Ximena Campos

Period 4
October 21, 2014
10 Causes of the Civil War
During the 1860s around three quarter million people died in an effort to end
slavery, restore the Union, strengthen federal government, and begin the
Reconstruction Era. The Northern and Southern sections of the United States
developed along different lines. The South remained a predominantly agrarian
economy while the North became more and more industrialized. Different general
cultures and bureaucratic beliefs developed between the two sections. This led to
disagreements on issues such as taxes, tariffs and internal improvements as well as
state rights versus federal power. Some of the main causes of the Civil War were the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, The Missouri Compromise, or even the Compromise of 1850.
All of these conflicts, such as the Border War and John Browns Raid, made the North
and the South have great tensions with each other. Slavery was also a main cause
of the Civil War, as shown by the Border War, John Browns Raid, and the novel
Uncle Toms Cabin by Harriet Beecher. There were a variety of different specific
events that eventually led up to the terrible American Civil War, which lasted from
1861 to 1865.
In 1819, the slaveholding territory of Missouri applied for admission to the
Union. Northern states opposed it, feeling that Southern slaveholding states held
too much power already. The Constitution allowed states to count each slave as
three-fifths of a person for purposes of determining population, and therefore, the
number of Congressional representatives the state was entitled to. This had given
the South an advantage in Congress. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was an
effort by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to maintain a balance of
power between the slaveholding states and free states. The slaveholding states
feared that if they became outnumbered in Congressional representation that they
would lack the power to protect their interests in property and trade. Congressional
debates on the issue raged for a year until the District of Maine, originally part of
Massachusetts, sought statehood. Henry Clay of Kentucky, the Speaker of the
House, maintained that if Maine were to be admitted, then Missouri should be, too.
From this came the notion that states be admitted in pairs, one slave and one free.
Senator Jesse B. Thomas of Illinois proposed an amendment allowing slavery below
the parallel 36 degrees, 30 minutes in the vast Louisiana Purchase territory, but
prohibiting it above that line. An American map from that time can illustrate the
division from the 3630 parallel line that the compromise incorporated. Though the
compromise measure quelled the immediate divisiveness engendered by the
Missouri question, it intensified the larger regional conflict between North and
South. It served notice to the North that Southerners not only did not intend for

slavery to end; they wanted to expand its presence. In the South, the belief grew
that Northerners were using slavery as a smokescreen behind which they could
resurrect the Federalist Party and strengthen the central government at the expense
of states rights.
In the immediate aftermath of the Mexican War and in the midst of the
California Gold Rush, a major political confrontation occurred in Congress that
required many compromises to prevent Southern secession. The admission of
California as a free state would tip the balance of power in the Senate. Southern
politicians pushed for Congress to either pass a legislation that would allow
California to be admitted as a slave state, or to extend the Missouri Compromise
line to the Pacific, effectively splitting the state in half between free and slave. This
prompted a series of measures designed to appease both northern and southern
congressmen by balancing power between slave and free states in California and
the other new western territories. Henry Clay, the leader of the Whig party drafted
five compromise measures in 1850: California became a free state and Texas's
boundary was set at its present-day limits. The U.S. paid Texas $10 million in
compensation for the loss of New Mexico territory, which Texas had previously
claimed as part of its state territory. The territories of New Mexico and Utah were
organized on a basis of popular sovereignty. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was
passed. And the slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia. These
measures solved the dispute regarding California's status as a free or slave state,
but did not provide any long-term, fundamental principle for future decisions on the
sectional balance of new territories. During the debates over California, northern
senators argued that settlers could curtail or ban slavery at will, while southerners
claimed that there could be no prohibition of slavery in the territories because the
land belonged to all states equally. The Compromise of 1850s enforcement of
popular sovereignty on the slave issue was not specified. Furthermore, the bill's
strengthening of the Fugitive Slave Act angered many northerners, and even
provoked violence in northern cities. Despite the conflicts it created, the
Compromise of 1850 was greeted by both sides as an evasion of sectional conflict.
John C. Calhoun, a notable defender of the South and southern slavery, wrote an
ominous speech during the debate over the bill that anticipated secession and
disunion. The Compromise of 1850 was by no means considered an effective
solution to the sectional problem; many politicians were relieved to enact temporary
measures to keep the peace between the states.
Wilmot Proviso, 1846, amendment to a bill put before the U.S. House of
Representatives during the Mexican War; it provided an appropriation of $2 million
to enable President Polk to negotiate a territorial settlement with Mexico. David
Wilmot introduced an amendment to the bill stipulating that none of the territory
acquired in the Mexican War should be open to slavery. The amended bill was
passed in the House, but the Senate adjourned without voting on it. In the next
session of Congress (1847), a new bill providing for a $3-million appropriation was

