History Questions

5.pdf

Home >History homework help >History Questions

220 Chapter 12 The Continued Move West

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

13-1 Describe the conquest and development of the West between 1820 and 1850 by white Americans.

13-2 Explain how the expansionist spirit in the West led to political conflict at home as well as conflict with Mexico, even as it gave the United States its modern boundaries.

The Continued Move West

Chapter 13

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 220 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Continued Move West 221

“The ‘opening’ of the frontier kept alive the democratic promise that poor but free men could

make it on their own—although there were costs.”Beginning in the 1820s, white

Americans began settling west of the Mississippi River for the first time. They did so for a variety of reasons, the three foremost being (1) to flee reli- gious persecution, (2) to pur- sue greater social freedom, and (3), most often, to seek riches.

Between the 1820s and 1860, Americans’ westward migration across the Mississippi occurred in two general phases. The first phase, which lasted from the 1820s to 1844, saw Americans move west without their government’s consent or decree; they moved mostly for personal reasons. The second phase of westward migration began in 1844, after the election of President James K. Polk, an active evangelist for American expan- sion. On his watch, the American nation doubled in size. This second, deeply national- istic phase was promoted under the banner of manifest destiny, the idea that America was destined by God to conquer North America and spread American civilization far and wide. The artist John Gast captured the image perfectly (to your left), showing an angel of the Lord carrying a school book (representing education and civilization) and telegraph wires (representing the Market Revolution) as she guides white Americans west, all while Indians back away, cowering under the power of God’s divine plan. The reality of America’s westward expansion was of course much more complicated, but the idea of “manifest destiny” was a powerful propellant pushing white Americans west.

The continued westward movement of Americans had at least four significant consequences: (1) the further decimation of Native America; (2) the continued expan- sion of the Market Revolution; (3) the “opening” of the frontier, which kept alive the democratic promise that poor but free men could make it on their own instead of subjugating themselves to capitalist chieftains; and (4) perhaps most important, the explosion of the slavery issue onto the American political stage. After decades of cobbled-together political compromises, the question of whether slavery would be allowed in the new territories of the West helped lead to a political breakdown that ignited the Civil War. Thus, while nearly all Americans supported westward expan- sion under the banner of Manifest Destiny, they differed considerably in how they hoped the new land would be developed. Whose image of America would triumph, the North’s or the South’s? But, first, to the great westward expansion between the 1820s and 1860.

It was inevitable that the United States would expand all the way to the Pacific. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

         

                                                     

What do you think?

<< Artist John Gast captured the idea of manifest destiny perfectly in this image, showing an angel of the Lord bringing education and commerce west for the benefit of white settlers, while Native Americans fearfully back away.

Jo hn

G as

t/ T

he B

ri d

ge m

an A

rt L

ib ra

ry /G

et ty

Im ag

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 221 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

222 Chapter 13 The Continued Move West

13-1 Western Conquest and Development, 1820–1844

Americans developed four unique territories in the West between 1820 and 1844: Texas, Oregon, Utah, and California. Each territory was devel- oped for a different reason, and each bore the imprint of its initial conquest long after the territory was settled.

13-1a Mountain Men Before the development of these ter- ritories, the American presence west of the Mississippi River was marked mostly by a rugged group of explorers, the so-called mountain men. These mountain men roamed the Rocky Mountains and the various trails carved out by Indians through the years. They were frequently employed as trappers, working for one of the fur companies that bought and sold bea- ver pelts. But their main occupation was exploration. Men like Jim Bridger, James Beckwourth, and Christopher “Kit” Carson are some of the best- known mountain men. Their names are largely remembered in either the names of mountain passes and Rocky Mountain locales or in the folklore of the West that blossomed during these years, coloring the image of the West as a dangerous and exciting place. All of these mountain men married Native American women, and they also worked as scouts for the U.S. Army, which over time participated in the ongoing encroachment of Indian lands. And Beckwourth is today celebrated as one of the key African American mountain men of the Old West.

13-1b Texas With the mountain men paving the way and spurring American imagina- tions about the promise of the West,

before the late 1840s, the most popular desti- nation of west-

ward migrants was Texas. It was a Spanish colony until 1821, when it became part of the newly indepen- dent nation of Mexico. Americans seeking land for growing cotton had been hesitant to settle in Texas while it was a Spanish colony. But the new nation of Mexico seemed much less powerful than Spain, and Americans in the 1820s seized their chance to settle in Texas, bringing with them their cotton gins and their slaves. During that decade, about 20,000 Americans streamed into the prov- ince, rapidly outnumbering the 5,000 Mexicans who were living there. A small handful of Anglo-Americans assimilated to Mexican culture, but most chose not to. Instead, they continued to speak English, creat- ing separate schools and conduct- ing most of their trade with the United States. When in 1829 Mexico abolished slavery, American cotton planters simply ignored it.

By 1830, the Mexican govern- ment became worried that it was losing control of Texas. Objecting to the continued and illegal per- sistence of slavery there, Mexico sought to curtail U.S. immigration to the region. It raised taxes there, built new military posts, and pro-

hibited further American settlement. But it was too late. The floodgates had opened, and Americans,

both free and enslaved, continued to pour into the province hoping to cultivate cotton.

Predictably, they hated the new regulations and eventually demanded autonomy from Mexican rule. Mexico of course refused, set-

ting the stage for bitter conflict.

Mexican-American Hostilities Mexico had other problems, though. Between 1829 and 1834, Mexico suffered a series of internal politi- cal coups, leading up to General Antonio López de Santa Anna’s seiz- ing power in Mexico City. He abol- ished the Mexican constitution and

“. . . a very companionable

man. In person he was over six feet

tall, spare, straight as an arrow, agile, rawboned and of

powerful frame, eyes gray, hair brown and abundant

even in old age, expression mild and manners agreeable. He was hospitable and generous, and was always trusted

and respected.” —Biographer Grenville

Dodge, on mountain man James “Old Gabe” Bridger

Read about some of the most famous

mountain men.

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 222 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Western Conquest and Development, 1820–1844 223

declared himself absolute dictator. He also intended to rein in Texas’s autonomy. Led by Stephen F. Austin and William B. Travis, and with Sam Houston as commander-in-chief of the new Texas army, Texans rebelled, declaring their independence from Mexico and creating an interim government. Santa Anna refused to tolerate this insurrection, and in 1836 he led 1,600 troops to San Antonio, attacking the American rebels at an abandoned mission called the Alamo. Some 187 Texans, including western pioneer legends David Crockett and James Bowie, were killed during the battle. But before they lost the Alamo, the Texans had killed between 400 and 600 Mexican troops. Their stand became a source of inspiration for the Texas military, which continued to “remember the Alamo” during later battles.

A Victory for Texas . . . and for Slavery Two months later, Texans scored the decisive vic- tory over Santa Anna when Sam Houston surprised the Mexican forces at San Jacinto, near today’s city of Houston. Santa Anna himself was captured (while napping in his slippers), and the Texans forced him to sign treaties guaranteeing Texan independence. Soon after this victory, Texas drew up a new constitution that guaranteed its white citizens the right to own slaves and prohibited free black people from immigrating to the new nation of Texas. Texans formally petitioned the United States for immediate annexation. They thought of them- selves as Americans and wanted Texas to be part of the United States. Plus, they needed protection.

Many northern members of Congress feared that admitting Texas as a slave state would disrupt the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had crafted a delicate balance between slave and free states. Furthermore, many assumed that if they annexed

Texas, Mexico would declare war, something most Americans did not favor. American leaders there- fore rebuffed the appeals for annexation and left the new Texas Republic to make its own way as an independent nation.

13-1c Oregon and the Oregon Trail The next region colonized by American settlers was Oregon. The U.S. government had asserted its sovereignty over Oregon ever since maritime mer- chant Robert Gray’s expedition to the region in 1792, which helped inspire Jefferson to send Lewis and Clark on their expedition. But there were also prior British, Spanish, and Russian claims on the territory. In the early 1800s, as the Oregon fur trade competi- tion increased, American diplomats took steps to ensure that their merchants would not be excluded from trading in the region. Before 1830, only a few American citizens (usually Protestant missionaries) ventured into distant Oregon, because most of it was controlled by Native American tribes and British fur-trading companies. As the area’s beaver popula- tion dwindled, the British slowly withdrew. Their departure left the territory open to settlement, and in the 1830s and 1840s American settlers began to move into Oregon’s Willamette River valley. Between 1842 and 1845, the number of Americans in Oregon increased tenfold, from about 500 to about 5,000.

New Settlements and Indian Violence Predictably, as the new settlements spread through- out the valley, tensions between Indians and settlers increased. Indians felt crowded, and many were dying from diseases imported by American settlers. In 1847, discontent erupted into violence when a group of Cayuse Indians killed fourteen settlers,

>> The famous chapel is the only part of the Alamo that still stands; when it was at its largest, however, the Alamo had been transformed from an abandoned mission to an armed compound held by the newly formed Texas Republic.Co

ur te

sy o

f Te

xa s

S ta

te L

ib ra

ry &

A rc

hi ve

s C

o m

m is

si o

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 223 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

224 Chapter 13 The Continued Move West

including a white doctor who had been treating infectious diseases in white people but refused to treat Indians. The violent attack prompted outrage in Washington, D.C., and provoked Congress to establish more direct control over Oregon by orga- nizing it as a formal American territory.

Oregon Fever Although violence persisted between Indians and American settlers, increased government control prompted a surge of new arrivals. After the open- ing in the early 1840s of a new route through the Rockies, called the Oregon Trail, more and more Americans moved to the territory. They farmed in the bountiful valley, and by 1850 there were 12,000 American inhabitants (see Map 13.1).

13-1d Utah and the Mormons Most American settlers in Texas and Oregon moved for economic reasons, taking advantage of the trans- formations of the Market Revolution, but another group—the Mormons—went west seeking a haven from religious persecution. The Mormons found ref- uge in the area around the Great Salt Lake, in what would become the state of Utah.

Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormonism In 1830, Joseph Smith organized a new religion called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, known colloquially as the Mormons. Like other new religious communities founded during the Second Great Awakening, Mormonism empha- sized a direct and ecstatic connection with God. It attracted people who both believed in Joseph Smith’s divine visions and who wanted to renounce the sinfulness and social disorder they saw all around them. Mormonism gained converts by the thou- sands. But many Christians viewed Mormons with suspicion because of their community’s isolated ways and curious practices, particularly polygamy. Joseph Smith, for instance, was reputed to have had thirty-four wives between the ages of fourteen and sixty. Each time tension grew with neighboring “gen- tiles,” the Mormons moved their headquarters, first from New York to Ohio, then to several locations in Missouri. In 1838, they settled in Commerce, Illinois, which they renamed “Nauvoo” (as it is known today).

For five years, the Mormon community grew and prospered in Nauvoo. But in 1844 trouble erupted

>> Joseph Smith was reputed to have had thirty-four wives between the ages of fourteen and sixty, prompting responses such as this anti-Mormon poster advertising the book Polygamy or, the Mysteries of Mormonism.

A nt

i-M o

rm o

n p

o st

er a

d ve

rt is

in g

a b

o o

k cr

iti ca

l o f

‘P o

ly ga

m y

o r,

T he

M ys

te ri

es o

f M

o rm

o ni

sm ’

(li th

o ),

A m

er ic

an S

ch o

o l,

(1 9t

h C

en tu

ry )/

Pr iv

at e

C o

lle ct

io n,

P et

er N

ew ar

k A

m er

ic an

P ic

tu re

s/ T

B ri

d ge

m an

A rt

L ib

ra ry

>> The Oregon Trail opened yet another way to move west.

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 224 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Western Conquest and Development, 1820–1844 225

after a local newspaper, fearful of Smith’s grow- ing power, published an exposé of the polygamy practiced by Smith and other Mormon men. As the mayor of Nauvoo and the head of its court and its militia, Smith demanded that the newspaper be suppressed. During the controversy, non-Mormons grew increasingly hostile toward the religion and appealed to state authorities to help drive the Mormons out. Soon after, Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were arrested for treason, and on June 27, 1844, a lynch mob entered the jail where the men were being held and shot them both dead. In 1845, in what was referred to as “the Mormon War in Illinois,” Mormon opponents torched more than two hundred Mormon-owned buildings in Nauvoo. Rumors surfaced that the federal government was planning a raid, and the Nauvoo city charter was revoked. The Mormons, now led by Smith’s succes- sor Brigham Young, negotiated a truce so that they could leave Illinois peacefully.

Brigham Young From published journals celebrating the western frontier, Young learned of an inland sea—the Great Salt Lake—that lay north of New Mexico. Although surrounded by inhospitable deserts and mountains, the land immediately next to the lake seemed ideal for settlement. To Young, the area also appeared sufficiently remote to guarantee that the Mormons would not encounter persecution. In addition, Utah was still under Mexican control and therefore out- side U.S. jurisdiction. This meant that the Mormons could function relatively independently, following their own laws and customs. They set out to find their promised land on what came to be known as the Mormon Trek (see Map 13.1).

To Utah A dynamic leader, Young had little difficulty per- suading most of his followers that the Great Salt Lake area would be their home. In 1847 and 1848,

Great Salt Lake

Sa cr

a m

en to

R .

Oh io

Mississippi R.

Arkansas R.

Rio Grande

Platte R.

N. Platte R.

M issouri R.

Missour i R.

Snake R.

Milk R.

Yello wston

e R.

C ol

u m

bia R.

Colo rad

o R .

G re

Gila R.

Red R.

Lake Superior

L. E rie

La ke

M ic

hi ga

Lake H uron

G u l f o f M e x i c o

P A

C I F

I C

O C

E A

Oregon Trail

La ss

en ’s

Tr ai

Oregon Trail

Santa Fe T rail

Ta os

Tr.

B ut

rfi eld

Ove rlan

d T rail

Butterfield Overland Trail

California Tr ail

Ft. Smith–San ta Fe Trail

Old Spani

Tr ai

Sa lt

La ke

to L os

An ge

le s T

ra il

El C

am in

o Re

Cro ssin

g Tr ail Cim

arro n

Emigrant Trail Emigrant Trail

Mormon Trail

Mo rmon Trail

GREAT BASIN

R O

C K

Y M

O U

N T

A I N

G R

E A

T P

L A

I N S

Ft. Vancouver

Ft. Lane

Ft. Hall

Ft. Smith

Ft. Leavenworth

Ft. Kearney

Ft. Laramie

Astoria

Portland

San Francisco

Sacramento (Sutter’s Fort)

Santa Barbara

Los Angeles

San Diego

El Paso del Norte

Chihuahua Galveston

San Antonio

Salt Lake City

Santa Fe

Taos

Independence St. Louis

Nauvoo

UNORGANIZED TERRITORY

INDIAN TERRITORY

CALIFORNIA

IOWA TERRITORY MICHIGAN

WISCONSIN TERR.

LOUISIANA

ARKANSAS

MISSOURI

ILLINOIS IND. OHIO

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE

MISS. ALABAMA

GEORGIADISPUTED AREA

REPUBLIC OF TEXAS

M E X I C O

B R I T I S H N O R T H A M E R I C A ( C A N A D A )

U N I T E D S T A T E S

O R E G O N C O U N T R Y

100°W 90°W 80°W

30°N

40°N

110°W 120°W

0 200 400 Mi.

200 400 Km.

California Gold Rush region

Cengage Learning Trails to the West Ms00318 trim - 45p x 34p Final: 4/08/08 Revised for letterspacing 4/18/08—cm

Tyep block map Bleeds top and right Align left map trim at type block Align top map trim at top page trim

Map 13.1. Overland Trails © Cengage Learning 2014

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 225 11/6/12 1:15 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

226 Chapter 13 The Continued Move West

thousands of Mormons settled in the Salt Lake basin. There they developed an irrigation system, which expanded their acreage of arable land, and laid the foundation for today’s Salt Lake City.

But the Mormon dream of settling beyond the reach of the U.S. government did not last long. The United States won control of Utah in February 1848 as part of the settlement of the Mexican-American War, thus continuing the contentious relationship between Mormons and the federal government for the next fifty years. From 1856 to 1858, relations soured over the issue of who controlled the Utah territory, leading to a brief “Utah War.” One notable episode of this con- flict was the Mountain Meadows massacre of 1857. In the massacre, more than one hundred California- bound migrants from Arkansas were slaughtered by a collection of Mormon militiamen and Paiute Indians, both of whom feared the continued presence of American settlers in their territory.

13-1e California: Ranches and Gold

Still farther west, American citizens were begin- ning to settle the Mexican state of Alta California. In the early 1840s, new Republican leaders awarded huge land grants in California to a handful of its American citizens and retired Mexican soldiers.

Word of California’s bountiful, fertile lands spread quickly. With the opening of the Oregon Trail and its offshoot, the California Trail (Map 13.1), more and more Americans made their way to the distant Mexican state. By early 1846, about 800 Americans and about 8,000 to 12,000 californios lived there.

This all changed in January 1848, when gold was discovered along California’s American River. Emigration to California suddenly exploded. In 1849, an estimated 80,000 fortune hunters reached California, half of them Americans, the rest immigrants from across the globe. For instance, gold was the key attraction for numerous Chinese immi- grants, beginning a long- standing Chinese presence in the West. Regardless of country of origin, though, most of the miners were young, unmarried men who had no intention of settling in California; they wanted to get rich and return home. But whether or not mines “proved out” and produced the riches expected of them, many of these “forty-niners” ended up staying in California. They set up temporary businesses, such as saloons, stores, and brothels, which soon surrounded the hastily erected shacks of mining camps. They also treated with scorn the surrounding Indian tribes, viewing them as obstacles to their riches. Once min- ers had exhausted the gold supply, they abandoned the area, looking for the next profitable mine. Most of the booming settlements of the gold-rush days later decayed into ghost towns.

>> In 1849, an estimated 80,000 fortune hunters from around the world ventured to California in search of gold.

H ul

to n

A rc

hi ve

/G et

ty Im

ag es

View a map of California Gold Country.

Read a letter from a gold miner in

Placerville, California.

>> “There is a good deal of sin & wickedness going on here, Stealing, lying, Swearing, Drinking, Gambling & murdering. . . . Almost every public House is a place for Gambling. . . . Men make & lose thousands in a night, & frequently small boys will go up & bet $5 or 10—& if they lose all, go the next day & dig more. We are trying to get laws here to regulate things but it will be very difficult to get them executed.” —S. Shufelt, gold miner

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 226 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Expansionist Spirit Rebounds 227

13-1f Tribal Conflicts No matter where Americans went, they moved onto lands claimed by other parties, and sometimes by multiple other parties. While Mexicans in Texas and British settlers in Oregon suffered from the American expansion, no group was more dislocated than Indians. Most dramatically, the hunters of the Western Plains—the Arapahoe, Blackfoot, Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Sioux Indians—depended on the migra- tory hunting of buffalo for food. White settlers mov- ing through buffalo ranges disrupted the natural hunting process, threatening the livelihood of these tribes. The interference eventually prompted the Plains Indians (as these tribes are collectively called) to attack white pioneers on the emigrant trails, sparking many bloody battles. As for white settlers during the colonial era in New England and Virginia, conflict with the tribes of Native America was part of daily life for the westward bound.

