September 12, 2024 • 35 mins
How did the Second Amendment transform from a focus on militias to an individual right to bear arms, and what does this shift reveal about the mounting tensions in pre-Civil War America? In this gripping episode, we dissect the turbulent 1850s—a decade that brought America to the brink of civil war. Discover how both abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates armed themselves amidst rising tensions over slavery and states' rights, and learn why Northern opposition to slavery was often driven more by economic and political concerns than a commitment to racial equality. We also peel back the layers of Abraham Lincoln's complex views on race, offering a nuanced perspective on pre-Civil War attitudes.
Join us as we recount the violent clashes in "Bleeding Kansas" and the formation of the Republican Party, events that highlighted the nation's escalating tensions. We delve into the brutal attack on Senator Charles Sumner and the landmark Dred Scott case, illustrating how these pivotal moments exacerbated the divide and made compromise nearly impossible. These events set the stage for the Civil War, revealing how political failures and societal fractures led to one of the most defining periods in American history. Don't miss this compelling episode that sheds light on the events and ideologies that pushed America to the edge of conflict.
Like, Share, and Follow, Wherever you get your podcasts!
Twitter: @HistoryHelix
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
Instagram: History_Helix
Email: DoubleHelixHistorypodcast@gmail.com
Have feedback? Send us a Text and Interact with us!
Twitter: @HistoryHelix
BlueSky: @historyhelix.bsky.social
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
Instagram: History_Helix
Email: DoubleHelixHistorypodcast@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
As a quick aside and programming note, I realized
that back in episode 2.1, Ipromised that we'd be diving
into Lincoln, fort Sumter andall that good stuff an episode
ago.
But hey, I also mentioned thatthis series would grow
organically.
So what started as atwo-episode plan has now
blossomed into three.
(00:23):
It might even stretch to four,who knows.
Anyway, let's keep rolling withthe story.
Welcome to Double Helix.
Blueprint of Nations, season 2,episode 2.3, the Bloody Decade.
(00:44):
The 1850s in America dawned as anew age of unity, prosperity
and compromise.
No, I'm just kidding.
The 1850s were the messybeginning of a bad divorce
(01:06):
between what was still then theUnited States.
What had previously been atense, uneasy peace between the
North and the South turned intoa period of escalating conflict.
Uneasy compromises andnegotiations finally shattered
(01:27):
as Americans, no longer able toresolve their differences
through dialogue and debate,began to channel their
frustrations into openhostilities.
The state of animositypermeated every aspect of
society Law, politics, socialinstitutions.
Nothing was immune to therising tensions.
This decade also saw the meaningof the Second Amendment evolve
(01:48):
into its modern interpretationan unabridged right for citizens
to own firearms.
As the looming conflict becamemore inevitable, both
abolitionists and pro-slaveryadvocates began to arm
themselves in preparation forthe coming storm.
Each side saw the possession ofweapons as crucial to their
cause and their survival.
(02:09):
The right to bear arms becamenot just a constitutional issue
but a matter of existentialimportance.
Before the 1850s, the SecondAmendment was widely interpreted
to mean that citizens whowanted to be part of a
well-regulated militia shouldhave weapons.
The idea was rooted in thebelief that a standing federal
(02:32):
army posed a potential threat toliberty, a sentiment born from
the colonists' experience withBritish troops during the
American Revolution.
Thus, the notion of largefederal armies was not
particularly popular, and thepreferred method of ensuring
military readiness was throughlocal militias.
These militias, composed ofordinary citizens who could be
(02:54):
called to service in times ofneed, were seen as a bulwark
against tyranny.
They embodied the revolutionaryspirit of self-reliance and
vigilance.
However, as the nation grew andconflicts became more complex,
it became increasingly clearthat these militias were often
unreliable and unprepared forthe demands of battle.
(03:14):
During the War of 1812, forinstance, the limitations of
militias were glaringly evident.
Despite their patriotic fervor,they were often poorly trained
and inadequately equipped.
This led to disastrous outcomesin several battles, reinforcing
the need for a more robust andprofessional military force.
(03:34):
Yet the distrust of a largestanding army persisted and the
reliance on militias continued.
Fast forward to the 1850s andthe rising tensions over slavery
and states' rights began toshift public perception.
The Fugitive Slave Act, theviolence in bleeding Kansas and
(03:55):
the increasing polarizationbetween North and South all
contributed to a growing senseof insecurity and the need for
self-defense.
Both abolitionists andpro-slavery advocates began to
arm themselves, not as membersof a formal militia but as
individuals preparing forinevitable conflict.
In this climate, theinterpretation of the Second
(04:18):
Amendment began to evolve.
The right to bear arms was nolonger seen solely in the
context of a militia, but alsoas a personal right to
self-defense and resistanceagainst perceived oppression.
This shift was driven by thepalpable fear and mistrust that
permeated American societyduring the decade.
Abolitionists needed to protectthemselves from pro-slavery
(04:42):
violence, while Southernersarmed themselves to defend their
way of life against what theysaw as northern aggression.
As the nation edged closer tocivil war, the practical
shortcomings of militias becameimpossible to ignore.
The concept of a well-regulatedmilitia was being overshadowed
by the urgent need for a moreeffective military response.
(05:03):
The early stages of the civilWar further demonstrated this
shift.
When hostilities broke out,both the Union and the
Confederacy quickly moved toestablish large organized armies
.
The inadequacies of militiaswere laid bare and the necessity
of a professional standingmilitary force became clear.
(05:23):
A professional standingmilitary force became clear.
This transformation in theunderstanding of the Second
Amendment was more than justlegal philosophical changes.
It was a reflection of theevolving realities and needs of
a nation on the brink of war.
The romantic notion ofcitizen-soldiers giving way to
the grim necessities oflarge-scale organized military
power was a turning point inAmerican history.
(05:45):
But now moving on with ourstory.
Because meanwhile the North,driven by a growing abolitionist
movement, saw the need toprotect free states and support
escaped slaves, vigilancecommittees and armed
abolitionist groups formed,ready to defend against attempts
to enforce the Fugitive SlaveAct and other pro-slavery laws.
(06:06):
These groups were ofteninvolved in dramatic rescues of
escaped slaves and directconfrontations with slave
catchers.
In the South, the threat ofabolitionist action and the fear
of slave revolts led to themilitarization of society.
Slave patrols were strengthenedand militias were formed to
defend against perceivednorthern aggression.
(06:28):
The southern states viewed thearming of their populace as a
necessary measure to maintaintheir way of life and protect
their economic interests which,as we've discussed before, were
deeply intertwined with theinstitution of slavery.
Now let's clear up a commonmisconception For many in the
North, there was no great lovelost for black Americans.
(06:50):
The Northern view of slavery asimmoral and impractical
shouldn't be confused with avision of a harmonious,
multiracial America.
Sure, there were those whopassionately advocated for full
and complete equality of theraces, true champions of
(07:12):
abolition, but they were farfrom the majority.
Most Northerners saw slavery asan abomination, but their
reasons were often more abouteconomics, politics and abstract
principles of freedom ratherthan a genuine commitment to
racial equality.
They were appalled by theinstitution of slavery, yes, but
that didn't necessarilytranslate into a belief that
black Americans should haveequal rights.
The North's stance, whilemorally superior to the South's
(07:34):
slavery now, slavery tomorrowand slavery forever, mantra
wasn't quite the beacon ofracial progressiveness we might
like to think.
Take the so-called greatemancipator, abraham Lincoln.