introduced, and Wilmot again proposed an antislavery amendment to it. The

amended bill passed the House, but the Senate drew up its own bill, which excluded
the proviso. The Wilmot Proviso created great bitterness between North and South
and helped crystallize the conflict over the extension of slavery. In the election of
1848 the terms of the Wilmot Proviso, a definite challenge to proslavery groups,
were ignored by the Whig and Democratic parties but were adopted by the Free-Soil
party. Later the Republican party also favored excluding slavery from new
territories.
By the standards of his day, DAVID WILMOT could be considered a racist. Yet the
Pennsylvania representative was so adamantly against the extension of slavery to
lands ceded by Mexico, he made a proposition that would divide the Congress. On
August 8, 1846, Wilmot introduced legislation in the House that boldly declared,
"neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist" in lands won in the
Mexican-American War. If he was not opposed to slavery, why would Wilmot propose
such an action? Why would the north, which only contained a small, but growing
minority, of abolitionists, agree? Provided, That, as an express and fundamental
condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the
United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and
to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime,
whereof the party shall first be duly convicted. The status of the territories
regarding slavery had not been decided by the beginning of the Mexican War. Even
before the war ended the issue of slavery in the region of the Mexican Cession was
a hot-button political issue. Wilmot and other northerners were angered by
President Polk. They felt that the entire Cabinet and national agenda were
dominated by southern minds and southern principles. Polk was willing to fight for
southern territory, but proved willing to compromise when it came to the north. Polk
had lowered the tariff and denied funds for internal improvements, both to the
dismay of northerners. Now they felt a war was being fought to extend the southern
way of life. The term "SLAVE POWER" jumped off the lips of northern lawmakers
when they angrily referred to their southern colleagues. It was time for northerners
to be heard. Salmon P. Chase, commemorated on the $10,000 bill, founded the Free
Soil Party in 1848. This party advocated an end to the spread of American slavery
and elected 14 representatives and two senators to the federal government.
Though Wilmot's heart did not bleed for the slave, he envisioned California as a
place where free white Pennsylvanians could work without the competition of slave
labor. Since the north was more populous and had more Representatives in the
House, the Wilmot Proviso passed. Laws require the approval of both houses of
Congress, however. The Senate, equally divided between free states and slave
states could not muster the majority necessary for approval. Angrily the House
passed WILMOT'S PROVISO several times, all to no avail. It would never become law.
For years, the arguments for and against slavery were debated in the churches and
in the newspapers. The House of Representatives had passed a gag rule forbidding

the discussion of slavery for much of the previous decade. The issue could no longer
be avoided. Lawmakers in the House and Senate, north and south, would have to
stand up and be counted.
The KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT OF 1854 may have been the single most
significant event leading to the Civil War. By the early 1850s settlers and
entrepreneurs wanted to move into the area now known as Nebraska. However,
until the area was organized as a territory, settlers would not move there because
they could not legally hold a claim on the land. The southern states' representatives
in Congress were in no hurry to permit a Nebraska territory because the land lay
north of the 3630' parallel where slavery had been outlawed by the Missouri
Compromise of 1820. Just when things between the north and south were in an
uneasy balance, Kansas and Nebraska opened fresh wounds. The person behind the
Kansas-Nebraska Act was SENATOR STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS of Illinois. The KansasNebraska Act began a chain of events in the Kansas Territory that foreshadowed the
Civil War. He said he wanted to see Nebraska made into a territory and, to win
southern support, proposed a southern state inclined to support slavery. It was
Kansas. Underlying it all was his desire to build a transcontinental railroad to go
through Chicago. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed each territory to decide the
issue of slavery on the basis of popular sovereignty. Kansas with slavery would
violate the Missouri Compromise, which had kept the Union from falling apart for the
last thirty-four years. The long-standing compromise would have to be repealed.
Opposition was intense, but ultimately the bill passed in May of 1854. Territory north
of the sacred 3630' line was now open to popular sovereignty. The North was
outraged. The Kansas-Nebraska act made it possible for the Kansas and Nebraska
territories to open to slavery. The Missouri Compromise had prevented this from
happening since 1820. The political effects of Douglas' bill were enormous. Passage
of the bill irrevocably split the Whig Party, one of the two major political parties in
the country at the time. Every northern Whig had opposed the bill; almost every
southern Whig voted for it. With the emotional issue of slavery involved, there was
no way a common ground could be found. Most of the southern Whigs soon were
swept into the Democratic Party. Northern Whigs reorganized themselves with other
non-slavery interests to become the REPUBLICAN PARTY, the party of Abraham
Lincoln. This left the Democratic Party as the sole remaining institution that crossed
sectional lines. Animosity between the North and South was again on the rise. The
North felt that if the Compromise of 1820 was ignored, the Compromise of 1850
could be ignored as well. Violations of the hated Fugitive Slave Law increased.
Trouble was indeed back with a vengeance
The Harpers Ferry raid conducted by fanatical abolitionist John Brown and 21
followers in October 1859 is considered one of the major events that ultimately led
to the American Civil War. Brown was hanged December 2 for murder and treason
against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The 21 men accompanying Brown in what he
dubbed the "Provisional Army" were a mixed lot, united only in their hatred of

