Bleeding Kansas Catherine is a mother in the 1850’s living on the border of Kansas as a free-stater. Everyday she devotes her time to making sure the house is ship-shape. She works on sewing clothes for her fast growing children, and then spends hours making food so she can keep her family’s bellies full and their faces smiling. Today as she finished her long list of daily chores and began to make dinner, she remembered that her husband said he will be coming home a little late. So she decided to sit down with her three rambunctious, hungry children (all under the age of ten) and eat without him. Just as she got the children to settle down and started to say the blessing on the food-Bam! Bam! Bam! What happened? Without hesitation she grabbed …show more content…
her children, whilst spilling food and silverware all over the floor, and forced them to hide under the table. She remembered about the “Border Wars” that her husband told her about a few weeks before. Catherine had no idea that the battle between the Free-Staters and the Border Ruffians would become a battle that was so dangerously close to home. As soon as she made sure that everyone was safe, she decided to rise from underneath the table, leaving the children behind so that they would remain protected under the hardwood. Catherine rushed to the kitchen window and peeked out from behind the curtains looking towards the street where the shots came from. “Your father should be home any minute. Do not worry children.” She said trying to calm the worried faces from under the table. She began to worry about her husband who still had not made an appearance. “He said he would be home by now and I still do not see him.” She thinks anxiously. “What if he was hurt? I hope none of those bullets were directed towards him.” Although the Border Wars were extremely violent and conflicted many, it sparked a flame in the revolution towards abolishing slavery that would change the way African-Americans would live in the United States from that time forward. Most people who came to the Kansas territory were seeking for land and opportunity. They were hoping to experience the new freedoms of religion and expression, however, the tensions between the newly made Kansas- Nebraska Act disrupted the peaceful dreams of so many families. It changed the law of the 30° 60° line determining the difference between the free and the slave states. The Kansas-Nebraska act allowed the territories to use Popular Sovereignty to vote on whether or not Kansas was to be a free or slave state. The two official political parties at the time were Democratic and Republican. The Democratic party was split into the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats. The Northern Democrats were those who were in full support of the presidential nominee Abraham Lincoln and opposed slavery. The Southern Democrats were those who were pro-slavery and opposed the anti slavery Republicans and the Northern Democrats. Since the parties were divided, that left questions for many such as, who were the leaders that were swaying the votes of these people? How could we possibly have one military fighting for the rights for one country if the people were so divided? In “Peacekeeping on the Plains: Army Operations In Bleeding Kansas,” Tony R.
Mullis states, One of the most basic expectations regarding the army as a whole was the subordination of the military power to civilian authority. American fears of military usurpation of civil liberties or the use of the army for political repression were aroused once again during Bleeding Kansas. (23) People were left to their own devices, and began taking law and order into their own hands. They began to sue for their rights that were not given to them even after the constitutional promises were made. People began to be more familiar with bloody deeds and horrific acts that eventually led into the Civil War, but was currently known as Bleeding Kansas. Sarah Bell, a Ph. D. student at the University of Kansas …show more content…
says, “The political context surrounding slavery in the years leading up to the Dred Scott decision was one of compromise and sectional tensions. With the opening of Western territories, there was heightened debate between the North and South over the issue of slavery.” The infamous Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford Case of 1857 was a controversy reaching headlines all over the states. Dred Scott was a 50 year old man who sued to have his families freedom since he lived with his owner in a state where slavery was illegal. It took 11 years for the case to reach the supreme court. The final decision was made on March 6, 1857 and Dred Scott’s family was denied their freedom by a vote that was 7-2. In Sarah's article she also states that Judge Taney found the idea of the blacks thinking that they were citizens, or even free, was impossible and even unconstitutional. Therefore they could not petition for their freedom in court. He also stated that, “Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in any federal territories, making significant portions of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional.” The decision reverberated throughout the country leading to more tension for the territories, and leading to more bloody acts. John Brown for example was another case in which the territories continued to feel threatened by one another. John Brown was an anti-slavery activist that was not afraid of the battle along the territory borders. John Brown grew up in the Northern anti-slavery part of the country which eventually led to him joining a abolitionist group. John Brown’s goals grew along with the sparks that eventually became the flaming war of the within the states. During the presidential election of 1860, John Brown was reminded of the awful slave system that caused men like himself to commit horrific acts of violence in the first place. Many Republicans at the time said that there was no difference between a radical abolitionist, like John Brown, and a more peaceful approaching anti-slavery individual like Abraham Lincoln. Debating Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, Abraham Lincoln dismissed Bleeding Kansas's importance: "If Kansas should sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed question [of slavery] would still be among us."[1] Lincoln believed that he was speaking nothing but candor.