The U.S. government’s response to this increased Indian conflict was typical: as the number of white settlers increased, the U.S. government continued to cajole or force Native Americans into giving up their land. In the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty with

Plains Indian tribes, the U.S. government agreed to make cash restitution for disrup- tions to the buffalo grounds,

while tribal leaders in turn agreed not to attack the large number of settlers moving through the area. But in 1854 yet another transportation corridor for white pioneers was carved out of land that was once set aside as Indian territory. Following the develop- ment of this new route, Indian tribes were relocated

once again. As they were being shuffled from one area to another, the creation of a defined system of reserva- tions for Native Americans was not far off.

13-1g Conclusion Western settlement com- plicated matters reaching far beyond the lives of the settlers themselves. The haphazard manner in which westward settlers developed forced politicians in the East to bring some form of governing order to the West. The independent-minded settlers, accustomed to man- aging their own affairs, did not always welcome the imposition of eastern ideals. Friction was inevitable. Moreover, by taking responsibility for the actions of white settlers—particularly the rebels in Texas and the pioneers traversing Native American territo- ries—government officials committed themselves to defending, and defining the course of, westward expansion. This led to westward expansion’s second phase, a much more controlled and government- sanctioned project.

13-2 The Expansionist Spirit Rebounds

During the 1840s, America’s official interest in acquir- ing western territory surged for five principal rea- sons (see “The reasons why . . .”). These arguments

Read the Fort Laramie Treaty.

Fort Laramie treaty Agreement of 1851 between Plains Indian tribes and the U.S. govern- ment; the government agreed to make cash res- titution for disruptions to the buffalo grounds, while tribal leaders agreed not to attack the large number of settlers moving through the area

Route to China? The Market Revolution created a desire to have access to the Pacific Ocean and thus to the fabled Chinese and other Asian markets. (Americans were already establishing connec- tions in Hawaii.)

Governmental interest. The government had targeted land that it wanted and was willing to fight for.

Politically popular. Political leaders discovered that proposals to annex new lands were popular with American voters, despite the

festering question of whether to allow slavery there. Politicians, con- stantly seeking reelection, took note.

A new beginning. The financial Panic of 1837 led many Americans to desire going west in order to start their lives over. Often left pen- niless, many Americans moved west.

National ambition. The U.S. government sought a rapid expansion of its power, which meant owning as much land as foreign powers, if not more. It used the notion of “manifest destiny” to spend its resources aiding those who sought to move west.

There were five reasons why America’s official interest in westward expansion surged in the 1840s:

the reasons why . . .}{

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 227 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

228 Chapter 13 The Continued Move West

motivated the American government to aggressively resume the game of territorial expansion. Journalists and others who favored national expansion embraced an ide- ology justifying the some- times brutal methods used to expand American civiliza- tion: manifest destiny.

13-2a Texas and the Rise of James K. Polk

The first significant debate concerned Texas. The Texas Republic, upon winning its independence from Mexico in 1836, had already applied to become a U.S. state. But the Texas constitution guaranteed the perpetuation of slavery, so if Texas entered the Union, it would disturb the balance between free and slave states established by the Missouri Compromise. Moreover, U.S. annexation of Texas would surely start a war with Mexico. Thus, by the late 1830s, Texans suspended all efforts to gain admittance to the Union and focused on developing their own political and economic institutions.

Foreign policy issues in the 1840s forced the issue of Texas annexation back into the limelight. Britain considered establishing relations with the independent Texas to gain a stronger hold in North America. This prospect alarmed many Americans, and, fearful of increased British presence in North America, in 1843 Secretary of State John C. Calhoun signed a treaty with Texas that promised eventual admission to the Union. President John Tyler (who became president in April 1841) then sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Would Texas finally become a state? Northerners in Congress reasoned that the excuse of foreign diplomacy was just a thinly veiled power play by southern slave owners. The Senate thus defeated the proposed treaty. Texas would have to wait a little longer.

The Election of 1844 The issue persisted and became a key division in the presidential election of 1844. The Whigs were divided, as many opposed the introduc- tion of a new slave state while others more fully embraced the idea of manifest destiny. With the Whigs divided, the Democrats simply stole the issue and made overall territorial acquisition a key part of their strategy to spread American civiliza-

tion far and wide. They blustered on and on about how America’s territorial growth would make it a first-class nation. Their platform called for the “re-annexation” of Texas and the “re-occupation” of Oregon up to a northern boundary of 54840', an outrageous land grab that included nearly all of today’s British Columbia, extending to the southern border of today’s Alaska.

The Democrats’ plan, though greedy, was per- ceptive. By offering to acquire both Texas and Oregon, they intended to give something to the North and to the South, thus unifying the nation and securing a Democratic victory. The party’s presiden- tial nominee was James K. Polk, a former Tennessee governor and congressman (whose nickname was “Young Hickory,” aligning him with Andrew Jackson, who was called “Old Hickory”), and he became the loudest spokesperson for the benefits to be gained from American expansion.

Texas and the Liberty Party Henry Clay was the Whig candidate. Like many Whigs, Clay initially opposed annexing Texas. But midway through the campaign, he decided the issue was too popular to resist, and he needed the votes. He changed his platform. Outraged at his reversal— and his political gaffe of not offering to acquire Oregon as well—a group of north- ern antislavery activists left the Whig Party and cre- ated the Liberty Party, which opposed admitting any new slave territory to the United States. The Liberty Party nominated James G. Birney, who attracted vot- ers who would otherwise have supported Clay. This division strengthened the Democratic Party and allowed Polk to win the election fairly easily. But the introduction of the Liberty Party revealed hairline fractures in the second two-party system—fractures that would steadily grow into an outright break.

Tyler and Texas President John Tyler, who had a few months left in his term before being suc- ceeded by Polk, interpreted Polk’s victory as a sign that the public did indeed support efforts to admit Texas. Thus, during his last months in office, in an effort to ensure himself a positive legacy, Tyler again pushed Congress to annex Texas through a congres- sional resolution. (A resolution is similar to a treaty but requires only a simple majority to pass instead of the two-thirds majority needed for a treaty.) This time,

Liberty party Political party created by northern antislavery activists who left the Whig Party because they were outraged at Henry Clay’s reversing his posi- tion against annexation of Texas; their depar- ture revealed cracks in the second two-party system

Read a dramatic antislavery letter by a member of

the new Liberty Party.

Read more about Texas statehood.

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 228 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Expansionist Spirit Rebounds 229

the Senate, swayed by the public enthusi- asm it had witnessed during the election of 1844, narrowly voted in favor of the resolution. On March 1, 1845, the United States formally offered Texas statehood, which Texas accepted in December.

In response to admission of Texas as an American state, Mexico broke off dip- lomatic relations with the United States, setting the stage for conflict between the two nations.

13-2b Oregon and American Dominance in the West

Polk as President Despite Tyler’s role in granting Texas statehood, it was Polk who would become the nation’s staunchest sup- porter of acquiring new territory. Polk was an avid believer that Americans were destined to control the West, and he had the personality, vigor, and power to be a strong cheerleader. However, when it came to the West, Polk was less concerned about slavery and more concerned about a surge in British influ- ence in North America. Thus his first action as president was to snuff out any plans Britain had for reentering North America, not only in Texas but also in Oregon and California. Polk also had to live up to his campaign promise of bringing in a northern state to balance the recent addition of Texas, so his efforts immedi- ately left Texas and headed north.

54840' During Polk’s presidential campaign, he pledged to fight for exclusive title to the Oregon Territory and to settle for nothing less than the entirety of American claims, which extended all the way up to a northern line of 54840'—close to what is now the southernmost point of Alaska’s border with British Columbia (see Map 13.2 on the next page). Britain, however, would certainly not concede that the United States owned a territory that Britain had long explored and claimed. After his inauguration in early 1845, Polk softened his position and returned to the demand made by every president since James Monroe: the United States would be willing to settle for a border along the 49th parallel—Oregon’s northern border today.

Britain rejected the offer; it wanted to control the Columbia River, 200 miles south of the 49th parallel. Angered at Britain’s refusal and inspired by the parti- san cry of “Fifty-four Forty or Fight!” Polk returned to his more aggressive position. In early December 1845, he asked Congress to extend U.S. military protection to the Oregon Trail. He hoped that feigning military intervention would persuade the British to concede the vast Oregon territory.

49th Parallel Polk’s tenacious talk was merely a bluff: he believed that the land north of the 49th parallel, where

James K. Polk, during whose presidency

the landmass of the United States

increased by a third.

T he

G ra

ng er

C o

lle ct

io n,

N ew

Y o

rk /

T he

G ra

ng er

C o

lle ct

io n

“Fifty-four Forty or Fight!” Rallying cry referring to the Americans’ intended latitude for the contested border between the United States and Canada; Britain was willing to set- tle for the 49th parallel

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 229 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

230 Chapter 13 The Continued Move West

few American settlers had reached, was not that impor- tant. What he really wanted was Puget Sound and access to the ports of California for trading. Britain’s govern- ment, meanwhile, decided that its interest in the region, originally based on the once- robust fur trade, which was now rapidly declining, was not worth a war. In late December 1845, the two parties reopened negotia- tions over the issue, intend- ing to prevent what would have been the third war in

seventy-five years between the two nations. The British proposed a treaty accepting the 49th parallel as a border, although it sought to retain the right to navigate the Columbia River. The Senate approved the resulting Buchanan-Pakenham Treaty in July 1846, and America now had uncontested access to the Pacific.

13-2c Manifest Destiny Amid the frenzy stirred by the Oregon and Texas statehood issues, a new expression of the spirit of an American empire was born. The term manifest destiny—meaning that the United States was fated to possess North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific—was coined by New York journalist John O’Sullivan. In July 1845, O’Sullivan wrote an editorial in his United States Magazine and Democratic Review urging Whigs and Democrats to join together in support of “the right of our manifest destiny to over- spread and to possess the whole of the continent, which Providence has given us.” Manifest destiny was popularized in political debates over Oregon, where it was used as an argument for why Britain should not block U.S. expansion. Soon the rhetoric made its way into American popular culture.

Though the term manifest destiny was newly coined, it reflected a much older American belief that divine providence was directing the nation. Many Americans felt that their country—by virtue of its strong Christian faith, its commitment to “civi- lization” and democracy, and the supposed “empti- ness” of the West—would dominate North America as a great Empire for Liberty, thriving under God’s benevolent guiding hand. The phrase was explicitly chauvinistic, implying the need to “subdue” and

“fertilize” the “virgin land” of the West. It was also explicitly racist, referring to the God-given rights of the white man to conquer the “red man’s lands.” Manifest destiny interpreted the conquest of the West as a story of triumph in the cause of freedom rather than a saga of conflict, death, and destruc- tion. The concept grew in popularity throughout the 1840s, justifying westward expansion.

13-2d The Mexican-American War With Oregon secure and the ideology of manifest destiny swirling throughout the American presses, Polk turned his atten- tion once again to Mexico. When Texas won its inde- pendence from Mexico in 1836, the Mexican dictator General Antonio López de Santa Anna vowed that any move by the United States to annex Texas would be met with military force. When Texas did

Buchanan-pakenham treaty Agreement of 1846 between the United States and Britain, agree- ing on the 49th parallel as the border between the United States and Canada; the treaty gave the United States uncon- tested access to the Pacific

manifest destiny Idea that America was destined by God to possess North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific; phrase coined by journalist John O’Sullivan in 1845

Compromise line, 1846

C ol

bia R.

Sna ke

Yellows tone

R. Missouri R

Fraser R .

P A C I F I C O C E A N Oregon Trail

Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819

Treaty of 1818

R O

C K

Y M

O U

N T

A I N

Vancouver I.

Willamette Valley

Ft. Vancouver

A L A S K A (Russia)

M E X I C O

O R E G O N C O U N T R Y

U N I T E D S T A T E S

B R I T I S H N O R T H A M E R I C A

( C A N A D A )

40°N

42°N

50°N

54°40'N

49°N

60°N 110°W120°W130°W

0 150 300 Mi.

150 300 Km.

Focus of dispute by 1846

Area of original dispute over Oregon

Cengage Learning Oregon Boundary Dispute, 1846 Ms00340a trim - 20p6 x 25p0 Final 8/29/08 Kennedy 14e variant: Eliminate Main area of US settlement

No bleeds

Map 13.2. The Oregon Boundary Dispute

Read John O’Sullivan’s “Annexation”

essay.

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 230 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Expansionist Spirit Rebounds 231

become the twenty-eighth state, in 1845, President Polk privately relished Mexico’s threat. He hoped that by provoking Mexico to make good on its promise of war, the United States could crush the Mexicans and gain control of even more Mexican territory, particularly the far western prizes of California and New Mexico.

Polk Seeks a Fight Mexican officials, though they would not accept the annexation of Texas as legal, did not want to wage war over the matter. Instead, they chose to haggle over the precise boundary of Texas’s southern border. Texas state officials insisted that the proper bound- ary between Texas and Mexico was the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, considered the Nueces River (130 miles north of the Rio Grande) to be the border. Polk decided that the United States had a responsibility to defend Texas’s land claims, and he stationed U.S. warships off the coast of Texas. In October 1845, Polk dispatched nearly 4,000 U.S. troops to the northern side of the Nueces River. By demon- strating American strength, he hoped to bully the Mexican government into ceding the disputed lands.

Despite these intimidation efforts, Mexico refused to respond militarily. So, in November 1845, Polk took another approach, attempting to pressure Mexico into selling not only Texas but also New Mexico and California to the United States. Polk’s tactics failed once again. Mexico refused. Frustrated, Polk decided to make another show of force. In January 1846, he ordered General Zachary Taylor, the head of the U.S. Army encamped along the Nueces, to move into the

disputed region between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. Polk hoped to provoke the Mexican army into firing on the Americans. If American

lives were endangered, the president reasoned, it would be easy to declare war on Mexico.

He finally got his fight. On April 25, 1846, Mexican forces crossed the Rio Grande and attacked Taylor’s men, killing eleven soldiers. Polk imme- diately declared that Mexico had “shed American blood upon the American soil,” even though the land was clearly disputed terrain. According to the presi- dent, Americans now had no choice but to avenge the lives of their slain countrymen.

Patriotic Fervor On May 13, 1846, as patriotic fervor swept the coun- try, Congress passed a declaration of war by an over- whelming majority. Volunteers responded en masse to fill the ranks of the army. The war was not uni- versally popular, especially among northerners who considered the war a strat- egy to expand slavery into new western territories like New Mexico and California. Leading intellectuals, such as Henry David Thoreau, Frederick Douglass, and William Lloyd Garrison, opposed the war, viewing it as an unjust aggression against Mexico and an opportunity for slave owners to annex new land for their plantations. In 1847, a young congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln offered a resolution to Congress (which did not adopt it) demanding to be shown the exact spot upon which American blood was spilled on American soil. Lincoln rightly thought the first shots had been fired on disputed territory, not American

land, and the proposal came to be called Lincoln’s “Spot Resolutions.” Nevertheless, these countervail- ing views were overpowered by the louder voices advocating America’s “manifest destiny.”

California and New Mexico Now that the battle with Mexico had begun, Polk also planned to seize Mexico’s other northern states, California and New Mexico, some of his primary targets all along (see

Map 13.3 on the next page). In June 1846, a small group of American rebels, flying a flag decorated with a bear and a red star, seized the California town of Sonoma (north of San Francisco) and declared the state an independent republic. John C. Frémont led an armed expeditionary group in what came to be called the “Bear Flag Revolt.” The California Republic was, however, short-lived. By the end of July 1846, Frémont’s men were inducted into the U.S. Army as the “California Battalion.” By August, the United States had taken control of California’s key ports, and Frémont became a national hero. Polk’s land grab proceeded apace.

Further south, a group of American troops marched through what is today New Mexico. In August, this force seized Santa Fé, the capital of the

Read President Polk’s “Message on War with

Mexico.”

Read Whig senator Thomas Corwin’s speech

opposing the Mexican War.

Read Democratic senator Donald S. Dickinson’s

speech justifying the U.S. acquisition of territory.

If American lives were endangered,

the president reasoned, it would be easy to declare war on Mexico.

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 231 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

232 Chapter 13 The Continued Move West

Mexican region, without firing a shot. By January 1847, the troops had finished their mission and had moved to the southern California coast. They arrived just in time to put down a Mexican revolt against American rule that had been raging in Los Angeles since the previous September. Relatively easily, and within about six months, Americans had taken control of the large territories of California and New Mexico. Now all that was left was formalizing the land grab.

Invading Mexico After the United States seized both territories, Polk was prepared to offer Santa Anna a deal. Overthrown in an 1844 coup, Santa Anna was now living in Cuba, plotting his return to Mexico. Polk offered him the

chance to do so in exchange for a promise to end the war and to cede California, New Mexico, and Texas to the United States. Santa Anna agreed. Once he arrived in Mexico, however, he reneged on this prom- ise and rallied Mexican forces against the Americans.

To counter this revolt, Polk ordered General Winfield Scott to invade Mexico from the sea, espe- cially targeting the capital, Mexico City. With this dar- ing move, he hoped to defeat the main forces of the Mexican Army and sap Mexican resolve to fight. He would also undercut Santa Anna and his men, who had moved north to attack Americans along the bor- der. In March 1847, after capturing the Mexican port of Veracruz, 14,000 American troops marched inland toward Mexico City, and, after numerous battles and

Arkansas R.

Rio Grande

M issouri R. Mississippi R.

Colo rad

o R .

Platte R.

Nueces R.

30°N

20°N

40°N

120°W 110°W 100°W 90°W

Gulf of Mexico

P A

C I F

I C O

C E

A N

Valverde Dec. 12, 1846

El Brazito Dec. 25, 1846

San Pasqual Dec. 6, 1846

San Gabriel Jan. 8, 1847

Taos Revolt Feb. 3–4, 1847

Cerro Gordo April 17–18, 1847

Sacramento Feb. 28, 1847

Fort Leavenworth

Fort Sam Houston

Bent’s Fort

D on

ip ha

18 47

Stockton 1846

Sloat 1846

ott 1847

Sc ott

18 46

Ke arny 1848

W oo

l 1 84

Fr ém

on t 1

84 6

Fré

m on

t 1

84 5–1846

Kearny 1846

San ta A

nna

1847

Tampico Occupied

Nov. 14,1846

San Luis Potosí

Mazatlán

Veracruz Occupied March 29,1847

Santa Fe Occupied Aug. 18, 1846

Monterey Occupied July 7, 1846

Yerba Buena (San Francisco)

Occupied July 10, 1846

San Diego

(San Antonio)

Corpus Christi

Matamoros

Mérida

Los Angeles

New Orleans

Chihuahua

MICH. TERR.

T E X A S

IND.

ILLINOIS

LOUISIANA

IOWA

WISCONSIN

INDIAN TERRITORY ARKANSAS

MISSOURI

UNORGANIZED TERRITORY

ALA.

FL.

GA.

OHIO

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE

MISS.

OREGON TERRITORY

(1846)

M E X I C O

U N I T E D S T A T E S

0 200 400 Mi.

200 400 Km.

