1. From Compromise to Secession, 1850-1861
Chapter 14

2. Controversies After Mexican War
Would slavery expand into newly acquired land?
What about Texas (border and debt) and California?
Some felt slavery in Washington D.C. was embarrassing for the nation.

3. Different Solutions Free Soil: Popular Sovereignty
All new territory should be FREE (prohibit slavery)
Popular Sovereignty
Allow people who live in new territories to vote and decide for themselves
Extend the Missouri Compromise Line

4. Free Soil Wilmot Proviso:
Proposal to prohibit slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico
Defeated in 1846, but would have been supported by followers of the Free Soil

5. Missouri Compromise Line: Extension

6. Who could develop a compromise?
U.S. political system was based on compromise ever since Constitutional Convention
Political cartoon shows President, Zachary Taylor balancing arguments

7. Zachary Taylor President XII: Zachary Taylor
Background Info: When the Mexican-American War ended in 1848, the US had an equal number of free and slave states, but new territory threatened this balance.
The idea of extending the 36’ 30’’ line angered free-soilers who believed in a free NM and CA. On the other hand, the doctrine of free-soil, terrified southerners. A third solution, popular sovereignty, pleased neither free-soilers nor proslavery extremists.
Furthermore, Texas (slave state) aggravated matters by claiming the eastern half of NM, where slavery had long since been abolished.
Also, northerners increasing attacked slavery in DC, while southerners complained about the lax enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.
Taylor’s solution was simple: to allow popular sovereignty in CA and NM. He knew both territories wished to become free states, which would give the North two new free states. At the same time, this would acknowledge southerners’ view that a state could bar or permit slavery as it chose.
But Taylor’s plan dismayed southerners of both parties. The Whigs expected more than a proposal that in the end would yield the hated Proviso’s goals.
Many southerners, including Calhoun, rejected Taylor’s assumption that slavery could never take root in CA or NM, pointing out that both areas already contained slaves and that these slaves could be employed in mining gold and silver.
Disillusioned with Taylor, 9 Southern states met in the Nashville Convention (1850).

8. Who could develop a compromise?
Henry Clay
(Great Compromiser)
Tried and failed to develop a broad consensus
Stephen Douglas (Illinois Senator)
Succeeded where Clay had failed
Henry Clay
Stephen A. Douglas (IL) and the Compromise of 1850
In July 1850, senator Douglas took over the leadership from an exhausted Clay. Realizing the omnibus bill lacked majority support, he chopped it up into smaller parts.
By the end of the summer, each component of the Compromise of 1850 passed.
Fillmore hailed the comp. while Clay’s peacemaker reputation reached new heights.
Yet the compromise failed to bridge underlying sectional differences. The compromise only passed because a minority of congressmen who genuinely wanted a compromise combined with either the South or North majority to pass each component.
The Northerners gained clear benefits (accept CA as free, possible NM & UT as free).
The Southerners were relieved the Proviso’s ideas had been buried, but were dismayed as the compromise left open the question of slavery in territories outside new Mexican territories. Not surprisingly, southerners reacted ambivalently.
Unionists, pro-compromise candidates in the South, thrashed those in favor of secession in 1850 and 1851, but did not rule out secession completely.
The one clear advantage the South gained was a new Fugitive Slave Act.
Stephen Douglas

9. Compromise of 1850 CA entered Union as a free state
Slavery in UT and NM territories would be decided by popular sovereignty

10. Compromise of 1850 3. Texas border disputed settled and debt paid
Most residents in CA did not want slavery to be expanded into their territory
Box shows the newly established UT and NM territories

11. Compromise of 1850
4. Slave trade outlawed in Washington, D.C. (but slavery remained legal)
5. Stricter Fugitive Slave Law

12. Compromise of 1850

13. Compromise of 1850 (Impact)
Significance:
The nation avoided war
Over the next 10 years northern states grew in population and industrial power as compared to the south