On May 24-25 1856 John Brown, five of his sons, and three other anti-slavery activists went along with him to the bank of the Pottawatomie Creek. They want to different cabins and murdered five proslavery men, This horrible act was encouraged by a sacking that had been an attack on an anti-slavery town names Lawrence. Also previously, a representative of South Carolina, Preston Brooks, performed a vicious attack on Charles Sumner on the floor of the US Senate. Charles was beaten by Brookes because of his passion for anti-slavery. Even with the violent acts that John Brown committed, the Southern Democrat, Stephen A. Douglas lost huge amounts of popularity. He was not helping his people in stopping these horrific acts and the people lost faith in
him. “Both men owed much of their political circumstances to Bleeding Kansas. Douglas had lost popularity when his controversial 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act alienated Northerners. Political turmoil and violence, which earned the territory its nickname, eroded Democratic party power. Then, in 1857 and 1858, Douglas lost southern support by opposing a proslavery constitution for Kansas. The very events in Kansas that hurt Douglas's career helped Lincoln's. African-American lives were greatly influenced by President Lincoln's courage in fighting the pro slavery activists. Don Fehrenbacher wisely observed that both belief and ambition motivated Lincoln: "Since a man often has more than one reason for what he does, the depth and sincerity of Lincoln's conviction can be affirmed without the slightest discounting of his intense, sleeping ambition." In 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation freed the African-Americans from the rebel states. The thirteenth amendment was also put into play that freed all slaves no matter where they were in the states. Although the African-Americans were now free, America was still opposed to the idea. The freed African Americans were still looked down upon and there were many hostile Americans that couldn't accept the idea of equality among the races. One freedman, Houston Hartsfield Holloway, wrote, "For we colored people did not know how to be free and the white people did not know how to have a free colored person about them." Catherine hears a yelp from outside of their little home and without any hesitation runs out the door answering the holler from her husband's voice. “The state of Kansas has been made a free state Catherine! Did you hear that!” Catherine was extremely surprised by his embrace. “I heard gunshots is what I heard! What was that all about?” “Those were victory shots!” Her husband exclaimed. January 29, 1861 was the day that Kansas finally became a free state and the lives of African-American slaves changed forever.
To put it simply (as I recall and it's been years since I've had to read about this subject)a new territory was opened to settle in. It was decided that the settlers of these states would decide whether or not slavery would be permitted. This gave birth to the new Republican Party which opposed slavery. The Act was designed by Stephen A Douglas a Democratic senator from Illinois (the same who would later defeat a young Abraham Lincoln for the senate in 1858) and repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Thousands of settlers both pro and anti slavery rushed into Kansas particularly and bloody, murderous fights broke out among the groups hence the nickname "Bleeding Kansas". It was actually one territory but this Act divided it into two states.
Stewart R. W. (2005). American Military History (Vol. 1). The United States Army and the
While Sumner was in the Senate, he became a leader of the anti-slavery-forces. During the debates on slavery in Kansas in May 1856, Sumner delivered a two-day oration called "The Crime against Kansas", that brutally defamed Southern expansion of slavery. When Sumner gave this speech, Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina believed that Sumner had insulted his uncle, Senator Andrew Butler. Brooks backfired and used his cane to beat Sumner, who was seated at his desk on the Senate floor, until he was unconscious. Sumner, bleeding profusely, had to be carried out of the room. Sumner’s injuries from the beating kept him out of office for three years.