slavery. Five were black and 16 white. The raiders second-in-command was John
Henry Kagi, a former schoolteacher. William Leeman was a shoemaker from the
state of Maine. Stewart Taylor was Canadian-born. John E. Cook came from a well-todo family. One of the black men, Dangerfield Newby, hoped Browns actions would
help him to rescue his wife from slavery. Two others, John Copeland and Lewis Leary,
were former slaves like Newby. Brown himself had operated tanneries, attempted
(unsuccessfully) to become a minister, and had tried and failed at various other
business enterprises. In Kansas Territory, he and a small group of fellow abolitionists
had killed five pro-slavery men near Pottowatamie Creek. When he discussed his
plans for a raid on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry with Frederick Douglass, in August
1859, Douglass warned him, "Youll never get out alive." After sundown on Sunday,
October 16, 1859, Brown and his men left a farm he had rented under the name
"Isaac Smith" in Western Maryland, across the Potomac from Harpers Ferry. Walking
through a heavy rain, they reached the town in darkness, capturing several
watchmen and cutting telegraph wires. Hayward Shepherd, a black man who was a
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad baggage handler, confronted them and was killed, the
first fatality of the raid. They seized the arsenal and armory, as well as Halls Rifle
Works, a private enterprise, and took 60 hostages from among prominent men of
the area, including Lewis Washington, a great-grand nephew of George Washington.
If Brown hoped the slaves of these men would join his revolution, he was
disappointed; none did. The raiders also made a serious mistake when they
detained a B&O train for five hours, but then let it go on to Baltimore. The conductor
notified authorities in Washington after the train reached Baltimore around noon on
the 17th. When armory workers arrived on Monday morning and discovered Brown
and his raiders had taken over the buildings, word went out and local militia
companies assembled. They surrounded the armory. The raids second fatality
occurred around 7 a.m., when Thomas Boerly of Harpers Ferry was shot and killed.
Before the day ended, two more local residents, George W. Turner and the mayor of
Harpers Ferry, Fontaine Beckham, were also killed. Brown, with one of his sons and
four other riflemen, took nine of the prisoners and holed up in the armorys fire
engine house, a smaller structure about 3035 feet. Later, this became known as
"John Browns Fort." Several of his accomplices tried to escape; some succeeded,
others were killed in the attempt. When the B&O conductors message about what
was happening at Harpers Ferry reached President James Buchanan in Washington.
A detachment of 86 U.S. Marines was dispatched to Harpers Ferry, led by First
Lieutenant Israel Green and accompanied by Major William W. Russell. The major
was the paymaster for the Marine Corps, but as a staff officer he could not
command the force. Secretary of War John B. Floyd had placed overall command in
the hands of a former superintendent of West Point, Army Lieutenant Colonel
(brevetted colonel) Robert E. Lee, who had come up from Washington, accompanied
by Lt. J.E.B. (Jeb) Stuart of the 1st U.S. Cavalry, who had carried Floyds message to
Arlington to summon Lee. The two Army officers, riding a special train ordered for
them by B&O president John W. Garrett, caught up with the Marines at Sandy Hook,
about a mile and a half east of Harpers Ferry. Upon reaching Harpers Ferry, Lee