14. Fugitive Slave Law (Part of the Compromise of 1850)
All runaway slaves had to be returned to their owners
It became illegal to aid runaway slaves
Accused runaways were denied a jury trial; a judge decided their fate
Magistrates 10 for ruling in favor of southern slave owner
5 dollars in ruling in favor of runaway
“the average northerner, who may never have seen a slave and who cared little about slavery a thousand miles away, would respond with fury” to the fugitive slave law
The law threatened to turn the north into “one vast hunting ground”
Law targeted not only recent runaways, but slaves who had fled decades earlier
Brought home to northerners the uncomfortable truth that that the continuation of slavery depended on their complicity
The “Burns Incident” – 1854 Boston Mob = aroused by anti-slavery speeches, broke into courthouse and killed guard in abortive effort to rescue fugitive slave, Anthony Burns; President Franklin Pierce sent troops to escort Burns to the harbor, where a ship carried him back to slavery; incident shattered the complacency of conservative supporters of the Compromise of 1850; a Boston committee later successfully purchases Burns’s freedom, but the fate of many fugitives was not this happy
ex. Margaret Garner; slit her daughters throat and tried to kill her other kids; about to be captured and sent back to Kentucky
Viligance committees sprang up in many northern communities to spirit endangered blacks to Canada
Lawyers used obstructive tactics to drag out legal proceedings and thus raise the slave-catcher’s expenses.
1850’s “personal-liberty laws” ==9 northern states; forbiding the use of state jails to incarcerate alleged fugitives, etc. aimed to preclude state officials from enforcing the law

15. Fugitive Slave Law (Impact)
Significance:
Infuriated opponents of slavery
Showed slavery was a national problem, not regional

16. Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) Identified horrors of slavery
Chronicled the life of Uncle Tom, a loyal slave, who was sold and eventually whipped to death by his new owner
Significance:
Angered people in north; opposition to slavery grew
Angered people in the south; it misrepresented slavery
Harriet Beecher Stowe and Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852)
Background Info: Harriet Beecher Stowe was the daughter of evangelical Lyman Beecher and the younger sister of women’s rights advocate Catharine Beecher.
Outraged by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Stowe published her novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The novel aroused wide northern sympathy for fugitive slaves.
Stowe’s novel not only denounces the slave-catchers, but also slavery itself, showing that even good intentions cannot prevail against so evil an institution.
Sidenote: Stowe played effectively on the emotions of her audience by showing how slavery tore families apart in an age that revered family life.
By the summer of 1853, 1.2m copies were sold. To add, dramatized versions perhaps reached 50 times the number of people as the novel itself!
The impact the novel had cannot be precisely measured, but it did reflect prevailing stereotypes of blacks. For example, light-skinned blacks were aggressive while dark-skinned blacks (like Tom) were docile. The novel did push many on the periphery toward a more aggressive anti-southern and anti-slavery stance.

17. Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852)
Became a best selling book in the U.S. and world
>300,000 copies in first year alone
Also became a popular play
Theater Poster: Uncle Tom’s Cabin
1.2 million sold by the summer of 1853

18. Election of 1852 The Election of 1852
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 fragmented the Whig party. Northern Whigs put Southern Whigs, who tried to defend slavery, on the spot.
The Whigs’ nomination of Mexican War hero Winfield Scott (VA) widened the sectional split within the party as Scott endorsed the Compromise of 1850.
The Democrats bridged their sectional division by nominating Franklin Pierce (NH) because no faction of the party strongly opposed him.
Pierce cruised to victory, rallying behind the Compromise and popular sovereignty.
Sidenote: Pierce was the last candidate for 80 years to win a majority of the popular and electoral votes in both the North and the South!
Furthermore, with no banking, internal improvements, temperance, or tariffs (basically Jacksonianism) to argue about and the bringing of slavery to the top of the list, the Whigs began to disintegrate along sectional lines.

