[ Founding Fathers ] [ Quotes ] [ Freemasonry ] [ Slavery ] [ Steven Waldman ] [ Evolution ]

19th Century

Over time, some abolitionists had successfully entered Congress from the northern states early in the 19th century. In 1820 the Missouri Compromise would begin the discussion of managing slavery in what was considered the western territories at that time. It would also begin a period of political discussion on whether new states would enter the union as free states or slaves states. These discussions quickly fell along partisan and geographical lines. The Missouri Compromise itself would morph over several years, but it's importance lay in its beginning which heralded the start of a national political dialogue on the expansion of slavery.

In 1846, the Mexican War began in earnest. Although the reasons for the war are beyond the scope of this essay, the American political system saw the war through a partisan lens. Many in Congress, mostly Whigs, saw the push to acquire Texas with military force as an attempt to expand slavery. This included former president John Quincy Adams and several other important Whigs in Congress. Slavery had been outlawed in Mexico, and Texas was still considered a rebel Mexican province by their government at that time. This war and it's mission was hotly debated in Congress.

The expansion of slavery, more than the institution of slavery itself, would soon become the most contentious political topic for the next 15 years. Throughout this period, several events concerning slavery would steal the national headlines. They included:

• Wilmot-Proviso (1846) – a political amendment to restrict slavery in territory acquired by Mexico –the bill never passed.

• Introduction of California as a free state (1850) - hotly debated in congress as it gave the political advantage to the free states and threatened to tip the north-south power base temporarily.

• Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) - the publication of this book was widespread and did much for the abolitionist cause. It stirred debate on slavery as a moral injustice.

• Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) - a bill that would let states decide their own course of action rather than the national government was highly contentious. This new bill abolished the Missouri Compromise.

• Formation of Republican Party (1854)  - the first party to establish a true anti-slavery expansion platform. The Whig Party had begun to crumble as southern Whigs began to leave the party. Several smaller parties collaborated and combined to make the Republican Party - established mostly within northern states.

• John Quitman’s attempt to annex Cuba for the south in order to create a slave state (1854). This military attempt was never actualized even though it was encouraged by then President Pierce. Eventually, the volatile publicity surrounding the Kansas-Nebraska Act discouraged the attempt and Quitman was actually arrested in violation of neutrality laws. He was eventually acquitted and elected to congress.

• William Walker’s attempt to create a slave empire in Central America (1855) - Walker was a well-educated soldier of fortune from Tennessee. He had military foray first into Baja, Mexico and then into Nicaragua in 1856. He actually took over the government of Nicaragua with hired mercenaries and Franklin Pierce soon recognized the government as legitimate - even though Central America and several foreign governments did not. Walker made several attempts to have these U.S.-sponsored mercenaries take over all of Central America. However, Walker made several enemies in the process including industrialist Cornelius Vanderbilt who spent money organizing his defeat. Costa Ricans finally defeated Walker's mercenaries during that same year (still a national holiday in Costa Rica). After a farcical election in Nicaragua to remain in power, Walker had to leave the country as his mercenary army had succumbed to disease. He returned to America as a hero of the American south. He again returned to Central America in 1860, but was captured by the British in British Honduras. They returned him to an unfriendly Nicaragua which executed him that same year.

• John Brown and the Pottawatamie killings (1856) – This massacre of slave owners by abolitionist John Brown and his brothers in Kansas created an unmanageable guerilla warfare in that territory. It took several different territorial governors before one was found who could control the territory.

• Dred Scott decision and the Supreme Court Judge Taney's ruling (1856) - Although Taney ruled in favor of the south (concerning the Fugitive Slave Law where fugitive slaves were ordered sent back to their southern masters if they entered a free state), his ruling went beyond the scope of the law itself and was interpreted as a pro-slavery referendum. His ruling would be enormously divisive.

• John Brown at Harper’s Ferry (1859) - John Brown's overthrow of national property and his intent on creating a slave rebellion created enormous public discourse in both the north and south. He would be hanged a few days after his capture.

• Crittenden Compromise and Lincoln’s rejection (1860) - In order to avoid war, this compromise in 1860-61 made several concessions for the south including the right of expand slavery in some areas of the south. Since Lincoln had been elected on the anti-slavery platform, he made his desires for rejection of the bill known. The bill was tabled by Congress and never resurfaced.

The Civil War and Slave Issue

According to several historians, it is unlikely that Lincoln could have issued the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation just one-year earlier than he did. Up until mid-1862, the northern states were not fighting to eliminate slavery. They were fighting to keep slavery from expanding outside the borders of the current slave states. The Emancipation Proclamation was a sweeping proclamation that dealt entirely with the institution of slavery in all states. This changed the national political debate. The south no longer could negotiate any truce in which they could remain a slave state.

There is no clear single reason why the northern public at large warmed to the point of complete emancipation for the slaves. All we can say for certain is that in 1863 the idea had matured to the point where it was possible to make the proclamation without serious backlash. The war had apparently energized and focused the dialogue both in the newspapers and Congress.

What was known to most people in the North during the war was that the South was using their slaves to build infra-structure and provide for southern troops. Emancipation of the slaves might eliminate an important piece of the South's labor force and end the war as well add more force to the northern army. Although there was not yet a decision of arming the emancipated slave population for northern military use, that would happen within months after the proclamation.

Civil War historian James McPherson points to the historical irony of the war during the early years. Had Robert E. Lee lost the Peninsula Campaign in 1862 and surrendered his army then, the slave states at that time would have been allowed to remain slave states. There would have been no Emancipation Proclamation.

Lincoln, however, took the step of all-or-nothing in the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. He had to wait until the time was right - after an important and brutal military victory at Sharpsburg - but from that point forward, a slave had at least the legal means to pursue freedom in every state.

Lincoln and Slavery Issues