The Path to Civil War—can you survive?

Roadblock 1: Wilmot Proviso

By the standards of his day, DAVID WILMOT could be considered a racist. Yet the Pennsylvania representative was so adamantly against the extension of slavery to lands ceded by Mexico, he made a proposition that would divide Congress. On August 8, 1846, Wilmot introduced legislation in the House that boldly declared, "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist" in lands won in the Mexican-American War. If he was not opposed to slavery, why would Wilmot propose such an action? Why would the north, which only contained a small, but growing minority, of abolitionists, agree?

Wilmot's heart did not bleed for the slave, he envisioned California as a place where free white Pennsylvanians could work without the competition of slave labor. Since the North was more populous and had more Representatives in the House, the Wilmot Proviso passed. Laws require the approval of both houses of Congress, however. The Senate, equally divided between free states and slave states could not muster the majority necessary for approval. Angrily the House passed WILMOT'S PROVISO several times, all to no avail. It would never become law.

• Calhoun responds that Congressman David Wilmot’s proviso would violate the Constitution– 5th Amendment: Congress cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of

law

What is Wilmot’s Proviso?

How do you vote?

What happens in the end?

Remember when we got that land from Mexico? Well, now what should be done with it? California has had a population boom thanks to the discovery of gold in 1849. California, unlike Texas, is a free state. Texas is a slave state. What should be done about the issue of slavery while the nation grows larger? You’re a member of Congress and you must make some decisions for the future of the nation. The debate rages on…

Roadblock 2: The Compromise of 1850

Henry Clay has got one more plan up his sleeve to keep the nation together. This will become known as the Compromise of 1850… Each time Clay's Compromise was set forth for a vote, it did not receive a majority. Henry Clay himself had to leave in sickness, before the dispute could be resolved. In his place, Stephen Douglas worked tirelessly to end the fight. On July 9, President Zachary Taylor died of food poisoning. His successor, MILLARD FILLMORE, was much more interested in compromise. The environment for a deal was set. By September, Clay's Compromise became law. (Pictured below, a very old Henry Clay and very old John C. Calhoun).

California was admitted to the Union as the 16th free state. In exchange, the south was guaranteed that no federal restrictions on slavery would be placed on Utah or New Mexico. Texas lost its boundary claims in New Mexico, but the Congress compensated Texas with $10 million. Slavery was maintained in the nation's capital, but the slave trade was prohibited. Finally, and most controversially, a FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW was passed, requiring northerners to return runaway slaves to their owners under penalty of law. (Fugitive means runaway)

Who won and who lost in the deal? Although each side received benefits, the north seemed to gain the most. The balance of the Senate was now with the free states, although California often voted with the South on many issues in the 1850s. The major victory for the South was the Fugitive Slave Law. In the end, the North refused to enforce it. Massachusetts even called for its nullification, stealing an argument from John C. Calhoun. Northerners claimed the law was unfair. The flagrant violation of the Fugitive Slave Law set the scene for the tempest that emerged later in the decade. But for now, Americans hoped against hope that the fragile peace would prevail.

North Gets South Gets1. California is a free state 2. Stronger Fugitive slave law

3. Slave trade banished in DC (but not slavery itself) 4.Popular Sovereignty-right for New Mexico and Utah territories to vote on whether to be slave or free

Will this be enough to keep the nation together? Can the U.S. move on now? Or is this just temporary???

Here he is again, folks, the Great Compromiser himself, Henry Clay. This time he has a really tough situation to work through. Something must be done about admitting California as a state. But something also must be done for the Southerners who say their “property” rights must be protected. What can be done to keep this nation from falling apart? What can be done to keep this nation together? How will we handle slavery as the nation continues to grow?

Roadblock 3: Underground Railroad

The Underground Railroad, a vast network of people who helped fugitive slaves escape to the North and to Canada, was not run by any single organization or person. Rather, it consisted of many individuals -- many whites but predominantly blacks -- who knew only of the local efforts to aid fugitives and not of the overall operation. Still, it effectively moved hundreds of slaves northward each year -- according to one estimate, the South lost 100,000 slaves between 1810 and 1850.