19. Kansas and Nebraska (Background)
Southerners wanted slavery to expand westward, but it was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise
Northerners supported a railroad out west, but much of the region was unorganized
Stephen A. Douglas and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)
Background Info: Farmers in the Midwest hoped to expand west of the Mississippi. Also, national expansionists hoped for a Pacific-Midwest railroad. The major cities all vied to be at the end of the Pacific railroad.
Background Info: Douglas (IL) had formed his political ideology during the “Manifest Destiny” 1840s, and had embraced ideas of a Pacific railroad (esp. from his hometown Chicago) believing that it would unite the North and South.
Douglas proposed a bill to organize Nebraska as a territory in January 1854, and realized two sources of potential conflict. First, some southerners preferred a southern route to the Pacific. Second, NE would become a region closed to slavery.
Creating a potential free state and increasing chances for a northern railroad, Douglas realized Southerners had little incentive to vote for his bill. He decided to compromise by ignoring the Missouri Compromise and applying popular sovereignty to NE.
Although he hoped to avoid controversy over slavery, Southerners soon forced him to publicly state that his Nebraska bill made the MO Comp. void.
Furthermore, he also had to agree to a division of Nebraska into NE and KS. Most congressmen assumed KS, to the west of MO, would become a slave state.
Douglas successfully guided the Kansas-Nebraska bill through the House and Senate, but the modifications set off a storm of protest.
Free-soil Democrats assailed the bill as a violation of the MO Comp. with the aim of turning KS into a slave state. Southerners, many who at first acted indifferently, became raged by the antislavery northerners. All Southerners united in sectional pride even more than in slave extension.
Douglas had become a victim of a political bombshell that exploded under his feet.
Furthermore, the Whig Party was wrecked by the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Southern Whigs had supported Douglas, while Northern Whigs were themselves divided into antislavery Whigs (led by Seward) and conservatives (led by Fillmore).
Stephen Douglas (IL) sought a compromise:
he wanted to become president and help his home state of Illinois

20. Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)
Organized two new territories: Kansas and Nebraska
The Missouri Compromise was repealed
Slavery in Kansas and Nebraska was to be determined by popular sovereignty
Douglas underestimated the opposition to slavery’s expansion and did not gain popularity

21. Kansas/Nebraska Act (Impact)
Significance:
Infuriated opponents of slavery
Led to “death” of Whig Party and second American party system

22. Collapse of the 2nd Party System
Two Dominant Political Parties since 1820’s:
Democrats: Supporters of Andrew Jackson
Whigs: opponents of Jackson
Kansas-Nebraska Act “killed” the Whig Party

23. The Gadsden Purchase, 1853 Gadsden Purchase (1853)
Background Info: The Kansas-Nebraska Act embarrassed President Pierce and doomed Manifest Destiny, the one issue that Democrats had shared in the 1840s.
In 1853, Pierce’ emissary, James Gadsden, negotiated the purchase of a strip of land south of the Gila River (southern AZ and NM) from Mexico.
This acquisition favored advocates of a southern railroad route to the Pacific.
Fierce opposition to the Gadsden Purchase revealed free-soilers’ mounting suspicion of expansion. The Senate approved only after slashing 9,000 sq. miles from the treaty.

24. Ostend Manifesto, 1854 John A. Quitman and the Ostend Manifesto (1854)
Former MI governor, John Quitman, planned a filibuster (unofficial military expedition) to seize Cuba from Spain.
Pierce wanted to support this, but forced Quitman to halt the expedition faced with extreme opposition from antislavery northerners who saw any filibusters as a conspiracy to gain more territory for slavery.
Events quickly spiralled out of control. In Oct 1854, US ambassadors to GBR, FRA, and ESP met in BEL and issued the unofficial Ostend Manifesto, which called on the US to acquire Cuba by any means.
Beset by the KS-NE Act and Quitman’s filibuster, Pierce rejected the mandate.
Despite the failure of the Ostend Manifesto, people like William Walker were continually absorbed by idea of expansion into the Caribbean.
Walker took advantage of civil chaos in Nicaragua, and in a filibuster, made himself the chief political force there, and talked of making Nicaragua a US colony.
Expansionists stirred enough commotion in antislavery northerners, who felt that adding Caribbean territory to the question changed all calculations.