Bear Flag Revolt June 14, 1845

Buena Vista Feb. 22–23, 1847 Monterrey

Sept. 19–24, 1846

Mexico City Sept. 13–14, 1847

Disputed area

Mexican movements

U.S. movements

Mexican victory

U.S. victory

U.S. naval blockade

Mexican cession, 1848

Cengage Learning Map War with Mexico, 1846-1848 Ms00341 trim 45p x 37p Final: 4/08/08 Correction 7/28/09—cm: Reduce arrowheads; add shadows; correct LOC area box

Type block map Bleeds bottom and right Align left map trim at type block Align bottom map trim at bottom page trim

Map 13.3. War with Mexico, 1846–1848 © Cengage Learning 2014

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 232 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Expansionist Spirit Rebounds 233

>> Inspired by patriotic fervor, seventeen-year-old Bostonian Sam Chamberlain joined the 1st Regiment of Dragoons and saw service in northern Mexico under the command of General Zachary Taylor. His illustrated account of the Mexican War, entitled “Recollections of a Rogue,” has all the color of a young American’s first experiences in a foreign conflict—not all of them military, as this watercolor of a Mexican dance hall demonstrates.

several bouts with yellow fever, on September 13 the American troops entered the Mexican capital. Within three days, Santa Anna, his army defeated and capital taken, surrendered to the American forces.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo In February 1848, an American envoy named Nicholas Trist negotiated the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which officially ended the Mexican War. The treaty gave the United States control of Utah, Nevada,

T he

S an

J ac

in to

M us

eu m

o f

H is

to ry

, H o

us to

What else was happening . . . 1822 A yellow fever epidemic leaves New York City with

16,000 corpses and no readily available space to bury them.

1829 Mexico abolishes slavery.

1835 The Liberty Bell becomes cracked.

1840 The saxophone is invented.

1842 The Treaty of Nanjing ends the First Opium War between Great Britain and China, which began when China protested the importation of opium by British merchants. The treaty mandates that China open trade relations with Great Britain, including the continued trafficking of opium, and it makes Hong Kong a British colony, which it remains until 1997.

1845 The New York Baseball Club plays the Knickerbockers in the first recorded baseball game, at Elysian Fields in Hoboken, New Jersey.

Visit the CourseMate website at www.cengagebrain.com for additional study tools and review materials for this chapter.

California, western Colorado, and parts of Arizona and New Mexico, and it set the Mexican-American bor- der at the Rio Grande River. This was everything the U.S. government wanted, all in exchange for $15 million. It also safely ignored several arguments that the United States should swallow the entire nation of Mexico.

Looking Ahead . . . The Mexican cession, comprising nearly 500,000 square miles of territory, turned the rhetoric of manifest destiny into reality. With Texas’s annexa- tion and the acquisition of Oregon, New Mexico, and California, the United States had become an empire spanning the width of the continent—all within four short years.

But the struggle involved in taking all this land provoked the issue that no American politician wanted to engage: slavery. The issue of whether or not slavery should exist in the western territories would lead to the political crisis of the 1850s, which would ultimately bring about the American Civil War. It is to this impending crisis that we now turn.

Learn more about the Mexi- can War.

treaty of Guadalupe hidalgo Agreement ending the Mexican War in 1848, which gave the United States control of Utah, Nevada, California, west- ern Colorado, and parts of Arizona and New Mexico and established the Rio Grande as the border, in exchange for $15 million

53548_ch13_ptg01_hr_220-233.indd 233 11/2/12 11:00 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

234 Chapter 12 The Continued Move West

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

14-1 Describe the arguments that took place over whether slavery should be allowed to expand into the new territories, and explain how the Compromise of 1850 was supposed to settle the issue.

14-2 Explain how the Kansas-Nebraska Act affected the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and describe the events that made “Bleeding Kansas” an accurate description for the region.

14-3 Discuss the events that propelled the United States into a civil war in 1861.

14-4 Explain why and how the southern states seceded from the Union, discuss President Lincoln’s reaction, and describe the earliest physical conflict between the two sides.

The Impending Crisis

Chapter 14

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 234 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Arguments over Slavery in the New Territories 235

“In the end, the election to the presidency of an antislavery northerner provoked many

southerners to withdraw from the Union altogether.”During the 1850s, the con-

troversy over the spread of slavery to the West froze America’s territorial expan- sion. The gains of the 1840s were impressive: the United States had acquired California, Texas, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, and more. But in the 1850s, except for a small stretch of land on the southern edge of today’s Arizona (the Gadsden Purchase), the United States made no further territorial gains.

Nevertheless, the territorial expansion of the previous fifty years (and especially the previous ten) had made it nearly impossible for the two political parties to retain support from all the nation’s various regions. In general, although northerners were not often hard-core abolitionists, they protested the spread of slavery in the West, favoring the expansion of free labor, in which men could choose the kind of labor they would perform. Most southern whites, meanwhile, fiercely supported the institution of slavery, seeing it as integral to the American economy and the cotton culture they had developed since the 1793 invention of the cotton gin. Indeed, for many southerners slavery had gone from being a “necessarily evil,” as those of the founding era conceived of it, to being a “positive good.” As for the political parties, neither Democrats nor Whigs could afford to alienate the South by appearing overtly against slavery or the North by seeming too supportive of the institution. The risk was that each party would become strictly regional or that it would implode in trying to find a balance.

This political conundrum provoked the development of splinter parties, and without the hedging and compromising of the two mainstream parties, the center of American politics could not hold. In the end, the election to the presidency of an antislavery north- erner provoked many southerners to withdraw from the Union altogether. Considering that people in democratic societies ideally intend to settle their differences without kill- ing one another, how had things gone so wrong?

14-1 Arguments over Slavery in the New Territories

The Mexican War had, from 1846 to 1848, temporarily united the North and the South in a common enthusiasm for military conquest. But tensions between the two regions always lay just beneath the surface. During and after the war, American politicians became consumed with the issue of whether extensive territories won from Mexico should permit or prohibit slavery.

The Civil War began because the South could not abide the constitutional process of national elections. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

         

What do you think?

<< British painter James Thomas Linnell’s 1859 image of A Thunder Storm captured perfectly the turmoil and uncertainty many Americans felt at the coming of a war between the states.

Ja m

es T

ho m

as L

in ne

ll/ T

he B

ri d

ge m

an A

rt L

ib ra

ry /G

et ty

Im ag

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 235 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

236 Chapter 14 The Impending Crisis

14-1a The Democrats on Slavery in the West

Andrew Jackson’s Democratic Party had always claimed to defend the rights of the “common man.” Yet southern Democrats, by demanding that the new territories allow slavery, hardly seemed to be advocating policies that helped every common man, white or black. Northerners argued that if slavery were allowed in Texas and other parts of the West, wealthy plantation owners would buy up all the new land, leaving little left for less affluent farmers. How democratic was that? Southern Democrats were unable to substantively counter this argument.

Racist, but Antislavery, Northern Democrats More importantly, new plantations in places like Texas and Kansas and Missouri meant that the west- ern territories would be populated with black peo- ple. Despite the fact that many northern Democrats were opposed to slavery, they were quite openly racist and had no desire to live amid a large African American population.

The widespread belief in white supremacy led northern and southern Democrats to radically different conclusions. Many northern Democrats turned against slavery in order to avoid living and competing with black people in the western terri- tories, whereas southern Democrats retained their proslavery stance in order to defend the planta- tion economy, which theoretically promised even the common man great wealth. This disagreement splintered the Democratic Party into southern and northern branches.

14-1b The Wilmot Proviso and the “Free Soil” Movement

The splintering inten- sified in 1846 when one of the alienated northern Democrats, Pennsylvania con- gressman David Wil- mot, proposed that slavery be prohibited from any new territo- ries that the United States might acquire from Mexico. Wilmot was no abolitionist.

He wanted slavery kept out of the West so the land would be available to average white farmers (who could not afford slaves) rather than to wealthy slave owners who would establish massive planta- tions. The Wilmot Proviso passed in the House of Representatives several times but was repeatedly rejected by the Senate, where southerners had the edge because of the support of several “dough face” senators, defined as senators from the North who supported southern slavery.

Meanwhile, each round of voting on the Wilmot Proviso exacerbated regional tensions. Many north- ern Whigs, such as Abraham Lincoln, joined northern Democrats in voting for the measure. At the same time, southern Democrats, such as John Calhoun (now a senator from South Carolina), argued that the Constitution guaranteed the option of slavery in federal territories. Thus he joined southern Whigs in voting against it. Now the Whigs were beginning to divide along regional lines too. Southerners from both parties advocated introducing slavery in the new territories, while northerners from both parties opposed such an effort.

The Presidential Election of 1848 The presidential election of 1848 deepened these tensions. At first, the campaigners tried to ignore slavery altogether. When this proved impossible, Democratic nominee Lewis Cass hoped to side- step the issue by proposing the idea of popular sovereignty, which meant letting the settlers in the territories decide whether or not they wanted

Wilmot proviso Legislation proposed in 1846 to prohibit slavery from any new territories that the United States might acquire from Mexico

dough face Derisive name for a northerner who openly supported the South

popular sovereignty Proposal for letting the settlers in the territories decide whether or not they wanted slavery

The Wilmot Proviso

“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.”

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 236 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Arguments over Slavery in the New Territories 237

slavery. The Whigs, meanwhile, who had nomi- nated Mexican War hero and slave owner Zachary Taylor (who had never voted before, much less held political office), made no mention of slavery in their platform.

The Free Soil Party Neither of these positions satisfied all Democrats or all Whigs, and disaffected Democrats launched a political movement under the banner of the Free Soil Party. The new party was headed by former Democratic president Martin Van Buren and advanced a platform centered on the Wilmot Proviso. The party was antisouthern but not staunchly abolitionist. It argued that southern slave owners were blocking the development of northern progress. Southern congressmen, said the Free Soilers, refused to advance national programs for internal improvements, which would facilitate access to the West and extend the progress made by the Market Revolution. Free Soilers wanted western lands to be available to ambitious white farmers, and they wanted to save the land for white people.

In its platform, the party called for “free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men,” focusing not on abolishing slavery where it already existed but on keeping slave-based plantations out of the West. Significantly, the Free Soil movement brought together all those who opposed slavery in the West. These groups opposed the expansion of slavery for different reasons. For instance, aboli- tionists sympathized with the slaves, while racists disliked African Americans and did not want to compete with them economically in the new ter- ritories. The Free Soil Party also brought together northern Democrats, such as Wilmot, with north- ern Whigs, who were unhappy about their party’s nomination of slave owner Zachary Taylor.

Taylor and the Whigs cobbled together enough votes to win the election of 1848, but they failed to win a congressional majority, and in the long run, they were greatly weakened by the rise of the Free Soil Party. Democrats, too, had seen a split within their ranks that would grow in coming years. During the 1850s, the Free Soil Party and the slavery issue set the stage for a reconfiguration of American poli- tics. The first instance of this would arise in 1850.

14-1c The Compromise of 1850 California provoked the next round of compromises in Congress.

California as the Problem When Zachary Taylor took office in 1849, California, brimming with new set- tlers driven by the gold rush, applied for statehood. But would it enter as a free or a slave state? Either way, its statehood was destined to upset the balance between free and slave states that had held since the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Taylor tried to address the crisis as soon as he took office. He hoped to simply bypass the slavery issue by granting immediate statehood to California and New Mexico without specifying whether they were free or slave states.

Southern politicians attacked Taylor’s plan. They worried that once California was admitted, its citi- zens would vote to be a free state, thus setting a precedent for prohibiting slavery from all western territories. They also feared that someday slave states would be greatly outnumbered by free ones in Congress—an event that could lead to the perma- nent decline of southern interests and the perma- nent abolition of slavery.

The Compromise To allay these fears, Henry Clay, author of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and now a powerful senator, stepped forward with yet another compro- mise. In January 1850, Clay proposed a five-part bill, which came to be called the Compromise of 1850 (Map 14.1, page 240).

The Compromise of 1850 included five key components:

1. California would be admitted to the Union as a free state.

2. The remaining land won during the Mexican- American War would be divided into two new ter- ritories, New Mexico and Utah, and would remain open to slavery until they became states, at which time the state legislatures could vote on the issue.

3. To mollify antislavery northerners, slave auc- tions (but not slavery itself) would be banned in the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C.

4. Texas would receive $10 million in compensation but be prohibited from further influencing New Mexico, where it had hoped to extend slavery.

Free Soil party Political movement started by disaffected anti-South Democrats and headed by former Democratic presi- dent Martin Van Buren; they wanted new lands to be made available to small, ambitious white farmers

Compromise of 1850 Five-part bill proposed by Henry Clay, which outlined specific arrangements that accommodated both anti- slavery northerners and slave-owning southerners

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 237 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

238 Chapter 14 The Impending Crisis

>> “As much indisposed as I have been, Mr. President and Senators, I have felt it to be my duty to express to you my senti- ments upon the great question which has agitated the country and occupied your attentions.”—John C. Calhoun, debating the compromise in the Senate as read by his friend James Mason. The Print Collector/Alamy

5. For southerners, the fed- eral government would create and enforce a new and tougher Fugitive Slave Law. By punish- ing white northerners who helped slaves escape from the South, the measure sought to ensure that the North and the South would cooperate in protecting the slave system.

The Controversy The compromise contained elements to appeal to both sides, but it also set off a storm of political controversy. Opposed by hardliners on both sides of the slave-state issue, the compromise gave rise to the first focused talk of secession in the South. This

alarmed President Taylor so much that he decided to oppose the compromise altogether. Months of impassioned arguments for and against the compro- mise went on in Congress. The debates marked the last time that the great triumvirate of powerful senators, Clay, Calhoun, and Daniel Webster, would discuss the nation’s fate with their formidable oratorical skills. Clay and Webster allied in favor of the compromise, and Webster’s “Seventh of March” speech rallied northern opinion for the com- promise. On the opposite side, Calhoun, dying of tuberculosis, watched his friend James Mason deliver Calhoun’s last speech in the Senate against the proposed compro- mise. But the compromise remained in limbo.

Becoming Law When, in 1850, Zachary Taylor died of gas- troenteritis and was replaced by Millard Fillmore, the compromise’s chances of

passing improved. Fillmore favored the plan. With Fillmore’s support, Clay’s political lieutenant in the Senate, Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, set to work dividing the bill in five parts and finding majorities for each of its separate proposals. By September 1850, the compromise had become law.

The peace that ensued would prove unstable, however, as many northerners resented the tough Fugitive Slave Law. In fact, during the next decade many northern states passed Personal Liberty Laws, which were designed to protect escaped slaves—for instance, by prohibiting the use of a state’s jail to restrain runaway slaves. Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut passed Personal Liberty Laws in 1854. Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan did so in 1855, followed by Kansas and Wisconsin in 1858, Ohio in 1859, and Pennsylvania in 1860. Reaction to the Fugitive Slave Laws also created the sympathy that propelled the success of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

The debates of 1849 and 1850 only worsened the mutual distrust between North and South. But the Compromise of 1850 bought some time before the ultimate dissolution of the nation’s political order.

14-1d Western Destiny Deferred Buying Cuba?

As the debates over the Compromise of 1850 demonstrated, admitting new states to the Union was bound to be contentious. In addition, southerners immediately noticed that there was more territory open for statehood in the North than in the South. Fearful of what this might portend, southern leaders sought to expand America’s territorial holdings southward, by expanding into Latin

America. Presidents Polk and Pierce, in fact, had both tried to buy the

island of Cuba from Spain, think- ing it could, perhaps, one day

become a slave state. When Polk’s offer was rebuffed,

a group of Americans tried to invade the island in order to bring it into the Union. They failed, but the adven- turers who attempted to take these lands came to be called filibusters, after the

Fugitive Slave Law Law passed as part of Compromise of 1850 requiring that all run- away slaves be returned to their masters; those who willfully ignored the law were to be punished

personal Liberty Laws A variety of laws designed to protect escaped slaves, such as by prohibiting the use of a state’s jail for run- away slaves; these laws passed in many northern states in the 1850s

filibusters Adventurers who attempted to invade the island of Cuba to bring it into the Union as a slave state

Read Calhoun’s speech.

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 238 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Kansas-Nebraska Act and New Political Parties 239

Spanish filibustero, for “pirate” or “freebooter.” The term was subsequently adopted to describe attempts to extend debate over a legislative proposal in order to hijack it or delay its passage.

The Slave Conspiracy These reckless attempts to create more southern states heightened northerners’ suspicions that the Democratic Party was plotting in league with slave owners. Abolitionists and Free Soilers viewed the Cuban plan as an indication that the South, rap- idly being outpaced in population growth by the North, was desperate to acquire new slave states to maintain parity in the Senate. Sensing a conspiracy, northerners fought hard to prevent further acces- sions to slaveholders’ power. Both sides were inten- sifying their opposition to the other.

14-2 The Kansas- Nebraska Act and New Political Parties

These sentiments erupted in the 1854 debate over the Kansas-Nebraska Act. And, again, it was expan- sion in the West that brought the issue of slavery to a head within the nation’s corridors of power.

14-2a Slavery in Kansas and Nebraska?

By the early 1850s, plans were under way to build the nation’s first transcontinental railroad, and Senator Douglas of Illinois wanted Chicago to serve as the new railway’s major hub. But Chicago could not serve as the hub if the unorganized northern portion of the Louisiana Purchase remained unor- ganized and unpopulated; it wouldn’t make any sense to put a railroad where there were no people and where the United States had little political pres- ence. To eliminate this problem, Douglas began to push for the creation of several new territories in that northern region, where today sit Kansas and Nebraska.

The problem with Douglas’s plan was that, according to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery was prohibited in the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase. Southerners therefore resisted Douglas’s efforts, fearing that when those territories eventually became states, they would become free states, tipping the balance of power in the Senate against the South.

>> “Senator Douglas was very small, not over four and a half feet height, and there was a noticeable disproportion between the long trunk of his body and his short legs. His chest was broad and indicated great strength of lungs. It took but a glance at his face and head to convince one that they belonged to no ordinary man. No beard hid any part of his remarkable, swarthy features. His mouth, nose, and chin were all large and clearly expressive of much boldness and power of will.”—Journalist Henry Villard, 1858

Li b

ra ry

o f

C o

ng re

ss , P

ri nt

s &

P ho

to gr

ap hs

D iv

is io

n, L

C -D

IG -c

w p

b h-

00 88

The Kansas-Nebraska Act Douglas, a shrewd states- man, devised a compromise to ensure that southerners would support the develop- ment of the new territories. Douglas created two territo- ries, Kansas and Nebraska (Map 14.1), and left the status of slavery in each territory open, to be decided by the popular sovereignty of those who settled there. In the end, this meant that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 did not apply because slavery might have been allowed above 36830', had the resi- dents of Kansas or Nebraska so chosen. Many north- erners were outraged at the prospect, but a coalition of northern Democrats (who wanted the transcon- tinental railroad) and southerners (who wanted

a maintenance of slavery) passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act by a narrow margin.

Kansas-Nebraska act The 1854 act that created two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, and left the sta- tus of slavery in each ter- ritory open, to be decided by the popular sovereignty of those who settled there

Read the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 239 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

240 Chapter 14 The Impending Crisis

14-2b The Death of the Second Two-Party System

The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act had two direct results: (1) it contributed to the demise of the Whig Party, and (2) it sparked a race to popu- late Kansas, because the fate of slavery in Kansas would be decided by voters there. The race would lead to tension, then conflict, and, ultimately, violence.