An organized system to assist runaway slaves seems to have begun towards the end of the 18th century. In 1786 George Washington complained about how one of his runaway slaves was helped by a "society of Quakers, formed for such purposes." The system grew, and around 1831 it was dubbed "The Underground Railroad," after the then emerging steam railroads. The system even used terms used in railroading: the homes and businesses where fugitives would rest and eat were called "stations" and "depots" and were run by "stationmasters," those who contributed money or goods were "stockholders," and the "conductor" was responsible for moving fugitives from one station to the next. 

For the slave, running away to the North was anything but easy. The first step was to escape from the slaveholder. For many slaves, this meant relying on his or her own resources. Sometimes a "conductor," posing as a slave, would enter a plantation and then guide the runaways northward. The fugitives would move at night. They would generally travel between 10 and 20 miles to the next station, where they would rest and eat, hiding in barns and other out-of-the-way places. While they waited, a message would be sent to the next station to alert its stationmaster. 

The fugitives would also travel by train and boat -- conveyances that sometimes had to be paid for. Money was also needed to improve the appearance of the runaways -- a black man, woman, or child in tattered clothes would invariably attract suspicious eyes. This money was donated by individuals and also raised by various groups, including vigilance committees.

Once again, you are faced with a dilemma. You have heard information that there have been several instances where slaves have run away from their masters. Southern slaveholders demand laws to return their “property”. Northern abolitionists refuse to follow such a law. How will you handle this situation? How do you maintain peace or as much peace as is possible? Your mission is compromise.

Vigilance committees sprang up in the larger towns and cities of the North, most prominently in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. In addition to soliciting money, the organizations provided food, lodging and money, and helped the fugitives settle into a community by helping them find jobs and providing letters of recommendation. 

The Underground Railroad had many notable participants, including John Fairfield in Ohio, the son of a slaveholding family, who made many daring rescues, Levi Coffin, a Quaker who assisted more than 3,000 slaves, and of course Harriet Tubman, who made 19 trips into the South and escorted over 300 slaves to freedom.

What is the Underground Railroad?

How does the Underground Railroad relate to calls for a “fugitive slave law” in which captured runaway slaves would be returned to their masters?

What is your stance on the issue?

Roadblock 4: Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Synopsis of Uncle Tom's CabinThe daughter of famous evangelical preacher Lyman Beecher, Uncle Tom’s Cabin author Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811–1896) herself became a national influence with her success as an author, abolitionist, and social commentator. Powerfully critiquing the hypocritical disconnect between America and both its democratic and Christian ideals, Stowe’s voice also reflected the values of womanly virtue and motherhood. The success of Uncle Tom’s Cabin indirectly helped put the issue of slavery on the national agenda, both politically and socially. Since the Missouri Compromise, politicians had been successful keeping slavery relatively low on the political radar. Uncle Tom’s Cabin heightened the existing tensions between the North and South, so much so, that President Lincoln would later credit Stowe for her role in instigating the Civil War.

You need to read the excerpt from “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and get a sense of what this book is about. What are your thoughts after reading this? How will this shape the divide in the nation as we move forward? What should be done about ending slavery? What should be done about Fugitive Slave laws?

SPEED BUMP!—You will need to complete the reading from Uncle Tom’s Cabin and answer questions from me before you move on.

Roadblock 5: Kansas Nebraska Act 1854

A book has been published and it is generating a lot of discussion. Many abolitionists have long known the horrors of slavery, but for many northerners, this book gives them insight into the life of a slave. The year is 1852 and the book will cause more people to have opinions on slavery than ever before. This book is one to remember, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Stowe wrote this book after meeting and discussing the life of slaves and runaway fugitive slaves.

