Kontan’s Place

Sugrue: Racial Crisis in Detroit

Using “The Continuing Racial Crisis” by Thomas Sugrue, explain the limits of civil rights reform in Detroit.

Citizens of Detroit, both black and white, faced growing discontent and resentment making successful civil reform in the city slow and difficult to achieve. Thomas Sugrue uses examples of police brutality, a changing job market lacking of employment opportunity, demographic changes, as well as political frustration to detail the struggles for civil rights reform in Detroit.

Sugrue begins with an account of the July 23,1967 race riot resulting in the arrest of eighty-five patrons of an illegal after hours saloon. While waiting for reinforcements, several hundred people gathered to witness the incident. The gathering escalated into a five-day riot, which resulted in the arrest of 7,231 participants, millions of dollars in damages, and forty-three people dead. This riot was the second of which Sugrue refers to as “cataclysmic violence” in a period of less than twenty-five years. Sugrue continues the discussion by contrasting the events. The first, in the summer of 1943, had roughly equal proportions of black and white participants. The 1967 riots were black with predominantly white officials trying to put down the riot. According to Sugrue, the 1967 riots were the participants’ response to flagrant discrimination and recent deindustrialization with the deindustrialization bringing about massive unemployment. Limited results and disappointment in rising expectations of Great Society programs increased turmoil and violence from the black community fueling frustrations of Detroit’s poor.

The declining transformation in the local labor market fed the discontentedness of Detroit’s African-American working and non-working population. According to Sugrue, limited opportunities, ongoing poverty, and discrimination, led to racial animosity and as a result criminal activity increased in the black community. Sugrue explains the aforementioned conditions resulted in the acceptance of deviant and previously unacceptable occupations as suddenly legitimate by the youth within the community. Advancements in technology and the migration of many industries to areas with more cost efficient labor encouraged many in the local labor force to lose hope of obtaining legitimate employment. Due to the racial boundaries, residential segregation, within the city the mobility of black citizens was limited. Sugrue also points out that many had little desire or the finances to relocate to other areas where jobs were perhaps more readily available and instead chose to maintain residency in Detroit thus leading more toward the increased anger against the city.

Due to this sweeping change, white neighborhood associations saw themselves losing control over their once held grasp on the political machine and as unemployment and poverty grew more government welfare assistance programs became more prominent in Detroit. Sugrue references Thomas F. Jackson who stated that the “War on Poverty” initiatives that brought government money and social programs to Detroit did little to address or remedy the deindustrialization and flagrant discrimination, thereby offering little if any real opportunity to African-Americans of Detroit. Ultimately, the limits to reform in Detroit rested with the discontent of inner-city blacks and whites. The lack of opportunity due to discrimination and industrial change frustrated the African American community. The lack of desire as well as the lack of ability on the part of blacks to follow the job market or adapt to the technological changes further limited reform. Expectation for the government to improve economic opportunity and reduce discrimination practices also played into the African-Americans’ senses of frustration and limitation of reform. The rioting and extreme discontent did motivate the African-American community into becoming more politically active and ultimately led to slow changes, but, the protracted pace of reform further increased frustration and created a vicious circle which served only to fuel more dissent and violence.

Already prejudiced, the white populations grew increasingly bitter toward Detroit’s city leaders for allowing the escalation of both reform attempts and the violent response by blacks. Detroit’s affluent white population’s expectation was for the City to contain black communities and to forbid blacks from encroaching into traditionally white areas. The poor and disadvantaged whites were also resistant to reform since any changes that benefited blacks would magnify competition in the already strained job market. Thus, as anger and violence increased among the black population, prejudice and opposition increased within the white. According to Sugrue, there was a dilemma in politics with regard to the inability of Democrats to appease the white community, who resented bearing the brunt of accommodation necessary for an integrated society. Detroit’s whites were reluctant to carry the burden of change after realizing that successful integration requires the dominant group to make heavy concessions. This lack of desire for change lead to even further resistance by the white populations.

Based on the Sugrue article, it seems that the limitations of reform in Detroit rested not only with resisting whites, but within the black community as well. The militancy of black reformers drove the white community to fight harder against reform. It was not until their own political participation did African-Americans begin to see change. However, as this change began the white community increased efforts to resist residential integration and other civil rights reform. Political officials received attention, sometimes violent, from both the black and white communities. Any attempts to appease both communities resulted in neither becoming content. The City of Detroit was little different from other areas of the country in enacting and maintaining civil rights reform. Populations in other areas of our country similarly resisted reform attempts; often with violent consequences. Eventually, though, through persistence and dedication to civil right’s reform beginning in the late 1960’s, the City of Detroit as well as other American cities ultimately made strides in civil rights reform.

