Month: June 2024

Jamestowne Colony, founded in 1607, was the very first permanent English colony in North America. Over the last 400+ years, its importance in American history has come to be overshadowed by the Pilgrim story in New England, and the somewhat mythical “First Thanksgiving” (it wasn’t the first). When the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth in the Fall of 1620—ill prepared to withstand the harsh conditions of a New England winter– Jamestowne was in its second decade, with established families and businesses, a growing economy, and a representative government formed in 1619 known as the “General Assembly.” 

Unlike Plymouth, which had been founded by English “separatists” seeking religious freedom, Jamestowne was founded by a group of well-heeled English “Adventurers” who were seeking to earn profits from the exploitation of the abundant natural resources they believed were to be found in Virginia, including deposits of silver and gold (which they later discovered didn’t exist). Towards that end, they formed the “Virginia Company,” in which they owned shares, and which oversaw the operations of the Jamestowne Colony through a governing Council.  In 1606, the Virginia Company received its first “Charter” from the King, which described the lands in Virginia the Company was being granted, and how the new Colony was to be run. After the first settlement was established in 1607, and as more stockholders were recruited, a second Charter was granted in 1609, with even more land being granted, and more directives from the Crown issued on how the new Colony should be run.

Most of the Adventurers never emigrated to America, preferring to stay home and enjoy the hoped-for profits generated by the Colony.  The mix of people sent to Jamestowne in the early years was often not well thought out by the Company. Initially, the settlers were primarily single men with limited skills, except for soldiers who came to build fortifications and defend the settlement from external threats. Later, the Colony saw an influx of settlers from the lower classes, including indentured servants who hoped to acquire land after their periods of servitude were completed. Some of the first settlers were “gentlemen,” but they were lacking in any skills that would serve to advance the fortunes of the Colony. It took years before the Colony had enough skilled laborers, farmers, artisans and tradesmen to attempt to make the Colony self-sustaining. Even then, however, the Colony was beset by a combination of disease, starvation, and the destruction of property caused by frequent violent encounters with neighboring Indian tribes, principally the “Powhatan” tribe led by the powerful Chief Powhatan (father of Pocahontas). Life in the Virginia Colony was precarious, and the ongoing need for provisions to be sent from England stretched the resources of the Virginia Company to the limit. In truth, there were many causes for the challenging state of affairs at Jamestowne in its first two decades, some of which were self-inflicted: desertion, drunkenness, theft, and immorality of all kinds plagued the Colony, which in turn led to a series of laws designed to correct the colonists’ behavior. At an early point, “martial law” was declared, with harsh punishments for those who transgressed.  These oppressive laws led the colonists to demand reforms, and ultimately brought about the creation of the General Assembly in 1619, the first representative government in North America. 

In retrospect, the fact that the Colony actually survived is remarkable. In the first few weeks of establishing a settlement on the James River, the colonists were attacked by Indians, and a number of settlers were killed or injured. Then, in the winter of 1609-10, came the “Starving Time,” during which the forensic evidence suggests that acts of cannibalism took place.  By the Spring of 1610, most of the colonists were dead or dying. While the colony slowly recovered, the Virginia Company’s investors were alarmed, to say the least, and new monies were raised to help stabilize the Colony. But the Company’s efforts were hampered by the “First Anglo-Powhatan War,” which commenced in 1609 and lasted until 1614. During this period, the colonists, lacking in food and provisions, did what they could to grow crops, but Indian attacks led to people being killed, homes being were burned, and crops destroyed. Fortunately one of the original settlers, John Rolfe, developed what became the major cash crop of the Colony, tobacco, and he and many other colonists began to cultivate it for export to England and other countries. From there on, the production and sale of tobacco became the leading industry in Virginia, literally the “coin of the realm.” But the Colony became overly dependent on tobacco, and when prices declined, economic turmoil ensued. Efforts to diversify the Colony’s economy largely failed.