But the first result to become visible was the fatal weakening of America’s second two-party sys- tem, splitting both parties along regional lines. Northern Whigs found themselves at odds with southern members of the party who opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act; southern Whigs abandoned the party altogether to join the Democrats, who

were more clearly supporting slavery. Many north- ern Democrats, meanwhile, were increasingly sym- pathetic to parties like the Free Soilers. At the same time, several new political parties emerged, all of which spoke mostly for regional issues. By 1856, there were no longer any national political parties. The political system was crumbling over the issues of slavery and westward expansion.

The Know-Nothing Party One of the new parties to arise in the 1850s was the American Party, which built its base of support on anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment. The American Party was an outgrowth of a secret society called the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner. As a secret society, its members vowed to answer all inquiries about the Order with the response “I know

Map 14.1. Kansas-Nebraska and the Slavery Issue . Cengage Learning 2014

0 150 300 Mi.

1:20,000,000 Albers Equal Area center: 0°N, 96°W

standard parallels: 29.5°N, 45.5°N

150 300 Km.

A T

L A

N T

I C

C E

A N

P A

C I

F I

O C

E A

110°W 100°W 90°W 80°W 70°W

40°N

30°N

120°W

ME.

N.H. VT.

N.Y. MASS.

CONN. R.I.

N.J.

DEL.

MD.

PA. OHIO

MICH. WIS.

IOWA

ILL. IND.

KY.

TENN.

VA.

N.C.

S.C.

GA.ALA. MISS.

ARK.

MO.

LA.

FLA.

TEXAS

CALIFORNIA

INDIAN TERRITORY

MINNESOTA TERRITORYNEBRASKA

TERRITORY 1854

KANSAS TERRITORY 1854

UTAH TERRITORY

NEW MEXICO TERRITORY

OREGON TERRITORY

WASHINGTON TER

R .

M E X I C O

B R I T I S H N O R T H A M E R I C A ( C A N A D A )

MISSOURI

KANSAS TERRITORY

Lecompton Topeka

Kansas City

Leavenworth

Shawnee Mission

Marais des Cygnes May 19, 1858

Oswatomie Aug. 31, 1856

Lawrence May 21, 1856

Pottawatomie Creek May 24,1856

an sas

M issouri R.

Osage R.

0 10 20 Mi.

10 20 Km.“BLEEDING KANSAS”

Attack by free-state forces Attack by proslavery forces

Missouri Compromise Line, 36˚30’

Mason and Dixon Line

0 200 400 Mi.

200 400 Km.

Opened to slavery by principle of popular sovereignty, Compromise of 1850 Opened to slavery by principle of popular sovereignty, Kansas-Nebraska Act, 1854 Present-day Kansas

Free state or territory

Slave state or territory

Cengage Learning Ms00351b Kansas-Nebraska and the Slavery Issue Trim 45p0 x 34p0

Final: 7/9/12

TYPE BLOCK MAP Bleeds top, right Position top map trim at top page trim Align left map trim on type block

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 240 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Kansas-Nebraska Act and New Political Parties 241

nothing.” Consequently, the American Party came to be known as the Know-Nothing Party.

Believing that “Americans should rule America,” the Know-Nothings wanted to prevent the masses of new immigrants from gaining political rights. They advocated changing naturalization laws so that immigrants would be required to wait twenty- one years (as opposed to just five) before they could apply for citizenship, and they particularly targeted Irish Catholics. As they saw it, Catholics took their instructions from the pope and did not exercise the independence of mind necessary to function as democratic citizens. The Know-Nothings prided themselves on disdaining the very things the Irish stereotypically embraced: alcoholism, urban disor- der, and poverty. The party appealed to middle-class and working men who saw immigrants as their main competition for industrial jobs.

Very quickly, the Know-Nothings won several elections, suggesting the appeal of nativist ideas in mid-nineteenth-century America and the faltering status of the two longer-standing parties. In 1853, just a year after they formally established their party, the Know-Nothings won important electoral victories in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Ohio, the states that had experienced the most dramatic influx of immigrants. By 1855, the Know-Nothings had more than 1 million voters enrolled in their vari- ous lodges. Although they were never a command- ing national party, the rise of the Know-Nothings is significant not only as a testament to the appeal of anti-Catholic nativism in the 1850s, but also because its rise killed off the Whig Party. Southern Whigs had deserted the party in order to join the Democrats, and many northern Whigs flocked to more locally oriented parties like the Know-Nothings.

After its meteoric rise, the popularity of the Know-Nothings plummeted just as rapidly. When the Know-Nothings failed to achieve their goals of changing naturalization laws and restricting the political rights of immigrants, members became disillusioned. And by that time there were also other parties to join.

The Republican Party Most of the disaffected Know-Nothings joined another political party that was forming at the time, the Republican Party. Unlike any other party except the Free Soilers, the Republican Party was explicitly antislavery; its main goal was to prevent any further expansion of slavery in the West. Its platform included support for homesteading rights, a protective tariff, and internal improvements— most of the components of the American System.

The Republicans succeeded in unifying numerous anti- slavery groups, including the Free Soilers. They also drew support from north- ern Whigs and Democrats who were infuriated by the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the idea of popular sovereignty.

Two Parties from Two Regions The Republicans were a purely sectional party, draw- ing most of their strength from antislavery sen- timent in the North. Because the North had a significantly larger population than the South, the Republicans expected that they could eventually win the presidency without courting southern voters. Therefore, by the late 1850s, after the downfall of the Know-Nothings, a new sectional party system was established, pitting antislavery northern Republicans against proslavery southern Democrats. This decline of national parties and the rise of sectional ones would accelerate the political crisis of the 1850s.

Know-Nothing party The American Party, a new political party of the 1850s that built its base of sup- port on anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic sentiment

republican party Explicitly antislavery party that emerged in the politi- cal turmoil of the 1850s; although not abolitionist, it favored “free-soil” move- ments to keep slavery out of the West

>> Popular music was on the rise during the 1850s, so it was inevitable that someone would compose a song for the new political party. Its sheet music cover is loaded with symbols of Americanism, from the eagle and flags to native pumpkins and corn.

Li b

ra ry

o f

C o

ng re

ss , P

ri nt

s &

P ho

to gr

ap hs

D iv

is io

n, L

C -U

S Z

62 -1

94 31

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 241 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

242 Chapter 14 The Impending Crisis

14-2c “Bleeding Kansas”

So what would become of Kansas? Would it enter the Union as a slave state or a

free one? Under the doctrine of popular sovereignty, voters in Kansas would decide.

Popular Sovereignty The problem was that there weren’t many people in Kansas in 1854, so both parties (and their subsequent supporting groups) sent people to Kansas, just in time to vote in the election. Slaveholders in neigh- boring Missouri were fearful of having a free state just across their border. Being especially eager to see Kansas become a slave state, they encouraged slave- holding families to migrate immediately to Kansas. At the same time, abolitionists sent northern set- tlers to Kansas. One effort, led by New Englander Ely Thayer, sent nearly 1,250 colonists to Kansas, where they established Lawrence as a strong antislavery town. The tension between the two settling groups was palpable and violence flared up with increasing frequency, each side trying to frighten the other away.

The Stolen Election With both sides actively working to promote their own interests, Kansas became a bitterly divided territory. When the first territorial legislature was elected in 1855, throngs of men from Missouri, who came to be known as “border ruffians,” crossed the border for the day and stuffed the ballot boxes, electing a proslavery government. Only 2,900 reg- istered voters lived in Kansas, but more than 6,000 ballots were cast. The advocates of slavery had sto- len the election.

Kansas’s new proslavery government imme- diately set out to crush its opposition and make Kansas a slave territory. It expelled antislavery representatives from the legislature and made it a crime to publicly advocate Free Soil principles or help a fugitive slave. Opponents appealed to the White House, but President Franklin Pierce sup- ported southern interests. His opponents called him a “dough face,” that derisive name for a northerner who openly supported the South. Forced to fend for themselves, antislavery Kansans formed a rival gov- ernment in the city of Topeka. For a time, there were two functioning state governments in Kansas.

The Bleeding Inevitably, this bitterly contested conflict erupted into violence. In 1856, a mob of proslavery men

sacked the Free Soil town of Lawrence. The town was put to the torch, but no one was killed. The violence enraged John Brown, a zealous abolitionist who considered himself God’s executioner of justice. To avenge the attack on Lawrence, Brown and his sons entered the town of Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas, rounded up five proslavery advocates, none of whom was a slaveholder, and butchered them. Brown’s acts inspired more vigilan- tism, and atrocities were met with counter-atrocities. As the newspapers reported, Kansas was bleeding.

Kansas’s Constitution In June 1857, the people of Kansas elected another set of delegates to a convention in the town of Lecompton. The convention was charged with drawing up a state constitution. People opposed to slavery, however, boycotted the election on the grounds that the voting districts had been drawn so as to make it more difficult for them to elect antislavery representatives. Their boycott ensured that most of the men sent to the convention sup- ported slavery, and predictably, they created a state constitution that made slavery legal in Kansas. Their constitution was called the Lecompton Constitution.

Free Soilers Strike Back In a provocative move, the convention refused to allow the citizens of Kansas a chance to challenge

Read a contem- porary account of the “sacking

of Lawrence.”

Lecompton Constitution The 1857 state constitu- tion that made slavery legal in Kansas; subse- quently defeated in 1858

>> Throngs of men from Missouri, who came to be known as “border ruffians,” crossed the border into Kansas for the day and stuffed ballot boxes. Only 2,900 registered voters lived in Kansas, but more than 6,000 ballots were cast.

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 242 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Kansas-Nebraska Act and New Political Parties 243

or reject the Lecompton Constitution. In the popular referendum that followed, Kansans were allowed to vote only on whether more slaves would be allowed into the territory, not on the legality of slavery itself. President James Buchanan, elected to succeed Pierce in 1856, was eager to satisfy the southern branch of the Democratic Party, so he backed the Lecompton Constitution despite what he knew about the anti- democratic convention that had created it. Senator Stephen Douglas, however, refused to support some- thing so questionable, even though doing so angered the southern members of his party. President Buchanan pulled enough political strings to get the Senate to accept the constitution without Douglas’s support, but he could not garner enough votes for it to pass in the House of Representatives. When no

agreement could be reached on the issue, Congress sent the Lecompton Constitution back to Kansas for another vote by its people. This time,

the Free Soilers participated in the vote and resound- ingly rejected the proslavery constitution.

Outcomes Although the Lecompton Constitution was ultimately defeated, the shenanigans surrounding its creation disgusted northerners, and the controversy convinced many northern Democrats to switch to the Republican Party. With each new political crisis, the sectional divide between northern Republicans and southern Democrats became more and more profound.

14-2d “Bleeding Sumner” Events in the Senate only intensified the animosity. The reports from Kansas had caused emotions to run high among America’s congressmen. No one was more vocal in his outrage than Charles Sumner, a Republican from Massachusetts who was perhaps the Senate’s most outspoken opponent of slavery. Shortly before the burning of Lawrence (and John Brown’s subsequent retaliation in Pottawatomie Creek), Sumner delivered a speech in Congress entitled “The Crime Against Kansas,” which blamed slavery for all the violence. In addition, Sumner made per- sonally insulting remarks about Andrew P. Butler, a proslavery senator from South Carolina, leading many in attendance to believe that Sumner was deliberately pro- voking an attack.

The Caning of Sumner Butler was not at the capi- tol to defend himself, and he was too old and feeble to do so anyway. But his nephew Preston Brooks, a South Carolina representa- tive in the House, stepped in on Butler’s behalf. Brooks himself had been a southern moderate before being galvanized by the events in Kansas. On May 22, 1856, just two days after Sumner delivered his vilifying speech, Brooks entered the Senate chamber and proceeded to beat Sumner senseless with his metal- topped cane. With his first blow, Brooks opened a gash in Sumner’s head and sent him careening to the floor. Brooks then pounced on his victim and continued to strike him in the head, even after his cane had shattered to pieces. It took more than three years for Sumner to recover from his injuries.

In the opinion of many northerners, “Bleeding Sumner” came to match “Bleeding Kansas” as a symbol of southern barbarity. Certain southerners were proud of the caning, however, for its literal and symbolic value. Many of them mailed new canes to Brooks, with messages like “Hit Him Again.” The epi- sode captured in a moment the nation’s breakdown of reason on the eve of civil war.

14-2e The Election of 1856 The Republicans Bleeding Kansas and the caning of Sumner were featured as central images in the 1856 Republican

“the Crime against Kansas” Speech delivered in Congress by Charles Sumner, Republican of Massachusetts, that blamed slavery for the violence between pro- and antislavery activists in Kansas

Read the section on slavery from the Lecompton

Constitution.

>> With his first blow, Brooks opened a gash in Sumner’s head and sent him careening to the floor. Brooks pounced on Sumner and continued to strike him in the head, even after his cane had shattered to pieces. To Northerners, his action came to symbolize Southern barbarity.

T he

N ew

Y o

rk P

ub lic

L ib

ra ry

/A rt

R es

o ur

ce , N

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 243 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

244 Chapter 14 The Impending Crisis

presidential campaign. The Republican candidate, John C. Frémont, founder of the free state of California, ran on a platform that denounced slavery as a “relic of bar- barism.” Frémont called for Kansas to be admitted to the Union as a free state, as the most recent vote there had suggested. There were several central themes in the Republican agenda, including expanding inter-

nal improvements and embracing the Market Revolution. But none were more important than the promotion of personal independence and free labor. Blocking the expansion of slavery in the territories, argued the Republicans, was essential to giving free white men the opportunity to establish homesteads for themselves in the West.

The Slave Power Conspiracy The Republicans openly condemned the South’s planter class. They argued that slaveholders were a minority group wielding a disproportionate amount of power. They believed that, in order to preserve slavery, southern leaders would be willing to attack and silence anyone who advocated against slavery. According to Republican propaganda, the Slave Power Conspiracy intended to outlaw free speech and make all Americans accept proslavery principles.

The Election Northerners comprised the majority of the American population, and the Republicans believed it was time for the northern majority to control the national government. In 1856, Republican rhetoric proved powerful at the ballot box, but not quite power- ful enough. Out of the sixteen free states, Frémont won eleven. Millard Fillmore, the American Party candidate, managed to take only Maryland, a slave state. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, won thirteen of the fourteen slaveholding states, as well as the five free states that eluded Frémont. It was just enough for Buchanan to get into the White House.

Results The election made two things clear: (1) American voters were divided into sectional parties, and (2) despite Buchanan’s victory, the Republicans were close to having enough support in the North to win a presidential election without winning a single

southern state. The South was politically outnum- bered and knew it.

14-3 Three Events That Catapulted the Nation into War

In this heated atmosphere, three events pushed sentiments over the top: (1) the Dred Scott contro- versy, (2) John Brown’s raid, and (3) the election of 1860. The events of the 1850s had pushed American politics to the brink of collapse. These three events would finish the job.

14-3a The Dred Scott Controversy On March 4, 1857, Buchanan was inaugurated as president, and two days later, he confronted a con- troversial Supreme Court decision that threatened to intensify sectional tensions.

Dred Scott A Missouri slave named Dred Scott had been taken by his owner to live for a few years in Illinois and the Wisconsin territory, where slavery was illegal. Eventually, however, Scott and his master returned to Missouri. With the help of antislavery advocates, Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that his residence in a free state and a free territory had made him a free man.

The case forced the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether Scott’s residence in Illinois and Wisconsin made him free. By a 7-to-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott. As Chief Justice Roger Taney explained, Scott had returned to Missouri before attempting to claim his freedom, and within Missouri he was a slave.

Slavery as Law of the Land But Chief Justice Taney used the case to do much more. Taney added remarks to his opinion that were intended to prevent black bondsmen from suing for their freedom ever again. In an incredibly bold state- ment, Taney asserted that the law Scott had cited— the Missouri Compromise—was unconstitutional because Congress had no right to prohibit slavery anywhere in the United States. A slaveholder could thus take his slaves anywhere he or she wanted within the Union, including free states, without los- ing title to them. By this logic, any attempt to restrict the westward march of slavery was prohibited by the land’s highest court. This meant the Compromise of

Slave power Conspiracy Specter raised by anti- slavery Republicans who believed that, in order to preserve slavery, southern leaders would be willing to attack and silence anyone who advocated against slavery; allegedly the conspiracy intended to outlaw free speech and make all Americans accept proslavery principles

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 244 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Three Events That Catapulted the Nation into War 245

1850, California’s free-state status, and every state law prohibiting slavery ran afoul of the Constitution.

Republicans were out- raged, interpreting the Dred Scott decision as proof that the Slave Power Conspiracy was as strong as ever. With the prohibition of slav- ery declared illegal by the Supreme Court, Republicans wondered if the South would attempt to renationalize slavery, as it had been before the Revolutionary War. Taney had, after all, declared slav- ery to be the law of the entire land.

Northerners could not accept this. Their fears made antislavery forces in the North all the more deter- mined to reduce the South’s political power in the country, deepening the sense of alienation and crisis between the two regions.

14-3b John Brown’s Raid Following the Dred Scott decision, John Brown, the radical abolitionist who had provoked some of the violence in “Bleeding Kansas,” intensified the sectional crisis again. In October 1859, with eigh- teen of his followers, he raided the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry in northwestern Virginia. Brown envisioned that, after seizing the armory, he would rally the slaves in the surrounding area to join him in revolt against their oppressors.

To Brown’s surprise, how- ever, no slaves joined his side after he daringly seized control of the arsenal. Most were afraid Brown would be unsuccessful and did not want to risk their lives for the actions of a crazy man. Within three days, federal troops under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee captured Brown and six of his cohorts. They were summarily tried for treason. Brown refused to give up the fight; throughout his trial, he spoke

passionately against slavery and accepted his conviction and death sentence with the calm resignation of a martyr. On December 2, 1859, the state of Virginia hanged him.

Results John Brown’s raid was a dis- mal failure that horrified even some northerners. A few high-profile northerners praised Brown in no uncertain terms, though. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the prominent phi- losopher and abolitionist, publicly proclaimed Brown a “saint.” Although views like Emerson’s were probably in the minority, southerners fix- ated on such remarks as evi-

dence that the North was out to destroy slavery and crush the “southern way of life.” Brown failed to arouse the revolt he had planned, but he did succeed in inspiring a keen sense of fear and loathing among the southern public. What the Dred Scott deci- sion was to northerners, John Brown’s raid was to

southerners: an unfathom- able, appalling episode that highlighted the gulf between the regions.

14-3c The Election of 1860 The implosion of national party poli-

tics and the sense of isolation felt in the North and the South came to a

head in the election of 1860.

The Democrats In April of 1860, the Democratic Party held its convention in Charleston, South Carolina, and the sectional divide between northern and south- ern members generated pal- pable tension. Stephen A. Douglas was a clear favorite

for the nomination, but south- ern Democrats had become dis-

gusted with his leadership after he refused to endorse Kansas’s

proslavery constitution. Moreover, to nominate Douglas meant accepting

John Brown.