His views on race were complexand, by today's standards,
certainly not progressive.
In the famous Lincoln-Douglasdebates, lincoln made it clear
(07:57):
that he did not believe in thesocial and political equality of
black and white races.
He stated I am not, nor everhave been, in favor of bringing
about in any way the social andpolitical equality of the white
and black races.
What Lincoln opposed was theexpansion of slavery, not
necessarily the institutionitself.
(08:20):
Even during his presidency,lincoln's primary focus was
preserving the Union, notemancipating the slaves.
The Emancipation Proclamationissued in 1863, was as much a
strategic war measure as it wasa moral decree.
It declared all slaves inConfederate-held territories
free, but it didn't apply toslave-holding states loyal to
(08:43):
the Union.
Lincoln's primary goal was toweaken the Confederacy and
bolster the Union's war effort,not to unconditionally free all
enslaved people.
So while the North wascertainly more progressive than
the South on the issue ofslavery, it's important to
understand that thisprogressivism had its limits.
(09:03):
The majority of Northerners weredriven by economic interests,
political strategy and a desireto prevent the spread of slavery
into new territories, ratherthan a deep-seated commitment to
racial equality.
The Civil War in many ways wasa crucible that tested and
reshaped those conflicting views.
It forced Americans to confrontthe brutal reality of slavery
(09:26):
and reckon with thecontradictions at the heart of
their nation's foundingprinciples.
But remember, the journey toemancipation and equality was
never a straight path.
It was fraught withcontradictions, half-measures
and deeply ingrained prejudicethat would continue to shape
America's society long after thelast shots of the Civil War
were fired.
So as we go deeper into thisturbulent decade, keep in mind
(09:52):
that the battle lines were notjust geographical, they were
ideological and moral as well.
The North and the South werenot monolithic entities, but
were divided internally by theirown sets of beliefs and
contradictions.
Understanding this complexityis crucial because, as we move
closer to the bloody conflictthat would ultimately decide the
fate of the Union, theinstitution of slavery will loom
(10:15):
large over the entirety of theconflict and the nation.
The decade of conflict trulykicked off with the Compromise
of 1850, henry Clay's Hail Marypass in the grand game of
political football.
This last-ditch effort wasmeant to keep the nation
stitched together with somesemblance of permanence.
Think of it as a final curtaincall for the Whig Party, already
(10:39):
in its death throes anddesperately trying to leave the
stage with a bang rather than awhimper.
The Compromise of 1850 was apackage of five bills intended
to quell the growing tensionsbetween free and slave states.
At his heart, the compromiseaimed to balance the interests
of both sides, but in reality itwas more like putting a
(10:59):
band-aid on a gaping wound.
California was admitted as afree state, but then again it
was always going to be a freestate, while the territories of
Utah and New Mexico were left todecide the issue of slavery
through popular sovereignty,essentially kicking the can down
the road.
But perhaps the most contentiouspiece of this legislative
(11:20):
patchwork was the Fugitive SlaveAct.
If there was ever a momentwhere you could hear the
collective gasp of horror fromthe North, this was it.
The act mandated that escapedslaves be returned to their
owners, even if they had made itto a free state.
It effectively turned everyAmerican citizen into a
potential enforcer of slavery,regardless of their personal
(11:44):
beliefs.
For many Northerners, this wasintolerable.
Imagine living in a state whereslavery was outlawed.
Tolerable.
Imagine living in a state whereslavery was outlawed, only to
be compelled by federal law toparticipate in its enforcement.
The act provoked outrage andresistance because, in essence,
all Americans were now forced topartake in the institution of
(12:04):
slavery.
Abolitionists ramped up theirefforts, forming vigilance
committees to protect escapedslaves and employing tactics
ranging from legal challenges tooutright defiance.
One of the most famousinstances of resistance occurred
in Boston in 1854 with the caseof Anthony Burns.
Burns, an escaped slave, wascaptured and ordered to be
(12:28):
returned to his owner.
Abolitionists in Boston ralliedin his defense, staging a large
and vociferous protest.
Despite their efforts, federaltroops escorted Burns to a ship
back to the South, but thespectacle only galvanized the
abolitionist movement evenfurther.
Historian Eric Foner describesthat Burns' incident was a
(12:50):
galvanizing moment that broughtthe horrors of the Fugitive
Slave Act into the living roomsof Northern citizens.
The Fugitive Slave Act had theunintended effect of pushing
many modern Northerners into theabolitionist camp.
The sight of free states beingcomplicit in the slave system
was too much for many to bear.
(13:10):
It wasn't just about abstractpolitical principles anymore.
It was about human lives andpersonal morality.
As Harriet Beecher Stowe put itin her groundbreaking novel
Uncle Tom's Cabin, published in1852, the legal power of the
master over the slave is anabsolute despotism.
Stowe's novel was more thanjust a bestseller.
(13:34):
It was a cultural bombshell.
It vividly depicted the brutalrealities of slavery, drawing
empathy from readers across theNorth and igniting widespread
outrage.
Abraham Lincoln would laterreportedly greet Stowe as the
little lady who started thisgreat war, later reportedly
(13:54):
greet Stowe as the little ladywho started this great war.
Her book, first published as aseries in the monthly National
Era in 1851, was later publishedin 1852 as a book and sold
300,000 copies in just sixmonths.
In the next decade it appearedin 16 languages and sold over
4.5 million copies.
The effects were electric andpeople who had never thought
(14:18):
about slavery suddenly developeda consciousness about it and
its immorality.
The resistance to the FugitiveSlave Act was about moral
outrage in part, but it was alsoabout the fundamental clash of
state versus federal authority.
Northern states began to passpersonal liberty laws designed
to thwart the enforcement of theact.
These laws provided variouslegal protections to escape
(14:41):
slaves and prohibited stateofficials from cooperating in
their capture.
Southern slaveholders viewedthese laws as direct attacks on
their property rights and asevidence that the North was
intent on undermining theirinstitution of slavery.
By the end of the decade,tensions had reached a fever
pitch.
The Supreme Court's decision inthe case of Avelman v Booth of
(15:04):
1859 further inflamed thesituation.
The court ruled that statecourts could not interfere with
the enforcing of the FugitiveSlave Act, striking down
Wisconsin's attempt to nullifythe law.
As expected, anger flared inthe North.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850was a flashpoint that exposed
(15:26):
the deep moral and ideologicaldivides between North and South.
It forced individuals andstates to take sides in the
growing conflict over slavery,making it increasingly clear
that the nation was headedtowards a confrontation.
As we move forward, we'll seehow these tensions spilled over
into the territories, turningplaces like Kansas into
(15:48):
battlegrounds for the nation'ssoul.
Like Kansas into battlegroundsfor the nation's soul.
Next, we'll explore theviolence of Bleeding Kansas,
where pro-slavery andanti-slavery forces clash in a
deadly struggle thatforeshadowed the larger war to
come In Kansas in the mid-1850s.
We find a territory that becameyet another flashpoint for the
nation's sectional conflicts.
(16:09):
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, championed by Senator Stephen
Douglas, effectively repealedthe Missouri Compromise by
allowing the residents of Kansasand Nebraska to decide the
slavery issue through popularsovereignty.
This seemingly democraticsolution, however, opened the
floodgates for conflict.
(16:30):
Pro-slavery and anti-slaverysettlers poured into Kansas,
each side determined to sway thevote.
The territory quickly descendedinto chaos as both factions
resorted to violence to asserttheir dominance.