Following the First Anglo-Powhatan War, relative peace ensued for the next eight years, during which the Native-American tribes traded with the English, while watching the colonists continue to expand the settlement and encroach on Indian lands. Shrewdly, when the colonists sought trade for food from the Indians, the Indians demanded guns and ammo in return. Over time, the Powhatans had stockpiled many firearms and much ammunition, enough to mount a credible offensive against the English settlers. And that is what happened in 1622, when the Indians mounted a coordinated attack on Jamestowne, killing hundreds of settlers and devasting the Colony.  Thus began the “Second Anglo-Powhatan War,” which continued for the next ten years.

The “Massacre of 1622” was a massive setback for the Virginia Company, and a public relations nightmare. The Massacre quickly led to finger-pointing in all directions, but primarily aimed at the Virginia Company and its leaders. The Crown demanded an investigation, and commissioners were appointed to gather facts and evidence. The Company was accused of mismanagement and gross incompetence, and after a trial-like proceeding, on May 24, 1624 the Crown decided to revoke the Company’s charter, and announce that it was taking over the Colony and placing it under the Crown control. The Virginia Company was being ousted from its role as overseer of the Colony’s affairs. Along with that, the Company’s  shareholders saw their investments rendered worthless.

The consequences for the Jamestowne Colony of the Crown’s takeover were considerable. Almost immediately, on July 15, 1624 the King issued a “Commission to Certain Lords of the Privy Council and Others for Settling a Government in Virginia,” by which he delegated control of the Colony’s affairs to a list of trusted allies, and significantly diminished the existing General Assembly’s powers. With a stroke of a pen, the King had overridden the cherished representative government established in 1619 and placed his own loyal Lords in charge. 

The Commission politely explained that the change in government was because “the courses taken [by the Virginia Company] for the settling [of the Colony] had not taken that good effecte which Wee intended and soe much desired,” and because the colonists “most of them by God’s visitation [suffered] sickness of bodye, famine, and by massacres of them by the native savages of the lande dead and deceased, and those that were living of them lived in miserable and lamentable necessity and want…”  For all of this the Commission blamed the Company, in part because the Company had allowed the local government in the Colony to be shared among “so many hands” [the General Assembly], resulting in “much contention and confusion.”  Thus, the Commission ordered a new governing body to be created, and set forth a list of fifty-five Lords and other gentlemen “to be our Commissioners, and we do hereby give unto you or any six or more of you… to treat, consult and consider all matters whatsoever” affecting the Colony.” The Commissioners (or any six of them) were given explicit authority to exercise “all, every or any of the powers, authorities, privileges, matters and things whatsoever concerning the said Colony…”  The document went on at great length, underscoring the sweeping powers being conferred upon the Commissioners. Finally, the King made clear that “this our Commission shall continue in force until such time as we by Writing under our Signet or Privy Seal shall signify our pleased to the contrary…” 

The broader implications of the Crown’s takeover of the Jamestowne Colony were readily apparent back in London.  As of 1622, the British colonies were in deep distress. The Plymouth Colony, founded in 1620, was barely surviving, as half of its settlers had died in the winter of 1620-21, and the handful of survivors had little or no means of supporting themselves without the help of the neighboring tribes.  In Virginia, the Colony was failing. Meanwhile, the Dutch were gaining a foothold in North America with its emerging colony in New Netherland.  Finally, England was competing with Spain, the Dutch, and France for domination of the trans-Atlantic trade, with control of the West Indies being a major bone of contention.  Clearly, the King saw that aggressive actions needed to be taken in Virginia, at the expense of the Colony’s former representative government. It would take years for the Jamestowne Colony to rebound. Virginia ultimately became the most powerful English colony in North America in the years leading up to the American Revolution, and produced many of our Founding Fathers. In 1624, no one would have predicted this, the King of England included.

