1819. The newly-born United States of America sat in a state of delicate balance. 11:11.
11 free states, 11 slave states. From the outside looking in, it appeared to be perfect
harmony. Equal states, equal representation, equal influence in federal affairs. But this
was only from the outside looking in. In reality, there was no focus on balance for the Americans.
Instead, all that mattered now, was expansion…
Manifest Destiny - that was the reason why the United States government was hellbent
on snagging more and more territory. Although the phrase wouldn’t be coined until the
mid-1800s, the belief held by many Americans that it was the nation’s destiny to expand
westward as far as can be, drove the U.S. to do just that.
Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South
Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, and Alabama. That was the whole
of the United States thus far as of 1819, but only a year later, this would change.
In 1818, the Missouri Territory, previously obtained as part of the Louisiana Purchase,
began its push for statehood. The following year, the district of Maine would be allowed
to break off from Massachusetts and do the same. It didn’t take long for this to cause
a conundrum for the contemporary U.S., however, because the addition of two more states had
the potential to upset the numerical balance between slave states and free states. On the
one hand, Northerners and pro-abolitionists in Congress argued that the addition of Missouri
- which seemed to quickly lean toward wanting to become a slave state - would expand slavery
and thus bring them further away from their goals.
The Southerners, though, were obviously in favor of adding another slave state and thus
argued that any new candidate for statehood should have the right to decide for themselves,
just as the first 13 colonies, which side of the fence they want to fall on. The debate
in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would continue into 1819, at which
point Maine was now brought into the mix as Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House at the
time, suggested that Missouri should be added to the union as a slave state, but that Maine
should also be added, contrarily as a free state.
This proposal was subsequently debated into yet another year, when in 1820, the Senate
added to the bill, requiring that any other territories north of the 36º 30’ latitude
line that had been agreed upon below Missouri’s lower border could only enter the union as
free states. With everyone finally in some level of agreement, the Missouri Compromise
was signed into law.
This triggered a tit-for-tat war of adding one new slave state for every new free state
and vice versa, starting with Arkansas in 1836, Michigan the next year, and Florida
in 1845. And since Florida was a slave state, it was assumed that the next territory to
enter the union and statehood would be another free state - but things became complicated
when Texas had a demanding request for the United States: annex us, now.
The history of Texas had been a rollercoaster thus far, and yet it was only now preparing
for its biggest climb yet. Texas, up until recently a part of Mexico after being freed
from the grip of the Spaniards, wanted to join a different nation - the U.S.A. The Texans’
pleas were initially ignored by the U.S. government, which wasn’t in much favor of annexing the
nearby territory.
With growing pressure from Britain for Texas to be an independent nation and America’s
undeniable thirst for expansion, opinions would soon change nevertheless and Texas would,
in fact, join the union on December 29, 1845. Here was the issue though: Texas wanted to
be a slave state, which would offset the balance the Northerners had tried so hard to keep.
Furthermore, Texas had made claims to territories that put it in direct conflict with its former
host of Mexico.
And with Texas newly a part of the United States, those presumptuous claims were now
the responsibility of the U.S. - something that Mexico didn’t take lightly.
Recently elected President James K. Polk, however, didn’t care one bit what the Mexicans
thought. Instead, he was an aggressive supporter of Manifest Destiny and quickly upon his inauguration
hoped to seize the contested territories. Thus, Polk at first attempted to purchase
his desired lands.
He sent American diplomat John Slidell to offer the administration in Mexico City $30
million in exchange for California, New Mexico, and disputed territories along the Texas border.
The Mexicans, aghast and unshakeably against such an idea, declined to even meet with Slidell,
which angered Polk. The Manifest Destiny supporter would not be swayed by this rejection and
instead decided that, if diplomacy wouldn’t work, he would reel his neighbors into a war
he knew the United States would win. As a result, in the early weeks of 1846, the president
sent American troops to the Texas border to egg the Mexicans on - and it worked. It only
took a few months for Mexican soldiers to fire on the Americans and give Polk the excuse
to declare war…
With the Mexican-American War underway, debates continued within the United States pertaining
to the slave state vs. free state debacle. With the free states now outnumbered, the
Northerners felt that Polk, being a Southerner himself, was actually committing his land
grab in order to further bolster the slave state advantage, which boosted North-to-South
tensions. Still, the war raged on with now-famed generals like Ulysses S. Grant and Robert
E. Lee showing their prowess and adding to their resumes while the Americans inched closer
to Mexico's capital. The city was eventually taken and warfare halted, leading to the long-awaited
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo - which now forced Mexico to cede not only the contested territories
in California and New Mexico but also lands of modern-day Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma,
Colorado, and Wyoming. Polk had gotten his way and more, but it wasn’t all sunshine
and rainbows. New land meant more to fight over back home.//
Over the next few years, Iowa, Wisconsin, and California would all give their bids for
statehood, eventually bringing about the Compromise of 1850. This series of bills would address
a multitude of things, though mostly focused on the institution of slavery within the union.
In short, it determined that California would join the Union as a free state but was required
to send one pro-slavery senator to the Senate in order to maintain the readjusted balance.