determined that many of the local militia soldiers in the town were drunk. He
promptly ordered all saloons closed. On the morning of the 18th, Lee sent a
summons to the insurgents ordering them to lay down their arms and surrender.
When, as he expected, they rejected his demands, he sent Lt. Green, clad in his
dress uniform, and 12 of the Marines to storm the fire engine house; Major Russell
accompanied them, armed with nothing but a rattan stick. Three of them were
furnished sledge hammers for breaking in the door. Once inside, they were to attack
with bayonets, lest stray bullets hit some of the hostages. Lee explained to the
Marines how they could distinguish the insurgents from the captives and ordered
the storming party "not to injure the blacks detained in custody unless they
resisted." Several slaves had been taken along with their owners and armed when
Browns men rounded up hostages. In his report to the Secretary of War the
following day, Lee described the action of the storming party: "At the concerted
signal the storming party moved quickly to the door and commenced the attack.
The fire-engines within the house had been placed by the besieged close to the
doors. The doors were fastened by ropes, the spring of which prevented their being
broken by the blows of the hammers. The men were therefore ordered to drop the
hammers, and, with a portion of the reserve, to use as a battering-ram a heavy
ladder, with which they dashed in a part of the door and gave admittance to the
storming party. The fire of the insurgents up to this time had been harmless. At the
threshold one marine fell mortally wounded. The rest, led by Lieutenant Green and
Major Russell, quickly ended the contest. The insurgents that resisted were
bayoneted. Their leader, John Brown, was cut down by the sword of Lieutenant
Green, and our citizens were protected by both officers and men. The whole was
over in a few minutes." The Marine killed was Private Luke Quinn, the third man
through the door, shot through the abdomen. The man behind him, Pvt. Mathew
Ruppert, suffered a slight facial wound. Lieutenant Green inflicted a deep cut on the
back of John Browns neck, but the fanatical abolitionist was still alive. No captives
were harmed, and there were no further deaths among the townspeople. Among the
raiders, two were bayoneted to death in the fire house. In all, 10 raiders died of
wounds received during the raid on Harpers Ferry; the first to die was Dangerfield
Newby, who had hoped to win his wifes freedom. Six more were hanged, and five
escaped, several of them later serving in Union regiments during the Civil War.
Stuart, with a few Marines, was sent to the farm Brown had rented. They found
Sharps carbines, revolvers, "a number of sword pikes, blankets, shoes, tents, and
all the necessaries for a campaign," as Lee described it. Lee wrote, "He avows that
his object was the liberation of the slaves of Virginia, and of the whole South; and
acknowledges that he has been disappointed in his expectations of aid from the
black as well as white population, both in the Southern and Northern States. The
blacks, whom he forced from their homes in this neighborhood, as far as I could
learn, gave him no voluntary assistance. The servants of Messrs. Washington and
Allstadt, retained at the armory, took no part in the conflict, and those carried to
Maryland returned to their homes as soon as released. The result proves that the
plan was the attempt of a fanatic or madman, who could only end in failure; and its