The history of New Netherland is a tale of two 17^th century empires. After several years of warfare between the English and the Dutch, in March 1664 King Charles II ordered English warships to cross the Atlantic and lay siege to New Amsterdam (that part of New Netherland that is today’s Manhattan). When the warships arrived at today’s New York harbor in August 1664, the Dutch soldiers garrisoned at the Fort at the lower tip of Manhattan quickly saw that they were outgunned and outmanned, and decided to abandon the fight. Shortly thereafter, the treaty known as the “Articles of Surrender of New Netherland” was signed in September, and “New Amsterdam” became “New York”–  named for the King’s brother, the Duke of York.  The Dutch soldiers at the fort were unceremoniously taken prisoner and sent to Virginia to be sold.

But the conflict over control of New Amsterdam was not over. In 1673, England and the Netherlands were at war again, and King Charles II was himself at war with his own Parliament, which believed that Charles was a secret Catholic, and that he would enter into an alliance with Catholic Spain. Charles fought back, dismissed Parliament, and banished the members of his Court who he thought were conspiring against him. 

While the two countries battled in Europe, and Charles was distracted with his own problems at home, in August 1673 a Dutch naval squadron under the command of Cornelis Eversten the Youngest sailed to New Amsterdam and seized it, placing the island back into Dutch control. “New York” was once again “New Netherland.”

During the short period of the Netherlands’ re-taking of New Amsterdam, and tired of war, King Charles commenced negotiations with Netherland’s ruler, William III of Orange, to end the conflict. The two warring nations agreed to make various economic concessions to each other, and the terms of peace were substantially concluded in January 1674. Colorfully, the following month the two kings sent trumpeters to their former enemies’ capitols to literally trumpet the peace accord, although the treaty not yet been officially signed. 

Finally, the “Treaty of Westminster” was signed on February 9, 1674—350 years ago this month.  Among the major terms of the treaty was a provision that New Amsterdam would be returned to England. In exchange, the Netherlands were confirmed in their rights to the island of Suriname, a valuable sugar-producing island in the West Indies that the Dutch had seized in 1667.

Today, New York is the commercial capital of the United States. For the last 350 years, it has also been one of the most diverse populations in our country, owing in no small part to the original colonization of New York by the Dutch. Indeed, by the 1650’s, New Amsterdam was populated by people from multiple countries besides the Dutch: English, French, Swedish, German, and other European immigrants had settled there, as well as Jewish and other ethnic minorities.  Historians have noted that at least eighteen languages were spoken in Manhattan by that time, not including the various Native-American languages spoken by members of the neighboring tribes.

Today’s New York also continues to reflect the influence of our original Dutch settlers– Dutch surnames, street names, place names and many common English words derive from New York’s Dutch roots (look up where the word “cookie” comes from!).  As well, many descendants of our original Dutch settlers have figured prominently in our country’s political and cultural affairs, including several U.S. Presidents ( for example Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a descendant of one of the leading Dutch families in New Netherland).  So, today we celebrate the 350^th anniversary of America’s original “melting pot,” and Hats Off to New York New York.

200 years ago, our nation was entering its third decade of western expansion, beginning with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. During the administrations of three American Presidents, the country witnessed a massive movement of Americans from the Eastern states to the west, starting with the Ohio Territory, and followed by more territories west of the Appalachians. Presidents Jefferson, Madison and Monroe—all Virginians—shared a vision of an American Empire stretching from sea to sea. As part of the steady movement of settlers from the East, treaties were negotiated with Native-American tribes that effectively relegated them to lands west of the Mississippi River.  In this thirty-year period, eight new states joined the Union, from Louisiana in the South, to Maine in the North, and to Missouri, which was then the western frontier. 

Adding an exclamation mark to this explosive growth, in 1823, President Monroe announced his “Monroe Doctrine,” effectively declaring that the entire Western Hemisphere was within America’s sphere of influence, and that our Nation’s neighbors would be safeguarded by the United States against foreign intrusions (meaning, European powers such as England, France and Spain). America saw itself on the cusp of greatness, surpassing all other countries in its size and scope. This era in American history was dubbed the “Era of Good Feelings,” as Americans experienced a period of peace and prosperity never before experienced.

