The Republican Party's Version of American History - Arts - Monash ...

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013The Republican Party’s Version of AmericanHistory: Galvanising the Northern Public againstSouthern SlaveryDarren Dobson(Monash University, Australia)Abstract: The 1850s in the United States were a time of intense social and politicaldivision. The sectional crisis between the free labour economy of the Northernstates’ and the Southern states’ entrenched social system of slavery were ignitingtensions across the Nation. In the midst of this turmoil, a Northern political partystanding on a platform of anti-slavery emerged in 1854. This new Republican Partywould in the space of six years go from being a regional party in places like Illinois toclaiming the Presidential office under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.How did the Republicans gain so much public support in the Northern states in soshort a time? One technique was the use of rhetorical language through whichRepublicans espoused their interpretation of the true meaning of America’s historysince the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence. With the 150 thanniversary of the American Civil War, it is a good time to reinvestigate howRepublican leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chaseand Charles Sumner were able to convey their Party’s message and persuade thevast population of the North to favour an anti-slavery stance. In particular, this paperdiscusses just how these prominent Republicans interpreted America’s history andused it as a weapon to justify calls for containing slavery within the Southern stateswhere it existed at the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861.1

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013In 1789, the first Federal government of the United States took office; however, thenation was in actuality a tentative arrangement between Northern free labour andSouthern slavery. For the next few decades these two competing economic sectionsstruggled to live with each other under the Union’s banner. Sectional tension came toa boiling point with the conclusion of the Mexican-American War in 1848 when theUnited States acquired from the spoils of this war vast new territories in the West,including the former Mexican territories of California and New Mexico. Immediatelydebate ensued over which economic system would move into these regions. The twodominant political parties at the beginning of the 1850s were the Democrats and theWhigs, both of whom had Northern and Southern wings. While the Democratsremained united as a national party, the Whigs were unable to hold off the mountinganxieties between their Northern members and their Southern wing.What resulted would amount to the reshaping of the American political landscapeand be the main trigger for escalating the sectional crisis. 1 By 1852, the Whigsteetered on the brink of collapse because of the deaths of leading statesmen, DanielWebster and Henry Clay, and the defection of the Southern planters. The formerprominent Whigs were replaced by new and younger leaders who fumed over anypolitical alliance with slaveholders. Chief amongst these were Charles Sumner,William H. Seward and Abraham Lincoln. Within this malaise Seward would say thatthe country needed “a bold, out-spoken, free spoken organization – one that openlyproclaims its principles, its purposes and its objects – in fear of God, and not of1 William E. Gienapp, “The Crisis of American Democracy: The Political Systems and the Coming ofthe Civil War,” in Gabor S. Boritt and David Blight (eds), Why the Civil War Came, (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1996), 95.2

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013man.” 2 Many likeminded Northern politicians sought a party that would not fallsubservient to the demands of an internal sectional power. Seward went on to saythat it was better “to take an existing organization that answers to these conditions, ifwe can find one. If we cannot find one such, we must create one.” 3 It seemed formany ex-Northern Whigs that a new party was needed. By the mid-1850s, theremaining Northern members drifted to either the American or the RepublicanParties. 4So just how did the Republican Party in the six years between 1854 and the 1860Presidential election harness Northern anxieties and galvanise the majority of peoplefrom the free states into a constituency which favoured containing the Southernslave states? In this article I will investigate how the Republicans used theirinterpretation of American history since 1776 to win Federal Administration. It wasthrough both the deliverance of speeches by prominent Republican leaders and theirsubsequent publication in Northern newspapers, that the party was able to convincea broader Northern audience about stopping slavery’s spread into the westernterritories and contain it to those states where it already existed. As historian HaroldHolzer identified, prominent Republicans operated and spoke to audiences acrossthe free states whom largely “lived and breathed politics” and flocked “to hear” thesepoliticians talk “for hours at a time on the issues of the day.” 5 For those Northernpeople unable to attend these events, they were catered for by the abundance ofpolitically aligned local and national newspapers. These editorials helped to provide2 William H. Seward, The Dangers of Extending Slavery and the Crisis: Dangers of Extending Slavery,Delivered in Albany, New York, October 12, 1855, 5 th edition, (Washington, D.C.: RepublicanAssociation and Buell and Blanchard Printers, 1856), 8.3 Ibid.4 Michael F. Holt, “Party Dynamics and the Coming of the Civil War,” in Michael Perman (ed.), TheComing of the American Civil War, Third Edition,( Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1993), 91.5 Harold Holzer, Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech that made Abraham Lincoln President, (NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 4, 115, 149, 164.3