temporary success, was owing to the panic and confusion he succeeded in creating
by magnifying his numbers." Brown was convicted of murder, insurrection and
treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was hanged at Charles Town, the
seat of Jefferson County, near Harpers Ferry on December 2, 1859. His attempts to
capture the federal arsenal and free "all the slaves in the South" had failed, but
abolitionists quickly made him into a martyr for freedom. It is often said he
accomplished with his death what he could not have accomplished while living.
Nat Turner was born in 1800 and was a slave preacher. He believed that he
was Gods messenger sent to save his people. He came to this belief through
several visions of black and white angels fighting. Several signs, including a solar
eclipse, and a strange atmospheric effect in the sky, persuaded him that it was time
for his violent rebellion. Nat Turner and six other men: Hark, Henry, Nelson, Sam,
Will, and Jack, met on August 1831, and launched their rebellion. His revolt occurred
in Southampton County, Virginia, which was an area of small farms. The people in
Southampton County, and Virginia in general, considered themselves to be
benevolent slave masters. They did not expect their slaves to rebel. The rebellion
began at Joseph Travis, Turners masters, house where the rebels killed the family
with ax blows. The slaves went from farm to farm for twelve hours, killing any
whites in sight. Most of the people killed were women and children because many of
the men were away at a revival. Some slaves helped defend their masters against
the rebels. Many slaves also joined the revolt throughout the day, so that there were
almost eighty slaves in all before the revolt was suppressed by the militia. Turners
main objective, as stated by himself through Thomas Gray, was to create terror and
alarm. In all, around fifty-seven whites were killed. Turner himself admitted to killing
only a teenage girl. Turner hid in the woods for several days after his revolt until he
was captured and jailed in Jerusalem on October 30. Nat Turner and twenty of his
followers were killed because of his revolt. This revolt consisted in more deaths than
any other slave revolt in United States history. This revolt caused a tremendous
amount of fear in the area. The governor received any demands for men and guns
to put down supposed slave rebellions. Many innocent blacks, at least one hundred
twenty, were murdered in the aftermath. Governor Floyd thought that Nat Turners
revolt was the result of black preachers and Yankee agitators. Many Southerners
connected this rebellion to Yankee abolitionist desires to end slavery. Some charged
Garrison with instigating Turner as well. Garrison denied this by saying that he and
his abolitionists were Christian pacifists who sought to earn their liberation through
moral argument. Before this revolt, many lawmakers wanted to end slavery.
However, the violence and fear triggered by this event made many feel that they
needed to control slaves more strictly. Some whites considered Turner a cruel,
deceptive man who used religion to persuade other slaves to commit a horrific
crime. Others viewed him as a true religious fanatic. Some whites who considered
Turners actions evil, still believed that slavery needed to be abolished, and that
slavery was immoral. The black abolitionist David Walker and Thomas Jefferson had
both predicted that slavery would cause such a dangerous and rebellious person as

Nat Turner. His revolt led many abolitionists to further action. The Virginia legislature
met as a result of the revolt as well. Some representatives from areas west of the
Blue Ridge Mountains wanted slavery abolished. Governor John Floyd, who was
himself a slaveholder, thought that statewide abolition was the only way to prevent
future attacks of a similar nature. Some put forth plans to have all blacks colonized
at state expense. They debated the gradual abolition of slavery, but decided to
tighten the slave codes instead. These codes strengthened the militia systems. It
became illegal for black preachers to preach without a white man present or for
blacks to even assemble without a white presence. African Americans were not
allowed to own guns or to learn to read or write. Speaking against slavery also
became a crime. The point of these codes was to prevent African Americans from
communicating or meeting in large groups. Thomas Randolph, a grandson of
Thomas Jefferson, who had advocated gradual abolition, predicted at the meeting of
the House of Delegates that the dissolution of the Union would soon occur because
of slavery. During the 1830s and 1840s the South became a martial society set
upon preserving slavery. Slave discipline was enforced more strictly in order to
prevent another rebellion. However, to many blacks of the period, Nat Turner
became a hero who had stood up against injustice and given the whites a taste of
their own medicine. Overall, there were few slave rebellions in the U.S. because it
was policed very carefully. The three major plots in the U.S. (by Prosser, Vesey, and
Turner), all occurred outside the plantation belt, and all the leaders were more
privileged and educated men. Religion was also important in all three rebellions,
reflecting its importance in the slave community. Such rebellions showed that slaves
were not happy and that the plantation system was not as seamless as it seemed.
Harriet Tubman later (1850-1860) helped slaves resist slavery by leading them on
the Underground Railroad to the North. In 1852 Harriet Beecher Stowe spoke out
against slavery in her novel Uncle Toms Cabin. In 1859 John Brown led a raid at
Harpers Ferry in an attempt to start a slave rebellion. Finally, in 1861 the
Confederacy was formed. Turner is still a problematic figure today. If he is accepted
as an American revolutionary, then his means of violence is also sanctioned. Still,
others consider him a man of God who acted against injustice. He is viewed by
some as a leader in the black community, and by others as a religious fanatic. Still
others believe him to be motivated by pure vengeance. He is a controversial figure
in United States history, and will most likely remain so for many years to come.
Dred Scott was born in Virginia around 1800; birth records were spotty even
among the white population and much more so where slaves were concerned. His
owner, Peter Blow, removed to Alabama and then, in 1830, to St. Louis, Missouri,
taking his slaves with him. Blow died two years later, and Scott was sold to an army
surgeon, Dr. John Emerson. In 1833, Emerson took Scott with him when he was
assigned to duty in Illinois. When Illinois entered the Union in 1818, the states
constitution included the phrase, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall
herein by introduced into this state otherwise than for the punishment of crimes."
This wording allowed residents who already owned slaves to retain them as