The Presidential election of 1824, now largely forgotten, was a transition point in the story of the American West. The election pitted two well-known candidates with strong sectional support, unencumbered by party politics—both were allied with the Democrat-Republican party, which was the only organized party of its time. On one side was John Quincy Adams, the son of former President John Adams, who had served as President Monroe’s Secretary of State for all of Monroe’s two terms of office, and previously had served in various roles in the administration of President James Madison. He was one of the most experienced government officials in the land. On the other side was Andrew Jackson, a military hero who gained fame in the War of 1812, and the Battle of New Orleans in particular. Jackson was heavily supported by the Southern slave-holding states, as well as Americans living on the western frontier. Also running for President were House Speaker Henry Clay and Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford, both of whom eventually finished a distant third and fourth in the popular and electoral college voting. 

Adams and Jackson actually had been close allies during Monroe’s presidency, and it was Adams who defended Jackson against political attacks after Jackson had executed two English soldiers during the capture of Florida in 1818. So close were they that when Adams decided to run for President in 1824, he asked Jackson to be his running mate for Vice President. Although Jackson at first said yes, he was implored by his closest advisors to run for President himself, which he did.

Adams was a nation-builder. He was a strong advocate for internal improvements needed to connect its citizens politically, economically and militarily. This included the building of roads, bridges, canals, and other means of transportation that would connect farmers and merchants, food producers with cities and major ports, and emerging western communities with the resources needed to grow.  As the son of John Adams, a committed Federalist, John Quincy was also a supporter of a strong federal government with the authority to tax its citizens, as well as a strong national banking system. Jackson was more the populist, and drew his support largely from Americans who disliked “big government” and centralized authority. After all, that’s why many Americans were moving west—to escape the political rule of the Eastern elites, among whom they placed Adams.  Jackson also was not averse to the Southern States’ quest to extend slavery into the Western territories (he was born in the South, lived most of his life in Tennessee, and owned a plantation with hundreds of slaves). It is no surprise, therefore, that in the 1824 election, Jackson swept the voting in the Southern States, while Adams won the popular vote in a majority of the New England states (Jackson also won in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania). 

The 1824 race itself was hotly contested. While Jackson won the overall popular vote—41.3% to Adams’ 30.9%– he won only a plurality of the electoral college vote (99-84 in favor of Jackson over Adams). As a result, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives pursuant to the terms of the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution. Each of the 24 states had one vote, and Adams won by two votes, with 13 states voting for him, 7 states voting for Jackson, and 4 states voting for the third candidate, William Crawford of Virginia.  Adams was helped by the support of Henry Clay, who was no longer in the race, but who had widespread popular support. The election of 1824 ended up being one of the tightest elections in American history. While Jackson harbored deep resentment over the election results, he was gracious in defeat, shaking Adams’ hand at a White House reception shortly after the election was concluded.

Why is the election of 1824 important to the story of the West, and why celebrate its 200^th anniversary in 2024?  In some respects, the election was a plebiscite on how the West was to be settled. Would it become a haven for slaveholders seeking to expand the plantation system to the West, against the opposition of Northern abolitionists who sought to outlaw slavery?  Would “big government” seek to end the rampant land-grabs then underway by profiteers and small farmers alike, or would settlers be free to claim lands further and further west, without significant impediments from Washington? Would America seek peaceful resolutions with the Native American tribes who occupied the frontier, or would those issues be settled through violence?  The election of John Quincy Adams largely led to a legislative impasse on these issues during his single term in office, but the debate over western expansion continued.    