“During the affair the negroes about H F were

terribly alarmed and clung as closely as they could to master and mistress. One negro hid under a water wheel in the armory canal and didn’t

come out till Tuesday—and then was afraid Brown might

catch him.” —Charles White, eyewitness account of the

1859 raid on Harper’s Ferry

Learn more about John Brown’s raid.

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 245 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

246 Chapter 14 The Impending Crisis

the idea of popular sover- eignty, which Douglas still supported and which con- tained within it the chance that antislavery forces would carry the day. Douglas had articulated his advocacy of popular sovereignty in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, when Douglas and his opponent for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, publicly debated the issue of slavery. After the Dred Scott decision, southern Democrats wanted

their party to agree with the Supreme Court that slavery could not be barred from any U.S. territory. Douglas would not accede to such a demand.

Thus the Democrats could not agree on a can- didate who would satisfy the party’s northern and southern members. They decided instead to adjourn the convention and reassemble in Baltimore in July. This second Democratic convention nominated Douglas, but the southern delegates refused the nomination and walked out. That move confirmed the long-standing divide within the party, and the Democratic Party officially split into northern and southern wings. The northern branch stood behind

Douglas, and southerners backed the current vice president, John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, on a plat- form that called for the creation of a national slave code protecting slavery everywhere in the Union.

The Republicans Meanwhile, the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln, who was an attractive candidate for two reasons. First, Lincoln had become known after the Lincoln-Douglas Debates as a moderate on the slav- ery question. Although he believed that slavery was an evil institution and he wished to keep it out of the western territories, he did not aspire to end slav- ery in the southern states where it already existed. Republican leaders felt that this position would appeal to the general public of the North, which hoped to avoid greater conflict if possible. Second, Lincoln was from Illinois, a state the Republicans had failed to carry in 1856. If the Republicans were to win in 1860, they needed to win Illinois.

The Final Sectional Division In addition to Republicans (who had nominated Lincoln), northern Democrats (Douglas), and south- ern Democrats (Breckinridge), a fourth party entered the race with hopes that a showdown between North and South could be averted. The Constitutional Union Party nominated John Bell of Tennessee as their pres- idential candidate. Its simple platform was to avoid

Read the first Lincoln-Douglas debate on the

spread of slavery.

Read Lincoln’s powerful “House Divided” speech.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates Public debates on slav- ery between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln as they com- peted for the Illinois Senate seat in 1858

>> The Lincoln-Douglas debate at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858, where Douglass advocated “popular sovereignty.”

A rt

R es

o ur

ce , N

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 246 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Secession and Civil War 247

all discussion of slavery in an attempt to raise the Constitution and the Union above all schisms.

Despite the best intentions of the Constitutional Union Party, the election was not really a national contest. In the North, only Lincoln and Douglas held any popular appeal; in the South, the race was between Breckinridge and Bell. When all the votes were in, Lincoln emerged with the most votes, but not a majority of them. But because his base of sup- port was in the populous states of the North, Lincoln won 180 votes in the Electoral College, just enough to secure victory.

Results Lincoln won the presidency as a sectional candidate. He did not win a single southern state (Map 14.2 on page 249), and his platform revealed his intention to halt the westward expansion of slavery. Although

Democrats still controlled Congress, the North’s ability to dictate the 1860 presiden-

tial election outcome confirmed the southern states’ worst fear: they had lost control of national politics. The institution of slavery was in peril.

14-4 Secession and Civil War

In the eyes of many southerners, Lincoln’s election spelled the end of the southern way of life as they knew it. Although Lincoln had actually affirmed the rights of the states in his campaign speeches, the South saw his opposition to the spread of slavery in the West as a serious threat. If all the western terri- tories became free states, southerners assumed the Republicans would amend the Constitution and out- law slavery everywhere. Many southerners believed it would be better to leave the Union before the hor- rors of abolition were inflicted upon them. (For more on slavery’s role in the start of the Civil War, see “The reasons why . . .”)

Read Lincoln’s Inaugural Address.

Economics. The New England and Middle Colonies in the North had developed differently than the Chesapeake and Southern Colonies in the South, with those in the South more reliant on staple crops and, after the decline of indentured servitude in the 1680s, on slav- ery as well. These differences only accelerated during the Market Revolution. In the first half of the nineteenth century, states and ter- ritories in the North embraced internal improvements and the com- munication and transportation revolutions of the time, while wealthy landowners in the South were slow to embrace such changes, content that their plantations’ reliance on rivers would be sufficient to enrich the region. With slave-grown cotton at a premium during the period, they were right. However, this gamble made them reliant on cotton, and on the slaves that cultivated it.

Westward expansion. After the Revolution, many northern states began the long process of ending slavery in the North. They recalled the arguments they had made against England about the impor- tance of liberty, and they were not as economically dependent on a handful of slave-grown crops, as was the case in the South. In the South, however, the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 made cotton easier to grow, and a farmer who owned a little land and a few slaves could become wealthy. Thus, any talk of abolition in the South ceased, and these smaller farmers began pushing west, look- ing for land on which they could grow cotton and bring their slaves. For their part, most white northerners wanted to keep slavery out of the West, not because they hated the institution of slavery (though some did), but principally because they did not want to compete against those with access to unfree labor.

Political breakdown. The westward expansion of slavery immedi- ately created political problems. The House of Representatives and the Senate had agreed to develop a balance between slave states and free states, but with the proposed admission of new western states, the balance was threatened. A series of compromises in 1820, 1850, and 1854 allayed a few of the most problematic west- ern additions, but the compromises took their toll on the various political parties, as many supporters would not abide by their party’s compromises. By 1856, there were no longer any nationally unified parties, only sectional ones. After the newly formed Republican Party won the election of 1860 with support only from northern states, several states in the South seceded and attempted to drive American forces from the new Confederate States of America. Lincoln vowed to keep the nation together, and fought back.

An enraged populace. Not all northerners eagerly supported Lincoln, but many did. They did so because they viewed the South and slavery as barbarous and backward, and they were afraid that southerners wanted to renationalize slavery. If they were white, this “Slave Power Conspiracy” would limit their options as free white peo- ple, allowing slavery to sneak into areas in the West where they had the most to gain financially. They may not have been abolitionists, but they wanted to keep slavery from expanding. Many southerners, for their part, viewed the North as intent on ending slavery, and they were personally hurt by claims that they were backward and bar- barous. These tensions led to violence in the West and even on the floor of the Senate. After the election of 1860, the enraged tempers meant that many people would be willing to fight for their side.

There were at least four major reasons why slavery plunged the nation into civil war in 1861:

the reasons why . . .}{

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 247 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

248 Chapter 14 The Impending Crisis

Americans had consid- ered secession in the past. Ever since the founding of the nation, defenders of “states’ rights” had argued that any state should be able to “nullify” laws passed by the federal government and even withdraw from the Union should it so desire. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson claimed the right of nul- lification in his Kentucky Resolution; disgruntled New England Federalists threat-

ened to leave the Union during the War of 1812; and South Carolina’s great statesman John C. Calhoun had in the 1830s defended the South’s right to “dis- union” in order to protect it from what he called “northern aggression.” In these prior cases, however, only the most hotheaded ideologues urged seces- sion. Until 1860, southerners had held back from dividing the country. That changed with Lincoln’s election.

14-4a The Deep South Secedes South Carolina took the lead. On December 20, 1860, a state convention repealed South Carolina’s ratifica- tion of the U.S. Constitution and voted to withdraw from the Union. It did not want to be part of a nation in which it had no control. Over the next six weeks, several other southern states—Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas—followed

suit. Together, on February 7, 1861, they established the Confederate States of America: an independent, southern slave republic. The Confederate States of America elected Jefferson Davis of Mississippi as the new nation’s first president.

Lower South versus Upper South Seceding was not a unanimous choice for these southern states. The planter class was the driv- ing force behind the movement. Those counties that had a large number of slaveholding families tended to vote for secession in the secessionist conventions, while those areas with few slaves typically voted against it. Therefore, the initial wave of secession was confined to the Deep South (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Florida), where slave-based agriculture was more fully established. The Upper South (Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee), by contrast, had a more diversified economy. Those states chose not to secede in the winter of 1860–1861. It would take actual battle to drive them to pick sides.

14-4b Conciliatory Efforts A handful of attempts were made to prevent this situation from exploding in war, notably by John Crittenden and Abraham Lincoln.

Crittenden Compromise The first last-ditch effort at reconciliation was spearheaded by John Crittenden of Kentucky. Crittenden proposed that the Missouri Compromise line of 1820 be resurrected and extended all the way to the Pacific, excluding California. All land north of the line would be free, all land south of it would be open to slavery. Moreover, he recommended that an “unamendable amendment” be made to the Constitution, guaranteeing the preservation of slav- ery in the southern states where it already existed.

The Crittenden Compromise proved unwork- able. Secessionists in the Deep South had no interest in returning to the Union. The Republicans, who had been elected to office on a platform that called for prohibiting the expansion of slavery, did not want to renege on their campaign promises. Thus, the Crittenden Compromise was a nonstarter, and the only question remaining was whether the states

Read South Carolina’s dec- laration of the

causes of secession.

Read the Crittenden Compromise.

Crittenden Compromise Reconciliation proposal advocating that the Missouri Compromise line of 1820 be extended all the way to the Pacific, excluding California, with all land north of the line free, all land south of it open to slavery; also included an “unamend- able amendment” to the Constitution, guarantee- ing the preservation of slavery in the southern states where it already existed

>> The first flag of the Confederate States of America, called “the Stars and Bars,” was flown from March 5, 1861, to May 26, 1863.

S hu

tt er

st o

ck .c

o m

/P at

sy M

ic ha

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 248 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Secession and Civil War 249

Washington, D.C.

4 5

11 10

INDIAN TERRITORY

TEXAS

MISSOURI

ARKANSAS

LA.

WIS.

ILLINOIS

MICH.

IND. OHIO

W.VA.

PA.

N.Y.

ME.

VT.

N.H. MASS.

R.I.

CONN.N.J.

DEL.MD.

VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE SOUTH

CAROLINA

GEORGIA

FLA.

ALABAMA MISS.

N. MEX. TERR.

KANSAS COLORADO TERRITORY

DAKOTA TERRITORY

NEBRASKA TERRITORY IOWA

MINN.

(1863)

Seceded before fall of Fort Sumter

Seceded after fall of Fort Sumter

Slave state loyal to the Union

Free state or territory

Order of secession

The Progress of Secession

NEBRASKA TERR.

KANSAS TERR.

UNORG. TERR.

INDIAN TERR.

UTAH TERR.

NEW MEXICO TERR.

WASHINGTON TERR.

ME.

MO.

TEXAS

IOWA

OREGON

CALIF.

MINN.

ARK.

LA.

MISS. ALA.

ILL. IND.

MICH. WISC.

OHIO

KY.

TENN.

GA.

FLA.

S.C.

N.C.

VA.

PA.

N.Y.

MD.

N.H. VT.

MASS.

CONN.

R.I.

N.J.

DEL.

R-8

ND-9

SD-4

R-4

R-3

R-4

SD-4

SD-6

SD-7 SD-9

R-11 R-13

R-6 R-5

R-23

CU-12

SD-10

SD-3

SD-8

SD-10

CU-15

R-27

R-35

SD-8

R-5 R-5

R-13

R-6

R-4

R-4/ND-3

SD-3

Lincoln (Republican) Douglas (Northern Democrat)

180 59.4% 1,865,593 39.8%

1,382,713 29.5%

848,356 18.1%

592,906 12.6%

Electoral VoteCandidate (Party)

Counties Carried by Candidates in the 1860 Presidential Election Popular Vote

12 3.9%

Breckinridge (Southern Democrat)

72 23.8%

39 12.9%Bell (Constitutional Union)

Territories, no returns

Cengage Learning Ms00356a The Election of 1860 and Southern Secession Trim 35p6 x 50p0

Final: 7/9/12

TYPE BLOCK MAP No bleeds Position FL on type block

Map 14.2. The Election of 1860 and Southern Secession . Cengage Learning 2014

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 249 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

250 Chapter 14 The Impending Crisis

of the Deep South would be permitted to withdraw from the Union.

Lincoln’s Middle Course After his inauguration on March 4, 1861, Lincoln attempted to chart a middle course. He sought to reassure southerners that he would not interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed. Slave states that did not secede would be allowed to main- tain slavery. At the same time, Lincoln, like Andrew Jackson before him, maintained that the Union was perpetual and that no state could withdraw from it. Furthermore, he insisted that federal property in the southern states (forts, arsenals, and customs houses) still belonged to the Union.

Lincoln put the ball in the Confederacy’s court. It was up to the southern states to either return to the Union or face civil war. He had invited them back and granted them slavery where it already existed, maintaining the status quo. What would the Confederates do?

14-4c Fort Sumter Army rations became the deciding factor. The dead- lock was shaken when the federal garrison at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, located just off the coast

of Charleston (now a city in the Confederate States of America), ran low on food. Provisions needed to be sent to the U.S. troops there, or they

would have to surrender the fort to the Confederacy. By March 1861, only six weeks of supplies remained.

In early April 1861, President Lincoln organized a relief expedition to the fort. Hopeful that war could

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot

endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do

not expect the house to fall—but I do expect

it will cease to be divided.”

—Abraham Lincoln, June 16, 1858

Explore further information about Fort

Sumter.

Chronology 1846 Wilmot Proviso

1850 Compromise of 1850

1852 Uncle Tom’s Cabin

1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act

1856 “Bleeding Kansas,” “Bleeding Sumner”

1857 Dred Scott decision

1859 John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia

1860 Abraham Lincoln elected president

1861 Southern states secede

April 12, 1861 Firing on Fort Sumter

>> Abraham Lincoln circa 1860.

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 250 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Secession and Civil War 251

be avoided, Lincoln assured the governor of South Carolina that the ships sent to supply Fort Sumter would contain only food, not guns or ammunition. Jefferson Davis, however, declared that any attempt to send provisions to Fort Sumter would be consid- ered an aggressive act against the Confederacy. As a preemptive move, Davis ordered General Pierre

Beauregard, the Confederate Army commander in Charleston, to demand Fort Sumter’s immedi- ate surrender. If the garrison of eighty-five men refused to sur- render, Davis ordered Beauregard to open fire. On April 12, 1861, when Beauregard’s demands were rejected, Confederate batteries began shelling Fort Sumter. By the evening of April 13, the garrison capitulated.

Looking Ahead . . . In the wake of Fort Sumter’s sur- render, Abraham Lincoln called for

75,000 volunteers to put down the southern rebel- lion. Northerners eagerly rallied behind Lincoln and resolved to bring the secessionists to their knees. Lincoln had been savvy. By inviting the South to attack a U.S. fort, he had allowed a broad swath of northerners to support the suppression of the insurrection without forcing them to take a stand on slavery. The South was also coming together. In response to Lincoln’s attempt to “coerce” the rebel states back into the Union, the Upper South states of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas threw their lot in with the Confederacy; they too seceded from the Union.

Battle lines were now drawn. What was des- tined to become the bloodiest war in American history had begun. Later, in Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, he said, “all knew” that slavery “was somehow the cause of the war.” But it took time and a variety of factors before it became the driving force in the breakup of the Union. The political crisis of the 1850s, sparked by the question of whether slavery would be allowed in the West, finally erupted into civil war.

>> The bombardment of Fort Sumter. T

he A

rt G

al le

ry C

o lle

ct io

n /

A la

m y

What else was happening . . . 1842 Abraham Lincoln accepts a challenge to a duel

from James Shields, the Democratic state auditor. (The duel never takes place.)

1845 The rubber band is patented.

1850 Taiping Rebellion in China begins. This civil war, which lasts fourteen years, will see 20 million peo- ple die before the restoration of the Qing dynasty.

1853–1856 Crimean War pits Russia against Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia. It is considered the first “modern” war because of the tactical use of railroads and the telegraph. It is also the war in which Florence Nightingale pio- neers modern nursing.

1857 Indian Rebellion, protesting British colonial rule, lasts a year before the British finally suppress the rebellion.

February 11, 1861

Both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis leave their homes to be inaugurated president.

Visit the CourseMate website at www.cengagebrain.com for additional study tools and review materials for this chapter.

53548_ch14_ptg01_hr_234-251.indd 251 11/2/12 10:59 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

252 Chapter 15 The Continued Move West

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

15-1 Describe the areas of strength and advantage for each side at the beginning of the Civil War.

15-2 Explain why both sides in the Civil War believed the war would be brief, and describe the early conflicts that made that outcome unlikely.

15-3 Explain how preparing for and prosecuting the Civil War contributed to the transformation of the United States into a fully modern state.

15-4 Describe the actions of those who opposed the war in the North and of those who opposed the war in the South.

15-5 Discuss the events that occurred in 1863 and 1864 that demonstrated Lincoln’s strong will and his eventual determination that the end of the war should bring a definite end to slavery.

15-6 Describe and discuss the events that finally led to the utter defeat of the South and the end of the war.

15-7 Assess the significance of the Civil War for the nation.

The Civil War Chapter 15

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 252 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Each Side’s Strengths 253

“The war ended slavery and accelerated America’s modernization, shaping the nation

we live in today.” In hindsight, we know the Civil War was four years of prolonged and bloody battles. At the outbreak of fighting, however, neither northerners nor southerners took the pros- pect of fighting one another all that seriously. Both sides expected a short war with few casualties. Southerners believed that northerners were effete cowards lacking the mettle to sustain a prolonged battle. They thought that once the northern armies caught a glimpse of the South’s determination, northerners would drop their guns and let the South secede. Northerners, meanwhile, were certain that only southern slaveholders supported secession, and, because they were a tiny minority in the South, their lack of support would quickly become evident. Northerners also considered southerners ill prepared and ill equipped to take on the U.S. Army. The North expected the South’s will to fight to diminish rapidly.

As a consequence, northerners and southerners predicted that the war would not change their societies very dramatically. Southerners presumed that their plantation- based, slaveholding civilization would continue to thrive as it had for decades. Northerners imagined that the southern states would realize their error and return to the Union to resume amicable relations. Southerners would keep their slaves, most northerners thought, but slavery would be prevented from spreading westward.

All these predictions proved inaccurate. The fighting between North and South became fierce and vindictive, and casualties were high. In addition, when the North and the South emerged from the war in 1865, both were transformed from what they had been in 1861. In short, the war ended slavery and accelerated America’s modernization, shaping the nation we live in today.

15-1 Each Side’s Strengths 15-1a Northern Advantages In some ways, northern expectations for a quick victory were reasonable, because the Union possessed overwhelming material advantages over the South. The North’s pri- mary advantages were (1) more people, (2) more materials, and (3) more industry.

Population In 1861, the total population of the Union was around 22 million, compared to 9 million in the Confederacy. This statistic becomes even more impressive when one considers that 3.5 million of the Confederacy’s people were slaves, people clearly unwilling to fight on behalf of the perpetuation of slavery. In terms of military-age white males, the Union outnumbered the Confederacy four to one.

Lincoln’s proclamation did not end slavery; slaves themselves ended slavery. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

         

What do you think?