The pro-slavery settlers,backed by Missouri border
Rufians, established agovernment in Lecompton, while
(16:51):
the anti-slavery settlers set upa rival government in Topeka.
This duality of power led to avolatile and deadly environment.
The violence in Kansas wasbrutal and pervasive.
In May 1856, pro-slavery forcessacked the town of Lawrence.
An anti-slavery strongholdBuildings were burned and the
(17:12):
printing presses were destroyed,leaving the town in ruins.
In response, the radicalabolitionist John Brown and his
followers launched a retaliatoryraid at Puttawatomie Creek,
brutally killing fivepro-slavery settlers.
This act of vengeance markedBrown as a fiercely committed,
albeit controversial, figure inthe fight against slavery.
(17:35):
The conflict in Kansas was aboutmore than just local control.
It was a proxy war for thenation's future.
Newspapers across the countryreported on the violence and the
term Bleeding Kansas became arallying cry for both sides
became a rallying cry for bothsides.
The territory was a microcosmof the national conflict,
illustrating how deeply dividedthe country had become and how
(17:58):
ineffective legislativecompromises were at addressing
the root causes of the conflict.
The political repercussions ofthe violence in Kansas were
significant.
The brutality and lawlessnessdemonstrated the failure of
popular sovereignty as asolution to the slavery issue.
As the violence in Kansas ragedon, it became glaringly obvious
(18:19):
that the nation was barrelingtowards an all-out conflict.
The bloody chaos in Kansaswasn't just some isolated bout
of madness.
It was a sneak preview of thewidespread violence that would
soon engulf the entire country.
Historian James McPherson sumsit up perfectly the violence in
Kansas demonstrated that thesectional conflict over slavery
(18:41):
could no longer be containedwithin the political system.
It was a preview of the CivilWar to come and then, smack dab
in the middle of this whirlwind,was John Brown, a man so
dedicated to the abolitionistcause that he made everyone else
look like they were justdabbling in anti-slavery
sentiment.
Brown's radical actions anduncompromising stance on slavery
(19:03):
would make him one of the mostcontroversial and pivotal
figures in the lead-up to theCivil War.
He wasn't just fighting forabolition, he was on a personal
crusade.
So while bleeding Kansasescalated, the animosity between
North and South to new heights,turning political rhetoric into
actual bloodshed.
As violence continued, thenation found itself tiptoeing
(19:27):
ever closer to the abyss.
The massacres and brutalconflicts in Kansas only serving
as grim reminders that theconflict over slavery was no
longer confined to debates andlegislation.
It was now a matter of life anddeath.
The chaos and the violence inKansas finally pushed that
diverse coalition of freesoilers, radical Whigs and
(19:47):
Northern Democrats to unite andform the Republican Party in
1854.
Northern Democrats to unite andform the Republican Party in
1854.
This new political force wasdedicated to halting the spread
of slavery into the westernterritories, a goal that
resonated with many who hadwitnessed the horrors of
bleeding Kansas.
The formation of the RepublicanParty marked a significant shift
in the political landscape ofthe United States.
(20:09):
It provided a unified platformfor those opposed to the
expansion of slavery, bringingtogether disparate groups under
a common cause.
This new found unity galvanizedthe anti-slavery movement,
giving it the political clout itneeded to challenge the
pro-slavery establishment.
The Republicans quickly gainedmomentum, attracting supporters
(20:31):
from across the North who wereincreasingly alarmed by the
South's aggressive stance onslavery.
Their message was clear no morecompromises, no more
concessions to the slave-holdinginterests.
This uncompromising stanceresonated with the populace that
had grown weary of the endlesspolitical wrangling and moral
compromises that had defined theprevious decades.
(20:54):
As the Republicans prepare forthe 1856 presidential election,
they face fierce opposition fromthe established parties.
The Democrats, led by JamesBuchanan, sought to maintain the
status quo, while theKnow-Nothing Party capitalized
on nativist sentiments, runningon a platform of anti-immigrant
fervor.
Despite these challenges, theRepublican Party's anti-slavery
(21:18):
platform struck a chord withmany voters, signaling a
dramatic realignment in Americanpolitics.
The election of 1856 was aharbinger of the turmoil to come
, and although the RepublicanParty did not win the presidency
, their strong showing revealedthe deep divisions within the
nation.
The political landscape was nowirrevocably altered, with the
(21:41):
Republican Party emerging as aformidable force dedicated to
confronting the issue of slaveryhead-on as tensions continued
to rise, it became increasinglyclear that the nation was on a
collision course with itself.
The formation of the RepublicanParty was both a response to
the immediate crisis and arecognition that the old
(22:02):
political order was no longercapable of addressing the
fundamental issues tearing thecountry apart, and so the stage
was set for a showdown thatwould ultimately lead to the
Civil War.
Also in 1856, the brutal attackon Senator Charles Sumner
underscored the escalatingviolence and the deepening
divisions within the nation.
Sumner was a staunchabolitionist from Massachusetts,
(22:26):
and he delivered a scathingspeech in the Senate condemning
the pro-slavery forces in Kansasand personally attacking
Senator Andrew Butler of SouthCarolina.
Sumner's speech, known as theCrime Against Kansas, was a
blistering critique of theSouth's efforts to spread
slavery into the new territories.
Sumner's words were not merelyrhetorical flourishes.
(22:49):
They were a direct challenge tothe moral and political
foundation of the pro-slaveryfaction.
He accused Butler of takingquote the harlot slavery end,
quote as his mistress a personalattack that stung deeply.
The speech was emblematic ofthe increasingly hostile and
polarized rhetoric thatcharacterized the national
(23:09):
debate over slavery and the1850s as a whole.
A few days after Sumner's speech, representative Preston Brooks,
a relative of Butler, decidedthat Sumner's insults could not
go unanswered.
On May 22, 1856, brooks enteredthe Senate chamber, approached
Sumner and, without warning,began to beat him mercilessly
(23:31):
with a heavy cane.
The attack was so violent thatSumner, trapped under his desk,
could not defend himself.
Brooks continued to strikeuntil the cane broke, leaving
Sumner bloodied and unconsciouson the floor.
The attack was shockinglybrutal.
Sumner's injuries were severeand he required years to recover
(23:52):
fully.
Brutal Sumner's injuries weresevere and he required years to
recover fully.
The incident highlighted theextreme lengths to which
individuals were willing to goto defend their position on
slavery.
It wasn't just a physicalassault on Sumner.
It was an attack on the veryprinciples of free speech and
democratic debate.
The canning of Charles Sumnershocked the nation.
In the North, it was seen as abarbaric act of Southern
(24:13):
aggression and a starkillustration of the violent
depths to which the pro-slaveryfaction would sink.
Sumner was hailed as a martyrfor the abolitionist cause and
his empty Senate seat, draped inblack, served as a powerful
symbol of Southern brutality.
In the South, however, brookswas celebrated as a hero.
He received numerous canes fromadmirers, some inscribed with
(24:36):
messages like hit him again.
This stark contrast inreactions between the north and
the south shows you how deep thegrowing chasm between the two
regions had become.
The attack on Sumner was morethan just an isolated incident.
It was the national crisis.
It demonstrated that theconflict over slavery had moved
beyond the realm of politicaldebate and now into the physical
(24:59):
realm of violence.
And so the lines were beingdrawn and compromise was
becoming increasingly impossibleas the nation reeled from the
violence in Kansas and thebrutal assault on Sumner.
As the nation reeled from theviolence in Kansas and the
brutal assault in Sumner, theRepublican Party was galvanizing
its forces.