This is not to say that Adams did not have strong expansionist tendencies, or that he opposed efforts to expand America’s territorial limits. During the administration of President Monroe, it was Adams who actually formulated the expansionist “Monroe Doctrine,” and who negotiated the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1821, by which the United States acquired Florida. He also served as Secretary of State when the U.S. negotiated the Treaty of 1818 with England, by which the two countries settled boundaries between the U.S. and Canada, and agreed to joint occupation of the Oregon Territory.  With this record, one could reasonably say that the difference between Adams and Jackson was not whether America was going to conquer the West, but how.  

Of course, it was Andrew Jackson who succeeded Adams, serving two terms as President from 1829 to 1837.  Jackson won the 1828 election in a landslide. In a year’s time, he signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which led to the displacement of tens of thousands of native-Americans, and cemented his lasting legacy as a U.S. President who pursued an aggressive policy of western migration at the expense of the Native-American tribes. For this he has been vilified, yet he was not along among U.S. presidents who pushed an expansionist agenda. But it was the election of 1824 that launched the era of “Jacksonian Democracy,” ultimately leading to the formation of the Democrat party. While Adams was in office, Jackson and his allies continued to promote their own vision of a more democratic society, and gained the presidency four years later. Under Jackson, the right to vote was extended to all white male adult citizens, and the rights of the “common man” were strengthened. Jackson embodied the political philosophy of majority rule, and openly challenged the elitist attitudes that had dominated American politics since the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1789. While he did not technically win the battle of 1824, many historians would say that he won the war.

Americans tend to think of our nation’s official break from its English oppressors as having taken place when the Declaration of Independence was passed by the Continental Congress in June 1776. Indeed, today, plans are underway throughout the United Stated to celebrate the 250th anniversary of that singular event in July 2026. Coming up in 2025, we also will celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord in April 1775— the famous “Shot Heard Round the World.” Without taking away anything from the significance of those watershed events in American history, this author submits that the real Declaration of Independence—the real shot heard round the world—took place in 1774, 250 years ago this month.

Just a few months ago, the nation commemorated the famous Boston Tea Party that took place in December 1773. Whether you view that rebellious day as an organized act of resistance, or the work of an angry mob, the English government viewed it as an act of treason, and did its level best to find and capture the culprits (it never did). What the English Parliament did do in reaction to the Tea Party was pass the so-called “Coercive Acts” (also referred to as the “Intolerable Acts”), consisting of four legislative enactments designed to suppress the rebellion in America. The first of them was the infamous “Boston Port Act,” signed into law on March 31, 1774. Among its more onerous terms, the Port Act ordered that the port of Boston be closed until the colonists agreed to reimburse the East India Company (whose tea it was that was destroyed) for the loss or destruction of its property (and also reimburse the Crown for the lost customs duties that was to be paid upon the importation of the tea to the colonies). The Port Act also terminated the Massachusetts Bay Colony’s century-old charter, which had given the province latitude to govern its own affairs, and replaced it with a new charter that transferred authority over key legal and governmental functions to the Crown. As we shall see, these provisions triggered massive resistance by the citizens of Boston, which quickly spread to other colonies, and ultimately led to the Declaration of Independence two years later.

Perhaps Parliament thought that the Port Act would scare Boston colonists into submission. How wrong they were. With the typical slow speed of Trans-Atlantic communications in that era (several weeks in most cases), news of the Port Act did not arrive in Boston until May. Back in England, however, the first shot heard round the world came from the Smyrna Coffee House in London, a gathering place of men of learning with liberal leanings—authors, politicians, scientists, and other note-worthies. It was there that on April 2, 1774—just days after the Port Act was passed—Benjamin Franklin penned an “open letter” attacking Parliament for its precipitous actions. Entitled “An Open Letter to Lord Buckinghamshire,” and published in the London newspaper The Public Advertiser, the tract was signed anonymously by “Fabius,” but in fact authored by Franklin. In his open letter, Franklin scathingly wrote that “the Port of Boston is to be shut; its Trade is to be utterly destroyed; the Inhabitants, about twenty-five thousand in Number, are devoted to Poverty, Hunger and Death,” he wrote, “bringing Thousands of innocent Families to Ruin.”