25. Bleeding-Kansas ( )
Supporters and opponents of slavery converged in Kansas
Many pro-slavery candidates voted illegally in 1855 election
Eventually, there was bloodshed…
"Bleeding Kansas" ( )
After the KS-NE Act, Boston abolitionists organized the New England Emigrant Aid Company and sent antislavery settlers to KS in an attempt to stifle efforts to turn KS into a slave state. But these people took a long time to reach KS.
The first settlers from MO and other parts of the Midwest generally favored, or at the very least did not oppose slavery on moral grounds.
Kansas quickly turned into a battleground between pro-slavery and antislavery forces.
In Mar 1855, 1000s of proslavery MO men led by senator Atchinson crossed into KS. Threatening judges, they voted illegally in KS’ first territorial legislation election.
In a fair election, the proslavery advocates would probably have won. But because they “stole” the election, a cloud hung over the legislature est. in Lecompton.
This was quickly made worse as they expelled antislavery legislators and passed several outrageous acts that limited office-holding to those who swore allegiance to slavery and made circulation of abolitionist literature a capital offense.
Lecompton’s actions enraged free-staters, who set up their own govt. in Topeka.
In response, the Lecompton govt. dispatched a posse to Lawrence in May They tore through the town, where antislavery minister Henry Ward Beecher and his followers had taken up arms and dubbed their guns “Beecher’s Bibles.”
Later that same month, John Brown led 7 men in the Pottawatomie Massacre. Setting up 5 Lecompton men, they shot one and hacked the other 4 to death, striking terror into the hearts of southerners.
KS became a battle ground between the North and South. Then, Pierce’ admin. committed “suicide” by only recognizing the Lecompton govt. as KS’ official govt.
Unable to solve nor keep out the issue of slavery, popular sovereignty had failed.

26. Bleeding-Kansas (1855-56) Pottawatomi Creek, 1856
John Brown and others abducted 5 pro-slavery supporters
The men were murdered
One was shot to death and the others were found “hacked to pieces”

27. Bleeding Kansas/Fight in the Senate (Preston Brooks vs. Charles Sumner)
Senator Charles Sumner (Massachusetts) was beaten with a cane by Preston Brooks (South Carolina) in the U.S. Senate
SIG – sectional tensions increased – North defended Sumner, South cheered Brooks
Charles Sumner and Preston Brooks
Senator Sumner (MA-Rep) delivered a bombastic speech, “The Crime Against Kansas” in which he verbally whipped most of the US Senate for complicity in slavery.
He especially singed out Senator Andrew Butler (SC).
Most senators were stunned by Sumner. Douglas wondered if his real aim was to provoke someone “to kick him as we would a dog in the street.”
That happened two days later when a relative, Preston Brooks (SC-Dem) strode into the Senate chamber with a cane and struck him five or six times.
Sumner required stitches and did not return to the Senate for three years.
Even more surprisingly, Brooks became a hero in the South! Charleston even awarded Brooks a new cane with the inscription “Hit him again!”

28. Election of 1856 The Election of 1856
Background Info: Bleeding Kansas and Sumner united the North against southerners.
The Republican Party sidestepped the issue of slavery’s morality which had divided their followers. Instead, they focused on portraying southern planters as natural enemies of the laboring Northern people.
The Republican Party nominated “pathfinder” John C. Fremont, who had played a key role in conquering CA from MEX. The northern Know-Nothings joined the Republicans.
The southern Know-Nothings picked Milliard Fillmore (former Whig president).
The Democrats dumped Pierce for the seasoned James Buchanan (PA).
Fremont and Buchanan battled in the free states. Fremont called for prohibition of slavery in the territories, whereas Buchanan called for “non-interference.”
Fillmore and Buchanan battled in the slave states. Fillmore called for moderation, but Buchanan, a well-known moderate himself, undercut some of Fillmore’s appeals.
Fremont carried more free states than Buchanan, but Buchanan carried all but MD in the South, and won the race as the only truly national candidate.
The election finished the American Party. Northerners joined the Republicans, while the southerners gave up on their party and sought new political affiliations.
Also, the election showed the threat posed by the relatively-new Republican Party.
Lastly, the election showed that Democrats would win as long as they could settle on a national candidate like moderate Buchanan.

29. Dred Scott Case (Background)
Dred Scott was from a slave state, but he then resided in a free state (Illinois) and territory (Wisconsin)
He sued to obtain his freedom
Roger B. Taney and Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Background Info: Newly elected president Buchanan long looked to the courts for a nonpartisan resolution to the issue of slavery.
During the 1830s, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken by his master from MO (slave) into IL and the Wisconsin Territory (free: NW Ordinance 1787, MO Comp 1820).
After his master’s death, Scott sued for his freedom on grounds of his residence in free territory. The case finally reached Supreme Court in 1856.
In the end, Buchanan got the broad ruling that he sought, but it settled little because it was so controversial.
First, Taney, from Maryland and Chief Justice since Marshall in 1835, ruled that Scott had no right to sue for his freedom because he was a slave.
Then, he ruled that no black, free or slave, could become a citizen of the US.
Most importantly, he ruled that because the Missouri Compromise violated the Fifth Amendment’s protection of property (including slaves), it was unconstitutional.
Sidenote: Five of the six justices that rejected this principle were from slave states.
The reactions to Taney’s decision underscored that by 1857, no judicial or nonpartisan solution could solve slavery.