The party's platform, built onits opposition to the expansion
of slavery, attracted a broadcoalition of anti-slavery
(25:22):
advocates, and so the politicallandscape was shifting and the
battle lines were being drawnmore clearly than ever before.
By now, america was reelingfrom multiple body blows and the
nation was teetering on theedge.
To add fuel to the fire, theDred Scott decision worked like
kerosene on the volatile mixthat was America in the 1850s.
(25:46):
Let's rewind a bit to dive intothe origins of the Dred Scott
case, which is a case thatturned the political landscape
into a tinderbox ready toexplode.
Dred Scott was an enslavedAfrican American born around
1799.
By the 1830s, he was owned byDr John Emerson, an army surgeon
(26:07):
.
As Emerson was posted todifferent locations, scott
accompanied him, living invarious free territories,
including Illinois and theWisconsin Territory, where
slavery was prohibited under theMissouri Compromise.
Here's where things getinteresting.
In 1836, emerson moved to thefree Wisconsin Territory, taking
(26:27):
Scott with him.
According to the NorthwestOrdinance of 1787 and the
Missouri Compromise, slavery wasillegal in this territory.
For a time Scott lived free inall but name.
Then, in 1840, emersonrelocated again, this time back
to the slave state of Missouri.
Shortly after Emerson died andScott found himself in the
(26:51):
custody of Emerson's widow.
Scott, understandably, was notthrilled about being dragged
back into a life of bondageafter living in free territories
for so long.
So in 1846, he took the boldstep of suing for his freedom in
a Missouri court, his argumentthat his residence in free
territories had made him a freeman.
(27:12):
This wasn't an entirely newlegal strategy.
Several enslaved people hadsuccessfully sued for their
freedom on similar grounds.
Initially it seemed like Scottmight have a chance.
The Missouri courts had ahistory of granting freedom to
enslaved people who had lived infree territories.
But times were changing and thepro-slavery sentiment was
(27:33):
gaining strength.
Scott's case was initiallysuccessful in 1850, when a St
Louis court ruled in his favor.
However, the case was appealedto the Missouri Supreme Court,
which reversed the decision in1852, reflecting the
increasingly political pressureand sectional tensions of the
time.
Scott's legal battle didn't endthere.
(27:55):
With the support ofabolitionist lawyers, scott's
case was taken to federal courts, ultimately landing in the lap
of the United States SupremeCourt.
This is where the drama reallyramps up.
The case officially known asDred Scott v Sanford the case
(28:15):
officially known as Dred Scott vSanford came before the Supreme
Court in 1856.
The nation watched with batedbreath.
The stakes were monumental andwhen Chief Justice Roger B Taney
delivered the court's decisionon March 6, 1857, it sent
shockwaves throughout thecountry.
The court ruled against Scott,stating that, as a black man, he
was not a citizen and thereforehad no right to sue in federal
(28:37):
court.
Moreover, the court declaredthat Congress had no authority
to prohibit slavery in theterritories, effectively
nullifying the MissouriCompromise.
The decision was a catastrophicblow to the abolitionist
movement and a triumphantvictory for pro-slavery forces.
It not only dashed the hopes ofDred Scott, but also inflamed
(28:59):
the already volatile nationaldebate over slavery.
As Taney's words echoedthroughout the nation, they made
it painfully clear that thepolitical and legal systems were
deeply biased in favor ofmaintaining and expanding
slavery.
In the North, the ruling wasmet with outreach and horror.
It galvanized anti-slaverysentiment, pushing many
(29:20):
moderates towards a more radicalstance.
In the South, the decision wasa vindication of their rights
and a confirmation of theirworldview.
It emboldened pro-slaveryadvocates and further entrenched
the ideological divide betweenNorth and South.
The ruling exacerbatedsectional tensions and it
convinced many that the judicialsystem was hopelessly biased in
(29:41):
favor of the Southern states.
The Dred Scott decision didn'tjust impact Scott himself.
It struck at the very heart ofthe nation's identity and future
.
It starkly highlighted themoral and political
contradictions tearing Americaapart.
The bloody conflict was fastapproaching.
The political landscape wasalready fraught with tension,
(30:04):
and then the Dred Scott decisiononly served to deepen the chasm
.
It became clear that the issueof slavery could no longer be
contained within the politicalsystem.
The North and the South were ona collision course, and the
events of the 1850s had set thestage for the inevitable
conflict that would soon engulfthe entire nation.
(30:24):
Now remember our old friend JohnBrown.
It's about time we delve intohis story.
His crusade against slaverywould be the final major act of
the bloody decade.
The aftermath the election of1860, would see a little-known
lawyer from Illinois become the16th President of the United
States.
This election would be thefinal catalyst for secession and
(30:47):
war.
This election would be thefinal catalyst for secession and
war.
In our next episode we willzoom in on Lincoln, the election
of 1860, and the secessioncrisis, but for now we need to
(31:08):
introduce and then quickly bidfarewell to a man of conviction
but also a man of great pilotsJohn Brown.
John Brown was a man of intenseconviction and radical action,
not great at a lot of things inlife except agitation and
fathering children.
Born in 1800 in Connecticut,brown was raised in a deeply
religious family that abhorredslavery.
His father was a ferventabolitionist and Brown grew up
with a strong sense of moralrighteousness.
(31:30):
This upbringing made for hislifelong crusade against the
institution of slavery.
By the 1850s, brown had becomea dedicated abolitionist,
willing to use violence toachieve his goals.
His actions in Kansas,particularly the Pottawatomie
Creek Massacre, where he and hisfollowers killed five
pro-slavery settlers in coldblood, solidified his reputation
(31:53):
as a radical and a fearlessopponent of slavery.
This event, gruesome as it was,underscored Brown's belief that
the fight against slaveryrequired drastic measures.
In 1859, brown conceived a planto incite a slave rebellion by
capturing the federal arsenal atHarper's Ferry, virginia.
He believed that by armingenslaved people, he could spark
(32:16):
a widespread uprising that wouldultimately destroy the
institution of slavery.
Brown gathered a small group offollowers, including his sons,
and launched this raid onOctober 16, 1859.
The raid was a tacticaldisaster.
Brown and his men managed toseize the arsenal, but they were
quickly surrounded by localmilitia and federal troops.
(32:39):
After a two-day standoff, brownwas captured and several of his
followers were killed.
Brown was tried for treasonagainst the Commonwealth of
Virginia, convicted andsentenced to death.
On December 2, 1859, he washanged, becoming a martyr for
the abolitionist cause.
(32:59):
Brown's raid on Harper Ferry hada profound impact on the nation
.
In the North, he was hailed asa hero, a man who had sacrificed
his life for the cause offreedom.
Abolitionists celebrated hiscourage and conviction, and his
execution was widely mourned.
Henry David Thoreau, thetranscendentalist writer and
(33:19):
philosopher, delivered a speechin defense of Brown, calling him
a quote crucified hero, endquote.
In the South, however, brown'sraid confirmed the war's fears
of slaveholders.
They saw Brown as a symbol ofnorthern aggression and a direct
threat to their way of life.
The raid heightened southernparanoia about slave rebellions
(33:41):
and further entrenched alldeterminations to defend slavery
at all costs.
With Brown's execution, thebloody decade came to an
ignominious close.
The road ahead for Americawould be filled with corpses,
war and misery, but also withthe rebirth of the nation that
would emerge fundamentallydifferent from the one before
(34:01):
the war.