By the early 1850s settlers and entrepreneurs wanted to move into the area now known as Nebraska. However, until the area was organized as a territory, settlers would not move there because they could not legally hold a claim on the land. The southern states' representatives in Congress were in no hurry to permit a Nebraska territory because the land lay north of the 36°30' parallel — where slavery had been outlawed by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Just when things between the north and south were in an uneasy balance, Kansas and Nebraska opened fresh wounds.

The person behind the Kansas-Nebraska Act was SENATOR STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS of Illinois.

He said he wanted to see Nebraska made into a territory and, to win southern support, proposed a southern state inclined to support slavery. It was Kansas. Underlying it all was his desire to build a transcontinental railroad to go through Chicago. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed each territory to decide the issue of slavery on the basis of popular sovereignty. (Popular sovereignty was the political doctrine that the people who lived in a region should determine for themselves the nature of their government. In U.S. history, it was applied particularly to the idea that settlers of federal territorial lands should decide the terms under which they would join the Union, primarily applied to the status as free or slave. ) Kansas with slavery would violate the Missouri Compromise, which had kept the Union from falling apart for the last thirty-four years. The long-standing compromise would have to be repealed. Opposition was intense, but ultimately the bill passed in May of 1854. Territory north of the sacred 36°30' line was now open to popular sovereignty. The North was outraged.

The political effects of Douglas' bill were enormous. Passage of the bill irrevocably split the Whig Party, one of the two major political parties in the country at the time. Every northern Whig had opposed the bill; almost every southern Whig voted for it. With the emotional issue of slavery involved, there was no way a common ground could be found. Most of the southern Whigs soon were swept into the Democratic Party. Northern Whigs reorganized themselves with other non-slavery interests to become the REPUBLICAN PARTY, the party of Abraham Lincoln. This left the Democratic Party as the sole remaining institution that crossed sectional lines. Animosity between the North and South was again on the rise. The North felt that if the Compromise of 1820 was ignored, the Compromise of 1850 could be ignored as well. Violations

of the hated Fugitive Slave Law increased. Trouble was indeed back with a vengeance.

Now what???! How will future states be determined in regards to the slavery issue? What is popular sovereignty? Was that the right move for the time? Will it keep the peace? What is the deal with this new Republican Party?

SPEED BUMP! Bleeding Kansas! You will need to find out about the Kansas situation and answer questions from me before moving forward.

SPEED BUMP! Bleeding Kansas!

Just when things were temporarily balanced between the North and the South, the rocky waters began to rock the boat. As people moved into Nebraska, they wanted it organized into a territory so that they could make legitimate claims to land. But, that land would be above the old Missouri Compromise line, which would make Nebraska a free territory. That would not sit well with the Southerners…so what can be done?

Nebraska was so far north that its future as a free state was never in question. But Kansas was next to the slave state of Missouri. In an era that would come to be known as "Bleeding Kansas," the territory would become a battleground over the slavery question.

The reaction from the North was immediate. Eli Thayer organized the New England Emigrant Aid Company, which sent settlers to Kansas to secure it as a free territory. By the summer of 1855, approximately 1,200 New Englanders had made the journey to the new territory, armed to fight for freedom. The abolitionist minister Henry Ward Beecher furnished settlers with Sharps rifles, which came to be known as "Beecher's Bibles."

Rumors had spread through the South that 20,000 Northerners were descending on Kansas, and in November 1854,

thousands of armed Southerners, mostly from Missouri, poured over the line to vote for a proslavery congressional delegate. Only half the ballots were cast by registered voters, and at one location, only 20 of over 600 voters were legal residents. The proslavery forces won the election.

On March 30, 1855, another election was held to choose members of the territorial legislature. The Missourians, or "Border Ruffians," as they were called, again poured over the line. This time, they swelled the numbers from 2,905 registered voters to 6,307 actual ballots cast. Only 791 voted against slavery.