30. Dred Scott Decision (1857)
Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the decision:
Scott did not receive his freedom
Blacks were not citizens and had no citizenship rights
Congress cannot prohibit slavery anywhere, only states have this power
Chief Justice, Roger Taney

31. Dred Scott Decision (1857) Infuriated many in the north
Southerners saw it as a validation for previous arguments
Significance:
Opponents of slavery feared that slavery might expand into additional areas
Reinforced argument that slavery was a national issue, not regional

32. The Lecompton Constitution, 1857
Background Info: Buchanan also sought a solution to Kansas, where the free-state Topeka govt., battled against the officially recognized Lecompton govt.
Buchanan’s plan for Kansas looked simple: Draw up a constitution that would either permit of prohibit slavery, submit to Congress, and admit KS as a state.
But his plan revolved around pop. sov., which had already failed in Bleeding Kansas.
An election of a constitutional convention took place in June 1857, but free-staters, now a majority in KS, boycotted the election because the proslavery side would rig it.
So a convention that had been elected by less than 10% of the eligible voters, drew up the proslavery Lecompton Constitution.
Buchanan still had compelling reasons to accept the Lecompton Constitution, endorsing it formally in Dec First, he owed much of his election the the South.
Second, he knew only about 200 slaves resided in KS, and believed that extremists’ conviction would be best quieted by admission of KS as a state.
Douglas bitterly broke with Buchanan, saying that refusing a vote on the constitution “defeated the fair expression of the will of the people,” and after several referendums, Kansans overwhelmingly voted down the constitution.
Buchanan had failed and at the same time alienated northerners in his party.
Douglas became the hero for northern Democrats (and some Republicans) but he took little comfort from Lecompton because his cherished pop. sov. was failing badly.

33. Stephen Douglas Incumbent Senator for IL
Supported westward expansion and popular sovereignty
Sponsored legislation: Compromise of 1850 and Kansas-Nebraska Act

34. Abraham Lincoln Humble origins and IL lawyer
Served one term in US House; opposed Mexican War
Member of the newly formed Republican party
Opposed the expansion of slavery into territories

35. Lincoln/Douglas Debates (1858)
Candidates debated national politics in wake of Dred-Scott Decision
Lincoln was morally opposed to slavery, but rejected abolitionism
Freeport Doctrine: Douglas argued people in territories could prohibit slavery if laws protecting slavery were not enforced
Result: Douglas won re-election to Senate
h/e this cost Douglas votes in the South when he ran for president in 1860
Lincoln-Douglas debates (1858)
Despite the acclaim Douglas gained for his stand against the Lecompton, Douglas faced a stiff challenge in IL for re-election to the Senate.
His opponent was Abraham Lincoln (IL). Lincoln was a feet taller than Douglas. Lincoln was a free-soil Republican, Douglas was a pop. sov. Democrat.
The campaign caught national attention because it pitted the Republican rising star against the Senate’s leading “little giant” Democrat.
Lincoln and Douglas both opposed slavery, but critically differed in that Lincoln wanted to keep slavery out of white settlement, while Douglas wished for expansion without disrupting the Union through popular sovereignty.
The high point of the campaign came in a series of 7 debates (Aug-Oct 1858).
Douglas used the debates to portray Lincoln as an abolitionist and an advocate of racial equality. (Sidenote: much of IL was racist)
Lincoln fended off charges, then tried to maneuver Douglas into a corner. He asked in the debate at Freeport whether people of a territory could lawfully exclude slavery.
Douglas replied that voters could effectively exclude slavery by refusing to enact laws that gave legal protection to slave property. This became the “Freeport Doctrine”.
Douglas’ “Freeport doctrine” salvaged popular sovereignty, but Southerners preferred the guarantees of the Dred Scott ruling, stiffening southern opposition.
Neither man scored a clear victory in argument. Douglas’ supporters captured a majority in the state legislature, giving Douglas the win.
But more importantly, the debates stiffened the sectional split, making Lincoln famous in the North, and infamous in the South.