John Brown's martyrdom againstslavery was a harbinger of the
broader national tragedy thatwas unfolding.
His last words will proveprophetic Quote.
I, john Brown, am now quitecertain that the crimes of this
guilty land will never beperched away, but with blood.
(34:21):
I had vainly flattered myselfthat without very much bloodshed
it might be done.
End quote.
Next time, on Double Helix,we'll zoom in on Abraham Lincoln
, his appearance on thepolitical stage and his meteoric
rise out of obscurity into thepresidency of the United States
(34:42):
at its most crucial time.
The election of 1860 and thesecession crisis that followed
the first shots of the war atFort Sumter are not too distant.
Now Join us next time for partfour of the American Civil War
story.
Thank you for listening.
We will see you soon.
As a quick aside and programming note, I realized
that back in episode 2.1, Ipromised that we'd be diving
into Lincoln, fort Sumter andall that good stuff an episode
ago.
But hey, I also mentioned thatthis series would grow
organically.
So what started as atwo-episode plan has now
blossomed into three.
(00:23):
It might even stretch to four,who knows.
Anyway, let's keep rolling withthe story.
Welcome to Double Helix.
Blueprint of Nations, season 2,episode 2.3, the Bloody Decade.
(00:44):
The 1850s in America dawned as anew age of unity, prosperity
and compromise.
No, I'm just kidding.
The 1850s were the messybeginning of a bad divorce
(01:06):
between what was still then theUnited States.
What had previously been atense, uneasy peace between the
North and the South turned intoa period of escalating conflict.
Uneasy compromises andnegotiations finally shattered
(01:27):
as Americans, no longer able toresolve their differences
through dialogue and debate,began to channel their
frustrations into openhostilities.
The state of animositypermeated every aspect of
society Law, politics, socialinstitutions.
Nothing was immune to therising tensions.
This decade also saw the meaningof the Second Amendment evolve
(01:48):
into its modern interpretationan unabridged right for citizens
to own firearms.
As the looming conflict becamemore inevitable, both
abolitionists and pro-slaveryadvocates began to arm
themselves in preparation forthe coming storm.
Each side saw the possession ofweapons as crucial to their
cause and their survival.
(02:09):
The right to bear arms becamenot just a constitutional issue
but a matter of existentialimportance.
Before the 1850s, the SecondAmendment was widely interpreted
to mean that citizens whowanted to be part of a
well-regulated militia shouldhave weapons.
The idea was rooted in thebelief that a standing federal
(02:32):
army posed a potential threat toliberty, a sentiment born from
the colonists' experience withBritish troops during the
American Revolution.
Thus, the notion of largefederal armies was not
particularly popular, and thepreferred method of ensuring
military readiness was throughlocal militias.
These militias, composed ofordinary citizens who could be
(02:54):
called to service in times ofneed, were seen as a bulwark
against tyranny.
They embodied the revolutionaryspirit of self-reliance and
vigilance.
However, as the nation grew andconflicts became more complex,
it became increasingly clearthat these militias were often
unreliable and unprepared forthe demands of battle.
(03:14):
During the War of 1812, forinstance, the limitations of
militias were glaringly evident.
Despite their patriotic fervor,they were often poorly trained
and inadequately equipped.
This led to disastrous outcomesin several battles, reinforcing
the need for a more robust andprofessional military force.
(03:34):
Yet the distrust of a largestanding army persisted and the
reliance on militias continued.
Fast forward to the 1850s andthe rising tensions over slavery
and states' rights began toshift public perception.
The Fugitive Slave Act, theviolence in bleeding Kansas and
(03:55):
the increasing polarizationbetween North and South all
contributed to a growing senseof insecurity and the need for
self-defense.
Both abolitionists andpro-slavery advocates began to
arm themselves, not as membersof a formal militia but as
individuals preparing forinevitable conflict.
In this climate, theinterpretation of the Second
(04:18):
Amendment began to evolve.
The right to bear arms was nolonger seen solely in the
context of a militia, but alsoas a personal right to
self-defense and resistanceagainst perceived oppression.
This shift was driven by thepalpable fear and mistrust that
permeated American societyduring the decade.
Abolitionists needed to protectthemselves from pro-slavery
(04:42):
violence, while Southernersarmed themselves to defend their
way of life against what theysaw as northern aggression.
As the nation edged closer tocivil war, the practical
shortcomings of militias becameimpossible to ignore.
The concept of a well-regulatedmilitia was being overshadowed
by the urgent need for a moreeffective military response.
(05:03):
The early stages of the civilWar further demonstrated this
shift.
When hostilities broke out,both the Union and the
Confederacy quickly moved toestablish large organized armies
.
The inadequacies of militiaswere laid bare and the necessity
of a professional standingmilitary force became clear.
(05:23):
A professional standingmilitary force became clear.
This transformation in theunderstanding of the Second
Amendment was more than justlegal philosophical changes.
It was a reflection of theevolving realities and needs of
a nation on the brink of war.
The romantic notion ofcitizen-soldiers giving way to
the grim necessities oflarge-scale organized military
power was a turning point inAmerican history.
(05:45):
But now moving on with ourstory.
Because meanwhile the North,driven by a growing abolitionist
movement, saw the need toprotect free states and support
escaped slaves, vigilancecommittees and armed
abolitionist groups formed,ready to defend against attempts
to enforce the Fugitive SlaveAct and other pro-slavery laws.
(06:06):
These groups were ofteninvolved in dramatic rescues of
escaped slaves and directconfrontations with slave
catchers.
In the South, the threat ofabolitionist action and the fear
of slave revolts led to themilitarization of society.
Slave patrols were strengthenedand militias were formed to
defend against perceivednorthern aggression.
(06:28):
The southern states viewed thearming of their populace as a
necessary measure to maintaintheir way of life and protect
their economic interests which,as we've discussed before, were
deeply intertwined with theinstitution of slavery.
Now let's clear up a commonmisconception For many in the
North, there was no great lovelost for black Americans.
(06:50):
The Northern view of slavery asimmoral and impractical
shouldn't be confused with avision of a harmonious,
multiracial America.
Sure, there were those whopassionately advocated for full
and complete equality of theraces, true champions of
(07:12):
abolition, but they were farfrom the majority.
Most Northerners saw slavery asan abomination, but their
reasons were often more abouteconomics, politics and abstract
principles of freedom ratherthan a genuine commitment to
racial equality.
They were appalled by theinstitution of slavery, yes, but
that didn't necessarilytranslate into a belief that
black Americans should haveequal rights.
The North's stance, whilemorally superior to the South's
(07:34):
slavery now, slavery tomorrowand slavery forever, mantra
wasn't quite the beacon ofracial progressiveness we might
like to think.
Take the so-called greatemancipator, abraham Lincoln.
His views on race were complexand, by today's standards,
certainly not progressive.
In the famous Lincoln-Douglasdebates, lincoln made it clear
(07:57):
that he did not believe in thesocial and political equality of
black and white races.
He stated I am not, nor everhave been, in favor of bringing
about in any way the social andpolitical equality of the white
and black races.
What Lincoln opposed was theexpansion of slavery, not
necessarily the institutionitself.
(08:20):
Even during his presidency,lincoln's primary focus was
preserving the Union, notemancipating the slaves.
The Emancipation Proclamationissued in 1863, was as much a
strategic war measure as it wasa moral decree.
It declared all slaves inConfederate-held territories
free, but it didn't apply toslave-holding states loyal to
(08:43):
the Union.