From now on, however, slave or free states from the remaining territories gained from
Mexico would be decided as such by popular sovereignty.
This went alright at first, as would the admission to statehood of Minnesota in 1858 and Oregon
in 1859, but predictably, there was simultaneously another reason for tensions to rise.
As part of the new establishment of popular sovereignty, Senator Stephen Douglas suggested
applying the strategy to a proposed newly organized Nebraska territory that would at
once repeal the Missouri Compromise slave-state border and split the Nebraska territory in
two. Now, despite a struggle to actually pass the new bill that would become known as the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, the populations of both territories were left to vote on whether they
wished to permit slavery or not. The consequence of this, and maybe unpredictably so, was that
settlers began flooding to both Nebraska and Kansas - settlers from both sides of the slavery
debate. This slippery slope ushered in a tragic era known as Bleeding Kansas, which would
eventually see Kansas enter the union in 1861, surprisingly, as a free state. This would
be the final state admitted to the union before the start of the Civil War…
Why did things get to this point? How could such a young nation have fallen into battle
with itself so fast? Why were the North and South so opposed to each other?
The issue of slavery and thus the North vs. South contention can be blamed on vastly different
cultural aspects of the two halves of America. For the North, slavery was not really needed
as the upper states had quickly become industrialized and thus didn’t have to rely on as much
manpower.
This gave Northern citizens the opportunity to unbiasedly consider the moral standing
of the entire institution of slavery, prompting many to call it into question. Supported by
the ideas of European immigrants who had come from nations that had already outlawed slavery,
these Northerners began to turn toward abolitionism. This was in total opposition to their fellow
Americans down south, of course, but this was because the South had failed to industrialize
as the North had.
Instead, Southerners were more economically dependent on free labor for plantations and
the like, which meant that their personal finances and way of life could be entirely
affected by the banning of slavery - thus making it hard for a Southerner to even give
the moral aspect a second thought - though some did and still supported the institution.
And with the invention of the cotton gin, the matter only became more solidified - the
South needed slavery. The problem then arose as the North wondered if Southerners wanted
to extend slavery even further, whereas the latter worried that the former was going to
take the slaves they already had. Both, ironically, would be right. The North and South were miles
away from reconciling this difference.
Debatably, there was also the issue of federal vs. state rights, although this factor is
hard to blame entirely. Not only did the later-formed Confederacy have a shockingly large bureaucratic
system for a collection of states who were opposed to overbearing federal governments,
but there had also been previous opportunities, such as during the Nullification Crisis a
few decades prior, for the South to go to war with the North or at least raise more
of a ruckus if state rights were the core issue. Still, it is true that many people
at the time, particularly in the south, had more loyalty to their state than country as
a whole, and state vs. federal disconnect likely played somewhat of a role in tensions,
even if second fiddle to the slavery argument.
The fanning of the flames, however, came from a string of amplifying events. The Fugitive
Slave Act, for example, had been part of the Compromise of 1850 and galvanized abolitionists
as it had made the federal government responsible for finding, returning, and penalizing escaped
slaves and anyone who aided them - even if they made it to a free state.
With the Northerners deeply troubled by this development, politically active citizens of
the upper United States would soon form their own opposition party to the pro-slavery Democrats
- the Republican Party.
This new entity would also become host to the controversial Abraham Lincoln shortly
after its birth.
Lincoln had previously served on the U.S. House of Representatives in 1846 before joining
the Republicans and running for Senate a decade later. Although he lost the Senate race to
Stephen Douglas, the series of speeches and debates that proceeded the election had both
catapulted him to popularity in the North while earning him a fair share of enemies
in the South. His mere existence as a political entity, thus, stirred the pot and increased
tensions. But then, so did Bleeding Kansas.
Guerilla warfare is one way that this period, from 1855 through 1859, has been described.
While Nebraska was somewhat hit by the flood of both pro and anti-slavery settlers hoping
to sway the coming vote, it was Kansas that was truly beaten. Pro-slavery residents of
neighboring states used legal loopholes to cross the border and vote in Kansas’s territorial
elections, setting off a domino effect that would lead to a split government and all-out
violence.
Historians estimate that anywhere from 50 to 200 Americans died as a consequence in
the 4 years span, something akin to pouring a couple of gallons of gasoline on the growing
fire burning toward Civil War.
Charles Sumner’s congressional speech about Kansas would further heighten the situation.
A Republican Northerner, Sumner had actually memorized every last word in his impassioned
speech titled “The Crime Against Kansas” in which he lambasted the entire institution
of slavery and even took direct jabs at pro-slavery senators.
This instance serves as a clear example of the current level of tensions in the union
and Congress, as South Carolina Representatives Preston Brooks and Laurence Keitt reacted
to the damning speech by physically assaulting Charles Sumner with a cane, beating him so
severely that he would need 3 full years of leave to recover. And this was only a year
before one of the most controversial and anger-fueling incidents of the entire lead-up to the civil
war.