The new state legislature enacted what Northerners called the "Bogus Laws," which incorporated the Missouri slave code. These laws levelled severe penalties against anyone who spoke or wrote against slaveholding; those who assisted fugitives would be put to death or sentenced to ten years hard labor. (Statutes of Kansas) The Northerners were outraged, and set up their own Free State legislature at Topeka. Now there were two governments established in Kansas, each outlawing the other. President Pierce only recognized the proslavery legislature.

Most settlers who had come to Kansas from the North and the South only wanted to homestead in peace. They were not interested in the conflict over slavery, but they found themselves in the midst of a battleground. Violence erupted throughout the territory. Southerners were driven by the rhetoric of leaders such as David Atchison, a Missouri senator. Atchison proclaimed the Northerners to be "negro thieves" and "abolitionist tyrants." He encouraged Missourians to defend their institution "with the bayonet and with blood" and, if necessary, "to kill every God-damned abolitionist in the district."

The northerners, however, were not all abolitionists as Atchison claimed. In fact, abolitionists were in the minority. Most of the Free State settlers were part of a movement called Free Soil, which demanded free territory for free white people. They hated slavery, but not out of concern for the slaves themselves. They hated it because plantations took over the land and prevented white working people from having their own homesteads. They hated it because it brought large numbers of black people wherever it went. The Free Staters voted 1,287 to 453 to outlaw black people, slave or free, from Kansas. Their territory would be white.

There had been several attacks during this time, primarily of proslavery against Free State men. People were tarred and feathered, kidnapped, killed. But now the violence escalated. On May 21, 1856, a group of proslavery men entered Lawrence, where they burned the Free State Hotel, destroyed two printing presses, and ransacked homes and stores. In retaliation, the fiery abolitionist John Brown led a group of men on an attack at Pottawatomie Creek. The group, which included four of Brown's sons, dragged five proslavery men from their homes and hacked them to death with swords.

The violence had now escalated, and the confrontations continued. John Brown reappeared in Osawatomie to join the fighting there. Violence also erupted in Congress itself. 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." In retaliation, Butler's nephew, Congressman Preston Brooks, attacked Sumner at his Senate desk and beat him senseless with a cane. (Brooks actually breaks his cane and Southerns shower him with new ones as gifts).

In September of 1856, a new territorial governor, John W. Geary, arrived in Kansas and began to restore order. The last major outbreak of violence was the Marais des Cynges massacre, in which Border Ruffians killed five Free State men. In all, approximately 55 people died in "Bleeding Kansas."

Several attempts were made to draft a constitution which Kansas could use to apply for statehood. Some versions were proslavery, others free state. Finally, a fourth convention met at Wyandotte in July 1859, and adopted a free state constitution. Kansas applied for admittance to the Union. However, the proslavery forces in the Senate strongly opposed its free state status, and stalled its admission. Only in 1861, after the Confederate states seceded, did the constitution gain approval and Kansas become a state.

Roadblock 6: The Republican Party is born

The new party experienced almost overnight success, winning control of the House of Representatives in the fall of 1854. Issues that brought the Republicans together included:

1. Repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska Act—the Republican opposition to the extension of slavery was based more on economic concerns than moral ones

2. Support of the central route for the construction of the transcontinental railroad

3. Support of a Homestead Acts, which would ease the process for settlers to own western lands

4. Support of high protective tariffs and liberal immigration laws—both were attractive to Northern manufacturers.

Importantly, the Republicans were the party of free working white men; they were opposed to the spread of slavery because they did not want to compete against unpaid labor in the lands opening in the West. They were no particular friends of the blacks, slave or free. Further, the Republicans were purely a sectional party; they did not attempt to run candidates in the slave states. Their plan was to gain complete political control in the North; if they did, they would have sufficient electoral strength to elect a president.

So, now there is a new political party on the block. What do they stand for? Are abolitionists likely to align themselves with the Republicans? What do southern slave owners think about this new party? Will this further divide the nation?

ROUTE INFO: Complete the Political Parties chart and questions detailing the new and old political parties of this time period. You will need to complete this before moving onto the next Roadblock.