property, while circumventing the United States Ordinance of 1787, which

prohibited slavery in the area of what was then called the Northwest Territory.
Technically, Illinois was a "free state," but hundreds of slaves remained in bondage
there well into the 19th century. In 1836, Dr. Emerson was reassigned to a fort in
Wisconsin Territory, again taking Scott with him. Scott met and married a slave
named Harriet Robinson, and her ownership was transferred to Emerson. The doctor
left his slaves behind when the Army transferred him again, first to St. Louis and
then to Louisiana. In Louisiana, he met and married Eliza Irene Sanford, who was
visiting from St. Louis. The couple returned to that city, and Emerson sent for his
slave couple, who made the 1,000-mile trip down the Mississippi to rejoin him;
apparently they were not accompanied by anyone and might have tried escaping to
a free state or to Canada but did not make the attempt. Only after the doctor died in
1843 and his widow hired Scott out to another Army captain did he try to arrange
freedom for himself and his wife. The couple and Mrs. Emerson were living in St.
Louis by then, and Scott offered her $300 for their manumission. She refused. Both
Scotts took the matter to court, filing separately; they had lived for extended
periods in a free territory, and he had lived in a free state. Therefore, their petitions
claimed they were free, based on the 1824 Missouri Supreme Court decision in
Winny v. Whitesides, which established the standard, "once free, always free" in
cases of this matter. Ironically, his first trial, in June 1847, was tossed out on a
technicalityhe couldnt prove he and Harriet were owned by Mrs. Emerson. In an
1850 retrial, the couple were granted their freedom, only to have it taken away by
the Missouri Supreme Court after two years. At the time the case went to the state
supreme court, all parties agreed that the decision in Dred Scotts case would also
apply to Harriets. Up to this point, it was a run-of-the-mill case of its type, not
uncommon in Missouri. However, many people believe the states supreme court
justices, who reflected Missouris increasingly pro-slavery stance, were looking for
an opportunity to overturn the decisions that had benefitted slaves seeking
freedom. Their decision denying the Scotts freedom appears to be when the case
took on political overtones. It was also during this hearing that Mrs. Emersons
lawyer introduced for the first time the argument questioning the authority of the
U.S. Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. Scott appealed to the United
States Circuit Court in Missouri, which upheld the Missouri Supreme Courts
decision. Scott and his lawyers then appealed to the Supreme Court. The odds there
were not in his favor. Five of the nine justices were from slave-holding families. By
this time, nearly a decade had passed since Scott first sought freedom through the
courts. Along the way Mrs. Emersons brother, John Sanford of New York, claimed he
now owned the slaves, for reasons that have never been determined. Scotts
lawyers used an argument based on the fact the defendantSanfordand the
plaintiff were from different states, shifting the focus of the case to whether the
Supreme Court had jurisdiction and whether or not Scott was a citizen of the United
States. In March 1857, the majority opinion stated that because of Scotts race he
was not a citizen and had no right to sue under the Constitution. Stretching beyond
the case of the moment, the courts decision also invalidated the Missouri

