Several other states followed soon after
Virginia seceded after the Battle of Fort Sumter
Many Southerners saw secession as the only way to preserve slavery and the Southern way of life. A few weeks after Lincoln’s election, South Carolina’s legislature voted to secede from the Union. Soon thereafter, Mississippi followed suit, along with Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. A holdout until after the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, Virginia decided that it could not fight against another Southern state, and joined the Confederacy.
Seceding states appear in green

28. Discussion Questions
What were the three fundamental causes of the Civil War? Which do you think was the most important? Why?
How did the Dred Scott decision help bring the country closer to civil war? Do you think the decision made civil war inevitable? Why or why not?
While running for president, Abraham Lincoln said that he had no plans to abolish slavery. Why then did Southerners fear his election so much?
The three fundamental causes of the Civil War were sectionalism/states’ rights, slavery, and economic differences between North and South. Answers to the second question will vary, but most students will likely identify slavery as the most important cause.
The Dred Scott decision broke down the system of compromises—especially the Missouri Compromise—that had kept the country united. Answers to the second question will vary.
Although Lincoln insisted that he only opposed the expansion of slavery into areas where it did not already exist, and that he wouldn’t seek to end slavery where it already existed, many Southerners believed not only that he would abolish slavery entirely, but that his opposition to the expansion of slavery might harm the institution of slavery nationwide. As a result, Lincoln did not carry a single Southern state in the election of 1860, and in some areas, his name wasn’t included on the ballot.

29. The Creation of the Confederacy
Delegates met in Montgomery, Alabama
Formed the Confederate States of America
Jefferson Davis elected president, with Alexander Stephens as vice president
Realizing that they needed to form some sort of central government, delegates from the seceding states met in Montgomery, Alabama, in February There they formed the Confederate States of America. The Confederate Constitution mirrored the U.S. Constitution, but with some significant differences: the Confederate Constitution established the sovereignty and independence of each state, as well as guaranteeing the right of Southerners to own slaves. Delegates of the convention elected Mississippi Senator and former Secretary of War Jefferson Davis as president, with Alexander Stephens of Georgia as vice president.
CSA President Jefferson Davis

30. President James Buchanan
Buchanan’s Inaction
Believed secession was illegal, but that acting to prevent it was also illegal
Decided to let the incoming administration handle the problem
Lincoln had been elected president in November, but wouldn’t be inaugurated until almost four months later per the Constitution as it read at the time. In the interim, President James Buchanan took no action to stop the Southern states from seceding. He believed that the seceding states could not leave the Union legally; however, he also believed that he lacked the constitutional authority to compel the states to remain. Buchanan decided to do nothing about the situation and let the new president deal with it once he took office. While the nation waited to see Lincoln’s policy toward secession, more states left the Union, compounding the difficulty that the incoming administration would have to face.
President James Buchanan

31. Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1861
Promised not to interfere with slavery where it already existed
Attempted to reconcile with the South
Several Southern states had already left the Union and had formed their own government by the time Lincoln took office. In his Inaugural Address, delivered in the shadow of the as-yet-unfinished Capitol dome, Lincoln tried to reassure Southerners that he did not intend to abolish slavery, and that it was in the hands of the Southern states whether a Civil War would ensue.
In his speech, Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He also said, “I take the official oath today with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”
However, Lincoln did place the responsibility for civil war with the South by asserting, “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it’... We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
A crowd listens to Lincoln’s speech at the Capitol building

32. Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
“I take the official oath today with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”

33. Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address
“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it’... We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