Roadblock 7: Dred Scott v. Sandford (Sanford) *Case 1857

Well, it is official; the issue of slavery has given rise to a new political party. The party, known as the Republican Party, is formed as a result of the Kansas Nebraska Act. There are people, mostly free working white men who have strong feelings about preventing the spread of slavery. How will this new political party impact the nation? Will it have staying power and stick around?

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slave-owners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property.

The controversy began in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon with the U.S. Army, purchased Dred Scott, a slave, and eventually moved Scott to a base in the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery was banned in the territory pursuant to the Missouri Compromise. Scott lived there for the next four years, hiring himself out for work during the long stretches when Emerson was away. In 1840, Scott, his new wife, and their young children moved to Louisiana and then to St. Louis with Emerson. Emerson died in 1843, leaving the Scott family to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In 1846, after laboring and saving for years, the Scotts sought to buy their freedom from Sanford, but she refused. Dred Scott then sued Sanford in a state court, arguing that he was legally free because he and his family had lived in a territory where slavery was banned.

The Supreme Court, in an infamous opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to take Scott's case because Scott was, or at least had been, a slave. First, the Court argued that they could not entertain Scott's case because federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are courts of "peculiar and limited jurisdiction" and may only hear cases brought by select parties involving limited claims. For example, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may only hear cases brought by "citizens" of the United States. The Court ruled that because Scott was "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves," and thus "[not] a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution," Scott was not a citizen and had no right to file a lawsuit in federal court. 

Second, the Court argued that Scott's status as a citizen of a free state did not necessarily give him status as a U.S. citizen. While the states were free to create their own citizenship criteria, and had done so before the Constitution even came into being, the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to define national citizenship. Moreover, the Court

argued that even if Scott was deemed "free" under the laws of a state, he would still not qualify as an American citizen because he was black. The Court asserted that, in general, U.S. citizens are only those who were members of the "political community" at the time of the Constitution's creation, along with those individuals' heirs, and slaves were not part of this community. Finally, the Court argued that, in any case, Scott could not be defined as free by virtue of his residency in the Wisconsin Territory, because Congress lacked the power to ban slavery in U.S. territories. The Court viewed slaves as "property," and the Fifth Amendment forbids Congress from taking property away from individuals without just compensation. Justice Benjamin Curtis issued a strong dissent.

The decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford increased rising sectional tensions between the North and South. Although the Missouri Compromise had already been repealed prior to the case, the decision nonetheless appeared to validate the Southern version of national power, and to embolden pro-slavery Southerners to expand slavery to all reaches of the nation. Unsurprisingly, antislavery forces were outraged by the decision, empowering the newly formed Republican Party and helping fuel violence between slave-owners and abolitionists on the frontier. Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress passed, and the states ratified, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments,

One of the Supreme Court’s monumental decisions is pending…a former slave, Dred Scott, sued for his and his family’s freedom since he had been brought to a territory that was a free state. He sued for his freedom and the Supreme Court was left to make a decision in a time when the nation is struggling with the issue of slavery and the rights of slaves and the rights of slave owners over their “property”. What will be done?

*Clerical error at the Supreme Court spelled Sanford’s name wrong.

**If ever asked about bad decisions made by the Supreme Court, remember this one. Sarah Palin did not when she was asked about it in 2008.

all of which directly overturned the Dred Scott decision. Today, all people born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens who may bring suit in federal court. 

What does this mean for the nation? How does this leave things for southern slave owners? What about how does this leave things for Republicans? How does this leave things for the slaves in the south? For the free blacks living in the nation? What does this Supreme Court decision indicate about the nation at this time?

Roadblock 8: Lincoln-Douglas debates

In 1858, as the country moved ever closer to disunion, two politicians from Illinois attracted the attention of a nation. From August 21 until October 15, Stephen Douglas battled Abraham Lincoln in face to face DEBATES around the state. The prize they sought was a seat in the Senate. Lincoln challenged Douglas to a war of ideas. Douglas took the challenge. The debates were to be held at 7 locations throughout Illinois. The fight was on and the nation was watching.