Harding and the legacy of MLK

According to Vincent Gordon Harding, what was the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.?

source: “King as Disturber of the Peace” in Major Problems in American History Since 1945

Martin Luther King Jr. is revered as a great orator and leader of the Civil Rights movement proclaiming nonviolence and civil disobedience. He is remembered most for his dream of black and white children playing together in the freedom of civil rights victory. Vincent Gordon Harding proclaims King to be so much more. Harding states, “Americans have chosen amnesia rather than continue King’s painful, uncharted, and often disruptive struggle toward a more perfect union (267).” The legacy of King is the groundwork of that struggle.

King made the choice to not just lobby for change. He made the choice to not just give speeches and organize marches. Harding describes the choice King made as one of determination and one of action. King committed himself to the cause of civil rights and to the betterment of life for poor citizens in America. He was willing to do more than just talk. King was willing to get in the trenches to lead the fight and fight along side those he tried to encourage. He was also aware of the growing discontent of African American youth and the attitude of the changing culture.

Black youth were more heavily affected by the rise in unemployment in cities such as Detroit. They saw little hope for a better life and altered their life goals accordingly. Many did not aspire to higher than what can be described as survival. The same youth questioned the nonviolence approach of Martin Luther King Jr. Harding explains that they did not understand why he preached a love of both black and white when so many African Americans did not even love themselves. There was a building rage among the youth that King, according to Harding, was aware of (268).

Harding describes a King that was not only determined to insight change, but a King that was willing to face the chaos that such change would bring. King wanted to see more than just doors opened for middle America. King wanted the poor to be lifted from their economic struggle, and to do so required American society to change. King began to challenge the mainstream of American life. In such challenge both black and white were uncomfortable. Many, of whom Harding refers to as respectable blacks, considered King’s aggressive push for societal change a threat to the professional gains they had made. King’s changes were based on negative assessment of the American economic order, a stance against the capitalism that did not uplift the poor in America (268).

Martin Luther King Jr. was a voice for change and had a vision of mobilizing the poor in America to liberate themselves from the plight of poverty. Harding reports King’s insistence that “the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together (269).” These are referred to as the triple evils. In order to overcome the triple evils a revamping of American society must take place. King called for a values revolution in America with the redistribution of American political and economic power to aid the poor (269).

Harding quotes a poem by Carl Wendell Hines stating “dead men . . . cannot rise to challenge the images we would fashion from their lives . . . it is easier to build monuments than to make a better world (266).” There is certainly an element of truth to Hines’ poem. When discussing the Civil Rights movement in America Martin Luther King Jr. is at the forefront, almost exclusive to all others. He is the first black man to receive national recognition in the form of a holiday. In this recognition many of his disruptive beliefs are lost in the grandeur of his accomplishments in the deep South. He is known for his accomplishments, with the disruption of struggle forgotten. Anything of such pivotal importance and extreme social reform will create disruption and will be a struggle. Kings’ legacy is the reminder of this struggle and the necessary fight for desired change. In the remembrance of King it is the struggle that Harding describes as part of the amnesia America faces.

According to Harding, the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. is the vision of a society based on social, political, and economic equality. The legacy of action, not mere words. Martin Luther King Jr. was not only a good orator; he was a man willing to take the necessary action to organize and insight change. He was willing to not only speak about change and organize for change, he was willing to risk himself for it. He knew and understood the likelihood of his demise. His awareness of the growing frustrations in a changing America encouraged his revolutionary hope for American society. Harding stresses it is this hope that historians must embrace and revive awareness for.