Franklin rued that Parliament had not exhausted other means of redress, as he believed the people of Boston ultimately would be prepared to compensate the East India Company for the property destroyed by “a wrong-headed Mob.” He lamented that “the Massachusetts Bay would doubtless have paid for the Teas, had it been required of them in the Usual Form,” but Parliament chose the path of oppression. Franklin then turned to bitter sarcasm, saying that “by this Plan also we are certain of securing the Affections of the Colonists: After this signal Proof of Lenity and Kindness, they will never forget us.” If members of Parliament were merely seeking compensation for the destruction of tea, he doubted that they would have adopted the extreme measures in the Port Act. No, Parliament’s intent was far more sinister: it was “to shut up the Port of Boston until the People have engaged or promised to pay all Customs and Duties whatever that may be imposed by a British Parliament”—complete capitulation to the will of Parliament, in other words. Franklin would have none of it, warning that Parliament’s action would lead to violence, if not war:

“You may reduce [American] Cities to Ashes; but the Flame of Liberty in North America shall not be extinguished. Cruelty and Oppression and Revenge shall only serve as Oil to increase the Fire. A great Country of hardy Peasants is not to be subdued.”

Massachusetts colonists first received word of the Port Act in May, when a ship from London arrived with the disastrous news, along with the newly appointed Governor of the Colony, General Thomas Gage, whose governorship would further inflame matters over the course of the next year. As news of the Port Act spread to the rest of the colonies, the uproar grew, as the people of America saw that the implications of the Coercive Acts passed by Parliament were not confined to Boston, but extended to all colonists everywhere in North America. Within months, political leaders in Virginia threw down the gauntlet, passing the “Fairfax Resolves” in July 1774 after a meeting held in Fairfax County, Virginia. The Resolves openly defied the Coercive Acts, and demanded equal rights under the British Constitution; representation in Parliament; no taxation except as determined by the local Virginia government; control over military forces in the Colony; and other measures to protect Virginia’s citizens from the overlords in Parliament. The Resolves also called for a general Congress of the American colonies, “for the preservation of our Lives, Liberties and Fortunes.”

Not to be outdone, the Massachusetts Bay Colony quickly followed suit. On September 9, 1774, political leaders in Suffolk County, Massachusetts (including the City of Boston) passed the “Suffolk Resolves,” which, like the Fairfax Resolves, defied the Coercive Acts and struck back with its own list of demands. Beginning in late August, a convention attended by most of the political leaders of the Bay Colony was held, and the terms of the Suffolk Resolves were hammered out. The first draft was written by Dr. Joseph Warren, a major protagonist in the rebellion along with Samuel Adams (Warren was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill seven months later). Among the terms of the Suffolk Resolves was a provision that closed courts in Suffolk County, whose judges were now appointed by, and paid by, the Crown. The court closures quickly spread to other Massachusetts counties.The Suffolk Resolves also called for a boycott on British imports; for the resignations of government officials appointed by the Crown; for a suspension of the payment of taxes imposed by Parliament; and for the raising of militias to protect the citizens of Suffolk County. All of these resolves were viewed by Parliament as acts of treason.