34. Lincoln and Fort Sumter
Confederates demanded that the fort be surrendered
Lincoln received urgent message from Ft. Sumter’s commander
Lincoln faced with dilemma of resupplying Sumter
Decided to send only “food for hungry men”
On the day after his inauguration, President Lincoln received an urgent message from Major Robert Anderson, the commander of Fort Sumter. Located in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, the fort was one of a handful of Union installations left in the Confederacy. Anderson reported that Confederates were demanding that he surrender the fort, and furthermore that his men were running low on food and ammunition. Anderson requested that Lincoln replenish the fort’s supplies. This put the president in a difficult position: if he refused Anderson’s request, Anderson would be forced to surrender, but if he attempted to resupply the fort, the Confederates might see the move as an act of war. Instead, Lincoln took the middle ground by supplying the fort not with ammunition but with “food for hungry men.” Nonetheless, the Confederates still took this as an act of war.
Fort Sumter

35. The War Begins Bombardment began on April 12, 1861
Anderson surrendered to Gen. Beauregard, a close friend and colleague
Painting depicting the bombardment of Fort Sumter
On April 12, 1861, the Confederacy began the bombardment of Fort Sumter with the first of nearly 4000 rounds of cannon shots. Approximately 36 hours later, Anderson surrendered the fort to the Confederates. Ironically, the event that sparked the bloodiest war in U.S. history was itself relatively bloodless. No Union soldiers died in the attack, although two were killed accidentally during a gun salute as the army evacuated Fort Sumter. Union forces were allowed to leave following the surrender and were not held as prisoners of war.
While the war made enemies of the North and South, many soldiers and commanders knew one another prior to the start of hostilities. Such was the case of Major Robert Anderson, who surrendered Fort Sumter to Brigadier General P.G.T. Beauregard. The two had originally met at West Point, where Anderson had been Beauregard’s instructor. After Beauregard’s graduation, he had returned to West Point to serve as Anderson’s assistant.

36. Cartoon about the “Anaconda Plan”
The Union’s strategy:
Naval blockade from Louisiana to Virginia
Control of the Mississippi River
Confederate strategy primarily defensive
Union commanders quickly developed a strategy for subduing the Confederate states. Proposed by General Winfield Scott, it became popularly known as the “Anaconda Plan” in reference to the snake that suffocates its prey by squeezing. The strategy actually consisted of two parts: First, the Union Navy would blockade Southern ports in order to keep imported goods from landing on Confederate shores. The second part involved the Union army seizing control of the Mississippi River in an attempt to split the Confederacy in two. Union forces would then advance to capture Richmond, Virginia, the new capital of the Confederacy, which had been moved from Montgomery when Virginia seceded.
The Confederacy’s strategy was primarily defensive. As long as the Confederate army was in the field, it served as a symbol of Southern resistance. However, Confederate commanders did have the option to attack Union armies and even invade Union territory, should it be advantageous to do so.
Cartoon about the “Anaconda Plan”

37. Advantages & Disadvantages: The Union
Industry and railroads
Larger population
Legitimate government
Strong political leadership
Disadvantages:
Funding difficulties
Offensive war
Lack of skilled military leaders
The Union enjoyed several advantages over the Confederacy. Nearly 92 percent of the value of manufactured goods produced in the United States came from Northern factories. With a great capacity to produce industrial goods, Northern factories could easily be converted to wartime production. Also, the North had over 70 percent of the country’s railroad lines, which aided in bringing men and material to the front lines.
Seven out of every ten Americans lived in the North. With its large population, the North could muster enough manpower to fill armed services quotas, as well as to staff its factories.
Other nations recognized the U.S. government as legitimate, which meant that Congress could form treaties with foreign nations and thwart Confederate attempts to negotiate their own treaties, especially with Britain and France.
Perhaps the Union’s greatest non-military strength was the leadership of Abraham Lincoln. While frequently criticized and ridiculed (even by members of his own Cabinet), Lincoln had an ability to keep Union morale high and maintain relations between its various political factions.
The North did have some major disadvantages, however. Soldiers needed to be trained, and that took time. Fighting a war was an expensive proposition, and generating funds proved difficult. Fighting an offensive war in enemy territory also posed challenges. Probably the biggest problem facing the Union was its lack of skilled military leaders who could lead troops into battle and win major engagements.
A Massachusetts factory