LBJ’s domestic programs

The Great Depression altered the way Americans viewed the responsibilities of the national government. Out of desperation Americans turned to the government seeking help, seeking a fix to the nation’s problem. This was not a new response, but it was much more widespread as the Great Depression touched lives from coast to coast, in every state and every city. In the 1960s President Johnson expanded the role of the government even further with a series of programs enacted to address concerns of health, housing, and education. President Johnson declared war on poverty. To many, the nations poor were invisible. It was easier than ever for the nations poor to blend in with the middle class, and for the middle and upper classes to turn a blind eye to the realities of poverty. It was President Johnson’s goal “to help each and every American citizen fulfill his basic hopes (219).” According to Johnson, the symptoms, not cause, of poverty were unemployment and low income. By giving the poor a boost with “entitlement” programs society in America would see improvement. The “war on poverty” was only one aspect of Johnson’s plan. Other programs were created to combat the symptoms of poverty.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed to outlaw literacy tests for the sake of qualifying voters. The 15th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to everyone despite race. However, those wishing to discriminate against African-American voters argued that the party primaries were private and therefore not under the jurisdiction of the 15th Amendment. Primaries are tied to voting despite the individual party nature. Therefore, it seems primary voting should fall under the requirements of the 15th Amendment. Despite the seeming redundancy, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a positive step in the pursuit of civil rights.
Another program created in Johnson’s Great Society was HUD, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD was founded for the purpose of developing and executing policy concerning housing and cities. The scope of HUD has been narrowed to focus mainly on housing offering special mortgage loans to those who would not qualify for a conventional loan, allowing more to pursue home ownership. Also dealing with civil rights and health, this branch pushed the Fair Housing and Equal opportunity housing to deter discrimination while also raising awareness to the hazards of lead. Certainly a positive aspect of the Great Society, however, like many programs, there is an element of the population that is left out of the assistance equation, the true middle. The true middle class do not qualify for assistance nor can they pursue such advantages at their current level.
The element of good works and society’s helping hand is taken away by programs such as VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America. Although a good deed for enriching communities across America in areas such as educational improvements and vocational training, it is not without the expectation of reward. Volunteers received a $10, 000 stipend, health coverage, post-service transitional wage, and educational rewards. Rather than seeking individuals to help their neighbor without the expectation of profit, and encouraging true community involvement, tax dollars were spent to pay volunteers. It is not a volunteer service if profit is gained.
Other programs, although beneficial to some, undermine the public educational system. For example Job Corps offers employment training, GED, and pursuit of high school diplomas to disadvantaged youth. It is certainly well intended to push the importance of education and job skills. However, disadvantaged youth could be better served by funding these programs through the already created public educational system by funding education at a level allowing for the vocational training of at-risk youth. Upward bound is another educational program preparing youth for the responsibilities of adulthood. Upward bound targets intelligent youth who are from low-income, rural, or first generation college candidates, training them for college success and offering incentives. It seems there is an overlap in government expenditure since the target group is considered the intelligent segment. If intelligent and doing well academically they would qualify for scholarships for college. Another education program targets a much younger audience, preschoolers. Head Start was created to prepare children of low-income families the opportunity to prepare for the social and educational demands of the public school system.
Although wonderful programs for meeting the needs of low-income and poverty stricken families there is a segment of the population that is left hanging out to dry, the true middle class. That group of the population that does not qualify for aid, but is one major setback away from falling into poverty. The group that is just barely getting by, and whose high school senior will not qualify for government aid to college, nor does the family have the funding. Furthermore many programs remove the work ethic of earning one’s rewards. Instead, rewards are handed out without expectation of return. Entitlements decrease the drive for self-improvement while increasing expectation, while allowing those in the middle to fall through the cracks. Many programs are also created with only short term funding in mind. Once created they are expected to continue and create much dispute when reduced or cut, Medicaid and Medicare being excellent examples. When created, funding for these medical programs was to be shared by the states and the federal government. Now they are a source of budget contention as states struggle to meet the massive need of medical assistance.
Despite being a noble goal, fulfilling the basic hopes of all America is not feasible in a capitalist society. Inevitably there will be haves and have nots. Extensive entitlements remove incentive, and decrease drive. With expectations of a government caretaker there is less initiative for private assistance organizations. There is also an overlap in assistance and the oversight of system abuse. The documents in Major Problems in American History indicate instances where families were better served by divorcing and receiving government aid in place of the husbands meager income. Critics such as Reagan quote Plutarch, warning “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits (221).” In “From Opportunity to Entitlement,” Gareth Davies explains the changing definition of independence. Instead of self-sufficiency, through the growth of “entitlements” independence came to mean freedom from want, even with government dependence. Although assistance is not a negative for a society, when allowed to become expected, it fosters a dependence that cannot be erased and is detrimental to that society.

