1. “The Sectional Crisis & The Coming of the U. S
“The Sectional Crisis & The Coming of the U.S. Civil War, ” or, how Gen. Kelly completely misrepresented the issue of compromise in the coming of the war – and how the war did not begin as a war against slavery IMPLICATIONS FOR RECONSTRUCTION?

2. Background: The Constitution & Slavery
Slavery is in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives to the House are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, be uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. Why? Growing anti-slavery sentiment during the Revolution, especially in the North. NB: anti-slavery is NOT the equivalent of abolitionism.
In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the “importation" of slaves, before The slave trade was a bone of contention for some white Americans, as even those who supported slavery opposed the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.
The Fugitive Slave Clause is the third place in the Constitution where slavery is acknowledged. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found must deliver the escaped bondsperson to the state from which she or he escaped. This clause effectively recognized that slaves were property – no matter where they were in the USA.

3. The Missouri Compromise, 1820-21

4. The Missouri Compromise, 1820-21
The 1819 application for statehood by the Missouri Territory sparked a bitter debate in Congress over the issue of slavery in the new territories that had been created as a result of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.

5. Missouri,
Concerned that the South would have a representational advantage, Congressman James Tallmadge of New York introduced a bill that would prohibit any further growth of slavery in Missouri, and would eventually set the children of Missouri's slaves free.
The bill passed in the House but failed to pass the Senate.
Leaders of the slave South were appalled by Tallmadge’s efforts; Sen. John C. Calhoun predicted that unless slavery were more formally sanctioned and protected by the federal government, the union would eventually dissolve.

6. Missouri, 1820-21 The issue was resolved with a two-part compromise.
First, the northern part of Massachusetts became Maine and was admitted to the Union as a free state at the same time that Missouri was admitted as a slave state, thereby maintaining a balance of 12 slave and 12 free states.

7. Missouri,
Second, a line was drawn at 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, and any portions of the Louisiana Territory lying north of the compromise line would be free. But the compromise provided that fugitive slaves "escaping into any... state or territory of the United States...may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labour or service." And even in the free territories, "slavery and involuntary servitude ... in the punishment of crimes" was not prohibited.
South of 36/30, slavery was permitted.

8. The compromise -- an unanswered question: where would the 36/30 line end?

9. Slave Rebellions,

10. Slave Rebellions What do they mean?
How did white Southerners – masters, in particular – interpret them?
How did the rise of abolitionism in the North affect such Southerners?
Why did the rebellions occur in these particular years?

11. “Indian Removal” in the 1830s

12. “Indian Removal” Why did the federal government pursue this policy?
How was the policy related to slavery?

13. Overview of Continental Expansion, 1780s-1850s

14. Expansion forces the question of slave labor or free labor in the new territories
There are conflicting visions of the “just” society and social order in the North & South.
This conflict informs the debate over slavery expansion prior to the Civil War.
Most of the new territory west of the Mississippi River comes to the U.S. as a result of its War with Mexico in the 1840s.

15. The Problem of Slavery in the Mexican Cession
Slavery traditionally kept out of politics
Congressional power over slavery includes
setting conditions to accept territories as states
forbidding slavery in new states
Mexican Cession of 1848 directly raises the question of slavery in new territory 3

16. The Wilmot Proviso Launches the Free-Soil Movement
Mexican War mobilizes antislavery groups
Antislavery – Free-Soilism – is not the same as Abolitionism
Very few Northerners were abolitionists – less than 1%, in fact.
Wilmot Proviso of 1846 seeks to outlaw slavery in the new territories gained from Mexico. Why? To ban black Americans, and thereby to preserve the new territories for white farmers.
This encapsulates the politics of Abraham Lincoln – see Hofstadter.
Proviso passes in House, fails in Senate 4

17. 1848: Free-Soilism becomes a force in presidential politics

18. President Taylor Precipitates a Crisis
Taylor proposes admitting California and New Mexico as states immediately
The White South reacts angrily
Proposed Nashville convention prompts the possibility of Southern secession 6