<< The Civil War turned out to be a long and bloody struggle that dramatically reshaped the nation. Soldiers often commented on how loud and violent the weapons of modern warfare truly were.

iS to

ck p

ho to

.c o

m /J

o an

na P

ec ha

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 253 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

254 Chapter 15 The Civil War

Materials and Industry The northern states had other advan- tages as well. The North had an exist- ing navy and produced more firearms than the South. It also produced more of the essential provisions of war, including coal, textiles, corn, and wheat. By all estimates, the North was better able to outfit its men with weapons, clothing, shoes, and food. The North also had a more extensive network of railroad lines for trans- porting those supplies and a larger pool of money

to finance its war effort. The Union possessed about $200 million in bank deposits, while the Confederacy had only $47 million.

15-1b Southern Advantages The Confederacy did have certain strengths, how- ever, including (1) the will to fight, (2) the fact that it is easier to fight a defensive battle, and (3) a wealth of talented military leaders.

Will to Fight First, northerners severely underestimated the south- ern will to fight. While only slaveholders had taken the lead in the secession movement, by April 1861, most southerners supported the bid for Confederate independence, and they were willing to fight to win it.

A Defensive Battle The Union also had to wage an offensive war to occupy the South, while the Confederacy had the simpler task of fighting on the defensive. The Confederacy did not have to overwhelm or occupy the North; it merely had to frustrate northern efforts to conquer it.

Military Leaders and Morale At the beginning of the war, the South also had more well-trained military leaders and a stronger tradition of military service. Many of the West Point– trained officers in the U.S. Army, including Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Albert Sydney Johnston, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, and James Longstreet, sided with the Confederacy. In addition, living in a rural envi-

ronment, most men in the South were more comfortable with firearms than soldiers raised in the urban North. And, in terms of morale, the

Confederacy had the advantage of fighting for its existence.

15-2 The Fallacy of an “Easy War”: 1861–1862

The fallacy of expecting a brief war became apparent at the first major battle of the Civil War.

15-2a The Battle of Manassas (Bull Run)

On July 21, 1861, Union general Irvin McDowell moved 30,000 troops toward the Confederate sol- diers clustered at Manassas Junction, just south of Washington, D.C. At the same time, civilians and congressmen from the capital packed picnic lunches

In terms of military-age white males, the Union outnumbered the Confederacy four

to one.

Read the results of the U.S. Census of

1860 (especially the last column).

Read a southern author’s justifica- tion for southern

independence, written in 1861.

>> Filling cartridges at the U.S. Arsenal at Watertown, Mass., 1861, shows the conversion to the wartime economy.

Li b

ra ry

o f

C o

ng re

ss , P

ri nt

s &

P ho

to gr

ap hs

D iv

is io

n, L

C -U

S Z

62 -9

64 45

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 254 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Fallacy of an “Easy War”: 1861–1862 255

and made the twenty-five-mile journey to witness the battle. After all, they anticipated fighting to be light and the battle to end shortly.

To the surprise of both sides, the Battle of Manassas, called the Battle of Bull Run by the Union (the North named battles after nearby creeks or riv- ers, the South after nearby towns), was hard-fought and bloody. Some 22,000 Confederate soldiers, led by General Pierre Beauregard, battled tenaciously against McDowell’s men, and Confederate reinforce- ments under General Joseph E. Johnston, including the heroic Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, turned the tide decisively in the South’s favor. When McDowell ordered a retreat, his troops panicked and stam- peded from the fray.

A Costly Confederate Victory Although the Confederates had won the field of battle, they were not prepared to pursue the fleeing federal troops. The victory had been too costly. Each side had suffered nearly 10 percent casualties, with the northern forces having 2,896 killed, wounded, or missing and the southern forces suffering 1,982 similar casualties. In light of such carnage, north- erners and southerners alike were stripped of their assumptions about an easy war. The change in tone was especially marked in the North. After the defeat at Manassas, fearing that victorious southern

forces would head straight to Washington, D.C., Congress authorized, and received, the enlistment of 500,000 volunteers. They were now preparing for a major armed conflict, a bigger war than anyone had predicted.

Limited War Although northerners no longer believed that the war would be won quickly, they clung to the idea that most southerners still loved the Union but had been pressured into fighting by a small clique of powerful slaveholders. They viewed it as a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.

In keeping with this view, the Union Army in 1861 and 1862 fought a limited war, which meant that, in attacking the Confederacy, Union troops were careful not to assault southern civilians or damage their property. Their goal was to occupy southern territory and defeat the Confederate Army. They were not aiming to subjugate the southern people. They attempted this strategy of “limited war” in three theaters: (1) the water, (2) the West, and (3) the East.

Learn more about the Battle of Manassas.

Read Stonewall Jackson’s official report on the

Battle of Manassas.

>> The satisfaction and frivolity thought to be born of war— the Confederate soldier on the right wears a mess plate on his head—quickly gave way to the realization this would be a hard, long battle.

C o

rb is

. A ll

R ig

ht s

R es

er ve

d .

>> “You come to see the gladiator’s show, But from a high place, as befits the wise: You will not see the long windrows of men Strewn like dead pears . . .”—From Stephen Vincent Benét, “The Congressmen Came Out to See Bull Run”

iS to

ck p

ho to

.c o

m /n

gi ri

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 255 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

256 Chapter 15 The Civil War

Taking New Orleans was a significant coup; it was the South’s largest and rich- est city and its biggest port, and it opened the Mississippi River valley to invasion from the south. If the Union could not yet beat the Confederacy on the battlefield, it could prevent European goods from reaching it and eventu- ally starve southerners into submission.

The blockade effort also stimulated the development of the ironclad battleship. Instead of wood, these ships used iron (later steel) siding and sat low in the water to ram targets more efficiently; one in particular, the USS Monitor, had a two-gun rotat- ing turret on top. The first battle between ironclads, a four-hour barrage in March 1862 between the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia, ended inconclusively. But the news coverage it garnered signaled to the world a shift in mili- tary technology. Notably slow, however, the ironclads were

15-2b The Water The imposition of a naval blockade of Confederate ports was a key part of the Union strategy. Not only would it deprive the South of food, clothing, and other supplies coming from Europe, but it would also demonstrate to the world that the South was unable to defend itself, thus keeping England and France from recognizing, and perhaps allying with, the Confederacy. These nations did, after all, need the South’s cotton. In April 1861, Lincoln formally declared a blockade of the southern coastline.

Cutting the Confederacy off from sea-borne commerce proved difficult at first because the U.S. Navy had only forty-two ships to patrol 3,550 miles of Confederate coastline. After the first year of the war, however, blockading the South became easier, as the Union took control of several southern coastal locations, including Roanoke Island in North Carolina, the sea islands of South Carolina, and New Orleans.

>> Crew of the Union ironclad Monitor in front of their rotating turret, showing off the most modern of warships.

W ill

ia m

B ar

d sl

ey /H

ul to

n/ A

rc hi

ve /G

et ty

Im ag

Map 15.1. Northern Strategy and Southern Resistance, 1861–1865

. Cengage Learning 2014

Vicksburg

Port Hudson

New Orleans

Cairo

Chattanooga

Savannah

Richmond

Appomattox Court

House

Gettysburg

Atlanta

Raleigh

Washington D.C. Antietam

Charleston (Fort Sumter)

ee 1

86 3

Le e

18 62

McClellan 1862

Grant

1864–18 65

Sherm an 1864

Sh er

m an

18 65

G ra

nt 1

86 2

Farragut 1862–1863

M is

si ss

ip pi

R .

O hi

o R.

A T L A N T I C O C E A N

G u l f o f M e x i c o

90°W

30°N

40°N

80°W PA. N.J.

DEL. MD.

VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA

1863

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

GEORGIAALABAMA

FLORIDA

TENNESSEE

MISSISSIPPI

KENTUCKY

OHIO INDIANA

ILL.

MISSOURI

LOUISIANA

ARKANSAS

Boundary of Confederacy

Union

Confederate

Union advance

Confederate advance

Union naval blockade

0 150 300 Mi.

150 300 Km.

Cengage Learning Northern Strategy and Southern Resistance in the Civil War, 1861–1865 Ms00367 trim - 30p0 x 29p6 Final proof: 8/12/08

TEXT BLOCK MAP No bleeds

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 256 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Fallacy of an “Easy War”: 1861–1862 257

only marginally successful in stopping Confederate blockade runners throughout the war.

15-2c The West Some Union Successes While the Union Navy was taking control of the southern coast, the Union Army achieved some success in the western theater of the war, located west of the Allegheny Mountains. Although the Confederacy won many of the battles waged in 1861 (including those at Wilson’s Creek, Lexington, and Belmont), Union general Ulysses S. Grant earned the first decisive victories in the first half of 1862 in the western theater of the war. In February 1862, with the support of Union gunboats, Grant’s forces cap- tured Fort Henry on the Tennessee River and then Fort Donelson on the Cumberland River.

Shiloh These losses forced Confederate troops to with- draw from Kentucky and Tennessee, states on

the northwestern border of the Confederacy. A few months later, as Grant’s army moved farther south, they encountered fierce resistance from Confederate troops under the com- mand of General Albert Sydney Johnston. Johnston’s army took Grant’s men by surprise near the Tennessee-Mississippi border in April 1862. The ensuing Battle of Shiloh (or the Battle of Pittsburg Landing) was incredibly bloody, result- ing in 23,000 combined northern and southern casualties. Grant took the victory on the second day, but at a heavy price. The casualties at Shiloh alone exceeded American losses in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War put together, and they were almost five times as great as the losses suffered at the Battle of Manassas. It would turn out to be only the ninth bloodiest battle of the Civil War. The enormity of the fatalities was felt nationwide. The North was

30°N

90°W 80°W

Oh io

M ississippi R.

Al ab

am a

Te nn

ess ee

Cum berland R.

Missouri R.

Savannah R. Santee R.

Roanoke R.

Arkansas R.

Red R.

Tom bigbee R

Kentucky R.

C a

pe Fear R. A T L A N T I C

O C E A N

G u l f o f M e x i c o

Antietam Sept. 1862

Ft. Sumter April 1861

Albemarle Sound Feb. 1862

Roanoke Island Feb. 1862

New Bern Mar. 1862

Cape Hatteras Aug. 1861

Pamlico Sound Feb. 1862

Murfreesboro Dec. 1862–Jan. 1863

Hilton Head Nov. 1861

Ft. Pulaski April 1862

New Orleans April 1862

Ft. Henry Feb. 1862

Vicksburg July 1863

Shiloh April 1862

Ft. Donelson Feb. 1862

Perryville Oct. 1862

McClellan 1862

Grant 1862

Bu el

l 1 86

2 Sm ith 1862

Le e

18 6

B ragg 1862

Farragut 1862

Fa rra

g u

t 1863

B ra

gg 1

86 2

G ra

nt 1

86 3 B

ea ure

gar d

18 62

Washington, D.C.

Richmond

Corinth

Memphis

Atlanta

Montgomery

Chattanooga

Charleston

Wilmington

Raleigh

Savannah

MD.

VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA

1863

DELAWARE

NEW JERSEY

INDIANA OHIO

ILLINOIS

MO.

ARKANSAS

KY.

TENN.

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

ALABAMA MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

0 100 200 Mi.

100 200 Km.

Union territory

Union gains, 1861–1862

Union gains, 1863

Confederate held, 1863

Union advance

Union retreat

Confederate advance

Union victory

Confederate victory

No clear victor

Boundary of the Confederacy

Cengage Learning Ms00365 The War in the West Trim 45p0 x 29p6 Final: 6/11/10

Positioning guide TYPE BLOCK MAP Bleeds top, left Position top map trim at top page trim Align right map trim on type block Battle of Shiloh

Bloody conflict near the Tennessee-Mississippi border in April 1862; also called the Battle of Pittsburg Landing; 23,000 casualties

Map 15.2. The War in the West . Cengage Learning 2014

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 257 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

258 Chapter 15 The Civil War

securing the western theater, but it was doing so at a tremendous cost. Not only would this be a mas- sive war, it would be a tragic one as well. This was evident as early as 1862.

15-2d The East The Union Army was less successful in the East, mainly because General McClellan was less decisive than Robert E. Lee.

McClellan In the East, General George B. McClellan headed the Union’s Army of the Potomac. Despite his outward arrogance, McClellan was an insecure man and an excessively cautious commander. He thought the South should be coaxed back into the Union, not beaten back in. His troops appreciated his reluctance to expose them in bloody battles, but McClellan’s self-defeating attitude hurt the Union cause.

Throughout most of 1861, McClellan resisted pressures to pursue the Confederate Army in Virginia, insisting that he needed time to disci- pline and drill his men. In spring 1862, McClellan finally decided to make a move on Richmond, the Confederate capital. After transporting his troops to the mouth of the James River, McClellan slowly made his way up the peninsula between the James and York Rivers. But his procrastination had given the Confederate Army a chance to organize and respond. On May 31, 1862, McClellan was within 5 miles of Richmond when General Joseph Johnston and the Confederacy’s Army of Northern Virginia

attacked his troops at Fair Oaks (or Seven Pines). Johnston was badly wounded in the battle, but he succeeded in halting McClellan’s advance.

Robert E. Lee Matters only worsened for McClellan after Robert E. Lee replaced Johnston as the head of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee was as audacious as McClellan was cautious, and Lee repulsed the Army of the Potomac during the Seven Days’ Battles, which raged from June 25 to July 1, 1862. The Army of the Potomac was pushed north, out of Virginia.

With that defeat, Lincoln ordered the abandonment of McClellan’s peninsula campaign, removed McClellan from his post, and made General John Pope the

Union’s top eastern commander. Pope, though, was no more successful than McClellan had been. At the second Battle of Manassas, on August 29, 1862, Lee routed the Union troops and disgraced Pope. Lincoln had little choice but to reinstate McClellan

>> The casualties at Shiloh exceeded American losses in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War put together. It was a truly horrifying battle.

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

>> “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.”—attributed to Abraham Lincoln, 1862

Po rt

ra it

o f

G eo

rg e

B ri

nt o

n M

cC le

lle n

(1 82

6– 85

) (li

th o

), C

ha p

p el

, A lo

nz o

82 8–

87 )

(a ft

er )/

Pr iv

at e

C o

lle ct

io n,

K en

W el

sh /T

he B

ri d

ge m

an A

rt L

ib ra

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 258 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Full Mobilization and the Making of a Modern State 259

as his top eastern commander. The Union armies were generally successful in the West and on the seas, but they were unable to beat their opponents where it mattered most—in Virginia, the heart of the Confederacy.

Results Battles in these three theaters were hard fought, suggesting that the war would last longer than anyone had expected. War would require each side to mobilize its resources and, in the end, establish what is thought of today as a modern nation-state.

15-3 Full Mobilization and the Making of a Modern State

In order to amass the manpower and money neces- sary to wage a serious prolonged war, northerners and southerners were forced to concentrate authority in the hands of their national governments. This pro- cess transformed the Union and the Confederacy into truly modern nations with intricate bureaucracies capable of controlling the resources of their states. The irony of this was felt strongly by Confederate president Jefferson Davis. After all, one of the prin- cipal reasons for southern secession was defending the rights of states over the rights of the national gov- ernment. Yet in order to secure the South’s indepen- dence, Davis found it necessary to concentrate power under a centralized authority. Northerners, too, felt the tightening grip of the federal government.

15-3a Raising Armies Nowhere was this truer than when it came to rais- ing armies.

The Confederacy During the first year of the war, the Confederacy had only a small national army. Most soldiers volun- teered for service through state militias controlled by state governors, not through the Confederacy. However, Jefferson Davis understood that engineer- ing a strong war effort required greater coordination. So he convinced the Confederate Congress to imple- ment a national draft in April 1862.

All men between eighteen and thirty-five became eligible for military service in the Confederate Army. Exemptions could be purchased, traded in return for supplying a substitute, or simply granted to wealthy landholders who owned twenty or more

slaves. This “20 Negro Law” was designed to keep the planters producing their valuable cotton yield. The Confederate Conscription Act also contained occupa- tional exemptions, whereby workers at gun and muni- tions factories would not be forced to leave jobs valuable to the war effort (the list of occupational exemptions immediately became politi- cal, such that, by the end of the war, the list of war-related jobs could not be contained on two finely printed pages). By 1863, the Confederate government, not the various state gov- ernments, had assumed control of the army.

The Union The North implemented a national draft in 1863. Like the Confederacy, the Union had initially relied on state armies to enlist soldiers, but the high deser- tion and low enlistment rates of state officers forced the federal government to establish a national conscription law, making all able-bodied men ages twenty to forty-five eligible for the draft. To ease

the burden of conscription, the Union also established volunteer quotas for each of its states. Only when a state

failed to provide its allotted number of volunteer soldiers was the draft employed in that state.

Very few men were ever drafted; most volun- teered. Others tried to fail medical exams in order to escape the war altogether. Similarly, under the conscription law, a person could be exempted until the next draft by paying a $300 commutation fee. The Union draft law, too, allowed men to be exempt from service by hiring a substitute to take their place. Some men, known as bounty jumpers, would receive a bounty to take another man’s place in the army, then desert, only to do the trick again and again. Thus, in both the Union and the Confederacy, exemptions were made for rich men, who could afford to buy their way out of service, while ordinary workers and farmers could not. The accusation that this was a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight applied to both sides of the conflict.

15-3b Suspension of Civil Liberties The expansion of federal control also affected war- time civil liberties. In the first year of the war, both

“20 Negro Law” Exemption from Confederate military ser- vice granted to wealthy landholders who owned twenty or more slaves; designed to keep the planters producing their valuable cotton yield

commutation fee Sum of money that guar- anteed a draft-age man’s exemption from enlisting in the Union Army until the next draft

Read about life in the armies of the Civil War.

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 259 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

260 Chapter 15 The Civil War

Union and Confederate governments suspended civil liberties.

In the Union Abraham Lincoln took the lead. From the start of fighting in April 1861, some northerners opposed the war and worked to hamper the Union’s effort. For instance, on April 19, 1861, Confederate sympa- thizers in Baltimore destroyed telegraph lines, sabo- taged railroads, and attacked Union soldiers who were passing through on their way to Washington, which was threatened after the Battle of Manassas.

To deal with the dissent, Lincoln used his authority as commander-in-chief to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland, which made it

possible for Union soldiers to arrest any northern civilians suspected of disloyalty and imprison them without ben-

efit of trial. Eventually, Lincoln suspended the writ in all other states, hoping to control disloyalty and dissent everywhere in the North. During the course of the conflict, roughly 14,000 people were arrested for undefined reasons.

In the Confederacy Jefferson Davis followed Lincoln’s lead. As in the North, antiwar sentiment existed in the Confederacy from the outset, especially in poorer areas with few slaves. Several military losses in 1862 incited a level of dissent that provoked Davis to action. Unlike Lincoln, Davis himself did not suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Instead, he sought approval from the Confederate Congress, which granted the request and gave Davis the power to clamp down on citizens who opposed southern independence.

15-3c Taxation Both sides also exercised new controls over their national economies. Before the war, the federal gov- ernment had depended mostly on tariff revenues and land sales to finance its operations. In fact, aside from the tariffs, the federal government had levied no taxes on the American people since the War of 1812.