38. Advantages & Disadvantages: The Confederacy
Defensive war on home turf
Common cause
Strong military tradition and outstanding leaders
Disadvantages:
Weak economy
Smaller population
Ineffective central government and leadership
Though the Union had several significant advantages, the Confederacy was not without a few of its own. Since most battles took place in the South, the Confederates were fighting on familiar ground and had the support of (and could obtain supplies from) Confederate sympathizers.
Also, while Northerners differed on the reasons for fighting their Southern brothers, Confederates generally were united in their cause.
The Southern states had developed a strong military tradition. Many Southern soldiers were accomplished marksmen from years of hunting. However, the most important military advantage the South enjoyed was a number of outstanding commanders, such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. These generals frequently won major battles against numerically superior forces that were often better equipped.
On the other hand, the South had major impediments to victory. Though cotton profits from sales on the world market did help, the Southern economy as a whole was weak, and inflation was rampant. The South’s smaller population put manpower at a premium, making replacing troops lost in battle difficult. The preoccupation with states’ rights also hampered the war effort: frequently governors and other state authorities refused to comply with requests and orders from Richmond to provide material, manpower, and money. Similarly, President Davis was not the skilled politician that Lincoln was, and had a harder time enforcing government policy.
Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson

39. War Aims: North and South
The North: to preserve the Union
The South: safeguarding states’ rights, as well as protecting the South from “Northern aggression”
Abraham Lincoln
Horace Greeley
From the start of the war, Lincoln stated that he only wanted to restore the union. While he opposed the expansion of slavery into areas where it did not already exist, he did not initially seek to abolish slavery across the nation. In an 1862 letter to publisher Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
In the South, war was seen as a means of preserving the concept of states’ rights, as well as protecting the South from what some considered “Northern aggression.”

40. Discussion Questions
Pretend you are a member of Buchanan’s cabinet. How would you advise him to deal with the secession crisis in the period before the next president took office?
Do you think the “Anaconda Plan” was an effective strategy for subduing the Confederacy? If not, what strategy would you have recommended?
Which side’s goals for the war seem more reasonable to you? Why?
Some students might suggest that Buchanan’s strategy of not intervening in the secession issue was reasonable because of the relatively short period between secession and Lincoln taking office. Other students may feel, however, that early intervention by Buchanan might have led to another compromise between free and slave states that could have stopped the crisis before it led to full-blown conflict, possibly averting war.
Students may note that since the South had relatively little industry, the Union blockade of Confederate ports was highly effective in curtailing the Southern war effort, and that further tightening the blockade might have ended the war sooner. Other students may feel that the idea of seizing the Confederate capital of Richmond might have been more effective than attacking the Confederacy’s western “breadbasket,” and therefore the Union could have put more resources toward that goal.
Many students may feel that Lincoln’s goal of preserving the Union was somewhat simplistic or too idealistic to rally around, and therefore that the Confederate aims of protecting states’ rights and the South against “Northern aggression” made a stronger case. Other students may feel, however, that once a state entered the Union the bond was unbreakable, so the North had no choice but to ensure that the country stayed united.

41. Prelude to Emancipation
At first, Lincoln did not believe he had the authority to end slavery
However, every slave working on a plantation allowed a white Southerner to fight
Lincoln saw emancipation as a strategic issue as well as a moral one
While Lincoln felt slavery to be morally wrong, he believed that the Constitution did not give him the authority to abolish slavery. However, he did oppose the possible spread of slavery into new territories.
As the Union army moved deeper into Confederate territory, Lincoln began to see the liberation of the slaves as a war aim, as well as a moral issue. While Confederate slaves did not usually carry guns or fight in battles, they were used to build fortifications for the Confederate army. Also, slaves did work the fields, allowing white Southerners to fight against Union troops. Consequently, Lincoln believed that the army could liberate slaves as well as seize Confederate supplies and cotton.
Slaves on a South Carolina plantation, 1862

