Before the Civil War started, both the North and the South as a whole and the people living there had very different views on the subject of slavery. The U.S. Constitution, which was established in 1789, gave rise to numerous groups that were vying for control of the Union's future. Interpretations of what the Constitution said about the system of slavery were in disagreement. Abraham Lincoln favored keeping slavery in its current location and worked to find a peaceful method to allow it to end naturally. Abolitionist and former slave, Frederick Douglass also wanted a peaceful solution but his beliefs were that the Constitution was for all peoples, not just the whites, and if the principles of the Constitution were taken literally and applied to all equally, then slavery would be outlawed and the problem solved. Others such as Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi (who would go on to become the President of the Confederate States of America) believed that the matter of slavery was merely a question of property rights, as he saw slaves only as property and not as human beings. On the opposite side from Davis was Lydia Maria Child, a northern abolitionist, who believed slaves had the right to fight for their freedom and that slavery, and those who supported it, had usurped the power of the Constitution essentially nullifying it. Child also believed that slavery was the aggressor in the conflict and that abolitionists were a benign force. Even though much of the nation was against slavery, opinions on the best way to handle it varied widely as Lincoln and Douglass preferred peaceful resolutions while Davis and Child preferred confrontation over the issue.
Abraham Lincoln, in a speech in Peoria, Illinois on October 16, 1854, stated categorically that he was against the spread of slavery into the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska as called for in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 because as he stated “it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska – and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world, where men can be found inclined to take it” (Johnson 267). Lincoln believed that if slavery were contained to the areas where it already existed and not allowed to spread any further, that it would die a natural death over the course of time as the utility of the institution waned. Lincoln also despised slavery because of the “monstrous injustice” of it, because it allowed enemies of democracy “to taunt us as hypocrites with plausibility,” and because it caused “the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity” (Johnson 267). Even at this point, 6 years before his election to the Office of President of the United States, Lincoln was already thinking presidentially with an eye toward the perception of the United States by the international community if it held on to the institution of slavery where other countries like England had outlawed it years before.
Like Lincoln, abolitionist and former slave, Frederick Douglass believed that a peaceful resolution to the question of slavery was possible. Douglass believed a solution could be arrived at by interpreting the Constitution literally as he believed that its writers meant it to be. First, Douglass asserted that nowhere in the Constitution will one find any wording to the effect that “man is guaranteed a right of property in man” (Johnson 270). Douglass also stated that in the Constitution there was a clear delineation between “persons and property” and that the current state of affairs regarding slavery is due to a “secret understanding” of the wording of the Constitution rather than a legal interpretation (Johnson 270). Douglass also emphasized that the first three words of preamble to the Constitution “We, the People” essentially puts to rest what the writers of the Constitution meant by whose rights they were about to expound upon. As Douglass stated “if negroes are people, they are included in the benefits for which the Constitution of America was ordained and established” (Johnson 270). To Douglass, this, and only this, was the issue at hand when discussing the issue of slavery.
On the other side of the argument about slavery were the warriors, those, like Jefferson Davis, who, in a speech before Congress in May 1860, defended the institution of slavery relying on the argument that slaves were property and that the Constitution guaranteed the right to protection of property for all citizens. Davis also noted that the federal government alone can mandate to the states concerning questions of whether they are to accept slavery in their territory or not because of its responsibility to protect the rights of citizens’ property (slaves). Without calling it by name, Davis also said that the Missouri Compromise of 1850, which gave new territories the right to decide for themselves on the question of slavery, was basically “squatter sovereignty” (Johnson 273) and a hands-off policy and went on to note that this did not abdicate Congress’ of its power to pass laws regarding slaves as property as it did when it passed the Fugitive Slave Act in the same year.
Another warrior on the issue of slavery, but on the opposing side from Jefferson Davis, was Lydia Maria Child. A northerner and an abolitionist, Child believed that slaves had the right to fight for their freedom just as the patriots had fought for their freedom from the tyranny of Great Britain. In a collection of correspondence between Child and Governor Henry A. Wise of Virginia in 1859 revealed what Johnson explained was “the sectional hostility engendered by slavery and what Child called ‘the Slave Power’” (278). The correspondence began quite benignly as Child asked permission of Governor Wise to travel to Virginia to comfort John Brown who had been wounded during his capture after an attempt to take over the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in October 1859. Brown was imprisoned in Virginia and Child asked that she be allowed to visit him and tend to his wounds and give him comfort. To close her first letter, Child noted “if I believed our religion justified men in fighting for freedom, I should consider the enslaved everywhere as best entitled to that right” (Johnson 278). In modern parlance, Wise was “being disrespected” by Child with this statement and he wasted no time in responding only three days later noting that Brown by his actions had “whetted the knives of butchery” (Johnson 279) by his actions at Harpers Ferry and that Child was complicit in the act by her support of the abolitionist movement. For her part, Child fired back with a letter that accused the slave states of systematically nullifying the Constitution “whenever it suited the convenience or the policy of the Slave Power” (Johnson 279). As noted above, these exchanges show the rancor of sectional hostility engendered by slavery between the North and the South.
The issue of slavery caused much consternation on the part of the citizens of the United States in the years leading up to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. Opinions on how to deal with slavery were almost as diverse as the people who espoused them. With citizens from all walks of life lining up on one side or the other of the issue of slavery and its future as an institution in the United States, it was inevitable that conflict would arise. As shown above, in almost every sector of society there was a spokesman, or woman, who with great fervor, spoke their mind either for or against the institution of slavery. In the end the forces for and against slavery were in such disagreement that compromise on the issue was no longer a viable option. With much of the nation siding with the abolitionists against the slave owners, a breaking point had been reached in the affairs of the United States and with the secession of the slave holding states from the Union began the four bloodiest years to date in the history of America.
Work Cited
Johnson, M. P. Reading the American Past: Selected Historical Documents. Bedford/St. Martens Publishing Co, 2012.