Many historians credit the Suffolk Resolves as being the pre-cursor of the Declaration of Independence passed by the Second Continental Congress almost two years later. In the meantime, the First Continental Congress was convened in Philadelphia in September 1774, during which the Congress endorsed the Suffolk Resolves, and passed the “Continental Association” a month later. The Association declared that all British imports must cease starting in December 1774, and that all exports of goods to England should cease in September 1775. To enforce this, the Continental Congress called for the creation of so-called “Committees of Inspection,” with powers to force colonists to sign pledges of loyalty to the Association, and to regulate daily life in ways that were onerous in their own right (no expensive funerals or parties, for example). The bans on imports and exports was not necessarily a surprise, as a number of colonies such as Virginia already had adopted versions of such bans themselves. The First Continental Congress enacted a number of other measures to regulate trade and commerce, as embodied in the Congress’ “Declaration and Resolves.” While these subjects are beyond the scope of this story, suffice to say that the movement towards independence was gaining strength by the time of the passage of the Declaration on October 20, 1774. While a formal declaration of independence was proposed to the Congress, it was rejected, and instead the Congress agreed that it would try again to negotiate an amicable resolution of the issues. Those efforts floundered, and it was just months later that war broke out in Lexington and Concord.

In retrospect, it’s clear that the Boston Port Act, together with the rest of the laws collectively known as the Coercive Acts, provoked the American people into the final phase of a long-simmering dispute with Parliament over the rights of the colonists to govern themselves. The series of events in 1774 described above inescapably show that the American Revolution began long before Lexington and Concord, and long before the Declaration of Independence. The Fairfax Resolves, the Suffolk Resolves, and the Declaration and Resolves, adopted over a four month period beginning in July 1774, unleashed the independence movement in the American Colonies, and ultimately led to the founding of our great nation.

Americans almost always view the Civil War of 1861-65 as a war between North and South, and specifically between the anti-slave states of New England and the mid-Atlantic, and the slave states of the South. During the war itself, some of the fighting occurred in the western areas of the Mississippi River (the Battle of Vickburg, for example), but for the most part the history taught in our schools has focused on the secession of the Southern States from the Union based on notions of “states’ rights,” and the Union’s campaign to end slavery in the South. As this article suggests, the Civil War was also the product of decades of political wrangling over Western expansion. This author argues that the “North-South” theme of the Civil War tends to ignore the massive social and political conflicts over slavery that took place in the West in the decades preceding the War– what I will call the “East-West” war between the States—and how the infamous Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 inexorably led the nation into war. It was 170 years ago, on May 30 1854, that this legislation was signed into law, triggering massive unrest in the country, and ultimately led to Civil War.

To appreciate the importance of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, we first need to understand the history of Western expansion in the first half of the 19^th century.  Almost from the moment the Louisiana Purchase was signed in 1803, the history of Western expansion was part-and-parcel with the history of slavery, due in large part to the antipathy of the Southern slave states to the addition of any new western states to the Union if they were “free” states in which slavery was outlawed.  A major fear of southern slave holders was that as more states were added to the Union with voting power in the U.S. Congress, the greater the risk that a majority vote could emerge to completely outlaw slavery in the United States.  Those fears led to a conscious and deliberate effort to block the admission of free states unless matched with new states that either openly endorsed slavery, or were “ripe for the pickings.”   You see this in the series of states admitted to the Union after the the War of 1812, in which a number of anti-slave and slave states were admitted in pairs:  Indiana and Mississippi (1816-17), Illinois and Alabama (1818-19), and Arkansas and Michigan (1836-37) are examples.

In the midst of this rapid addition of new states—17 new states were admitted between 1803 and 1859– Congress enacted the “Missouri Compromise” of 1820, which banned slavery in territories north of the 36 30 ‘parallel. But the Compromise did not last, as pressure mounted to allow slavery in the vast areas of the West that had not yet been admitted to the Union, including the Nebraska, Kansas, Utah and New Mexico Territories. Something had to give, and so Congress enacted the “Compromise of 1850,” which allowed slavery in the Utah and New Mexico Territories, while keeping the North-South dividing line of the Missouri Compromise in place (or at least it did not repeal the Missouri Compromise).