42. Advantages to Emancipation
Cause “union” in the North by linking the war to abolishing slavery
Cause disorder in the South as slaves were freed
Kept Britain out of the war
While Lincoln wrestled with his personal views about freeing all the slaves, emancipation did present some significant advantages that would help the Union cause. By late 1862, some Northerners were becoming discouraged with the war and its goals, especially in light of what they viewed as excessive casualties. Linking the fight to preserve the Union with the movement to free the slaves would help bring the North together in common cause.
Lincoln believed that freeing the slaves might also hurt the Southern war effort. If slaves knew that they would soon have their freedom, they might be less likely to work or obey their masters as Union troops approached. In addition, freed slaves could not be held as contraband property and therefore could not be returned to their masters.
Lincoln had a real concern that Britain would enter the war on the side of the Confederacy. Needing Southern cotton for their textile mills, the British regarded the South as a valuable trading partner. However, the British Empire had recently abolished slavery, so supporting a nation that defended the practice was problematic.
Lincoln discussing emancipation with his cabinet

43. The Emancipation Proclamation
Lincoln announced proclamation after Antietam
Took effect on January 1, 1863
Freed slaves only in “territories in rebellion”
Lincoln had decided to go ahead with emancipation, but he needed a Union victory to allow him to formally make the proclamation. Issuing the proclamation after a Confederate victory, he felt, would appear to be the “last gasp” of a desperate Union commander; issuing it after a Union victory would seem like a compassionate gesture.
The proclamation did not free all the slaves at that time, only those “held in territories in rebellion.” Since some states remained loyal to the Union but also permitted slavery, Lincoln feared that freeing the slaves there would encourage the states to join the Confederacy. Also, some areas of the Confederacy (for example, parts of Louisiana) had been taken and restored to the Union, and Lincoln did not wish to free those slaves for similar reasons.
Lincoln announced that he would give the Confederacy until January 1, 1863, to return to the Union, or he would free the slaves in those states. No Confederate states agreed. In actuality, Lincoln’s proclamation did not have any force at that time, as the Confederate states did not recognize the president’s authority. Slavery officially ended in the United States with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.
A cartoon celebrating emancipation

44. Rep. Clement Vallandigham
Dealing With Dissent
Copperheads
Led by Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio
Lincoln suspends habeas corpus
With the Civil War crossing family as well as sectional lines, it was easy for some from either side to support the opposition. In the North, “Copperheads” (also called “Peace Democrats”) were fiercely anti-war, pro-Confederacy Democrats who wanted Lincoln and the Republicans out of power. The Copperheads were named for the deadly snake that (unlike a rattlesnake) strikes without warning.
The most famous Copperhead was Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham. After publicly calling for Union soldiers to desert and suggesting that the North and South reach an armistice, Lincoln had him arrested and convicted by a military court. Lincoln, concerned with such dissent, suspended the right to a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus refers to a legal action that requires authorities to officially charge a person they are holding with a crime. The U.S. Circuit Court for Maryland later ruled that Lincoln had exceeded his constitutional power by suspending habeas corpus. In response, Lincoln simply ignored the ruling.
Rep. Clement Vallandigham

45. Manpower for the War Mostly volunteers
Conscription needed to sustain troop levels
In the North, draftees could hire substitutes or pay $300 to opt out
Volunteers made up the great majority of soldiers—about 92 percent—who fought for the Union. However, both North and South soon found that maintaining adequate troop levels required a military draft (also known as conscription). The Union drafted white males between the ages of 20 and 45. However, if a man could afford to, he could hire a substitute to take his place or he could pay a $300 fee to avoid the draft altogether.
In the Confederacy, white men between the ages of 18 and 35 were eligible for the draft. However, those who owned 20 or more slaves were exempted. Many Southerners who didn’t own slaves complained that the Civil War was a “rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight.” By the last year of the war, conscripts made up one-fourth to one-third of the Confederate army.
An illustrated sheet music cover protesting the inequities of the draft

