America in the 19th century
spent most of its time fighting within itself about slavery and how to deal
with it. In the 19th century,
there were many significant pro-slavery and anti-slavery events that occurred. The past week in class, we studied in detail
about many of the events that occurred and created a timeline. In the timeline are the events that were
against slavery and below the time line are the events that supported
slavery. Slavery was “the elephant in
the room”; it was an obvious and very heavy problem that ignored, neglected and
unaddressed.
In 1820 the Missouri Compromise created an
even split of 11 slave states and 11 free states. This meant that slave states and free states
had an even number of votes in the Senate.
It was also stated that all new territory north of the 36 degrees 30
minute latitude line will be free in the future. In 1849, the Gold Rush made many lower and
middle class citizens to travel west. In
1850, California requested to join the Union as a free state. This would create a few problems and disrupt
the balance between slave and free state, but the 1850 Compromise proposed by
Henry Clary came with solutions.
First, the United States had recently acquired
a vast territory (a result of its war with Mexico). The question was whether the territory should
allow slavery or whether it should be declared free. According to the compromise, Texas would
relinquish the land, but in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money
it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico.
This is pro-slavery because you solidify the borders of a very large
slave state. Since California had grown
in population since the gold rush, it had been decided that California would be
admitted as a free state. The
territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without
mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants
later, when they applied for statehood.)
This is pro-slavery because the people who will mostly live in those
states are in the south and people own slaves in the south. In Washington, the slave trade would be
abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be
permitted. This is anti-slavery because this
sends a message that the country is moving in a different direction. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would
have objected to the imbalance the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. It required citizens to assist in the
recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. This undermines the Underground Railroad
where people who escape to the north will definitely be captured.
Another significant event that happened
was the Caning of Charles Sumner following the Bleeding Kansas. Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was a
leading republican and a powerful anti-slavery voice in congress. In 1856, Senator Sumner held a speech called “The
Crime against Kansas.” The speech
bitterly attacked southerners for forcing slavery on the territory. He made bold insults against Senator Butler
of South Carolina. Two days after his
speech, Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner in the Senate Chamber. Preston Brooks was a member of the House of
Representatives and Butler’s nephew. He
was angered by Sumner’s claims and was determined to defend the honor of the
South.
In 1857, the Dred Scott Decision became
a big turning point in the rights of slaves in court. Dred Scott, an enslaved man living in
Missouri, filed a suit against his owner.
He argued that he and his wife, Harriet, were free because they had once
lived in a free state with their owner.
The Scott’s lost 7 to 2. Because
of this trial, the Dred Scott Decision was made. Slaves, because they were not citizens, were
denied the right to sue in court.
Enslaved people cannot win freedom by simply living in a free territory
or state and the Missouri compromise was ruled unconstitutional and all territories
were opened to slavery. Things weren’t
looking so good for slaves; especially considering how the Dred Scott Decision,
denied them certain rights. There were
still many influential people out there though that fought hard for the
abolishment of slavery.
John
Brown was a fierce and intense abolitionist who believed in using violent and
brutal means to end slavery. The
Northerners hailed Brown as a martyr to the cause of justice and the
Southerners saw John Brown as a criminal mad man. People like Fredrick Douglas were thankful
for John Brown. When Douglass met John
Brown in 1847, he states that, “Though a white gentleman, [Brown] is in
sympathy a black man, and is deeply interested in our cause, as though his own
soul had been pierced with the iron of slavery.” Henry David Thoreau claimed how no other man “in
America has stood up so persistently and effectively for the dignity of human
nature…”
In 1859, John Brown attacked the federal
arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia.
Brown and his followers hoped to seize the weapons from the arsenal and
give them to enslaved people so they could rebel. They had a dream; an uprising that would end
slavery, punish slave holders and lead the United States. They did not succeed though. Troops killed half of John Brown’s men and
Brown was sentenced to hand.
Slavery was the elephant in America because it was a huge problem
in the country, and yet people decided to push it aside. They refused to believe that slavery was a
problem. It was like a scale that was
never balanced. Sometimes pro-slavery
outweighed the anti-slavery and sometimes the opposite. America was falling apart, fighting within
itself. This was the big gateway into
the Civil War.
Source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p1550.htm
.jpg)