36. Lincoln/Douglas Debates (1858) (Impact)
Significance:
Segments of speeches were printed nationally and Lincoln became a “rising star” in the newly formed Republican Party

37. John Brown’s Raid, 1859 John Brown was an abolitionist
Pottawatomi Creek Massacre, 1856
Goal: capture federal arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, VA and lead a slave uprising
Successfully captured the arsenal, but no slave rebellion
Brown and his small group fought against the US Government
Brown captured and put on trial; executed December 1859
John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry (1859)
In July 1859, a man calling himself Issac Smith loaded boxes of “hardware” seven miles from Harpers Ferry, a site of federal arsenal. But in reality, “Smith” was John Brown.
John Brown was an abolitionist who was known for the Pottawatomie Massacre and had a conviction that God had ordained him to purge blood of the evil of slavery.
The “hardware” boxes contained guns which would help them raid Harpers Ferry.
On Oct 16, 1859, Brown and 18 recruits entered Harpers Ferry and quickly seized federal arsenal. Brown expected slaves, more than half Harpers Ferry’s people, to quickly support his cause and did nothing. On the other hand, whites, afraid of another Nat Turner’s Rebellion (1831), quickly sounded the alarm.
Slaves too remembered Nat Turner and were reluctant to end up in the same fate.
Colonel Robert E. Lee arrived on October 18th. Brown’s followers fled, were severely wounded, or killed. Brown himself was quickly tried and hanged. Brown, who claimed he had rendered to God the “greatest service man can,” became a hero in the North.
The southerners found correspondence between Brown and northern abolitionists, freezing southern image that the North seemed to be bent on civil war.
Rumors of slave insurrections quickly circulated again, playing into the hands of the extremist “fire-eaters”. Soon, more southerners concluded that the Republican party directed abolitionism and deserved blame for Brown’s raid.

38. John Brown’s Raid, 1859 Significance:
Brown’s correspondence with northern abolitionists was shocking
He was treated like a martyr (not traitor) in some parts of the north
Some in South believe that many in the North were abolitionists willing to fight to free slaves
A final straw…?

39. Presidential Election of 1860
Ripping the nation apart?
4 candidates
Election of 1860
Background Info: The Panic of 1857 had plunged America into depression.
Background Info: Buchanan declined to seek re-election in 1860.
Republicans tried to broaden their appeal in the North.
In response to the Panic, the Republicans developed an economic program supporting tariffs (pop. in PA, which they hadn’t carried in 1856), internal improvements, and 160-acre land grants to anyone settling in the West. (this shed nativism which had lingered due to the early association with the Know-Nothings)
The Republicans’ desire to broaden their appeal also saw the nomination of Lincoln (IL) over early front-runner Seward (NY), a radical that failed to convince that he could carry the key-states PA, IL, IN, and NJ. Lincoln was more moderate, affirming that Congress had no right to interfere with slavery. Furthermore, he was from IL.
The Democrats, claiming to be a national party, had to bridge their differences, but their internal turmoil boiled over in Charleston, where Lower South Democrats walked out. Then, in Baltimore, deciding to elect Douglas, the Upper South also walked out.
So the Northern Democrats elected Douglas, while the Southern Democrats elected their own candidate, vice president John C. Breckenridge.
The moderates in the South (many former Whigs) and those in the North against both Lincoln and Douglas, formed the Constitutional Union Party. They nominated John Bell, a TN slaveholder who rejected both the KS-NE Act and Lecompton Constitution. This new party took no stance on the issue of slavery.
Lincoln (Rep) conceded that the South had a constitutional right to protect slavery but demanded the prohibition of its expansion. On the other side, Breckinridge (S Dem) insisted that Congress protect slavery in any territory with slaves.
Bell (Const U) and Douglas (N Dem), still favoring pop. sov., held the middle ground.
Lincoln won comfortably, having enough popular votes concentrated in the North to carry every free state (180 EV). Douglas was second in the popular vote, but suffered from the scattered votes, and only carried MO (12 EV). Bell carried VA, KY, and TN (39 EV), while Breckenridge held the Lower South and MY (72 EV).