The spectators came from all over Illinois and nearby states by train, by canal-boat, by wagon, by buggy, and on horseback. They briefly swelled the populations of the towns that hosted the debates. The audiences participated by shouting questions, cheering the participants as if they were prizefighters, applauding and laughing. The debates attracted tens of thousands of voters and newspaper reporters from across the nation.

During the debates, Douglas still advocated "popular sovereignty," which maintained the right of the citizens of a territory to permit or prohibit slavery. It was, he said, a sacred right of self-government. Lincoln pointed out that Douglas's position directly challenged the Dred Scott decision, which decreed that the citizens of a territory had no such power.

In what became known as the FREEPORT DOCTRINE, Douglas replied that whatever the Supreme Court decided was not as important as the actions of the citizens. If a territory refused to have slavery, no laws, no Supreme Court ruling, would force them to permit it. This sentiment would be taken as betrayal to many southern Democrats and would come back to haunt Douglas in his bid to become President in the election of 1860.

Time and time again, Lincoln made that point that "A HOUSE DIVIDED COULD NOT STAND." Douglas refuted this by noting that the founders, "left each state perfectly free to do as it pleased on the subject." Lincoln felt that blacks were entitled to the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, which include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Douglas argued that the founders intended no such inclusion for blacks.

Neither Abraham Lincoln nor Stephen Douglas won a popular election that fall. Under rules governing Senate elections, voters cast their ballots for local legislators, who then choose a Senator. The Democrats won a majority of district contests and returned Douglas to Washington. But the nation saw a rising star in the defeated Lincoln. The entire drama that unfolded in Illinois would be played on the national stage only two years later with the highest of all possible stakes.

SPEED BUMP—read “A House Divided Could Not Stand”. Find out what Lincoln meant in this historical speech and answer questions from me.

“A House Divided”

In 1858, two politicians engaged in a series of debates that would captivate the interest of the nation. The competition was for a seat in the Senate for the state of Illinois. It was these debates that really put Abraham Lincoln on the political map, especially with the delivery of one of his memorable speeches, “A House Divided”. So, why is this important? Well, as Lincoln speaks and people listen, it will have a lasting effect on the nation. So what happened?

“If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased but has constantly augmented (grown). In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "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. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Let anyone who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination – piece of machinery so to speak - compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott Decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action among its chief architects, form the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded form more than half the States by State Constitutions, and form most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.”

Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's speech, "A House Divided"

“A House Divided”

“If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased but has constantly augmented (grown). In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "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. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Let anyone who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination – piece of machinery so to speak - compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott Decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action among its chief architects, form the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded form more than half the States by State Constitutions, and form most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.”

Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's speech, "A House Divided"

Roadblock 9: John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry

On October 16, 1859, John Brown led a small army of 18 men into the small town of HARPER'S FERRY, Virginia. His plan was to instigate a major slave rebellion in the South. He would seize the arms and ammunition in the federal arsenal, arm slaves in the area and move south along the Appalachian Mountains, attracting slaves to his cause. He had no rations. He had no escape route. His plan was doomed from the very beginning. But it did succeed to deepen the divide between the North and South.

John Brown and his men stayed in this rented farmhouse in the days before the raid on Harper's Ferry.

John Brown and his cohorts marched into an unsuspecting Harper's Ferry and seized the federal complex with little resistance. It consisted of an armory, arsenal, and engine house. He then sent a patrol out into the country to contact slaves, collected several hostages, including the great grandnephew of George Washington, and sat down to wait. The slaves did not rise to his support, but local citizens and militia surrounded him, exchanging gunfire, killing two townspeople and eight of Brown's company. Troops under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Lee arrived from Washington to arrest Brown. They stormed the engine house, where Brown had withdrawn, captured him and members of his group, and turned them over to Virginia authorities to be tried for treason. He was quickly tried and sentenced to hang on December 2.