Lincoln's primary goal was toweaken the Confederacy and
bolster the Union's war effort,not to unconditionally free all
enslaved people.
So while the North wascertainly more progressive than
the South on the issue ofslavery, it's important to
understand that thisprogressivism had its limits.
(09:03):
The majority of Northerners weredriven by economic interests,
political strategy and a desireto prevent the spread of slavery
into new territories, ratherthan a deep-seated commitment to
racial equality.
The Civil War in many ways wasa crucible that tested and
reshaped those conflicting views.
It forced Americans to confrontthe brutal reality of slavery
(09:26):
and reckon with thecontradictions at the heart of
their nation's foundingprinciples.
But remember, the journey toemancipation and equality was
never a straight path.
It was fraught withcontradictions, half-measures
and deeply ingrained prejudicethat would continue to shape
America's society long after thelast shots of the Civil War
were fired.
So as we go deeper into thisturbulent decade, keep in mind
(09:52):
that the battle lines were notjust geographical, they were
ideological and moral as well.
The North and the South werenot monolithic entities, but
were divided internally by theirown sets of beliefs and
contradictions.
Understanding this complexityis crucial because, as we move
closer to the bloody conflictthat would ultimately decide the
fate of the Union, theinstitution of slavery will loom
(10:15):
large over the entirety of theconflict and the nation.
The decade of conflict trulykicked off with the Compromise
of 1850, henry Clay's Hail Marypass in the grand game of
political football.
This last-ditch effort wasmeant to keep the nation
stitched together with somesemblance of permanence.
Think of it as a final curtaincall for the Whig Party, already
(10:39):
in its death throes anddesperately trying to leave the
stage with a bang rather than awhimper.
The Compromise of 1850 was apackage of five bills intended
to quell the growing tensionsbetween free and slave states.
At his heart, the compromiseaimed to balance the interests
of both sides, but in reality itwas more like putting a
(10:59):
band-aid on a gaping wound.
California was admitted as afree state, but then again it
was always going to be a freestate, while the territories of
Utah and New Mexico were left todecide the issue of slavery
through popular sovereignty,essentially kicking the can down
the road.
But perhaps the most contentiouspiece of this legislative
(11:20):
patchwork was the Fugitive SlaveAct.
If there was ever a momentwhere you could hear the
collective gasp of horror fromthe North, this was it.
The act mandated that escapedslaves be returned to their
owners, even if they had made itto a free state.
It effectively turned everyAmerican citizen into a
potential enforcer of slavery,regardless of their personal
(11:44):
beliefs.
For many Northerners, this wasintolerable.
Imagine living in a state whereslavery was outlawed.
Tolerable.
Imagine living in a state whereslavery was outlawed, only to
be compelled by federal law toparticipate in its enforcement.
The act provoked outrage andresistance because, in essence,
all Americans were now forced topartake in the institution of
(12:04):
slavery.
Abolitionists ramped up theirefforts, forming vigilance
committees to protect escapedslaves and employing tactics
ranging from legal challenges tooutright defiance.
One of the most famousinstances of resistance occurred
in Boston in 1854 with the caseof Anthony Burns.
Burns, an escaped slave, wascaptured and ordered to be
(12:28):
returned to his owner.
Abolitionists in Boston ralliedin his defense, staging a large
and vociferous protest.
Despite their efforts, federaltroops escorted Burns to a ship
back to the South, but thespectacle only galvanized the
abolitionist movement evenfurther.
Historian Eric Foner describesthat Burns' incident was a
(12:50):
galvanizing moment that broughtthe horrors of the Fugitive
Slave Act into the living roomsof Northern citizens.
The Fugitive Slave Act had theunintended effect of pushing
many modern Northerners into theabolitionist camp.
The sight of free states beingcomplicit in the slave system
was too much for many to bear.
(13:10):
It wasn't just about abstractpolitical principles anymore.
It was about human lives andpersonal morality.
As Harriet Beecher Stowe put itin her groundbreaking novel
Uncle Tom's Cabin, published in1852, the legal power of the
master over the slave is anabsolute despotism.
Stowe's novel was more thanjust a bestseller.
(13:34):
It was a cultural bombshell.
It vividly depicted the brutalrealities of slavery, drawing
empathy from readers across theNorth and igniting widespread
outrage.
Abraham Lincoln would laterreportedly greet Stowe as the
little lady who started thisgreat war, later reportedly
(13:54):
greet Stowe as the little ladywho started this great war.
Her book, first published as aseries in the monthly National
Era in 1851, was later publishedin 1852 as a book and sold
300,000 copies in just sixmonths.
In the next decade it appearedin 16 languages and sold over
4.5 million copies.
The effects were electric andpeople who had never thought
(14:18):
about slavery suddenly developeda consciousness about it and
its immorality.
The resistance to the FugitiveSlave Act was about moral
outrage in part, but it was alsoabout the fundamental clash of
state versus federal authority.
Northern states began to passpersonal liberty laws designed
to thwart the enforcement of theact.
These laws provided variouslegal protections to escape
(14:41):
slaves and prohibited stateofficials from cooperating in
their capture.
Southern slaveholders viewedthese laws as direct attacks on
their property rights and asevidence that the North was
intent on undermining theirinstitution of slavery.
By the end of the decade,tensions had reached a fever
pitch.
The Supreme Court's decision inthe case of Avelman v Booth of
(15:04):
1859 further inflamed thesituation.
The court ruled that statecourts could not interfere with
the enforcing of the FugitiveSlave Act, striking down
Wisconsin's attempt to nullifythe law.
As expected, anger flared inthe North.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850was a flashpoint that exposed
(15:26):
the deep moral and ideologicaldivides between North and South.
It forced individuals andstates to take sides in the
growing conflict over slavery,making it increasingly clear
that the nation was headedtowards a confrontation.
As we move forward, we'll seehow these tensions spilled over
into the territories, turningplaces like Kansas into
(15:48):
battlegrounds for the nation'ssoul.
Like Kansas into battlegroundsfor the nation's soul.
Next, we'll explore theviolence of Bleeding Kansas,
where pro-slavery andanti-slavery forces clash in a
deadly struggle thatforeshadowed the larger war to
come In Kansas in the mid-1850s.
We find a territory that becameyet another flashpoint for the
nation's sectional conflicts.
(16:09):
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, championed by Senator Stephen
Douglas, effectively repealedthe Missouri Compromise by
allowing the residents of Kansasand Nebraska to decide the
slavery issue through popularsovereignty.
This seemingly democraticsolution, however, opened the
floodgates for conflict.
(16:30):
Pro-slavery and anti-slaverysettlers poured into Kansas,
each side determined to sway thevote.
The territory quickly descendedinto chaos as both factions
resorted to violence to asserttheir dominance.
The pro-slavery settlers,backed by Missouri border
Rufians, established agovernment in Lecompton, while
(16:51):
the anti-slavery settlers set upa rival government in Topeka.
This duality of power led to avolatile and deadly environment.
The violence in Kansas wasbrutal and pervasive.
In May 1856, pro-slavery forcessacked the town of Lawrence.
An anti-slavery strongholdBuildings were burned and the
(17:12):
printing presses were destroyed,leaving the town in ruins.
In response, the radicalabolitionist John Brown and his
followers launched a retaliatoryraid at Puttawatomie Creek,
brutally killing fivepro-slavery settlers.
This act of vengeance markedBrown as a fiercely committed,
albeit controversial, figure inthe fight against slavery.
(17:35):
The conflict in Kansas was aboutmore than just local control.