40. Presidential Election of 1860 (Candidates)
Stephen Douglas: (Northern Democrat)
Supported popular sovereignty
John Breckenridge: (Southern Democrat)
Supported expansion of slavery into territories
Abraham Lincoln: (Republican)
Allow slavery to remain where it exists; no new expansion
John Bell: (Constitutional Union)
Stood for Constitution, Union, and enforcement of laws

41. Presidential Election of 1860
Lincoln clearly won; but all support in northern states and far west
Breckenridge second in states in lower south

42. Following Lincoln’s Victory
7 states seceded, even before Lincoln’s inauguration
SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA, and TX

43. Southern Secession

44. Jefferson Davis and the C.S.A.
Jefferson Davis and the Confederate States of America
Background Info: Lincoln was so unpopular in the South that most ballots had not even put his name on the ballot sheets. Few Southerners believed Lincoln, if elected, would fulfill his promise to protect slavery in the South, and some threatened secession if Lincoln took office. With his election, the moment of choice had arrived.
On Dec 20, 1860, a SC convention voted unanimously for secession.
By Feb 1861, AL, MI, FL, GA, LA, and TX, had also seceded. On Feb 4, the 7 states gave birth to the Confederate States of America, electing Davis as president.
Davis and many others (called cooperationists) hoped to delay secession in hope of concessions that would keep the Union together. Even after his MI seceded, Davis stayed in the Senate for two weeks before reluctantly accepting secession.
Even zealous secessionists had a tough time believing that they were no longer citizens of the United States.
In the month after its founding, the Confederates suffered large disappointments as the Upper South rejected secession.
Various factors, including the little number of slaves in the Upper South, more economic dependece on the North, and a likely battleground in case of war, accounted for the Upper South’s unwillingness to secede from the Union.
By March 1861, the bold secession movement seemed to be falling apart.

45. Crittenden Compromise, 1861
Background Info: The lack of southern unity confirmed that secessionist were the work of “a relatively few hotheads.” Lincoln had faith that the loyal majority, devoted to the Union, would soon wrest control from the fire-eating minority.
The perception of the “loyal majority” stiffened Republican resolve to resist compromise, but moderate John Crittenden (KY) proposed a compromise.
He proposed: 1) compensation for runaway slaves and repeal of personal liberty laws 2) an amendment prohibiting the govt.’s interference of slavery in the South 3) restoration of the Missouri Compromise and the extension of the 36’30’’ line for territories “here-after acquired.”
The Crittenden plan collapsed in the face of Republican opposition as the extension of the 36’30” line hinged on the abandoning of free-soil, the founding principle of the Republican Party. Furthermore, Lincoln feared that it would only be a matter of time until the South acquired more slave territories in the Caribbean (eg: Cuba).
Also, Lincoln (wrongly) believed that a “loyal majority” would support the Union. In reality, these southerners had conditional loyalty and waited for concessions.
Finally, Lincoln refused to give concessions to the Lower South, which had left the Union after a fair election. He believed that concessions would violate majority rule, a founding principle of not just his party, but the nation.

46. Ft. Sumter, S.C. Fort Sumter (Apr 12, 1861) and the coming of war
Background Info: In Lincoln’s inaugural address, he pledged to “hold, occupy, and possess” federal property in the 7 Confederate states, including defense of Fort Pickens (FL) and Fort Sumter (SC). Lincoln also appointed Seward as his secretary.
Seward had become obsessed with the idea of concessions to the Lower South in order to hold the Upper South and the Union. He advised evacuation of forces from Fort Sumter, and then proposed reunification by provoking war with France and Spain.
Lincoln brushed aside Seward's advise, and informed the governor of SC of the need to supply Fort Sumter with needed provisions but not with men and ammunition.
Confederates began to bombard the fort before dawn on April 12 before provisions arrived. The next day, the fort surrendered.
Lincoln now appealed for 75,000 men from the loyal states to suppress the rebellion.
Those who were sitting on the fence were pushed over the edge. Quickly, VA, NC, AK, and TE all seceded from the Union and joined the Confederates. Robert E. Lee resigned from the army rather than lead troops against his native VA.
The North, too, was ready for a fight to punish secession. An old Douglas affirmed: “I deprecate war, but if it must come I am with my country under all circumstances.”

47. Events Leading to the Civil War:

48. Review Focus = politics 1850-1861
Describe several “crises” and evaluate which you believe was more important in leading to secession

49. Websites of Interest