A Great Society?

I am currently in the process of researching LBJ’s Great Society for the purpose of critical evaluation. In the process I ran across this article. Using the events in New Orleans after Katrina as foundation the author examines the breakdown of society and places much blame on what he calls the “the socialist experiment”, LBJ’s Great Society and war on poverty. As the article points out the GS was created to help the poor, reducing poverty, and raise the bar for neighborhoods in America while improving health care and conservation policies. I am not taking the stance that all aspects of LBJ’s plan were bad. However, the creation of such a broad welfare base is in some ways (IMO) detrimental to those in poverty, leaving them dependent on the welfare system, with no incentive to raise the bar of personal triumph. Does anyone else see that a dependency could, and does, develop? There are some cases where families are economically better off if they have more children, do not seek a job or a higher wage, or separate. In a document detailing Reagan’s opposition to the development of a welfare state a case is referenced where a woman was seeking a divorce from her husband, a laborer earning $250 a month. If she divorced him she could receive $350 a month from the Aid to Dependent Children Program. Granted this was an old case, but similar instances can be found today. Is the wrong message being sent to people? What about work ethic? Pride? Determination to make it on one’s own? I’m not saying leave the poor hanging out to dry, but what about reform with incentive to get off the system and make it in the world by personal initiative?

Here is another article also referencing the breakdown of society during Katrina. Despite inadequacies society still screamed for the government to come to the rescue failing to make a personal attempt.

To a degree I can see the argument. Not being in the situation I can not imagine the hopelessness. However, I also know my personal drive to figure out a way to help my family, to see that needs are met. Has government dependency overrun that drive for many?

happy days

The second article said about the same as the first regarding teens and behavior. Marchand addresses concerns of teen influences, James Dean, and the rebellion of youth against the expectations of their parents.

To answer the question regarding the essays and “Happy Days”…

The “Happy Days” persona of the 1950s is an attempt to gild the decade as the “good old days” when husband went to work, wife kept the home, and children did all they were supposed to without reeking havoc. “Happy Days” portrays a 1950s innocence that was not the reality. The mother of the house did not always stay home baking cookies and keeping the home. More than ever before she could be seen in the working world. Youth were not always innocent and proper. Promiscuity was not lost on the 1950s generation. “Happy Days” touched on some issues of 1950s society, such as dating, gangs, and propriety, while continuing to embrace the “good old days” of American society. Both articles make references that could easily be used to describe 21st Century concerns. Youth of today are technology dependent, seek social recognition, and strive for life unique from the era of their parents. Marchand addresses the popular influences upon 50s youth, such as the rebel attitude and James Dean image. Today’s youth are influenced by Hollywood heroes and industry Pop stars. Commercial advertising has a large influence on the expectations and desires of both youth and society. The debt of 21st Century society is tremendous. Wealth and happiness is defined by the acquisition of things. Society strives for convenience just as it did in the 1950s with the advent of new appliances and new gadgets.

“Happy Days”

My task is to now answer the following:

How do the essays by Beth Bailey and Roland Marchand challenge the popular “Happy Days” image of the 1950s?

I remember watching happy days. Life seemed so easy and family so “normal”. Sure they had issues, but nothing that couldn’t be solved in the 30 minute TV time. I searched the net and ran across a brief synopsis of the show: “Happy Days” was set in the 1950s in Milwaukee, the heart of middle-class America, and told the story of the Cunningham family. Mr. Cunningham (Tom Bosley) ran the local hardware store and Mrs. Cunningham (Marion Ross), like all good TV Moms, spent her time in the kitchen. Their son, Richie (Ron Howard), hung out at Arnold’s Drive-In with his pals Ralph Malph (Donny Most) and Potsie (Anson Williams), trying to be as cool as the coolest greaser in town, the Fonz (Henry Winkler). Richie’s sister, Joanie (Erin Moran), tagged along whenever she wasn’t at her friend Jenny Piccolo’s house. The Cunninghams also had an older son, Chuck, but he mysteriously disappeared after the first season. When the series started, Richie and his pals were using fake ID’s to sneak into bars and struggling to find dates. By the time the show ended, their teenage problems had given way to decidedly adult topics like marriage and children. (credit to whoever created the geocities site).