Compromise of 1820 that had for nearly 40 years placed restrictions on slavery
north of the parallel 36 degrees, 30 minutes, in the vast territory of the Louisiana
Purchase. Scotts abolitionist lawyers might have hoped for a landmark decision but
not the one they got. The Supreme Courts ruling galvanized the abolition
movement and spurred Abraham Lincoln to publicly speak out against it, the event
that led to the resurgence of his personal political career. Throughout the ordeal,
part of Scotts legal fees had been paid by the sons of his original owner, Peter Blow.
Their reasons for doing so are one of many mysteries surrounding this case. After
failing to obtain his freedom through the courts, they arranged to purchase Dred
and Harriet Scott and set them free. Irene Emerson had re-married; her husband, Dr.
Calvin Chaffee, was an abolitionist Massachusetts Congressman who was being
disparaged for his connections to the case, although the original suits predated his
marriage. He arranged to transfer ownership of the Scotts, and his wife accepted
$750 for them. Dred Scott did not get to enjoy his freedom very long. He died nine
months later, September 17, 1858. Harriet, who had been a teenager when they
wed, lived until June 17, 1876. They had four children: two sons who died in infancy
and two daughters, Eliza and Lizzie. Lizzie, who would live to the age of 99, had no
children. Eliza did, however, and there are still descendants of Dred and Harriet
Scott living today.
The novel features Uncle Tom, an African-American slave whose longsuffering story touched millions. Several other characters are brought in as well to
share their stories. It was the second best-selling overall book of the 19th century
after the Bible and the best-selling novel. Just three years after being published
people referred to the novel as being the most popular of the day. The novel has a
more infamous reputation of having popularized many stereotypes that people still
carry today. Some have even said that the book is seen more often in a negative
light because of creating so many stereotypes that some people underestimate and
even forget the novels powerful role as an anti-slavery tool. Harriet Beecher Stowe
is best known for her novel Uncle Toms Cabin, which played a significant role in
accelerating the movement to abolish slavery in the United States. The book
originally was a serial in the anti-slavery newspaper The National Era in 1851. Born
to a large New England family that encouraged the education of all of the children
and their involvement in public affairs, Stowe was a life-long writer, educator, and
philanthropist. Uncle Toms Cabin or Life Among the Lowly was published. It became
a bestseller in the United States, Britain, Europe, and Asia, and was eventually
translated into over 60 languages. It accomplished what Harriet had intendeda
wave of anti-slavery sentiment swept the North. Harriet was invited to speak about
the novel, slavery, and emancipation in cities across North America and Europe. In
1853, she wrote The Key to Uncle Toms Cabin to defend herself against critics, who
either disagreed with her anti-slavery politics and her portrayal of the South or who
thought she had not been radical enough in depicting the evils of slavery. In a letter
in 1853, she explained, "I wrote what I did because as a woman, as a mother, I was
oppressed and broken-hearted with the sorrows and injustice I saw, because as a

Christian I felt the dishonor to Christianity because as a lover of my county, I

trembled at the coming day of wrath." That same year, Calvin took a position at
Andover Theological Seminary in Andover, Massachusetts, where the Stowes lived
from 1853 to 1864. Harriet continued her various philanthropic efforts to help
slaves, including establishing schools for them, and continued to writearticles and
columns for newspapers, and novels. When the American Civil War began, Harriet
felt that President Abraham Lincoln did not move quickly enough to emancipate
slaves and met with him in 1862 to urge him to take decisive action. Her son
Frederick left Harvard Medical School to enlist in the Civil War and was seriously
wounded by a shell fragment at Gettysburg. After Calvins retirement in 1864, the
Stowes moved to Hartford, Connecticut, where Harriet was surrounded by friends,
family, and where, in 1873 when they moved to a home on Forest Street, they
counted Mark Twain and his family among their neighbors and friends. While living
in Hartford, Stowe wrote some of her best known novels: The American Womans
Home, Lady Byron Vindicated, and Pogunuc People. After the Civil War, she and
Calvin began to spend winters in Mandarin, Florida, near where her brother Charles
Beecher had opened a school for emancipated slaves. On July 1, 1896, Stowe died
at her home in Hartford, Connecticut. During her lifetime, she had established
herself as a major American writer, abolitionist, and social advocate. While her
prominence faded somewhat following her death, Uncle Toms Cabin lived on in
stereotypes in plays and films in the early 20th century. On the eve of the mid-20th
century civil rights movement, James Baldwin published a scathing criticism of the
novel, laying on it some of the burden of ingrained racial stereotypes. However, the
feminist movement of the 1970s reclaimed Harriet Beecher Stowe as a feminist
figure and a figure of scholarly interestJoan Hedrick won a Pulitzer Prize for her
1994 biography of Stowe and in 2006, Henry Louis Gates, an eminent African
American scholar, refuted Baldwin in an annotated Uncle Toms Cabin.
The year 1860 marks a very pivotal time for the United States, namely the
election of President Abraham Lincoln. This marked election is often thought of the
first event in a series that turned into the civil war that started April of 1861. The
first president from The Republican Party, (only in existence for fewer than 10 years
at the time) Lincoln was responsible for many large changes and is an icon in
American History. There are many who perpetuate the rumor that Lincoln was a
backwoods farmer when in actuality he was a well-educated lawyer. He received the
nomination from the Republican Convention in 1860 and beat out contenders such
as William H. Seward. Part of the success behind his election was the Democratic
Party disintegrating while attempting to nominate a candidate. Those democrats
from the Deep South didn't like Stephen A. Douglass who was one of the favorites
among others in the Democratic Party. The split ended up forcing three candidates
from the different factions: Stephen A. Douglas from border-states and Northern
states, John Bell from those who used to be the Whig party and John C. Breckinridge
from the Deep South Democrats. One of the most significant aspects of Lincoln's
election is that he held all of the Free states and none of the slave states. When the

