Last year, I finished my latest book, Tracking the Storm. The following post is the ninth installment (find the earlier sections here). You can download a pdf if you enjoy reading on your computer or also purchase a printed copy of the book.
In 1848, the Mexican-American war came to its messy end with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Many Americans then and now felt that Polk had bullied Mexico into the war and most were happy to have the experience over. Much like 80 years before with the end of the French and Indian War, most people assumed the country would move forward with success. Had they been looking more deeply, they would have seen the same sorts of events coming that the British leaders had missed.
Just as Prime Minister Grenville discovered, trying to enforce rules about who could move where was problematic. Moreover, as Southerners listened to the words of the abolitionists, whose writings were often printed more widely in the South than elsewhere as evidence of their strident views, many in the South began to worry that their view of the government was being threatened.
To their perspective, everything the old Patriots had fought for was summed up in the idea of not being under the control of some monolithic government. The idea that this government could decide what could or could not take place in some local region of the country smacked Southern leaders as precisely what the British had been doing with their various taxing “acts” of the 1760s. The unwillingness of Congress to quickly annex Texas was all the proof they needed; Southerners believed it was obvious that taking that land would benefit the country. Thus, a group of abolitionist leaders within the government who were able to stop a natural positive act were clearly a threat.
The Compromise of 1850 proved to be as explosive as the Stamp Act. The idea was to cover the various problems inherent with the new land in one large act, much like they had dealt with the Missouri issue 30 years before. It was not to be. That defeat would be the last political gasp of the great political leaders of the previous half-century; men like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. So, just as the British had struggled to find good political leadership, so too the Americans entered this new decade with a younger crop of leaders. Worse, most of them came to DC unwilling to embrace the old concept of compromise.
Perhaps the act would not have been as impacting were it not for the political writing of Harriett Beecher Stowe. Much like Paine’s 1776 writing, her words in Uncle Tom’s Cabin struck a nerve across the land. The books sold 500,000 copies by 1853 and proved to be main reason that public opinion in the north turned. However, just like before, it was a somewhat unrelated event that really got events moving. When Lord North signed off on that new Tea Act in 1773, he was not very concerned about the ramifications in the colonies. Senator Douglass was going to have the same experience in 1853. In 1849, the year after the victory of Mexico, gold was discovered in northern California, so that by 1855, over 300,000 people had moved to seek their fortune. California quickly became a state in 1850 as part of the compromise, but its explosive growth (in the 1840s, only approximately 60-70,000 people were in the state; 90,000 alone moved to California in 1850). It didn’t take long before the conversation began about connecting the East and the West through a transcontinental railroad.
It was the land on this possible middle route that attracted the attention of many including political leaders in Illinois such as Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. These leaders and others could see the obvious, that if a transcontinental railroad was built in the middle of the country’s land, that the terminus would most likely go through Illinois and a small city on Lake Michigan—Chicago. Douglas in particular could see that if he could get the middle railroad line developed, then he could position Illinois businesses to profit from the railroad. To make this happen, he would need to prod Congress to develop the territory land west of Missouri and the newer state of Iowa. So, in late 1853, Senator Augustus Dodge from Iowa introduced the bill to organize the remaining land from the old Louisiana Purchase into one territory, opening the way for the northern, middle route across the continent. Over the holiday, however, Douglas came realized that Southern leaders would never support this idea, so in January 1854, he tweaked the initial proposal to create two territories—Nebraska which lay near Iowa and Kansas which would lay directly west from Missouri, the most northern slave state. Moreover, he would take the idea of “popular sovereignty” from the Compromise of 1850 and apply it here. To Douglas’ mind, it really didn’t matter. He didn’t think slavery could ever establish itself in what many people thought was the “Great American Desert.” Little did he realize that in the years to come, that area would be the “breadbasket of the world.”
The resultant action through the remainder of 1854 would come to be known as “Bleeding Kansas.” Much like the Boston Massacre and the action at Lexington and Concord, Bleeding Kansas is critical in the journey towards war because it was the start of bloodshed and fighting. In many ways, the conflicts there are the first battles of the Civil War, just as Lexington and Concord, or Bunker Hill were for the previous crisis period. The tension spread east quickly due to the increased speed of communication, and just like the old British government could not control the spread of information post-Boston Massacre, the men in Congress could not either. Things even reached the floor of Congress where Preston Brooks would savagely attack Charles Sumner, an advocate of abolition, beating him senseless with a walking cane. Before long, members of Congress were coming to the Capitol armed or with guards.