46. Rioters loot a New York store
New York Draft Riots
July 1863
Rioters mainly poor whites and Irish immigrants
Opposed to freeing slaves
More than 100 people killed
The Union draft law angered some who felt that with poor whites forced into the army, blacks would be waiting to take their jobs. In addition, many—especially Irish immigrants—were frustrated by the terrible living conditions in the New York City slums. Discontent exploded into full-scale rioting in July 1863, during the selection of names for military service. The rioters moved throughout the city, destroying draft centers and Republican newspaper offices, and attacking well-to-do persons and blacks. More than 100 people were killed before the riots were stopped.
Rioters loot a New York store

47. African American Enlistment
Congress allowed black enlistment in 1862
54th Massachusetts commanded by Colonel Shaw
Half of 54th killed in assault on Ft. Wagner
Helped spur further enlistment
Col. Robert Gould Shaw
Early in the war, many Northerners resisted the idea of allowing African Americans to serve in the Union army—largely because of racism. However, Congress finally approved the enlistment of African Americans in 1862, and thousands signed up.
Black troops were often denied the opportunity to prove their worth. They served in segregated units, and were usually assigned menial duties. They could not rise through the ranks as white soldiers could. In addition, blacks received lower pay than whites. In many instances, black soldiers refused the lesser rate of pay in protest.
Probably the most famous of the African American regiments was the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. Commanded by 24-year-old Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, the 54th included two sons of abolitionist Frederick Douglas, as well as Sergeant William Carney, the first African American to win the Congressional Medal of Honor. Nearly half of the 54th, including Shaw, were killed in an abortive attack on Ft. Wagner, located in Charleston Harbor. Thousands of other blacks enlisted in the Union Army after hearing of the 54th’s sacrifice.
Memorial to the 54th Massachusetts

48. The Sanitary Commission
Poor health conditions in army camps
U.S. Sanitary Commission created
Purposes included improving hygiene and recruiting nurses
Developed better methods of transporting wounded to hospitals
Poor hygiene plagued most army camps. Many soldiers failed to follow basic sanitary procedures such as washing their hands and face, let alone bathing. A lack of proper sewage disposal allowed disease to run rampant. Body lice, dysentery, and diarrhea were common. The U.S. Sanitary Commission aimed to improve these conditions. Based on the British Sanitary Commission set up during the Crimean War, the “Sanitary” taught soldiers basic concepts of hygiene (such as avoiding polluted water supplies) and inspected camps to ensure that proper procedures were being followed. The commission also worked to develop medical ships and trains to more efficiently transport wounded soldiers to hospitals. By the end of the war, the Sanitary Commission had effectively cut the disease rate of the Union Army by approximately half.
A Civil War field hospital

49. Civil War Medicine Infection often deadlier than the wounds
Amputations more common
Anesthesia widely used
A soldier wounded in battle during the Civil War frequently found infection more of a threat than the wound itself. Antiseptic procedures common in 21st-century medicine were nonexistent in the 1860s. Widespread use of the minie ball made amputations more frequent than in previous wars. The soft lead bullet tended to cause a jagged wound and expanded on impact, shattering bones and destroying tissue. In such cases, the field hospital surgeon had little option but to amputate. Surgeons used chloroform or ether to anesthetize the patient, and a surgical saw to perform the operation. Morphine was later administered to kill pain. Although surgical procedures from this era were relatively primitive, an estimated 75 percent of amputees survived the war.
A surgeon at the Camp Letterman field hospital at Gettysburg prepares for an amputation