Tariffs, Taxes, and Bonds in the Union At the outbreak of hostilities in the Civil War, the U.S. Congress began raising tariff rates in order to pay for the war, and by 1865 the average tariff rate was an astronomical 47 percent. Despite these rates, tariffs failed to generate enough revenue to fully finance the military operation.

To compensate, Congress introduced direct tax- ation measures. During the first year of the war, it enacted a 3 percent income tax. Then, in 1862, Congress enacted a graduated tax schedule to bring in more revenue from wealthier citizens. It also passed a comprehensive tax bill that levied new occupational and licensing taxes, corporate taxes, stamp taxes, insurance company taxes, dividend taxes, sales taxes, food taxes, and so-called sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco. To streamline the collection of these new levies, Congress created the Internal Revenue Service in 1862.

The U.S. government also tried to raise money by selling war bonds, or bonds that a person or corporation could buy that would earn interest over a fixed period of time. Bondholders could then redeem the bonds within five to twenty years for their initial investment plus interest (they were

‘A G

re at

R us

h, ’ r

ec ru

itm en

t p

o st

er f

o r

36 th

R eg

im en

t, p

ub lis

he d

b y

B ak

er &

G o

o d

w in

( co

lo ur

li th

o ),

A m

er ic

S ch

o o

l, (1

9t h

ce nt

ur y)

/. C

o lle

ct io

n o

f th

e N

ew Y

o rk

H is

to ri

ca l S

o ci

et y,

U S

A , T

he B

ri d

ge m

an A

rt L

ib ra

>> Recruiting soldiers was not always the easiest of tasks.

Read Lincoln’s proclamation suspending

habeas corpus.

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 260 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Dissent 261

called five-twenties). New York banker Jay Cooke took the reins on this project and rapidly sold more than $500 million worth of bonds, to both large cor- porations and individual buyers.

Inflation and Impressment in the Confederacy At first, the Confederacy resisted creating a national system of taxation. It preferred instead to finance the war by simply printing more and more paper money— a plan that succeeded only in creating runaway infla- tion. The cost of living at the end of the war was an astounding ninety-two times what it had been before the war began. Only in 1863, once Confederate cur- rency became nearly worthless, did the Confederate Congress institute a graduated income tax similar to the Union’s. Nevertheless, while these types of taxes financed 21 percent of the Union’s expenses, they furnished only 1 percent of the Confederacy’s.

In addition, the Confederacy enacted a policy of impressment, authorizing armies to seize food, supplies, and even slaves for use in the war effort. Theoretically, citizens would be compensated, but many people complained that the government paid too little and that the payments were made in inflated and increasingly worthless Confederate dollars. The war was a financial disaster for the Confederacy, which never figured out the best method to pay for it.

15-3d A Changing Nation

Between the new system of conscription, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and taxes, the Union and the Confederacy became powerful nation-states with great control over the lives of their citizens. Before 1861, Americans had little contact with their federal government. Most Americans encountered the federal government only when the U.S. postal service delivered their mail. By 1865, however, northerners and southern- ers lived under large and powerful national govern- ments. After the war, the writ of habeas corpus was restored, but other powers assumed by the federal government were not rolled back. The Civil War established innovative and permanent changes in the scope of government authority in the United States.

15-4 Dissent These changes stirred dissent, and governments in both the North and the South found themselves confronted by those who opposed the war.

15-4a Dissent in the North The entire body of Lincoln’s policies came

to elicit a great deal of opposition on the northern home front.

Peace Democrats For example, a minority of Democrats refused to support the war. These Democrats came to be called “Peace Democrats” or “Copperheads.” They believed that secession was legal and that the Union had no right to force southern states to remain within it. Although their numbers were small

in 1861, the Peace Democrats soon capitalized on popular dissatisfaction with Lincoln’s leadership to become a

formidable force in northern society.

Lincoln the Tyrant The Peace Democrats jumped on Lincoln’s

suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as proof that the president was a tyrant

five-twenties War bonds, or bonds that would earn interest over a fixed period of time; the bondholder could redeem the bond in anywhere from five to twenty years for the initial investment plus interest

>> The Confederacy preferred to finance the war by simply printing more and more paper money—a plan that succeeded only in creating runaway inflation.

iS to

ck p

ho to

.c o

m /L

ee P

et te

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 261 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

262 Chapter 15 The Civil War

undeserving of popular support. Although the Constitution did allow the government to sus- pend the writ in times of national crisis, it had always been assumed that the power rested with Congress. Lincoln, however, acted without prior consent from Congress. This gave rise to the notion that Lincoln, like Jackson before him, was a dangerous tyrant, ready to sacrifice liberties in order to exercise and expand his own power. The still-active partisan presses utilized this image widely throughout the war.

The Draft Even more than suspension of habeas cor- pus, the draft became an important symbol of Lincoln’s supposedly dictatorial ways among Peace Democrats. Conscription seemed to con- tradict America’s commitment to individual freedom. In addition, the 1863 draft law seemed unfair to poor men, who, unlike the wealthy, could not afford to buy their way out of fighting.

The New York Draft Riot This inequity generated violence as well as political opposition. In July 1863, when the first national draft was about to be held in New York City, Democratic

working men, most of them Irish, rampaged through the streets and shut down the draft office. They attacked

“The number composing this first

mob has been so differently estimated,

that it would be impossible from reports merely, to approximate

the truth. A pretty accurate idea, however,

can be gained of its immense size, from a

statement made by Mr. King, son of President

King, of Columbia College. Struck by its magnitude, he had the curiosity to get some estimate of it by timing its

progress, and he found that although it filled the broad street from curbstone to curbstone, and was moving rapidly, it took between twenty and twenty-five minutes for it to pass a single point. A ragged, coatless, heterogeneously

weaponed army, it heaved tumultuously along toward Third Avenue.”

—Journalist Joel Tyler Headley, Pen and Pencil Sketches of the Great Riots [of 1863], 1877

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

Take a virtual tour of the draft riots.

>> The 7th New York Regiment firing into a crowd of draft rioters who refused to go to war. It took four days to restore order, and more than one hundred people were killed. Not all Northerners, then, supported the war.

anyone who was rich or known as a pro-war Republican. The rioters also expressed hostility to the idea of fighting to free slaves, and in the 1863 riot they acted most violently toward black people, who had recently been used to replace Irish longshoremen dur- ing a labor strike. It took four days before order was finally restored, and by then, more than one hundred people had been killed. This was the largest loss of life caused by any civilian riot in American history up to that point.

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 262 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Tide of Battle Turns, 1863–1865 263

15-4b Dissent in the South The South faced its own problems on the home front.

Economic Woes The prospect of a long war had put the Confederate economy in desperate straits by 1863. With the institution of slavery disintegrating (as explained in the following pages), the women and men who remained on the southern home front were unable to maintain sufficient production of corn, grain, and other foodstuffs. The shortages caused the price of food to skyrocket. Manufactured goods also became scarce as the Union blockade of the Confederacy cut off the region from European suppliers. Merchants made matters worse by hoarding goods, which also drove prices up.

Riots In this economy, the average southerner could not afford basic necessities. High prices and food short- ages provoked riots throughout the Confederacy in 1863. In April, in the Confederate capital of Richmond, three hundred women and children took to the streets armed with knives and pistols, broke into stores, and stole the items they needed but could not afford.

In the face of months of scarcity and starva- tion, many women on the Confederate home front started to lose their will to sacrifice for independence. Jefferson Davis and the other lead- ers of the Confederate States of America were ineffective in sustain- ing popular morale. This was not due to their personal qualities, but principally because the South’s poor transpor- tation networks, never fully developed during the Market Revolution, hindered leaders from making rallying trips across the land. In addi- tion to this inability to

communicate with its citizens, the government did little to alleviate their economic hardships. Focusing solely on the military problem of keeping the Union armies at bay, Davis made no attempt to provide his constituents with government assistance. Davis’s wartime policies—the suspension of the writ of

habeas corpus, conscription, and impressments—only increased popular dissatis- faction. As in the North by 1863, there was a full-blown

peace faction in the South working to undermine Davis’s leadership.

By the midpoint of the war, both the Union and the Confederacy had become bitterly divided societies.

15-5 The Tide of Battle Turns, 1863–1865

Wars continue despite dissent, of course. During the Civil War, men fought brutal battles, combin- ing ancient methods of fighting (using sabers and knives) with modern warfare (using long-range rifles, cannons, and other instruments that could kill opponents without ever having to see them up close). The conflict deepened, and by 1863 the war had turned from a “limited war” focused on military struggles to an all-encompassing one that affected the entirety of both societies.

>> An engraving entitled “Sowing and Reaping” depicts southern women persuading their husbands to join in the rebellion (left) and the same women rioting for bread during the hard times of the war (right). As in the North, there was considerable dissent in the South as well.

Read excerpts from Mary Boykin Chesnut’s war-

time diary from the South.

P I/G

et ty

Im ag

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 263 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

264 Chapter 15 The Civil War

One key example of the broadening of the meaning of the war concerned slav- ery. As Lincoln struggled to keep up morale in the North, he by necessity performed a delicate political dance on the subject of slavery. But he knew that eliminating slavery would be a definitive move toward challenging the very existence of southern society.

15-5a Slavery and Emancipation Lincoln had made no immediate move to end slav- ery; he understood that in 1861 most northerners did not support broad emancipation. Northern peo- ple generally agreed that slavery was an evil institu- tion, but they also balked at the thought of creating a large, free black population in the United States.

Lincoln also feared that immediate emanci- pation would alienate the four border states that remained within the Union. Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware all retained slavery but still sought to preserve the Union. In order to defeat the Confederacy, Lincoln knew he needed to keep those states relatively happy, something emancipation would undoubtedly jeopardize. Therefore, as part of the Union’s early “limited war” strategy, U.S. soldiers were initially instructed to leave southern slave property alone and return any escaped slaves who tried to hide behind Union lines.

Overtures to Emancipation As the war dragged on, however, Union practice grad- ually deviated from this policy. The South depended on its slaves to provide food and manual labor for the war effort, so in May 1861, General Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts began the practice of treat- ing runaway slaves as contraband (smuggled goods), refusing to return them to their owners. Then, in August 1861, Congress passed its first Confiscation Act, which officially declared that any slaves used for military purposes would be freed if they came into Union hands.

Congress also freed the 2,000 slaves living in the nation’s capital, providing compensation to their owners. At the same time, it banned slavery from all U.S. territories, officially putting an end to the issue of the expansion of slavery that had aroused sec- tional tensions in the 1840s and 1850s. And in July 1862 Congress passed the Second Confiscation Act, which stated that all slaves owned by rebel masters

(not just those being used for military purposes) would be set free if they fell under Union control. With southerners absent from Congress, northern Republicans were making rapid strides toward elim- inating slavery in the United States.

Although Lincoln signed the Second Confiscation Act, he generally ignored it. Lincoln wanted the slave states to choose emancipation, not to have it forced upon them. After the Second Confiscation Act became law, Lincoln summoned to the White House representatives from the border states of

Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware and presented them with a plan to free their slaves. Unfortunately, the bor-

der states resisted any suggestion that they end the practice of slavery.

Deciding on Emancipation With few states eager to take the lead on the issue, Lincoln ultimately decided to initiate an emancipa- tion policy himself, explicitly making slavery the central issue of the war. On July 22, 1862, Lincoln told his cabinet that he planned to issue a presi- dential proclamation freeing at least some of the slaves. Emancipation carried clear military ben- efits, he argued. For one thing, it would weaken the Confederacy by depriving southerners of slave labor. In addition, emancipation would earn moral support from the rest of the free world, making it difficult for nations such as Britain and France to ally with the Confederacy.

Taking the advice of his secretary of state, William H. Seward, Lincoln waited for a Union military victory before announcing his proclama- tion, in order to appear to speak from a position of strength, not desperation. Lincoln got his chance after the Battle of Antietam (Battle of Sharpsburg) on September 17, 1862, when the Union’s Army of the Potomac forced Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia to retreat from Union territory in Maryland back into the Confederacy. It was a major battle of the war, the single bloodiest day-battle in American history, although it ended with an inconclusive victor. The Union troops had done well at sea and in the West, but only after Antietam did they begin to get the upper hand in the vital lands of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

The Emancipation Proclamation Five days after the Battle of Antietam, on September 22, 1862, Lincoln made his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that all slaves within rebel territory would be freed on January 1, 1863,

contraband Smuggled goods; dur- ing the Civil War, it also referred to runaway slaves who had fled to the Union Army

Confiscation act Legislation that officially declared that any slaves used for military pur- poses would be freed if they came into Union hands

Read the Second Confiscation Act.

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 264 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Tide of Battle Turns, 1863–1865 265

unless the southern states returned to the Union. To make the proclama- tion more palatable to white north- erners, Lincoln justified it by saying he had given the order out of mili- tary necessity. Emancipation would weaken the Confederacy, he argued, and as commander-in-chief, he was obliged to initiate and enforce such policies. In addition, it would not free a single slave in the slave states that were already part of the Union (thus keeping the Union’s four slave states happy). When the southern states failed to return to the Union as requested, Lincoln issued the for- mal Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The North no longer fought for the reconstruction of the old Union. It was seeking the creation of a new Union, one without slavery.

Although undeniably bold, the proclamation was far from a comprehensive plan for emancipation. Lincoln of course exempted Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware (the border states), as well as Tennessee and areas of Virginia and Louisiana that were already under Union occupation. Only areas actively engaged in rebellion were affected. Moreover, those places where the proclamation was intended to free slaves were precisely those places where the Union lacked the power to enforce its policies.

A Factor in the End of Slavery, but Not the Factor Even before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, however, slavery was disintegrat- ing, as the dislocations of war made it impossible

for southerners to maintain control over their slaves. As more southern men left their farms to enter the army, slaves took more and more liberties and, in some cases, openly challenged white authority. They shirked work,

and attempts to impose discipline only made them more defiant. When word spread that the Union Army was nearby, thousands of slaves would run away and attempt to take refuge behind Union lines.

Lincoln’s proclamation thus did not end slav- ery; slaves themselves ended slavery—with the vital help of the Union Army. But the proclamation emboldened slaves to increase their resistance, and it offered hope that, if the Union won the war, slav- ery would be outlawed.

Black Americans in the Union Military The Emancipation Proclamation did something else as well. Black Americans had been trying to volun- teer for service in the Union Army all along, but, afraid of the effect on white soldiers’ morale, Lincoln rejected them. This changed with the Emancipation Proclamation, which included an announcement that black Americans would be accepted into the U.S. Army and Navy. During the next two years, 180,000 black men, up to 80 percent of them runaway slaves, joined the Union military. They faced difficult condi- tions, however, serving in segregated units headed by white officers and receiving only half the com- pensation paid to white soldiers. Despite the preju- dicial treatment, the Union’s black soldiers signed up readily, and, in June 1864, Lincoln persuaded Congress to grant them equal pay retroactively. By the end of the conflict, 37,000 black servicemen had lost their lives in the battle for the Union. Some his- torians contend that in the bitterly divided contest, African American soldiers were decisive in tilting the war in the Union’s favor.

The Fort Pillow Massacre Confederate soldiers resented the presence of African American troops in the U.S. Army. In one controversial incident, after a Confederate victory in the Battle of Fort Pillow, Tennessee, on April 12, 1864, Confederate soldiers, led by Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest

Learn more about the Emancipation

Proclamation.

Read the Emancipation Proclamation.

>> Many African Americans were proud to fight for the Union cause—and for abolition. By the end of the war, more than 180,000 had, including this unidentified soldier with his wife and two daughters.

Li b

ra ry

o f

C o

ng re

ss , P

ri nt

s &

P ho

to gr

ap hs

D iv

is io

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 265 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

266 Chapter 15 The Civil War

(later the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan), massacred most of an African American regi- ment who may have been attempting to sur- render. The interracial Union troops suffered defeat in the battle, and some witnesses said the Union troops were attempting to surrender when Confederate troops opened fire. Only about 20 percent of the black soldiers were taken as prisoners, while 60 percent of white soldiers were. The rest were casual- ties of war. The Fort Pillow Massacre became a rallying cry in the North at a pivotal time in the war.

Criticism of Lincoln’s Proclamation Although Lincoln’s fellow Republicans generally supported the Emancipation Proclamation, many other northerners criticized it. Predictably, northern Democrats lambasted the proclamation as an act of tyranny. As they saw it, the government had no right to deprive anyone of his property. Moreover, the proclamation suggested that Republicans might actually allow black Americans to exist on a level of equality with white people in America. Given the depths of racism in the United States, the procla- mation was hard for many northerners to accept, especially northern Democrats.

15-5b Union Military Triumphs In 1863 and 1864, while both Union and Confederacy dealt with rising dissent and the expansion of their governments, the Union military won a number of important victories. Along with Antietam, the other key turning point was Gettysburg.

Lee’s Hopes Before Gettysburg, Confederate forces under Robert E. Lee had won impressive victories at Fredericksburg, Virginia, in December 1862 and at nearby Chan- cellorsville in May 1863. With the momentum from these victories, Lee made a decisive gesture and invaded the North with 75,000 troops. By invad- ing the North, Lee (1) sought to allow the southern

soil time to recuper- ate from months of battle; (2) was hoping that, strategically, a major victory in the North would buttress the Union’s peace movement and force Lincoln to accept Confederate terms for peace; and (3) thought a major victory in the North would also compel the British to reconsider recognition of the Confederacy,

thus giving the Confederacy a valuable partner in the war.

Gettysburg Despite Lee’s intention of waging a northern bat- tle in a major city, circumstances conspired to force a showdown at the small town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had invaded Pennsylvania and had come close to taking Harrisburg, the state’s capital. The Union’s Army of the Potomac, however, now led by General George Gordon Meade, set off to chase Lee, ultimately con- fronting him in Gettysburg. The battle that ensued was one of the epic battles of the Civil War, and many historians consider it the turning point of the war.

Engagement was vicious and bloody. After two days of trying unsuccessfully to break the Union line, Lee made an ill-fated move on July 3. In an attempt to split the Union forces, he sent about 12,500 men in a charge into the well-entrenched center of the Union

line. This attack is known as Pickett’s Charge because General George Pickett was one of the three division

commanders leading it. It was a disastrous move by Lee. Nearly two-thirds of the attacking Confederates were killed, wounded, or captured during the assault, and the Union took the victory. All told, Lee lost roughly 28,000 soldiers at Gettysburg (approximately one-third of his army) and never again had the manpower to go on the offensive. The federal losses numbered about 23,000, but the Union’s great advan-

tage in manpower made such losses tactically easier to overcome than they were for the South. Indeed, in his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln

Read the report from the congressional

committee investigating Fort Pillow.

Read Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Read General Carl Schurz’s impressions

of Gettysburg after the battle.

“All that I had ever read in battle stories of the booming of heavy guns

out-thundering the thunders of heaven and making the earth tremble, and

almost stopping one’s breath from the concussions of the air—was here made

real, in terrific effect.” —From “The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz,” general at

Gettysburg

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 266 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Destruction of the South and the End of the War 267

memorably used the battle to motivate his side to continue the struggle under the belief that what they were doing was right, destined to give the nation a “new birth of freedom.”