It was a proxy war for thenation's future.
Newspapers across the countryreported on the violence and the
term Bleeding Kansas became arallying cry for both sides
became a rallying cry for bothsides.
The territory was a microcosmof the national conflict,
illustrating how deeply dividedthe country had become and how
(17:58):
ineffective legislativecompromises were at addressing
the root causes of the conflict.
The political repercussions ofthe violence in Kansas were
significant.
The brutality and lawlessnessdemonstrated the failure of
popular sovereignty as asolution to the slavery issue.
As the violence in Kansas ragedon, it became glaringly obvious
(18:19):
that the nation was barrelingtowards an all-out conflict.
The bloody chaos in Kansaswasn't just some isolated bout
of madness.
It was a sneak preview of thewidespread violence that would
soon engulf the entire country.
Historian James McPherson sumsit up perfectly the violence in
Kansas demonstrated that thesectional conflict over slavery
(18:41):
could no longer be containedwithin the political system.
It was a preview of the CivilWar to come and then, smack dab
in the middle of this whirlwind,was John Brown, a man so
dedicated to the abolitionistcause that he made everyone else
look like they were justdabbling in anti-slavery
sentiment.
Brown's radical actions anduncompromising stance on slavery
(19:03):
would make him one of the mostcontroversial and pivotal
figures in the lead-up to theCivil War.
He wasn't just fighting forabolition, he was on a personal
crusade.
So while bleeding Kansasescalated, the animosity between
North and South to new heights,turning political rhetoric into
actual bloodshed.
As violence continued, thenation found itself tiptoeing
(19:27):
ever closer to the abyss.
The massacres and brutalconflicts in Kansas only serving
as grim reminders that theconflict over slavery was no
longer confined to debates andlegislation.
It was now a matter of life anddeath.
The chaos and the violence inKansas finally pushed that
diverse coalition of freesoilers, radical Whigs and
(19:47):
Northern Democrats to unite andform the Republican Party in
1854.
Northern Democrats to unite andform the Republican Party in
1854.
This new political force wasdedicated to halting the spread
of slavery into the westernterritories, a goal that
resonated with many who hadwitnessed the horrors of
bleeding Kansas.
The formation of the RepublicanParty marked a significant shift
in the political landscape ofthe United States.
(20:09):
It provided a unified platformfor those opposed to the
expansion of slavery, bringingtogether disparate groups under
a common cause.
This new found unity galvanizedthe anti-slavery movement,
giving it the political clout itneeded to challenge the
pro-slavery establishment.
The Republicans quickly gainedmomentum, attracting supporters
(20:31):
from across the North who wereincreasingly alarmed by the
South's aggressive stance onslavery.
Their message was clear no morecompromises, no more
concessions to the slave-holdinginterests.
This uncompromising stanceresonated with the populace that
had grown weary of the endlesspolitical wrangling and moral
compromises that had defined theprevious decades.
(20:54):
As the Republicans prepare forthe 1856 presidential election,
they face fierce opposition fromthe established parties.
The Democrats, led by JamesBuchanan, sought to maintain the
status quo, while theKnow-Nothing Party capitalized
on nativist sentiments, runningon a platform of anti-immigrant
fervor.
Despite these challenges, theRepublican Party's anti-slavery
(21:18):
platform struck a chord withmany voters, signaling a
dramatic realignment in Americanpolitics.
The election of 1856 was aharbinger of the turmoil to come
, and although the RepublicanParty did not win the presidency
, their strong showing revealedthe deep divisions within the
nation.
The political landscape was nowirrevocably altered, with the
(21:41):
Republican Party emerging as aformidable force dedicated to
confronting the issue of slaveryhead-on as tensions continued
to rise, it became increasinglyclear that the nation was on a
collision course with itself.
The formation of the RepublicanParty was both a response to
the immediate crisis and arecognition that the old
(22:02):
political order was no longercapable of addressing the
fundamental issues tearing thecountry apart, and so the stage
was set for a showdown thatwould ultimately lead to the
Civil War.
Also in 1856, the brutal attackon Senator Charles Sumner
underscored the escalatingviolence and the deepening
divisions within the nation.
Sumner was a staunchabolitionist from Massachusetts,
(22:26):
and he delivered a scathingspeech in the Senate condemning
the pro-slavery forces in Kansasand personally attacking
Senator Andrew Butler of SouthCarolina.
Sumner's speech, known as theCrime Against Kansas, was a
blistering critique of theSouth's efforts to spread
slavery into the new territories.
Sumner's words were not merelyrhetorical flourishes.
(22:49):
They were a direct challenge tothe moral and political
foundation of the pro-slaveryfaction.
He accused Butler of takingquote the harlot slavery end,
quote as his mistress a personalattack that stung deeply.
The speech was emblematic ofthe increasingly hostile and
polarized rhetoric thatcharacterized the national
(23:09):
debate over slavery and the1850s as a whole.
A few days after Sumner's speech, representative Preston Brooks,
a relative of Butler, decidedthat Sumner's insults could not
go unanswered.
On May 22, 1856, brooks enteredthe Senate chamber, approached
Sumner and, without warning,began to beat him mercilessly
(23:31):
with a heavy cane.
The attack was so violent thatSumner, trapped under his desk,
could not defend himself.
Brooks continued to strikeuntil the cane broke, leaving
Sumner bloodied and unconsciouson the floor.
The attack was shockinglybrutal.
Sumner's injuries were severeand he required years to recover
(23:52):
fully.
Brutal Sumner's injuries weresevere and he required years to
recover fully.
The incident highlighted theextreme lengths to which
individuals were willing to goto defend their position on
slavery.
It wasn't just a physicalassault on Sumner.
It was an attack on the veryprinciples of free speech and
democratic debate.
The canning of Charles Sumnershocked the nation.
In the North, it was seen as abarbaric act of Southern
(24:13):
aggression and a starkillustration of the violent
depths to which the pro-slaveryfaction would sink.
Sumner was hailed as a martyrfor the abolitionist cause and
his empty Senate seat, draped inblack, served as a powerful
symbol of Southern brutality.
In the South, however, brookswas celebrated as a hero.
He received numerous canes fromadmirers, some inscribed with
(24:36):
messages like hit him again.
This stark contrast inreactions between the north and
the south shows you how deep thegrowing chasm between the two
regions had become.
The attack on Sumner was morethan just an isolated incident.
It was the national crisis.
It demonstrated that theconflict over slavery had moved
beyond the realm of politicaldebate and now into the physical
(24:59):
realm of violence.
And so the lines were beingdrawn and compromise was
becoming increasingly impossibleas the nation reeled from the
violence in Kansas and thebrutal assault on Sumner.
As the nation reeled from theviolence in Kansas and the
brutal assault in Sumner, theRepublican Party was galvanizing
its forces.
The party's platform, built onits opposition to the expansion
of slavery, attracted a broadcoalition of anti-slavery
(25:22):
advocates, and so the politicallandscape was shifting and the
battle lines were being drawnmore clearly than ever before.
By now, america was reelingfrom multiple body blows and the
nation was teetering on theedge.
To add fuel to the fire, theDred Scott decision worked like
kerosene on the volatile mixthat was America in the 1850s.
(25:46):
Let's rewind a bit to dive intothe origins of the Dred Scott
case, which is a case thatturned the political landscape
into a tinderbox ready toexplode.
Dred Scott was an enslavedAfrican American born around
1799.
By the 1830s, he was owned byDr John Emerson, an army surgeon
(26:07):
.