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013free soil citizens with full transcripts of notable speeches and acted as a “windowonto current events,” while also fuelling “mass participation in the electoral process.” 6Via these mechanisms, the Republicans promoted their anti-slavery version ofAmerican history and persuaded a growing Northern constituency to their cause.This investigation looks at some of the speeches, letters and diaries of AbrahamLincoln, William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase and Charles Sumner to explore howthe Republicans identified Northern fears and targeted their historical rhetoric toattack slavery. Through these source materials I will investigate the waysRepublicans used historical language as a tool to oppose slavery and Slave Power,the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854), Bleeding Kansas (1856) and the Dred Scottdecision (1857). It is my goal to show that the Republican Party’s historicalunderstandings and campaigns promoting anti-slavery was a galvanising forcebehind which many Northerners united against Southern slavery.The Republicans as the Northern Anti-slavery and Anti-Slave Power PartyBy 1854 mid-western farmers furious about the Kansas-Nebraska Act called for thecreation of a new anti-slavery party to stand against the Southern Slave Power. 7 Thiswould become the Republican Party, whose members were derived from formerFree Soilers, Anti-Nebraska Democrats and Conscience Whigs. With the Party’sstrength being minimal in those states beyond the mid-west, its leaders recognisedthat they needed some type of stimulus to gain constituents and to convince6 Ibid.7 The Republican Party had identified the Slave Power to be the combination of Southernslaveholders uniting in State and Federal politics within the tiers of government – the Executive, theCongress and the Judiciary – to influence and control US law with the purpose of enacting favourablepolicy for slavery’s continuation and expansion. Republicans believed that through the DemocraticParty, this Slave Power, also referred to as the Slavocracy and Slave Oligarchy, formed a conspiracyto subvert US democracy.4

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013Northerners that they were committed to defending free soil society. 8 Salmon P.Chase believed that to effectively unite “the people of the free states” theRepublicans would need to reveal to Northerners “their own connexion with andresponsibility for National Slavery.” 9 Chase held such a revelation would enable theParty to begin espousing their historical anti-slavery understanding and “catch thespirit of the people,” who would feel betrayed by the South. 10 This would in turn allowthe Republicans “to feel that [spirit] transfused into” them and “organize a peoplesmovement” with the designed purpose of “overthrow[ing] the Slave Power.” 11The Republican Party sought to become the mainstream political voice in the freestates by tapping into Northern disappointment and frustration with NorthernDemocrats and those politicians who sympathised with the South, referred to as‘doughfaces.’ 12 Many Northern voters blamed these two groups for the MissouriCompromise’s repeal by the successful passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.Amidst this political atmosphere the Republicans announced that they werededicated to stopping slavery’s expansion and returning Federal Government to itsoriginal purpose. They believed that slavery implied subordination to tyranny at theexpense of liberty and equality. 13The Republican Party aimed to convinceNortherners that slaveholders sought to enslave them under Southern socialstructures. 14 Seward added to this renouncement by fostering the idea that an8 Ray Allen Billington and James Blaine Hedges, Western Expansion: A History of the AmericanFrontier, (New York: Macmillan, 1949), 594-9.9 Salomon P. Chase, “Letter to Lewis Tappan, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 15, 1843,” in John Niven(ed.), The Salmon P. Chase Papers Volume 2: Correspondence, 1823-1857, (Ohio: Kent StateUniversity Press, 1994), 102.10 Salmon P. Chase, ‘Letter to James W. Grimes, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 27, 1855’, in Niven (ed.), TheSalmon P. Chase Papers Volume 2., 421.11 Ibid.12 David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 247.13 Leonard L. Richards, The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860,(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000),12, 193-4.14 Holt, “Party Dynamics and the Coming of the Civil War,” 104.5

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013aristocracy existed in the United States contrary to the design of the FoundingFathers by saying; “Think it not strange or extravagant when I say that an aristocracyhas already arisen here, and that it is already undermining the Republic.” 15 For theRepublicans this aristocracy was “A privileged class” of “Slaveholders” whose“special foundation” was rooted in their “personal dominion over slaves.” 16 From thisposition the Slave Power used “some of our [Northern] own representatives as theirinstruments” by forcing Congress to repeal previous compromises between the freeand slave states for being “unconstitutional usurpations of constitutional legislativepower,” which “were adverse to the privileged class.” 17The Republicans devised a successful and coherent strategy by incorporatingNorthern calls for freedom from slavery’s effects into a critique of Southern socialand economic backwardness. 18 This strategy attacked the Slave Power’s politicalinfluences by portraying the non-elected Southern elites as subversive to majorityrule, the democracy’s essential principle. Seward expressed his Party’s policy asbeing;to inculcate perpetual jealousy of the increase and extension of Slavery,and the plantation, organization, and admission of free states in thecommon Territories of the United States. This policy is even older than theConstitution itself. It was the policy of Jay, Madison, Jefferson, andWashington. It was early exercised in prohibiting the African slave trade,and devoting the Northwest Territory to impartial Freedom. 1915 Seward, The Dangers of Extending Slavery and the Crisis, 2, 6.16 Ibid.17 Ibid.18 Susan-Mary Grant, North Over South: Northern Nationalism and American Identity in theAntebellum Era, ( Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000), 5, 74, 144, 148-9.19 William H. Seward, The Contest and the Crisis, Delivered at Buffalo, October 19, 1855, 5 th Edition,(Washington, D.C.:Buell and Blanchard Printers, 1856), 11.6

