Slavery, the South and the Causes of Secession, 1850-61 » Kansas-Nebraska, Bleeding Kansas and the Dred Scott Case

A new bill in 1854

By 1854 many Americans hoped the quarrel over slavery was settled. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had drawn a line at 36°30′ across the land bought in the Louisiana Purchase. Slavery was banned north of it. The Compromise of 1850 had then used popular sovereignty (letting settlers vote on slavery) for Utah and New Mexico.

In January 1854 Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois put forward a bill to organise the huge area west of Missouri and Iowa, called Nebraska. Douglas wanted a railway built from Chicago to the Pacific, and the land needed to become organised territory first. Southern senators would only back the bill if it did not ban slavery. Douglas gave way. The bill was split into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, and President Franklin Pierce signed it on 30 May 1854.

Key terms:

• Kansas-Nebraska Act: the 1854 law that created Kansas and Nebraska and let their settlers decide on slavery by popular sovereignty.
• Bleeding Kansas: the name for the violence between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers in Kansas in 1855 and 1856.
• Republican Party: a new party formed in 1854 to stop slavery spreading into the territories (land not yet made into states).

What the Act did

This was a shock. For over thirty years the line had been treated as a settled deal. Now land that was closed to slavery was open to it, and the vote would go to whichever side could get more settlers into the territory.

Anger in the North and the Republican Party

Many Northerners felt the South had broken a promise. Some who had never been anti-slavery now feared slavery could spread across the whole West. In 1854 Northerners from several groups, including anti-slavery members of older parties such as the Whigs, the small Free Soil Party and some Democrats, joined to form the Republican Party. Its main aim was not to end slavery in the South. It wanted to stop slavery spreading into the territories. The party grew fast in the North and had almost no support in the South. In 1856 its first presidential candidate, John C. Frémont, lost to the Democrat James Buchanan, but he did well in the North.

Bleeding Kansas

Kansas became the place where the argument turned violent.

• 1855 election: Thousands of pro-slavery men crossed the border from Missouri and voted in Kansas. Their opponents called them "Border Ruffians". The new Kansas government passed laws that favoured slavery.
• Two governments: Anti-slavery settlers, some sent by groups in the North, refused to accept this and set up their own government at Topeka.
• May 1856: On 21 May a pro-slavery force attacked the anti-slavery town of Lawrence. A few days later, John Brown, an anti-slavery settler, led a night attack in which five pro-slavery settlers were killed.
• Spreading to the Senate: On 22 May 1856 Preston Brooks, a South Carolina congressman, beat Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts with a cane after Sumner made a speech attacking pro-slavery men. Many Southerners praised Brooks. Many Northerners saw it as proof of Southern violence.

Dozens of people died in Kansas. The idea that settlers could settle slavery peacefully by voting had failed.

The Dred Scott case, 1857

Dred Scott was an enslaved man owned by an army surgeon from Missouri. His owner had taken him to live in Illinois, a free state, and in Wisconsin Territory, where the Missouri Compromise banned slavery. Scott sued for his freedom, and the case reached the Supreme Court. In March 1857 the Court, led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, ruled against him by seven votes to two. It decided:

• Black Americans, enslaved or free, were not citizens, so Scott had no right to sue in a federal court.
• Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories, because enslaved people were property that the Constitution protected. So the Missouri Compromise line had always been unconstitutional.

The ruling also hurt popular sovereignty. If Congress could not ban slavery in a territory, it was hard to see how settlers could.

Change and continuity

Since 1820 there had been a pattern: when new land caused a crisis, Congress made a deal. After 1854 the deals stopped working. The Missouri Compromise had drawn a clear line and been widely accepted. The Kansas-Nebraska Act scrapped it, led to violence and helped to create a party that existed only in the North. What stayed the same was the cause: the fight over whether slavery should spread west.

Exam-style question

This is a Paper 2 Section B (a) question. You must explain TWO ways, and each way must say something about BOTH sides of the comparison. One way alone scores at most half marks.

Explain TWO ways in which the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was different from the Missouri Compromise of 1820. [6 marks]

Recap

• The Kansas-Nebraska Act (30 May 1854) created Kansas and Nebraska and used popular sovereignty, ending the 36°30′ line.
• Northern anger led to the Republican Party, which opposed slavery spreading into the territories.
• Bleeding Kansas (1855-56): rival governments, the attack on Lawrence and killings, with the caning of Sumner in the Senate.
• The Dred Scott case (1857): Black Americans were not citizens and Congress could not ban slavery in the territories. The South welcomed it and the North was furious.