As Emerson was posted todifferent locations, scott
accompanied him, living invarious free territories,
including Illinois and theWisconsin Territory, where
slavery was prohibited under theMissouri Compromise.
Here's where things getinteresting.
In 1836, emerson moved to thefree Wisconsin Territory, taking
(26:27):
Scott with him.
According to the NorthwestOrdinance of 1787 and the
Missouri Compromise, slavery wasillegal in this territory.
For a time Scott lived free inall but name.
Then, in 1840, emersonrelocated again, this time back
to the slave state of Missouri.
Shortly after Emerson died andScott found himself in the
(26:51):
custody of Emerson's widow.
Scott, understandably, was notthrilled about being dragged
back into a life of bondageafter living in free territories
for so long.
So in 1846, he took the boldstep of suing for his freedom in
a Missouri court, his argumentthat his residence in free
territories had made him a freeman.
(27:12):
This wasn't an entirely newlegal strategy.
Several enslaved people hadsuccessfully sued for their
freedom on similar grounds.
Initially it seemed like Scottmight have a chance.
The Missouri courts had ahistory of granting freedom to
enslaved people who had lived infree territories.
But times were changing and thepro-slavery sentiment was
(27:33):
gaining strength.
Scott's case was initiallysuccessful in 1850, when a St
Louis court ruled in his favor.
However, the case was appealedto the Missouri Supreme Court,
which reversed the decision in1852, reflecting the
increasingly political pressureand sectional tensions of the
time.
Scott's legal battle didn't endthere.
(27:55):
With the support ofabolitionist lawyers, scott's
case was taken to federal courts, ultimately landing in the lap
of the United States SupremeCourt.
This is where the drama reallyramps up.
The case officially known asDred Scott v Sanford the case
(28:15):
officially known as Dred Scott vSanford came before the Supreme
Court in 1856.
The nation watched with batedbreath.
The stakes were monumental andwhen Chief Justice Roger B Taney
delivered the court's decisionon March 6, 1857, it sent
shockwaves throughout thecountry.
The court ruled against Scott,stating that, as a black man, he
was not a citizen and thereforehad no right to sue in federal
(28:37):
court.
Moreover, the court declaredthat Congress had no authority
to prohibit slavery in theterritories, effectively
nullifying the MissouriCompromise.
The decision was a catastrophicblow to the abolitionist
movement and a triumphantvictory for pro-slavery forces.
It not only dashed the hopes ofDred Scott, but also inflamed
(28:59):
the already volatile nationaldebate over slavery.
As Taney's words echoedthroughout the nation, they made
it painfully clear that thepolitical and legal systems were
deeply biased in favor ofmaintaining and expanding
slavery.
In the North, the ruling wasmet with outreach and horror.
It galvanized anti-slaverysentiment, pushing many
(29:20):
moderates towards a more radicalstance.
In the South, the decision wasa vindication of their rights
and a confirmation of theirworldview.
It emboldened pro-slaveryadvocates and further entrenched
the ideological divide betweenNorth and South.
The ruling exacerbatedsectional tensions and it
convinced many that the judicialsystem was hopelessly biased in
(29:41):
favor of the Southern states.
The Dred Scott decision didn'tjust impact Scott himself.
It struck at the very heart ofthe nation's identity and future
.
It starkly highlighted themoral and political
contradictions tearing Americaapart.
The bloody conflict was fastapproaching.
The political landscape wasalready fraught with tension,
(30:04):
and then the Dred Scott decisiononly served to deepen the chasm
.
It became clear that the issueof slavery could no longer be
contained within the politicalsystem.
The North and the South were ona collision course, and the
events of the 1850s had set thestage for the inevitable
conflict that would soon engulfthe entire nation.
(30:24):
Now remember our old friend JohnBrown.
It's about time we delve intohis story.
His crusade against slaverywould be the final major act of
the bloody decade.
The aftermath the election of1860, would see a little-known
lawyer from Illinois become the16th President of the United
States.
This election would be thefinal catalyst for secession and
(30:47):
war.
This election would be thefinal catalyst for secession and
war.
In our next episode we willzoom in on Lincoln, the election
of 1860, and the secessioncrisis, but for now we need to
(31:08):
introduce and then quickly bidfarewell to a man of conviction
but also a man of great pilotsJohn Brown.
John Brown was a man of intenseconviction and radical action,
not great at a lot of things inlife except agitation and
fathering children.
Born in 1800 in Connecticut,brown was raised in a deeply
religious family that abhorredslavery.
His father was a ferventabolitionist and Brown grew up
with a strong sense of moralrighteousness.
(31:30):
This upbringing made for hislifelong crusade against the
institution of slavery.
By the 1850s, brown had becomea dedicated abolitionist,
willing to use violence toachieve his goals.
His actions in Kansas,particularly the Pottawatomie
Creek Massacre, where he and hisfollowers killed five
pro-slavery settlers in coldblood, solidified his reputation
(31:53):
as a radical and a fearlessopponent of slavery.
This event, gruesome as it was,underscored Brown's belief that
the fight against slaveryrequired drastic measures.
In 1859, brown conceived a planto incite a slave rebellion by
capturing the federal arsenal atHarper's Ferry, virginia.
He believed that by armingenslaved people, he could spark
(32:16):
a widespread uprising that wouldultimately destroy the
institution of slavery.
Brown gathered a small group offollowers, including his sons,
and launched this raid onOctober 16, 1859.
The raid was a tacticaldisaster.
Brown and his men managed toseize the arsenal, but they were
quickly surrounded by localmilitia and federal troops.
(32:39):
After a two-day standoff, brownwas captured and several of his
followers were killed.
Brown was tried for treasonagainst the Commonwealth of
Virginia, convicted andsentenced to death.
On December 2, 1859, he washanged, becoming a martyr for
the abolitionist cause.
(32:59):
Brown's raid on Harper Ferry hada profound impact on the nation
.
In the North, he was hailed asa hero, a man who had sacrificed
his life for the cause offreedom.
Abolitionists celebrated hiscourage and conviction, and his
execution was widely mourned.
Henry David Thoreau, thetranscendentalist writer and
(33:19):
philosopher, delivered a speechin defense of Brown, calling him
a quote crucified hero, endquote.
In the South, however, brown'sraid confirmed the war's fears
of slaveholders.
They saw Brown as a symbol ofnorthern aggression and a direct
threat to their way of life.
The raid heightened southernparanoia about slave rebellions
(33:41):
and further entrenched alldeterminations to defend slavery
at all costs.
With Brown's execution, thebloody decade came to an
ignominious close.
The road ahead for Americawould be filled with corpses,
war and misery, but also withthe rebirth of the nation that
would emerge fundamentallydifferent from the one before
(34:01):
the war.
John Brown's martyrdom againstslavery was a harbinger of the
broader national tragedy thatwas unfolding.
His last words will proveprophetic Quote.
I, john Brown, am now quitecertain that the crimes of this
guilty land will never beperched away, but with blood.
(34:21):
I had vainly flattered myselfthat without very much bloodshed
it might be done.
End quote.
Next time, on Double Helix,we'll zoom in on Abraham Lincoln
, his appearance on thepolitical stage and his meteoric
rise out of obscurity into thepresidency of the United States
(34:42):
at its most crucial time.
The election of 1860 and thesecession crisis that followed
the first shots of the war atFort Sumter are not too distant.
Now Join us next time for partfour of the American Civil War
story.
Thank you for listening.
We will see you soon.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.