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013Republicans believed that if the Slave Power was allowed to spread slavery it wouldreduce the North to a permanent minority position in the national government. 20In order to embed their historical interpretation within the Northern public’s mind, theRepublican Party used the Revolution, the Founding Fathers, the Declaration ofIndependence and the Constitution. 21 The Republicans employed national history totarget slavery, by declaring that the Founding Fathers had intended to implement ananti-slavery policy, which ensured this institution would one day cease to exist in theUS. 22Republicans argued that the Founders wanted slavery’s demise andreplacement by free labour, thereby elevating Southerners to the North’s progressivelevel. 23 Abraham Lincoln cited Thomas Jefferson’s actions under the North-WestOrdinance of 1787:Mr. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, andotherwise a chief actor in the revolution; then a delegate in Congress;afterwards twice president;…conceived the idea…to prevent slavery evergoing into the north-western territory…. Jefferson foresaw and intended –the happy home of teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, andno slave among them. 24Republicans held that this ordinance had blocked slavery’s advance across the OhioRiver; as such, the Founders’ anti-slavery intentions linked with the Party’s policy,where slavery was a curse upon the American republican model. 25Republicans drew on the Declaration of Independence as the Nation’s missionstatement to justify expanding free labour and halting slavery. Together with the20 Eric Foner, “Politics, Ideology, and the Origins of the Civil War,” in Michael Perman (ed.), TheComing of the American Civil War, Third Edition, (Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1993), 182; EricFoner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War,(London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 54-8, 101, 265.21 Anders Stephanson, Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right, (NewYork: Hill and Wang, 1995), 20.22 Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 73, 75-85, 101, 265.23 Grant, North Over South, 84.24 Abraham Lincoln, “Speech at Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854,” in Roy P.Basler (ed.), TheCollected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol.2, (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 249.25 Richards, The Slave Power, 159.7

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013Constitution, they condemned slavery as a barbaric violation of democratic values. 26On the Founding Fathers stance against slavery, Seward said;Although they had inherited, yet they generally condemned the practice ofSlavery, and hoped for its discontinuance. They expressed this when theyasserted in the Declaration of Independence, as a fundamental principleof American society, that all men are created equal, and have inalienablerights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 27In his book The Impending Crisis, historian David Potter noticed how the sectionalcrisis of the 1850s enabled the Republicans to expand on the Founding Fathers’aversion to slavery by acknowledging their avoidance to officially recognise it. 28Sumner supported this position when he said that slavery was “An institution, whichour fathers most carefully omitted to name in the constitution” as they intended for itto be “banished from the national jurisdiction.” 29 However, despite the position thatslavery should be prevented from moving into the West, Republicans held that theSouthern states possessed constitutional rights to maintain slavery within theirborders. Slavery’s confinement to the South suited the Republican agenda aboutconvincing the Northern public that this institution was heading towards ultimateextinction. 30 In his famous Cooper Union address delivered in 1860, Lincoln built upthe Republican’s case in this matter by showing that,[as] those fathers marked it [slavery], so let it be marked, as an evil not tobe extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so faras its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection anecessity. Let all guarantees those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, butfully and fairly maintained. 3126 Ibid., 2.27 William H. Seward, Freedom and the Union, 4.28 David Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1841-1861, (New York: Harper & Row, 1976).29 Charles Sumner, Freedom National, Slavery Sectional Speech of Hon. Charles Sumner, ofMassachusetts, on his Motion to Repeal the Fugitive Slave Bill, in the Senate of the United States,August 26, 1852 (Boston: Ticknor, Reed and Fields, 1852), 13, 33-4.30 David Potter, The Impending Crisis, 329, 339, 427.31 Abraham Lincoln, “Address at Cooper Institute, New York City, February 27, 1860,” in Roy P.Basler (ed.), The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 3, (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press,1953), 535.8

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013The Republicans believed that the Union had been established under theDeclaration of Independence to secure all Americans’ rights and as such theypromoted the historical attachment to the American Revolution and the need toprotect the republic. 32Republicans argued that the Southern states, throughmaintaining slavery, had abandoned and undermined the Founding Fathers’ ideals ofthe Nation’s republican experiment. Lincoln espoused this stance by identifying theslave states as having “discarded the old policy of the fathers” and he called uponthem to return “to the old policy. What has been will be again, under the sameconditions. If you have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy ofthe old times.” 33Republicans came to the realisation that slavery was not going to disappear of itsown accord. Hence, the Party’s argument was that slavery was incompatible withfreedom and that the country would have to adopt one system over the other. 34Lincoln expressed this as,[a] house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this governmentcannot endure, permanently half slave and half free…I do not expect theUnion to be dissolved – I do not expect it will cease to be divided. It willbecome all one thing, or all the other.” 35From this the Republicans continued to use their national historical interpretation toassail the slaveholding elite as betraying the Founding ideals of freedom. 36Republicans defended the Union’s integrity and greatness and sought to fulfil theNation’s mission under democratic republican government based on the motto: ‘of32 Charles Royster, The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson and theAmericans (New York: Vintage Books, 1991), 145.33 Lincoln, “Address at Cooper Institute,” 538.34 Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 96, 139.35 Abraham Lincoln, “‘A House Divided:’ Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858,” Basler (ed.),The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 2, 461.36 Grant, North Over South, 31, 46, 54-7, 72, 133.9