The background documents for this section paint a very different life of the 1950s. First discussing the teenage market, Life magazine (1959 article) describes it as a developing industry bringing in big bucks. The article paints a picture of indulgent parents and spoiled kids. It is actually very similar to arguments heard in the 21st century. A Newsweek article form 1955 details delinquency of the 50s and the growth of teenage gangs. Again, very similar to stories of today. Senseless killing and fights over territorial disputes, or for merely the sake of fighting. The 1955 article included from US News and World Report address television and the evils deteriorating the minds of society. What if those same writers looked at television today! Same arguments, some say it broadens the world view of the watcher and expands their lives into world’s they might never see in reality. Those in protest determine it weakens the ability of society to think and deteriorates the health of its youth. A House of Representatives discussion on homosexuality is included. Cold war fears are used to support this argument stating that in the closet homosexuals are easy prey for communists seeking weak links to blackmail. Statistics of homosexual government employees are included. I question the validity of the statistics stating “75% of the 4000 pervers in the District of Columbia are employed by the Government”. Lastly this section includes graphic illustrations of how to respond to a nuclear attack. Honestly, I find this section amusing. In the event that you are close enough to see the flash kiss your butt goodbye because there is little chance you will survive the fall out. Here’s a quote, “Fashion tips for the apocalypse. Men should wear wide-brimmed hats, women stockings and long-sleeved dresses.” Stockings? OUCH! I can’t imagine getting those things off in the event of a burn. It’s really not amusing, it is scary that this was an actual fear and arguably still is, just in a different scenario.

My stance?

My stance? I don’t know, so I’m going to think it out. I know, I’ve been thinking for days. I was a little distracted this week by sick child and nice weather. The stated reason for dropping the A-bombs on Japan are plausible. Even after the bombing of Hiroshima Japan did not show signs of surrender, only mobilizing for the expected invasion. There were some advising the Emperor that refused to back down, and those that suggested surrender negotiation were having little pull. Some suggest the threat of Soviet involvement would have caused Japan to negotiate. Indications were that after the successful testing that the US did not stress Soviet involvement and wanted to keep the Soviets out so they had no claims to make in the surrender. Which leads to the possibility of showing the USSR the power we had. A demo. Certainly relations with the Soviets were strained as the Cold War was getting under way. There is a moral dilemma in dropping the bomb. Innocent life was taken. Yet, Japan was forced to surrender, therefore saving American soldiers. Would it have been effective to demo the destructive power to encourage surrender? I do not think so. Even experiencing destruction did not lead to surrender negotiations, it took a second devastating bomb.

It is not my assignment to determine the morality of dropping the bombs. I do not think it was right. I think the US could have used other destructive means and achieved the same goal. However, I am not certain about the casualty figures. My purpose is to determine the why.

The United States bombed Japan for several reasons. First, to bring an end to the war. Second, to demonstrate force and power to the Soviets. Third, I really think they wanted to see what it would really do. That is horrible I know. But I think for some it was an issue. I believe there is merit to the argument that those who argue against the bombing argue with evidence written after the fact, using hindsight judgments.

Now the goal is to put this into an intelligent essay…

populism/progressivism

Populism: politics or political ideology based on teh perceived interests of ordinary people, as opposed to those of a privileged elite (farm reform)

Progressivism: (beliefs of progressives) any of 3 political parties that favored social reform and were active in the presidential elections of 1912, 1924, and 1948.

Progressive Era:
goal of progressives- end BIG business and corruption. period of the muckrakers.

still reading notes and will put together more tomorrow. *blah* (yes, that was intelligent wasnt it)

Civil War: Eastern and Western Theater

Were there reasons other than ability (or lack of) that made the East more successful than the West?

The size of the area of operation in the East was smaller. Lee’s job was to keep Richmond from falling.

The strategy defending particular positions rather than going after particular armies (Jominian Strategy: Do the greatest damage to enemy with least to self, concentrate all forces in strategic place, then go against enemy keeping interior lines of communication open.)

Government policy: Jefferson Davis concerned with saving capital, the West was not his priority.

Geography: Mountains in the East, rivers in the West. Union controlling rivers and Confederates had no navy or control. Confederates tried to defed rivers from land. The challenge was how to defend without a navy.