Victories in the West Meanwhile, Union general Ulysses S. Grant continued to triumph in the West. On July 4, 1863, after a six-week siege, his troops forced the fortress town of Vicksburg, Mississippi, to surrender. Five days later, he captured Port Hudson in Louisiana. With those two victories, the Union controlled the entire Mississippi River, severing the Confederacy into eastern and western halves. The battle at Gettysburg received more public notice at the time, but Grant’s victories on the Mississippi were perhaps more stra- tegically important.

In light of Grant’s success, Lincoln brought him east in March 1864 and made him commander of all the Union armies. From his new post, Grant pre- pared for an offensive against Lee in Virginia, while General William Tecumseh Sherman took over for Grant in the West.

Northern Momentum? While northern momentum was strong, the Union again faced the strategic problem of having to com- pletely subdue and conquer its enemy in order to win. In May and June 1864, Grant relentlessly pursued Lee’s army in a bloody campaign from the Rappahannock River to the city of Petersburg, south of Richmond, Virginia. Outside Petersburg, the two armies settled into opposing trenches. The siege there lasted more than nine months. Between May and July 1864, Grant lost 60,000 men, and news of these heavy casualties demoralized the northern home front. Northerners began to fear that the Union armies could never defeat the Confederacy. Despite northern military momentum, was it possible to win a war when the opposition never had to attack?

15-5c The Election of 1864 In this atmosphere of uncertainty, the Union con- tinued its pattern of predictable, regular elections as laid out in the Constitution and held a presiden- tial contest. As the war stretched on, the impatience of the northern people during the summer of 1864

did not bode well for Lincoln. But, more than this, the elec- tion became a referendum on slavery and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Did they want four more years of Abraham Lincoln and, potentially, of civil war?

McClellan In 1864, Lincoln’s Democratic opponent was none other than the overly cautious George B. McClellan, the for-

mer general of the Army of the Potomac. If elected, McClellan promised to restore slavery in the South and negotiate peace with the Confederacy (perhaps leading to the recognition of Confederate indepen- dence). His party’s slogan was “The Union as it was, the Constitution as it is, and the Negroes where they are.” After three years of war, northerners were despairing of the casualties and fearful of the out- come, and even Lincoln did not believe he would be voted into office for a second term.

Timely Military Victories The Union military, however, saved the day for Lincoln. On August 5, 1864, the Union captured Mobile Bay in Alabama, and less than one month later, Sherman took control of Atlanta. After months of stagnation, the momentum had swung fully to

the Union. These victories heartened northern voters and gave them a renewed sense that the Confederacy could be beaten, and soon.

On Election Day in November, Lincoln received 55 percent of the popular vote, giving him a landslide victory in the Electoral College.

15-6 The Destruction of the South and the End of the War

Lincoln’s reelection spelled the end of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation had been made as a war measure, so Lincoln concluded that once the war ended it would no longer be binding. Therefore, upon his electoral victory in 1864, Lincoln and his supporters moved quickly to secure the final demise of American slavery.

Read Lincoln’s remarkable Second Inaugural

Address.

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with

firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work

we are in.” —Abraham Lincoln,

Second Inaugural Address

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 267 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

268 Chapter 15 The Civil War

15-6a The Thirteenth Amendment Abolishes Slavery

Lincoln used all of the influ- ence he had in Congress to ensure the passage of a constitutional amendment

freeing all the slaves in the United States without compensating their owners. On January 31, 1865, Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment, and by the end of the year, enough Union states had ratified the amendment to make it part of the Constitution, abolishing slavery from the United States forever.

15-6b The Destruction of the South Lincoln’s victory in November 1864 also marked the beginning of the end for the Confederacy, which now took a brutal punishing.

Sherman’s March to the Sea With the Union now set to defeat the rebels rapidly, General Sherman waged his famous “March to the Sea,” mowing a path of destruction 60 miles wide and several hundred miles long through Georgia. The March to the Sea stretched from Atlanta to the Atlantic. Sherman designed the move to encircle Lee’s army, which was still in Virginia, and, more importantly, to prove to the southern people that the Confederate government lacked the ability to

protect them. The soldiers burned fields, tore up vital infrastructure such as railroad ties, and killed and consumed all the livestock they encountered. By Christmas 1864, Sherman’s soldiers had reached Savannah. As much as the Union soldiers relished this punishment of the rebels, they relished even more the prospect of moving north and destroying South Carolina, the birthplace of the Civil War. After hitting the coast, Sherman’s troops continued their march through South and North Carolina, heading north to join forces with Grant in Virginia, an act that would encircle Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and end the war once and for all.

Sherman’s March showed how much the war had changed since 1861. Having started with a strat- egy of limited war, intending to fight only against soldiers and leaving private property alone, by 1864 the Union was fighting a total war, one affecting all aspects of society, both military and civilian, destroying railroads, bridges, cotton gins, and any- thing else that the rebels could plausibly use to sup- port their war effort.

The Southern Will to Fight? The Confederacy’s ravaged economy, the demoraliza- tion of its home front, and the dangers of the Union Army all combined to erode the southern people’s will to fight. By the spring of 1865, more than half of Confederate soldiers had deserted. Meanwhile, Grant tenaciously attacked the Army of Northern Virginia, knowing that when Lee surrendered, the South would be forced to give up entirely. Lee finally capitulated on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox

Courthouse, Virginia. Although there was sporadic fighting in the West until the end of May, with Lee’s surrender the war was effectively over. For the reasons why the North won the Civil War, see “The reasons why . . .” box on the next page.

15-7 Significance of the War

The four years of civil war were brutal for both the North and the South. One out of every twelve American men served in the war, and about 620,000 American men lost their lives, more Americans than were killed in World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, and the Revolutionary War combined. For the Confederacy, of the roughly 1 million soldiers that fought, about 258,000 died from disease or battle.

“March to the Sea” Path of destruction led by General William Tecumseh Sherman in late 1864; the March was 60 miles wide and several hundred miles long, from Atlanta to the Atlantic; Sherman’s army pillaged all it encountered

>> Richmond in ruins, 1865. The Union had sought revenge.

T he

A rt

A rc

hi ve

/ L

ib ra

ry o

f C

o ng

re ss

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 268 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Significance of the War 269

For the Union, its army of about 2,500,000 men lost around 360,000 men. In addition, for every 1,000 Union soldiers in battle, 112 were wounded. For every 1,000 Confederate soldiers, 150 suffered casu- alties. Of the 180,000 African American soldiers who fought, approximately one-third lost their lives. It was a brutal war indeed.

Beyond the grim number of dead, the American nation had turned into a battlefield. The various mil- itaries had commandeered roads, pulled up enemy train tracks, destroyed factories, and killed livestock. The South bore the brunt of this destruction, but the entire nation felt the impact of the war. And there was more than just physical destruction. More than 4,000,000 men mobilized for war, meaning a major disruption of life back home. Labor relations had to be reworked and familial roles renegotiated. The large number of wartime dead also meant these transitions were often not temporary. For the soldiers who did make it home, roughly 50,000 returned with one or more limbs amputated, physi- cal reminders of the devastations of war.

Beyond this grim departure from daily life, the Civil War had at least six other long-lasting results.

15-7a The Impact on Federal Government

First, fighting its first modern war greatly increased the size and the power of the federal government. While this occurred in both the North and, ironically, the South, it was the North’s expansion that set the course for the nation after the war.

To pay for the war, for instance, the federal government began, for the first time, to collect an income tax. This brought the federal government

into American lives in a whole new way. Rather than be charged a tax for goods purchased or imported, now everyone’s annual income had a levy placed upon it. Meanwhile, the federal government consoli- dated the nation’s money supply, ending the era of wildcat banking begun by Andrew Jackson. During the Civil War, the federal government became the sole issuer of paper money, solidifying its impor- tance in the financial future of the nation and extending its reach throughout the various regions. The federal government also expanded its budget twenty-fold between 1860 and 1865, with the 1865 national budget exceeding $1 billion for the first time in the nation’s history. It took an army of clerks and tax collectors to manage this new endeavor, and by 1865 the federal government was the nation’s largest employer. With the Civil War, the federal gov- ernment possessed greater power than ever before and had a much larger bureaucracy to manage that newfound power.

In addition, with no southerners in the wartime Congress, Lincoln’s Republicans passed a series of laws furthering the reach of the national govern- ment. For instance, to spur agricultural growth and to populate the West with free laborers, Congress in 1863 passed the Homestead Act, which offered 160 acres of free public land to any settler (including slaves) who had never taken up arms against the federal government and who lived on the land for five years. In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Land Grant College Act, which gave states free federal land if they promised to develop colleges for the state’s residents. The federal government also made huge land grants for internal improvements, includ- ing, most famously, giving 100 million acres to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads to build a

The embrace of the Market Revolution. The North had inte- grated the breakthroughs of the Market Revolution better than the South had. With a well-developed manufacturing sector, varied agri- cultural supplies, a diverse labor force, and a transportation system able to move food, troops, and supplies rapidly, the North outmaneu- vered, outpaced, and outproduced the South.

Manpower supremacy. The Union simply had more men than the Confederacy, meaning that it could afford a long and costly war bet- ter than the South.

Political organization. The political party system surrounding Lincoln provided him with an infrastructure to spread propaganda and garner widespread support. Jefferson Davis never had such an infrastructure and thus failed to create sustained enthusiasm for the war effort.

African American troops. The influx of more than 180,000 troops who were viscerally committed to the Union cause came at a vital time midway through hostilities.

The North won the Civil War for four principal reasons:

the reasons why . . .}{

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 269 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

270 Chapter 15 The Civil War

railroad that stretched to the Pacific Ocean. (Each of these developments will be discussed more fully in Chapter 17.) The federal government thus increased its power during the Civil War, and it used this new power to shape the nation in a free-labor vision. The West would no longer be contested terrain. It would be filled with landowning farmers who could educate their children at local universities and take transcontinental railroads to get from one coast to another, all subsidized by the newly expanded fed- eral government.

15-7b The Impact on Industry But it was not entirely the free-labor vision that rose triumphant after the war. Rather, several lead- ing manufacturers used the generosity of the fed- eral government to create a vast industrial nation. Relying on profitable government contracts, several “captains of industry” consolidated their wealth during the Civil War, thus gaining a platform upon which they would plunge the nation into the Industrial Age of the late nineteenth century. Philip D. Armour, for instance, earned millions of dollars supplying meat to the Union Army during the war, using the exigencies of war to perfect the refriger- ated railcar. He would become a major industrial magnate in the years after the war. Other industrial leaders, including steel baron Andrew Carnegie, oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, and financier J. P. Morgan, used the war to increase and consolidate their wealth, which allowed them to reshape the economy in the following decades. (These men too will be discussed more fully in Chapter 17.) The Civil War thus helped catapult the nation into the Industrial Age, allowing it to become one of the world’s industrial powers.

15-7c The Impact on American Nationalism

Somewhat ironically, the war also unified the nation, pulling together the various states to form a more unified country. It is commonplace to say that before the war, the country was called the United States of America and after the war it was the United States of America. With a stronger federal government serv- ing as a yoke to keep the nation together, the Civil War, like most wars, served as a centripetal force, shifting people’s identities from one associated with a particular state to one associated more fully with the nation. The expansion of the federal government

only secured a deeper movement toward national identity and American nationalism.

15-7d The Impact on Women The Civil War also greatly impacted women, both in the work they did and in the way they were viewed within democratic society. Some four hun- dred women disguised themselves as men and fought during the Civil War. Many more worked with the various armies, serving as spies, cooks, and medical assistants. In addition to these battle- front contributions, the Civil War loosened up other opportunities for women. With millions of men off to fight, women in both the North and the South took jobs that traditionally had been defined as male work. Women worked in munitions plants, as clerks in government offices, and as a sales force in retail

>> During the Civil War, women took on many new roles, including becoming professional nurses. Clara Barton was one of the most famous, going on to found the American Red Cross.

T he

G ra

ng er

C o

lle ct

io n,

N ew

Y o

rk /

T he

G ra

ng er

C o

lle ct

io n

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 270 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Significance of the War 271

businesses. While some of these gains were tempo- rary (such as in munitions plants), others were not (such as in retail).

Women also revolutionized the nursing profes- sion during the Civil War, a profession that had been dominated by men. In the North alone, more than 20,000 women served as nurses. Clara Barton was perhaps the most famous Civil War nurse, following troops into battle and working alongside doctors in makeshift battlefront hospitals. She once had a stray bullet go through her sleeve, killing the patient she was working on. After the war, Barton went on to found the American Red Cross.

Thousands of women in the North also served in the United States Sanitary Commission, the primary national relief organization, coordinating donations to the Union cause. While the national organization remained headed by men, women served as grassroots leaders, contributing directly to the ailing communities that were suffering from the departure of millions of working-age men, and emerging as community leaders.

At a more political level, while the war temporar- ily stalled the nascent women’s suffrage movement, women’s increased role in public life, especially in the North, provoked many women to announce that they would fight for access to the ballot once the war stopped. Fulfilling their promise, several lead- ers of the late-nineteenth-century women’s suffrage movement claimed to have been both inspired by their wartime efforts and frustrated by the tradi- tional roles ascribed to them after the war.

15-7e The Impact on Religion The war also changed the way people prayed, what denominations they belonged to, and how they viewed the Bible. Indeed, leading up to the Civil War, several large Protestant denominations split over the issue of slavery. Although the Bible clearly upholds the right to own slaves, several Protestant churches disagreed as to whether or not this was justifiable nearly 2,000 years after the life and death of Christ. Even more problematic, they disagreed about whether or not religious denominations had any right to enter into political debates without debasing their faith. Divisions over these questions led Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists to split along northern and southern lines in 1837, 1844, and 1845, respectively. These divisions foreshad- owed the larger political split that was to come with the Civil War. Indeed, because the words of minis-

ters often served as moral guidance for the rest of society, by placing the question of slavery in bibli- cal terms church leaders made the sectional split appear cosmic in nature, demanding decisive, even destructive action. While Lincoln continually took a humble approach toward faith and the question of which side, North or South, God was on, both sides often claimed to be fighting for the righteousness of God. As one piece of evidence, the Civil War served to standardize the role and functions of military chaplains.

These divisions in turn foreshadowed a split that developed after the Civil War. Throughout the late nineteenth century, many northerners usually advanced a more liberal interpretation of the Bible, finding the institution of slavery to be vile and con- trary to the spirit of the New Testament, thus placing great importance, they argued, on the spirit of the Bible. Southerners, on the other hand, held onto a more literal interpretation of the Bible, which clearly accepted the practice of slavery. This split between liberal Protestants and their more conservative counterparts would only grow during the course of the nineteenth century, with one historian describ- ing these years as the formative years of what has come to be called “the Bible Belt” in the South.

For African Americans, the war was also reli- giously transformative. Hundreds of new churches opened up throughout the South, often with the help of northern missionaries. Utilizing their new status as freed people, African Americans eagerly filled the pews.

For Jews, who numbered around 150,000 in the United States, the Civil War exposed a deep vein of antisemitism in American life. Although about 10,000 Jews served in the war effort (on both sides) and many served in leadership roles ( Judah P. Benjamin was secretary of state for the Confederacy), Jews were often used as scapegoats to explain the economic hard times many Americans experienced during the war. For instance, General Ulysses S. Grant expelled Jews from the areas of western Tennessee that were under his command. Although Lincoln quickly rescinded the order, Jews were expelled from several towns.

For Catholics, the vast majority of whom were recent Irish immigrants living in northern cities, the war provided an opportunity to assert themselves as Americans. Roughly 145,000 Irish Catholics served in the Union Army, and, while bishops preached a militant Catholicism that combated the varieties of nativism they had experienced since their arrival,

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 271 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

272 Chapter 15 The Civil War

in the battlefield Catholic leaders sought to ensure that Catholics fought bravely and acted responsibly. They often did. On the home front, though, many Catholics resisted the intrusions into their daily life by a federal government that had at times been overtly anti-Catholic. It was, for example, mostly Irish Catholics that formed the mobs of the 1863 New York City Draft Riots.

15-7f The Impact on Philosophy While many northerners were accommodating themselves to a looser, nonliteral understanding of the Bible, still others grew disillusioned with any hard and fixed ideas. The passions invoked during the Civil War had led to violence, something demo- cratic nations were not supposed to do. Thus the war discredited the beliefs and assumptions of the era that came before it, and there were very few guiding ideas to replace them. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and William James would use this disillusionment to fashion, after the war, a new philosophy called prag- matism. Pragmatism holds that ideas are not out in nature waiting to be discovered by smart people, but rather are tools, like shovels and hammers, to be used by people to cope with the world in which they live. This is not to say pragmatism allows someone to grasp on to any convenient truth available, but rather that humans should be open to new “truths” that might emerge, evaluating them in conjunction with their previously held beliefs. With this kind of flexibility, pragmatism’s founders intended to cre- ate a worldview that made it harder for a nation to succumb to violence. Pragmatism, one of America’s most important contributions to the world of phi- losophy, would be the predominant worldview in the United States until the middle of the twentieth century.

What else was happening . . . 1861 Serfdom is abolished in Russia.

1862 The first black troops are used in battle, at Island Mount, Missouri.

1862 The French go to war with Mexico after Mexican president Benito Juarez suspends interest pay- ments to foreign countries. Mexican victory comes five years later, but the 1862 Battle of Puebla, an early Mexican victory, is now commemorated as Cinco de Mayo.

1863 Former Union nurse Louisa May Alcott (author of Little Women) publishes a collection of wartime letters, “Hospital Sketches.” During the Civil War women enter the male-dominated profession of nursing in huge numbers.

1864 The H. L. Hunley, a Confederate submarine, is the first sub to sink an enemy ship. It sinks the USS Housatonic on February 17, only to find itself sink- ing that same night.

1864 Photograph of Lincoln is taken that appears on today’s five-dollar bill.

Visit the CourseMate website at www.cengagebrain.com for additional study tools and review materials for this chapter.

Looking Ahead . . . Despite the reunification of the Union and the Confederacy after the war, exactly how northerners and southerners would come to live together again remained unclear. Reconstructing the nation would be a difficult process full of conflict and disappoint- ment, and that story of frustration and success is the subject of the next chapter.

53548_ch15_ptg01_hr_252-273.indd 272 11/2/12 10:58 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Condensed_HIST_Schultz_ch13

Ch 13: The Continued Move West��

13-1: Western Conquest and Development, 1820-1844��
13-2: The Expansionist Spirit Rebounds��

Condensed_HIST_Schultz_ch14

Ch 14: The Impending Crisis��

14-1: Arguments over Slavery in the New Territories��
14-2: The Kansas-Nebraska Act and New Political Parties��
14-3: Three Events That Catapulted the Nation into War��
14-4: Secession and Civil War��

Condensed_HIST_Schultz_ch15

Ch 15: The Civil War��

15-1: Each Side's Strengths��
15-2: The Fallacy of an "Easy War": 1861-1862��
15-3: Full Mobilization and the Making of a Modern State��
15-4: Dissent��
15-5: The Tide of Battle Turns, 1863-1865��
15-6: The Destruction of the South and the End of the War��
15-7: Significance of the War��