John Brown's fanaticism affected many of the people around him, especially his family. Two of his sons were killed at Harper's Ferry.

Brown's strange effort to start a rebellion was over less than 36 hours after it started; however, the consequences of his raid would last far longer. In the North, his raid was greeted by many with widespread admiration. While they recognized the raid itself was the act of a madman, some northerners admired his zeal and courage. Church bells pealed on the day of his execution and songs and paintings were created in his honor. Brown was turned into an instant martyr. Ralph Waldo Emerson predicted that Brown would make "the gallows as glorious as the cross." The majority of northern newspapers did, however, denounce the raid. The Republican Party adopted

a specific plank condemning John Brown and his ill-fated plan. But that was not what the South saw.

You know what they say, when it rains, it pours. The downpour is coming. John Brown, an abolitionist led a violent assault on the federal armory and arsenal storing weapons. Brown wanted to start a rebellion in the hopes of ending slavery. What should be done about this? Is violence inevitable? How should the nation respond to Brown’s actions?

Southerners were shocked and outraged. How could anyone be sympathetic to a fanatic who destroyed their property and threatened their very lives? How could they live under a government whose citizens regarded John Brown as a martyr? Southern newspapers labeled the entire north as John Brown sympathizers. Southern politicians blamed the Republican Party and falsely claimed that Abraham Lincoln supported Brown's intentions. Moderate voices supporting compromise on both sides grew silent amid the gathering storm. In this climate of fear and hostility, the election year of 1860 opened ominously. The election of Abraham Lincoln became unthinkable to many in the south.

So, is John Brown a murderer or a martyr? What should be done about this violence? Will this have a lasting effect on the nation?

Roadblock 10: Election of 1860

The Democrats met in Charleston, South Carolina, in April 1860 to select their candidate for President in the upcoming election. It was turmoil. Northern democrats felt that Stephen Douglas had the best chance to defeat the "BLACK

REPUBLICANS." Although an ardent supporter of slavery, southern Democrats considered Douglas a traitor because of his support of popular sovereignty, permitting territories to choose not to have slavery. Southern democrats stormed out of the convention, without choosing a candidate. Six weeks later, the northern Democrats chose Douglas, while at a separate convention the Southern Democrats nominated then VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE.

The Republicans met in Chicago that May and recognized that the Democrat's turmoil actually gave them a chance to take the election. They needed to select a candidate who could carry the North and win a majority of the Electoral College. To do that, the Republicans needed someone who could carry New Jersey, Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania — four important states that remained uncertain. There were plenty of potential candidates, but in the end Abraham Lincoln had emerged as the best choice. Lincoln had become the symbol of the frontier, hard work, the self-made man and the American dream. His debates with Douglas had made him a national figure and the publication of those debates in early 1860 made him even better known. After the third ballot, he had the nomination for President.

A number of aging politicians and distinguished citizens, calling themselves the CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY, nominated JOHN BELL of Tennessee, a wealthy slaveholder as their candidate for President. These people were for moderation. They decided that the best way out of the present difficulties that faced the nation was to take no stand at all on the issues that divided the north and the south.

With four candidates in the field, Lincoln received only 40% of the popular vote and 180 electoral votes — enough to narrowly win the crowded election. This meant that 60% of the voters selected someone other than Lincoln. With the results tallied, the question was, would the South accept the outcome? A few weeks after the election, South Carolina seceded from the Union.

Congratulations! You’re at the end of the road. Did you win?

The time has come for the nation to elect a new president. There are many candidates and the issues are pressing the American public to the edge. Do we really have a divided nation? What will happen when the Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, wins the presidency without any votes from southern states? Is that representative of what the nation wants? Or is it representative of what the nation needs? Is this the straw that breaks the camel’s (the nation’s) back?