Navy factor: Union navy attacks from gulf up and down MS river. Confederate trying to build ironclads in NOLA, but no time to concentrate on navy. Confederates had the Arkansas as an ironclad. The Arkansas fended off Faragut in Vicksburg. CSS Arkansas was sent to Baton Rouge, but couldn’t make it, the Confederates blew it up.

Logistics: Lee has secure RR in rear around Richmond going south. Does not have major logistic problem. A lot of food was sent to Lee and not in the West who really needed it. The RR was down in the West. Rivers were tenuous at best, and ran east to west, and subject to raids. Also an expansive territory, so they could not guard all rail lines. Furthermore, n o standard guage.

Communications: not just telegraph. Due to distance from Richmond, many Confederate generals didn’t communicate with Richmond or each other.

Civil Support: For Confederacy in West (as opposed to VA). Because troops couldn’t defend all areas people were left vulnerable, less support for Confederates in the West. Lee had support in VA.

State government support: As long as Lee inn VA the state government offered support. In West, had to move government frequently to avoid capture. Some Governor’s protested because vulnerable. Not as much support in the West.

Decline of morale among Confederate soldiers: Happens to army of VA at Seige of Petersburg. Starts a lot earlier in Western theater. Desertion was a problem.

civil war

taking a little jump tonight for civil war info….

“The major cause of the U.S. Civil War was slavery, pure and simple.” Discuss.

There are several catalysts to the Civil War and each can be tied to slavery. I have previously discussed the Compromise of 1850 and Kansas-Nebraska Act. For the sake of continuity I will paste it here and pick up with Bleeding Kansas, Bleeding Sumner and John Brown’s Raid. Others include the writing of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and the Dred Scott decision.

To begin with, in 1820 the Missouri Compromise dealt with the Louisiana Purchase territory. The compromise attempted to solve the problem of slavery in the LA Purchase, stating that in LA Purchase territory and only in territory draw a line at 36*30′, the southern boundary of MO. Slavery would be allowed south of that line, not north, except in MO. The suggestion was to draw that line all the way to the Pacific.

The question still remained, what to do with all new territory? The Wilmot Proviso tried to attach an amendment to appropriations bill that would support the Mexican War if territory obtained would not allow slavery.

The Compromise of 1850 proposed to solve several issues regarding admittance to the Union. The question most addressed is slavery and the determination of slave or free states. Some proposed the question be answered by popular sovereignty. This opened questions as to when the people decide. Should they decide before being admitted as a state? Should they decide with the adoption of a Constitution? Or, should they decide with a vote after statehood?

With the discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in California it became necessary to create a formal government there. the New Mexico area also needed proper government organization. Recommendations were made for both areas to create a constitution and apply for statehood. The question was whether they would be slave or free. New Mexico faced other challenges as well.

New Mexico was involved in a border dispute with Texas. There was also the Mormon question. The Mormon’s had proposed their own state status near the Great Salt Lake. Although not pro-slavery they did accept polygamy, which was just as deplorable as slavery to some members of Congress. Therefore, the focus was drawn to California.

California quickly embraced the opportunity to become a state. A consitution was created, but did not allow slavery. This was frightening to Southerners due to the vast size of the area. To solve the issue the compromise of 1850 was proposed.

The Compromise sought to appease both the pro- and anti-slavery factions. California would be admitted as a free state. Texas would be excused from war debts if they would settled with the New Mexico border. All new territory below the 36*30′ line could enter the Union as slave states and that above as free which would in part allow slaver into new territories. The least debated issue, the stronger fugitive slave law, would become the most explosive.

It is believed Stephen Douglas had an ulterior motive for proposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Although he was pro-expansion he also served to make money from the new trans-continental railroad in development. Douglas owned land in the Chicago area. The railroad was being constructed from California through the Kansas-Nebraska area to Chicago. Creating the new territory would hasten the railroad completion.

Again the question in the territory was slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed for the determination of slave or free to be by popular sovereignty. It also divided the territory into two. Having two territories would allow a slave/free balance in Congress.

Many in Kansas did not desire to be a slave state. However, Kansas would be bordered on three sides by slave states. As Kansas is created as a territory and creates a Constitution leaving slavery to be voted on by the people, Missouri gets involved. At the first electon of a Congressional representative 1700 Missourians cross the border to sway the vote, choosing a pro-slavery candidate. In March 1855 a territorial legislature had to be selected, 4-5000 crossed the MO/Kansas border for this vote. Over 5000 pro-slavery otes were cast. Almost 5000 were fradulent but President Pierce did nothing. A pro-slavery legislature passed a strict slave code restricting office holding to only those with proslavery views, imprisonment for anyone questioning pro-slavery views, death for anyone supporting slave rebellion or runaways.