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013the people, by the people, and for the people.’ 37 They used this tool against Southernglorification of hereditary privilege, racial caste and slavery to show Northerners thatdemocracy was threatened by Southern slavery. 38 Following these sentiments,Chase argued for the rightful return of American government to its original purpose:to divorce the General Government from slavery; to rescue Governmentand its administration from the control of the Slave Power; to put itsexample and influence perpetually and actively on the side of Freedom athome and abroad;…in short, to make the American Republic, what ourFathers designed it should be – the country of Freedom, - and the Refugeof the Oppressed, - the light of the world. 39Republicans were convinced that this Slave Power had infiltrated and manipulatedthe nation’s democratic institutions overturning Federal Government’s designedpurpose as stipulated in the Constitution. Sumner expressed this subversion of theFounding Fathers’ initial “generous sentiments” of liberty as having “lost their power”to the “slave-masters” who had “succeeded in dictating the policy of the NationalGovernment, and have written SLAVERY on its front.” 40 From this position ofnational dominance the Slave Power was able to institute “an arrogant andunrelenting ostracism” against “not only [those] who express[ed] themselves againstSlavery, but to every man who [was] unwilling to be the menial of Slavery.” 41Republicans were so convinced of this conspiracy’s existence that they argued itwas comprised of 347,000 slaveholders who in turn owned more than three millionslaves. The Slave Power was the governing class in all of the Southern states andresponsible for the selection of thirty Senate members, ninety members of the House37 Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 316.38 James M. McPherson, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1990), 9, 28; Grant, North Over South, 9-12.39 Salmon P. Chase, “Letter to Alfred P. Edgerton, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 14, 1853," in JohnNiven (ed.), The Salmon P. Chase Papers Volume 2: Correspondence, 1823-1857 (Ohio: Kent StateUniversity Press, 1994), 374.40 Sumner, Freedom National, Slavery Sectional, 32.41 Ibid.10

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013of Representatives and 105 of the 295 electors of the President and VicePresident. 42 Those appointed to these offices were typically Southern politicians orNorthern doughfaces. In the 72 years between 1789 and 1861, slaveholders retainedthe Presidency for fifty years, while at the same time also occupying half of allcabinet positions and other diplomatic appointments. 43 Chase used similar statisticswhen he noted there were “90 Rep[representative]s” together with “30 Senators”within the federal “legislation” who favoured slavery. 44 This amounted to the SlavePower’s “control of nominations” such as those of the “President …Rep[resentative]s…Senators” and “judges.” 45 According to Chase, “Government patronage all over theland” was “in hands of” the “Slave Power.” 46Republicans harnessed Northern anxieties about this powerful conspiratorialpresence by showing it as repudiating the nation’s democratic values. 47 Lincolnexplained this by announcing that the Founding Fathers were aware ofthe tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established thesegreat self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, somefaction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men,or…white men were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,their prosperity might look up again to the Declaration of Independenceand take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began. 48Through this careful handling of American history, the Republicans believed theSlave Power had managed to stop unfavourable legislation while passing those billsadvantageous to slavery, such as the Fugitive Slave Laws (1850) and the Kansas-42 Charles Beard and Mary Beard, “The Approach of the Irrepressible Conflict,” in Michael Perman(ed.), The Coming of the American Civil War, Third Edition (Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1993), 26.43 Potter, The Impending Crisis,. 445.44 Salmon P. Chase, “Journal IV, Entry for August 17, 1853,” in John Niven (ed.), The Salmon P.Chase Papers, Volume 1, Journals, 1829-1872 (Ohio: The Kent State University Press, 1993), 242.45 Ibid.46 Ibid.47 Gienapp, “The Crisis of American Democracy,” 92.48 Abraham Lincoln, “Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857,” in Roy P. Basler (ed.), TheCollected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 2, 546.11