It was the Dred Scott Case that soon put the move toward all-out military conflict between
the North and South into hyperdrive. The case revolved around a slave-since-birth by the
name of Dred Scott. After the death of his original owner in 1832, Scott had been purchased
by a man named John Emerson, and upon his death, Scott and his family would then be
transfered into the ownership of Emerson’s wife, Irene. Previously, Scott and his family
had been brought along for travels across multiple free states and territories, although
at no point had they attempted to run or sue for their freedom. Instead, once Irene took
ownership, Scott attempted to buy their freedom off of her. Irene was obstinate and insisted
on keeping her slaves around, which led Dred and his wife Harriet to, finally, go the route
of a lawsuit.
They each filed on the basis of two Missouri statutes, as they were currently living with
Irene in St. Louis. One stated that any slave taken to a free state would thus be free and
could not be returned to enslavement even if they left the free state, while the other
allowed for anyone to file a suit for wrongful enslavement.
The Scott couple was given logistical support from abolitionists, fellow churchgoers, and
ironically, the family of their previous owner.
This allowed them to actually take their case to court, which was first shot down in 1847
on a technicality but was given the option of a retrial. The next trial would come in
January of 1850 and this time, the Scotts actually won their freedom. Irene, however,
quickly appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. Two years later, the court
sided once more with Irene, thus re-enslaving the Scott family.
Unwilling to give up now, Scott filed a federal lawsuit with the United States Circuit Court
for the District of Missouri the following year.
Before the case could be decided upon again, Irene would transfer the Scotts over to her
brother, John Sandford, hence the name of the new case: Dred Scott vs. Sandford. In
the spring of 1854, the federal court ruled in favor of Sandford, thus prompting Scott
to appeal yet again, now to the United States Supreme Court.
This final trial would start on February 11, 1856, with a growing list of abolitionist
and even politician supporters in favor of the Scotts. Nevertheless, less than a month
later, a decision was made, and once more, Dred Scott had lost.
And not only this, but the judge most notably credited for the final ruling, a Southerner
named Roger Taney, asserted that no African American even had the right to sue for anything
in the federal court, because they lacked the ability to be United States citizens.
While the Scotts would already have their freedom by now thanks to Irene's new abolitionist
husband and the help of their old owner’s family, the case itself was the final straw
for many abolitionists…
John Brown has gone down in history as one of America’s most infamous abolitionists,
and on October 16, 1859, he would prove exactly why. He warned an armory watchman as he and
a group of fellow abolitionists launched what would be an ambitious but ultimately failed
raid on Harper’s Ferry. After taking several hostages from the town and capturing the U.S.
Armory and Arsenal, the raiders would be stalled by a local militia as General Robert E. Lee
made his way into the town to wrap things up.
Brown and his men had aimed to spark a local slave rebellion, but instead, many of the
raiders were killed once Lee and his Marines arrived, with Brown himself being captured
and later hanged for his acts of treason against the state of Virginia. John Brown had failed
and he had died, but his animosity for the South was shared by far too many for the tide
to be turned by this point.
With the election of anti-slavery Northerner Abraham Lincoln in 1860 to the presidency,
enough was enough…
Immediately after the future “Emancipator” was elected to office, the South Carolina
General Assembly called for a convention to consider secession. Much to the pleasure of
the locals, South Carolina thus voted unanimously to leave the United States of America. Days
later they issued a document justifying their decision to secede, and making one dramatically
important point in the process: “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union”.
And it truly had. 10 more Southern states would follow suit and join the newly founded
Confederate States of America, led by their chosen president, Jefferson Davis. The Union
president, Abraham Lincoln, refused to recognize the Confederacy as legitimate, insisting that
he wished to take no one's slaves and simply wanted to keep the Union together. This meant
nill to the Southerners, who were rapidly attempting to create a unified nation out
of a handful of states who had all made a big fuss about state autonomy. And not just
that, but the South was at a major disadvantage for the impending war.
Precise numbers are debated, but it can be estimated that at the time of the mass secession
and formation of the Confederacy, the Union boasted a population of roughly 22 million,
in comparison to the South’s approximate 9 million. Of those numbers, the Union would
eventually enlist around 2 million soldiers whilst the Confederates could only tally about
900,000. Furthermore, the Northerners had something close to 20,000 miles worth of railroads,
which was double what the Confederate states could claim, thus giving the Union a better
advantage for moving troops and supplies in wartime.
And while its often argued that the Confederate generals, such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall
Jackson, James Longstreet, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Patrick Cleburne gave the South
a tactical military edge on their upstairs neighbors, the North was surely ahead in other
ways; like the fact that they produced around 90% of goods in the former United States at
the time.
But still, the Union was losing its grip on the South. It only had limited holdings left
in Confederate states, and it was about to lose another…
Fort Sumter was the last Union stronghold in South Carolina, and “strong” is being
generous. It was outmanned and undersupplied, to say the least, and with Southerners now
cracking down on Union property within their borders, it was surrounded. The Confederates
attempted to force the little remaining Union forces at the fort to surrender. The latter
refused, and the Confederates opened fire. The Civil War had begun…