Free state settlers began to organize. Henry Ward Beecher suggested sending “Beecher Bibles”, or rifles, in support saying sharps rifles would do more than Bibles as that time to enforce morality. Free state settlers organized a free state party and held a constitutional convention to create a constitution prohibiting slavery. They established their own legislature in 1855-56. Pro-slavery voters boycotted. To prove themselves as not sympathetic to blacks they adopted an ordinance banning the entry of free blacks as well as slaves.

James McPherson describes the two Kansas legislatures, one legal but fraudulent, the other illegal but representing a majority of settlers. The Democratic Senate recognized the first along with the President. The Republican Senate recognized the second.

November of 1855 each side mobilized several hundred armed men along the Wakarusa river. This “Wakarusa War” consisted of only a few skirmishes. Following a harshly cold winter 700 pro-slavery men rode into Lawrence destroying offices, businesses and the newspaper, throwing its press into the river. The house of the free state governor was burned as well as a nearby hotel.

The actions here lead to Bleeding Sumner and John Brown’s Raid.

Bleeding Sumner took place about the same time as Bleeding Kansas.

May19-20 Charles Sumner speaks to the Senate regarding “the crime against Kansas”, using sexual metaphors of a rape against Kansas. Sumner also made abusive references to Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Two days later in retaliation for his cousin Andrew Butler, Preston Brooks enters the Senate Chamber and proceeds to beat Charles Sumner with a cane.

Why a cane? When someone is insulted, to get revenge they either challenge the person to a dual if he is an equal, or cane/whip them if they are an inferior. Caning Sumner was symbolic.

Brooks continued beating Sumner, who was trapped at his desk, until other members pulled Brooks away. Sumner was unable to return to his Massachusetts Senate seat for 3 years. It had been saved for him as a symbol of the barbaric nature of slavery.

Southern moderates denounced Brooks for his actions. However, others applauded him.(There were some who actually sent him engraved canes.) Due to Southern vote the necessary 2/3 majority needed to expell him could not be reached. Brooks resigned, but was unanimously re-elected in his district, and he returned.

John Brown believed an “eye for an eye”. He had organized a militia for the Wakarusa War. After learning of the caning of Sumner, Brown led a raid along the Pottawatomie Creek. They seized five pro-slavery settlers and murdered them by splitting their skulls with broad swords. This launched a guerilla war in Kansas. About 200 men died in Kansas fighting in 1856. A truce and strained peace was finally brought to Kansas after the replacment of Kansas Governor Shannon with John Greary.

According the James McPherson, the “violent conflict (at Harpers Ferry) climaxed more than a decade of rising sectional tensions.”

John Brown planned to capture the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, seize weapons, and supply slaves he thought would join him.

October 16, 1859: Brown rented a farm in Maryland across the river from Harper’s Ferry. He had 17 white and 5 black recruits to help. (He tried to get Frederick Douglas to join in, but Douglas refused, thinking the attack would be futile.)

Brown made several mistakes:

• failed to inform slaves of his intentions
• had no escape route
• had no extended supplies
• had no defense for counter attack
• ultimately he had no plan, but attack.

October 17: Local citizens and militia responded to the raid. They cut off bridges across the Potomac, blocking escape. The raid was put down by Robert E. Lee and Jeb Stuart. Brown would be tried and hanged for his insurrection.

No slaves voluntarily participated.

The actual raid was a failure, but the effects were tremendous. Brown was almost revered as a martyr for the cause of abolition. His trial and post-trial behavior was respected. People felt he acted with dignity. He accepted his fate and almost embraced it, telling friends and family he was worth more to the cause hanged. Brown gained Northern sympathy. Although many disagreed with his method, they embraced his teaching.

John Brow’s Harpers Ferry raid was sectionally divisive. The North sympathized with the cause. The South, according to McPherson, identified Brown with abolition, abolition with Republicans, and Republicans with the North.

War was the result of this polarization because no compromise completely settled the issue of slavery. Each compromise postponed the inevitable. Upon the deaths and destruction, public emotions became involved. The morals of people would not be subject to political compromise.