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013Nebraska Act (1854). 49 Sumner noticed that the Slave Power’s perpetuation wasdriven bya spirit of vaulting ambition which would hesitate at nothing;…a madnessfor slavery which should disregard the Constitution, the laws, and all thegreat examples of our history….To overthrow this Usurpation is now thespecial, important duty of Congress,….It must turn from that SlaveOligarchy which now controls the Republic, and refuse to be its tool. 50Such beliefs strengthened the Republican argument that the Slave Power’saristocratic hold needed to be severed, to allow the restoration of the FoundingFathers’ original policies for expanding democratic freedom. 51Seward saw the inequality of the Slave Power’s position of dominance in nationalpolitics, which he believed was contrary to the Founding Fathers; “In the Stateswhere the slave system prevails, the masters, directly or indirectly, secure all politicalpower, and constitute a ruling aristocracy.” 52 The Republicans argued the Senatehad been converted by doughfaces into a Slave Power stronghold, where theselackeys repeatedly converted Southern minorities within the House into a majoritypolitical arrangement. 53 Through these alliances the Slave Power was able to exertits designs to extend slavery into the West and eventually into the free states. 54Sumner argued how this had occurred with the passage of the Kansas-NebraskaAct, saying “[the] passage of the bill in the Senate by a well-nigh unanimous South,49 Richards, The Slave Power, 92, 194.50 Charles Sumner, “The Crime Against Kansas, in the Senate of the United States, May 19, 1856,” inSlavery Pamphlets, (New York: New York Tribune, 1856), 2, 30.51 Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 87.52 William H. Seward, “The Irrepressible Conflict, Rochester, New York, October 25, 1858,” in LouisSchade, Appeal to the Common Sense and Patriotism of the People of the United States(Washington: Little, Morris, & Co., 1860), 3.53 Richards, The Slave Power, 4-7, 38-45, 107, 159.54 Potter, The Impending Crisis, 329.12

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013and the body of the Democratic senators from the North, was assured from thebeginning.” 55Republican Renouncement of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Bleeding KansasIn May 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed these two territories to be open tothe possibility of slavery. Democratic Senator, Stephen A. Douglas was the chiefarchitect of this Act and he championed the decision to allow Kansas and Nebraskato determine their fates to be either free or slave regions via popular sovereignty.This notion involved the citizens residing in these two territories to vote either forslavery or a free soil economic system. Yet, popular sovereignty presented someproblems when it came to Kansas and Nebraska. Most noticeably as Kansas sharedits eastern border with Missouri, which had been admitted in 1820 to the Union aspart of the Missouri Compromise. Under this agreement, Missouri would be a slavestate while the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase to the north above thegeographical line of 36˚ 31΄ would be exclusively left open to free soil. ManyNortherners viewed the 1820 Compromise as having set aside the Northern regionsfor free labour in order to be a sacred pact and oath with Southerners, which the Acthad revoked. The opening up of Kansas and Nebraska to the possibility of slaverywas fair, for the Southerners because the Southern Territories of New Mexico andUtah were arid and not suitable for cotton production. For Lincoln the Kansas-Nebraska Act not only repealed the Missouri Compromise but rejected the FoundingFathers’ desire to prevent slavery’s expansion into federal regions where it did notpreviously exist. He used the Northwest Ordinance established “[in] 1789, by the first55 Charles Sumner, “Chapter 38, 1853-1854,” in Edward L. Pierce (ed.), Memoir and Letters ofCharles Sumner, Vol. 3 (Boston: Robert Brothers, 1877-1893), 370.13

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013Congress which sat under the Constitution” which stipulated “the prohibition ofslavery.” 56Republicans held that the Slave Power’s consolidation and desire to rapidly expandslavery under this Act was another part of pro-slavery ideology bent on reducing freelabour societies. To foster this sentiment, they talked up Northern fears about theSlave Power conspiracy that sought to undermine the Nation’s republicanexperiment, but also to threaten free soil citizens with the loss of their identity andplace within the Union. 57 Venting his hostility against this danger, Sumner mockedthe Kansas-Nebraska Act and appealed for Northern unity against it, as it reversed“the settled policy” with the specific intention “to establish slavery in an immenseterritory” which had been previously “guaranteed to liberty by solemn compact.” 58The passage of this “bill” was “a gross violation of a sacred pledge.” 59 For Sumner“[the] repeal of the Missouri Compromise had…arrayed the mass of good citizensagainst the further extension of slavery. The spell of compromise had beenbroken.” 60Republicans saw how popular sovereignty had transformed Kansas into a battle sitebetween free soil advocates and pro-slavery forces. 61 They understood that as adevice popular sovereignty was designed to overthrow freedom’s guarantees in theWest by establishing slavery as a local issue not to be affected by national opinion. 62On popular sovereignty, Lincoln expressed how he disliked it56 Lincoln, “Address at Cooper Institute,” 52757 Grant, North Over South, 20; Foner, Free Soil, Free labor, Free Men, 56.58 Sumner, “Chapter 38,” 350, 374.59 Ibid.60 Ibid.61 Richards, The Slave Power, 3-4, 16.62 Potter, The Impending Crisis, 172-4.14