The Compromise of 1850 didn’t settle things, either.  Just a few years later, Congress was petitioned to create another territory, the Nebraska Territory.  The political maneuvering began on January 4, 1854, when Stephen A. Douglas (of the “Lincoln-Douglas Debates” fame) introduced a bill to create the Nebraska Territory, with the proviso that any later petition by Nebraska for statehood could be “with or without slavery, as [the state’s] constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.”  In other words, the bill provided that the citizens of the Territory had the authority—not the federal government– to become a slave state if they so chose. The bill thus embodied the concept of “popular sovereignty” that Douglas had long advocated, and which became a major bone of contention between him and Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates in 1858, in which the issue of slavery took center stage.

Although Nebraska was located north of the line established by the Missouri Compromise that otherwise would have barred slavery, Douglas’ bill was silent on whether the Missouri Compromise therefore barred slavery in the Nebraska Territory, notwithstanding the language quoted above. As a result, the bill met with vigorous opposition from various Southern senators who demanded that the bill explicitly repeal the Missouri Compromise. Over the course of the next three weeks, political leaders on both sides of the aisle tried to resolve the issue of slavery in the Nebraska Territory, but the Southern block in the Senate held strong. On January 23, a revised bill was introduced, endorsed by President Franklin Pierce, which affirmatively repealed the Missouri Compromise, and created two new Territories, Kansas and Nebraska, out of the original Territory of Nebraska—hence the later name of the legislation, the “Kansas-Nebraska Act.”

The introduction of Douglas’ revised bill on January 23 created a firestorm of criticism from anti-slavery advocates. One pamphlet labeled the bill “a gross violation of a sacred privilege,” and “a criminal betrayal of precious rights.” Protests took place throughout the North, and newspapers published countless diatribes against the bill.  In the meantime, the Senate began debate on the bill on January 30, and spent the next five weeks in intense—and sometimes personal—attacks for and against the bill. Debate was ended on March 4. The final vote was 37 to 14 in favor of the bill, with virtually all slave state senators voting to approve the bill. More interesting is the fact that the vote among free state senators was very close—14 senators voted yes, while 12 voted no.  Following the Senate vote, the House of Representatives spent most of the next two months debating the bill, finally approving it in a very close vote of 113 to 100. Once again, the slave states were staunch supporters, and Southern Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, 57 to 2. The bill was signed into law by President Pierce on May 30, 1854. 

What followed in the period 1854-1861 was a series of bloody confrontations in Kansas, which came to be known as “Bleeding Kansas.” There, pro-slavery supporters streamed into the state from Missouri and other states in order to claim citizenship and vote in favor of Kansas entering the Union as a slave state, as the Kansas-Nebraska Act would have allowed. The confrontations in the state of Kansas became so pronounced that free-state advocates established their own state capitol in Topeka, to counter-act the political agitators in the existing capitol of Lecompton. It was in Kansas that abolitionist John Brown first gained notoriety for his instigation of the Pottawatomie Massacre in May 1856, in which five pro-slavery settlers were killed.

Out of this chaos, the Republican Party was born, Franklin Pierce was voted out of office in 1856, and Republican John C Fremont won the popular vote in a majority of the free states in the election—but lost to Democrat James Buchanan. Most alarmingly, on March 6, 1857, just days after President Buchanan was inaugurated, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Court ruled that the federal government did not have the power to exclude slavery in the territories.  Buchanan endorsed the decision, and instructed his fellow Democrats to abide by the Court’s decision.

It’s clear in retrospect that Western expansion had put the Eastern anti-slavery states on a collision course with Southern slave states, as Eastern business interests sought to bring more western states into the Union as part of an overall plan to expand commerce, build railroads and other infrastructure, and convey public lands in the West into private hands. By the same token, Southern slave states had their own expansion plans, which involved the acquisition of more and more land in the West to fuel the production of cotton, enabled by slave labor. By the time the Kansas-Nebraska Act became law, there was no longer much hope of compromise, as the violent conflicts taking place in Kansas underscored.  In just a few short years, the United States would experience death and destruction on an unprecedented scale when the Civil War broke out in the Spring of 1861.  Looking back, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the handwriting on the wall.