19. Forging a Compromise Henry Clay’s compromise package
California admitted as a free state
slave trade, but not slavery, prohibited in District of Columbia
stronger fugitive slave law
enlarged New Mexico/Utah territory will be admitted on basis of “popular sovereignty”
This overturns the territorial ban on slavery enacted by the Missouri Compromise, thereby enraging “Free-Soilers” 7

20. The Compromise of 1850

21. Political Upheaval,
Whigs and Democrats manage controversy in 1850
But the territorial question destroys both parties in 1850s 8

22. The Kansas-Nebraska Act Raises a Storm
1854--Stephen Douglas introduces Kansas-Nebraska bill
Applies popular sovereignty to Kansas, Nebraska
Formal repeal of Missouri Compromise line
Act passes on sectional vote
Most Northerners outraged 10

23. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854

24. The Kansas-Nebraska Act Raises a Storm (2)
Mass defection among Northern Democrats
“Anti-Nebraska” candidates sweep North in 1854 congressional elections
Democrats become sole Southern party
Republican Party is organized 11

25. Kansas and the Rise of the Republicans
Republican party unites former Whigs, Know-Nothings, Free-Soilers, Democrats
Appeals to Northern sectional sympathies
It defends West for white, small farmers
“Bleeding Kansas” helps Republicans
Struggle among abolitionists, proslavery forces for control of Kansas territory
Republicans use conflict to appeal for voters 13

26. “Bleeding Kansas”

27. Sectional Division in the Election of 1856
Republican John C. Frémont seeks votes only in free states
Democrat James Buchanan defends the Compromise of 1850, carries election
Republicans make clear gains in North 14

28. The House Divided,
Sectional quarrel becomes virtually irreconcilable under Buchanan
Growing sense of deep cultural differences, opposing interests between North and South

29. Cultural Sectionalism
Major Protestant denominations divide into Northern and Southern entities over slavery
Southern literature romanticizes plantation life
South seeks intellectual, economic independence
Northern intellectuals condemn slavery
Uncle Tom's Cabin becomes an immense success in the North 15

30. The Dred Scott Case, 1857
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Supreme Court can decide on slavery in the territories
Court refuses narrow determination of case
Major arguments:
Scott has no right to sue because neither he nor any other black person, slave or free, is or can be a citizen
Congress has no authority to prohibit slavery in territories, Missouri Compromise unconstitutional
Ruling strengthens Republicans 16

31. Debating the Morality of Slavery
Lincoln, in 1858 race for the U.S. Senate:
decries “Southern plot” to extend slavery
promises to work for slavery’s extinction
casts slavery as a moral problem
defends white supremacy in response to Douglas
Douglas accuses Lincoln of favoring equality
Lincoln loses election, gains national reputation 18

32. The South's Crisis of Fear
October, John Brown raids Harper’s Ferry. Frederick Douglass supported the raid.
Brown executed, mourned as martyr by abolitionists
Republicans seen as radical abolitionists
Most white Southerners convinced they must secede on election of Republican president 19

33. The Election of 1860: Democrats
Party splits
Northern Democrats support Stephen Douglas
Southern Democrats back John Breckenridge 20

34. The Election of 1860: Constitutional Union Party
Candidate John Bell
Promises compromise between North and South 21

35. The Election of 1860: Republicans
Abraham Lincoln nominated
home state of Illinois crucial to election
seen as moderate
Platform to widen party’s appeal
free homesteads for small, white farmers
Lincoln wins by carrying North, mostly on a campaign grounded in “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men”
From his Cooper Union Speech: “Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States?” 22

36. Election of 1860

37. Explaining the Crisis Republicans: a strict sectional party
Fundamental conflict of values –
Southern values
paternalism, generosity, white supremacy
slavery defended on the grounds of race
Northern values
Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men
each person free, responsible, & upwardly mobile
slavery tyrannical and immoral
White supremacy 23

38. Implications for Reconstruction?
What are they?