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in theworld – enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to tauntus as hypocrites – causes the real friends of freedom to doubt oursincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good menamongst us into open war with the fundamental principles of civil liberty –criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is noright principle of action but self interest. 63Republicans continued to single out Stephen A. Douglas, the Act’s chief architect, forhaving persuaded his fellow Northern Democratic Party members to vote in favour ofopening the Louisiana Purchase’s northern half to slavery. 64 Republicans continuedtheir use of national history against democracy’s breaches in Kansas, with Sumnerdeclaring, “the People will unite once more with their Fathers of the Republic, in ajust condemnation of slavery – determined especially that it shall find no home in theNational Territories – while the Slave Power…will be swept into the catalogue ofdeparted Tyrannies.” 65The people living in Kansas at the time of the Act were both free soilers and proslaveryadvocates between whom open warfare erupted. This was realised whenthousands of both New England free soilers and Missouri slaveowners rushed intoKansas. In the territorial elections, free soil settlers would most likely have beenvictorious, allowing for Kansas to become a free State. However, as themultitudinous pro-slavery Missourians crossed into Kansas, willingly using firearmsand other violent means against anyone opposed to slavery, free soilers decided toboycott the March 1855 election. With no viable voting opposition, the Missouriansstopped at nothing to silence judges and anyone who stood in their way to vote. 66The lack of a present anti-slavery opposition allowed the pro-slavery forces to63 Lincoln, “Speech at Peoria,” 255.64 Richards, The Slave Power, 13, 86, 184; Mark E. Neely, Jr., The Last Best Hope of Earth: AbrahamLincoln and the Promise of America (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993), 35.65 Sumner, “The Crime Against Kansas,” 30.66 Paul S. Boyer, Clifford E. Clark, Jr., Sandra McNair Hawley, Joseph F. Kent, Neal Salisbury,Harvard Sitkoff, Nancy Woloch, The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People Volume One:To 1877 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), 28215

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013gerrymander the voting process and submit the favourable Lecompton Constitutionas Kansas’ proposed admission into the Union. 67While abstaining from voting, free soilers organised an alternative territorialgovernment at Topeka. In 1856, the antagonists clashed at Lawrence, foreverlabelling the territory ‘Bleeding Kansas.’ Here the pro-slavery forces burned buildingsand destroyed two free soil printing presses. Sumner expressed his outrage anddisappointment over these events, saying “[indeed], we are on the brink of a fearfulcrisis. The tyranny of the slave oligarchy becomes more revolting day by day. To-dayI am smitten by the news from Kansas. That poor people there are trampled downfar beyond our fathers.” 68 In the aftermath, the Lecompton Constitution was defeatedin Congress, inflicting the Southern elite’s first setback. This reflected the growingRepublican presence: the Party had gained control of most Northern governorshipsand legislatures, while also having many Party members elected to Congress. 69By 1856, Kansas was rife with corruption and physical violence. Sumner beleivedthese events violated the Revolutionary generation’s democratic principles; “in a landof constitutional liberty, where the safeguards of elections are justly placed amongthe highest triumphs of civilization, I fearlessly assert that the wrongs…of Kansas,where the very shrines of popular institutions, more sacred than any heathen alter,have been desecrated.” 70 In this Republican dramatisation, anti-slavery heroesfought to uphold the Nation’s freedom in the face of the villainous pro-slaveryadvocates. As Sumner said,67 David Herbert Donald, Lincoln (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 203.68 Charles Sumner, “Letter to William Jay, May 6, 1855,” in Edward L. Pierce (ed.), Memoir andLetters of Charles Sumner, Vol.3, 438.69 Gienapp, “The Crisis of American Democracy,” 102-3.70 Sumner, “The Crime Against Kansas,” 2, 21.16

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013the children of the Free States, over whose cradles has shone the NorthStar, owe it to themselves, to their ancestors, and to Freedom itself, thatthis right should now be asserted to the fullest extent. By the blessing ofGod and under the continued protection of the laws, they will go toKansas, there to plant, their homes, in the hope of elevating this Territorysoon into the sisterhood of the Free States. 71Sumner named specific Southern politicians in his ‘Crime Against Kansas’ speech,most notably Senator Andrew P. Butler from South Carolina. As a result, PrestonBrooks, a relative of Butler’s and a Southern representative, physically assaultedSumner while he was still in the Senate chamber. So severe were Sumner’s injuriesthat he did not return to perform his Senatorial duties for another two and a halfyears. 72 The Republicans used this infamous attack to demonstrate that Southernerswere dangerously uncivilized. 73 Bleeding Kansas and Sumner’s assault led them tocall for a united North to resist the fanatically violent Slave Power from extendingtheir dominance and destroying freedom. 74Republican Fury over the Dred Scott DecisionThe United States’ Supreme Court’s Dred Scott Decision (1857) further fuelledNorthern anxieties about a slaveholding conspiracy. 75 With this ruling, Republicanscarried their rhetoric further, claiming that the Supreme Court’s decision was the finalproof of the Slave Power’s attempt to control the entire Nation. This conspiracy wasdeepened when the newly sworn in Democratic President, James Buchanan,implored Americans to respect the upcoming ruling. Republicans claimed theSupreme Court conveniently announced their decision two days after Buchanan’sPresidential inauguration. The Dred Scott ruling now declared all federal territories71 Ibid.72 Potter, The Impending Crisis, 210-17.73 Grant, North Over South, 134.74 Holt, “Party Dynamics and the Coming of the Civil War,”. 108-9.75 Donald, Lincoln, 240.17