50. Severely emaciated POWs rescued from Andersonville
Confederate POW camp in Georgia
32,000 prisoners jammed into 26 acres
One-third of all prisoners died
Superintendent was executed as a war criminal
While sanitary conditions in many army camps were poor, conditions in prisoner-of-war camps were far worse. Nowhere was this truer than at the Confederate-run camp at Andersonville, Georgia. At its height, more than 32,000 Union prisoners crowded into a space of just 26 acres, or less than 1.5 square feet per man. The same stream that served as the camp sewer also served as the drinking water supply. Shelter was nearly nonexistent; men made crude tents from blankets and sticks, or dug holes in the ground.
Nearly 13,000 prisoners died at Andersonville during the war. Overall, approximately 15 percent of the total number of Union POWs died in Confederate camps; nearly 12 percent of Confederate prisoners died in Union camps such as those at Elmira, New York, and Camp Douglas, Illinois. After the war, Andersonville’s superintendent, Henry Wirz, was court-martialed and hanged—the only person executed for war crimes in the Civil War.
Severely emaciated POWs rescued from Andersonville

51. The Gettysburg Address
Lincoln invited to attend cemetery dedication
Everett the principal speaker
At the time, Lincoln’s two-minute speech was considered great by some, a failure by others
By November 1863, the town of Gettysburg had mostly returned to normal. The federal government had contracted to bury soldiers killed in battle in proper graves, and part of the battlefield was made into a national cemetery. As part of the dedication ceremony, famous orator Edward Everett was asked to deliver the main speech. President Lincoln was also invited to give “a few appropriate remarks” at the ceremony.
Many dignitaries on both the national and state levels attended the dedication. Everett’s oration lasted over two hours, whereas Lincoln spoke for a little more than two minutes. Nonetheless, Lincoln’s short speech spoke volumes not only on the battle, but also on the idea of the Union. Some consider it the greatest speech in American history, if not one of the best of all time. However, immediate response to the Gettysburg Address was mixed. Lincoln himself admitted to a friend after the ceremony, “That speech won’t scour…it’s a flat failure.”
The only known picture of Lincoln (lower center) at the Gettysburg Cemetery dedication

52. Election of 1864 Lincoln sought reelection
Democrats nominated McClellan
Union victories helped Republican campaign
Lincoln won by large margin
Lincoln’s reelection was far from certainty as the election of 1864 approached. Many saw the war as too long and too bloody, and even Lincoln felt that his chances of winning a second term were slim, noting, “I am going to be beaten, and unless some great change takes place, badly beaten.”
The Democrats nominated General George McClellan, whom Lincoln had fired after Antietam, as their presidential candidate. Lincoln also faced a third-party challenge from a group called the “Radical Republicans,” who favored punishing the South for seceding. The party nominated John C. Fremont (the 1856 Republican nominee) as its candidate. However, Fremont withdrew from the race in September.
In an effort to unite moderate Republicans as well as to attract disaffected Democrats, Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson from Tennessee—a pro-war Democrat—as his running mate.
Luckily, the “great change” Lincoln had hoped for became reality. Union victories by Farragut, Sherman, and Sheridan increased Northern support for the war, and helped Lincoln easily defeat McClellan and win reelection.
A political cartoon shows Lincoln and Davis tearing a U.S. map while McClellan tries to intercede

53. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural
Lincoln addresses the crowd at his second inauguration. It is believed that John Wilkes Booth is the figure at top row center.
Many scholars have remarked about the power of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. Long seen as an attempt to steer the nation’s policy regarding the end of the war, Lincoln remarked, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

54. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural
“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

55. The remains of buildings after the Union invasion, April 1865
The Fall of Richmond
Lee told Davis the capital was in danger
Davis ordered evacuation
Union forces took Richmond
Lincoln toured the city soon after
By April 1865, it had become more and more obvious that the Confederate capital of Richmond was indefensible. On April 2, President Jefferson Davis received an urgent telegram from General Robert E. Lee notifying him that he could not protect the city and recommending its evacuation. Davis ordered the evacuation of the capital, and Union forces soon moved in and occupied major government buildings. Davis and his cabinet relocated to Danville, Virginia, to maintain the Confederate government from there.
A few days later, President Abraham Lincoln traveled from Washington D.C. to the fallen Confederate capital. As Lincoln made his way through the streets of the conquered city, hundreds of now-freed slaves mobbed the President, wanting to touch him and thank him for their freedom.
The remains of buildings after the Union invasion, April 1865