Weigley, Russel F. History of the United States Army. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1st Edition, 1984.
- - -, ed. "The Anti-War Movement in the United States." English.Illnois.edu. Ed. Oxford Companion to American Military History. 1st ed. Vers. 1. Rev. 1. Oxford Companion to American Military History, 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. .
The US Army’s official birthday is June 14, 1775, however its origins are much earlier than that. During British colonialism, citizens often had to take up arms to defend themselves, primarily against the Indians, since the British did not have a significant military presence in America. “Two concepts that still shape the American military can be traced to this period. The first is the idea of the citizen soldier, who picks up his gun in wartime and returns to civilian pursuits in peace. The second is the concept of universal obligation…” (Brown, page xiii).
...l, cultural and financial institutions led to fierce reactions. Bloody Kansas, Sumner’s caning, and Brown’s raid all happened because Northerners and Southerners felt that opposing faction was encroaching on their beliefs. Northerners felt that the Kansas- Nebraska Act would lead to slavery being extended to Northern states. Southerners felt that Northerners (abolitionists and republicans) would try to abolish slavery and destroy their livelihood. The age of compromise ended when the Kansas- Nebraska act was introduced because it made past compromises void. If previous compromises could be void then compromises were no longer useful to the Union and chaos and violence took its place. The increasing violence that plague sectional tension during the 1850s closed off all hope for compromise by the end of the decade and led to the bloodiest war in the country’s history.
From 1860 to 1877, the American people faced several constitutional and social issues. For example, the after-effects of the Civil War, power struggle between the state and federal government, issues with civil liberties and suffrage, the rights of free black men, and resentment of white men, have all become critical issues. These critical issues needed immediate resolutions. Therefore, resolutions were created to solve these problems and those resolutions called for new constitutional and social developments that have amount to a revolution.
After the Civil War came the Reconstruction. The Reconstruction gave some power back to the states and eventually brought the states back together. It gave the state’s power by allowing them to govern themselves under military commanders from the Union. Although this brought the 14th amendment which gave former
Later on, after President Lincoln abolished slavery(the thirteen amendment in the constitution) the southern states decided to nullify his decision but the went against the constitution. Nullification is illegal. This action cause the bloodiest civil war in America. President Lincoln notice that the US government was not following what they were preaching. After the win in the civil war, the federal government had established themselves with a lot of power.
middle of paper ... ... Violence also erupted in Congress. The abolitionist senator Charles Sumner delivered a fiery speech called "The Crime Against Kansas," in which he accused proslavery senators, particularly Atchison and Andrew Butler of South Carolina, of [cavorting with the] "harlot, Slavery."
Preston Brooks, a cowardly scoundrel, committed one of the most evil crimes that had ever occurred in the Senate since before that time period. Brooks beat Sumner with his cane on the floor of the Senate, unjustifiably, in response to parts of Sumner's speech that he found disturbing. One of the topics Sumner discussed was slavery. He told the audience of the torture slaves went through, such as “compel(ling) fellowmen to unpaid toll, separate(ing) husband and wife, and sell(ing) little children at the auctions...” This accurate description of slavery life showed how great of an evil slavery really was, and why it should have been abolished. The cowardly scoundrel, known as Brooks by name, had no real reason to cane Sumner. In fact, he could
The institution of slavery was legal and eventually constitutional in the United States for 245 years. In that time, many compromises were made in the American government regarding slavery. This is particularly evident in the time period prior to 1854 in which the US government made a great deal of compromises in order to maintain the stability of American society. As 1854 began, tensions continued to rise surrounding the topic of slavery. Ultimately, these tensions lead to horrific violence within the nation, beginning with the events of Bleeding Kansas. Bleeding Kansas catalysed a violent reaction that eventually manifested itself as the American Civil War, beginning in 1861. This progression from compromise to violence in response to a changing
102. Popular sovereignty of the people is the principle that the structure of the government is created and upheld by the writ of the people through their elected representatives. Basically, it's the rule of the people and what they insist.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1964. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.