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013and states open to slaveholders under national government protection. 76 Chaseclaimed that it was the Court’s decision which had finally aroused “a moredetermined resolve” by Northerners against slavery’s expansion. 77 This sentimenthad been derived from “the determination of the Republican Party to counterwork[and] defeat” the Slave Power’s perpetual subversion of American democracy. 78 Tomany Northerners, the Republican Party was their counter force against the SlavePower conspiracy. 79With regard to Dred Scott’s status, the Supreme Court ruled that as a slave, Scottcould not be considered a free man, despite having been taken by his master into aterritory and a state where slavery did not exist. The Court also stipulated that nofree black person could be considered a citizen. This ruling heightened Republicanfears that the Supreme Court would issue additional Constitutional protection forslaveholders to reside in the free states with their slave property. 80 The party labelledthe Court’s ruling a declaration to the country that all federal territories were openedto slavery. The Republicans renounced the ruling by using the Old NorthwestOrdinance as the precedent against slavery’s expansion into federal territories. ForLincoln, this example showed that the Founding Fathers never intended there to be a“line dividing local from federal authority…nor anything in the Constitution” which“forbade the Federal Government, to control as to slavery in federal territory.” 81 AsRepublicans had used Bleeding Kansas and Bleeding Sumner within their historical76 Royster, The Destructive War, 67.77 Salmon P. Chase,”Letter to Charles Sumner, Columbus, Ohio, May 1, 1857,” Niven (ed.), TheSalmon P. Chase Papers, 450.78 Ibid.79 Potter, The Impending Crisis, 202, 279-91.80 Richards, The Slave Power, 12, 199-200, 205.81 Lincoln, “Address at Cooper Institute” 527.18

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013scheme to battle the Slave Power, they were unanimously agreed that the DredScott decision represented the final confirmation of this conspiracy.The Dred Scott Decision was adjudicated in the South’s favour by a majority led byChief Justice Taney. The Supreme Court who ruled on this case was comprised offive Southern and four Northern judges. Within this body, three Northern judgesactively dissented or failed to coincide with the ruling’s vital features, ignitingRepublican accusations of the Court being in league with the Slave Power. 82 Here,Lincoln used his ‘House’ metaphor to present the former President Franklin Pierce,newly elected President James Buchanan, Senator Stephen A. Douglas and ChiefJustice Roger Taney, all Democrats, as being complicit in this conspiracy;when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we knowhave been gotten out at different times and places and by differentworkmen – Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James,…and when we seethese timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of ahouse…we find it impossible to not believe that Stephen and Franklin andRoger and James all understood one another from the beginning, allworked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick wasstruck. 83For Republicans, the Dred Scott Decision represented the Slave Power tighteningthe noose around the free states and setting the stage for the final annihilation offreedom. Lincoln declared that through this ruling the Slave Power had sabotagedthe Constitution and revealed their ultimate desire to eventually transform the UnitedStates into a slave nation:When you make these declarations, you have a specific and wellunderstoodallusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to takeslaves into federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But nosuch right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is82 Potter, The Impending Crisis, 279-87.83 Lincoln, ‘“A House Divided,” 465-6.19

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such aright has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication. 84Following Taney’s ruling, Republicans abhorred the decision that all Congressionalenactments excluding slavery from the national territories were constitutionallyunwarranted and void. 85 Republicans saw this as trampling upon the FoundingFathers’ sacred Constitutional right of petition. Here, Lincoln quoted ThomasJefferson; “whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to anydepartment of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties[are] gone.” 86 On the basis of the Court’s ruling, the Republicans argued that themaster-slave relationship could not be dissolved, and that the Court was determinedto bring slavery within the free states against Northerners’ will. 87Republicans predicted that another Supreme Court ruling similar to Dred Scott,would make slavery national rather than sectional. In opposition to the possibility ofnational slavery, Sumner harked back to the “fathers” who “create[d] a NationalGovernment, and” endowed “it with adequate powers,” where the “Nation” did not“exercise rights reserved to the States” and “the States” did not “interfere with thepowers of the Nation. Any such action on either side is a usurpation.” 88 This was theprinciple of States’ Rights. The Dred Scott Decision now effectively allowedslaveholders to take their slaves into all regions by overruling Northern state lawsopposed to slavery. Sumner announced thatif the slaveholder has a right to be secure at home in the enjoyment ofSlavery, so also has the freeman of the North – and every person there ispresumed to be a freeman – an equal right to be secure at home in the84 Lincoln, “Address at Cooper Institute,” 543.85 Donald, Lincoln, 199, 207-8.86 Abraham Lincoln, “Fifth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Galesburg, Illinois, October 7, 1858,” inRoy P. Basler (ed.), The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 3,(New Jersey: Rutgers UniversityPress,, 1953), 232.87 Richards, The Slave Power, 130-1, 199-200.88 Sumner, Freedom National, Slavery, 49-51.20