results of the election were announced many in South Carolina and Charleston
started meeting to discuss succession. Lincoln was elected the President of the
United States (the 16th) on November 6th, 1860 and by November 10th legislature
had started meeting and succession talk was underway. Just over two months after
he was elected, President Lincoln saw the first state to succeed when South Carolina
voted to secede on December 20th 1860.
On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union. Five days
later, 68 federal troops stationed in Charleston, South Carolina, withdrew to FORT
SUMTER, an island in CHARLESTON HARBOR. The North considered the fort to be
the property of the United States government. The people of South Carolina
believed it belonged to the new Confederacy. Four months later, the first
engagement of the Civil War took place on this disputed soil. The commander at
Fort Sumter, MAJOR ROBERT ANDERSON, was a former slave owner who was
nevertheless unquestionably loyal to the Union. When six-thousand, South Carolina
militia were at the harbor, Anderson and his soldiers were cut off from
reinforcements and resupplies. In January 1861, as one the last acts of his
administration, President James Buchanan sent 200 soldiers and supplies on an
unarmed merchant vessel, STAR OF THE WEST, to reinforce Anderson. It quickly
departed when South Carolina artillery started firing on it. In February 1861,
Jefferson Davis was inaugurated as the provisional president of the Confederate
States of America, in Montgomery, Alabama. On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln
took his oath of office as president of the Union in Washington, DC. The fate of Fort
Sumter lay in the hands of these two leaders. As weeks passed, pressure grew for
Lincoln to take some action on Fort Sumter and to reunite the states. Lincoln
thought of the Southern secession as "artificial." When Jefferson Davis sent a group
of commissioners to Washington to negotiate for the transfer of Fort Sumter to
South Carolina, they were promptly rebuffed. Lincoln had a dilemma. Fort Sumter
was running out of supplies, but an attack on the fort would appear as Northern
aggression. States that still remained part of the Union (such as Virginia and North
Carolina) might be driven into the secessionist camp. People at home and abroad
might become sympathetic to the South. Yet Lincoln could not allow his troops to
starve or surrender and risk showing considerable weakness. Jefferson Davis was
inaugurated provisional president of the Confederate States of America on February
18, 1861, and elected president of the CSA later that year. At last he developed a
plan. On April 6, Lincoln told the governor of South Carolina that he was going to
send provisions to Fort Sumter. He would send no arms, troops, or ammunition
unless, of course, South Carolina attacked. Now the dilemma sat with Jefferson
Davis. Attacking Lincoln's resupply brigade would make the South the aggressive
party. But he simply could not allow the fort to be resupplied. J.G. GILCHRIST, a
Southern newspaper writer, warned, "Unless you sprinkle the blood in the face of
the people of Alabama, they will be back in the old Union in less than ten days."
Davis decided he had no choice but to order Anderson to surrender Sumter.
Anderson refused. The Civil War began at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, when

Confederate artillery, under the command of GENERAL PIERRE GUSTAVE T.

BEAUREGARD, opened fire on Fort Sumter. Confederate batteries showered the fort
with over 3,000 shells in a three-and-a-half day period. Anderson surrendered.
Ironically, Beauregard had developed his military skills under Anderson's instruction
at West Point. This was the first of countless relationships and families devastated in
the Civil War. The fight was on.
Although the majority of the American people-- including many moderate
politicians like Abraham Lincoln--wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to
allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of
the day were not. On the southern side, "fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey were
willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their "right" to own slaves. On
the northern side, abolitionists like John Brown and Henry Ward Beecher of
Connecticut were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the
institution of slavery. These leaders, through either words or action, were able to
convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war, and in order to convince
them they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the
subject of slavery. Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was
threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their
majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at
democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians
were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the
war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both
sides to refuse to fight. So-was the war about slavery? Of course. If there had been
no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have
discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much
less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was
also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to
leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the
continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners
had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians-and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence
and state rights