56. Surrender at Appomattox
Lee realized his position was hopeless
Asked to meet with Grant
Met in Appomattox on April 9, 1865
Lenient surrender terms
An artist’s rendition of the meeting
After the fall of Richmond and the approach of Grant’s and Sherman’s armies, Lee understood the hopelessness of his position. On April 9, 1865, Lee requested to meet with General Grant to work out terms for surrendering his army. The two generals met at the home of Wilmer McLean in the small town of Appomattox Court House, Virginia. (Coincidentally, four years earlier, McLean had lived in Manassas, and his farm had served as part of the Bull Run battlefield.)
Lee and Grant met for nearly an hour and a half, first engaging in small talk before hashing out the specifics. The terms of surrender were very lenient: Grant agreed to pardon Lee’s soldiers, and allowed them to keep their personal possessions, horses, and enough rations to return home; Lee’s officers were also allowed to keep their side arms.
Within a few weeks, the last Confederate troops surrendered, officially ending the Civil War.

57. Impact of the War
The Civil War was the most devastating conflict in U.S. history. More than 600,000 Americans died in more than 10,400 different engagements. In addition, the war had serious economic and social consequences for both sides. However, the war had positive effects as well. Slavery, long an issue of contention between North and South, finally ended—if not because of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, then certainly by force of the 13th Amendment. Also, while sectionalism did not totally fade as a divisive issue, the nation has not faced a crisis like the one that came to a head in the 1860s.
Freedmen disinter bodies of soldiers killed at Cold Harbor for reburial after the war

58. Impact of the War: the Union
111,000 killed in action
250,000 killed by non-military causes (mostly disease)
Over 275,000 wounded
Estimated cost in today’s dollars: $6.19 billion
Union war dead reached over 360,000, including both those killed in battle and by non-military causes (disease). Of the 275,000 wounded, many were also amputees.
Union dead at Gettysburg

59. Impact of the War: the Confederacy
93,000 killed in battle
165,000 killed by non-military causes
Over 137,000 wounded
Estimated cost in today’s dollars: $2.10 billion
While the Confederacy lost fewer men than the Union did overall, the smaller population of the Southern states resulted in a much higher percentage of war dead.
In addition, both sides found that the dollar costs of the war continued far after 1865 as the federal government continued to pay out pensions to aging war veterans.
Destruction in Atlanta after Sherman’s troops took the city

60. Discussion Questions
Why did Grant’s “total war” policy meet with resistance even in the North? Do you think the policy was a good idea? Why?
How did Grant and Sherman’s military campaigns help Lincoln win reelection in 1864?
Some in the North felt that Grant’s “total war” doctrine was excessive or harsh because of its focus on civilian (as well as military) targets and infrastructure; the strategy of destroying the South in order to save it might not have seemed acceptable or particularly effective.
Prior to Sherman’s March to the Sea, many political experts believed that Lincoln would have a difficult time winning the reelection in Even Lincoln himself remarked that he thought he would be beaten, and “beaten badly.” However, the fall of Atlanta along with continued Union military gains boosted Lincoln’s popularity, and he easily won reelection against McClellan.
The loss of its leader—assassinated just after a hard-fought victory—caused widespread grief and mourning in the North. Furthermore, the nation was without leadership at a time of national peril. Reaction in the South was probably more mixed, if not somewhat jubilant. Ironically, Lincoln’s death allowed the Radical Republicans, who openly sought to punish the South for the war, to set the agenda for Reconstruction.