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013enjoyment of Freedom. The same principle of States Rights by whichSlavery is protected in the Slave States throws an impenetrable shieldover Freedom in the Free States. 89According to the Dred Scott Decision, free black men had never been deemedAmerican citizens. 90 Seward ardently disagreed, saying that there had existed “[an]earnest spirit of emancipation…in the Colonies at the close of the Revolution, and allof them, except, perhaps, South Carolina and Georgia, anticipated, desired, anddesigned an early removal of [slavery] from the country.” 91 He also stated how the“nation was founded on the simple and practically new principle of the equal andinalienable rights of all men, and therefore it necessarily became a republic.” 92Lincoln took this further when he identified that it was as a republic where free blackshad been allowed in five of the original states of “New Hampshire, Massachusetts,New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina” to vote and play a “part in making theConstitution” like that which “white people had.” 93In their attacks against the Dred Scott Decision, Republicans saw equality as a vitalelement within their version of the Nation’s past. Contrary to the Supreme Court’sruling, Republicans sought to extend limited liberty as created by the FoundingFathers’ to free blacks. Yet, despite this stance, Republicans widely held that thedifferences of blacks caused them to be inferior to whites. As such, Republicanswere not prepared to insist upon total legal and political equality. Instead, theydeveloped a doctrine for black equality conditional upon black men proving their89 Ibid.90 Donald, Lincoln, 199.91 Seward, The Abrogation of the Missouri Compromise, 3.92 Seward, The Dangers of Extending Slavery and the Crisis, 2.93 Lincoln, “Speech at Springfield,” 403.21

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013capability for economic advancement as free labourers. 94 Lincoln justified this withthe Declaration of Independence:I think that the authors of that noble instrument intended to include allmen, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. Theydid not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moraldevelopments, or social capacity…they consider[ed] all men createdequal – equal in ‘certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness.’ 95Republican Rhetoric as a Unifying Force?In their dedication to stopping slavery’s expansion and returning Federal governmentto its original purpose, the Republicans developed a national historical interpretationto combat slavery and the Slave Power. This historical version was predicated upontheir belief that the Founders’ original intention to implement an anti-slavery policywas shown by the combined mechanisms of the Old North-West Ordinance in 1787and the planned abolition of the African slave trade by 1808. Republicans used theseto display the Founding Fathers’ hatred of slavery and their desire for thedevelopment of new territories to be occupied by free white settlers. Lincolnconnected the Republicans to the Founders by the shared belief that “we do, incommon with ‘our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live,’ declareour belief that slavery is wrong.” 96However, as the South refused to abandon slavery, Republicans declared thisinstitution to be incompatible with freedom and the Union’s original democraticprinciples. Republicans viewed freedom’s founding oath as repudiated by a Southernoligarchy intent on expanding slavery into the western territories. The Republicanhistorical rhetoric portrayed Southern slaveholders as a conspiracy that dominated94 Eric Foner, The Story of American Freedom (New York: W.W. Norton, 1998), xx, 75; Foner, FreeSoil, Free Labor, Free Men, 139, 267, 290-8.95 Lincoln, “Speech at Springfield,” 405-6.96 Lincoln, “Address at Cooper Institute,” 539.22

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013Federal government and reversed the Founding Fathers’ policy by making slaverythe Nation’s ruling power. Republicans combined this historical dramatisation withfactual evidence of the Slave Power’s dominance, revealing that between 1789 and1861, Southerners, together with their Northern sympathisers, had held thePresidency for fifty years, while also repeatedly holding a majority of other positionsand offices within Federal institutions.To Republicans these alliances enabled the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.This conspiracy theory was additionally furthered by Kansas’ gerrymanderedelections by Missourian pro-slavery forces, who later converted the territory into abattle zone. Republicans used these events to promote their version of the Americanpast and future, calling upon free settlers to fight for the Declaration ofIndependence’s principles.In the same vein, Republicans considered the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott Decision,which gave slaveholders additional constitutional guarantees within the territories, asculminating the Slave Power’s plans. This heightened Northern fears that theSupreme Court was preparing the way to open the free states to slavery.Republicans were likewise convinced that this ruling prevented the code of all menbeing created equal.Ultimately, the Republicans were able to create a coherent historical ideology to useagainst the Slave Power. The important tools of the Declaration of Independence,the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the Revolution were used to convince amajority of free soil citizens that their liberties were under threat from slavery’sexpansion. Republicans employed their version of American history since 1776 notonly as an attack against Southern social structures, but also as a justification of the23

Darren Dobson, ‘Republican’s Version of American History’, Eras Edition 14, February 2013North’s supremacy and progress as the true representation of the Nation’s characterand destiny. For Republicans it was the Founding Fathers’ intention that slaveryshould be contained to the Southern states where it would ultimately perish, whilefree labour should move into the West to extend the benefits of republican freedom.The 1860 Presidential election swept the Republican Party into Federal government,implying that their message had been successful in reaching a wide range ofNortherners. This office would now allow them to take up the mantle of the country’soriginal purpose as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, where free labour couldclaim victory over slavery in the territories. In turn, a largely pro-Republican Northwould find waging a political conflict and a possible military war against anaristocratic South easier to imagine and eventually realise.24