Many of the abolition leaders understood that they now had a great chance. The Whig party was in tatters, leaving a void in the US political spectrum. Another party, an anti-immigration party known more by its nickname, the “Know-Nothing Party” was taking shape in the northeast, but from New York to Illinois, the anger about Kansas was palpable. But, these abolition leaders realized that they needed a better name than just a cute comment about slavery. Though abolition would be the central focus of the party, to win they’d have to reach people more moderate in their views. Quickly, they noted their chance by taking the name that the Democrats had dropped in the 1830s—the Republicans.
In the Presidential election of 1856, the Republicans (literally the 5th party behind the Democrats, the Whigs, the Know-Nothings and the Free Soil parties) shocked everyone by coming in second. Southerners were not amused and made clear their opinion. Senator Robert Tombs from Georgia stated openly that if the Republicans won in 1856, “that the Union would be dissolved, and ought to be dissolved.” Other Southern leaders voiced their negative opinion about a Republican victory. The handwriting was on the wall; all that was needed know was the dynamite and a spark.
That explosive material would come rapidly in the next 3 years, starting first with the Dred Scott Supreme Court case. The decision by the court, led by Chief Justice R. B. Taney struck down the old Missouri Compromise decision and opened the door for slavery to move anywhere in the country.
This was the period in 1858 that I wrote about in the first chapter. While Lincoln was debating Senator Douglas, the incident in Oberlin happened. Northerners rejoiced and “The Rescuers” went on speaking tours. Southerners became more worried and wondered what to do next. Then, the native son from Oberlin, recently back from activity in the Bleeding Kansas battles, John Brown, took his passion to Virginia. When Lincoln was elected President in November 1860, having never even appeared on the ballot in most Southern states, it didn’t take leaders long in the Deep South to begin making plans. On December 17th, leaders met in Columbia SC to discuss their options. After moving the convention to Charleston, the leaders voted on Christmas Eve to secede. Two weeks later in early January, Georgia joined the movement and the march to open warfare would unfold through April 1861 when the first shots rang out against the Fort Sumter outside of Charleston.
Three more months brought early, smaller military actions, and then on July 21st, the First Battle of Bull Run became the first major engagement. Some 86 years before, on June 17, 1775, the fighting on Bunker Hill had ended. That battle had led into the conflict that would create the United States around a set of principles that were developed due to the events of the previous 90 years, the Glorious Revolution. Those principles were that no central government could dictate to the people, that rather power of government derives from the people. Yet the American Revolution also set forth another set of values relative to the experience of people, that of basic human liberty. In other words, not only did power derive from the people, it did so because at their heart, they are free beings created by God. The resultant eight decades did not, perhaps could not, solve the riddle of government mixed with slavery, the conundrum about the extent of the power of government.
Over the next four years, the north would win the civil war. Lincoln, however, to achieve victory, would further unleash the federal government. He would wage an undeclared war. He would suspend habeas corpus, twice. He would, as Andrew Jackson did, ignore the determinations of the Supreme Court and suggest that the Chief Justice should be arrested. In other words, to save the country, Lincoln would lead the greatest, perhaps worst, change to the government since Andrew Jackson’s two terms in office. In the coming years, as the country emerged through the challenge of Reconstruction, the children born into the wreckage of the country, would come to expect that government to fix more and more things. The idea of the old American dream of individuals living free, “king of their own castle” would fall by the wayside in the wake of the explosive Industrial Revolution. That demand to see the government act more would ultimately lead to the next crisis, a dual-headed monster, a crisis within and without.
*********************
You can read the rest of chapter 9 in Tracking the Storm; the book provides powerful clues about what is coming, rapidly, to the United States. There is little doubt that a storm is approaching the country, the outer edges of the winds already swirling around us. What does that portend for the nation? Through the clues of history, we can find direction and steps to undertake to prepare. Many believe there won’t be a storm, or maybe that the worst is over. With history as a guide, I demonstrate that we haven’t yet even reached the Great Crisis.
Gripping and “a scary yet necessary read,” Tracking the Storm moves through the past 400 years of Anglo-American history to illustrate the various clues provided that show the steps to the coming crisis. I will tell the story of political instability, economic distress, rapid technological changes and a growing philosophical divide that challenged previous generations. At the end of each Great Crisis, the nation had been radically changed. Pick up your copy of Tracking the Storm today!